dayman

It is true, and I have seen that Tyson interview before. Where I disagree with his point is (1) his dismissive take on politics and (2) his ignoring the fact that scientists within the administration have said they felt constrained. The politics of science are (imo) extremely important. The messaging from high-profile Americans about science is (once again imo) extremely important. The "anti-science base" (so to speak) needs to yanked along...not publicly placated too. Frankly, as a public champion and promoter of science, I was surprised when seeing that for the first time to see Tyson so willing to accept the fact that one part will always pander to an anti-science crowd. Also, while Tyson analyzed the money (which is obviously extremely important) he would probably feel differently if he were actually in the administration as an adviser (although he was on a few different committees for specific issues like awards and NASA): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opAXiYr1ubo The messaging is important. High level advisers did feel constrained. And the politics of certain science issues did retard the nations progress in certain areas for no reason (especially on the stem cell issue which is as retarded as it gets in my book, but that is besides the point). Either way just my opinion. But if you want hold up Bush a champion of science, then feel free to do so

Bush years were not literally ant-science...but it was about as anti-science as any administration will be in this nation.

Agreed. Arby's is fantastic compared to most other fast food chains. Anyway the Bills would be Kmart. Still exists, has been trash for many years, tries to invent itself frequently and fails.

We're really just talking about the financial class/institutions v. the non-financial class/institutions are we not? I mean, is this less about success than it is about modern banking?

Boring coach-speak is what that will get ya. What Sherman said reflects his mind on the field in that moment. Fans want to hear that sort of thing.

This issue is a "fun v. no-fun" issue and nothing more. Sherman is awesome.

Nobody is saying "BOOM!" is needed. "BOOM!" is just awesome.

Not sure if this was posted already but Sherman wrote a little op-ed: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/20/richard-sherman-interview-michael-crabtree/ As far as Crabtree being a top-20 NFL receiver, you’d have a hard time making that argument to me. There are a lot of receivers playing good ball out there, and Josh Gordon needed 14 games to produce almost double what Crabtree can do in a full season. And Gordon had Brandon Weeden, Brian Hoyer and Jason Campbell playing quarterback. BOOM!

He was no Alan Simpson but the nation will miss him.

Manning v. Brady is probably the best overall story line in NFL history. It should win this poll.

Omaha! Omaha! Broncos and 9ers win today.

Evans is the guy imo.

Either way we don't have to go #1 to get better at OL. We may have to go #1 to truly change the passing dynamic.

lol I think you overestimate the national stage.

I find it hard to believe Christie had nothing to do with this personally and I do think it has the potential to sink him. It is a shame imo b/c I kind of like Christie.

This thread is a decent barometer as to people who are worth having a discussion about this stuff and people who aren't. I now see the utility of it.

You're being kind. There is no point to any of this. Thread. Article. Etc.

That is a point? I mean creative response there Tom but that point isn't in the article is it? The article is completely nonsensical as far as I can tell...

Am I missing something or is the point of this article that a massive group insurance plan provided through an employer is better than an individual plan?

https://twitter.com/...196922247225344 Perhaps the Bills will make it now? Perhaps not.

Fans would love it if they said: "Hey, we !@#$ed up, Sorry fans...but here's another try w/ this guy."

Drew Brees owes his entire career to Sean Payton...the best coach in the league.

Eagles are probably the most ideal from 10,000ft.

I was trying to say that we would trade Byrd and our 3rd for a 1st.

Example: Tag Byrd. Trade Byrd and a 3rd round pick to Pitt or Dallas for their middle 1st pick. Then take a good WR and TE (or OL) on the first night of the draft. To me, this would be a good deal for the Bills (considering it looks like we will lose Byrd either way). Do you agree? Is this even something you think another team would go for?