...

What does it mean to "disenfranchise voters"? People fall for the most inane garbage it's depressing. Yeah, watch the Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition if you don't believe the extent to which you are manipulated, and for how long it's been going on. They use the same tactics they started using 125 years ago - the exact same, right down to the wording. It seems lots of folks are just sports fans hanging their hats on a political agenda without any real philosophical or intellectual grasp of the outcome. In this example, to think that "disenfranchising voters" is more important than an election result that is as clean (read: fraud-free) as possible is simply ridiculous, unless, of course, you're in on the gag that these "disenfranchised voters" sway the result in favor or your team, uhm, I mean, party.

I think anyone interested in this may be thrown by the first picture in the auction. They probably say to themselves "it matches the rug...why get rid of it?"

We have come all this way with the Sabres, knowing throughout the latter half of it that, in the end, the goal is to build a true contender. We know this is the last season for it. We know that, even without getting the number 1 pick, if the Sabres tank, they will get a player whose caliber we have dreamed of for many seasons now. Do we want a legit chance at building a true contender? Yes. Is tanking the only way? No. Tanking is the path they started on, though, and it's something they haven't really tried before (in earnest). I don't like it while it's happening, but I do like the end game...a lot. And since, again, we have all travelled this far and the end is in sight, it only makes sense to stay the course.

I agree...anyone willing to call a radio station and talk to the on-air talent about...anything...should know what they're talking about. Anyway, regarding the pronunciation, I agree that spelling suggests "Shawn - trell". My interpretation is based on folks messing around with pronunciation so it sounds cool, like "Theresa" being pronounced "Tear-EHZ-ah", or "Darrell" being pronounced "Day - rell".

Looking at it, I would have pronounced it "Sea - An - Trell".

That wasn't Tuel who threw that interception.

If memory serves it was between the Bills 40 and the 50. FWIW, I liked Ruel.

4th and 3 and they punt? Why? Now I remember why I have a hard time getting into football.

Someone help me out: I don't really follow football, except for the regular drama that is the Buffalo Bills. I have never had an interest in preseason NFL football, ever, but I feel strangely compelled to watch this game tonight and have caught myself somewhat looking forward to it. What is happening to me?

Culture change. Under Regier, would the Sabres have had the likes of Nolan or Trottier? How many teams have wishy-washy GMs or aren't committed to winning? These two, especially, probably couldn't get a job, or wouldn't take a job, with a team that has a crappy culture. Maybe they were turned off to the league through job interviews with disappointing GMs and/or ownership and said "the hell with it..." I don't think these guys are hired without the approval of Murray and Pegula's crew. So I think that they have established a clear mandate: change the culture to one that takes no prisoners and makes no excuses. As everyone has pointed out, this team isn't going anywhere right now. If that's so, then why not welcome the opportunity to hire proven winners and let them teach the kids what being a winner is like? Frankly, I like Trottier being on board more than I did PLF as far as all of the above goes. As far as an X's and O's guy...they'll get that, maybe. Again, the team isn't going anywhere this year, why hurry? They have a stats department, they have people who can parse the stats and give the details to the coaches, and the coaches can combine the data with their coaching and bingo - you have a hybrid approach to coaching. Don't forget they DID have a pure X's and O's guy on board in Rolston, and that was a failure.

Right. So, the Sabres want a guy who was fired from a team expected to contend, but couldn't.

Are you suggesting the guys on the Stanley Cup winning or contending teams are available?

Ditto.

Yay for culture change! WTF, some joker on the BN board stole my avatar... Goodness...it's even worse! They're using my avatar on Twitter! Bastage! @Cannibal_King

OMG, a voice of reason amongst the din... Has no one ever seen on the news where the military acts separately from the government in countries where there is civil/political disorder? In the event the government overtly turns on the people, the military will split, or go its own route. Why do you think Obama is staffing the military leadership with leftists like himself? It's an attempt to try an insure some/part/all of the military remains under federal control. Meanwhile, this administration has so offended and abused the military, it's likely they will be glad to turn on the administration IF it ever came to that.

Nice article. Puts us in an appealing light.

Could be a diversion. Or...it could be the idea is to house the Bills in Toronto, but they'll visit the Ralph once a year for a game.

If the intent was to be able to protect the people from the government, I'm not sure your assertion stands. Obviously, if the heavy weaponry you mention existed at the time, the entire course of history would be substantially different. But, tyranny is tyranny, and the ability to protect yourself from a tyrant is its own proposition, regardless of the means available.

It's a peek into the psychology of those who state it that way: the people are the enemy, and the government is good, regardless of what form it takes. It's illustrative of overindulged ignorance. My pre-teen children have a more mature understanding of the relationship between government and the people than many posters in this thread.

The USA would have never come to be if a lot of things didn't coalesce at the right time. The French only came here thanks to the genius of Ben Franklin.

Really? Just how likely is the looney doomsday prepper scenario over a gang-banger? Do you know the stats on gun crime? You're more likely to be held up by a guy with a gun, WHO HAS NO POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS, than you are ever to run across some pro-gun whacko. This is media-induced fantasy-land thinking and is FAR more dangerous to our country's survival than guns. Ridiculous. That IS cowardice. That is giving up and giving in. The government wins because they have more toys; they are better; I shall lay down and be their bitch because they have the better toys. Bullsh*t. And the Continental Army wasn't going to win against Big Bad Britain. Back in the day, the perceived discrepancy was pretty great, too. England, with the world's finest army and largest navy, against a rag-tag group, un-organized assembly of un-trained farmers and workers. The North Vietnamese were woefully out-matched in terms of fire power, but they eventually forced the USA to draw out of the conflict all together. There is more to a fight than just the weapons. There are tactics, strategies, smarts and will-power, not to mention over-whelming numbers. I'm not trying to rally you; I'm just writing this for posterity.

Back at you.

For a small fee, one can obtain that information.

You cowards. So, because there's a perceived disparity in firepower, that's enough to provide an excuse to give up even before the fight (hypothetically speaking)? You'd rather allow your government trample on you, and give up any leverage and any tactical asset because you can't see a win if it comes to that? These are just more excuses by spoiled citizens. And to strongly imply the Republicans are behind all of the alphabet soup agencies (and by omission strongly imply the democrats have nothing to do with them) is intellectually lazy. Where's the pride in distorting reality to accommodate your point of view; the facts are the facts and the truth of it can be debated without the stereotypical rhetorical tricks.