Peevo

Man, I was just about to post this. I'm not very religious at all. But if there's one thing that I remember from Sunday school is that the rich man was going to have a very, very hard time getting into heaven. Christ himself was poor and was an advocate of the poor. So, yes, I'd agree that Christ would find corporatism, excessive greed, and oligarchy a sin. And yes, we're still growing at a rate where the top 1% of the country still earns and possesses more than the bottom 95% of it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigrou...y-Report-Part-1 - say what you want about how "socialist" this may sound, but this memo might be the most disgusting and prideful boasting of greed, excessive wealth, and income disparity i've ever read. I wholeheartedly disagree with the biggest Fox News talking point railing against progressivism. At the end of the day, the most Republican president in our history, in my opinion Teddy Roosevelt, championed progressive tax legislation-tax the rich to give to the poor. Regressive taxation, like sales tax, hurts the poorest the most. As a Political Science major I do study this material empirically, just for your information. Call him a king of socialist entitlement programs, but even in my "liberal indoctrinated" education at UB, I NEVER once, ever read about this until I saw it in Michael Moore's latest film. I earned a 5 on the AP US History exam in 2004. I've aced all my political policy classes. I never, once, heard about FDR's "Second Bill of Rights." Call it socialism. But is every American with a job, an education, and decent healthcare such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights And yes, I do understand that entitlement programs cost money. And for the record, I'm sure every member of my generation won't see a dime of Social Security. But I'm glad I got a good public education. It costs money. Taxes. We can't have it both ways people. You want good infrastructure (roads, bridges, hospitals) it costs money. How about good teachers? Where do you think they get their paychecks? At some point, it has to come from the taxpayer. I'm sorry, but spending $50k plus on a HIGH SCHOOL education is retarded. I got a great one for free.

Although I was never a huge fan of the comics, the end-credits scene at the end of Iron Man 2 is a shot of the Hammer of Thor falling to Earth, obviously referencing the 2011 release of the movie. Interestingly, its director is Kenneth Brannagh, of Hamlet and other Shakespeare fame, and stars Sir Anthony Hopkins as Odin, Thor's father in the series, and in the original Norse mythology as well. Jon Favreau-director of Iron Man and Iron Man 2 has said in interviews how difficult merging these different worlds into one movie, The Avengers will be. Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk work because we live in such a technologically advanced age, that its somewhat plausible these characters can exist and thrive. Thor lives in a fantasy world, dominated by Gods and what not. So obviously, Brannagh has a tough sell with this. I'm looking forward to the Avengers, but I am skeptical on Thor and the cast of the Avengers' leader-Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America. Having done a rather piss poor job as The Human Torch, I'm not too sold on the super soldier and leader of the Avengers. But we'll see what happens.

For what it's worth I liked the read. I felt genuine contrition on Marshawn's part and it sounded like he truly accepts responsibility for his poor choices. Bulldog on WGR550 has made comments as well regarding the local police having it "out" for Marshawn. Not so much in the context that it exists in earnest, but that there are some credible people who have argued that he's a target based on little more than his reputation. A few posters above made reference to the fact, and I'm in this camp too, just make plays, stay healthy and stay out of trouble. I respect that Marshawn's done some good charity work here and in Oakland, but I don't need athletes to be my role model. I just want my team to win. And if Lynch can help do that, I'm all for it. At the end of the day, I'm rather indifferent to the situation either way. Lynch has done nothing negative to me, and I'd certainly be willing to bet any of the other posters on this board. We take sports so personally that Lynch getting arrested affects us somehow negatively. And I don't think that's fair to him or to us as fans. Either he gets his act together, makes some plays in 2010, or he doesn't.

I should say I'm not surprised this exists, but there's seriously whole blogs dedicated to how draft picks impact one's Madden playability? Good lord, I'm of the generation of the internet and sometimes I feel behind the times. Come on, serious, lucid analysis about a teams' chances of success in a video game? Where the player has the ultimate control over what happens anyway? I tell ya what, online blogs ain't what they used to be.

This is ridiculous. Everyone's such a constitutional law expert in this post yet hasn't cited one case, one dictum, nor one opinion to back up anything they actually "know" to be true. If Kagan makes the Court, which she most likely will, its trading a staunch liberal in Stevens for a center-leftist. The court's dynamic really doesn't change very much. Bush got Roberts and Alito in the court, both strong conservatives. Scalia and Thomas are arguably MUCH more conservative than even Stevens was liberal. My con law professor explained once that Thomas doesn't even want to hear ORAL ARGUMENTS in session. He's such an old timer that if a case makes the High Court, it's already been deliberated to a point where no arguments need be made further beyond amici brief. Please people, do some research and not just regurgitate pundits on websites. A great example, is the concept of "substantive due process." A staunchly CONSERVATIVE court found a "substantive" element to the 14th amendment due process clause, "the right to contract." Read Lochner v New York. It's as liberal a stretch as finding a constitutional right to abortion was in 1973. So yes, even conservative courts can stretch the constitution to whatever they find fit. "The law is, and nothing more pretentious, what judges say it is"-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 1897. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v_New_York No, I'm not a con law scholar, nor expert, but I've taken 4 con law classes. I've read the case law, its super dry, trust me.

