OCinBuffalo

Oh you want to do proportions? Joe Biden gave to $500 to charity last year. What's that in proportion to his overall salary? What's idiot Joe's mite worth? In fact, you can do the same thing with every single Democrat, and compare their proportions to Republicans. But, this isn't the point I made at all. Apparently you need more, so here it is...more: We need to begin with REAL compassion, which is not "write a check to the government so that we don't have to get our hands dirty". It begins with understanding that "God helps those who help themselves". He really does. When you see a kid who has worked(and you've helped) very hard, on hitting a curveball, actually hit one, you suddenly see "that help themselves" as a very profound statement. It opens your eyes, and you gain a new humility immediately. Doubly so when hits that ball while getting all Bs or above, because baseball is a privilege, and "privileges cost". That's what the coach tells the 11(this time) single mothers, married mothers too, on the team the first day. Yes, they are all "on the team", to include helping their teammates by: driving car pool, cleaning uniforms, having kids over for "studyhall" when one of their teammates has to work, whatever the team requires. "This is no babysitting service". Um, why do I end up with 11 out of 15 single moms? Because many begin with the notion that it is, and, I disabuse them of that Day 1. It's the only compassionate thing to do. They are mothers, this is good for their kids, and not intended to be good for them, in terms of getting 2-3 free hours off. That's why baseball is a privilege they must "pay" for as well, hence the grades thing is not only about the kids. Of course I find myself doing all sorts of coaching, and much of it is listening to "my ex" stories. I seem to get results there too. But, for any of this to happen, you actually have to have put in the time, day by day, by first getting the kid to see the spin of the ball, and therefore recognize that no, it isn't going to hit him in the head. Then, we move on to staying back, bat speed through the zone, etc. You actually have to be personally involved, every day. The kid hits the curve, and the mom thinks maybe I'm right about taking that computer class. I can't get the same results by writing a check, or paying more taxes. I wonder: what's the baseball coach's, who doesn't have any kids on the team, mite...worth? Would I be better at any of this if I was "subsidized" by the government? Would this work better if I made all the kids/moms on the team stand in line at my office, waiting for their "free government baseball education". You can just...hear it : "Well, the rich can afford to get private coaches for their kids, so those kids have a leg up when it comes time for JV tryouts". Right. Apparently there's no way I can compete with these private coaches. My record and more than a few of my kids playing at the next level, and even higher, say you lose. Private coach? Nope. Just a dumbass volunteer who needs to work on his swearing.

The Internet is so fun. How's this?

