OCinBuffalo

See, that's the point, are we talking "poor" or are we talking "not-white". I'm not so sure. There is plenty of writings, or so I have been told, from (I think it's actually Sanger) that point to the clear target being "blacks" but without actually saying it. It's like the concept of a limit in math, as you approach the limit, but never touch it, what happens? Again, I see the results = less crime, and that makes less inclined to care one way or the other. But, there's this pesky thought in the back of my head that says: "fine, a-hole, but at what real cost?" or "what does this really say about our society"? To be sure, these real are questions, and I sure as hell don't have the answers. I am perhaps the least qualified person in the country to speak about this issue, and, like I said, this makes me wholly unsure. As far as I am concerned this whole problem centers on women and therefore should get solved where everything else that center's on women does = the girls bathroom. I'm only kidding, kind of. I honestly would have no problem with them all getting together in a room, figuring out what they want to do, and then telling us what the new policy is. It's not like it doesn't happen a lot anyway. But somehow it's like every other issue I have dealt with on a personal level with women, they ask for your opinion only so that can tell you why you are wrong. What's the fing point? This is why I try to have as little opinion as possible on stuff like this, because no matter what I say I'm going to be wrong anyway. Of course I can see the funny sides of this, but then again, I think if you got Ann Coulter and Oprah in the same room and told them we expected results in a reasonable amount of time, sh_t would get done.

Like I said, this is all invented by Haliburton and Dick Cheney. Do yourself a favor, read up on Andrew Jackson(or the Constitution....seriously...it should take you about 2 months if you have a regular job but you want to do it properly), and then come back and tell me what's what. Done yet? Again, I don't need to hear excuses from the people who told us the country was going to go to hell if they didn't get elected, and then proceeded to ensure that the country went precisely to hell far and away worse than it was in 2005. Why do I bother, because I want to make sure as many people know their history as possible. If you don't know the significance that the veto has played in the history of this country I have 2 quesitons: 1. Who the F was you Regents History teacher?, and if s/he wasn't a tard 2. Why weren't you paying attention? Go back and read something, anything...how about the history of every Presidential veto that has ever happened. Seriously, you sound like the 5 year old girl who dares to play cute, lie, and say she didn't eat the last cookie. Is this "Change we can believe in"? Making lame excuses when your team ran around "swearing to God" they were gonna get things done? To quote Band of Brothers kinda: "You're not bad because you make bad decisions, you're bad because you make no decisions" I am done with LT Dyke(Pelosi), just a coincidence, and her inability to lead anything. Seriously, when your leadership skill set includes having to kick reporters out of the room, or turn off the lights, how seriously do you expect me to take you?

Well, since we are talking "which wrong is more right"...or something along those lines, not sure when craynz is around, the simple fact is: We have undeniable proof that the crime rate has gone down in direct correlation with the propagation of use of contraceptives and abortion. Those are the facts. I don't care if anybody doesn't like it, or if it offends bible-thumpers. The facts are what they are, and no study can contradict this clear relationship. Now, if you want to make the point that 80% of Planned Parenthood offices are in traditionally minority neighborhoods, well, that's a whole different argument. I'm just curious: How does Planned Parenthood's obvious bias against minorities wash with a supposed "tolerant" liberal mindset? Again, the facts I have laid down are undeniable, so please, spare us the BS. The fact is that Planned Parenthood was founded by a lady, Singer, who clearly stated that unwanted minority pregnancies, called "poor" a the time, were the target. Seriously, is there anything more intolerant than limiting the birth rate of African-Americans or Latinos at a rate of 8 to 1 over whites? If this keeps up, there won't hardly be black people in this country. Was that the original intent? It makes me wonder....but then again, the crime rate is down all over the country...not sure how I am supposed to feel about this.

Tee hee. Some days I wonder why I even bother. Seriously. They DEMAND power so they can control the inside game(for once, as if they haven't done it for 30 years as individual Members of Congress), and then, once they get "it", they do absolutely nothing with it, and proceed to garner themselves the lowest approval rating since the poll has been in operation. Even "better" they proceed to find a way to put together the worst approval rating for 18 straight months? How can you get 400+ people to suck that bad all at the same time? That takes real stupidity, on an unprecedented level. This is the the WORST CONGRESS in our history. Make no mistake. Anybody that doesn't take a long hard look at who they are voting into the House or Senate this time.... I don't care what party,(of course, what does it matter here in retard town? and yeah, I been here long enough to say it) and remember that these are the people that are going to require Buffallo to continue to suck business-wise, in trade for more failed programs. Well, I suggest that they take a good long look in the mirror. They problem with this city is the guy/girl you see in front of you in that mirror, not anybody else.

