Live&DieBillsFootball
-
Posts
1,199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Live&DieBillsFootball
-
-
For the vast majority of patients, Lasik works very well. Unfortunately, a very few people come out of it worse than before they had it done.
I'm legally blind in one eye, so there is no way in hell that I would let anyone try it on my good eye.
-
Or the more likely scenario, "NYSers will stop buying from Amazon effective June 1st". Lots of other places to buy the same stuff from.
-
He can get less than Uncommitted did, which was where he and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote.
Not true. In fact, I'm becoming confident that while he will have the delegate lead at the nomination, she will have the popular vote by a comfortable margin, *even in the accounting scenario most favorable to Obama.*
Here's how it can play out. Obama gets a big win in NC, adding to his total. He has a big win in Montana/SD/whatever, but the number of voters is insignificant. He wins Oregon, but it's only by a few percentage points (mirroring the result in Washington).
Indiana is essentially a draw, the winner winning by only a few points.
Clinton gets big wins in Kentucky and WV. The totals are now pretty close. That leaves... Puerto Rico. I'm expecting a massive turnout of about 2 million people - how often do they have the opportunity to directly effect the political future of the US? And I think it very possible that Clinton wins by 25% - that nets her about 500,000.
You add this stuff up, give Obama votes for the four caucuses who didn't report their totals, leave out MI and FL, and Clinton is still ahead by a few hundred thousand.
According to this chart: Democratic Popular vote counts
If you give Obama the votes for the four caucuses and leave out MI and FL , Obama is ahead by 610,832. I don't see how Clinton can end up ahead by a few hundred thousand votes.
Some of the things I've seen show PR with a turnout of 900,000 - 1,000,000. Do you think that they will actually get 2 million votes? I read somewhere that there are 2.5 million eligible voters and another article talked about their polling places being able to handle 1,000,000 voters. The only poll I saw was on April 8th and Hillary was favored by 13%. Even if there were 2 million and she won by 25%, I still don't see how she can make up the 610,000.
Do you have a link to other info that contradicts the above link?
-
There was time to have a revote in June, but Obama wouldn't agree to it so the proposals couldn't go forward. Include the popular votes in Florida and Michigan, and Hillary is ahead by about 133,000. He didn't want a revote because he figured he would lose by a larger margin than what happened in the first votes.
Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. How could he lose by a larger margin? I love this new spin: If you add in the votes in the states where the votes didn't count, then Hillary moves ahead in the popular vote even though Hillary was the ONLY candidate on the Michigan ballot. She is not even ahead of Obama if they include Florida. And she is also very unlikely to end up with the popular vote even if she gets to keep the Florida votes. Her only chance of being able to say that she won the popular vote is by including a state where she was the ONLY candidate on the ballot. Yeah, that sounds fair.
In summary,
1. She can't possibly win the most delegates.
2. Unless Michigan is counted it is very unlikely that she will win the popular vote.
So at the end of the day, Clinton's argument to the superdelegates will be: No, I didn't win the most delegates. No, I didn't win the popular vote. But I still should be the nominee because I won certain states.
Yeah, that sounds like Democracy in action.
-
W-Sept. 7 Seattle Seahawks 1 p.m.
L-Sept. 14 at Jacksonville Jaguars 1 p.m.
W-Sept. 21 Oakland Raiders 1 p.m.
W-Sept. 28 at St. Louis Rams 4:05 p.m
W-Oct. 5 at Arizona Cardinals 4:15 p.m.
Oct. 12 Bye
L-Oct. 19 San Diego Chargers 1 p.m.
W-Oct. 26 at Miami Dolphins 1 p.m.
W-Nov. 2 New York Jets 1 p.m.
L-Nov. 9 at New England Patriots* 1 p.m.
W-Nov. 17 (Mon.) Cleveland Browns 8:30 p.m.
W-Nov. 23 at Kansas City Chiefs 1 p.m.
W-Nov. 30 San Francisco 49ers 1 p.m.
W-Dec. 7 Miami Dolphins (at Toronto) 4:05 p.m.
W-Dec. 14 at New York Jets 1 p.m.
W-Dec. 21 at Denver Broncos 4:05 p.m.
W-Dec. 28 New England Patriots* 1 p.m.
-
Hypothetical question:
It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet...
Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate.
If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course.
But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's.
Thoughts?