The point, nitwit, is that you wouldn't have any money for any spending on any healthcare system ....if you actually paid for your own defense. And you are calling me stupid? Not only is this relevant, it supesedes whatever crap you say next. Your socialist dream is subsidized directly by the USA. If it wasn't for us, there would be no national health care system in your, or any other, country. You'd be spending that $ on a real Navy and a real air force, instead of lining up behind ours...like little ducklings following their mother. Waddle Waddle Juan Guzman! We spend a lot of $, but, if you had cancer, and the personal $ to fight it? Don't lie to yourself: Your ass is coming here, and I don't think you'll be whining about "adminstrative costs" that could have been saved...when we cure you. I figure it would take about 6 months, after you've been cured, for you to go back to your nonsense about how Canada's system is better. **************************************************************** Seperate point. Yeah, I'm the idelogue...so much so, that I never listen to anybody about anything, looking for something I can pick up/learn. I never talk to Ze Germans about health care(which means next week Wed. I don't have to get up at 2 am, yeah!) I never pay attention to the foreign press, so I completely missed this little gem from yesterday: http://www.telegraph...ssary-pill.html That's what you have, that's what they have, and you dare to act like both it and you are superior? :lol: :lol: Get a f'ing grip on reality pal. I'll make it simple for you: just like with EVERYTHING, socialism dehumanizes. But, it doesn't do so instantly. Too bad. If it did, we'd all recognize it for the cancer that it is, and eradicate it, as we must. However, over time, socialism is the reason the doctor has no oxygen. It's the reason the maggots find their way into the surgery. The maggots get comfortable, because everybody there is: comfortable. There's no reason to work harder, because the government won't pay you more. So, why check for the maggots? There's no reason to work smarter, because if you do, the government rolls out more "rules", that regulate and tax away whatever you might have earned. In fact there isn't even "earn" anymore, there's only what "they give you". So, why bother investigating how we got the maggots, and what we can do to avoid them, as there's no personal reward for doing any of that. And, is anybody going to fire us? So what if they did? More public assitance an a new job in a few months. Even the reward of "The only person who need know I'm doing the right thing is me"...again...over time...wears down. The enthusiam is worn down by the years of utter mediocrity that is being enforced everywhere one looks. Productivity stagnates and slowly declines. We all just do the same thing we did yesterday, then get in our cars and drive home. We get lazy, we get complacent. Why should we look for maggots? The government isn't paying us enough as it is, and, if we did look for maggots, it's not like we'd get a reward for finding them. With Obmacare? Why look for a cheaper plan? Why try to get a better one? The insurance companies are going to take whatever the government gives them, so they have no incentive to build cheaper or better plans, and, since the government has "deemed" the features of the plans, and what they will pay(ahem, I mean subsidize). The grand socialist vision, can be best explained by a single line from The Incredibles: Instead of having super doctors like we currently have, the kind your country can't produce, ever, Obamacare means: no one will be. Instead of having super managers/RNs like we currently have, the kind your country marginalizes, always, Obamacare means: no one will be. And instead of having super consultants, the super consultants will do what we always do: overcharge for marginal work in another industry.

"Working at being good" has literally nothing in common with "give your money to the government so they can(supposedly) do good works". Working at being good requires: an individual to expend more effort than writing a check/flashing the credit card. It requires commitment, and often: sacrifice. It requires individual time spent both in thinking about the best way to apply oneself, in addition to actually doing the good and/or spending the $ on the good. Real charity, done by real philanthropists(like Ralph Wilson) is rarely discussed nearly to the point of being anonymous. That's how "the rich" work at being good. You don't know Jamie Dimon, or whether he works to be good, or not. But, because you are a liberal, you think you do. Thus, it's not immoral to cast an aspersion on somebody else, who you don't even know, as long as it fits with your worldview. I have a suggestion birdog: how's about you "work at being good" and stop talking schit about people you don't know, and stop pretending that you can read their minds. You want to talk about what somebody did/didn't do, that's one thing. But "knowing" that a guy never works to be good, because he runs and investment bank? WTF? If you consider yourself in position to judge Jamie Dimon, without ever bothering to learn about the guy? Then clearly all Catholic teaching has been lost on you.

