OCinBuffalo

I'd bet $20 on that as well. Coming off the field, he looked exactly like you do when you get one of those. It's like your whole arm is spaghetti.

Yeah! You know its a good hit when the guy gets up, walks 10 feet, and then goes down like a sack of potatoes. The adrenaline wears off and its "1....2....3..."

Nobody fires up the retard rodeo, like the Crayon Eating One. Grand Marshall, ex officio, the troll parade. But, in all honesty, I did spend 3 pages of describing to cranyonz why the schedule is the way it is, forever, once.

Back to a 13 point lead. 11 minutes to go. It's more than doable. No way in hell the Cards should be this close, especially not after giving the ball away 5 times on their side of the field.

YES! This is the kind of attitude I wanna hear! Good Job!

I have no idea why they didn't run it again on that 2 try. The ran it 4 times into the endzone from the same spot this quarter. Heh, the Jets fans were happy to get McGahee out of the division, wait until Mr. Lynch and a real passing threat show up. The Jets can't stop the run, period.

The Jets run d is PATHETIC! 2 TDs in 8 minutes and a 2 point conversion they didn't even try to stop.

Here comes the comeback.....if this happens the Jets are done.

Cards get a quick 6, 3 and out, and have the ball again....this will be so great if it happens. Jets fans heads exploding everywhere.

How funny would it be if the Cards came back? It would be ruinous. Cards are marching right down the field, like they did 2 times in the first quarter. I think the Jets have done little to win this game, Cards mistakes/guy getting hurt covering Coles have been giving it away. Inside the 5...let's see if they can score.

(supposed to say "ahead of ourselves") 1. We can schit talk all we want, or piss and moan all we want, and we will still have the same effect we normally do = next to 0. 2. Due to number #1, we are allowed to think as big as we want. People, we need to be enjoying ourselves, not pretending like something we say/do may have an effect on game. So: screw it, I am saying right now that we are going to go 6-0, f the Chargers, and yes, I am looking past the pitiful Rams and Cards. There is no reason for people to keep apologizing for being excited, getting ahead of themselves or anything else. Even if things don't work out, why would we want to pass up an opportunity to feel great, not just tentative, about our team, if nothing else while we can? What's the alternative? Bitching? The last 3 years on this board? No thank you. There's no reason for that stuff. Besides, the players are focused and have the exact right mind set. I can say that definitively. I can because I talked to many of them at an undisclosed location on Sunday night. I got there totally by chance, I went there on my way home. As I was getting a drink, I suddenly realized what was happening. There were: 15-20 players on the team, a few girls, a few cops, one other fan, and me. Rather than getting into specifics, and because these guys weren't "working", just talking to a fan, I think this will suffice: I have been on a team like this, and all we did was fall one game short of winning everything. Talent wise we had no business being there, but we played/lived as team. Best team I have ever been on, ever. I got that same feeling being around the Bills for 2 hours on Sunday. These guys are focused: it was almost like they couldn't wait to tell me what they did right/wrong, and who blocked for who, and who the unsung guy was, etc. They have fun with each other, and are perhaps the most positive group of people I have had the pleasure of being around in years. So lighten up, please, this team really is good, they really do have OBVIOUS character(I know I could end the Lynch debate permanently and immediately here, everywhere, with one sentence, but I'm not going to dignify it any further), and they are a great/funny bunch of guys. Again, not that it matters one way or the other what I say, but this team is for real, and that will be demonstrated on the field this year, just like it was both on and off the field Sunday. Individuals can still make mistakes, but I sincerely doubt it, because it's clear these guys don't want to let each other down.

Old habits die hard. I didn't see the thread, but there have been a whole lot of definitive, we are DOOOOOOMed!, posts in the game threads.

Ab..so...lutely!

