AKC

While it's good for the team it gives us less to speculate on having so few players who might leave us of their own choosing. It's probably easy if you're simply a bad team like Chicago to have few players eligible for Free Agency, but a rising team like the Bills makes this a serious challenge. Congratulations Tom on bringing us into this off-season with just 12 players eligible for Free Agency, with only 7 of those unrestricted.

Yeah, he definitely favors the equine bundle of DNA strands in my eyes too.

I have to say if I were in charge of the Democratic strategy I don't know if I'd be wheeling out Nancy Pelosi displaying her newly discovered ability to use the word God in public, or the one that strikes me as even more confusing: Dem threats to hijack the Gonazalez nomination for AG based upon Abu Ghraib. I can't believe anybody in this country actually thinks Abu Ghraib is anything more than a blip on the screen to the American public right now.

It appears to me to be based in large part upon pride- in the 80s Reagan convinced a segment of voters that the previously dirty political label "conservative" was nothing to be ashamed of- beginning the "outing" of many who might have otherwise kept their true beliefs under the radar. Providing a perfect example of Newton's 3rd Law, liberals began their shrinking act at about the same time, reaching the nadir today where they refuse to even mention the label. America since its founding has been a country that has rewarded courage versus cowardice, and the reward for the crowd on the right standing tall and proud with their conservatism has garnered tremendous political gain for them while their counterparts on the left are arguably being punished for denying their own colors. The critical thing though is that it's no one's fault but the left for allowing this to happen. Maybe the Pelosi/Dean wing of the Dems will treat the bleeding by standing up and saying "I'm liberal and I'm proud of it, and here's why....". Until then I believe the public will continue to view today's liberals as disingenuous and as a result an undesirable faction to be allied with. On elitism the libs lose big for this reason- the Democratic Party is run by elite wealthy whites whose lives are segregated from the people who they claim to represent. If the libs truly cared one bit about the little guy- the middle class family and their kids, we would see them throw away their unholy protection of the Teacher's Unions and embrace the voucher programs that are heavily favored by lower middle class minorities and anyone who wants every kid to get the best shot at a good education. The Democratic Party has become the New Plantation, with wealthy white stiffs like Kerry being put up as somehow representative of inner city minorities and Average Joe. The blind and the foolish are the only ones who don't see right through that facade. It's the same white guys holding the keys to the Plantation as it was in the slave days with the House N*****s like Jesse Jackson greeting everyone at the door. Polling though suggests that the slave revolt may very well be underway, inviting "traditional" Democrats to throw away the shackles of entitlement promoted by the New Plantation for the far greater promise of an environment friendly to self-reliance.

I'll have to check to see how many times I've ever quoted Strom Thurmond................ Uh, that would be never.

You'll need to grab some utensils. A whole bunch of them. The truth about American Heroes and the States that produce them in by far the highest percentages Can I assume you'll continue your game of refusing to acknowledge the facts laid out in the article regarding our foot soldiers, facts that coincide exactly with those I introduced into the conversation many posts ago? And you might want to cease your adolescent mumbling on about me denigrating New York Vets (a group to which you may want to note I belong) in your drowning attempts to hide your utter lack of any basis to carry on your unsupported side of this discussion. No matter how many times you type it, it remains as much of a lie as the first time you threw it out there.

I didn't realize Mickey had an argument ;-) His M.O. in my experience appears to be to continue typing unsupported allegations and innuendo while completely ignoring irrefutable facts that are offered in contradiction of his positions. Here again he's doing the same- he's unwilling to concede the simple (yet undeniable) fact that Red States produce more military volunteers per capita than New York City. Rational discussion requires willing participants, he's unwilling to explore the facts which makes him far more a belligerent than participant.

You may as well cite Big Bird as Senator Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klansman who is warmly accepted by Democrats as a family elder. Byrd's brains today at his advanced age of 142 fall somewhere between a liquid and solid as a state of mass. Some refer to that as Jello. But hey, you're welcome to bring the brain dead into the conversation! Just make sure to bib him up when you have him over for dinner ;-)

The Big Elms- my first Filet Mignon! Tasty. The little Italian place Sunsets was another Hornell fave.

