Dan

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, being a Bills fan is part of my blood. It's a way of life. When they changed the uniforms in 2002, they changed them to some multi-colored abomination that was anything but a Bills uniform. Yes, I cheer for the players. But, more than that I cheer for a team that represents a City I identify with. I'm proud to be a Bills fan. I'm proud to wear their colors. I wasn't proud to wear the dark blue, red, grey, light blue, black, white, and whatever other stupid color they threw in there stuff. Hell, the I wasn't even sure it was a Bills jersey when I got a Bledsoe for Christmas years ago. That's how horrible they were. I'm excited because I'm hopeful they'll do away with the horrible garb they've been wearing and bring back the Bills colors that I bleed. So that I can once again wear a jersey that I'm proud of and know that it represents the history of the team and the City that I love.

Nice rant... really. But, seriously, did you read what I wrote? Most of what I posted was an argument against the train. And that last jab... about the $53mill.. I thought was obvious sarcasm. Apparently not. Just a quick thought... you asked when is that my $53mill to bandy about. Well, as a taxpayer paying city, state, and federal taxes, at least a portion of that money is mine. But, that's neither here nor there. Just thought you should take that into consideration when you throw statements like that out there. But, in most every instance rail travel, on a high speed train only connecting major cities, would be far and away faster than air travel. Yes, the flight from Philly to DC may only be 45 minutes. But, try getting to PHL 45 minutes minutes before a flight and you'll be darn lucky to get on the plane. The 45 minute flight easily takes 2-3 hours out of your day. So, you'd save time. As is the case... for short distances like that you're almost always able to save time by driving and high speed rail would cut the drive time down considerably. Of course, most people don't routinely make that drive because time driving isn't always seen as valuable as time flying. OC, before you blast me mercilessly again, don't take any of that as an argument in support of the train system. I'm merely stating opinion that a high speed train would be faster (and almost certainly cheaper) than flying from Philly to DC. I will offer this for rebuttal though... who paid for the nation's interstate and intrastate highway system? How is that the train system has to be privatized and the highways don't?

This is a somewhat disparate comparison. The problem with rail lines is that once they're built, they're built. It's not so easy to just discontinue a route and start up a new one. It's an inherent problem with any rail system which makes it harder to drop less used routes and add newly needed routes similar to the airline industry. That's the big problem as I see it. According to the maps I quickly googled... link1, link 2; the trains would eventually connect most major US Cities. But, IMO, the only way it becomes successful is if they convince people to use the rail system rather than fly. So, how will the airlines feel about that? Because you can't use the system for "casual" traffic because few of those major cities have adequate public transportation. So, when I get there I need a way around. Air travelers are used to that; most others are not. On one hand, it's a great idea to connect most of our major Cities with a high speed rail system that's cheaper and faster than the current interstate system or air travel. However, there's quite a few inherent problems that have to be addressed; otherwise, its destined to fail. Americans are a car culture. We value the independence the vehicle gives us. Add to that the lack of decent public transportation in most US cities and there's a steep hill to climb to get people to accept it. But then again, it's only $53million. What's the big deal? Congress appropriates that much money before most of us get out of bed.

Hilarious. We were trying to figure through the whole show whether that was a dude or a chick. I still don't know!

Yes, let's draft a WR, then a RB. Then go for the trifecta of wasting another draft by drafting another CB. How great would that be!! Of course, I would only support this is we cut (no trades) Jackson and Evans so they don't cause a locker room problem.

As near as I could tell... granted I wasn't glued to the set... it's a show about gay people doing gay things with some gay music thrown in just to ensure the gaiety of it all. ..not that there's anything wrong with any of that.

You've got the single biggest sporting event and television event of the year, with 100's of millions of people all over the wold watching and you're gonna get a never heard of, no nothing band? I think not. The half time show isn't for the die hard football fans, its for the millions of other people out there watching. So, like it or not... it's big acts, half of which will suck.

Wife just made me watch it. ....uhhhh ok.. I don't get it. I'll hope to never have to endure that again.

She's was watching you type that. Right?

