The Big Cat

McKelvin is in his 5th year. I know he's veteran in years only, but I also have a lot of confidence in what the young guys can do--especially with G. Wilson and Byrd behind them to give them direction.

Can't get a definitive answer from Google: Does anyone know if the Miami Hard Knocks will be made available on HBO Go?

In talking with a buddy here about social issues in the Pres election, I realized I meant to pose this question a few days ago: If social issues won't be a factor--how likely is Romney to pick a pro-choice veep? I say highly unlikely.

Sorry, would have got this up sooner (BD party in the office) JOE B (WGR) Rausin only Bill not practicing BB.COM: Young to Spiller on flat route big gainer BB.COM: TJ GRAHAM WITH A GREAT SIDELINE CATCH SAL: Donald Jones with the first team BB.COM: Merriman smokes Cordy Glenn for a would-be sack BB.COM: Brooks gets a pick off a tipped-pass BB.COM: Tank Carder gets a pick Sal: VY throws terrible pick (probably the Tank pick) BB.COM: Brad Smith working exclusively with QB's JOE B (WGR): Urbrik taking first team snaps at center because they're resting Wood SAL: Gilmore guarding Stevie, doing a great job JOE B (WGR) Rhinart at RG and Ubrik at center with Wood out of lineup SAL: David Nelson has a nice grab JOE B (WGR): Sam Young spelling Pears for first team reps at RT JOE B (WGR): Stevie and Fitz in sync SAL: Fitzy going to Stevie a lot BB.COM: Stevie catching everything BB.COM: Freddie with a big gain. SAL: QB's have struggled with down field throws

All from Twitter reporters...Sal, bb.com. et al

V Young = 2 picks in first 3 attempts. TJ Graham made a great acrobatic catch on a go route. Ron Brooks and Tank Carder both got picks, don't know if they were the two VY's or not. Also: B. Smith with the QB's exclusively (all this info comes from Twitter)

Yeah, Obama doesn't need any help here in Chicago. And this just came out today: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120726/BLOGS02/120729826/obama-holds-20-point-margin-over-romney-in-illinois so it seems even Illinois (red as red gets below I-80) is locked up, too.

FWIW, Rahm and the alderman who have come out against this are catching a lot of flack here locally. It's very bizzarre and a lot of people in Chicago are scratching their heads over it. Nobody thinks the public outcry for this was a.) warranted or b.) in the least bit prudent.

That's really not an excuse...for any job. Let alone one where hundreds, nay THOUSANDS of "young, just out of college" up-and-comers are lined up around the corner just to get a taste. In fact, I'd say most of those newbies would do her job FOR FREE. With as competitive as today's media landscape is (especially in broadcast, ESPECIALLY for recent grads), there's really no excuse to have someone who's so bad at interviews. This video isn't the only example of this. I've seen her interview players with hard hitting questions like: if you didn't play football what would you do and why? When bb.com is the sole source for most of our (out of towners) Bills media, then it's nice to see something that's even watchable. It's not that she's not good, it's that she's bad. See my response above for why this is intolerable. **author's note: I'm really not that "worked up" over this. It's an observation, and one that I stand by, and obviously share with other posters in this thread. If this Bills put their name on something or someONE, my hope is that it would reflect the excellence the organization strives for. I don't think that's too much to ask. You don't see a neon website littered with Comic Sans, you don't see logo duplicates that are drawn by hand with crayon, no. There's a level of professionalism and a high-class image the Bills strive for, and frankly she doesn't live up to that with her "so what do you think of the meeting room?" What do you think of the campus?" questions. It's boring to watch and it's an insult to all the perfectly qualified media professionals that could do her job a thousand times better than her.

And it's a controlled hold and you get a full running start.

Ha! And the last successful fair catch kick was against? You guessed it--the Bills! San Diego vs. Buffalo November 21, 1976

And volunteer groups get out on voting day to make sure those people have a ride to the polls. I guess the solution is to require more people to give up more of their time then? Boy, these laws don't inconvenience anyone!

Then I'll ask this question again: what other restrictions should there be? Should there be a laziness exam?

Yeah but this kitty also likes to scratch. Be warned. Are you really so naive as to believe the bolded, or is the rest of the world just that skeptical/cynical?

It is different, actually because of early voting. I don't feel as though I'm in a corner, thank you.

You implied that perhaps those people don't meet basic qualifications to vote...

Firstly, I never ONCE said anything about racism, not tied this issue to race in anyway shape or form. And how is it a choice for the 500,000 Americans without vehicles who live at least 10 miles from an ID station that's only open 2 days a week, and only during business hours? You make it sound like all they have to do is head on down to the local ID-shop whenever they please, using all the free time their personal and professional lives most surely offer...

That's fine, but what other restrictions should be placed on voting aptitude then? Should there be a civics exam? A name-all-your-legislators test? A series of short answer essays to affirm your grasp of the issues? Who gets to decide whether you're good enough to vote or not?

I'm not by any means a fiscal liberal, but I'm very proudly a social liberal, and I've already said many times that this is clearly a ploy to rob the Dems of votes, and that's the most despicable aspect of this--BY FAR. If we're okay with the political maneuvering, with it being politics as usual, fine. But I've been quite transparent about my disdain for the GOP's methods of winning votes by negation.

I see. So it's absurd to think a portion of 750,000 ID-less voters in one state will not obtain (for whatever reason) the proper identification to be able to vote. But it's not absurd to think that not if but WHEN this happens, it'll be the proper course to deter the ZERO counts of voter fraud on the state's record.

I didn't conduct the goddamn research, I didn't come up with the numbers. Why is your method for refuting the data to question me?

Agreed on the bolded. But your supposition is at the heart of what I've been getting at this whole time: In the process of eliminating perceived nefarious activity (a potential wrong) we're causing another wrong by suppressing voters. Yes, I'm dealing this with this as an absolute because people WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE because of these laws, we can do laps around this issue all day long, but it's worthless because I don't disagree with holding people to personal accountability, but that doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands of LEGITIMATE voters will not get the chance to vote all because we're trying to ward off a very very small number of "political operatives."

Exactly what are you implying?

Then let me ask you this question: say tomorrow the US Supreme Court decides all these state-to-state voter ID laws are invalid and in some way unconstitutional (I don't know why they would, I'm not saying they should, just bear with me): What happens then? What's the worst that could happen? Do you question every election? Is every election that has already taken place invalid in your eyes?' We know what could happen under the laws, please tell me what would happen without these laws. And please provide corroborating evidence. Also: since I know at least one idiot will jump on the opportunity, PLEASE LEAVE VOTER REGISTRATION OUT OF THIS, AND FOCUS ON THE FRAUD OF ACTUAL BALLOTS CAST.