KurtGodel77

Sam Aiken looked good today. If he keeps this up, we could go into next year with Aiken and Evans lining up as our two starting WRs. We need to do something to get under the cap, and Moulds' $8 million cap figure is an obvious candidate for trimming.

Even if, by some miracle, we did make the playoffs, think of the consequences. The Bills would be on the road, against a playoff team.

There are fair use laws which give consumers certain rights. If I buy a book, fair use laws allow me to lend it to a friend, regardless of what a publisher says. If I buy a tape or CD, I'm allowed to make a backup copy. The problem with laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is they restrict technology that has legitimate fair use purposes. For instance, if I buy a DVD, I might want to burn a backup copy. This activity is a protected right. However, companies use encryption software to deny me this right, and the person who made the DVD decryption software (which allowed me to get around the software protection) will be prosecuted. I agree that piracy is a threat to the intellectual property industry. On the other hand, major media and software companies have abused their power, by 1. Creating overly restrictive licenses 2. Forcing people to view too many ads 3. Using technology to prevent the fair use of their products allowed by law Take cable television for example. In the beginning, the idea was you paid a monthly fee to avoid seeing ads. Now, the main cable channels all have ads. The fact there is now a device to allow consumers to skip these ads doesn't bother me. Consumers are getting--and should be getting--a little more power in their relationship with content providers. Content providers will just have to adapt, by relying on those monthly cable fees, by increasing the use of product placements, and by making commercials interesting. It seems a lot of advertisers try to hit you with the same commercial over and over again in some effort to brainwash you. This complete lack of effort to even try to entertain their audience shows the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of corporations, and needs to swing back towards consumers.

The opposite of "racial preservation" is "racial elimination." Of the two, I happen to prefer preservation. I'm sorry if this preference strikes you as ominous.

I'm not sure where you got that idea. The world's races have been separated from each other for 100,000 years. Humans have been separated from chimpanzees for 3 million years. I'm not saying that some races are more like chimpanzees than others!! But clearly, there is a biological difference. I remember being told there were no biological differences between men and women, except for the obvious ones. We now know this was a bunch of Leftist propaganda. Just like the Left's pronouncements about race. Our differences are what give us dignity. No man wants to be called feminine, and no woman wants to be called unfeminine. Racial differences are the same: such differences help promote cultural differences, making the world a richer, more diverse place than it would be if we were all homogenized.

You are basically demanding the right to spread moral indecency everywhere, without regard for the rights of those who don't want to be subjected to this kind of onslaught. If you go for instance to Las Vegas, you will be bombarded with sexual imagery no matter how strongly you try to avoid it. There are extremely suggestive billboards to be seen as you walk or drive down the road. If you look through the Yellow Pages, at some point you'll catch glimpses of the dozens and dozens of pages of scantily clad women that are in them. If you simply want to buy food, you'll wind up seeing sexually suggestive magazines at the check-out counter. None of this can possibly be considered art. It is mental conditioning, pure and simple. Astronauts noted they didn't think as much about sex while up in space, because they were away from all this junk. Others might want to avoid this mental conditioning themselves. To pretend the rights of these people are being respected--or even noticed--is completely laughable. In theory, it would be possible to create a television show with artistic merit. Nothing I've seen has led me to believe this is actually being done. The argument, after all, is about television, something that is being broadcast into people's homes. If someone chooses to go to an art store and purchase a replica of the statue of David, or if someone chooses to go to the movie store and rent a pornographic or artistically erotic video, it's not broadcasting. It's people deciding for themselves what standards of decency they choose to employ or not employ. The problem is when you demand that society in general adopt your standards of indecency. This is pretty much what's happened: people who lead normal lives are being subjected to a bunch of filth they didn't seek out and often don't want.

Someone else complained about the fact the U.S. currency is weak. I'm not sure what the strength of the dollar has to do with television executives abusing their power, but I'll address the issue anyway. The U.S. is running at a trade deficit, meaning the American people are collectively spending more than we are earning. This means other countries have to produce more than they consume, so the surplus can be shipped to us. Nobody will ship us a surplus out of the goodness of their hearts: they will insist on getting something in return. That something can be money we borrow now and promise to repay later, or it can be land, or stock in American companies. But it has to be something of value, something that is expected to produce money in the long-term. In other words, America's trade deficit today is gradually making us poorer. Trade deficits are supposed to erase themselves over time. The market mechanism for this is currency pricing: a trade deficit causes your currency to lose value. That makes it more expensive for your people to buy imported goods, while making your exports less expensive to people in other countries. A weak U.S. dollar is therefore a good thing, because it will help us get out of this trade deficit. In fact, the dollar should continue to weaken, until the U.S. balance of trade is neutral or positive.

