JimBob2232

The solution seems easy. Start the game at 7PM local time. If its on the west coast, too bad, it starts at 10. if its on the east coast and your on the west coast, it starts at 4.

Buffalo also lost starting free safety Troy Vincent, who hurt his shoulder in the second quarter. Without providing the extent of the injury, the Bills announced Vincent would not return. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5079070

Oh, also look for Greg Jones on the Waiver wire...Fred Taylor is out today

Seriously, who is on waivers. there has to be someone better. Gado? Jacobs? TJ Duckett? Chris Perry, Chester Taylor? Those guys are better plays than who you listed.

I agree, these top of the draft board OL-men have been a bust recently. Williams, McKinney, I dont even think Gallery is doing all that well. If we get a top 10, take DL if the time is right. If you cant take a DL or trade down, I wouldnt mind seeing a CB (assuming clements is gone), or even a LB (which we will have to address in the very near future). Or, (and im going to take some heat for this)...If the big physical WR falls to us, take him. Moulds is eating a huge chunck of the cap, and evans needs the big guy to take some coverage away from him. I hate to think we need a WR since that seems to be all we draft, but we need a big guy, and right now all we have is the aging moulds. BUT...one thing is certain...we MUST upgrade our lines this offseason.

I also think buffalo is safe in this move. It really depends on Ralphs timing (if you know what i mean)

Wow.. he looked good last week too. (note, NOT saying pick him up...) but I was suprised he was cut. With boller hurting, and wright hurting, and kordell looking good...suprising move

Yeah, i went from the all-star, awesome recieving tandom of Chad Johnson/Javon Walker/Darren Jackon/Mike Clayton to starting (no joke) Week 10: (dont laugh) Antonio Chatman Amani Toomer Joe Jurevicious If you told me that was going to be my starting lineup this week...eeks.

I would take him as well. Give him an incentive based contract. Except his incentive is to not talk to any member of the media.

Stop brining this up....PLEASE. Regardless of how you feel about shelton, HE WAS RELEASED. it was a good move for TD not to trade the third for him! Argue all day if you want about not signing shelton, but please STOP with this trading a 3rd rounder for him.

Not to stir things up...but any chance he comes to buffalo next year? Hear me out before you go crazy... 1) The city of Buffalo is similar to green bay. Similar climates and people. 2) JP and Favre seem to have a good relationship, and who better to mentor the kid than his idol. 3) If Favre came back, he would undoubtably want to go to a team on the brink. Our Defense should be solid, he has a ton of weapons on Offense. Everything seems like its a perfect match. Of course, this is assuming he would leave green bay for another team. I think this situation would be as close to ideal as it could get for all paties involved.

Look again...we have one more vs. denver

I wanna kishh you...

Crap its back. I knew it was too good to be true

Anyone else not get the announcers on their HDTV feed? Dont ge me wrong, im not complaining, in fact its great, but im not getting any audio, just the standard game sounds.

Nah, he just found out where mularkey is keeping the stash of cheesburgers.

I want to hate the patriots and everything they stand for...but how can you not like teddy bruschi...

I watched most of this game today. You think our o-line is bad? I am not sure there is a lineman on green bay who could start for us. They are horrible. That said, brett made a few bad tosses, but the lack of timing, lack of healty receivers and his usual RB, it doesnt suprise me. Also, dispite 5 interceptions, he almost led them back to tie the game at the end. Simply amazing that after 5 ints the game was that close

Wait, you just got done telling me that he is innocent until proven guilty, then you go out and say "do you think OJ is innocent, too"? Last I checked he was found not guilty and buying a house in buffalo. Maybe I need to look it up again. We are making a huge mistake if we start making our own decisions independant of what a jury decides, and even a bigger mistake if we are making these decisions based on what we think we know came out of secret grand jury testimony. He may very well be guilty of these crimes, and if he is, he should hang for it. But im taking a wait and see approach for now.

