K-9

They've sported two historically bad defenses the last two years running. Just how much worse can they be without him? He's just not going to make or break their success on the D side of the ball. As an opening in the negotiations, the Bills agreed to give him a guaranteed 6.9 for the year, which makes him the 4th highest paid safety in the game. That's right about where he should be, IMHO and why I agree with you that the Bills are doing the right thing here. GO BILLS!!!

Who cares how much he's paid? He's gonna be the same play-when-he-feels-like-it player, regardless. GO SABRES!!!

Can't argue the statistical argument one bit. But that statistical argument begs the question: how much better could he be if he wasn't so lazy. Players in a leadership role who coast most of the time and only turn it on when motivated, are an overall liability and a bad example for the rest of the team. Give me a 3rd/4th line player who goes all out all the time and is maxed out as a 3rd/4th line player vs. a 1st/2nd line player who is relegated to a 3rd/4th line role because he doesn't seem to give a crap to be any thing more. GO SABRES!!!

^This. And I get the impression "folding" is not an option for Girgensons. If he won't fold when he's down by 11 goals, he's not gonna when the outcome is still in doubt. My hope is that he won't tolerate that in others, like Drury. I want him throwing the boom box out of the locker room, yanking earphones off of heads to get their attention. And I see nobody in the locker room that currently holds such sway that he would be reluctant to do so. GO SABRES!!!

Lindy beat him with a hockey stick and then made him dress up in high heels and stockings. Took away his manhood. GO SABRES!!!

Does he "over" backcheck? Miller doesn't like that. GO SABRES!!!

When I heard the story of how he was STILL blocking shots when his team was down by 11 goals, that's all I needed to know about the cut of this kids jib. He can't get in the locker room and assert a leadership role fast enough. GO SABRES!!!

This is nothing new, unfortunately. Goes back to the very beginning of politics and the absolute necessity to control the narrative.

Stafford or my post? And then I read this. Great minds, nobody. Great minds. GO SABRES!!! There's contention for the cup and then there's contention to make the playoffs. And while getting into the tournament means anything can happen, odds are it's gonna be one of those "cup" contending teams that gets there. DR, whom I don't detest like others here, just hasn't been able to assemble AND KEEP, a cup contending team, regardless of his prowess as a drafter and trader. If Lindy really was the problem, we'll find out soon enough. But in my book, Lindy did more with less than anything else. GO SABRES!!!

The most frustrating thing about Stafford is that when he does decide to put his nose to the grindstone, he's a fricken bull on the ice. Speed, power, strong on his skates, determined, etc. Heck, he even answered the bell in defense of Drury when he engaged Neal. But that's the problem, it's his choice to not engage as well. That's unforgiveable in my book. And I'm not sure if it's simply a question of maturity at this point. It's just his nature. Much harder to change that than anything. GO SABRES!!!

I read the article vs. watching the video and I think his points are fair and are uniquely his to make as an African-American male AND president of the US. They were honest and responsible to reasonable people not afraid of having the discussion. There is a stigma hanging over this country and it has since its inception. We HAVE to find the ground between "just get over it" and "whitey won't give me a chance." And of course his detractors will try to make political hay out of everything he says so I look for them to fan the flames on this as well.

Looks like Patty's uncle got frozen out on this deal. Bet he's in touch with Hodgson's dad right now. Won't be long before a couple native-Canadians get a contract of their own. GO SABRES!!!

But isn't it interesting that the Zimmerman defense team never argued nor even sought to argue their case based on Stand Your Ground?

Didn't Martin have a right to "stand his ground?" Gotta love FL. Agreed that, based on the evidence presented, the jury made the right decision. And they carefully deliberated before doing so. Apparently, three of them had found him guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter on the initial ballot and later changed their minds based on the evidence. While I have strong opinions on the other aspects of the case, I am reassured by the jurisprudence displayed by the jury.

It's my understanding that Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense are two entirely different scenarios under FL law and that is why Zimmerman didn't argue Stand Your Ground. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/310945-bloomberg-martin-death-evidence-stand-your-ground-should-go

Not sure what the 'stand your ground' law has to do with the Zimmerman case. His defense team never argued that and for good reason.

I fully appreciate and respect where you're coming from on this. And I agree. I guess I'm drawing a distinction between certain prejudices and unconscious biases. Thanks for the insight into the process. All of us on this planet see the world through the prism of our own experiences. Bias must ALWAYS be considered as a result.

I'm merely saying that little of it resides in the subconscious mind at all. Indeed, it's at the very front of our thought processes more often than we'd care to admit. Expecting civil unrest as a result of this trial, like many others in the past, and knowing beforehand that most of that unrest will come from the African-American community, has little to do with racial stereotypes in my view. It's just a natural extension of human nature not confined to race at all. Perhaps that is too simple a thought process on my part. But I think most of us would react in similar ways to perceived injustices as we have throughout time.

It's not subconscious at all. Given the centuries of institutionalized racism in this country, it is anything but to anyone with a cursory understanding of our history in this regard. We'd all like to think we've evolved to the point of truly putting the sins of our fathers behind us, but that's just not the case. Sadly, I'm not convinced we ever will given the gulf between "just get over it" and "whitey won't give me a chance."

You're seriously trying to conflate an organized political movement with unorganized mob violence and vandalism? Or is it just a smarmy way of saying that people who participate in these protests and violent acts are representative of liberals in general and the Democratic party in particular?

And thank God for that.

So, the ideologies of the parties is irrelevant and has no bearing on their respective histories? Really? You would have me believe that the Tea Party of today more closely resembles the party of Lincoln than the party of Stephen Douglas? You would have me believe that the party of Strom Thurmand (before he became a Republican in 1964, by the way) and George Wallace hail from the same party as Bill Clinton? The administration's news network? That clinches it. I'm just exchanging viewpoints with another Roger Ailes shill.

The historical record it the historical record? That's it? Like I said, an exercise in futility. I'm a reformed Republican myself. I have no stomach for either party, either. I find both just as corrupt as the other. I'll only say I find your narrative a bit truncated but I understand the time and space constraints of this forum. Many of the social programs you cite like trade schools, etc. were gutted over the years by the same party that seeks to further cut these social programs in favor of raiding the treasury in support of their own corporate welfare programs. Both parties have done a great job of demonizing the other. I object more to the demonizing of certain classes and groups though.

It would be an exercise in futility for starters. You are being disingenuous if you are aware of and yet choose to not point out that the political ideologies of both parties have changed over the course of history. The modern day Republican and Democratic parties resemble their forebears in name only. If you aren't aware of these sea -shifts in their respective party ideologies over time, then you are not being disingenuous, just ignorant. Nothing wrong with that. But there is no shortage of material available. And the last place I would look is a bastardized Hollywood production. Are you still pissed that they didn't mention the parties involved in the movie so close to the last election?

I've never doubted the dubious role the Southern Democrats have played in our history, going back to pre-civil war days and all the way through the civil rights movement of the 60s. Not for a second. But the idea that the modern Republican party has some sort of kinship with the fledgling party of Lincoln's era is preposterous. They were considered the radical, liberal party of the times. Indeed, the Civil War era Democratic party more closely resembled the modern day Republican party given their mutual conservative stances on social, cultural, and political issues. History isn't about what happened. It's about the telling of what happened. If some are content with the media doing the telling, so be it. But there is a wealth of information out there, old and new, that informs us so much better.