One of the posters appears fixated on the fact that the skit was intended to be humorous. Basically, his argument was this (more or less): "it was funny, so it's okay. Lighten up." Well, jokes about blacks are intended to be funny too. Polish jokes were originated by those who wanted to throw the Polish people into contempt. Blonde jokes were originated by those who wanted to portray blondes as inferior, as a counter to Nazi propaganda. In each of these three cases, humor is being used to promote a view that is anything but humorous. If your mother, sister, or daughter told you she was planning on having casual sex with a celebrity, it would be anything but funny.

From reading the comments on this thread, I sense confusion about does or doesn't constitute racism. Thinking that your own race is better than everyone else's is racism. Thinking that your own race (and the world's other races!) should be preserved is not. Many oppose interracial marriage because that leads to the gradual elimination of races. This is a perfectly legitimate opinion that has nothing to do with racism.

I don't see the relevance of this post to the issues at hand. This country faces many problems, but no sane person would consider an excess of moral decency to be one of them. I too support creative freedom, but the whole point of creative freedom is creativity. How much creative programming do you see? If anything, the fixation on sex and shock this society has developed has drowned out the creativity that existed during television's so-called Golden Age. Differing opinions are indeed part of the Founding Fathers' vision for this country. Sadly, they have little to do with the way network executives traditionally act. With the broadening of the news media, views other than hard core liberal ones can finally be expressed.

19 people were executed in the Salem witch trials, and another died during interrogation. Let's assume that all 20 people were innocent. Well, the Puritan theocracy began in 1620, and ended in 1692 as a result of the Salem witch trials. 20 deaths in 72 years of rule is too many, but it's a lot better than some other countries. Take the Soviet Union. During the period from 1917 until Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union murdered roughly 54 million innocent people. (Another 7 million were murdered in the post-Stalin era.) The Lenin/Stalin period produced the equivalent of the Salem witch trials (20 innocent deaths) every seven minutes The point here is that the blood guilt of the Christian right has been exaggerated for political reasons, and the blood guilt of the Soviet Union has been understated for the same reason.

I'm not sure where you picked up your ideas about why the Pilgrims left Europe. They initially left England to go to Holland, because the former had become too corrupt, and their children were being exposed to too many bad influences. Things started off well in Holland, but over time the children started to learn to speak Dutch, and became an increasing part of what the Pilgrims regarded as a corrupt Dutch society. That's when the Pilgrims set sail in the Mayflower for Virginia. However, navigation was not that good in those days, so instead of arriving in Virginia, the Mayflower arrived at a location near Plymouth Rock in the fall of 1620. During the ensuing winter, roughly half the 101 initial settlers died from disease, hunger, and the cold. In the spring of 1621, when the Mayflower set sail for England, not one Pilgrim was on board! They stayed, because they believed the ultimate act of love they could provide to their children was to carve out an environment best suited to making them good, innocent people.

This isn't about a woman's naked back. It's about the kinds of images and examples television uses to brainwash the American people. It's about television abusing its power to define what is and isn't normal. There was no positive message in that commercial. There was nothing here except an attempt to define "normal" and "glamourous" in ways that preclude young women from living with dignity. No sane father wants his daughter to act this way. There wouldn't be so much talk of censorship if the American mainstream media wasn't doing everything in its power to convince us it's on a crusade to degrade the moral character of this nation. If anyone has a problem with the phrase "moral character" of a nation, I suggest educating yourselves about what happened to the Roman Empire after it lost its moral character. Base your arguments on historical knowledge, rather than typical Leftist ignorance.

RJ

Jerry Gray should have learned that lesson a long time ago. There are successful defensive coordinators-turned unsuccessful head coaches out there who need employment. Dave McGinnis is one of them. We should replace Gray with a guy like him.

I read that, next year, Drew will cost us $4 million in cap space if we cut him, but $6.5 million or so if we keep him. If we cut him after June 1, he will cost us $2 million against next year's cap, and $2 million for the year after that.