Good. I really don't want to spend the 20 mins I have remaining on Econ 110(macro for me) and 112(micro) class. I would say that both are economic concepts that have unfortunately been bastardized by politics. There is a time for shared social SERVICES = socialism: my buddy who is a social worker, whose job it is to tell people they have HIV cannot and should not be asked to "run things like a business". How do you get more efficient at that? Do a GoToMeeting instead of telling them in person? Of course not. On the other hand, most government employees/political staffers wouldn't last a day in what I do. So I honestly have no idea where they get the idea that they should tell me a thing about how to do it by regulating me(or the Internet). Or, take my profit away because they are afraid I won't spend it prudently on R&D. Or, buy things from me or my competitors(we don't really have any, yet) in an effort to "shore up competition or demand". I produce and compete just fine without them. I know how to invest in my people properly, and I'd like to get some of what I earned, since I created this from scratch with no 2nd round investment and have suffered greatly because of it. I suppose I could have gotten an around 8:30 to 4:30 on the dot government job...but then I'd spend ALL my time here, and I'd have to argue that more taxes and spending were a good idea. Anyway, the fact is that I see the full effect of Keynesian policy right in front of me every day = government hires people, and it's mostly terrible. As far as I am concerned I want nothing to do with your Keynesian "tweaks". Besides, it's hard to call the 70% capital gains tax we had in the 70s, which was directly due to over-use of Keynesian policy, a "tweak". More like taking from somebody only because they have it --> socialism. The difference is therefore simple: Keynesian policy was bastardized for years by chicken-ass politicians looking to trade hand-outs for votes(um, the Democratic Congress from 1944-1994) LBJ style. It was bastardized, and therefore back-handed socialism was the result. Bold = huh? I am guessing from the rest that you agree with me that unsound political influence in sound economic policy is the root of all evil here. It was PC to say that a poor person "should" live in house they "own", when their earning power says otherwise, even if it means the ass falls out of the market. All these adjustable rate mortgages were given based on government mandate, not funding, and/or government tax breaks. The fact is that a tax break is no substitute for sound business practice/business models. This is the supreme arrogance of the "government knows best" position-->tax break = problem solved, all idiots are suddenly smart, and all bad plans/products are suddenly good. There are 10 software programs right now that were built based on government grants in one of the sectors we work in. NOT ONE of them would be bought by anyone, ever. But since government is involved in that sector, the clients were essentially forced to buy crap. More importantly, if you didn't want to buy the crap, the government made their own crap solution, and gave it away for free. So, you get to choose between crap, and crappier, and still not solve any of the problems that have plagued this industry for 20 years. Keynesian policy indeed. Let's get us some more crap! (This will all be over soon, I guarantee it.)

Molson, you love to search the Internet for links. Try doing this one: Washington Post Archive 1987 I'm sure Wall Street, as we know it , was never the same again back then too.

And if this was 1975, you'd be right. But it ain't, so you're not. You are forgetting that so, so, so many jobs in this economy are not based on working for "the man". Small businesses are now the majority in this country in terms of where people work. If anything, the failure of the creditors is likely to help small business, rather than hurt it, because the cost of money is cheap, and everybody needs to generate some loans right now. That makes it highly competitive = low interest rates, and less cost for investment. The biggest strength of small business: it's diversity. Sure there are many that are likely to fail, but there's also many that are likely to pick up their customers and grow. The point is that it's not all based on one or two big companies, and therefore it's not based on unions and union people.--> and this is where this hysteria is coming from. Otoh, Wall Street people always think the sky is falling, or that everybody must be failing, when their own stupidity causes them to fail. The self-absorbed can't help feeling that everything is going to hell, just because what they do is going to hell. But, that part of NYC has been around for a long time. Way, way longer than them, and it will be around loooooooong after they are gone. The smart view is this: no matter who wins the election, their Treasury and Labor Secretaries aren't going to deal with this properly. They will fail massively just like they always have, and then some capital will get organized and start lobbying to buy the assets of these companies. Then, we will have brand new companies, with new acronyms or nicknames, and they will be ready and willing to perpetuate the myth that all Wall Street people are infallible, because of where they go to work, eat and live. Life will go on, and nobody will end up caring one way or the other, because there's always that next deal to work on, and there's money to be made.

