The Last Republican to Be in the White House

Posted in the Warsaw Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Pale Rider

AOL

#1 Aug 24, 2012
The last Republican in the White House was George W. Bush. A man so disliked by his own party, they can't let him speak, or come to the Republican Convention. Did you know that former Presidents, attend the party gatherings, and often speak? But not George W. Bush. He would have to lie in nearly every word he spoke, in order to make his administration have any good effect for the Convention. It is true former President George W. Bush does understand politics. He understands there is nothing he could say that would help Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. Since leaving the White House in 2009, the 43rd president has kept a low profile and, in rare interviews, said he doesn’t think former presidents ought to be in critiquing their successors. Yea right! If former President had not lied so many times, they might have enough pride to say something. Not George W. Bush, the Republican Party doesn't have the stomach to be reminded of the miserable failure under the Bush Family. H. Bush couldn't beat an upstart from Arkansas. The Honorable Senator John McCain couldn't beat a Chicago Community organizer from Chicago. Lets examine why George W. Bush will not be at the Convention.

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Nine Hundred and Thirty Five (935) Lies

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

Will you miss George W. Bush at the convention? Or will Mitt Romney take a page out of the Bush Presidency, to tell us, how safe he will keep America if we elect him as the next President. Will he tell us we need to make the tax cuts permanent? Will he remind us, of the economy under Obama? Will he tell us we are on the verge of a new economy under his Presidency, if we will give him our vote? I bet he doesn't refer to the mess George W. Bush left for the next President.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war. I bet Romney doesn't mention, the Iraq war, that was waged to keep America Free. Haven't the Republicans just about wore out "Keeping America Free" banner completely out. Now Iraq is an ally of Iran, isn't that great? That is how you keep America safe isn't it. The other enemy of Iran, al Qaeda, the United States made sure he was hung. Another shameful war. Thanks George W. Bush for your lousy leadership of eight miserable years. I will be the only one to thank that pitiful President. America is glad to forget you George W. Bush.
Pale Rider

AOL

#2 Aug 25, 2012
***** Public Notice *****

Attention to all Americans, I notice no Republican will go near this subject. They know that George W. Bush administration messed up America for many years to come. How many years and billions will it take to reverse what George W. Bush messed up for all Americans.
Pale Rider

AOL

#3 Aug 25, 2012
The George W. Bush tax cuts gave the rich huge tax breaks with idea that it would generate economic growth and stimulate the economy. We now have $2 trillion in bank vaults and no economic recovery. Why didn’t it work?”Job creators” put it in a bank and sometimes not even into American banks. Why do Republicans continue to champion economic policies they know don’t work? Republicans and the rich people who support them want the tax breaks and are just looking for a justification.

Mitt Romney wants to continue George W. Bush’s policies. Why? History has proven they don’t work.

The United States economy is 70% consumer spending and putting money in the pockets of consumers in the middle class and working poor is the right strategy.

If we listen to dope head like Neutral Party or the UnAmerican Rooster Cogburn, the United States will become a third world nation. Do not vote for another dictator that will champion the Goerge W. Bush policies. Only 3 million jobs created under George W. Bush. TAX CUTS DO NOT WORK, they only benefit a few of the RICH. America doesn't need another dictator.
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#4 Aug 27, 2012
Stupid old lying "Pale Rider" says,

"TAX CUTS DO NOT WORK, they only benefit a few of the RICH. America doesn't need another dictator".

"Pale Stupid" likes to call the -failed- lying old wrinkled whoremonger Bill Clinton -- the great Bill Clinton.

She gives old Bill -whoremonger- Clinton credit for a great economy that -was in fact- created by DEEP TAX CUTS forced on failed Bill Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican US House.

She credits the serial sex offender and rapist, the great Bill Clinton a whole host of things that never happened, trillions of jobs created, vast surpluses run up, poverty almost illiminated. A virtual utopia right here on earth.

Now she hopes the -failed- Bill Whoremonger Clinton's endorsement of Obama will turn things around for the dismally failed Obama.

She and the democrats are forced to stick with the already failed lie -- that George W. Bush administration messed up America for many years to come. That is all they have to run on.

It didn't work in 2010. It won't work in 2012.

It matters not to democrats that Obama in 2008 indicated that he understood the problems and could fix them and has absolutely failed to do so.

Now we will see two failed democrats, Bill and Barack, coming before us asking for four more years.

Two -failed- world class liars together on the same stage.

The sad truth is there is no reason what-so-ever to re-elect Barack Obama. Bill Clinton trying to smear more lipstick on that pig won't make any difference at all.

