Shoutbox

Hey, if you want personnel decisions that will get the most national headlines and that prioritize diminutive skill position players over the offensive and defensive lines.....then Tom Donahoe is your man!

In terms of population size, it's worth pointing out that Buffalo is about the same size as the Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Cincinnati markets when you include Rochester. Maybe WNY is worse off economically compared to these Rust Belt cities, but the difference can't be that great. Nevertheless, I understand the economic reasons why we are continuing this Toronto series. And I approve of it, so long as: 1. We don't play our division rivals in these games. 2. We limit the series to the December games that often struggle to sell out due to weather and (lately) poor record. 3. Toronto fans start cheering for the Bills and make this series an actual home field advantage. 4. We keep it at no more than 1 regular season game a year. Being a Sabres fan as well as a Bills fan, I've grown accustomed to seeing Toronto as "the enemy." But oh well. It's just something I will have to get used to over time.

at this thread. It's literally one person (TheNewBills) in the Obama corner vs. everyone else. Pretty much sums up PPP these days. I'm glad that this Bain issue has taken center stage at the moment. The country needs to be talking more about these kinds of economic topics leading up to the November election. Overall, I think this is going to turn into a losing issue for Obama. The truth is that Romney has nothing to be ashamed of regarding his Bain background. The particular financial services that Bain provides are an important part of any vibrant capitalist economy. The Obama group is somehow trying to paint Romney's financial background as "immoral," when in reality I would describe it as "amoral." This brand of capitalism demonization that is typical among left-wingers is only going to turn away unemployed/underemployed independent voters who want to start seeing positive macroeconomic results. However, the Obama attack group does pose an interesting question that should be explored: will Romney's venture capitalism experience necessarily translate well to the President's specific responsibilities in growing the U.S. economy? I can see how it would when it comes to trimming government waste, but then again ALL prospective presidents talk about cutting government waste and NONE ever do. I can also see him creating a general political atmosphere where less government regulations lead to greater private industry growth, but will this come at some intolerable expense to the environment and to human rights? What about addressing certain free trade policies that many argue have helped contribute to the collapse of the middle class and to an economy disproportionately focused on services instead of on manufacturing and product innovation? What about proper Wall Street oversight to make sure another 2008 financial crisis doesn't occur? Romney's work at Bain - while successful and impressive - never had to address topics like these and, if anything, at first glance might suggest that he'd continue to prioritize the interests of the small moneyed elite class over the rest of America.

Um...it was tongue-in-cheek. There are some profoundly stupid regulars at PPP, but I seriously doubt any of them believe Obama was born in Kenya.

It's basically the John Birch Society here. I'm a libertarian-leaning independent who thinks Obama was, in fact, born in the United States. This makes me an ultra left winger at PPP.

I thought I've been very clear on my position here: I only give a **** about what the faithful believe in when they start making public policy decisions based on these beliefs. Otherwise, I wouldn't care less if people choose to reject science and rationality for superstition and ancient Middle Eastern fairytales. Practice in private and celebrate in public all your stupid religions all you want. I thought you said you were done with me, anyway. But if you want to keep being a vituperative douchebag, bring it on you !@#$ing !@#$.

Very thoughtful post, tgreg99, but I am unfortunately much less sanguine about religion than you are. It would be nice if more people questioned the tenets of their particular religion, especially when these tenets affect their votes on public policy. But they don't. For every one tgreg99, there are a large number of Manny Pacquiaos. And a big part of the problem is because faith, by its very definition, demands the suspension of critical thought in order to believe in something without evidence. Moreover, religion actually promotes this mindset as somehow noble. Is it? I don’t think religion is – or ever was – anything more than a creative way for a few select humans to exert influence over the behavior of the masses, whether genuinely for the common good or for more selfish and nefarious reasons. Sometimes this leads to very good effects on society (though these effects could have just as easily have been reached from rational thought and not from God’s word). But sometimes this leads to bigotry and intolerance. Back in the days of the Old Testament, gay behavior was seen as wrong because it did not lead to procreation. In the Biblical “be fruitful and multiply” days when life was precarious and short, maintaining large population numbers was a good thing for the Jews’ very survival. In modern times, however, with 7+ billion people and limited resources on Earth, this is a terrible idea to promote. It’s great that religious leaders like the Pope are now embracing modern ideas like the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the Earth revolving around the Sun, or maybe even gay marriage one day. But why do they have to keep changing their minds? Why isn’t God’s message more enduring? In the case of the Pope, isn’t he supposed to be infallible? A large part of religion's appeal is because it provides warm and fuzzy answers to difficult and scary questions that science is either having a hard time explaining or that may be outside the purview of the scientific method altogether (why are we here, what happens to us after we die, why do bad things happen to good people, etc...). It could be a very long wait for answers to some of these questions, assuming humans can or ever do find the answers (!@#$, it took 2,000 years from when the Greeks first postulated atoms to when physicists were able to experimentally prove their existence). As long as these types of questions don't get answered, the science vs. religion debate will continue. In this debate, I’m personaly sticking with science because they have the much better historical track record of explaining reality. But I can certainly understand why people choose to prefer religion over science. It’s much easier to answer, for example, the “why are we here?” question with “God” and move on with daily life instead of devoting a decade plus of your free time learning the physics and math to figure out what happened at the Big Bang.