Spoken like a true Clinton supporter. She has NO CHANCE of winning the nomination unless she steals it.
Yeah, and you're right if Clinton loses, it will be the death of Democracy and the end of life as we know it.
It's such a pathetic argument. Hillary was all but given the nomination at the start. She then went on to lose something like 11 states in a row and has no chance of winning the nomination anymore. But now it's all about trying to right a wrong by giving her the nomination because...well...just because. I just wish she and her supporters would STFU.
That's my thoughts.
-
I would go further and enlist prison inmates into the army. You could start with the drug offenders and move on to other low-level inmates. Give them the option of serving their sentence in the army as opposed to prison. We save the $40,000 plus per year to house their asses and make them productive. If they screw up, they go back to jail for the rest of their sentence.
-
Illio's is good, but the best Italian restaurant in Buffalo is Chef's.
-
This is a family that thinks nothing of telling blatant, bald-faced lies to the American people. And no matter how many times the lies are exposed in the Youtube/blogging world, they keep coming up with more. If I were any less cynical about human intelligence, it would boggle my mind how anyone could vote for this lying c--t.
Amen!
-
Bill Maher on abstinence education in 2005:
"New Rule: Abstinence pledges make you horny. In a setback for the morals/values crowd, a new eight-year study just released reveals that American teenagers who take virginity pledges wind up with just as many STD's as the other kids. But that's not all. "Taking the pledge" also makes a teenage girl six times more likely to perform oral sex, and four times more likely to allow anal. Which leads me to an important question: where were these pledges when I was in high school?
So, seriously, when I was a teenager, the only kids having anal intercourse, were the ones who missed. My idea of lubrication was oiling my bike chain. If I had known I could have been getting porn-star sex the same year I took Algebra 2 - simply by joining up with the Christian right - I'd have been so down with Jesus, they would have had to pry me out of the pew.
And, let me tell you, there is a lot worse things than teenagers having sex. Namely, teenagers not having sex. Here is something you'll never hear: "That suicide bomber blew himself up because he was having too much sex. Sex, sex, sex, nonstop, all that crazy Arab ever had was sex, and look what happened." But among the puritans here of the 21st century, the less said to kids about sex, the better. Because people who talk about peepees are "potty-mouths."
And so, armed with limited knowledge and believing that regular, vaginal intercourse to be either immaculate or filthy dirty - these kids did with their pledge what everybody does with contracts. They found loopholes. Two of them, to be exact.
Is there any greater irony than the fact that the Christian right actually got their precious little adolescent daughters to say to their freshly-scrubbed boyfriends, "Please, I want to remain pure for my wedding night, so only in the ass... And then I'll blow you, I promise." Well, at least these kids are really thinking outside the box."
-
The beer sucks but a GREAT commercial:
-
I gotta chime in and agree with the other ladies on this thread. Never. Ever.
Do you know WHY this chick and your friend broke up in the first place? Was it because of her behavior?
You think she's nutty now, I can't imagine what she'd be like if you bang her and toss her over and bang her again.
Fixed it for you.
-
If he broke it by that much he had to be on the juice. I would have them put the "*" next to his name and put yours back up as the non-cheating record holder.
-
Bang her once or twice and then tell her that you're just not into her. This way you get to bang her and your friend never finds out about it.
Or, bang her and tell her that you're not into a relationship but she can call you late at night for booty calls.
If your buddy ever finds out you tell him that you were drunk or that she came over naked and threw herself at you. You feel terrible and would never do it again. Or tell him that you didn't nail her but that she is a psycho and a liar and show him the text messages etc as proof.
You might as well tap it before she tries one of his other friends instead of you.
-
My bet Kraft's attorneys are making life uncomfortable for Walsh, with the promise to turn the heat up even more if he spills the beans. The bad guys win again.
PTR
Or, Kraft's attorney's are going to make very comfortable for Walsh. What are the odds that Kraft may try to buy the tapes or pay Walsh to shut up? Don't you think that Kraft would offer this guy a million bucks to forget that this silly incident ever happened?
I don't care what happens. The Pats* will forever be known as cheating scum.
-
Well, I don't think that you can get away with calling them whores, because who other than Bill or Mr Ferraro would want to do them.
Now if she had called then C*nts, that would have been much more accurate, and it would have been harder to fire her over telling the truth.
-
-
That's unbelievable. I'm sure that Poojer can fix it though.