"There's no reply at all, there's no reply at all... Is anybody thinking(never mind listening)? No-oh-oh-oh, No-oh-oh-oh No reply at all." Where the hell is this congress? Remember, the ones in 2006 that said we "absolutely had to have them or else", and their silly pitch? Here it is almost 2 years now and they have yet to accomplish one promise they made? Exactly dick. Oh, of course, CUE: MSNBC....There's this new-fangled Bush problem called a veto, and it's not the Democrats fault because hell, they just didn't realize that the veto was there BEFORE they made all of their grandiose promises...of course Scott McClellan has told us that Dick Cheney invented the veto simply to disenfranchise old Jewish voters in Florida and African-Americans everywhere. Suffice it to say that the veto power of the President is just one more invention of the Republicans and that there was no way any Democrat knew it existed before they made their as yet unfulfilled promises" Am I the only one calling BS on this?

We didn't invade a Democratically Elected, stable, non-terrorist supporting, non-WMD seeking, fascist dictatorship whose leader was responsible for the the deaths of over 500,000 of his own people. We did invade a country who fits the exact opposite of that description. You're not helping yourself look any less hypocritical here. In fact, you're making yourself look pretty darn silly. If you can't see the difference between Iraq and Georgia, well, you need the kind of help that I'm not qualified to give. Go ahead and keep trying to make this ridiculous point.... while you are at it, try telling me that McCain=Bush. Now that's good for a real laugh. Are you working for Putin's propaganda team now? Still pissed off that the most powerful communist country imploded, thereby exposing the ultimate failure that is socialism? Cause Putin obviously is. You know, I wrote a whole lot of stuff in response to this but then I thought: Hmmmm. Sounds like I'm dealing with an administrative assistant's view here, so why bother? Everything I have ever seen you write points to the fact that you aren't "the guy/girl", you merely work for them...prove me wrong, I dare you. Show me something that proves you are a thinker, rather than somebody who does/thinks what they are told. I honestly have no interest in responding to you in a serious fashion until you do. Ha! There are so many ways to counter this I wrote 5 different responses, then I thought: "Why in God's name does she deserve my best work when she obviously isn't dong hers?" As I said above, I honestly don't think you are worth any of it. So, let's see if you can respond logically, not emotionally,(I know it's going to be hard) to what I write in response to the last bit of "rezun" you've attempted to lay out. My fellow wingnuts? Really? I doubt you have ever been to a real "wingnut" bar. The only stereotype you are enforcing is your own = D-bag, limousine liberal, "I know better because I went to grad school, and I would have graduated...but there was this guy..." BS. In fact, I doubt that you would have the guts(there's a nice egalitarian way of saying it) to even require it from your lame-ass, pansy-boy date, to even dare to "slum" with the rest of us "scumbags". Or, that he could hang 5 minutes in any "wingnut" bar without getting laughed out. Then again, why should we bother with candy-ass boy? Nobody wants AIDS. (That's wingnut-speak for the uninitiated-->not sure if that's AlGore approved) Most importantly(edit: and what I wrote above is poignant, but blatantly stupid all the same), we know you are a girl, so, let's make it plain: the wingnut bars I spent a lot of time in(and yeah back then I was working a UNION job or I was on the other side) don't care about whatever you have to say. They do care about your be-hind though....and the real question for them is: do you take that as a complement(because you have a great one) or do you take that as an insult(because you don't)? Hey, you brought up the wingnut population, and accused me of being one. All I can say that I have been around them...and I will defend them to a point...for a good while it was my job(deregulation of utilities), and they have their own thing going on. If Hillary was a MILF, Obama wouldn't have had a chance in hell with the "wingnuts". Of course I find it hysterical that this election is going to come down these "pathetic" wingnuts. But....you don't see that yet, do you? How funny is it that you don't? Blue collar wingnuts are the only way Obama gets elected....but you see fit to make fun of them? You honestly believe that they don't see things as Right vs. Wrong, every day, all the time? And, sooner or later their simplistic logic gets all of us in the end. Trust me, my guys and I work with them every day, on purpose, because we don't consider ourselves "above" the wingnuts. It's inspiring to us when they nail our asses to the floorboards on something we said that turns out wrong.(The good news is that our stuff allows everybody to make mistakes, even the wingnuts, and most importantly....us!) I predicated what I do on that simple fact. This is why you always make me laugh when you say wingnut. I honestly thought my buddy, who's now a partner in the biggest law firm in Buffalo(staggers the imagination to this day), invented that term...well, characterizing human beings on the level of some funny-looking hardware... It certainly applied to the guys we worked with a long time ago. Hell, we worked there, so it applied to us as well. They tried their best to make us junior wingnuts....there was this problem that we kinda went to college though... And yeah, some days it's funny as hell...dopey to be sure...but still funny as hell. So, before we go any further, if you haven't been to (edit: why should I tell her where they are, insert your own "wingnut" bar here), or someplace similar, how in the hell do you propose to even be able to identify a real-deal wingnut? My sister can, but, then again, she also went to IU, where wingnuts abound.... Like I said, your entire existence reeks of "hiding in the office" when your boss actually get on the plane and sees what's what "down with the wingnuts", so please, remind me why any of the regular folks, or the "wingnuts", should take you seriously.... Clearly I don't, and I am far and away removed from the wingnuts, in terms of how I approach thinking at the very least, now....

