OCinBuffalo

HA! Moderator to Biden- Same question JB- 4 paras, barely relevant to the question followed by a "did I mention I rode the train back to Delaware every night?" How about this gem: "Barack Obama was right about Iraq!"???? :worthy: Lamest attempt at "some animals are more equal" I have ever seen. You guys didn't really expect us to eat that one, did you? Are you really that dense to think that we would buy that crap? In fact, the family, his son, the car wreck story and the train story were the only parts of his speech worth our time. Having ridden that train myself so many times, I will give him credit for doing it before it had internet access and before cell phones. That thing can easily ruin your whole day, especially if you are supposed to meet somebody in person. Don't, forget Molson, I told you there would be electoral pain for you if your "team" of phonies kept up the with your nonsense, and there already is. You are essentially tied in an election you had in the bag. But please, keep talking smack. Go ahead and lose it for yourselves again with another phony, Dan Rather fairyland story. I find your machinations wickedly entertaining.

No it doesn't, Molson, you have proven on multiple occasions that you will believe anything MoveOn.org or Daily Kos says, as long as it means Republicans or Bush look bad. Care to explain the 1000s of posts you have put up from those websites exactly the same as this one, and at the same time try to tell us that only this one looks "far-fetched"? Laughable. So is this your attempt at a "watered-down" Molson_Golden? True, but do you honestly think that it will stop them? It didn't stop Dan Rather with the phony Air-Guard letter from the 60's which had type that wouldn't be invented for 20 years-->that one still makes me smile, because it suddenly made this professor of fonts and printing the most important man in the world for 24 hours. It didn't stop the NY Times with the phony McCain "affair". We are talking about people who have been blinded by their hate, or who weren't very mentally stable to begin with(um, they think socialism is a good idea still even though it has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried beyond 50 people-->what else is there to say?), or who are looking for any excuse to be dishonest about their perceived "enemy", because they stand to gain power. Given that accurate description of the Daily Kos, and all the rest of the retards, I don't think it will stop them. The national air-guard letter put Bush over the top last time. Unfortunately for these dumbasses, they tend to learn nothing from history, on every issue, not just this one, and will therefore probably do it to themselves again. Of course they will then proceed to blame everybody else when they cause their "side" to lose. Can I get a "Nader's 100k votes in Florida in 2000" from anyone? If 10% of those go for Gore, he wins! But I forgot, it's not the left's fault, because they are too smart to make mistakes, or do anything so patently retarded for their "side" as ensuring a Bush victory. No. Just as before Molson, JK, whatever, why should we? This thread is predicated on a link at a propaganda site, dummy!.

We essentially agree. However, the reason I said 2nd and not 4th? Like I said last time we talked about this: DEBATES! The debates are McCain's third down. The VP debates are like going for it on 4th down(outside shot). Obama has not proven he can stand up to tough, real-time, questioning. Notice I didn't say he can't: I said he hasn't proven it yet. The only time he has not been treated with kid gloves by the media, or his opponent, he sh-- himself, and became marble mouth--> the Russert/Stephanopolous(sp? i have no idea) debate. Maybe he has the talent to learn and get better quickly, maybe that's as good as it gets? That's why I said 2nd and 6. The defense certainly wasn't expecting the Hail Sarah pass. There were expecting the Romney, FB, 3 yards and a cloud of dust.(How dumb to you feel if you are Romney right now?) Btw, I don't see it as a Hail Mary because it's not late in the game, and it sure as hell isn't like McCain is that far behind. Aside: why are you making a big deal about a convention bounce? Kelly, you know that it doesn't matter until after the Republican convention anyway. Double digits? Right. Coming out tied after the primary? That was, and still is, a big deal. I look at it like an unexpected shot at the end zone, and it's in the air and coming down. Palin is open and the only thing that stops her is a slow, elderly, debate-challenged Biden, playing safety and trying to come over and make a play. The only thing Biden has on his side is experience because he's been in the game so long. But, as evidenced by this week's cuts, raw talent often beats out experience, because of that dreaded word: potential. We know what Biden can do(C+?), we have no idea what Palin can do(she starts with a C, maybe an A later?) in terms of debate performance. Gee, now that's a sports analogy. Can't wait for someone to come and tell me why they are bad.