Back in the early '90s, the 49ers had a QB controversy: they had to choose between Joe Montana (the greatest QB ever), or Steve Young, the QB with the highest single-season passer rating ever. I bet they thought they were special. Well, guess what: they're not the only ones to have had a QB controversy! We happen to be stirring up a little bit of controversy ourselves. On the one hand, you have a player whose three plays consisted of a sack, a fumble, and an interception. On the other, you have a QB who got a rating of 14. Now this is a QB controversy!!!

If you watch Mularkey as a player, he was NEVER indifferent to the way things turned out. I have a hard time believing he left that part of himself behind when he went into coaching. Just because he doesn't do a lot of growling and snarling when he's interviewed by the media doesn't mean that he doesn't do this when he's in the locker room.

The thing about style is this: you have to look cool, indifferent to how things turn out. The Bills certainly looked that way.

Mostly, because it looks better to lose 29-6 than it does 49-6. The first score has more style, at least if you're the losing team. If there's one thing we had yesterday, it was style.

Yes, but all this would have led to a higher margin of victory for the Patriots.

Thanks for the compliments!

I'd say my 2nd favorite AFC team is the Steelers. I'd LOVE to see the Steelers beat up on the Pats in the playoffs. Why I hate the Patriots so much I don't know. I mean, Belichick is the kind of HC/GM I'd want in charge of the Bills. Tom Brady is the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry (assuming Brady's not gay, that is). The Patriots are about self-sacrifice and teamwork. I was actually rooting for the Patriots to beat the Steelers back when the Pats were on their way to their first Super Bowl win. But that was before Belichick got all the hype, back when Kordell Stewart was the most overrated and overhyped QB in the league. I guess part of the reason I've changed my mind about the Patriots is that their success comes at Buffalo's expense. In fact, that's a LOT of the reason why I've changed my mind. If the Patriots were in some obscure division, like the NFC South, maybe I'd still be rooting for them.

Instead of dwelling on the negatives of last night's New England game, I may as well talk about the positives. Eric Moulds threw an excellent block on McGahee's 11 yard run. He blocked as well as an offensive lineman. That's a good thing, because our offensive linemen blocked as well as wide receivers. This isn't to take anything away from our offensive line's play. At some point in the game, one of the offensive linemen may have thrown a block. I also noticed that several of Drew's passes seemed to have been thrown in the general vicinity of Buffalo players. There was even one passing play where Drew took a quick look at someone other than Eric Moulds! The positives in this game weren't all on offense. On defense, there appeared to be times when some of the members of our secondary were attempting to cover Patriots' receivers. There was probably a play where the first Buffalo defender to make contact with a Pats RB actually made the tackle. But the highlight of this game was our punting unit. When you think about it, all our drives ended in a turnover, loss of the ball on downs, or a punt. Of those three options, the punt is the best, because it gives you the most field position. We need field position, because that way we get to watch the Patriots drive 70 - 80 yards instead of 30 - 40. Another positive from this game is that we got to hear nice things about Tom Brady, Corey Dillon, and the Patriots' coaching staff. It was good to hear those kinds of comments constantly and mindlessly repeated throughout the game by apparently braindead announcers. Honest. Not once did I hope for a total Patriots' collapse to make those announcers look like the pompous idiots they were. I really wasn't annoyed with them at all. Our own coaching effort was brilliant. Just brilliant. You have a guy like Ross Tucker, who is tough as nails, really smart and loves the game of football. He fits the profile of a Patriots player to a T, and the Patriots have an excellent offensive line. So why not bench Tucker (who was dominant last week against the Jets) in favor of the unsuccessful Lawrence Smith? Then there was Jerry Gray's brilliant effort against Charlie Weis. . . . Or take Tom Clements' decision to put the game in Bledsoe's hands. That one made a lot of sense, considering the succeess Bledsoe usually enjoys on the road, as well as against the Patriots. It's not like handing the ball to McGahee has ever gotten us anywhere. Our field goal unit didn't miss a kick or an extra point. I admit that their effort would have been more impressive had they actually attempted a kick or an extra point, but you have to take what positives are there. There is no way anyone can blame this loss on Ryan Lindell.

I voted "other" for the TD stinks comments.