Barack Obama is an empty suit. Bill telling us otherwise will simply tarnish Bill's already bad reputation even more.

I can't wait for the democrat convention and the shouts of "Monica, Monica, Monica" coming amidst a shower of thrown shoes -- as the lying wrinkled old whoremonger aka the great Bill Clinton goes to the podium to spin his web of BS and lies, and bask in the limelight.

But it is doomed to fail. The voters have seen the light. They have given up on Obama's Hope and Change.

All they will think of when they see Bill Clinton is Monica in her semen stained dress -- and "what the definition of is - is".

No-sireee, this just ain't a good time to be a democrat in America. I guess one could say "their chickens are coming home to roost"
Pale Rider

AOL

#6 Aug 28, 2012
Why isn't the man that messed up America not going to the Convention? I think it is because, someone will ask him, how does it feel to be the worst President since Herbert Hoover. Or it could be, why did you lie about Saddam having WMD? He knows he is a wanted man, he knows most people hate him.
Pale Rider

AOL

#7 Aug 28, 2012
Here is something that 68% of Americans can agree on. They continue to place more blame for the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago. The relative economic blame given to Bush versus Obama today is virtually the same as it was last September.

As most of you know by now, I am a Republican, and I call them, like I see them. Which is a lot more then I can say about the Doofus gang. The Doofus Gang is a one sided mouth piece, with no particular point of view worth your time to read. On the other hand I present the facts, they can't handle. They will squirm and tell a bunch of lies to get across their one sided point of view, that no one believes but them. As far as I can determine CNN today, has tried very hard to avoid the Republican Convention as best they can. Their focus has been on Hurricane Isaac, I love it. Mainstream News probably will focus on that more then the Republican Convention. No one is going to pay any attention to Ann Romney talking about her husband. They don't have anything for America. But they do have a plan, to pay back the RICH of this Country, by giving the wealthy a TAX BREAK.
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#8 Aug 29, 2012
ANOTHER PALE RIDER LIE EXPOSED

New poll shows Obama getting the most blame for the bad economy.

In 2009, Barack Obama predicted that he had only three years to turn the American economy around.

"Look," Obama told the Today audience, "if I can’t turn the economy around in three years, I will be looking at a one-term proposition."

With the economy stuck in stagnation and starting to slide backwards toward recession, voters have decided Obama is right.

A new poll from The Hill shows that two-thirds of likely voters blame bad economic policy for the current state of the economy — and more blame Obama than anyone else:

I repeat:
"two-thirds of likely voters blame bad economic policy for the current state of the economy — and more blame Obama than anyone else"

The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down.

The numbers are bad for Obama almost across the board. Overwhelming numbers of both men (65/26) and women (67/26) believe the current economic malaise is the result of bad policy rather than an unavoidable consequence of the 2008 crash.

Not a single demographic thinks otherwise, not even self-described liberals (46/39).

Even without any other data, an incumbent President would face daunting odds in re-election with these numbers, since most voters assign blame or credit for economic to the White House.

Sorry, Pale fibber, but that often repeated lie, about more people blaming Bush -- just won't fly.

Pale Liar just tells lie, after lie, after lie, after lie.

Obama's goose is cooked. He is finally getting the recognition he deserves.

I saw a headline this morning that said Gallup poll shows Obama approval in freefall.

It seems that his approval is down to 43 percent. That is down four points in about ten days.

It ain't looking good for Barack Obama -- but that's good news for the rest of us.
Pale Rider

AOL

#9 Aug 29, 2012
After eight miseral years in the White House, the Republicans would give their right arm to never mention George W. Bush ever again. He doesn't have the backbone to go to the Republican Convention, and barely endorsed Mitt Romney. Why are you afraid to mention the man that assed up America Rooster? Why do you think Mitt Romney will be any better the Bush, windbag Rooster?
Pale Rider

AOL

#10 Aug 29, 2012
The Handling of Katrina by George W. Bush!

When Bush Knew

At 4:00 PM on Sunday, August 28th, "National Hurricane Center Meteorologist Chris Lauer said Katrina was still on track to hit the New Orleans area as a devastating Category 5 hurricane as its eye comes ashore" on Monday morning, August 29th, Gordon Russell wrote in The Times-Picayune.

Also, on Sunday, August 28th, Max Mayfield, still "worried about Hurricane Katrina ... even talked about the force of Katrina during a video conference call to President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas."

"In his first extensive interview since resigning as FEMA director" on September 12th, Michael D. Brown "declined to blame President Bush or the White House for his removal or for the flawed response," New York Times' David D. Kirkpatrick and Scott Shane wrote September 15, 2005.