And I will say, respectfully, that what I wrote is right out of my ECON 110 book. What's yours say?

You really want to do this with me? First of all, I have studied the material, use it every day, so I know the concepts as well as, if not better, than you do. So spare me the definitions, I'll stipulate that we both know what the words mean here. 1. Supply-Side Econ was a great solution to an immediate problem, no different than Keynesian Econ was. In both cases, they represent EXTREMIST action that had to be taken to correct the mess we were in. 2. Supply-Side only had to be invokes directly due to years of government over-regulation, over-taxation, and over-spending. All three created such a unnatural influence, they found a way to create the infamous Stag-Flation. What was needed was an immediate shot in the arm. 3. I have no idea why you think that, in a period never seen before, or since, of Stag-Flation, that the money supply being "too great" was the disease, and not the symptom. Perhaps I need to re-think my stipulation. Explain this. 4. Again, the Reagan years saw massive growth in the economy. That's the fact. It did work. Like it or not getting immediate capital in the hands of BUSINESS, not individuals, meant that we got the time to re-tool our factories, re-educate our workers, and re-think our management in response to the re-emergence of Japan and Europe. We were living in a dream-land in the 1960's, as evidenced by the realities of the 70's. Basing any economic view on the post war 50-60's is flat out retarded. We basically agree: sometimes you need government intervention one one side, sometimes on the other. It depends on the nature of the problem we are trying to solve. In all cases, saying that one solution framework(BS ideology) cures everything, especially when we are talking EXTREMIST methods, is ridiculous. Both strict Keynesian policy and strict supply side belong on the shelf, only to be used in an emergency, because, as evidenced by history, both are short term solutions. If either is left in play for too long, they both will inevitably create a LARGER problem(Stagflation or Stock Market crash). In all cases, like I said, when things are relatively stable, free trade, minimal taxation and regulation is most likely to keep things that way.

Wrong on the Keynesian definition, and we haven't used laissez faire since the Great Depression, and we aren't now, nor have we been since Bush has been in office, as you, lamely, suggest. I exactly described the Keynesian model = regulation, taxation, and spending. A Keynesian: 1. Attempts to set price and wages, albeit roughly at best, through regulation. 2. Limits profits through taxation, supposedly thereby "fostering competition"(some of what Keynes said makes sense, this does not, because it is completely free of the concept of using profit for R&D = better, more competitive products. No surprise that he missed this, you would too if you were Keynes and were living in those times). 3. Competes with existing business(because it has all mostly failed in 1932) to buy products = government spending, even when it doesn't have the money. Thus, this government-based, Demand-Side Economics means the government creates false demand for products by buying things it otherwise doesn't need. So again, I ask you, is the government going to do any of 1-3? The answer is no, and the comparison remains as I said = silly.

Well, you got your response, I guess "there's no reply at all", once again. How many more times do we have to repeat this lesson? There is a reason why we keep batting averages rather than single game or single at bat stats. Keynesian Theory is batting about .100 for the last 50 years. Supply side is batting about .250. Free trade however, whether you like it or not, is batting about .750 directly due to its uncanny ability to prevent full-scale war, open markets, reduce inflation, and INCREASE the earning power of the world's poor. That's right, it helps the poor. Anybody who wants to help the poor CANNOT, by definition, be against free-trade. And I am talking the real poor here. The definition of "poor" people in this country is fanciful at best. If poor means you have to work 60 hours a week at minimum wage, you are doing better than 85% of the rest of the worlds poor.