Circular reasoning comes very easily to someone who's feet aren't planted firmly somewhere most of the time. I'm guessing blzurl doesn't even understand this metaphor, so I will do it literally: If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. Namely: you don't get to pick and choose where and when suddenly good is good and evil is evil, and the rest of the time they don't exist. This phony-ass, liberal "moral superiority"(read: political expediency) only on certain issues and only when convenient is really getting annoying. And what's makes me laugh is that they accuse the religious nuts of the very same thing! All of their "dissent" over the years has turned these phony-ass hippies into the very thing they supposedly hate: intolerant, race-baiting, "lowest level of thinking" fascists. These folks are so full of rage after losing in 2000 that they now seek to control others thoughts and words rather than merely winning elections, and they don't mind denying the truth if it doesn't agree with them or lying on a grand scale("the surge didn't work"), to get that control. All of it is "justified" because they perceive that the Republicans did it first. So, rather than remembering why they got mad in the first place, they go out and make even bigger assess out of themselves, and do the very same things they said were so terrible. Great for us. Good thing we elected these people in 2006, so they could do absolutely nothing and earn themselves the lowest approval rating in our history, for an entire year. This is the literally the worst Congress we have ever had in the history of the country, and it's tough to get that many people to be that crappy all at the same time, you really have to suck at your job to get to this point.

Or what we will all have in our bank accounts if he raises taxes in an economic slowdown. Or what % change he actually represents. Or people that support him love "zero (insert something good here)". Btw, the first thing I thought of was "0"....why was the first thing you thought of.....that? I think they might want to re-think that first one. "O" can be mistaken for 0 real easy. Talk about playing into your opponents hands....if they all start doing that at his rallies, the jokes will never end. Every comedian in the world will start in on him. Hell even Limbaugh might be able to come up with something original if you gave him something that easy. Oh and the second one: Jesus H Christ they're not even trying to hide anymore = Obey: Engineered Propaganda? RUFKME? Obey? Nah, these people aren't fascists, really they're not. I love how they call what they do "dissent". Hysterical. Try "coercion" fellas, it fits better.

