Magox

You are correct. You hate to do it to the guy, but if you are the Bills, you play hardball...Set a FAIR (which is top safety pay), reasonable ceiling to what you will pay the guy and stick to it. Honestly, relative to Goldston, $9M seems like a "fair" offer for Byrd. However, considering the Bills have all the leverage, offer him somewhere in the ballpark of 5 year 43M with 24M guaranteed and make him the top paid safety in the league... Byrd and Eugene come away with the contract for a safety and the Bills get a relatively good deal as well.

Two of the biggest military hawks seem to approve of her.

Obama administration fought to keep the Rosen warrant a secret. ruh oh

That would make a little more sense.

I don't see it playing out that way... at all

They must feel as if they can use this to their advantage, if they didn't then why do it? Specially knowing how politically minded and adept that they are. Let's face it, they relish Politics and they are damn good at it. Having said that, the political landscape for them has structurally changed and the press will view them with more skepticism than they previously have.

Obama and his administration understands this... It isn't as if they are oblivious to the chances of her getting confirmed. My hunch tells me that they believe they can goad the Republicans to "overreach" by looking overtly partisan, and that they will try to win political points with this baiting tactic. Either that, or that Hillary Clinton grew fond of her and appealed to Obama for her to get promoted.

I didn't catch that. So in other words, if you decide to off yourself it's not accepted, but if you decide for someone to terminate your life it's ok. Got it

In any case.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h18oaE9uk34 and check these headlines: Cuomo beats weiner then goes limp from the Post and Cuomo Spanks Weiner from the NY daily news

Figures, it went right over your head. Like usual

I don't know what Bills games people have been watching, but to imply that Byrd isn't a top 5 safety or that he is only noticeable when making picks is absurd. First off, making picks is a huge part of being a safety. The guy also recovers and creates fumbles. In other words, he's a playmaker, and playmakers come at a premium, much more so than your run of the mill high tackling/ low turnover creating safeties. Not to mention that Byrd is constantly making solid tackles. The guy is also at the very least an above average tackling safety. When you combine all these facets of the game that he has in his repertoire, this makes him an All-Pro player that deserves top pay, which in my estimations is $9M a year.

I think you are missing the point. I'm not personally judging who is more in the right, I am making more of an argument of what is and isn't socially acceptable. Sanford did what many have done, which is he simply cheated. Weiner texted photos of pee pee to unknown women. That's just viewed as creepy. The general public is more sympathetic with your run of the mill infidelity as opposed to a dude that texts photos of his schlong to unknown women half his age. If you don't recognize the difference, then I don't know what to tell ya. In any case, I'm pretty certain my view is more in line with what most people think.

In my view there is a pretty big difference between the instances of Weiner and Sanford. In Sanford's case, as clumsy as it unfolded, he cheated on a woman he loved, one who he is engaged to. For him, it was a situation of betrayal for love. In Weiner's case, he was texting photos of his body parts to women he didn't know. His situation was more of a perverted nature. Sanford did something that is becoming more and more socially "acceptable", which is he simply cheated. What weiner did on the other hand was just creepy. Your regular run of the mill sort of cheating can be overcome more easily than creepy texting of body parts to unknown women.

That was an opinion piece from a conservative columnist....Having said that, WAPO has had a few editorials (which is more of a reflection of the views of the paper than an opinion piece) that have come out criticizing the handling of the Obama administrations response and changing narratives regarding some of the scandals.

I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

Yes, I could totally see the NyTimes defending the Bush's appointed DOJ for doing the same.

It's full damage control time.... Regarding the DOJ scandal, Asking schumer to pass the Journalist Shield legislation: Check Regarding Benghazi, releasing the W.H emails: Check Regarding the IRS, forcing the IRS chief to resign: Check

IRS Chief Miller resigns.

It's always MY fault

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/15/holder-testimony-live-updates/#liveblog-entry-41427 Really? They don't have documentation of his recusal?

Let those !@#$ers fend for themselves. If someone wants to intervene, fine, allow Europe or Turkey to do it, but we should play virtually no role other than a humanitarian one.

That simply isn't gonna fly.

Ny Times, 2010 http://www.nytimes.c...tics/07irs.html http://www.nytimes.c...ment-claim.html

Not sure if that will surface. However, I found this to be interesting. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Now these details don't absolutely rule out what it was that you were saying, but it certainly weakens that argument. For one, we are talking about multiple offices were targeting conservative groups. Secondly, when they revised the original search criteria of "tea party" and "patriots", they then revised it to "political action-type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement." We know that the new criteria certainly implies that they are searching for conservative groups, if it was an honest mistake, they would of at least included along with the original or secondary criteria with key words such as "progressive", "middle class tax fairness and reform" or whatever key words that would smoke out any progressive groups. The searches were done exclusively to target conservatives.