Is the government going to regulate prices of AIG products, and all other insurance/capital companies? Are they going to regulate the wages of AIG employees? How about the wages of all the other financial institutions who didn't over-extend themselves? If you answered no to any of those questions, then, by definition, there is no Keynesian model here. Moreover, the government won't be buying AIG insurance, nor will it be hiring AIG financial planners any time soon, which again, by definition, is contrary to Keynesian economic theory. So this is in fact, by definition, a silly comparison. IMO, sticking to one economic ideology for the sake of the ideology, instead of thinking about the best way to solve the problem is also silly. So often I see silly comparisons like this and so often they are based on some tool trying to appear "right". The simple fact is: our government bails out plenty of companies, all the time, no matter who is in charge. Airlines anyone? Why? Because it saves jobs and it basically makes sense. The momentum and diversity(now - mostly due to massive amount of small businesses) of the US economy means that one or two companies, or even one or two vertical industries, will not be able to haul down the rest, no matter what. So, the government basically acts like a medic, patches up the bad company, and puts them back in the game. In 2 years, nobody knows the difference, except for the middle/top management(usually the middle gets blamed) who end up in new jobs or forcibly retired. If all the money gets paid back, which it obviously will, we are talking a 33 country outfit in AIG's case, it will be like it never happened at all. How many airlines are still in business? How many have been bailed out? How many times? Why does it happen to certain airline companies and not others? Why does Southwest beat their competition and never need a bail out? Easy one. Southwest has no fixed wages...because it has no collective bargaining agreement...because it has no employee union. ONCE AGAIN, we see the fact that the LEAST socialist business model has the MOST success. Southwest is an object lesson in treating your employees well, thereby removing the need for a union. In fact, Southwest treats its stars like stars, its duds like duds, which is the very reason unions were started in the first place. The stars didn't want to be paid the same as the duds, which is as non-Keynesian as you can get, because they sell their labor freely, without forced regulation or limitation. Free trade has been, is, and will always be superior to John Maynard's fanciful ideas under normal circumstances. In fact, his ideas belong in a glass case, labeled: "Break only after an all-out war, where one side destroys the other's economy, and then over-extends itself to FUBAR levels and an inevitable crash occurs". Essentially: break only if the year is 1932 AD.

I took 8-10, with the O/U going down by 1-9. If Kiffen does get fired, I will be slightly annoyed. I am rapidly growing tired of all of the excuses made for the other team before every game we have played so far, not to mention the giant Pats* excuse already brewing, and this will be another game with a built-in excuse.

to you and to this thread.

Yes we need to get better, yes we played against two teams who have a long history of stopping the run. No we don't need to worry too much and here's why: I honestly don't believe the coaching staff fully knows how good this O is yet. In fact, if you watch the DJ interview on BB.com, he says that. They are taking the exactly correct position, IMO, though. There's no need to demand incredible plays from the O just yet. You build confidence in young players one play at a time, string them together, then string series/games together. In fact, the entire O so far has been about NOT giving up the sack/fumble that happened yesterday. So, the coaches had to jump ahead on their "one day at a time schedule", and the O was able to respond. It appears that how they are handling James Hardy is exactly how they are handling the offense as a whole. Slow, but steady, progress. We have some teams coming up, and I would include the Chargers in that, that are nowhere near as good at stopping the run as the two teams we just played. So, as frustrating as it is for us fans, because most of know now that we can be really good if DJ, TS, etc. would take the leash off, we will just have to be patient.

OK, smart ass, defend this: Bills, Players, Coaches, Buffalo, not mentioned once ...and tell me that we all are "yearning for approval"? We're all just yearning for some decent coverage, and dare I say, "analysis" from "experts", on what they thought of the game. Apparently we are some random, "northern team". If you didn't know already, you'd have no idea who the Jags played by watching that video. And I guess there's no reason to talk about the keys to an entire football game, on a football show, that sells itself as being able to "break-down" the game. What's worse, everything they said in that clip was stuff we knew BEFORE the game. So what exactly was their point? The reason we won wasn't because of J'villes O, it was because of our O, going up against their D(with everybody but Stroud-->another key story), and beating them. That's the story of the game. I'd be interested to see if you can actually write anything useful in response, besides typing in caps. Look, it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, so WTF?