"But Mr. Brown's account, in which he described making 'a blur of calls' all week to Mr. Chertoff, Mr. Card and Mr. Hagin, suggested that Mr. Bush, or at least his top aides, were informed early and repeatedly by the top federal official at the scene that state and local authorities were overwhelmed and that the overall response was going badly," they wrote.

Caught on Tape

The Associated Press reported March 1, 2006, that film footage it had obtained, "along with seven days of transcripts of briefings ... show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.


"Linked by secure video, Bush expressed a confidence on Aug. 28 that starkly contrasted with the dire warnings his disaster chief and numerous federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm."

"In dramatic and agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief that Hurricane Katrina could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to video footage," AP reported. "Bush didn't ask any questions during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials:'We are fully prepared'." Video tape link on page. Also see more media coverage

Flooding in New Orleans

On Monday, August 29, 2005, "New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin said on NBC's Today Show there was already 'significant flooding' in the city, most of which lies below sea level....'I've gotten reports this morning that there's already water coming over some of the levee systems,' he said."

Late on Monday morning, a "large section of the vital 17th Street Canal levee, where it connects to the brand new 'hurricane proof' Old Hammond Highway bridge," gave way "in Bucktown after Katrina's fiercest winds were well north," Doug MacCash and James O.Byrne reported in The Times-Picayune. "The breach sent a churning sea of water from Lake Pontchartrain coursing across Lakeview and into Mid-City, Carrollton, Gentilly, City Park and neighborhoods farther south and east."
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#11 Aug 29, 2012
Pale Rider wrote:
After eight miseral years in the White House, the Republicans would give their right arm to never mention George W. Bush ever again. He doesn't have the backbone to go to the Republican Convention, and barely endorsed Mitt Romney. Why are you afraid to mention the man that assed up America Rooster? Why do you think Mitt Romney will be any better the Bush, windbag Rooster?
I mention the honorable George W Bush frequently, Pale. I am not at all ashamed of him.

George W defeated the best the democrats had not once, but twice.

George W Bush, unlike Bill Clinton, stepped up and led. Men who do that draw a lot of criticism. Men like Clinton whose main concerns were the next woman he'd find to score with -- and making themselves look good, they don't draw so much criticism, especially when they are liberal democrats with the press on their side, covering for them.

Bill Clinton will never, ever be remembered as anything but a lying, trashy, skirt chasing whoremonger (and rapist), whose main focus was always himself.

We already know Willy will never be classifed as great -- the jury is still out on George W Bush. Who knows how he will be seen 50 years from now?
Pale Rider

AOL

#12 Aug 29, 2012
George W defeated the best the democrats had not once, but twice.

George never defeated anyone. He bought his way into the White House, like Romney did the nomination. Without his money, Romney couldn't beat a good dog catcher. He hasn't offered one thing that will help only a few rich.

Nothing from nothing, leaves nothing. God knows there is nothing to George Romney. He is about as Christian as Donald Trump.
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#13 Aug 29, 2012
Pale Rider wrote:
George W defeated the best the democrats had not once, but twice.
George never defeated anyone. He bought his way into the White House, like Romney did the nomination. Without his money, Romney couldn't beat a good dog catcher. He hasn't offered one thing that will help only a few rich.
Nothing from nothing, leaves nothing. God knows there is nothing to George Romney. He is about as Christian as Donald Trump.
And I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy and believe that Barack Obama is a Christian too?

I see you criticized Bush and Romney -- but still can't tell me why I should vote for Obama. I guess you are just following Obama's lead. That's the same thing he always does.

By the way have you been watching the Republican convention? They've had some very inspiring speakers.

That Artur Davis - wow!! He was awesome Tuesday night. He's a great speaker.

Davis was an early supporter of Barack Obama's 2008 bid for the presidency, and one of the national co-chairs for Obama's 2008 campaign.

Davis, a black man, was previously a congressman from the Alabama 7th district.

Artur became disillusioned with Hope and Change, switched over and beame a Republican and now supports Mitt Romney.

Did I mention that he is a dynamic speaker? And he pointed out a few of why he's soured on Obama -- and told us why he's supporting Mitt Romney. He gave a very effective speech.

There's been blacks, men and women, who spoke in support of Mitt. Also numerous hispanics, both men and women, several of them Republican governors, who made rousing speeches of support for Mitt. Very Impressive.

These Governors also detailed the reasons we ought to replace Obama.