Nick, I loved your work at WGR, in comparison to other personalities, it's obvious you were one of the few from the younger generation, of which I certainly identify with much more than the older guys on the air. Not that what Bulldog and Howard et al have to say is out of touch, but sometimes I'll be honest, I don't care about your kids, or your wife, or your mortgage, or your housemaking. I don't have a wife, nor kids, nor a house. I'm struggling to get through college right now. While I realize you're further along in that regard than I, I still feel like you can identify with the youth struggle more than any of your older former cohosts. I get frustrated sometimes that if my opinion doesn't match up with the hosts or talking heads, that its somehow less important or well defended. Like, when EVERY guy on the radio yesterday is railing the Bills' 1st round pick, does that mean because I'm not a professional radio or sport's media personality that I dont' know sports as much, so I can't like the guy? I watch Fox News A LOT, and they do, HONESTLY give both sides of the issue. There is none of that on WGR. At the end of the day, especially with Hamilton and Sullivan, and sometimes even Schopp, they act as if they've been personally slighted by these organizations. As if giving Jerry Sullivan A DIGITAL (oh, my god, EVERYTHING is digital these days-money, votes, music, EVERYTHING) copy of the press/media guide is some insult to the great writers of a bygone era. Sorry, brah, its 2010, not 1945. Yes, black people can go to school with white people. You can't smoke everywhere you want anymore, sorry dude. Paul Hamilton gets personally insulted when they didn't tell him about the cancelled Hall of Fame ceremony. OK? Who cares? It's less work for you anyway man. They come off as if because I'm not "one of them" we puny everyday listener folk couldn't possibly understand. Basically I want honesty, not contrived personality. Break the 4th wall. No, of course they didn't personally attack you, Mike. They're giving you GREAT material so people call up your show and listen to you. Don't patronize me. I don't have a masters in broadcasting, but I understand that having a combative personality gets you listeners, and callers, and sequentially, advertising revenue-which all in all, is all they care about. So Nick, maybe your show can be a forum for honesty, not just what "the sports talk show handbook" says you HAVE to have the guys that just argue with their callers and eachother, just because "its good for radio." Steve Tripi

Yeah, same here. Not really much familiar with Knife Crazy although I remember reading a good review of them in the Beast a couple years back. Artvoice is weird. They act they like they have their fingers on the collective pulses of Buffalo's art and music scene yet left some glaring omissions that seemed very obvious to me. It's a bunch of 30 plus snobby Buff State journalism grads. SpeakerFire only got literally 2 words from them once, and it was "alternative rock band." Ok, that was 3 words, but still. I guess I'll take that. As much as local papers like this are important in a sense, I'd say Buffalo Rising and the Beast are more readable. And Standard of Living, not my favorite, but they're nice guys, work hard, and have been at it a few years. They deserve some press. It's A Firefight was on my radio show, good dudes, I've known Brett since his Looking For Seven days. My overall point is that local music has been and will always be for the youth. It's a forum for youthful expression. You hit 30, you can't be in a "local band" playing original music anymore. I'm sorry, but it's true. I'm 23 and am pretty much over pushing my original music on people. If you're not signed, touring, and have full booking and management support, you can't be in an original band beyond 30. You're grasping at straws at that point. Life catches up to you, and you have to accept it at some point.

http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n16/music_nominees Sorry folks, and to any poster who may be in these bands, but this list is atrocious. I mean, really, really bad. And no, I'm not complaining because my band didn't make the list, I'm complaining because no act with members above the age of 50 deserve to make any local rock list. Where is The Reign of Kindo? (myspace.com/thereignofkindo) One of the most talented, original and adept bands out there right now? 4 part vocal harmony, flawless musicianship, and hard working guys that do everything right. The Found? Folky, layered vocal harmony amid bombastic percussion and and a mean drummer with a huge bass drum? What more do you want? myspace.com/thefoundsound How about Son of the Sun? if you like chill, introspective and mellow songwriting, here's your place. Zak's voice has never been better, and their new album will destroy all cynics. myspace.com/sonofthesunmusic For heavier bands, how about Rust Belt Lights? Honest, fast, and well executed local punk rock. I'm sorry, but save for Chae Hawk, Babik and Bloodthirsty Vegans, there really is no talent on this list. I thought Artvoice was the sound of the youth? I think the average age of the Rock band category is 75. Sorry dudes, but you have to better than that. Also, no band with an exclamation point in their name, while using Line 6 modeling amps deserves to be on any best of list. Give me a real amp with real tubes and real overdrive.