Do you think that's what is was? Kinda like a "the game passed him by" thing? As far as the topic. I think we need to see improvement and or certainty in all 6 areas mentioned. But, I also think that those 6 aren't that hard to accomplish. Bottom Line: After the game next Sunday we will have about a 6-70% decision of whether Fairchild was to blame for the offense last year. Everything so far points to that. Every interview, every stat, every play call points in that direction = Fairchild belongs in college. But, we'll see what's what on gameday.

Great so what's that make him 1-22?

Good one!

Not that it matters but their biggest message board has been down for 2 days. Perhaps somebody forgot to pay the hosting fee? So, they either have problems of their own, or, in its absence, will come here. I did see a reference to us here on one of the smaller boards. There were two interesting threads. One hehe "fisting" Two "trap game"<--yeah, you are so right buddy! I have been reading the boards they do have up and when they talk about the Bills, it's like Lynch, Evans, Parrish, Poz, Stroud and our strong secondary against their weak WRs don't exist, except for a very few mentions here and there. They mostly seem to think that the only place we have them is ST. The second link is probably the best real discussion = that's why I linked it. They also don't seem to think the suspensions will have great affect. That's either because the starters vs. the backups both suck or are both good. I also thought it interesting that in general they either don't seem very confident in their running game...they talk about passing to Julius Jones, not running. I didn't realize that their O line hasn't played together much. I see that as on opportunity for our front 7 to show us what they're really about. Does anybody think Hasslebeck is a QB we should really be worried about, given the lack of WR talent, the untested running game, and the recently put together O line? Seems like too many problems for a good QB to overcome, not to mention one coming off injury. If all of those things break our way in general, I don't see how we lose. The only thing that kills us is turnovers on O.

No. Of course I'm not saying he's a bust. I am saying: I bet Jets fan wish they had taken any of the guys I listed above right about now. I am also saying: it'spretty darn uncanny that the Jets can't seem to draft anybody they are "supposed" to for 25 years. Then, when start drafting players they are "supposed" to the last 5, they seem to suck/not play up to the spot they were picked.

For 30 years? You would think the law of averages would show up sooner or later.

Gholston's whopping 3 tackles in the pre-season The Jets have to be the worst drafting team of all time. When we talk about all-time, you have to consider decade by decade, and this is why the Lions cannot be the worst = at least they drafted Barry Sanders and they have had some good drafts in the past. Name one draft the Jets have had that = top 15 in the league that year. Maybe the recent ones? We'll see. How many times have the Jets drafted sketchy players/bought into the hype, even when there isn't any? They could have had Derrick Harvey, Sedrick Ellis, Keith Rivers, Jerod Mayo, or even McKelvin, because let's face it, Darell Revis doesn't make a secondary by himself. Instead they took Gholston over the screaming objections of Todd McShay, many posters here, pretty much everybody but Mel Kiper, Jr. Perhaps they are still afraid to contradict Mel ever since he <-- And yes, I never miss an excuse to link this video.

Do you believe the "1 in 4/5 of Hillary supporters voted for Bush in 2004?" estimates. If it's true and if McCain gets a lot of those, I don't think they will have misunderstood anything at all. Women are 52% of the electorate. All McCain needs to do is get about 40% of them and he wins, because men will go at least 60% for him, if the current polls are accurate. In all cases, this is as you said, I think, earlier. It's throwing a bomb on 2nd and 6. If you get it you look like a genius. If you get sacked you look like an idiot. I like the play call, but it's going to come down to execution.