Little things like the failed stimulus - nearly a trillion dollars -- just p*ssed away - much of it as pay offs to those who supported him.

Little things like 42 straight months of over 8% unemployment.

Little things like the jobs he promised not materializing.

Little things like stiffling job killing regulations and red tape that small businesses have to deal with.

Little things like Obama's promise to cut the deficit in half in four years -- instead he's added 5 trillion in new debt.

Very inspiring speakers all -- oh, did I mention that the majority of these very enthusiastic Republican (mostly) governors were blacks, hispanics, and women? We have a very inclusive Republican party.

Did you see where the Seals have disputed Obama's version of the take down of Osama bin Laden?

It seems like Obama bin lyin again. No surprise there.

Are you sure you think that having the lying whoremonger Bill Clinton at his convention is the magic bullet to save him and his presidency? I'm not so sure. I think it's over for Barry.

I really don't believe old Bill wants to see him re-elected.
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#14 Aug 30, 2012
Pale Rider wrote:
Why isn't the man that messed up America not going to the Convention? I think it is because, someone will ask him, how does it feel to be the worst President since Herbert Hoover. Or it could be, why did you lie about Saddam having WMD? He knows he is a wanted man, he knows most people hate him.
"Pale Rider" asks

"Why isn't the man that messed up America not going to the Convention?" (refering to George W Bush)

What inquiring minds really want know -- Is why Hillary Rodham Clinton will be a no-show at Baracks convention? Why will she be on the other side of the world pretending to be taking care of business? She is the most popular member of Obama's administration. Why is she not going to be there to give him a boost? Hmmmm?

That is a far miore relevent question than questions about Bush not being at the Republican Convention. Can she not bear to see old skirt chasing Bill get up on stage and make a fool of himself.

I still think that old Bill is going there to sabatage Barack's campaign. Or (just maybe) he is going because he sees Barack has no chance to win -- and he thinks he'll win points for Hillary's 2016 run.

Bill Clinton does not want to see Barack Obama in the white House for another four years. Nor does Hillary.
Pale Rider

AOL

#15 Aug 30, 2012
Rooster Cogburn wrote:
<quoted text>
I mention the honorable George W Bush frequently, Pale. I am not at all ashamed of him.
George W defeated the best the democrats had not once, but twice.
George W Bush, unlike Bill Clinton, stepped up and led. Men who do that draw a lot of criticism. Men like Clinton whose main concerns were the next woman he'd find to score with -- and making themselves look good, they don't draw so much criticism, especially when they are liberal democrats with the press on their side, covering for them.
Bill Clinton will never, ever be remembered as anything but a lying, trashy, skirt chasing whoremonger (and rapist), whose main focus was always himself.
We already know Willy will never be classifed as great -- the jury is still out on George W Bush. Who knows how he will be seen 50 years from now?
Rooster wrote:

I mention the honorable George W Bush frequently, Pale. I am not at all ashamed of him.

You should be Rooster, you are among the few that has a good word for Bush. That old President needs to be put on a plane to Iraq, to face those people for a deliberate invasion, orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld.

Anyone that would uphold that stinkin George W. Bush and not support the Great Bill Clinton. You have an arrogant personality.
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#16 Aug 30, 2012
Pale fibber said,

"That old President needs to be put on a plane to Iraq, to face those people for a deliberate invasion, orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld".

Lying Pale knows full well that John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle and many other democrats helped make the case for the invasion, stating that Sadaam had WMDs and was hiding them, that he had used them before and would again.

She knows full well that they urged Bush to take action -- back when it was POLITICALLY POPULAR.

Later they falsely claimed Bush lied.

Pale knows that George W Bush was an honorable man who served with honor and dignity.

Bill Clinton, on the otherhand, was a liar, was a crook, was a sex offender and a two time felon in office, and thus was called before a federal grand jury and eventually impeached.

His reputation was dispicable. He was a disgrace to the Office of the President, a disgrace to the nation, a disgrace to himself, and worst of all (in the minds of democrats and the press) he disgraced their party.

But the democrats and press would not face the fact of Clinton's disgrace. They sought instead to drag down an honorable man George W Bush to Clinton's sleazy level. They told numerous lies about Bush while touting Clinton's imaginary sucesses.

They did it in an attempt to save face for the democrat party.

It worked for a while -- but no longer. The truth has eventually come out.

The democrats lost 64 house seats running against Bush. And people around the world have come to see Bill Clinton for what he was.

Hillary Clinton was pelted while abroad with shoes and chants of "Monica, Monica, Monica".

