TPS

Ok, who hacked my account last night? Buurrrrpppp!!!!

Anyone who says no is an idiot or a plant from another board. It's obvious the Bills are on the right track. Yes, there are some issues, but this is a team on the upswing, and they will fight for a playoff spot next year. I'm willing to bet a good bottle of red wine ($20) with any naysayer on this. 9 wins as the cut off next year. Less than 9 wins I'll buy; more than 9 wins you buy; 9 wins is a push. Post it here. Money sent to a TBD moderator held in trust.

Ucla cheerleaders are a good start...

So you're saying I should stop voting for alternative party candidates?

I guess you don't know that corporations are (always) good. It's disturbing on many levels--making farmers seed-dependent, destruction of the seed diversity, creation of a monopoly (what happened to anti-trust?), etc.

He was a very late round pick mainly because of his size, and the knock on him was that he would have trouble against big receivers in the NFL. His positives were described as very quick in short and intermediate area, and excellent read and react. When I read up on him after the draft, this was one of my thoughts--sounds like a guy who could eventually match up with Welker. We'll see.

Hopefully J-Rogers will be lining up against Welker this Sunday. Rogers' skills are a good match for Welker, though I expect Welker's experience will school the kid in this first match up. Next year though...

This game is rigged! Since the world will end on 12/21/12, you won't need to pay off a winner...

Reading the negatives from that post, he sounds like one A.Maybin...

While the Bills did not land any Pro Bowlers, there are a few that made this list, one on offense will surprise! My link

Regarding this quote from the Oleans Times piece off the front page: Maybe this has been one of their problems all season? Sometimes you need to keep it simple stupid. Of course, that would be an indictment of Edwards as well. The defense has one of their better games when you simply let them play...

A little support for this view in this article: My link What caught my interest though is another comment, about something I've been wondering--the defense simplified things and only ran a few different sets. Given the switching between 3-4/4-3, I've been wondering if the complexity has taken a toll? I was thinking the defense probably needs to do exactly that, simplify, and allow them to play without thinking so much. A little late now though...

I had them as a possible turn around team at 10-6, but I provided the caveat that Merriman and Bell stay healthy. The Bills also didn't have enough experienced depth to recover from some other key injuries--Williams (and his backup Troup); and I think Fitz is the kind of QB that needs familiarity with his WRs--losing Parrish, Easley, and Jones hurt a lot.

I finally decided to pick against them in Pick'em this week, but solely to provide good luck. I picked the Bills in all games since the Jets game, so I am also responsible for the previous 3 losses...

Who I was alluding to as well.

Thanks, I appreciate the summary. I'm throwing things out there based on stats, and was waiting for those who have some analysis of game.

Glad to see this big win by the Bills. Despite all the hopefulness of a great draft position, the player the Bills should draft will be there at 12-15, one of the top OLB pass rushers.

Btw, Kelsey stood up for Edwards in the paper, and his stats make it look like he had a great game, so that's one of the reasons that makes me raise the ??

Answering the question: since I didn't get to hear post-game as well, AND there was the article in the B-News pro-Edwards; I'm wondering if there was any idication by the defense after the game that was pro-Edwards?

I didn't see the game, but it seems the defense had a statement game. Any relation to the article in support of Edwards, or just random?

I know you wouldn't want to take my word for it, so here's an essay by the chief economist of Citigroup: The pertinent parts: And.. Willem Buiter So, in fact, anyone who had to put macroeconomics into practice over the past several years realizes the harm caused by the dominant "traditional" economic theory.

It could be harmful based on its wrong-headed policy implications; and it sure as hell is not realistic. The traditional model excludes debt financing by the private sector, which explains why no one who works within its framework predicted the crisis. The majority of economists who predicted it were either post keynesians (influenced by Minsky) or Austrians. Macroeconomics is in the midst of a paradigm shift, away from the so-called "traditional model."

Proves the point--the financial crisis provided the grist for the rumor mills. But you are correct, even a well-regulated banking sector is prone to crises, just not the same magnitude of one that's poorly regulated. Sovereign, private or both?

Bank runs are a sympton of a crisis, not a cause. Those who bet on Volatility. I admit I laughed out loud at that. Let us all bow down now...and give thanks...

I guess I should ignore the corrupt system given that I'm doing fine? The crisis exposed the system for what it is--Trillions of dollars of direct and back door bailouts by the central bank that serves the big banks. "YOu !@#$ up, we got your back." Privatized gains and socialized losses. Even "regular people" can see through facade now. People are pissed and they are not going to take it any longer. Ron Paul's support is coming from more than the Tea Party now. Feeling the threat, corporate media is starting the attacks. I've seen two attack pieces in the last couple days on Bloomberg. Also, it's not just finance, but a whole host of big industries that pay for protection from the whores in DC. Is there anyone here who wants to defend this corrupt system?