Ha! Ok Neville. The smart response would have been to declare war on Germany in 1936, 1937, 1938, or 1939 BEFORE they had time to build up militarily. Take your pick. This is undeniable. Hell, the smart response was what Reagan/Charlie Wilson/and the CIA did: get them weapons(of course the dumb part was not finishing the job, but we did accomplish the original mission). The smart response was what FDR did: get them weapons. Notice how I used a: 1. Dumb liberal 2. Smart team of people including liberals 3. Smart liberal Smart isn't about whose party you like, smart is simply smart, and dumb is dumb. And trying to "talk smart" while acting dumb will get you burned every time. It appears you want to protect your ideology instead of dealing with the reality of the events as necessary. That is dumb. Smart in this case = ask Europe if they want to quit being pussies for once and actually do something because this time....it's directly effects them. Perhaps they are just smart enough to actually react properly this time, BEFORE things get out of hand. But I doubt it. Instead they are probably dumb enough to try and save their "anit-war" face. I doubt it because they, like you, won't be smart enough to realize that the "peace first" agenda/ideology is being laughed at by Putin, just as it was laughed at by Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, until it's too late. They, like you, will probably repeat history and make every effort to keep their precious ideology intact far past when it is prudent, thereby giving their new enemy time to prepare. Ironically, now Germany is the least likely to do anything although they are the closest to the issue and unquestionably have the best tanks on the continent. Objectively: I honestly see this as the worst possible development that could have happened for Obama because it takes the focus away from the economy(not that he was making a good case anyway) and places it firmly on national security. Given Obama's waffling so far on these issues, don't bother, this is undeniable also, he really has to show us something that resembles real leadership, not pandering, placating, or worst of all: appeasement. It's going to be very hard for him to maintain his "warbad or Bush invented war" views when clearly we need to assist our allies on a war footing. Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans are going to wail on him if he even slightly looks like a candy-ass. It's going to be difficult, but I would love to see him react properly and realize that choosing the "wrong that's more right" is often times what being a leader is all about. I would love to see him live up to the hype and actually act like JFK for once, instead of pretending to be him. I find this devilishly ironic as well: Does anybody want to lay odds on Europe, who once again wouldn't help us, now coming to us and asking for help? Of course we will help them, because how can we not? We know the meaning of friendship and we won't ever be a fair weather friend, unlike them.

What? You mean the KGB's general gameplan for the entire time it existed? Or the CIA's for that matter? Nah, they never did those things and therefore we all have nothing to worry about. Government agencies don't routinely have their people take lie detector tests that consistently ask questions about infidelity, that's all made up. And, cheating of any kind isn't a court martial in the military, they just tell you that "they don't want to get too deep into your personal life". So, I suppose that these policies don't exist and that the government doesn't routinely screen people in sensitive jobs and/or watch them if they think something is up? </sarcasm> Once again, we see this guy talking about things he has no clue about. And, when confronted with evidence that blatantly contradicts his line of "reasoning", he cries about being insulted. Ok, dude, where's the insult here? All I'm doing is relaying what has happened in this thread. I wonder if this thread qualifies as a "cripple fight" as well because it's not going the way justnzane pictured it = every other "moderate" agrees with him and we all make fun neo-cons. Also, I wonder how many of the justnzane's here actually know what a neo-con is? Anybody wanna lay odds on whether that also gets added to the list of things justnzane knows nothing about, but makes definitive judgments about regardless?

Yes. I need to add this to my sig. We: Traded McGahee, Spikes and Holcomb and got 2 3rds, 1 5th and 2 7ths. We used those on: Poz = used the our 3rd and our second to trade up. Stroud = used the extra 3rd and our 5th in trade. Used the extra third to draft Edwards last year, used our third to draft Ellis this year, used the extra fifth to draft Bowen . The sevenths end up being: a guy we cut and Steve Johnson(I think). So yeah, we robbed Baltimore and Philly blind. Edit(and Chicago if you count that Darwin Walker only played 8? games and they released him).

I posted to your other link. What did you delete it on me? Anyway, that was unreal. What a finish! I haven't seen anything like that in a long time. Ah, another reason to laugh at the French. Will it ever end? But seriously, they put up one hell of a swim, but, so did our guys. Great competition. All the more meaningful win.

