Peevo

RIP, Holden Caulfield was the original hipster.

For clarification, I meant "remember from history class," not "remember, as in, we were alive to see that." Sorry, but it really did happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-packing Also, here's some info on Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, the 18 year veteran of the Air Force who was fired, not because of his performance, but because he's gay. Any other business would be in serious trouble under Equal Opportunity Employment laws. http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/2...hting-to-serve/

This is not the first time the executive and the judicial branches have been at odds. Remember the "court-packing" scandal that got FDR a lot of negative press in the 1930's? Bush had a lot of negative things to say about the court when they ruled against his habeus corpus suspension of terrorists in Guantanamo. The court is weird. I'm in two constitutional law classes. It just has a ridiculous amount of power and control over policy, more so than most Americans truly understand. Just a quick policy point, I still don't understand how gays being open in the military equates to being a bad servicemen. Rachel Maddow had a HIGHLY decorated Air Force pilot on, his name escapes me, but he's served during the Gulf War, 2 tours in Iraq, and was shipping out to Afghanistan until his CO outed him and he was effectively fired from the military for being gay. By his resume you'd absolutely consider him a true patriot. Someone please show me some empirical, hard data on how being gay equates you to being a bad soldier and I'll shut up. But seriously. Scan the journals (American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, etc) and show me some hard evidence. And no, I don't mean some pundits take on it or a Republican congressman's take, I want quantifiable, hard, statistically significant data. Something that a political scientist studied and got published. I'm willing to bet this doesn't exist.

Give me a football jersey. Keep it as simple as possible. Basically I want both throwbacks full time. A great football jersey should take approx 2 minutes to design. 2 colors. Home jersey is the base color on white pants and matching socks. Opposite with the road, or road white on white (pants and jersey). For some design, give me stripes around the upper arm, like every classic football jersey. Essentially the Browns, Bears, Jets, Colts, Packers, but with Bills colors. Thats all I need. I HATE swooshy, over stylized circa 1998-2003 era jersey. Stinks of 12-16 aged focused group testing and market research. The best jerseys throughout sports are the one's that have changed the least. The worst uni's are of this lot, see-current Vikings, Bills, Cardinals, et al. The only exception that looks half-way decent are the Broncos, and the Elway era are STILL much better. Why is it when I was about 12 or so-circa 1998, that everyone decided that vibrant colors wont sell or that anything that doesn't have black, silver, navy, or red in it won't sell either?

We sittin' heyah, I'm supposed ta be franchise playa, and we in heyah talkin' bout practice.

As a not so avid college football fan speaking, and I pretty much only have experience following the MAC, I really liked what I saw of LeFevour when he played here. Had a good command of the offense and ran the no huddle almost exclusively. He picked the Bulls apart, and they have a good secondary. But it seems to me everything I've read from pretty much everywhere is about how bad all these guys are at what it seems about is everything. I mean, can all these QB's, even from major programs, really stink so bad if especially in Bradford and Tebow's case they had a lot of playing time? My question basically is, when talking about the draft, is the focus exclusively on the criticisms, the negatives? Every scout seems to pass over the positives and get straight to what needs work or can't be fixed. It seems really easy to do that. In anything, its much easier to criticize than it is to defend something you think is good. True with sports, music, movies, anything. Can all these guys really suck? Is it just a poor QB draft class?

"Hey Tom, its a blues riff in B, watch me for the changes, and uh, try to keep up."

It seems only a few posters here seem to admit that they're deflecting their frustrations of the Bill's repeated failures out on a local columnist, than the team itself. He's paid to write his opinion. He has a negative opinion because the team he covers is terrible. They've been terrible for 10 years. Is it easier to go negative than to defend something you do like? Maybe. But it sells. And selling newspapers and advertising is the name of the game. Same goes for WGR. And I commend Sully for challenging Nix on his 80% comment. Can all of these reputable writers that are apparently "good" in the eyes of TBD (Jay Glazer, Tim Graham, Charlie Casserly) really be wrong about all the coaches that turned down these jobs? The simplest solution would be no, and that Nix's comment is meant to deflect criticism. It makes more sense now learning that Marty Schottenheimer wanted the job, and sequentially his son turning down a good opportunity. At the time we just put it up to the reputation of the Bills around the league, but maybe Brian Schottenheimer was just defending his father? Family first, remember. It's this attitude that anyone who honestly draws questions on a failing product somehow has credibility problems, but the credibility problems truly lie with the manufacturer of the product.

