TH3

Actually I think looking at last season - kind makes more the case that we don't need EJ to be a top 10 quarter back to make the playoffs. I would add to the OP - special teams killed us in two games - probably lost us two games in fact - Cleveland (2-3 long returns) and Cinci (long return in OT that sealed the game). Stevie in 4th quarter NE Stevie and our stone fisted TE in ATL ST Teams - ATL - Cinci Devastated with injuries - (def backfield - CJ, Fred, SJ - Plantar Fachitis safety guy....) Lose ALL our QB's at some point - playing UDFA??? Think of all that. If EJ is competent we are in good shape - if he is top 15 QB - we are 10-6 easy.

Not sure why you feel the need to get personal and attempt to read into my psyche....I have attempted to lay out the facts of the case, the history involved, the Scotus decision, and what it means moving forward. Additionally, I am hardly the only one who forsaw hte coming of the Pabstbetariens. Instead of responding to this structure you decide to try to assasinate my character.....

Does anyone here actually READ and UNDERSTAND these decisions? Yes, prayer has been allowed in public government meetings. The content of these prayers - though - has been limited to general - and one could say - nondenominational language. What the two women were saying as that what was happening in Greece went beyond this boundary. I can see their point. They are lesbian and the Christians have been against their being in many ways - and now they are opening a government meeting in a "Christian" manner. You - and Scotus - have chosen not to see their point - or shrug it off as tough beans - but I do think they have a point. As well - you - and Scotus - have chosen to view these prayers as not "proselytizing". That is your choice and Scotus has determined as such. I disagree. When I am subject to these prayers - it comes across as "proselytizing" (yes I know wtf it means). Likewise - when I see these prayers or convocations in a government meeting - it does - to me - come across as government participation. I know you and Scotus disagree. What this decision has done has removed the "general" or "nondenominational" boundary to these prayers - and additionally - it has taken away any legislative ability to place a boundary on this language. So your local and state govt's don't get to decide what is appropriate for their constituents. I don't go to too many govt meetings - but - as I predicted - this opened the door for more depth and flavor to these prayers - but it has also opened the door for highly motivated religious people like our Pabstbetarien to see this as a battleground and a contest to win. Awesome - the local government meeting is now another place for religious viewpoints to be contested. Pretty simple just to keep them separate - but as you and Scotus see it no harm no foul.

Pretty sure i do.....you are telling me there is not an element of conversion in what these people are doing?

That is kind of how I see anyone who feels the need to proselytize in a government meeting - whether it be Christians, Muslims, Satanists or Pabstists....and now thanks to SCOTUS....game on....and I mean game

Led all rookie receivers in the NFL in yardage (964)...and had 996 in another year.....

Are you serious?

"Who and what religons, sects etc now get to open whatever goverment function for their own specific purposes. This was not a judicious or conservative or safe ruling.....it was a religiously activist ruling. Can't wait for every religon to now try to spead their mission into every local or state meeting.....and the arguements to follow.......simply an awful ruling." First page.....champ

Whaaa....we are in the second year of Whaley.......looks good to me

Fixed the facts - logic still needs fixing Fixed again

Fixed

Don't want to say I told you so but..... "Chaz Stevens, who forced Florida Governor Rick Scott to allow him to display an eight-foot Festivus pole made of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans next to Deerfield Beach’s nativity scene has written to the city asking that he be allowed to open a meeting with a prayer to his god. Stevens has converted to Satanism just in time to take advantage of the ruling. Stevens says that his change of faith is just as legitimate as Christianity. “At Christmas, I was a Pabstfestidian. It’s legitimate — it’s based in as much reality as the Catholics. But unlike Catholic priests, we don’t rape little boys.” However, he has converted to Satanism because, “Satan is a cool dude. Think of all the people he’s in charge of. Do you want to be stuck listening to harp music in the afterlife? Hell no. I want to drink beer and hang with hookers.” In a letter written to Deerfield Beach, he formally made his request: Dear City of Deerfield Beach; With the recent US Supreme Court ruling allowing “prayer before Commission meetings” and seeking the rights granted to others, I hereby am requesting I be allowed to open a Commission meeting praying for my God, my divine spirit, my Dude in Charge. Be advised, I am a Satanist. Let me know when this is good for you. Besties Chaz Stevens, Calling in from Ring 6 of Dante’s Inferno” I told you so......let the circus begin!

