Alexander Hamilton

If character matters, girl-beater/deadbeat dad/quitter Moulds is gone first.

The Eric Moulds' apologist returns!

From the unofficial transcript, sounds like the Bills are already done searching for the new GM, since the decision will be made in the next day or two. They wouldn't be that confident if the person wasn't pretty much already on board. I have no idea what that means, other than the guy was already available to talk.

Yeah, that was ancient history. What's Bill Polian done lately?

Ugh. Back to civics for you.

His argument is that it's not him doing it.

Pro Bowlers are not dying to go to Buffalo.

Runyan was good in Washingtion. 5 years ago. He's been a terrible disappointment in Philly. There's a reason he'll be a free agent: he sucks.

They did it just for fun. It was 4th and goal from about the one. Flutie lined up in a deep shotgun and drop kicked it through.

First NFL drop kick since 1941.

Because our emenies have no regard for civil rights, we shouldn't? Our government feels free to legislate moral decisions--I want that government's ability to snoop strictly controlled.

They absolutely changed the story from yesterday. In yesterday's version, Giambra made the quote about the Bills being in charge of the stadium, but then expressed concerns that the Bills were violating the Constitution by throwing people out for signs and for yelling criticisms.

Adams plays out of position, which made the Bills run D worse than it already is, and MM benched him. What's the problem? Moulds, by all accounts, was a little B word and refused to go earn his millions, so MM benched him. And by the way, MM never went to the media with it. What's the problem? Mike Williams isn't that great. Care to identify the better option on this team? What's the problem?

'sokay. I was being Devil's Advocate too, since I would be surprised if the Bills can lure a proven coach better than Mularkey next year. Last year, we were all singing the praises of Mularkey for getting the team in the playoff race and stressed out early this year when Clements was a head coaching candidate at ND. Frankly, unless some proven stud comes along and wants to coach the Bills (unlikely), I can live with MM for another season. His play-calling is questionable at times, but he's got a terrible O-line, an RB of questionable heart, and a QB controversy. He handled the Moulds' situation well--benched a guy who refused to play and didn't talk to the media about it. He handled the Sam Adams sitaution well--benched a guy who refused to play his position correctly and didn't talk to the media about it. He's not a total dud. He's just an inexperienced coach with a mediocre team.

To be clear, those are first and second round picks, not #1 and #2 picks--I know that's what you meant, but my eyes bugged out when I saw that. And depending on the GM's ability to measure talent, that people were drafted in the first round is not necessarily the best measure of talent. See Eric Flowers. That's coaching for you. We also have a QB with a 92 rating, an almost 70% completion rate, and a winning record, but he hasn't been the starter most of the season. The Bills might not be a playoff team with Holcomb as starter, but they'd probably be better than 5-9. Billick has been to the playoffs 3 times since 2000 and won a Superbowl in that time. Seems like that evaluation is fair.

I think this was covered pretty well on the other board, but it doesn't violate free speech to tell a fan he can't have or show a sign in a private establishment such as RW Stadium. That being said, people from the County Executive to many in the general public don't get it; they're still talking about restricting people from showing signs as violating the Constitution. Do Buffalo public schools still teach something about the Constitution? Or is that something they can only teach in private schools? My Webpage

I don't think any reasonable Dem or Rep would argue that the FBI and CIA shouldn't information share; what they are mostly protesting is the expansion of the powers of the agencies at the cost of civil liberties. If you will, you can be for information sharing, and against the Patriot Act II. If it didn't pass in its current state, it would pass in some form.

Exactly. The guy's a dick, but he's won and coached well while his team dealth with salary cap hell. That team is not loaded with talent, but they are usually pretty damn good.

At the state level, it's even worse. The spending on things like highway improvement and NASA is meager compared to the social support system (I could probably even stomach the safety net situations!) provided by the government. You want a solution: start cutting off the milk flowing through the tit. Just that. The frustration is that people don't place a priority on cutting spending.

People sacrificed the doves in the Temple. Strangely, my basis for this is Anne Rice's new book "Christ the Lord." In it, the boy Jesus sacrifices a dove at the Temple in Jerusalem. As an aside, only the 12th in this thread, the book was pretty good. Rice wrote this book from the first person... that person being Jesus. Pretty bold. But she's eschewed her wierdness (her old mixes of the occult, homosexuality, and erotica) and writes a truly compassionate story of a possible boyhood of Jesus. I expected barbs and heresy. There was none that I found.

Here's what I said. I injected the brackets to be clear. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that Mickey was both refuting VABills and the Army of God folks. Either way, in no instance did I refer to the Bible as wacko. It's the Army of God people that are seriously messed up, and VABills is moderately so. As to your high moral ground a few posts ago calling me one of the board intellectuals who feel free to insult the Bible, get off your high horse: I don't disparage the Bible. You know little if anything about my spiritual life so stop this moral superiority BS.

What Mickey did is actually fundamental logic. He was using those wacko's own literature (the Bible) to point out an inherent contradiction in their thinking. Mickey doesn't have to buy their logic to do that; he's just noting the inconsistency in their own thinking.

The sweet taste of jealousy.

I don't have the patience to deal with all of your quotes and rebuttals, but Berg is dead on wrong about the legality of spitting, so he can flush that analogy. one state's law Spitting is generally at least an assault. (Google: spitting assault) In some cases, when the expectorator has HIV or something like that, it can be battery. Further, and this is a memory from law school that may be mistaken, if someone spits on me, and I beat the snot out of him, I can defend my attack as provoked because spitting falls into the category of "fighting words." The other things that can be fighting words are questioning someone's sexuality (one TBD poster's province), or calling someone a racial epithet. Not only that, how could I not chime in once Tom brought up dueling?

The article is a little vague, but the way I read it, it sounds like this is a condition being put on foster parents. Foster parents are supposed to meet a lot of requirements in order that a court consider them adequate role models and caregivers for children. It actually doesn't strike me as unreasonable that a court require foster parents be non-smokers. Now, the language of the article is confusing on other points, because it also says that some parents (with "foster left out on purpose or just as a matter of sloppy writing) are forbidden from smoking around their kids. It wasn't clear whether this was something the parents agreed to as a condition of their visitation. For example, if my wife smoked and we divorced, I might place a condition for visitation that she be forbidden to smoke around my daughter. If she agreed to that condition, it's a contract between us, not government intrusion into the issue.