Taro T

What possible incentive exists in your Utopia for ANYONE to be a plumber (which is a skill that's still required in a highly automated world) rather than an artist? Why would someone that wants to be in the medical field fight through 12-14 years of education & residency to become a specialist rather than just 7 or so years to be a PA? Why would someone with a difficult job innovate a more efficient way of accomplishing the task rather than simply not work as hard on it? Why would someone who loves learning ever give up being a "professional student" that would bring back a fraction of the return of that student going out and "working for a living" would? You take away incentive to excel & you will wind up w/ less excellence & innovation. And just out of curiosity who decides who does what jobs? Pretty sure you've said in your system that everyone has to produce to get that wage. Someone has to make that decision AND enforce it. (If you didn't state that, apologies, have you confused w/ someone else. But would still like an answer to the question.)

Don't forget her #1 biggestest fanboi of all, PJ. He might have voted twice if he could.

Don't know if it would be a miracle, but it definitely would be unexpected. Of course, w/ Jimmy's background (his admiration for his brother & wanting to follow in his footsteps; his ability to be an effective con man; & his seeming to truly want to help others) combined w/ his love of Kim could explain both his going to law school & his probable prodding of Kim to follow her dreams in that direction. Also, not positive, but didn't Ernesto start out in the mail room as well? (Even though, afaik, he doesn't have his own practice (nor even job at this point in the story). So, that could be something that HHM prides itself on & considers part of its corporate culture; giving kids w/ drive assistance in becoming lawyers themselves. It at least seems to be something Howard took pride in until this lateset flap.

Kim had started in the mail room & the firm helped pay for her attending law school. (Apologies if you were going in a different direction w/ your comment & already got that.) Because one of Chuck's worst nightmares was Jimmy becoming a lawyer, there was no way HHM would ever help Jimmy through law school.

So if some chick w/ a huge rack is strapping an ace bandage across those puppies to look less feminine; you make that happen? Can't see a lot of demand for it, but imagine there probably are some good perks w/ it. Where'd you go to grad school to pick up those "skills?"

So much for people trying to figure out the year from Howard's "35 year old scotch" comment. Good catch on the check.

The clip was from what was supposed to be his charity softball game that turned into just a home run contest to keep from tearing up Frontier Field today. Hopefully his prodding helps get a deal done.

It was a VERY poor decision. There was a reason they drafted him in the 2nd & he'd looked good in limited action in '93. He looked better in '94 preseason than Patton did. Keeping Patton over Parrella was a huge mistake.

Disagree om Parella. Really wanted the Bills to keep him. Would agree that releasing Ted Washington & Pat Williams were horrible decisions. An under the radar one that seemed rather innocuous & ended up hurting was releasing Mayhew who ended up starting against them in XXVI.

Short term, yes. But after it gets to the SC it SHOULD uphold the constitutionality of requiring the Senate to ratify treaties before they're binding. Assumes, of course, that they don't go looking to "international law" for precedent & stay within this country's laws for guidance. (Would be a lot more comfortable about that were either Kennedy or Ginsburg retired.) Which is STILL one of the biggest "pros" in having the current President. There's a lot better chance of having some checks and balances restored than there was w/ the alternative.

Bummer. RIP Frank.

Halloween.

Sunday, Sept 10 - Bills vs. Jets - W Sunday, Sept 17 - Bills @ Panthers - L Sunday, Sept. 24 - Bills vs. Broncos - L Sunday, Oct 1 - Bills @ Falcons - L Sunday, Oct 8 - Bills @ Bengals - W Sunday, Oct 22 - Bills vs. Buccaneers - W Sunday, Oct 29 - Bills vs. Raiders - L Thursday, Nov 2 - Bills @ Jets - W Sunday, Nov 12 - Bills vs. Saints - W Sunday, Nov 19 - Bills @ Chargers - W Sunday, Nov 26 - Bills @ Chiefs - W Sunday, Dec 3 - Bills vs. Cheatriots* - L Sunday, Dec 10 - Bills vs. Colts - W Sunday, Dec 17 - Bills vs Dolphins - W Sunday, Dec 24 - Bills @ Cheatriots* - L Sunday, Dec 31 - Bills @ Dolphins - W 10-6

At least one of those 3 had been with the Bills since the '80's, so he's also been a part of some very good drafts as well.