This is proof Clinton is already being seen more realistically. Eventually Bush will recieve the credit and respect he deserves.

I write the truth. Pale tells lie after lie after lie. Intelligent people can see the difference.
Pale Rider

AOL

#17 Aug 30, 2012
Rooster Cogburn wrote:
Pale fibber said,
"That old President needs to be put on a plane to Iraq, to face those people for a deliberate invasion, orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld".
Lying Pale knows full well that John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle and many other democrats helped make the case for the invasion, stating that Sadaam had WMDs and was hiding them, that he had used them before and would again.
She knows full well that they urged Bush to take action -- back when it was POLITICALLY POPULAR.
Later they falsely claimed Bush lied.
Pale knows that George W Bush was an honorable man who served with honor and dignity.
Bill Clinton, on the otherhand, was a liar, was a crook, was a sex offender and a two time felon in office, and thus was called before a federal grand jury and eventually impeached.
His reputation was dispicable. He was a disgrace to the Office of the President, a disgrace to the nation, a disgrace to himself, and worst of all (in the minds of democrats and the press) he disgraced their party.
But the democrats and press would not face the fact of Clinton's disgrace. They sought instead to drag down an honorable man George W Bush to Clinton's sleazy level. They told numerous lies about Bush while touting Clinton's imaginary sucesses.
They did it in an attempt to save face for the democrat party.
It worked for a while -- but no longer. The truth has eventually come out.
The democrats lost 64 house seats running against Bush. And people around the world have come to see Bill Clinton for what he was.
Hillary Clinton was pelted while abroad with shoes and chants of "Monica, Monica, Monica".
This is proof Clinton is already being seen more realistically. Eventually Bush will recieve the credit and respect he deserves.
I write the truth. Pale tells lie after lie after lie. Intelligent people can see the difference.
Rooster is a SERIAL LIAR. Don't read his stack of blatant lies.
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#18 Aug 30, 2012
Pale Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Rooster is a SERIAL LIAR. Don't read his stack of blatant lies.
I tell nothing but truth Pale. Read it and weep.

When you tell the truth you don't have to remember what lie you told before so's not to trip yourself up.

You contradict yourself often.

You ought to try to have a close personal relationship with the truth sometome -- you'd feel much the better for it.
Pale Rider

AOL

#19 Aug 30, 2012
Rooster Cogburn wrote:
<quoted text>
I tell nothing but truth Pale. Read it and weep.
When you tell the truth you don't have to remember what lie you told before so's not to trip yourself up.
You contradict yourself often.
You ought to try to have a close personal relationship with the truth sometome -- you'd feel much the better for it.
That old Mitt Romney didn't help his chances in November one ounce. He blew his chance. It was a lousy speech. Did you watch that miserable entrance? He is not Presidential material. Everyone said Clint stole his thunder.
Rooster Cogburn

Bethpage, TN

#20 Aug 31, 2012
Pale Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
That old Mitt Romney didn't help his chances in November one ounce. He blew his chance. It was a lousy speech. Did you watch that miserable entrance? He is not Presidential material. Everyone said Clint stole his thunder.
That's exactly what I expected you to say -- you lying Dummass.

Your mindless posts are about as predictable as the sound of the needle on spinning scratched phonograph record.

There's nothing positive to say about Obama, so you must endlessly repeat this attack on Mitt.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#21 Sep 2, 2012
Miss Pale, here is a news flash for you. George Bush and Bill Clinton will not, I repeat, will not be running for president in 2012. Old history rather true or false has nothing to do with the 2012 election. Who really gives a shit if President Bush or slick willy speaks at the convention or not? You need to listen more to Mr. Rooster and learn a few things. Now pull your head out and pay attention.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Warsaw Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
School Audit not published 21 hr whatsup 4
Gallatin County Paper works for McFarland? Tue catman 1
Change after an Election Mon promise you keep job 4
Narcs are very busy right now Dec 20 Tommy 27
Remember the heroin busts on 4/22/14? Dec 19 Jennifer Mc 20
The cry baby fourm Dec 19 donnie 2
chad murray Dec 17 HMMMMMMMMM 5
Warsaw Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Warsaw People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Warsaw News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Warsaw

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:29 pm PST

NBC Sports 1:29PM
Colts say they will be all business despite nothing to gain - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 2:15 AM
Should New England Patriots Rest Key Starters in Week 17?
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Breaking Down Colts' Game Plan vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 5:00 AM
Can't-Miss Picks and Matchup Guide
NBC Sports 6:16 AM
A.J. Green's injured arm "feeling a little better"