Mindless? I assure you I've done more quality thinking about this single issue than you've done in your entire lifetime, combined. And, I actually KNOW how to solve the "out of control" cost problem. I do that: for a job. In terms of quality thinking? Here comes the boom. Your are a f'ing umitigated moron if you actually believe this. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this is accurate at all. It's the same old thing with you clowns: compare apples to oranges, call that a "study" and then run to the media. Same thing with education, same thing with healthcare. ALL socialized medicince, in ALL countries that have it, DOES NOT provide what it says it does. It's a flat out lie. You don't have an "administrative costs/waste" problem? Check your own budget. Again, Canada's doctors/RNs/techs get paid schit. So, are we supposed to call that "savings of administrative costs"? No. That's called: price fixing, or wage and price controls. That's patently retarded, because you know damn well every rich Canadian in your country ends up in mine for their healthcare, and almost every good Canadian doctor has already filed his papers with our immigration people. The data is out there and clear: go eductate yourself. While you're at it: explain why we've seen an 200% increase in Private Insurance policies in both Canada and Britain, over the last 5 years. I mean, you have single payer, so....why is that happening? I'll tell you: You don't know better about how to control costs, administrative or otherwise. In fact you know nothing/aren't even trying to understand. ALL you do is cap what you will reimburse providers, do nothing about costs, and call it a day. Nothing is gained by this, and you never learn anything. It's perhaps the single laziest approach there is. Then, you ration care. And what do Canadians get for their $, when and if they actually receive care? The care is not affordable, it certainly isn't accessible(7 months to see the doc?), and the ONLY thing it does do is allow clowns like you a false sense of smug, "look at us". EDIT: How just like Obama! Now that I think about it: too lazy to actually do the work that a real solution requires, would rather walk around Sabres games claiming to be superior....yeah, exactly like Obama. Meanwhile those of us who know the facts, and how this stuff really works, laugh at you trying to be smug, because it's pathetic, and therefore: hilarious. Germany? Here we go again. Does Germany pay for its own defense? Does Canada? NO! I love how you clowns have the F'ing temerity to be critical of us, whilst basking in the security that WE PROVIDE! If either you or Germany had to actually pay for the convenience of using OUR Navy, and OUR Air Power, never mind the once-again proven hammer that is our Army, as a deterrent to basically every scumbag country in the world taking your people as hostages and stealing your schit, this socialist paradise delusion would be over the next day. Free trade, that you hate so much, except when it comes time to sell your oil, only exists due to the beneficence of the USA. Period. If you actually had to protect your own shipping, or we charged you full price for protecting it, and your oil reserves, and infrastructure, you'd be paying us at least half of what your entire health care system costs. So, as I said: that's the same day your socialist delusion dies. Then you remember falsely. What a surprise. I specifically, in practically every post, said: this doesn't mean Romney will win. And I also said: EITHER Nate Silver is right OR Gallup is right. Clearly you don't THINK anything. You wish. That's what all of this is about: wishcasting. Your wishcast: Obamacare will turn out great. Nothing supports it, no evidence exists that says this will happen, there isn't one single piece of business evidence that says this product is viable. Yet...you say it will be fine. How isn't that wishcasting? In contrast, my financial forecast: It's already screwed, as I've been saying, for 3 damn years. My technical forecast 3 years ago? "The enterprise management and techincal management skills necessary to successfully run a project like this are not present in either the leadership of the Democratic party, or the government, therefore they are already doomed to fail, before they begin." How'd I do? Yeah, looks like I nailed it, huh? Let's see where your wishcast ends up, and where my forecast ends up, shall we? I would bet you, but I know that you'll welch.

Holy Fox Butterfield! This guy correctly analyzes that there is a single tactic, police involvement, being over-used. But the rest of his "analysis" is hilariously idiotic. My question: if there is only a hammer left, who is responsible for taking all the other tools/tactics away? My other question: who creates the need for the hammer? Or, who is responsible for creating the conditions where the ONLY tool left that has a chance of working is police involvement? Or who is repsonsible for bad policy/decisions made at Step 1, right on through to Step 20, leaving the only choice at 20 = police involvement? He is shocked and amazed, throughout the ENTIRE article, to find a whole bunch of what he thinks are causes, that are actually: effects. Yeah, it's "amazing" that the % of black males that get arrested in this country compared to white males...is directly proportional...to the % of crimes committed by black males, compared to whites. The word "propensity" comes to mind. This is why statistics class should be mandatory for all, and doubly so for: "journalists". Not understanding that simple, causal relationship, is how Fox Butterfield...became: Fox Butterfield. He couldn't put this 2 and 2 together = crime is down-->more black men are in jail. Um, Fox? Fact: Black men commit more crime, by a lot. More of them being in jail...must mean? Crime will go down. This guy is repeating Butterfield's mistake. History only repeats itself under duress, or, because there are idiots involved.

Hilarious. Obama has "deftly" maneuvered himself into a logic trap, all by himself. Normally this requires expert skill, and is done by somebody else. A somebody else who is capable of the machinations required to move the target into the trap. So, uh, who is the expert R who "did this" to Obama? Isn't that the question that the Ds wish they had an answer to? But...finding that answer means: another trap. You have to admit somebody is an expert, and that somebody is an R. That entails admitting somebody is a lot smarter than Obama. That entails admitting an R is a lot smarter. Never. Going. To. Happen. In all cases: you can't have it both ways. You can maintain that Government is Great, but that requires saying Obama = FAIL. or You can maintain that Obama is Great, but that requires saying Government = FAIL. Liberals and Progressives: Pick a card, any card. :lol: I don't care which one, because either card has "admit you F'ed up" on it. Since you'll never do that, I will get keep laughing at/toying with you, as you keep trying to play it off/make excuses. That's my "trick". It could end, if you'd just stop lying, then wishing your lie would come true, then more lying when it doesn't, then more wishing the new lies would come true, etc. But you won't. So, the fun never ends. For me.

