Paco

You actually raise an interesting question. The truth is, there likely WOULD be more of an outcry, but it's doubtful we'll "ultimately" react any differently than we do when a man is beheaded. Once the horror has passed, it's time to turn the TV on. One problem these guys have with beheading everyone: There will, unfortunately, come a time...if that time isn't already here...when we will barely react at all to another beheading. Once something becomes commonplace to Americans, we just accept it, and go back to our lives.

I'm quickly learning that is not this guy's M.O. When he has nothing else to say, he apparently either slams where you're from or slams what you do for a living. He must really be an incredible individual, given his ability to stand in rash judgement of people he's never met.

Sad to say, this is the most coherent criticism of the team today. It doesn't even deserve an OT in front of it, based on all the other stuff being posted.

AND they expect a guy who has been with the team for four weeks...a guy who was doing NOTHING just prior to being called up...to provide a spark to the team. Matthews will provide a spark alright, and you'll be able to smell the fire from miles away when the team goes up in smoke. Impatient moronic ranting. The entire world seems to have forgotten that one single non-Bledsoe related play in both games and the Bills are 2-0 and you'd all be standing around bitching about Lindell.

If by coaches you actually mean "morons," then yes, you are right, the morons would have benched him by then. They SHOULD have benched him right after he blew the coverage on Gannon's bomb for the TD. Or they should have benched him everytime he committed a holding penalty during kick returns. Or they should have benched him after he couldn't punch the ball in on fourth and one. That's what a moron does. He benches the person who is not solely and completely responsible for losing.

Excellent. Typical slice of Americana. When things go wrong, find someone to blame.

Can't speak to his attitude or how odd of a bird he is, but "Tea for the Tillerman" has been with me since childhood, and is far and away a great album that I'll always take with me.

I can't believe how wrong you guys all are. What's happening is clearly to the benefit of the Republican party, but that's the best part about it. They don't need to push this along. It'll take a life of it's own because CBS put a big fat ding in whatever credibility is left in the media. Do you think the rest of the media is just going to let that go by without being challenged? They'd be dead in the water. They have to attack their competition, to make it look like they're doing a responsible job, as well as to steal the viewers away from CBS. Oddly enough, I'd be willing to bet that CBS wins because anyone interested in this story will probably make an effort to watch Dan Rather on CBS to see what the hell he'll do next? Is he really biased? Those interested in the story will likely tune in to find out. Oh, look. More viewers. Higher ad fees. Get it while you can because when the story passes, CBS will be begging for viewers, and that will be the end of Dan Rather. This isn't political. It just has a political topic involved. Outside of that, what you're watching SHOULD be a competitive bloodbath for CBS as a result of pissing all over an already suspect business: the media.

Oh, please. So I speak my mind about something and suddenly I'm a mindless moron, everyone is flipping me the bird, and now you want them to change stevestojan to Paco? Christ, when did this board get so pussified? Oh, wait, I think it was right after some genius decided that our team is so bad that we should give Jeff George a look. And I'M the mindless moron. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: one and all. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

In the future, could you please preface your post with an (OT) to signify that it is an off topic thread so people like myself don't waste our time reading another pathetic "all eyes on me" thread. Jesus, the server has enough problems without crap like this taking up critical bandwidth.

I say to the media the same thing I say to my pregnant wife about her suddenly large chest: RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!! This is bad. I suspect it will only get worse.

There is one last piece to this puzzle. Now that the name of the informant is out, how long before he says he was urged on by the Kerry camp?

Assumption Church has BINGO? And I'm sitting HERE on a Friday night? Man, that's messed up.

You are single-handedly the worst speller EVER. It's not theif. It's thief. It's not beleive, it's believe. Meanwhile, back to the debate issue; interesting conversation on Dennis Miller last night with some pundits. The Democrat chick said she was disappointed that Kerry was keeping Edwards in the background because he has the ability to connect with the audience, unlike Kerry. She said she feels Edwards needs to be the one wearing hardhats and throwing pitches. They all also agreed that in a debate, Cheney will kill Edwards, but that it really doesn't matter because noone ever votes for a Vice President. It will be most entertaining to watch, without question. In the meantime, if someone tries to tell you Cheney is a theif, don't beleive it.