-
As for the play returning to pre-lockout....it was headed that way by the 2nd half of last year. The '06 playoffs were called loose, but the Sabres had more grit then with Dumont, Grier, Pyatt, and McKee. After the All-Star numbers came in last year, and it was shown that reruns of Essence With Emeril outdrew the All-star game in viewers, and that was with 30% of the viewers from Buffalo.....Bettman gave the order to go to a more traditional game. While fans were showing up to the Arenas in terms of revenue, the real revenue stream, TV contracts, were in the dumps as fans couldn't even bother to try and find Versus on their system, if it was even carried in the first place. The NHL was actually losing long term revenue opportunities by trying to get too fancy.
Instead of understanding what was happening, the Sabres closed their eyes, crossed their fingers and hoped for the best. You still hear them whine about how games are called. They got lucky with the rule changes for 18 months, then didn't adapt back to a more traditional game.
As for signing Drury, Briere, Campbell, DuMont, McKee, (not Grier since he was gone no matter what)....true, they couldn't afford everyone at the prices the players were eventually signed to. BUT....if Regier had any foresight, all could currently be on the team. He makes trades for players that turn out to be good deals, yet he doesn't take advantage of that ability by signing guys to long term deals ahead of their breakout. If you are so confident the guy is better than what you are giving up....put your money where your mouth is. Darcy would look brilliant if he had any balls. He just sits back and watches.
McKee...offered to sign for 4 years $10 million before his last season here. Ended up leaving for $4 mil per year.
Briere....offered to sign for $5 million a year long term before his arbitration. Sabres said no. Briere wins case. Sabres panic and start signing all arbitration cases to contracts to avoid the process. Afinigenov, Connolly, Kotalik....$2.5-3 million each per year. WHich leads to:
Dumont....offered to sign for $2.5 per year long term. Only player Sabres take to arbitration. He gets awarded and has to walk after Sabres opened the piggy bank out of fear. Dumont signed for $2 million at the end of free agency when teams were tapped out, but now just signed an extension for $4 million per.
Drury...agreed to verbal 4 year $22 million. Sabres dallied around for 2 weeks as Drury went on a hot streak and risked injury as he led the Sabres to a 5-1 record by the time the front office came to him with a written contract. He said..no thanks..we'll talk later, as his stock continued to rise. The Sabres could have very well used that information of what Drury would sign for, and shopped around for prices on other potential free agents, or even shopped for a trade knowing they could commit a price on a contract to another club. Drury ends up signing for $7 mill per with NY.
Campbell....offered to sign 5 years $25 mil before the season. Sabres balk, but offer same amount 7 months later after another AllStar game.
If all these guys were in the fold, we could have let Vanek walk for 4 #1 picks, or there is a good chance Lowe wouldn't toss up a hail mary because we weren't in a position of weakness.
In summary...here are the numbers we could have all of these players under contract for this year, and what they actually make.
McKee $2.5 $4.0
Dumont $2.5 $4.0
Briere $5.0 $10.0
Drury $5.5 $7.0
Campbell $2.0/$5.0 next year.......will make $6-7 mil
Vanek 4#1's $10 million
Who would you rather have?
Vanek, Connolly, Kotalik and Afinogenov?
or:
Drury, Briere, Campbell, Dumont, McKee, 4 1st round picks?
Regier+Quinn chose Door#1
Good Post!
Most of the problems are lack of foresight. Darcy never saw the big change to long-term contracts until it was too late and then sat on his hands. I don't know how much was TG's fault or if he is just a new fan of the game who gave all of the decision making to his so-called experts. Whoever was in charge made some of the worst decisions in the history of salary caps.
A couple of other points:
Whoever made the decision to share Rochester was also very short-sighted. We could have had a lot more prospects nearing the NHL instead of spending an extra year in college or junior hockey.
Remember a couple of years ago when the Sabres had Ryan Miller, Biron & Noronen. For the last 2 years we have had Miller and the cheapest guy they can find as a backup. Then they make the decision to have Miller play every game. I just feel that if they had a decent backup, Miller would have been better if he had played less than 60 games. His numbers have really suffered in March when we needed him the most.
-
And, I might point out, losses that *may* never happen, too. If you own a AAA mortgage bond right now, you have, most likely, taken a huge hit due to mark-to-market. You have also been getting your principal and interest payments every month, on time. No actual losses... yet.