You're right. The fact is that the challenge for progressives is to talk about progress without pissing people off. If I am trying to do a good job, create jobs at my company, pay good wages, work 50 hours a week, no vacation, etc., the last thing I want to hear is that I'm a fat cat, taking advantage of the poor, or that the only reason I'm where I am is because something was handed to me or that I'm not trying hard enough. = Jimmy Carter. The fact is that they need to define progress truthfully, for the whole country. They have yet to do that. Instead, they define progress only for their special interest groups which only serves to divide, not unify the country. If they put together a plan that was fair, had clear, reachable goals, and didn't rely on demonizing a large segment of the population, especially the part that creates jobs, innovates, and takes ALL the risk, they might actually get somewhere with this stuff. If they did that, and were successful with it, people might be more inclined to believe them. As it stands, now, we haven't this kind of nonsense since Jimmy Carter, and if they continue it, they will lose once again, and then start blaming everyone but themselves. We will go from BushBad to McCainBad, and still will not have fixed SS, Medicare, Mediacaid --> which make up 75% of the federal budget.

I don't know about that, Bush did win twice didn't he?

Sooner or later this had to come out, surprised it didn't already. This is the question that will be asked in 100,000 bars tonight and at babeques all weekend. So much for Obama's speech. Did you see the McCain/Milf t shirts? Oh, and if I could get past the moral stuff(which I doubt)... All day.

You wish. I wouldn't be writing her off just yet. Like I said above Palin = Biden killer. Have you ever actually seen Biden on a TV show or a debate? Not pretty. He's the choice Obama had to make. Palin is the perfect counter, and the debates will be hysterical. One way it could go: the exact opposite of Dan Quayle vs. old tired-ass Washington insider. It's such an obvious trap as well: goading the Obamatons to make the mistake of talking about experience and keeping experience at the front = the WORST thing for Obama. Let's see if they are dumb enough to fall for it, and of course it will be the fault of everybody but themselves if they lose because of it. Obama's campaign got out-maneuvered here, plain and simple. Hopefully it doesn't represent a larger problem with them.

Hmm. 12 pages and counting with no end in sight. Anybody who said this VP pick wouldn't generate buzz = wrong. Anybody who said this wouldn't divide women and get more of them to go for McCain = wrong. Anybody who thinks that this is the ultimate Biden silencer = wrong. Every time they attack this lady it will be spun as attacking women in general, which brings up the whole "Hillary got a raw deal because she was a woman" thing. Cue Hannity and Limbaugh with the 24x7 phony indignation every time somebody says even the slightest negative thing about her. Biden cannot compete with her in a debate, he loses no matter what, so he better just minimize the damage. Biden is now an empty suit, and this will be a referendum on Obama-->not good for him. Now, whether Obama's people are smart enough have him stay away from her? Who knows. If he attacks her, this election is over and McCain wins big. She = exactly like picking at a scab and never letting it heal. The Hillary scab will be picked all the way through November, and this has the potential to take away all the phony Unity stuff the Dems did this week, in one shot. Remember when I said before that coming out of the primary, tied with McCain, a master politician, was a bad idea, and if Hillary was polling better they should have picked her? Well, here you go. This is a great play call. But, just like in football, it still has to be executed.

What repercussions? Pissing you off? Like he or anyone cares. Define these terrible consequences or stop wasting my time. Sorry, but your viewpoint is patently wrong, nothing more, nothing less. I do close my mind when I hear something I know to be wrong. Why? Because it's WRONG! Next you'll be telling me I should open my mind to 2+3 = 4! Another fine example of "relativism" on display here. I have given you ample evidence of why it is wrong, and you have consistently done nothing to prove or define what "repercussions" you are talking about, their nature, or what damage they can possibly do. Sorry if no one believes in your boogie man nor fears your passive-aggressive, "Rendell better consider the repercussions of pissing me or Obama off" nonsense. It appears you can't tell the difference between Rendell doing what a solid political operative does and what normal people do, and that's too bad.

Hey thanks a ton. I just got 4 in 139 row 17 for the opener 5 minutes ago($58 a piece)! Looks like they are releasing player/vip tickets now. I have been monkeying with this all day waiting to see when they would do that. Thanks so much for the heads up.

