PastaJoe

Once again, Obama's policy of appealing to the people of the Middle East to stand up for themselves and take the lead in forcing change in their countries, with support from Western democracies, has succeeded. And I'm sure that just bugs the hell out of the neo-cons who want the U.S. to force change like was done in Iraq, with the U.S. taking all the risk, casualties, and cost. Smart talk trumps tough talk.

I supported his decision to go into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and al-Quada. That was a policy we could all agree on. He lost me when he decided invading Iraq was more important. And I can't imagine some of you complaining about the drone attack if it was a Republican in office.

All valid comments. I was wondering all game what happened to our LBs. No outside contain, no consistent tackling, and no blitzing. You would think that the game plan would have been to blitz more against a rookie QB and keep him rattled. Or at least adjust during the game after the front 4 was giving him too much time. But that's on the coaches. But it wouldn't surprise me if the 1st pick next year is another DB, based on how the current crop has been performing.

The ACLU plays an important role in providing a check on government actions, and I am glad that they are advocates for citizen's rights. Having said that, in this case Anwar al-Awlaki has publicly advocated violence against Americans and actively took a lead in trying to plan such activity, while hiding in foreign countries to avoid American justice. The action to take him out when given the opportunity was appropriate and should be applauded. He was the biggest terrorist target after Bin Laden. The Obama administration has done a superb job of moving our assets away from Iraq, and refocusing them on the terrorist networks that attacked us and want to attack again, putting them on the run in Afghanistan, and taking the war to them in Pakistan and Yemen with human intelligence, special ops, and a dramatic increase in the use of Predator drones.

Jerry tells it like it is, he's not a homer who is afraid to criticize team management, and for that he's a refreshing realist. For those who think the current management isn't part of the problem, consider who they drafted last year compared to who they could have drafted. Round 1 CJ Spiller. Players drafted after him in the 1st round at offensive line, a need position, included Anthony Davis, Maurkice Pouncey, Bryan Bulaga, and Roger Saffold; all starters this year. Instead Nix drafts a RB when we already had 2 starting RBs. Round 2 Torell Troup. TE Rob Gronkowski was drafted after him. They haven't had a solid TE since Metzalaars. Round 3 Alex Carrington. QB Colt McCoy was drafted after him. So ask yourself, going into this season would you rather have Spiller, Troup, and Carrington, or one of those linemen, Gronkowski, and McCoy (which all play need positions). That would be a solid trio of offensive players who could all be starting this year, and instead they have 3 backups / underachievers.

For someone to say they expect the Bills to win the Super Bowl shows that they are either clueless or a liar. You can say your goal is to win, but to expect to win with this roster is delusional.

My vote is on Newt, his face looked like he was pinching a loaf. Huntsman sounds the most reasonable of the bunch, so he has no chance of getting the nomination. To summarize the debate; Obamacare, Ronald Reagan, corporate tax cuts, deregulation, questionable climate science, border fence.

You obviously didn't watch his speech; you're one of the people he talked about, those who try to demonize unions instead of recognizing that they played a vital role in the growth of the middle class. Unions didn't make the bad business decisions to continue to build gas-guzzling cars when consumer demand was switching to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars; management made those decisions.

It's part of their master plan; keep a thin O-line, which means Fitz will likely be injured by mid-season, and then they can use that as the excuse for not offering him a contract with starter salary, but will offer a lesser amount to keep him around to mentor the QB pick next year.

The GOP doesn't need any help, they paint themselves into the far right social corner. They always include an anti-abortion plank at the convention, and probably will have some defense of marriage plank this time. And let's not forget the opposition to building Mosques, because they're just havens for domestic terrorists.

Joe Scarborough's prediction on what will happen the day after the Tea Party gets its way and doesn't raise the debt ceiling: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59827.html

Obama is calling out Boehner right now for caving to the Tea Party, who are threatening our economy with their extremist willingness to let the government default on our debt. There was a reasonable compromise on the table that cut trillions, including programs that Democrats support, not raise the tax rates, and close tax loopholes. And once again Boehner has backed away because of pressure from the extremists in the House. Clearly Boehner doesn't have the balls to take on the Tea Party for the good of the country. McConnell seems reasonable and willing to compromise on this crisis, but he's not getting any help from his fellow Republicans in the House.

