MPT

They are, and they're very easy to look up.

General is another one I did not think of. I listed those other ones because 25 / 44 presidents have had law degrees and 16 were U.S. senators. 12 have been generals so that would also be relevant. Only one has never been elected to any previous public office or served in the military. It's the same one you mentioned in the second point.

Actually, a lot of those were convictions. A lot were settlements. And yes, paying hush money from campaign funds is a crime.

Yes, Governor would be another one. My point was just that Obama held many of the same credentials / positions as many previous presidents and thus he had plenty of relevant experience, which the other poster insinuated that he did not. Claiming that being a community organizer was his only experience is an insult to his achievements and it's just ignorant defamation.

Tax fraud (many times over) Charity fraud Sexual assault / harassment Campaign finance fraud Violations of the fair housing act Casino fraud Lobbying violations Financial reporting violations There are many more. Basically every aspect of his business and personal life is a massive crime report. He has been convicted of many of these. Others are still ongoing.

Wow...

Are those not relevant experiences? You also left out Columbia and Harvard Law graduate, civil rights attorney, professor of constitutional law, and Illinois State Senate representative. That's basically the best resume you can have to become the President, aside from holding a cabinet position. Anyway, if Trump broke the law with regard to his bid, he deserves to suffer the same punishment that anyone else would. Considering he's already gotten away with a litany of offenses that other citizens would be in jail for, I don't see this going anywhere.

I'd rather see that fan deflect the kick midair with a well thrown *****.

Call me when there's nocturnal emissions.

Shouldn't the "gathering of opinions" have been done months ago? Shouldn't they be at the "heavily recruiting" stage right now? Also, looks like he's signing with Detroit.

I mean, yeah, Rosenhaus could be lying. I still think it's most likely that the Bills weren't willing to pay as much as the Raiders. But still, the idea that Brown simply wouldn't come to Buffalo is pure speculation and overly pessimistic. There's no evidence for it whatsoever. It's not like Brown would be afraid to mince words about it if that's how he felt.

"You know what? I don’t know that there was ever an option for us quite frankly," Rosenhaus said. "We never got in that position and it really wasn’t something that was up to us to decide. I don’t think the Steelers and the Bills were able to work something out.” Brown didn't turn down the Bills.

If Beane worked out a deal with the Steelers and then told Rosenhaus he wouldn't give Brown the highest WR salary, then it's definitely Beane walking away. That's what it looks like right now. I don't think Beane offered Brown $19 mil / year and Brown turned it down. That would be the only way you could see it as a rejection. Again, I think it has less to do with playing in Buffalo than it does Beane not giving him the moon. If that's the case, I think Beane should be applauded for sticking to his guns instead of breaking the bank.

I rarely agree with you about football topics, but I totally understand this comment. A lot of people around here simply can not handle criticism. I wish we could have debates without one side resorting to the "you're not a real fan" trope. I also agree with you that the Bills are probably not at the top of a lot of offensive playmakers' lists due to their own actions (or inactions). However, I'm still glad he didn't end up here. He might have been a great player for us, but he also could have just been another malcontent. Wasn't worth the risk to me, considering the salary he'd demand. Brown was a sixth round pick-- there's no reason we can't find our own guy in the draft. Let's just hope they do.

Yikes. Overreaction indeed. How is it that some some people can disagree with one thing the coach said and all of a sudden they're a Bills-hating pitchfork mob? Someone clearly thought it was an important enough topic to make a thread about, so why not debate it?

"Can't even respond." Then don't. I'll make it very simple for you: you can't show me a "fire the coach" post in this thread because it doesn't exist. You'd be hard-pressed to find one in the entire message board. Just because someone disagrees with something the coach says does not mean they're never happy or that they want the coach fired. Un-wad your panties and make an actual argument if you disagree.

Show me one post where someone demanded a firing please.

I never said that either. In fact, I explicitly took that into account in all of my posts because I know some people have a hard time understanding simple arguments. Take your own advice and learn to read before you reply. Maybe try formulating some points of your own instead of just attacking what people didn't say.

I mean the one that we're talking about in this thread. Thought that would be understood.

If you take all of last year's scores that didn't hit 21 and turn them into 21, we still miss the playoffs. Note that this means we still have 5 scores above 21 and our average PPG is 24. Also note that this means they accomplished their goal every single week and never failed. It's not a winning strategy if you do it perfectly and still don't even make the playoffs or top ten in scoring.

You may be astonished to know that some pro-McDermott people think his stated philosophy on scoring is fatally flawed as well.

Read my first post. Scoring a minimum of 21 points a game (and even far exceeding that number in multiple weeks) wouldn't even guarantee a .500 season. So how am I an idiot for wanting to do better than that? Sorry, I didn't think the idea of scoring enough points to make the playoffs would offend you so much.

Well yeah, because that was assuming the Bills hit McDermott's minimum every single week. Teams have bad weeks and don't achieve their goals on offense sometimes, which brings their average down. Your comment only further solidifies my point. You're saying that if the Bills exceed McDermott's stated goal every single week without fail they are still barely scratching a top third offense.

I was not talking about an average of 21. Let's do some hypotheticals. In the Bills' losses last year, they could have scored 37, 30, 21, 21, 27, 24, 31, 22, 26, and 23. That's at least 21 in each game for an average of 26.2. That puts them at 8-8 (and I'm being generous giving them a win against the Dolphins at 22-21). They still would have missed the playoffs and lost by double digits 3 times. If, however, McDermott were to say the goal was at least 25 per game, you're now talking about a MINIMUM record of 10-5-1 in those same games. I just think it sets a bad tone when the coach sets the bar so low. Don't basically tell the media your goal every game is to have at least a mediocre offense and hope it works out sometimes. Do you think Belichick has EVER said he wanted to at least score 21 points every game? Absolutely not. That's a low standard and McDermott should know better.

I think you're right that some people assumed he meant an average. However, I would still be concerned that his goal is to hit 21 points per game. Yes, that would mean an average over 21. Except the thing is, hitting at least 21 is still a pretty low bar. Someone else already mentioned that we would have only won one more game if we hit that every game. Would have still missed the playoffs. The point is, he needs to set higher expectations for his team and himself.