Uh oh. This isn't good. Take cover, because the arty hasn't even started yet. You are new here so a bit of advice: apparently since this board has been founded there have been more than a few posters who have sworn up and down they have "inside sources", from guys at the airport to people that work at the Bills, etc., and have made some sweeping predictions that don't turn out to be even close to true. Therefore, even if you are right, and even if you have your sources, please understand that with a post like this you are sure catch at least a little hell. We might ask you the same thing, but we'd be wrong to do it, because this is a message board, based largely on opinion, which means most of us are very likely to be wrong most of the time. If we never paid attention to each other after being wrong, the only thing here would be Lori's posts re: gameday. Are you telling me you have never seen a 12 year old play anything and say to yourself "that guy is going to be good someday?". We all have. Some of us have been right, too. The fact is that it doesn't take 40 years to see that. It might only take 1. Are you telling me that the first time you saw Bruce Smith play for the Bills, you didn't say "that guy is going to be a HOFer"? Because I sure as hell did. How about the first time Marino stepped in his rookie year? Are you telling me a giant, collective "oh, sh.it" didn't come out of Buffalo?

Without every bothering to read this thread(as if we haven't seen 1000s of these) - I just clicked on the link. I'm going astound and amaze by making Carnac-like predictions. Here we go: 1. This thread started by the OP by taking a hypothetical situation or example that was posited and treating it like it was a literal statement, or, the OP subtracted all factual information and context in favor of only bits and pieces of fact that support the OP's clearly extrapolated, or exaggerated statements. 2. This thread has largely been about trying to explain to the OP why the hypothetical is not literal and should not be taken literally. No one has succeeded because the OP doesn't understand, or is being dishonest about, any of the concepts I have described already. 3. This thread is one of the 1000s before it where 1 & 2 have been repeated because the OP lacks the ability to think in the abstract, or is again being dishonest. 4. Moving on to specifics, hardly anyone in this thread has bothered to remember that: a. Our new entitlement/"everyone has equal talent because we don't want to hurt self-esteem" culture now craps on anybody who does manual labor, doesn't go to college, or works with their hands, thus damaging their self esteem. b. Every Molson_Retard argument in this thread takes our new culture completely out of it's assclown equation c. Every Molson_Retard argument in this thread subtracts any fact or context that doesn't = McCain is out of touch and the killer, d. with all the stress on EDUCATION FOR ALL!, we forget that if we educate everybody as much as we possibly can, then technically, EVERYONE is now over-qualified to pick lettuce and won't do it, but reality says we still need somebody to do that job. 5. Somehow the retards here are going to find a way to say that we should educate everyone, but not educate everyone, at the same time. Or, that lettuce pickers require masters degrees and that they should be paid $50 an hour because they have masters degrees, regardless of the fact that the market says picking lettuce is a $5? an hour job. How'd I do?

After all is said and done, and after watching it again, with due credit given to the spin people, I honestly don't think Obama's speech was Obama-e enough. It probably doesn't matter, but it certainly wasn't as good as some of the others in the past, in terms of "hitting the high note". I'm not saying it wasn't good, I am saying it wasn't anywhere near what I expected. I have seen him do 4-5 other ones that were better, IMO, and this is the big one. I wonder why? Perhaps too many chefs in the kitchen? It just seemed way to dogmatic and sounded more like Hillary than Obama. Perhaps I am immune? I don't know if this was intentional, maybe it was. But, I would think he would want to go with what got him there, and even exceed that. Along the lines of "why does it matter if people say his speeches lack substance, aren't they the thing that got him here"? Normally when he's on, its like the other candidates don't even exist(of course the next day is a different story). I have no idea why they got away from that, and kept bringing up McCain. I would think the last thing he would want to do was put a straw McCain on the stage with him. Oh, and there's no doubt that McCain has made his VP choice. His people pulled this lame "we were gonna release it tonight but thought better of it to let Obama have his night" higher standards BS. As if they expect Obama to let McCain have his, or the rest of to not see how phony they are being. This was a political mistake in my opinion, regardless of being the right thing to do in terms normal life. They should have announced the VP right after the speech and stole the news cycle or done/said nothing at all. But, instead they come off as phony or stupid, or both, take your pick. The great weakness of "Rapid Response"....

