K-9

Then they haven't lost patience. GO BILLS!!!

Miami will lose patience when they remove the tag. Until then, they are being patient. If they are truly ready to "move on" as Graham reports, then the tag will be removed. GO BILLS!!!

Eichel with three more helpers today for a total of 2g, 4a vs. Merrimac in the first two games of their playoff series. GO SABRES!!!

Thanks for that cool drink of water after this endless season on the hot desert sand and nothing to eat but dry, salty crackers. GO SABRES!!!

Much obliged. Good read. Confirms my suspicion that Chip Kelly is in a full throttle manic episode and he's short on meds. GO BILLS!!!

I don't think this aspect can/should be overlooked. If we get one of McDeichel, expectations will be through the roof. And while I'd like to believe that Buffalo fans are savvy and sophisticated, I suspect there is a fair amount of those that don't often travel outside their comfort zones of sound bytes and solving the world's problems in 140 characters or less. GO SABRES!!!

Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip. He's still remiss in not mentioning how STUPID the Eagles are or maybe he just hasn't looked at it yet. Regardless, what they committed to the RB position yesterday, not to mention the $3m Sproles collects, puts them at the top of dumb moves in free agency imo. GO BILLS!!!

Good take. I question Grantland's thinking simply because he doesn't once mention the other side of the ledger: McCoy's unique talent and status at the position. There's Peterson, McCoy, and Murray. And as much as he made had to stretch to include a TRADE in his list of FREE AGENT deals, where is his take on the Eagles shelling out $51.5m with $27.5m guaranteed to the RB position yesterday? Grantland lost some credibility by excluding that gem by Chip Kelly. I think he's an Eagles shill. GO BILLS!!!

The Patriots did. GO BILLS!!!

Made possible by cutting Chandler. GO BILLS!!!

Could also be a Tuco or Nacho storyline as Gus knew both of them as well. Even if they hadn't met personally in 'Breaking Bad', Saul would have certainly known who the kingpin was. As for the latest episode, I agree with everyone else; just elegant story telling meeting up with great acting.

That's true. And it is what impressed me about Clay in the video above. He doesn't like to go down with the initial hit. He's hard to play against in that regard. And that takes its toll over the course of a game. GO BILLS!!!

Yeah, I can see that, too. Roman sure likes his tightends. He's not above lining up 10 of them in front of his QB. As long as one can also snap the ball. GO BILLS!!!

Very Vernon Davis like in terms of versatility. Can see why Roman would want him. GO BILLS!!!

What's going on is what many predicted last year when the Saints, already up against the cap, got rid of some popular players, signed Byrd for even more cap-choking money, and then failed to do anything about it until now. GO BILLS!!!

I was struck by the irony when I read the letter yesterday; the Republican senators want the same thing as the hard right, Iranian leadership: no deal. In reading other articles today, I was struck by the sheer amount of progress Iran has made in their nuclear development simply BECAUSE no previously offered deals were struck with the west. We delay at our own peril, I think. From an article in Politico:

Our ex-safeties have cleaned up the last two years. Duke Williams must be licking his chops. Good luck, Da'Norris. GO BILLS!!!

I'm not proposing anything; it's already been ratified in the Constitution; children of illegal immigrants born on US soil are automatically US citizens. That's a problem when it comes to the mass deportation of their parents. Again, it's impractical. And any president, regardless of party affiliation, would have the same dilemma. I get that it's easier to just pass it off as Obama wanting to create a voting bloc, though.

It may well have voting bloc implications. I just don't think that's the overriding factor in Obama's thinking as I said. Nor do I think that 11 million new voters are automatically gonna vote in lock-step unison with a particular party just because they were granted amnesty by a president who is a member of that party. Did all those granted amnesty by Reagan unanimously vote republican, all the time, in every election since then? I think THAT is naive to think. Although that kind of dovetails the line of thinking that some people are just too stupid or ignorant to know any better. It's a matter of pragmatism simply because of the sheer logistics involved in deporting 11m plus, not to mention the sticky issue of children born here. Those children have rights of citizenship afforded them by the Constitution. That factor can't be so easily dismissed, especially by the president.

Can't we all at times? The civil rights movement happened in my lifetime. Voting rights are a HUGE issue with me. And I hate to see them diminished and I admit it sticks in my craw to see them so easily dismissed by some. Bothers the everloving phuck of out me. I don't care if a man has to make his mark with an "X" because he's unable to spell his name in order to cast his vote, either. His illiteracy does NOT exclude him from being informed about what's important to HIM. And it pisses me off when people assume otherwise when they project THEIR value systems upon him. And I don't apologize for that.

Why were you so quick to get all defensive in my original response to your post on the subject of voter intelligence? Why did you automatically think I was using "code" words as you said? Why did that strike a chord? I submit your defensiveness is a result of their being a kernel of truth to the stereotype applied to "low intelligence" voters. The term itself is offensive. And no, I don't think the core motivation behind Obama's idea of immigration amnesty is simply to cultivate a new bloc of voters. Much like with Reagan's previous plan, it's a question of pragmatism, more than anything else.

It's not that I resent your ability to be well-informed. More power to you. It's that EVERY time I read posts like yours on the matter, it comes across as elitist thinking; as if some people don't have as much of a right to their vote as you do; that their thinking is flawed or somehow beneath yours. That they are stupid and ignorant therefore, they shouldn't be involved in the process. Which is ironic because the party line you seem to espouse the most, seems to spend a great deal of time appealing to our base emotions and trying to hard to frame elections along single-issue lines.

Let me guess: you are one of the well-informed, right? Tell us what you really mean by "single-issue" or "low-educated" voter.

Roger Ailes wrote the book. If all the other peddlers had former political party operatives in charge like FNC does, perhaps they would be seen as just as big a shill. But they don't. FNC is unique in that critical aspect. Goebbels would be proud. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. My point is that it's not a good thing to have such limited ownership of vast broadcasting networks, regardless of transmission mode. I think it's dangerous. And it never would have happened if the rules for ownership weren't re-written in the 80s. And it's no coincidence that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes immediately sought to take advantage.

I find the idea of less monopolistic networks ironic given the state of network/affiliate ownership. It's never been controlled by fewer companies/voices.