You can try to say something I never said, but you won't find it in my posts. I was 4 when Kennedy hooked us up in 'Nam. In my teens it was my expectation and desire to go serve in 'Nam and carry on the family tradition, one that dates back to every conflict in this country since we tossed the Brits out. Unfortunately we were on the wrong side in that one, but since we were left behind by the Brits we moved to WNY from NYC which had "recently" become hostile to Tories. We more than made up for that poor judgement over time and I grew up with heavy doses of Victory at Sea with the old man showing me his boat in Kwajeilan, Iwo, invasion of the Philipines, etc. 'Nam didn't hold on long enough for me to get in but I enlisted after college. The question posed is a contemporary one, and knowing what I know now about all the actions we've taken historically, it seems the current conflict is among the top three in citizen and congressional participation and approval. That seems for the most part like a good thing to me and I support it over the covert work the Dems did getting us into Vietnam with no chance to discuss it privately by the Executive Branch. So I did not oppose 'Nam at the time, but it seems fair to speculate 'Nam wouldn't have included the U.S. if the same measures instituted by the Bush Administration for Iraq had been applied to that situation. Libs won't ever admit that the Bush lead up was thousands of times more fair, not to mention desirable, than Kennedys but the fact is it's virtually impossible to structure a cogent argument to the contrary.

You're not one of Tom Reuning's kids are you?

Class of ?

One of my brothers lives on Jericho Hill. You on that side of town?

So let me see if I've got this one figured out- the majority of Americans are influenced to vote for Republicans because they're motivated by fear, soundbites and vitriol- making them: A) cowering B) fools C) easily incited by hate Are you sure you haven't mixed up your party profiles here ? ;-)

You continue to bash the most courageous of Americans by refusing to acknowledge that a kid in a rural state is far more likely to sign up, serve and be killed in Iraq than a kid from New York City. Stand up and admit what is undeniable. Yes or no- can you admit it or not? "I don't protest the war just it's execution". Possibly you missed the last election when the excrutiatingly indecisive John Kerry said "I voted for it before I voted against it." Like his idiotic misstep, you want to have it both ways but it's an outright lie. In wartime you either support or you don't. We have history to show us how it works. In WWII we got nearly across the board national support and it assisted the cause and the homecoming reception for the soldiers in the fight. In 'Nam we got protesters who were directly responsible for American deaths and a horrible legacy of poor treament for the returning soldiers. You'd condemn the current fighting men and women in Iraq to the fate of the 'Nam vet apparently because of your hatred for the President. I won't let you continue the lie here in public without pointing it out. You have become a hypocrite of the highest order talking about lying Bush this and lying Cheney that, yet you promulgate the big liberal lie of contemporary times when you say you can "protest the execution of the war" and support the troops at the same time. It's a flat out lie, you can say it all you want, but history is my proof that you are harming the future of the public acceptance of our returning Vets with your lack of self-control. It's become obvious that you intend refuse to acknowledge those places in this country who lose the highest percentage of uniformed servicepersons. You try to dilute the argument with citizens instead of being honest and hold true to the original discussion about service to the country in our Armed Forces. You don't seek here to offer any exploration, your words instead are left as hollow and false propoganda.

Yeah, Democracy was great before their message was fully analyzed by the public and they began to slip into insignificance ;-) For God's sake stop whining and CHANGE YOUR MESSAGE!

I object when it's done behind our back and we wake up one day reading about our dead somewhere in the world we had no idea we "had a fight with" and who haven't attacked us plus the balance of the governments been locked out of any participation. Youmight go back and study the Democrats way of waging war in this manner, it's called Vietnam. You can also note that it took a Republican to have the quijones get us out. The Iraq War was the opposite: We have a battle with Middle East radicals who attacked us. Failure to recognize this in previous White Houses allowed the attacks to take place in the first place. We had a healthy public debate on taking action, followed by congressional voting that overwhelmingly approved of the decision to go forward. If you've got a problem with this war I suggest you contact your Democratic representatives who almost certainly voted to proceed against Iraq. In H.J. 114 and S.J. 45 Congress didn't merely agree with action against , they URGED the White House to take action. Signed by 77% of Senators and the House by over 70%. What is it about Democracy that you libs hate so much?