I'm still debating this.... When the Ds nominate Hillary, we can expect to see this "wall to wall". This is for 2 reasons. 1. Because it's so damning 2. Because the Rs failed to expend all their ordinance on Obamcare, thanks to Romney, last time around. This time? I think even Steve Atwater would blush at what's coming. One thing I'm pretty sure the Rs have learned is "we will never be beaten by spam again. This time we will fight on the internet, and in the culture, like we should have been doing for the last 20 years." Given this.... The "What difference does it make" thing is so awful, so damning, etc., and absolutely appropriate, I mean cut the crap: she needs to be held accountable, and she hasn't been. Not even close. She doesn't deserve to be President based solely on this specific incident. She has simply disqualified herself to be CinC. Ask any officer, and they will tell you that being this reckless and uncaring with the lives you are responsible for is disqualification for office. Plain and simple. That message needs to be driven home, over and over, so that it even reaches the domains of the dimwitted. They should start with: "The View". OTOH, I'm not sure I'm ready for the "What Difference Does It Make" ringtone in airports, the "WDDIM" t-shirts, the "WDDIM" country Christmas album, the "WDDIM" action figures(we simply cannot say "Barbie", and especially not "doll" here, can we?), or the "WDDIM" Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia. I suppose all of this will be funny as hell, when it starts on Jan 1, 2015. But, I'm not sure I will still be up for it in July, when this fat lady and her 50 plastic bags is holding me up at the security line, and she's yelling out "WDDIM" and giggling.

A...Conclusion? With absolutely 0 evidence to back it up, AND, a multitude of evidence that refutes it. Buddy, Canada's health care system doesn't provide anywhere near the benefit that is proportional to its cost. It's doesn't even follow it's own regulatory standards. (Amazing what happens when the government tries to regulate...itself) You don't get what you pay for. Period. I thought that only evil private insurance companies were guilty of "taking money out of the system". Where the hell is the $ you spend going? Answer: you have no idea, and neither does the government. That's why I got a call from Canada recently. Telling people what things actually cost, for real, not "based on accountant guesses", is one of our core competencies. Oh that's right, I forgot. Private insurance is guilty...again. Oh yes, private insurance, for those rich executive types(or actually those with a union card) is taking money out of the system, because anybody with a brain would easily choose a job that has it, over one that doesn't. Oh wait...isn't that the..."status quo". Canada and Britain have a 2 tier health care system now, one for those who can afford to pay for their own, while paying for others, and, one for the "underpeople". I always get a laugh when I hear clowns like you talk about "social justice", but not realize that it is your very policies that are rapidly creating a permanent underclass. You are literally creating social injustice, by creating one class of "the free, if they pay for it" and the literal "government mule" class. I prefer to think you aren't doing it intentionally, and that you're just a well-meaning unmitigated moron. But, I'm constantly confronted with evidence that this is about power for you, and not about grace. Yeah, nothing like Canada's health care system to show us all how it's done, right? And, do you realize that the US government is proving you wrong, in real time? Yes, the above is literally being proven to be buffonery. Right now. As I write, this this is happening. Are you Hippie Van Winkle? Been asleep since 1965? Just woke up? Still think that government is the answer to everything? (Um, that answer is actually: 42. But, you wouldn't know that, because you were sleeping when the rest of us read that. Nevermind. Also, what's interesting about 42, the answer to everthing, and US politics? Weird huh?) You write this, right after you write the above? So...you are aware that the US government is currently engaged in countering your premise, or....aren't you? It doesn't matter, to me. In either case, it's going to be funny, for me, watching you wriggle. "Thanks Obamacare!" "Just in time for the Holidays. Nothing says downsizing quite like a fresh, warm helping of Obamacare. Pick some up, if you can, at your state's website, or on the national debacle, I mean, exchange." Yes, let's all thank Obamacare, once again, for providing so much PPP ammo in such a relatively short period of time. Jimmy Carter was one thing. This is what we needed to kill off the "government knows best" position once and for all....or for at least another 30 years.