Wrong. The simple fact is you don't understand what's happening here. Why are you trying to play off your naive notions by attacking me? You don't even know what you don't know here. You are eating the cheap ploy that was prepared by Obama's campaign people and read verbatim by their media lapdogs. Rendell has a bad rep for "foot in mouth?"....hysterical. They probably took 5 minutes to make up that crap and you are buying it? Why? If Rendell "paid the price" why is it that literally every news network has had him on 2-3 days this week? If he "lost" something, what was it exactly? Get it yet? Hint: he doesn't care what you think because the far-left is quite literally irrelevant to him. He has consistently won elections by 20-40 points while consistently ignoring the far-left. They have little influence = vote for him or stay home, it won't matter, because Rendell owns the center, just like Clinton did. I'm just telling you the truth about what happened. Sorry if you don't like it, but not everything you see is as you see it. Clearly you simply lapped up the crap that the Obama-biased press fed you. Sorry, dude. The reality is: Rendell delivered his state by 10 points. Deal with it, and stop bitching at me, it's boring. Do you honestly believe that lightweight Obama doesn't have to give heavyweight Rendell whatever he wants if he has any inkling of winning PA? Seriously? Why do you think Rendell could afford go out as far as he did, even though his candidate was losing? In a hotly contested primary like that normally the smart play is to hedge your bet and pick up some influence, especially if you are a swing-state governor. But Rendell, then and now, gets to do whatever he wants, because he already has all the influence he will ever need. Obama can talk about "change" all he wants, but he depends on "more of the same" thing going on in PA infinitely more than McCain = Democratic Machine politics. He needs to pay off Rendell or he loses the election. And yes, I mean literally in terms of $$$, jobs and appointments. That's how things work in Philly and Pittsburgh. If Obama loses/ties in Pittsburgh, it's over, not just the state, the whole election. Pittsburgh? Put it this way: I knew/heard of many, many Steelers season ticket holders wouldn't attend games while Cordell Stewart was the starter. Get it? It wasn't because he sucked. It's literally the least integrated place I have ever been, and I have been all over the South. There are NO interracial marriages, and you will hear people being openly racist out loud, even at work. Edit: and yeah, the racists were ALL Democrats. I'm just sayin': without a significant ground effort there, it's not going to be pretty. Polls mean nothing regarding this issue in that town. They are UNION Democrats, not liberals. When it's pull the lever time, without Rendell facilitating/greasing, it's over. Obama cannot win without PA. No amount of Obama people will get anywhere with anyone in that state if Rendell pulls the plug. Even if he keeps his organization on the sidelines or only half-asses it, PA goes Republican, no ifs about it. So, its academic: Rendell pays no price, does what he wants, supports the Clintons(which is the much smarter long-term play anyway), and remains in a vital position such that Obama needs him infinitely more than he needs Obama. He never had anything to lose, and he still has everything to gain. But, yeah, your explanation is probably more accurate and he should be worried about the wrath of a bunch of piss-ant Obamatons because they are going to make him "pay the price". You can attack me all you like, but everything I have written here is factual. Tough schit if you don't like it. Call me names, make up crap, whatever. Do it for a day, a month, a year. Whenever you get done, everything I wrote here will still be true, has nothing to do with whether I like Rendell or not, and is the serious challenge that Obama must expend tremendous resources on. And yeah, if Bill Clinton isn't placated, or if he decides he wants Hillary to run in 2012, one phone call to Ed Rendell and it's all over for Obama. Just sayin', Clinton didn't campaign for Kerry, are you telling me that wasn't so Hillary could run?

I wouldn't count Wright out just yet. In the post-game, DJ just said "there have been a lot of successful RBs who start out being tagged as fumblers and have gone on to do well." Or words to that effect.

Well, he just gave a post-game press-conference and he sounded pretty good. Actually he sounded pretty smart. DJ said he was "dazed on the field" but I don't think there's anything to worry about.

Did that ref just check to see how many fingers he was holding up?