It would seem to me that due to the huge drops in all bonds, that someone would see a buying opportunity in the better quality stuff. Unless thy're unsure as to whether AAA are really AAA.
-
Just like there's generally a misconception about PATRIOT (it mostly threw together existing laws and regulations into one sweeping law at the federal level), the proposed rules by Paulson will look to streamline the regulations that affect the financial firms. If you looks at existing regulations it's a hodge podge of patchwork rules that have been put in place over time. Compounding is the evolution of financial transactions, but no effective way to normalize the regulation among competing firms.
Case in point, the biggest reason people were screaming about Fed's actions on Bear Stearns is that BS was not a bank, thus not eligible for direct funding. In order to qualify for fed funding a bank needs to comply with minimum capital requirements and Fed oversight of its books. As a securities firm, BS didn't have that, yet still got access to funding, to which traditional bank objected. On the other hand, since they're regulated differently, banks can hold assets on its books at different values than a securities firm like BS, even though the asset is the same. To securities firms, this accounting accounting treatment is unfair, as the securities need to reflect the current value, while banks can keep those assets at the historic cost until they sell the assets. This gives banks a huge advantage during market turmoil.
So as you can see, it's not an easy solution, but regulatory parity is one positive step to fixing the mess. Paulson won't be proposing any new rules, just making sure that there's more consistency in regulation across the markets. I'm guessing there will be more complaints from the handful of regulators' losing power than from the financial industry.
Isn't this because the banks are classifying the assets as held-to-maturity while the securities firms are holding them for sale which forces them to mark to market? If the securities firm was holding a secrity to maturity, do they get to treat it as such or do they always have to mark to market? If that was the case then it is indeed unfair.
However, I wouldn't think that securities firms would want to hold long term assets to maturity. Don't they want to be more liquid and have the ability to buy and sell frequently?
-
I didn't finish the article but it's very interesting how a lot of players used to think Buffalo is a sad hole and then end up spending their lives there. (I.E. Jim Kelly and Steve Tasker) I believe the Kelly's and Tasker's are changing the attitude of NFL players. The Bills don't seem to have a huge problem signing FA's even when the weather is factored in. The city charms them and the players embrace the community. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if someone spends a day or week in Buffalo they may walk away believing the nay-sayers. When someone lives there for a long time they are introduced to the true spirit and culture of the city and all of western New York and they understand that you have to experience something before making a judgement.
You have to remember that the article was written when the Bills played at War Memorial Stadium. This was also before Buffalo got the Sabres and Braves. The trashing of the old Rockpile was actually charitable to those who had the (mis) fortune to attend games there. I always heard that the players locker rooms and amenities were horrible also. Good thing that there was no free agency as not many players would have selected Buffalo and the Rockpile as their preferred home.
I wonder if the Bills would be in more trouble now if they had built a 60,000 seat dome stadium back then. By now, it would be very much out of date and the lower capacity would only be making it harder to justify keeping the team.
-
Where, oh where, are the liberal champions of individual rights? You know, the ones I always hear about when something like "free speech" is being violated. Quick, let's use some specious "word play" argument to toss out the 2nd Amendment.
We're all VERY lucky that these idiots weren't around when people were taking up their own arms against England...
Where, oh where, are the strict constructionist judges that the conservatives love. Good thing that they don't take literally the part about a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
We're all VERY lucky that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia turn out to be activist judges when the conservatives want them to be...
-
Schedules Reviewed by ABC Show Hillary May Have Been in the White House When the Fateful Act Was Committed.
Hmm. Maybe she was sitting by the red phone?
I guess that goes against her vast experience in those eight years. Hell, she wasn't even the one servicing the President let alone jointly making all of the Executive decisions.
Tomorrow, Hillary will break out her own stained wardrobe to show that she truly was "on the job" during the White House years.
The End of the Democrats?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
In the first paragraph, you say that it is reasonable to guess that she will pick up 500,000 in PR and then in your recap you give her 600,000 and that puts her up by 130,000. So if we use your "reasonable" guess of 500,000, she would only be up by 30,000. Personally, I think that the above are quite optimistic on Hillary's part. Everything besides PR would need to be even and an absolutely huge win in PR would be needed to accomplish it.
Even if the above happens, she still wouldn't be able to close much of the gap in delegates.
Of course, if she doesn't meet the above, I'm sure that she will come up with some other rationale for her being the nominee.