Thanks Bill, but as always I need to work on both. No shocker there. Considering we agree about 1 in 10 times on football. 9 out of 10 on everything else. Yes. I disagree because of the people, situation, and goals that are involved with the group in question: One Bills Drive. To be clear, I reject your premise: "that Jauron is a D-back lover, and that's why we draft D-backs high". I think that view doesn't take into account a wide variety of parameters, influences, factors(yes all mean something different) and therefore there's no way I agree. I think it's a much more complicated issue, and I see many of the reasons as to why we have taken D backs high to be conspicuously absent for your posts. I think that it's quite possible the Bills "overstocked" at D back. I think it was intentional, given all of the hell that has broken loose at those positions over the last 4 years. I think that they figured "safe is better than sorry". But, now because all of the players have panned out as well as they have, they have extra D-backs. However, let's not forget that things could have gone the exact opposite way as well, and then they might have just enough to still be barely competitive, like last year. I think it's logical to assume that they are probably testing the waters to see what they can get with this surplus as we speak. I think that next year's draft will depend on decisions they make today, and if they trade Youboty, and then three guys get hurt again(or something similar), then yes, we might have to draft a D-back high again. Ask yourself how the Redskins feel right now. They had a master plan and it promptly went to sh-- the first week of training camp. I think that teams are simply passing the ball a hell of a lot more than they ever have, and that the running game is nowhere near as important as it once was. The fundamental premise for this is the same thing they teach in t-ball: "You can throw faster than they can run, it's faster to throw the ball than run it, so throw it in, don't run it in". If a team can throw it accurately all over the field, they are going to do that instead of run. There are also many other factors, but the main one is: skill players on offense are infinitely better today than they ever have been. Example 1: Passing records are being surpassed every season. Example 2: JP Losman is probably a better QB than Terry Bradshaw was physically. But, neither posses the mental faculties necessary to play today's game. Example 3: Running records are being beaten by RBs on teams who have a great, not just good, passing game. This is why Marshawn Lynch or Larry Johnson didn't set the single season rushing record despite leading the league in carries per game last year. With the Pass now setting up the Run, instead of the other way around(as it used to be), you're Defensive backfield is now paramount. If you can't cover a premiere WR TANDEM for 4 seconds you are going to get killed by those guys all game. Therefore, you have to spend, and even over-spend, on players who can more often than not cover the elite WR tandems out there, if you want to have any chance of winning. The Patriots* losing the SB is a prime example of why D lineman and LBs barely matter when you have offensive skill players playing at their best. "Their best" in this case meant the 10th? best QB in the league and the 10th? best WR tandem in the league. The Pats* questionable secondary was exposed for the farce that it is, and they couldn't even get it done against #10.

I don't see how that's possible. Greer is the other starter, and has looked good throughout camp, especially the ones I went to. Youboty is the odd man out, precisely because of your list, in order. It's not his fault, but if it means we can get Cleveland's best, young, reserve tackle, well, I'd take it right now.

I expect Youboty to be traded in the next two weeks. There's now a lot of current film on him and he looked good tonight. I assume that we will try to either get a draft pick, or, more likely, somebody's best reserve O lineman. Probably some third round guard or whatever. Looks like that story out of Cleveland about trading him was dead on. Why else would he be "showcased" like that?

Which leads me to believe that they are looking to shop him. Now, there's plenty of recent game film of Youboty on file. How much you wanna bet we do a straight up trade, Youboty for somebody's(Cleveland?) right tackle/best o line backup? Nice analysis by the way, I was watching the LBs and I couldn't keep up with the CBs.

McKelvin! Nice punt return. 45 yards, he goofed it at then end though. I think he out-cut himself. He should have just kept running straight.

Wow! Nice play by Corner.

Another nail in the coffin = Omon just had a monster blitz pick-up. Hamdan looks in control out there. Jauron even told him "good job" for calling the timeout when he did.

Hamdan showing the poise, stepped up in the pocket nice throw.... Omon, nice play. Wright better worry.

Nice play, both Hamdan and Fine.

So far Wright looks wrong. He needs to show better than this or it's going to be tough for him.

Corner hasn't looked bad either. It's really going to be tough for the coaches to make cuts, so far... still 3 games left though.

Ok, all three d's have been getting burned by draw plays. Perry Fewell needs to do some x's and o's work on stopping that.

Well that was the tale of two Hardys. The first quarter hard was missing routes, false starting coming out of motion and missing on his shifts. Then the second quarter Hardy was in the right spot on his routes on the first drive but they didn't go to him????? Next drive, quick score, and we got to see how he can own a corner physically. He used his body such that he was the only one who could get it, and it wasn't a jump ball, he just ran a great rout.