Joe Miner

Thanks, I really didn't feel like pointing out the simple math to her. While not every JSP falls into the same category, many fit perfectly into the category Palin has just described.

You don't understand much about money do you?

So, what are the guess at the new bailout plan? They have to pass something. Too many politicians from each side voted no to be able to believably turn this into a partisan issue. My guess is the price tag on the next plan is $1+ trillion .

I must need a new calculator. 85,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 = ?

Remember to head to the East side after the game for all your adult entertainment needs.

Are you suggesting that Mort = Alannis Morissette

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26858746/ Ok, in all sincerity, what happens economically if the bailout is not passed?

If JP leaves after this year, I wouldn't have any reason to doubt that Hamden would have a very good shot at moving up to the backup QB position.

What are you doing Boo? Riding a bull? You're acting like a damn fool! Nice ESPN interview as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPo4vKoPd8Y He's lucky that little mistake didn't end up biting his team in the arse. Had Dallas only been more aware of the situation, they would have recovered the ball. I can only hope his coaches and teammates take him to task over that. That's not a rookie mistake, that's just a cocky play IMO. You gotta remember to score the TD before you start your celebration.

Could be that the final stat line doesn't really tell the whole story, but good job on doing an ESPN analysis. 1st half Taylor 6 rushes 7 yards 2nd half Taylor 8 rushes 42 yards See a problem? Jac only rushed (with a RB) 6 times in the first half, and as a result was losing 10-3 at halftime. In the second half, Jac ran it 15 times and scored 13 points to the Bills' 10 . They averaged almost 4 ypc which is still deceptive since they had 2 carries inside the 5 for the TD. Hard to get a high average with limited distance in that situation. When Jac made more of an effort to run the ball, they weren't too bad at it. In fact, they were much better at it than they should have been with an injury riddled O-line. You're right, the stats weren't that amazing, but IMO, they had too much success with the state that their O-line was in.

The only thing that left me a bit worried from yesterday was our inability to stop their run. Yes I know it was a hot day, but that shouldn't be an excuse IMO. These players haven't lived their whole lives in Buffalo, and some of them are very recent member of the Buffalo community. They should be just fine playing football on a hot day. I guarantee that they have all played in the heat before. We let an injury decimated O-Line push us around in the run game yesterday, and that's a bit of a problem IMO. It's not the end of the world, just something we need to improve. Other than that, I think the Bills showed a lot of positives yesterday, and we are certainly headed in the right direction. Next week will give us another opportunity to stop the run, as will the game against St. Louis. IMO, by the time we get to some divisional games we should be well tested against some teams with good rushing attacks, which can only help us. Consider me reservedly optimistic. Also, we still need a better push in our own run game from the O-line. Hopefully when Peters gets fully back into form, we'll start seeing more of that push. I'd really like to see a 100yd game from Lynch that isn't made up of a lot of sub 3 & 4 yard carries with 1 big run mixed in.

So I'm assuming that you guys are looking at the 3 SB's, and probably his W-L record as opposed to his career stats? Stat-wise, I think he's a little short in a lot of categories based on his shortend career. Achievement-wise, I think he's in. I think a reasonable argument could be made either way.

Let's say that the injury to Tom Brady was career ending. Does Brady make the Hall of Fame? Here are his 9 season totals: Passing Rushing Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD 2,301 3,653 63.0 26,446 7.2 197 86 203 1,278 92.9 276 533 1.9 5 Oh, and 3 SB's. Career numbers compared to current HoF'ers: QB rating: 1) Young 96.8 2) Manning 94.7 3) Warner 93.2 Completions: 1) Farve 5377 2) Marino 4967 3) Elway 4123 Comp %: 1) Pennington 65.61 2) Warner 65.09 3) Young 64.28 Yards: 1) Farve 61,655 2) Marino 61,361 3) Elway 51,475 Now, remember, these are only the record holders. A player doesn't have to reach these marks to make it in the HoF. Also remember, that none of the guys on the list (except maybe Young?) have 3 SB rings.

Or like calling a political party Repigs or something stupid like that. But we're above that here aren't we? Dumbass

You are amazing. You are so blinded by hatred for some people that you are unable to think cognitively. You have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, but that doesn't stop you from making outrageous comparisons and conclusions to reinforce your ignorant hatred. I watch TV and tell my wife that there can't possibly be people as dumb as we see, and that it is surely manufactured ignorance on the part of the shows producers and writers. And then I log on here and read the crap you type, and realize how much worse mankind is than I had thought. Thanks for setting the bar so low for my expections of my fellow man.

It seemed that it wasn't about judging pregnancies as much as it was Bill said it was the parents' fault in one instance and not in the other. But I'll also agree that Fox News, much like all other news channels, focuses on crap like Brittany Spears instead of anything substantial. So calling him out for that crap is fine by me. What was the line of questioning specifically? We don't know since it was out of context. If the line of questioning wasn't the same, then maybe it is justified to criticize one as being unfair, and not the other. Again, I don't know since the full segments weren't shown. I can imagine that they weren't really that similar since Hillary raised an ugly chick not a slutty one <---joke Nancy playing the victim card isn't the same as the candidate playing it herself. Just because I don't necessarily want a whiny candidate doesn't mean that I can't stand up for her instead. That doesn't make Nancy a hypocrite. They aren't doing the same thing. One is whining about your own treatment, the other is defending someone else. Had Nancy playe the victim card for herself, it would be the same. Two different people expressing 2 different ideas doesn't make either one a hypocrite. Again though, part of what Palin was saying was that instead of complaining women should work even harder to prove the critics wrong. A campaign advisor complaining doesn't negate that part of Palin's speech. Until we see Palin not working hard to silence critics questioning whether she can do the job as a woman, it's not really the same thing. Palin wasn't just saying don't complain, she was saying instead of complaining, work harder. Those can actually be 2 different points of view. Again, this was a segment that ignored much of this, and instead went for the enertainment value in the surface appearance it could create. We have to look deeper at things in order to tell the difference between completely valid points and entertaining conjecture.