Really liked the soundbyte from Gailey "I don't care about people's feelings, I care about scoring points."

Yeah, I use marijuana for that purpose. But I think you'd be lying if you suggested that Americans and people in the developed world at large don't self-medicate to dull stress in SOME way or another. It's actually pretty simple. Pick your vice people: sex, drugs, tobacco, alcohol, gambling (tremendously destructive for families and individual lives, just ask my sports betting addict friend). Or how about "safe" vices? Fast food-biochemically produces the same endorphins in your brain and is tremendously destructive and offers no nutritional value. Should that be restricted for public health purposes? How about pop? I love Pepsi, but it's super bad for you. It can lead to obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, other health defects. All of the above in some way or another are tremendously bad for you in high doses. The biggest theme of this conversation that gets oft-overlooked is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. No one should tell you that you can't do bad things to your body (pregnant women notwithstanding). It's my body, I'll poison it if i choose. Cigarettes tell you that they're dangerous right on the box, what more do you need? Don't patronize consenting adults. Conservatives rail about personal autonomy all day. What more than your own body? Any TRUE conservative would be a harbinger of any restrictions on self-regarding acts. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, any of them.

Wasn't Levi Brown the girl that sued in Brown v Board in 1954?

You missed my point. Of course murder is illegal. It's the conscious taking of one's life. Who am I to say that I can determine when someone else's life ends? That's why its wrong. Any legislation that governs INDIVIDUAL behavior, and certainly vices, serves no public benefit and simply drains tax revenue and resources. Like I said, how many people on this board bet on football games every week, or bet in their college basketball pools? This is illegal in New York State. People do it everyday. People illicit prostitution, hard drugs, gambling, smoking, any of these pleasure giving acts, REGARDLESS of legality, still happen daily. Prohibition failed, did it not? The 18th amendment is the only amendment to have been negated by another amendment. Think about that. The temperance movement "succeeded" when prohibition became the law of the land. People still drank, and major organized crime networks developed to supply that demand. If anything, illicit trades are governed by pure market economics. Black markets, but markets nonetheless. As I said, and you obviously didn't read it, NO ONE should have the authority to tell you what do you with your body, good or bad. If I go and eat lunch at McDonald's, because fast food is unhealthy does that mean I need a lecture on what I'm doing to my body? NO! The nutrition facts are RIGHT ON THE BAG. Any reasonable adult can decide for themselves what to put, or not to put, in their own bodies. It's called libertarianism. Any true conservative should agree with the policy. If I buy cigarettes, same thing. I paid the excise taxes, and furthermore, it says RIGHT ON THE BOX that they're bad for you. I don't need to be patronized for my decisions that negatively affect no one but myself.

It's also important to understand that the link between mental health problems and heavy marijuana use is overstated. NORML.org claims that one must be medically predisposed to mental health issues, like bipolar disorder, before even using the drug, to have THC have any effect on it. Regulatory behavior legislation never works, it will never work, and continues to be proven ineffective time and again. It's against the law to gamble on sports, people do it everyday. Speeding, smoking in public places (the UB smoking ban is a complete joke) drinking and driving, prostitution. Pick your vice. All of these are against the law. People do them regardless. I love it how its the neoconservatives that get off on their moral higher ground. If anything, a true conservative would be vehemently opposed to any legislation that governs personal human autonomy. Smoking is bad for you, but no governing agency should tell you can't do bad things to your body.

I agree with the plurality of posters on this board. I smoke a lot. I'm also an A student, work full time, volunteer my time at our school's radio station, and am involved in other projects. While I admit the perception and attitudes about a marijuana user are unfortunate, they exist. We shouldn't judge people based on appearances, but we do. You have to play the game to get in the game. So, while I think its stupid that they judge people on using a product that I think no one would argue provides any tactical advantage, I would think its reasonable to suggest that a NFL prospect would know that scouts will frown on knowledge of its usage and said prospects should act accordingly. What's interesting is vice usage of other prospects DOESN'T go public. Do they include tobacco and alcohol in these tests? Legal vices, sure, but its just as, if not more than, damaging as weed. I don't think I'd want a chain smoker to be on my team, wouldn't that seriously affect his capabilities as an NFL athlete?