100% agree. I believe I'd pay for this to be etched in marble and planted in the middle of the House floor. With an appropriate , of course. Not so fast Tom. Don't forget, this can be used to create yet another "progressive" $1 Trillion boondoggle. These people are the best at using the consequences of their stupidity as a pretext for more of it. (I suppose rather than "recycling", "investing"? The word "sustainable" has to be part of it too, somewhere) OBAMACARE! See? The theory now becomes practice. Any time you want to talk in terms of "arguments"? I will say BAMACARE, and that gets you 2 strikes automatically.

The Pope doesn't think you'll get into heaven by giving your money to the government, and having them do good works on your behalf... ...either. In fact, the Bible is also pretty clear on the whole "good works" thing. So.... Does that make this Pope anti-statist? It certainly means he rejects all forms of Marxism. There's no debate there. The only "debate" would come from those either ignorant of Christianity in general, Catholicism, or Marxism. I think there's entirely too much "analysis" going on, and not enough "thinking" on this issue. Also, I think birdog is right: The Democrats, and the Bible thumping clowns, have been over-using contraception and abortion as political wedge issues for at least 30 years. It's far past time to stop pretending that these 2 issuse are on the same level with "The Debt" and "China is declaring no-fly zones". Those 2 issues are what Democrats/"Preachers" use to whore themselves out for votes/support/money, whenever they need them, and to prevent the adults from having an adult discussion about China and Entitlement Reform. Once the subject gets changed to those things, it will stay changed, and the whores can't have that. So, why should it be a surprise that some whores are spending so much time talking about contraception and abortion?

hehehehe.... 3rd never stated that you said regulation was the answer TPS. That was me. Still waiting for you to explain how more regulation, which necessitates more regulators hired from the industry they are to regulate, decreases the "revolving door", and, still waiting for you to describe how giving politicians or bureaucrats more power, keeps corruption at bay. If these people have nothing to sell, corporations have nothing to buy. EDIT: And what are they buying? Answer: A-hole politician shake-down insurance. When you get done talking, this will still be true. Whatever solution we arrive at, it cannot ignore the above because you wish it wasn't true. It is true, and the entire "centralization of power" scheme that the turds you support have been running, is throwing off empirical evidence of this by the day. We need new solutions for the modern age we live in. We need to stop reaching back to 1965 for the answers to everything. We absolutely need to stop reaching back to 1932 and pretending Keynes was some expert on how to fix these problems we have today. The man said "in the long run, we're all dead". Yes, they are dead, we are alive, and we are now living their "long run". Great! He should have said: "Screw TPS and OCinBuffalo, I don't know them, and who cares what I do to them". Our response must reciprocate: F them. F their "solutions". They are the reason we are where we are. Enough is enough. It's time to stop being nostalgic, and start doing some real thinking. The people that should be doing the thinking, are instead, protecting legacies. I can't hire LBJs legacy, nor can people eat it, or put it in their gas tank. The fact that you can't get past defining everything you support, in terms of something that happened 60-80 years ago.... ....and.... call yourself "progressive"? Absolutely hilarious. TR is the progressive. You are the nostalgic.