It's disgraceful that you think it is "elitist" to use logic/reason to find the answers to difficult questions, such as "where do humans get their moral compass?" Human civilization has a proud tradition of science and rational philosophy. This tradition isn't reserved for a select few academic leftists or New York Times readers. Or at least it shouldn't be. Put down the Bible and pick up some science books. Use your brain, think really really hard, and you'll figure out - among many other things - that the Golden Rule is an optimal behavioral strategy for humans to play in the game of pursuing life/liberty/happiness. We are in the 21st century now. We no longer need ancient Middle Eastern fairy tales to guide our behavior. Also, I will continue to attack and make fun of organized religion so long as the "faithful" keep defending their public policy decisions with "God says so" instead of logic/reason. If I were to tell you all that I believe in Ace and Gary as my deities, and that Ace and Gary happen to not like heterosexuals, and that Ace and Gary think heteros should not be allowed to marry, and that I am going to get government to force this idea into law....wouldn't the rest of you attack me for this ridiculous belief? And if you do, would you call yourself an intolerant bigot toward Ace and Gary believers like myself? No! You would call yourself rational.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/born-kenya-obama-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991-214423507.html

I was just about to pose that exact question until I scrolled down a bit more. Let's see how 3rdnlng responds...

You're wasting your time here, tgreg99. 3rdnlng can't understand the difference between gay sex and gay marriage because - like Manny and like anyone who blindly follows organized religion - he is of low intelligence. This thread has no purpose anymore. For one thing, we now know that Manny never said gays should be put to death. It was a terribly written summary of an interview with Manny that has spiraled out of control in the media and internet. All we have left here is another public person giving a religion-based opinion on a political subject; he has every right to say it, but must also face the consequences of this opinion. Nothing more needs to be said. As for the gay marriage debate, it's a dead end. We dealt with it here last week. Religious people aren't interested in questioning why their imaginary God doesn't like gay people. A lot of people, in fact, just plain don't like gay people because they're different from themselves; God of the Abrahamic religions then becomes a convenient scapegoat behind whom they can hide their bigotry without suffering the usual public castigation for such an offensive opinion. This gay marriage issue is itself a convenient scapegoat for the collapse of the traditional family, which many believe will in turn lead to the collapse of civilization. It's all a very specious argument, bordering on ridiculous when us heterosexuals have done more than our fair share to destroy the credibility of marriage in the past 40 years. Manny Pacquiao, who has cheated many times on his wife, is a typical hypocrite among the anti-gay marriage crowd who should probably be more concerned with his own faults first before worrying about the imaginary faults of those that his imaginary God says are immoral.

Hi.

I'd also add that the non-division opponent should not be a team like the Steelers/Packers/Cowboys with a huge (inter)national following. My biggest problem with the Toronto series is that these "fans" are not loud and passionate for the Bills. Hopefully this will change as the Bills become more competitive on the field.

It wouldn't be ideal. I suppose the ideal scenario for the league would be the Raiders and the Rams back in L.A., with Khaaaaaaaan! then moving the Jags to St. Louis. But I don't think the St. Louis community will allow the Rams to leave, nor do I think Khaaaaaaaan! can move the Jags even if he wants to do so. Second-best league scenario is Raiders and Chargers in 1 privately funded L.A. stadium.

You don't think the Raiders will join them? They would stand to make FAR more money sharing a stadium in L.A. than the one with the 49ers. Plus they already have a solid fan base in L.A.