You are a democrat. You are not a liberal. I got that far, and then I realized that our country is in the crapper because we have one of two problems. Either our country's ability to educate has failed miserably, or we have no problem with 12 year olds having access to computers and posting on a political message board. Okay...how about this. Why is George Bush a "lair?" I'll even accept an answer to the question "Why is George Bush a liar?" Either one. Your choice. Was Channey cooking to books, or was Chenney cooking two books? Next question: supposing you're old enough to have a job, who owns the company? Maybe a rich dude? And did he get rich because George Bush is president? Are you NOT rich because George Bush is president? Are you unemployed? Do you have health insurance? A family to take care of? Or do you live alone in some one bedroom apartment with a high school diploma and no understanding why your life sucks? I'm just curious what your thoughts are on any or all of these points. Thank God your're a Democrat, anyway.

Good job, T-boy. I think with that post you single-handedly increased Kerry's Gallop Poll position by an entire half a point. And that half a point is actually a large number than the entire point you try to make with this type of thread.

My second year in college I got to be editor of our college newspaper. Early in the year there was rumor about some group trying to get the campus pub shut down and turned into a deli or something. We got the tip from a reliable source. I interviewed about 10 people who could have been involved, and all 10 said the same thing: no one is trying to close down the pub. Someone had an idea, but the idea was squashed, so it's a dead issue. Like a moron, what did I do? Run a front page story: "Future of Pub Questioned" That week in my journalism class, the professor took the time to use the article as an example of crappy journalism. "Everyone said there was no issue, right?" he said. "But the paper continued to run a headline that says the opposite of what everyone else is saying. The headline should have read "Pub Rumor False" and the story should have been buried inside the paper." He was right. I was wrong. It was irresponsible. Funny how I learned that at age 19 in college, and CBS still hasn't figured it out. They ran a non-story. Shame on them.

And today's lesson? If you can't marry wise, marry rich.

It's nothing...until the truth comes out as to who exactly gave that document to Rather. If it was was even remotely connected a bit up the Kerry ladder...then you're wrong. The memo will not be much ado about nothing. It'll make Kerry's plan to tout Vietnam look like a brillian campaign strategy.

When the LA Times, which I had read regularly despite it's clearly left tilt, came out with the "groping Arnold" story a day or two before the recall election, that was it for me. There is no right or wrong to them. My new paper, the OC Register, ran a story at one point saying the Times lost over a million subscribers after pulling that stunt. Surprisingly, the Register...dab smack in the middle of California Republican Central...does a good job of presenting both sides. I know because I get pissed at them sometimes.

This is actually very perceptive, according to a documentary I had seen a few years ago regarding the media and the way it trusts and reports on public officials. At one point, one commentator said (and I paraphrase here)..."Watergate changed everything. There was always a trust between the media and elected officials. Watergate broke that trust, and there has been hell to pay ever since."

Oh, I get it. So what you're saying is, if I want to take home more money, I need to make LESS money. Excellent.

You may as well also ask the question "is there anyone here who doubts that they've had someone pull strings for THEMSELVES." I've had strings pulled for me, and I've pulled strings for people. It's the way life goes. Why this is relevant after all this time is beyond my ability to comprehend. But let's be straight about one thing. I don't care if strings were pulled. If Kerry hadn't hitched his wagon to his four months in Vietnam, we wouldn't be having this hypothetical discussion. And the American Idol crowd won't care either, Pete, because they've seen Bush react in war time. They haven't seen Kerry react. THAT is why this discussion is so fuggin' stupid. Because the very people you need to have this discussion with really, really, really don't care. And pointing this stuff out won't change their mind come November.

Sounds like GUN TIME to me.