I kind of like the view "At some point you have to start believing in yourself". With this move - the Bills have done that - which might well be part of the package.......

Comments like that say exactly what your agenda is.... Seriously....Polls? Does the average citizen know enough to sift through 3 years of propaganda to comment or vote intelligently on anything?

What are you talking about...."Living Document" - its a document that gets interpreted ALL the time - call it what you want. In this particular case - Scotus has overturned about 60 years of what is an acceptable "prayer" or "invocation" content in a public government hearing...it was all settled and seemed to work quite well....now they have not only opened the door to a much more LIBERAL interpretation of what is acceptable....they have also removed all checks and balances to what is OK......

TTYT. You are good at arguing...but not seeing others points of view. What is so hard about understanding that if I - or anyone else goes to government meeting - and that meeting is opened with a very specific religious point of view - that I cannot feel that government is establishing that particular religion? How can it not be taken any other way? If one had never been to this country and showed up and went to a government hearing that opened with - pick you religion - a very specific prayer - whelp - without anyone prejudicing your opinion - you would think "Whelp - I guess that - pick your religion - is part of this government" I agree that every court is different. My view is that this current court is a very activist - not conservative - and has a very specific agenda.

Well TYTT, I just don't agree with you or your bullet points or the Scotus decision. I think specific religious acts in a government setting goes past "freedom of speech" and goes into government sanctioning of a religion. I think the decision - and if you read it - are - well bad policy. The Scotus decision bars anyone (gov't entities like state legislatures) from further deciding what is allowed and what is not in these "prayer moments". They took the governor off - I think that is going to lead to trouble. As I said on the page before - The Roberts court is extremely aggressive in their decisions - overturning decades of previous policy that has worked well and as well legislation strongly approved in a bipartisan manner. What is "allowed" in terms of prayer in public government settings has been clearly defined for the better part of a century - and people have seemed to live with it without Issue - now it is open game - all rules are out. Hugely popular - and bipartisan legislation regarding voting and minorities - overturned, Overwhelming bipartisan legislation regarding election funding - overturned. Heck - I even think the basis for the ACA being upheld was suspect. All of these decisions overturning decades of accepted policies, previous decisions, or bipartison and popular legilsation overturned 5-4. I guess they know best..... I will leave you with this: "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so they may be seen by others.....but whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father in secret, and your father who sees you in secret shall reward you.

Whaa? It is now a government sanctioned religious opening And that would be exactly - when placed in a government setting - exactly using the government setting to sanction their religious viewpoints.... Let me try another way....If I went to that meeting and felt that I was in the middle of a governmen being a proponent of a religion.....Isn't that enough? Don't we err on the side of caution? You know...be .....conservative in these areas?

One man's positive influence is another's not.....I did not grow up in a church going household...if I was at that meeting I would feel immediately uncomfortable.....this decision has opened the gates for public meetings to become the battlefield of religious discussion Why....why....do religious people feel the need to insert their practice in government meetings....I don't get it..in fact it goes against what the bible says....pray humbly and behind closed doors.... Discretion is the better part of valor

Geez, I can't help but feel the Roberts court gets just about everything exactly wrong.....and more worrisome - looks like the operate with no rudder or logic in the 5 "conservative" majority. Think of the ramifications of this ruling.....it is really a liberalization of specific religions expressing their specific views in a goverment setting. Who and what religons, sects etc now get to open whatever goverment function for their own specific purposes. This was not a judicious or conservative or safe ruling.....it was a religiously activist ruling. Can't wait for every religon to now try to spead their mission into every local or state meeting.....and the arguements to follow.......simply an awful ruling. Further to the liberal and activist rulings.....the overturning of the election funding laws. These laws were near unaminous in their bipartison support....but this court saw to be actvist, overturn them from the bench and actually liberalize how our elections are funded. Does anyone here feel more freedom in their speech lately. Or do you feel like legislation is even more easily purchased? Maybe a victory for the religious right.....but for separating goverment condoned religon....how can it be? Forgive typos ipad

OK - it gets overturned - they put you in charge of replacing it - what would you propose? Single payer only means that there is single source of payment - It would mean something like a VAT that the government collects but the options on how that gets spent could be numerous. It could be a voucher given to people for them to spend on how they see fit - or spend in a defined manner - or it could be spent by the govt on insurance. Universal is more like Medicaire for everyone.

Where do they sell those glasses?

Didn't this whole thing start with Cliven Bundy being a victim?

Any of you regular posters black?