Boo-hoo, we must protect the wealthy at all costs, they're doing such a great job of creating jobs with the tax cuts Republicans said we had to have to create jobs. The top 1 percent of Americans now take home nearly a quarter of all income and control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth — roughly the same amount as the bottom 90 percent. And that gap has gotten far bigger in the past 25 years. In the past decade alone, the wealthiest percentile has seen its income grow by 17 percent, while the middle class has seen its real income fall. The 400 Americans with the highest adjusted gross income saw their effective tax rates plummet from 30 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2007. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112386/poll-best-way-to-fight-deficits.html

Given that Obama's health reform is current law, it does factor in cuts. Like they say, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Feel free to find a more non-partisan assessment than the CBO.

And boom goes the dynamite! Looks like it's official. There's no comparison between what Obamacare does to Medicare compared to Ryancare, according to the CBO. "Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows. For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical 65 year olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, according to CBO. That compares with the 25 percent they would pay under current law, CBO said. The GOP budget proposal also would raise the eligibility age for the politically popular program – and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law approved by Congress last year." http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/April/06/CBO-Seniors-Pay-More-Medicare-Ryan-Plan.aspx

I think it's still too early to call, since the more conservative rural areas still need to report. But regardless, the Republicans will either have to backtrack on privatizing Medicare or face the backlash from the older voters throughout the country. I guess the Republicans should have read the Ryan plan before they gave it a blanket endorsement.

I know some here can't stand Obama's success, and would have been all over him if it had failed, but you're spending more time on wacky conspiracy theories than you did questioning where the WMD in Iraq was. When the Republican wanna-be's in 2012 question Obama's commander-in-chief qualifications, he can say, "Why don't you ask Osama? Oh, that's right, he's dead!".

Copycats, they got that from the Republicans who were complaining about the health insurance reform bill. The fact that he wants to trim back collective bargaining rights for public employees is the worst part. Asking the teachers to give back benefits that were already negotiated and approved of by the state is one thing, but this attempt at busting the unions is too much. Time for the unions to push back and fight for the bargaining rights that people fought and died for in the 20th century. Conservatives claim to be for the workers and families, yet their emphasis is on busting unions and deregulating industry. Sounds like they're the ones who want to make the U.S. into China. I'm still waiting for the job creation they promised would be their top priority. Yet the first thing my new Republican congresswoman did when she got to Washington was push anti-abortion legislation.

You're right, 30 years of rule by the same person while suppressing democratic representation has nothing to do with the situation; it's Obama's fault. If only Mubarak would give tax breaks to wealthy Egyptians, all the economic and unemployment problems the citizens are upset about would be solved.

So if the Bills don't take a QB this year, other than Luck, who are the best QBs projected to come out in 2012 who would be worth a 1st round pick? I figure the Bills will be in the 6-8 win range next year, and won't have a top 5 pick.

I thought conservatives didn't want the gov't creating jobs, yet you're complaining that she didn't do it. Fortunately the holy grail Bush tax cuts, with the irreplaceable cuts for the wealthy so they'd trickle jobs down on us, have led us through a golden age of job creation. And now the Republicans will really get going with their emphasis on jobs, jobs, jobs. Except they first needed to read through the whole Constitution (which you figure they would know before they ran for office). Oh, and the wholly political vote to repeal the new health care laws, which has no chance of passing, and they don't even tell us what their alternative is, just that they're for increasing the debt (according to the CBO). What, another contradiction, say it ain't so! But remember, it's jobs, jobs, jobs!

And if you didn't support the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act, you were labeled as anti-American and a terrorist sympathizer by conservatives (who ironically claim to defend the Constitution while enacting laws that weaken our rights).

What color did your boyfriend have to wear?

Just because someone is unemployed, it doesn't mean they're just trying to get their same type of job back. It's difficult to get a different type of job than what you have experience in because you're competing with others who have more experience, or if you're older they prefer younger hires because they are perceived to be easier to mold to their philosophy, or if you're overqualified they figure you'll leave if a job similar to your old one becomes available. And how can you spend your time and money getting retrained if you don't have any income to pay the bills during that time, and at the end of the day you're still not guaranteed a job at the end of the training. I went through all of that a few years ago, and we only got by after my unemployment ran out because my wife was working and a friend of mine hired me part-time cutting lawns for his landscaping business, but he allowed me to take off whenever I had a chance to interview. Alot of people don't have that flexibility. I had an MBA and 21 years of experience, and I was interviewing for all sorts of jobs, like working the stockroom at Toys-R-Us or doing telemarketing, where I was competing with high school grads for an entry level job. So I say give the unemployed whatever help they need to survive until they can find a job they can survive on. I'm working now, but I'm making less than half what I made at my last job, so I can't spend like I used to, which means my ability to contribute to economic recovery has decreased, as it has for millions of Americans, which factors into the slow recovery.

And Lincoln couldn't get nominated by the Republicans because of his views on federal authority vs states rights.