"Man, that's a real shame when folks be throwin' away a perfectly good white boy like that." and to the latter: "You can never go home again, Altman, but you can shop there."

Two dollars! I want my two dollars!

My choice is The Breakfast Club. But Better Off Dead ranks up there with Fast Times at Ridgemont High & Sixteen Candles.

So how long until that becomes a Southwest "wanna get away" commercial?

Agreed. Correct. New episodes restart 1 week from Monday. This Monday they're running a season 3 (to date) marathon.

Good catch on the 52. But like K9 stated above, pretty sure this series started in '02. (Even though that makes it appear that Howard can't do basic math. Though maybe the scotch was bottled at the end of '66 & they're still in mid-'02. Coukdn't read the date on Hector's newspaper. )

Oh, where to start? To the 1st bolded: please show me ANY post I made in that thread, or any other, that said I didn't like Brandon because of what he said to my friends. You've REPEATEDLY made that assertation and I have repeatedly asked you for support of it. You have yet to provide any. Once again, you are confusing who has said what. Apparently in an attempt to (falsely) demonstrate that you are the true supporter of Buffalo teams and all others are haters. The the 2nd bolded: did you not state ; and in response to MayDay 10 did you not state: . Our bad for assuming that when you said Brandon did something 100% on his own & the idea to do it could have come from anywhere that you actually meant he followed Ralph Wilson's wishes. The the 3rd bolded: PLEASE show me ANY POST OF MINE that states that Brandon deserves NO CREDIT for the lease negotiation. Once again, you can't because you're making stuff up to argue against points that haven't been made. And ttbomk this is the 1st time that you have nuanced what your impression of Russ' work on the negotiations entailed. To the 4th bolded: YOU continue to make assumptions. I stated that a business decision outweighed a hockey decision. You read more into that than what it was for whatever reason you might have. You then tried to come up with reasons WHY the business decision MIGHT have outweighed the hockey decision. Regardless of the rationale behind it, it was simply an example of Brandon Toronto series-ing the Sabres. And as Gordio states, WHY should the Sabres agree to give up a home game to meet the Rags needs? There don't appear to be any other chumps jumping on that offer. The business ($$$) side outweighed the hockey side on that call. And that stinks. And to your last sentence: did you actually read what you wrote? You actually asked why we are hanging a decision he was in position to make (giving up a home game) because we don't want him involved in those decisions. WTF?

3 thoughts: 1. REALLY hoping that she just got tongue-tied in that meeting but if not, holy cow what an idjit. 2. This is an example of how good we have it in this country. If this is what constitutes a problem, we're doing alright. 3. Glad that isn't the school in Michigan my kid goes to.

What are these 'facts' to which you are referring? The only fact that seems to be apparent is that you apparently have reading comprehension issues, not the least of which is an inability to differentiate different points from different authors. You have accused me of being spiteful of Russ Brandon apparently due to his treatment of my friends. Do you care to provide any support for those accusations? You also in your previous few posts appear to be championing the idea that Russ Brandon put the "poison pill" in the last lease on his own volition and against the Wilsons' best interest. This is a ludicrous position. If this isn't your position, could you please clarifiy how you reconcile Russ' apparent complete authority on negotiating in the Wilsons best interest AND putting in a clause that should Ralph pass away while the lease was still in the 1st couple of years that would lower the value of his estate UNLESS that is WHAT THE WILSONS WANTED HIM TO DO? As to my views on Russ Brandon, I have made them abundently clear through the years. I believe he should have no input on football, hockey, or lacrosse matters and that as a fan I want those departments to have the ability to overrule the business side of things rather than the opposite. Should that be the case, I have no problem with Brandon continuing his role in PSE & subsidiaries. I been VERY consistent in that opinion through the years. Playing a home hockey game in NYC shows that business still takes precedence over hockey. As that is the case, I'd prefer to see him out of that operation. I have also been consistent in that opinion through the years. I have no illusions nor expectations that it will happen as it looks like he makes money for the Pegulas. Again, this position has also been consistent. Exactly.

Gee, no conjecture in the bolded is there?