Anyone else notice that after Karl Rove the comparisons got more and more off track and out of context? O'Reily - Can anyone say that Mrs. Spears prostitution of her children the past several years is at all the same as Palin has raised her daughter? So perhaps, just perhaps parenting decisions in 1 child's life have played a bigger role in the pregnancy than in the others? Or are the situations really the same as Stewart is leading you to believe? The blonde chick and Dick Morris - saying that a candidate shouldn't use gender to hide from questions or to play the victim is the same as saying that the media shouldn't be asking sexist questions? In one instance, the candidate is using gender, and in the other, the media is using it. Is that really the same? Couldn't both actually be true? To the candidate: Don't use your gender to hide from questions. To the media: Don't attack a candidate with questions because of their gender Palin - Palin saying that women should stand up and work harder instead of complaining when they are being picked on compared to Palin telling the media she's not running to be like by the media? Is that really the same? Did her comments from last night indicate that she no longer thought women should try harder when they felt they were being picked on? It didn't sound like it to me. Outside of Rove, were these statements really hypocritical, or did Stewart use good editing and joke telling to make people miss the fact that it really wasn't an apples to apples comparison, and as such not really hypocrisy? In many of these cases, you would need more than the clips shown to tell if these people were really hypocritical or not. Why does Morris think the media's questions to Palin are sexist and the ones to Hillary weren't? Can he (or anyone else) point out differences in the questions being asked in the interviews of Hillary and Palin that he was responding to at the time? I have no idea, but Stewart certainly didn't show the questions for us to form a real opinion. Stewart took responses from two different commentaries about 2 different lines of questioning, and called it all the same. That doesn't necessarily make it so. Why does O'Reilly think that Mrs. Spears parenting has had a direct affect whereas Palin's hasn't? Can he point to legitimate differences? I would be able to, but maybe he can't and he's actually a hypocrite. There's a difference between entertainment and the truth. That goes for Stewart as much as O'Reily as much as Moore as much as Savage as much as etc... We should learn to discern the differences a little better.

You may be one of the dumbest people to post here. And that's saying a lot considering some of the others around here. If you actually believe that the torture that Vietnam PoW's endured is anything remotely the same as any instance of "torture" at Abu Graib or Gitmo, or if you actually believe that the difference is insignificant or doesn't matter, then I hope reality really smacks the shiit out of you one day.

I believe they prefer to be referred to as Feather Indians. Sheesh.

As an Indian guy explained it to me once, that's because they still kinda do the caste thing over here as well. Many Indian hotel owners will have a last name of Patel. In India, the Patels are in the caste that owns hotels. That's what they do over there, so that's what they get into over here. At least that's the best butchering of his explanation I can give.

This is what I'm going with until I hear otherwise.

I'd like to understand how Obama will determine what part of an Oil company's profits are normal profits, and what part are the windfall profits he will tax. Global factors that are outside the control of a business's management play a part in almost every industry. Why should we not tax all industries when global factors allow them to make a higher profit than their business would normally? And what the hell is a normal profit anyway? Don't smart business take into account factors that are not directly under their control, and try to plan their strategies around minimizing problems, and perhaps even turning them into profits? Food makers can't control a drought in some part of the world that affects the price of one or more of the ingredients that they use. When these companies appropriately plan around said drought, and end up making a bigger profit than they did in a non-drought year, should they be taxed heavier because they were smart? What about the opposite? When a company is adversely affected by circumstances outside of their control, should the government run in and bail them out? Isn't that fair? It's not fair that they made less money this year than last because of circumstances outside of their control? If you have a problem with gas prices, fix the speculation issues, the refining issues, the drilling issues, and the alternative fuels issues.

Yes but you're not spamming this site with every ridiculous link that you can find and then drawing equally ridiculous conclusions from them. Are there concerns that Palin isn't the best choice for VP? Sure. How about lets she what she has to say, and how she answers some questions in the next couple of weeks before we make a final decision on her, and her effect on McCain's campaign? Unlike Biden, she's not been in the national political scene for quite as long for many sensible people to have an accurate opinion of her. As far as JK goes, he's impossible to take serious, because you can predict every outrageous thing he will say to a given topic before he even posts. And if you can't predict it, that usually means it's even more outrageous than you gave him credit for. Like this post. He takes something written about Palin's church having a guest speaker from Jews for Jesus, and draws his conclusion which he posted in the title that McCain may have just lost Florida. The article listed several reasons why many (not most or all) Jews didn't like Palin. The Jews for Jesus segment of the article was a poorly shoehorned anecdote trying to give the story some kind of substance. Not only that, but his first sentence of the post suggests that Palin endorses Pat Buchanan. Are we to assume that whoever a person attends a meeting/convention/service with means that they now endorse everything the other person stands for or says? Yes, many Jews will not like Palin. But even as the article stated in the beginning, Obama has his own struggles with the Jewish community. To automatically draw the conclusion that McCain is on the verge of losing Florida is ridiculous and ignorant. This is the kind of tripe that JK is constantly posting. It's tiresome, ignorant, and childish.