The facts don't bear you out, in fact they contradict you completely. Apparently in the heartland of America where the Veteran's Day Parade is an event celebrated by everyone and pride in our military is widespread we have a lot more Americans willing to fight overseas to thwart further attacks on New York City. On the other hand we have people like you paying lip service to "I support the military"- it's BS. You can't support the military and at the same time bad mouth service to your country in a time of war. Ask any 'Nam vet how well that BS works- a full class of heroes reviled by a segment of the population because they couldn't control their emotions or fear enough to support the same vets, leading DIRECTLY to the loss of tens of thousands of lives needlessy if the accounts of the Vietnamese are to be considered accurate. Yeah, anti-war protests are a real boon to those fighting. Try this: History Reality You're wrong on both if you believe protesting the war is a plus for any one of those kids and adults, each one with more courage than that of all the protesters combined. It's the great liberal lie- "It's my right and duty to protest the war". You liberals always talk about this lie or that lie- I'd ask you as a gentleman to stop fomenting this liberal lie. The truth is we know what protest did to the soldiers from 'Nam and we can see the same symptoms of that today in the liberal bastions these bravest of Americans are protecting. Stop the liberal lie. Protesting the war HURTS our fighting forces.

Based upon the links you cited: North Dakota, Population 633,000, 9 servicemen lost in Iraq or one for every 70,000 citizens. New York, Population 19,500,000, 67 servicemen lost in Iraq or one for every 300,000 citizens. Based upon the facts as you supplied them North Dakotans are losing their lives at a rate 4.5 times faster than New Yorkers in Iraq. We can do it with virtually every state in the heartland if you like, the figures don't vary much and there are far more dramatic examples, it's simply that you decided to bash the courage of Dakotans in your posts so I'll offer the facts about them here. Back to your yes or no question- Do you dare to publicly recognize the fact that higher per capital losses are suffered in rural America than in the liberal hotbed of New York City? Yes or No?

If you're in North Hornell you'll find that your window broken by the anonymous baseball came from one of the Mahoney kids. And I'm serious about that!

Gamma Theta Gamma '77

Born at St. James in Hornell and raised in Wellsville. I have family in Hornell on Cleveland Ave., they're among the strongest Bill's Backers in the family.

Mickey's "Look at me hide" Campaign. yawn.. Here's the critical question Mickey- Will you, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, simply acknowledge that far higher percentages of our men and women in uniform come from rural areas of the country versus New York City? It's yes or no. If you continue to ignore the basic facts about the subcultures in our urban versus rural areas you are doomed to the continued political failures that are driving your party towards insignificance.

You say that as if it's a bad thing, yet curiously enough you have clearly fallen lock step behind the religion of liberalism that's led by the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Michael Moore, one who allowed a young girl to drown in his car to save his political hide and the other who has done less for individual Americans than virtually any preacher you'd find in the country. I'm not religious myself but I sure can clearly see the difference between people who devote their lives to improving the lives of others versus those devoted to improving their own. Your position does bring up the question of why, with your difficulties accepting a capitalistic representative democracy, don't you pack and move your family to the socialistic nirvana that your religion pushes on us? Oh, that's right- they've all proven to be utter failures! Socialism is simply a guarantee that all people will be poor

"I think that evidence, that fact, is a far more powerful statement regarding the courage of New Yorkers than uncited service statistics. It is certainly a direct refutation of the "instead allowing" Dakotans to die for them reference in the post. Instead of what? Instead of dying themselves." Your continuing refusal to acknowledge that 5 times as many North Dakotans per capita have died in our uniform in Iraq compared to New Yorkers is an insult to EVERYONE with the courage to serve. Because of your political bias you refuse to recognize that the atmosphere in the "Red States" is more conducive to inspiring the courage it takes to enter that recruitment office or to commit to a tour overseas. And the simple reason in my opinion that you continue to diminish these brave kids is that it's people like you who have created that environment in places like New York City: the exact places at risk that these country kids are dying for. You ignore the obvious, you refute the irrefutable, you hide from the truth. Your embarrassment over your own coddling of the cowardly and rallying for a nation of those who would cower and run after being attacked appears to know no bounds, yet you manifest that embarrassment behind words like "patriotism" and "freedom of speech". Shame on you. And to think that the 9/11 attacks took place in your back yard! All good Americans should make sure their next vacations are in the areas in our country producing the highest percentages of brave soldiers. New York City and San Francisco deserve not a penny of tourist capital from decent, honorable Americans who love their country and remain proud of its will to defend itself and those places that create an environment friendly to the idea of allowing any prospective soldier to make their own decision on whether to join the service in defense of their country.