Is it wrong for my first response to be.. !@#$ you. ??

Reading the Declaration of Independence? Really?

<br /><br /><br /><br />That's what i was thinking... why get into all the Egypt stuff and politics on Super Bowl Sunday? If you're getting an interview for the pre game show.. keep it light and fun. I'm sure they taped more serious stuff that they can air tomorrow, but today isn't really the time for it. And why all the snide jabs... just seemed overly dickish to me on a day that's about football. No need to desecrate the holiest day of the year with stuff like that.

In all honesty, if you're not a Steelers or Packers fan, isn't it fairly common to not really care who wins? I know I don't.

Just turned on NFL Network and they had celebrity picks... I didn't recognize any of the celebrities (well maybe 2 of the 20 they asked). Am I old or just out of touch?

Not watching yet. I'm assuming they need to get all their Favre love out of the way before they actually talk about today's game. So, I'll be flipping it on later

Apparently Reed was the 2nd longest discussion http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/02/05/HOF.insider/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin My question is why are idiot sportswriters voting on the HOF inductions? I've never understood that logic. Also, the guy states next year could be tougher because Of the list of 1st year eligibles.. but I don't see any of them as HOF material.

Andre's biggest problem is that he's not been a media suckup like Irving.

To see Irvin sitting there and Reed continually overlooked is just a shame. Just sucks.

No friggin doubt. How got in so quickly is a complete testament to how political the inductions are.

I think you're supposed to just write, in bad grammar, any random thought that pops into your head... especially the ones you'd never actually speak out loud if someone were in the room with you. Then you sit back and wonder why everyone's hatin' on you.

Of the 3 WRs, Reed is by far and away the more deserving of a HOF induction. Carter and Brown, IMO, are alot like Monk... good, solid WRs, but not special in any real way. So, yeah, Monk made it, but those guys should have to wait quite a bit before they're seriously considered. Faulk is head and shoulders above Bettis and Martin. Quite honestly, I'm not even sure why Martin is this far along in the consideration. He was a sold back for a number of years, but HOF... really? Same with Bettis, although he did come through in some big games. But, I'm still not sure how he's a HOF back. Richard Dent, Chris Doleman, Charles Haley and Cortez Kennedy... really? I'm not sure I'd consider any of them HOF material. I might could be sold on Dent, but that's about it. I guess we just have to consider anyone who played for a while and put up decent sack numbers. Same goes for Dermontti Dawson and Willie Roaf. I just don't get it. Sharpe and Sanders IMO, helped to redefine their positions in the modern game and should be in hands down. So for me, I'd say Reed, Faulk, Sharpe, Sanders and Sabol (although I'm not completely sold on Sabol; his son I'd say has actually done more. But I don't know all of Ed's contributions either.)

In most states, not entirely sure about NYS, there are many areas within a County that aren't incorporated - that is, they're not in any town. Hence, they fall under County governance. In the smaller, more densely populated New England States, RI, CT, maybe MA, I think there's little to no area that's not an incorporated town. Hence, the County government is not needed. They still have county structures; they just don't need to perform all the civil services that you usually associate with a gov. structure. But, the County government and City Governments essentially do the same thing. Typically, I think, City services trump County services. So, you'd call the City police not the County Sheriff, for example. But, there are all sorts of complications and/or overlaps regarding jurisdiction of services that are usually worked out with intergovernmental memorandum's of understanding between the Cities and Counties. That's it in an acorn-sized nutshell.

As a senior in HS, I had half day classes. I rushed home that afternoon just to watch the Shuttle launch. I was sitting in my house, alone, in my dad's chair.... in complete shock.

True points. But, IMO, the ghosts of Super Bowls past were just too much for the Bills in this last one. The Bills were outplaying Dallas and in great shape to win the game... even after Thurman's fumble. But, you could just see the look in their eyes after that play. They looked defeated.. .they had the "here we go again" look in their eyes. While, Dallas just seized the momentum and never let if go. At 13-6, Dallas scoring didn't mean we lose the game, but the players sure acted as though the game was over at that point.

You gotta spend money to make money.