The Bills have far too many needs at too many positions to have the luxury of a 1st round QB pick. It's just a numbers game. You really have the confidence in that front office to get 2 starting OT, 2 starting LB's, a DT, 2WR, and QB in 1 offseason? Seems completely unlikely. We need some hard, heavy hitting, huge football players. I don't care how high character, hard working, high motor, good in the community, great date for your sister, scored a great Wonderlic they are, I want mean, physical, strong, and mentally tough football players. If there's one thing Jauron loved, was the "smallish," white, hard working, great locker room guys (Leonard, Corto, Ellison, practically the entire Bills Defensive line). I want a huge OLB, T, or DT in round 1. Just get me a huge mean guy. That's all. I really don't care if he beats up his girlfriend, deals drugs, drives drunk, or has any other major character flaws. Just don't get in trouble when you sign your deal, and play hard on Sundays. I don't have any kids, and I certainly don't need NFL players to be my role model. Worry about QB when we have some talent.

I really like Rome. I guess his shtick either works for you or it doesn't. His whole "XR4TI" crew thing still keeps me listening to find out exactly what the hell that even is. The lingo works for me, it makes me want to listen more to be in "the club" if that makes any sense. Rome's interviews are really good. He'll tell you after every interview he does that that interview was the best one he's done, but its true. The fact also that he'll devote whole segments of his show to hockey is important too. I think he might be the only free nationally syndicated sports talk host that will talk about hockey and not care if his listeners don't want it. He respects the game and has had Chelios, Drury, and other name players, usually Americans, come on and "rep" it. If you don't like him, don't listen. It's kinda that simple. In response to the Cowherd hate, I'm no Colin Cowherd fan, but I have to admit that his points are usually pretty accurate. His take on Big Mac's steroid "apology" was right on.

Whatever dude. If this hypothetical woman really needs a tv commercial to help her decide whether to be a mother or not, then she's probably not gonna be a good mother in the first place. This goes back to the sanctimoniousness I was talking about. Shouldn't this person consult family, friends, a priest, doctors, professionals of all types with this decision? I would much prefer if a pregnant woman was considering such a difficult decision with whether to bring a child to term or not, that professional options would be considered rather than some arbitrary advertisement. "One day.. the light switch comes on." Right. Unless you're gay, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Sikh, or Buddhist.

I think the above poster was trying to explain that it's not the opinion of Tebow that is the point of discussion. It's the time and place. I'm gonna be eating pizza and wings, drinking some beer with friends watching the game on Superbowl Sunday. It's become a de facto American holiday. It is NOT the place to talk about heavily debatable issues. I want to vegetate and watch (hopefully) entertaining football. It's football. Not a thesis on determinism or when conception starts. You can have this debate in a classroom, a church, or town hall if you like to scream at people. I just don't need to be preached to on abortion on a secular holiday. Seriously. I would feel the same way if it were a Pro Choice ad. It's not the opinion, its the forum. I don't force my opinion on people. I don't have "It's not a Choice, it's a Child" stickers on my car, nor the opposite. I find any of that sanctimonious. Don't tell me how to live my life, I don't tell you how to live yours. THAT is the condescending nature of these right-to-life thumpers. There's no pro-gay marriage 30 second ad during the game. That would throw the Christian right into a wonderful "liberal indoctrinated" tizzy. I just want to stress I have no issues with Tebow's opinion on abortion. I think his story is actually pretty compelling. I just don't want to be preached and talked down to because I choose to watch a football game.

Amazing Stuff. As much as Tim Tebow is a true living American Folk Hero, the fact that his group can afford 30 seconds of ad time on one of the most expensive tv broadcasts every year strikes me as questionable. I just don't think its the right venue to preach your opinion on very divisive issue. I'm not saying either side doesn't have its merits, I just don't think the Superbowl should be the venue for that kind of discussion. Football and sports is about escapism, not depressing issues like abortion. Sandwiched between spots with male focus group tested archetypes (hot girls, beer, cars, sports, etc) will be this pretentious and condescending ad about "family values."