To me, the answer is very simple: it's going to be the Raiders and Chargers sharing one privately funded stadium in L.A. within the next 5 years.

Okay, then I will withdraw myself from this conversation. I've said all that I wanted to say (post # 36, 41, 50, 55, 64, 67, 74, 94, 103, 113, 118, 129, 168). Alaska Darin did a great, polite, concise job of articulating the argument of the pro-gay marriage crowd with post #175. Let's now see how the OCinBuffalo/RkFast/B-Man/Adam/3rdlng/LABillzfan crowd counters.

I've read all of the bullsh!t posts in this thread and clicked on all of the bullsh!t links provided. The argument that gay marriage will negatively impact society is weak. I'm not sure smart people and rednecks will ever fully agree on this particular issue because smart people generally believe that: 1. A deity that is concerned about the particular affairs of humans on Earth, including their sex lives, is about as likely to exist as Santa Claus. 2. Homosexual orientation is not a conscious choice; it is due to a complex combination of genetics and early uterine environment. 3. Homosexual behavior is as natural as heterosexual behavior, and it has various evolutionary reasons for existing within species despite not directly contributing to reproduction. All of the above can be learned by opening up books other than the Bible or whatever you purchased at the Liberty/Regent/Oral Roberts University campus stores. Once you Brawndo guzzlers reach a better understanding of reality (the domain that us smug big-city Americans live in), you will then very quickly reach the rational conclusion that - by the Golden Rule moral principle - gays are entitled to the same equal rights as straight people. All of the political posturing, pedantic legal wordings, and deeply ingrained cultural traditions fall by the wayside to this one a priori truth of civilized human behavior. To conclude otherwise is not logically backed by anything other than bigotry and douchebaggery. Don't worry; you religious nutjobs and your ridiculous churches can still privately choose to not recognize gay marriages. The point is that only the government will have to, and society will be all the better for it. Heteros can still marry and divorce at the same rates as before. Dogs can still not be allowed to marry cats. You can still make fun of fags in public while jerking off to their porn in private. Life in America will go on, and maybe us adults can then go back to the adult table and start addressing more serious, difficult topics like - for example - the economy.

We already know why the anti-gay marriage people feel the way they do. I've spelled it out several times already: unexamined religiosity, homophobia, fear of change, and (in the case of many people here at PPP) hatred of anything that the Democrats tend to support. What else is there to understand? How can you ever have an intelligent, rational discussion with these types? I'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE - to explain to me how society will collapse when we allow gays to marry. I'll stop being a great big meanie to all of the anti-gay marriage people as soon as I get this explanation.

10-20 years from now, yes it will be settled and the more enlightened/rational side will win. It would be nice if it could happen sooner because a lot of gay people's lives are affected greatly by this issue, but whatever. Regarding my mocking, no I will not stop mocking those who so openly embrace stupidity and irrationality. And those who are against gay marriage simply because... A. God says gays are evil B. Gay people are different than us. C. Breaking with cultural traditions is bad because change is scary and dangerous ... are being stupid and irrational. We're heading into the 7th page of this thread, and I have still not read a persuasive argument against legalized gay marriage. I fail to see why giving gay people fully equal rights is going to destroy our civilization...or at least at any faster rate.

Mocking won't change it, but time will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

OMG! If we allow them gays to marry, what's next?! Dogs will be marrying cats! It will be total chaos! Yes, I would say that most people who are anti-gay marriage remind me of the locals in Deliverance. Homosexuality - as gross as it may be - is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom. And yes, humans are animals. I know this goes against everything that your Creation Museum tour guide told you...but it's what us elitist triple-digit IQ city folk types find to be the best description of reality. FYI, the beginning of "time" was ~13.7 billion years ago, not 6 thousand. Again, the argument that gay marriage should remain illegal because of man-made tradition is !@#$ing weak. There are lots of "traditions" that human civilizations have eventually decided are wrong. Slavery, child labor, no rights for women, etc.

Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so.

You'll find hypocrites and disingenuous people on both sides of the political spectrum. And you'll find good people that help others on both sides of the religiosity spectrum. Moving a bit back on topic, I'd like to see someone here who is against gay marriage state their case without invoking any of these 4 arguments: 1. God says it's wrong. 2. Gay people are gross. 3. It's just the way things have always been. 4. The majority of people don't like it.

And yet you openly mock liberals here on PPP because they believe in things that you find illogical... Hello, pot! It's me, kettle!