I think the whole analysis is quite flawed unless you include the most important stat of all: wins. per pro-football-reference.com. for some reason, NFL.com doesn't have win/loss record. I don't know why. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxs...cgi?qb=EdwaTr01 14-16 career record. That's simply not good enough. Especially considering in 2009 the defense kept his team in a position to win the game in almost every Sunday. I would exclude the first Miami game. But still. You can show me stats till I'm blue in the face. He is NOT a winner. In the words of Mike Singletary, "I want winners. Can't play wit 'em, can't coach wit 'em. Can't doooo it."

I don't know why King gets such a bad rap on this board. That first page is tremendously well written. He makes a great point. A first round QB pick is a much bigger crapshoot than a flyer for an aged but proven NFL QB. "What would you rather have, a four- or five-year shot at a relatively sure thing in McNabb (with a +12 TD/INT ratio in each of his past four seasons), or a guy who makes you go to bed uneasy every night for the next two or three years because you just don't know how he'll pan out?" This, above all else, is the gamble. Can Bills brass take the heat for taking a risk with McNabb and sacrificing a future star QB? Because this is all unfairly graded in hindsight, what Nix and Co. have to do is assess whether hearing "why didn't we just draft "X" in 2010? over a proven starter in the NFL. And the end of the day, I just want a winner before I have prostate issues, gray hair, and regular colon screenings. Just sayin'.

"Merlin Olsen comes over, on occasion, it's stupid"-Ron Burgandy

Ryan Fitzpatrick earned a 49/50, how good of a NFL QB is he? One dog goes east, one dog goes west, so what?

Oh please. You're gonna seriously tell me that Terry Bradshaw had nothing to do with those 70's Superbowl Wins? What about Lynn Swann who was catching those throws? And sure, Big Ben did not have a great game in the 2005 Superbowl vs Seattle, but he played lights out against Arizona. He still had to stand in the pocket and make that great throw to the end zone to Holmes. Better catch, but still a great throw outside in really tight coverage. Give the guy some credit. He gets the crap beaten out of him, is consistently one the most sacked QB's in the league, and had a 500 yard game in 2009. When's the last time a Bills QB threw for more than 300 yards? Yes, I know that most of the time those stats are bloated because the team is throwing the whole time because they are behind, but good lord, give me a break. You don't win consistently in the NFL without a quality QB. Spare me the, "but Dilfer and Johnson won a Superbowl" takes. It's like talking about Constitutional Case Law. For every case that rule x becomes the norm, there's at least 2 cases to prove the opposite point. Having Dilfer in your back pocket has become the norm when talking about bad QB play. The Bills had ELITE defenses and ELITE special teams in the same year in the 2000's-see 03 and 04, did we make the playoffs?

It's hard to complete sentences in this league.

As a drummer, I have a love/hate relationship with regards to guitar solos. Raised on jazz, soloing as an art form is in my opinion more pertinent to that genre as a whole. Davis, Coltrane, et al told stories with their solos. Rock guitar soloing is just a totally different animal. That said, I think this conversation begins and ends with Billy Corgan's solo in Hummer.

Whatever brah don't take yourself so seriously. It's one comment about a millionaire athlete on a message board. I'm sure he's really upset about what "Peevo" said on the Stadium Wall. Class and perspective? Ok. Edwards graduated from Stanford with a Political Science degree. I'm gonna be graduating from UB with the same degree. I imagine his program is much more challenging than mine, and I can say, the School of Political Science is kicking my ass. So, good for him. He's definitely smart, good guy. All that. Still doesn't change the fact that he's a lousy QB that get hurts a lot, even before getting drafted by the Bills. And yes, if he's gonna start for this team next year he has a responsibility to face the media and the criticism along with it. It comes with the job. Better now?

Yes, but the difference here is that JP was STILL on the team when he was benched. Bledsoe was cut and then went out to the media with his thoughts. All I'm saying is, if this broken POS is gonna line up and take snaps for my team, he best be doing all he can to save face. I'm tired of this guy, but if management can't get anybody better, what other options do I have?

I know we're all joking, but the guy makes a legitimate point. Even JP Freaking Losman wasn't happy with his demotion and said as much to the media. He was terrible and never earned his job back, but at least there was a pulse there. When Bledsoe was cut, he was not happy about it, and rightfully so. Especially when there's now reports that he's probably gonna be the starting QB AGAIN this fall, it'd be important to get a hold of this guy and see where his head is at. He loses the starting role to Fitzpatrick and he's just ok with it? I don't get it. The guy is bad. But if he's our best option at QB he best be putting his best foot forward with the fans and the media. It certainly couldn't hurt to gain some positive press.

I can't wait till someone signs him for a cheap 1 year deal and the same dudes complaining about him will be the ones roasting the front office for standing pat.