I agree with the majority of the above posters. I've simply never found Leno funny or engaging in anyway. The only bits worth watching still are Headlines and Jaywalking, both of which feature fits of typical American stupidity that Leno had no hand in in the first place. As I was growing up, I always loved the summer months when I could stay up late and watch Letterman than Conan. That's how its always been for 10 plus years. Letterman is now feasting on the ratings because Leno can't admit the fact that he's cooked and has no redeeming value to television anymore. Its unfortunate for NBC, but if Leno wins this battle, say goodbye to Conan and the real talent. Believe it or not I'm actually one of the few who enjoys Fallon, but I know a lot of my friends can't stand his show. If Conan goes to Fox, it could be like the 90's again with Arsenio Hall. I was never old enough to even watch the show in its day, but Fox hasn't been in the late night game in years, and it would certainly provide a better option than Kimmel who isn't funny at all, or George Lopez who is even worse. I'm still trying to convince my friends to play the "Lopez Drinking Game"- drink 15 beers, watch Lopez, laugh once, and you lose.

I DON'T know WHAT we're YELLING ABOUT!

Tone Loc was awesome Saturday night!

Limbaugh is a considerably polarizing figure. Love his radio persona and voice though. He's a very very good rhetorician. As an amateur radio host in my own right, I look to some of the most successful pundits for inspiration. I pretty much disagree with his point of view, but he makes them so well and creatively. Talk radio is just simply dominated by conservative voices. Hannity, Rush, Laura Ingraham all have very high listenership. Quite frankly, KB1520's liberals just don't get me interested at all. Alan Colmes is a snore. Ed Shultz isn't engaging enough. Maybe its the personalities and not the perspectives?

The 2009 Buffalo Bills Season "Stuck in Neutral-the story of the 2009 Buffalo Bills" "We Tried Hard" "Who Is That Guy?" "Glad That's Over" Have at it!

Great Throwbacks, as was already said. JP Losman was the best QB since Bledsoe. Seriously. That's completely depressing actually.

What's the record for IR's in a season? I was searching the web for a while last night and I can't find any source that actually has it recorded, not even profootballreference.com With officially 18 players now in IR, according to wgr550.com, this has to be at least CLOSE to the record for one team in a season. It's really incredible. There has to be some reason, some outlier that leads to serious injury with this team, irrespective of Jauron's conditioning program. Owen Daniels blew out his knee at the Ralph. Other major non Bills have gotten seriously injured as well, could it be simply the field itself? I realize that sounds crazy, but I'm just throwing out ideas.

Despite the Bulls being in the MAC which is a perennially underrated conference despite elite NFL talent coming from it, I think its hard to dispute Bulls football is in much better hands than Bills football at the same points in the year. Warde Manuel and his staff are committed to winning. They've won before. They will again. There are still plenty of questions about Ralph's true motivations and limits to winning attitude. I realize its hard to get behind a "mid-major" program because its not "real football." Or maybe those that don't support the Bulls do so because they didn't or don't currently go to school there. But I'll tell you what, despite UB's defense having some pretty serious issues throughout 2009, high scoring, wide open college football is entertaining. 13-6, grind it out, run run run punt Bills football is not. The Bulls kinda got spanked by Pitt early this year, but at least they put up some points, made some plays. I'd take 54-35 Bills losses all day at this point. I'd much rather have a great offense and bad defense.

Liked the above mentioning of StarDust. Honestly one of the best movies of 2007 that fell completely through the cracks. Funny, smart and well produced and well acted. I liked Crash a lot as well. Good Night and Good Luck was still the better 2005 Best Picture Nominee in my opinion

Man, this is actually really tough: Comedy: Super Troopers, Not Another Teen Movie Drama: Scorcese has to be here-The Aviator/Gangs of New York. Good Night and Good Luck was really good, and i love smoking in movies Super Hero/Graphic Novel : The Dark Knight, close 2nd is Watchmen Science Fiction-REALLY liked Star Trek actually, followed closely by Moon w/Sam Rockwell Trilogy/Multiple Sequels-LOTR by far, might be the best OVERALL film experience of this decade Believe it or not, the Harry Potter films are remarkably consistent Documentary: Bowling for Columbine Most Pretentious-No Country For Old Men 2nd Most Pretentious-Benjamin Button. That movie was terrible. I mean, really bad. 3 hours of life is miserable and then you die, I get it. 3rd Most Pretentious-Doubt- Wow, stuff was in Doubt. Thanks for telling me nothing for 3 hours.

If the above don't have it, ATDHE.NET should work fine.

As a UB student we get free Norton Professional anti virus and firewall software from their server. Mac/PC and Linux all for free. If you want I can get it for you, send me a PM and we'll work something out.