So I guess he is guilty until proven innocent then?

Woah woah woah.... I never said Libby wasnt lying. If he is in fact intentionally lying, he needs to be prosecuted. End of story. But this needs to be proven. And the word of some random attorney is not enough evidence for me to say that he is lying as alleged. I am just choosing to let the process run its course before I make any firm committment either way. It just seems hard for me to believe though, that since there was no crime commited (my opinion, but i think libby and co. agree) why would he lie to cover up a crime that wasnt committed? If you are libby, you go into the grand jury with 2 options. 1) I can lie and hope to get out of here scott free, but if im caught lying I go to jail for a long time or 2) I can tell the truth, get charged with outing a CIA agent, then fight those charges on the basis that the agent was not covert. It seems to be option 2 is the better option. But yes, I would like to see alot more evidence than the press release of a prosecutor before I make these kinds of rash judgements.

I always start off discussions like this by saying I am a conservative, so everyone knows where I am coming from. I dont know that there is a difference between Clinton and Libby. But until we know more about the case, I cannot make that determination. Clinton should have been prosecuted for it, and if Libby also lied and intentionally misled the grand jury, he too should be proscecuted. That said however, there is a big difference between mispeaking or forgetting minute detailes of events that happened years ago, and intentionally misleading a grand jury. It remains to be seen what exactly happened. It appears from the outset that this is a witch hunt. It pains me to see our legal system ripped to shreads as it has been recently. This "we cant charge you with the crime, but we can charge you with covering it up" nonsense needs to go. I was stupid in the Martha Stewart case and, unless it can be proven Libby was lying to cover up a crime, its stupid in this case. It should also be stated, that I dont think a crime was even commited. She worked at the CIA. Her neighbors knew that. Her husband introduced her as "working in the CIA" at parties. She hadnt been on a covert mission in over 7 years (the legal threshold for the crime). So I dont see that there was ever a crime here, until possibly when it went to the grand jury and someone lied under oath. No doubt libby and rove knew (or at least felt) that there was no crime commited. That would have undoubtably been their defense had they been accused of outing a CIA agent. So, knowing that no crime was commited, why would Libby lie to the grand jury to try to cover up a crime that wasnt commited? It just doesnt wash. But, i'll let they legal corse play out and see where it goes from here.

2.21 in va beach - WAWA

If you read the text of Roe v. Wade, you will see that the decision was decided on the basis of "the right to privacy". This so called right is NOT in the constitution. And even though its not there, the majority used the so called "penumbra of the constitution" to try to read between the lines and derive a "right to privacy". What the constitution does however, is provide a means of ammending the constitution, which we have done many times. If we want a right to privacy, let congress put it in the constitution. We have a clear cut method of doing so. We do not have a living, breathing, constitution. If its not there, its not there. And if it should be, add it. The supreme court should not be derriving rights from the constitution. Keep in mind though, that even if roe v. wade was overturned, that would not make abortion illegal (which is how it should be). It would simply mean that states could make their own laws making abortion illegal. I would venture to say that half to 3/4 of the states would maintain current legality of abortion laws. So we have 2 options here... 1) Ammend the constitution to give americans the right to privacy, or 2) Faithfully follow the constitution and Overturn Roe v. Wade and give the issue back to the state level. All this said, i am much more worried about the recent Kelo vs. New London case which gives the government the right to seize private property for economic development.

I think you are making too much out of roe. I personally want roe overturned, not because i am against abortion, but because its bad law. I dont care if you get an abortion. I have my own personal views on the issue, but that shouldnt impact on the law of the land. What should impact the law is legal precedent and the constitution. And the kind of judge who interperets constitutional law they way I feel it should be interpereted is exactly the kind of judge who would overturn roe. I find it funny though how supposedly republicans have a litmus test that you must be pro life to be a SCOTUS Justice, yet it is okay for democrats to come out and vote against any judge who will vote in favor of overturning roe. Its absolutley insane.