RkFast

Call me nuts, but listening to Marv speak, Im LOVING it. Jerry S. implied Im a dope for having such feelings, well, then Im a dope. I have the utmost faith that Marv can get the job done. But Im not fooliSH enough to have BLIND trust. Im skeptical.....and hopeful. That aside....let me just say...MAN, ITS GOOD TO HAVE MARV LEVY BACK WITH THE BILLS!!!!!!!!

Good to see Bills fans have their heads where it really counts...how old he is, does he surf, where he lives, does he wear a headband, how he speaks...... You know...the really IMPORTANT stuff.

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.” Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.” Oh yeah...he NAILED him!

He's a crazy old man....I love it. He reminded me of Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon One, acting all nuts, making those around him take a step back in surprise, when he's actually the smartest guy in the room.

OK, Im on point now. Effin' realplayer.

So he IS fired? Wheres Marv? WHAT THE !@#$???!@@???

Holy sh--.....NOBODY is fired?

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Classy move, Ralph!

Hes !@#$ing 90....give him a break! Name one person who doesnt wish he has Ralph's health when he hits that point!

And there comes the "BUT"

I should be in such great shape when Im 90.

"Rich people always worry about making more money" Tell that to poor people.

"Coaches coach.....thats what they do" You bring a man who is primarily a coach into the organization and soomer or later, you know what hes going to want to do? COACH.

The one area you can quibble about Mr. Wilson's sincerity is when it comes to paying for top flite HCs. Other than that, a Bills fan has little to B word about in terms of ownership's willingness to spend money. From paying for the facilities' improvements, to paying for free agents, to buying leftover tickets to lift TV blackouts...Mr. Wilson has delivered.

Marv being with this team in any capacity when they win the Super Bowl will "right" a lot of "wrongs" in the World. That being said, Im lukewarm on his returning to the team.

THANK YOU, Amazing Grant! This is my point, exactly. I give you the NY Giants of last year as an example. They brought Manning in, started him mid-year rather abruptly, pretty much changing the teams mode from attempting to contend with Kurt Warner to rebuilding with Manning. Not a word was said by anyone on the team about the move, at pleast not publicly. It was accepted that the team was heading in a different direction to rebuild now and win later and everyone was on board with that. Even when Manning's play was less than good, those first few games of his, they were all on board with the team's goals. Youre not seeing that with the Bills. There is talk.."rumblings"....that everyone is NOT on board with "the plan". Whatever the reason for that, the fact that the entire team isnt working towards the same goal is very, very troubling.

Because its called a debate and discussion of different ideas and expression of opinions. Ya know...the whole reason why we have these discussion boards in the first place?

I repeat: If they are lobbying FOR Holcomb, they are also lobbying AGAINST Losman. And again, where do you see that.....players openly lobbying to have the backup QB get the nod over a rookie the team KNEW would be starting and would be cutting his teeth during the season? The team, all of them, knew "the plan" before the season began. But by week four, the team came out gainst the kid. And after his comeback, they seemed to have come out against him again (this is my opinion, please dont ask for LINKS). You dont see that in the NFL too often. Something is up in that locker room and it doesnt seem good. And Kelly...look what I found! http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1062139.asp Losman has started only eight games. He showed progress later in the year, but many of his teammates don't have faith in him. After Sunday's game, one prominent Bill was asked how many players felt Losman wasn't ready. "Try most of them," he said. So we now have Jerry Sullivan and Mark Gaughan making this statement. And despite the geniuses here who think those two are "morons", I think they have a tad more insight into this club and what goes on in the locker room than you or I do. Thank you.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1062170.asp If they are lobbying FOR Holcomb, they are also lobbying AGAINST Losman. And again, where do you see that.....players openly lobbying to have the backup QB get the nod over a rookie the team KNEW would be starting and would be cutting his teeth during the season? The team, all of them, knew "the plan" before the season began. But by week four, the team came out gainst the kid. And after his comeback, they seemed to have come out against him again (this is my opinion, please dont ask for LINKS). You dont see that in the NFL too often. Something is up in that locker room and it doesnt seem good. Always a !@#$ing fight......or are we reading the same thing differently?

There have been quite a few players interviewed where they came right out against JP. You never see that.

Weve always heard JP is cocky. But how "cocky" does one have to be to have the ENTIRE team turn on him, and publicly to boot?

I truly wonder whats worse and says more about who has a bad attitude? A) Player being cocky in the locker room. B) Rest of team publicy turning on their rookie QB. I say the latter.

Now theres a progressive, tolerant, understanding and enlightened statement, if i EVER heard one!

Says the guy who started this topic on a link to story from a liberal blog. Tell us, Mick....when you found this "shocking" story that started this topic, on your highly intelligent, obviously unbiased news source for such intellectual superiors such as yourself, did you have a hard time resisting the link for "Liberal Love, the dating site for Democrats, liberals, and activists."? And which link did you click there? Men seeking women, men seeking men, or women seeking women?

Privacy hypocrisy By Michelle Malkin Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at the New York Times and ACLU headquarters: First, bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public college admissions, contracting, and police and fire department hiring.) Second, institute the "Eenie-meenie-minie-moe" random search program at all subways, railways, and bus stations. Third, open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts, and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests. Fourth, sue. Sue. Sue. Fifth, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other key government agencies. Sixth, hang the white flag and declare victory. Seventh, sit back and wait to blame the President for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits. Repeat. The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, the New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, anti-war activists, and some Muslim leaders and groups. Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping. Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times's stunt. But neither the Times, nor the ACLU, nor the Democrat Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll. That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists. According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning. Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photo-reconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported. But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream media attention. No civil liberties circus. No White House press corps pandemonium. The Left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.