This is my anti-B-Man impersonation: So get this Repugs:http://www.washingto...d-on-obamacare/ But take it from me, your Senior Plum Line Reckless and Irresponsible Youth Correspondent: young people will eventually come around on Obamacare. Here are six reasons why. 1. Young people are not actually invincible. In fact, like most humans, we are rather squishy and helpless, and die quite easily. Today brings a very good example of this from inside the the White House itself. As Michael Robertson, the chief of staff in the Cabinet Affairs Office, demonstrates, serious illness can strike at any time: [He] was diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer at age 35. “I went overnight from being completely healthy and exercising and all that to having this catastrophic disease,” he said. Obamacare can be a tough sell for absolutely healthy young males. But as Robertson shows, even those people can be turned in an instant to people with pre-existing conditions — which is to say, people who will benefit from the protection of Obamacare. 2. Going without insurance is morally wrong. The only way insurance can work for everyone is if everyone is in the system so risk can be pooled. This one doesn’t carry much weight yet, since the system isn’t even operating. However, as time passes, this will become an important norm — and for young people, the norm has outsized importance (older people already have a reason to get coverage; they get sick more easily). Getting insurance will be part of living in a decent society where everyone chips in when they can afford it, and free-riding is frowned upon — and over time, young people will come to see this as part of being a responsible citizen. 3. It’s the law. People hate paying fines and generally prefer to follow the rules, even if it would be cheaper to do pay the fine rather than pick up insurance. Being judged is unpleasant. Maybe it’s true that young people would be relatively more likely to get on the wrong side of the law, but even most young people will ultimately want to follow the rules. 4. People haven’t grasped how the subsidies work yet. Younger uninsured people are disproportionately poorer — and less likely to pay attention to media coverage — and the range of subsides available hasn’t sunk in yet. This is compounded, of course, by the website’s struggles, but once the range of financial help trickles through the national consciousness young people will be surprised at the prices on offer. 5. Pressure from mom and dad. Take it from me, few things make your folks more nervous than the knowledge that a simple accident or serious illness means instant medical bankruptcy, and maybe even them having to dip into their retirement account to save your sorry carcass. These days, hospitals look on uninsured people with the cold calculation of a loan shark, and a single little laceration can easily run into the multiple thousands. 6. Being uninsured sucks! Without insurance, even for cocky young bohemians, there is a constant little voice nagging you all the time, especially when even a minor medical issue crops up. What if? it says. What if I get the flu this year and I can’t work for a week? But that shot is 45 bucks without insurance! What if this rash is something serious? But I can’t afford to go to urgent care! Season with a little WebMD-induced hypochondria, and this can be a profound source of anxiety. bamacare has many fail-safes built in to keep the system going for a couple years at least even if young people stay away en masse at first. Eventually, young people will forget they ever worried about bamacare, and buying health insurance (if you don’t get it through work) will be part of becoming a full-fledged adult. ....just thought I'd do a little bizzaro-world today. I'll leave it to the posters here to chop up 1-6, but, when I say "wishcasting" this is the finest example I've ever seen of it. Have at it. I expect nothing less than hamburger when I return.

Um, dude, isn't this the same guy who is befuddled by the fact that the very same massive regulations and agencies he supports, are the means by which the government is, in his words, "captured"? It's hilarious that he doesn't see that connection, and of course, suggests that the only way to fix the problem? More massive regulations and agencies. And, his answer: "what, no regulation?" means that somehow the relationship between more power for government = more ways to corrupt it...goes away? So, why should we be surprised by the confusion here? I am disappointed. Even my uber-liberal macro/micro teacher had the decency to teach supply-side with the same professionalism as Keynesian. He even said "well, maybe they are right after all?". Once. Unfortunately, we are seeing the "fight fire with gasoline" aspects play out now, especially since we are entering year 6 of this mess, and it's been too long, with too much FAIL, for them to keep making the same excuses. I am pretty sure even they are sick of themselves at this point. I would be. I mean, you can only keep it up for so long. So, now...it's going to be interesting to see what they have to say next, as nothing changes, and we still have crappy growth. Of course, there's always taking credit for the outcomes...of government spending cuts...due to the sequester.

I can't believe the results of the Harvard Survey, and, if I understand it correctly, this isn't some snap poll. This is coming from the young people they've been talking to over the course of many years. I mean, those are scary numbers if you are a Democrat. Those are quite literally Mondale numbers. Sure, opinions change and the next news cycle...etc. However, if they don't get those numbers up, and I mean way up, back to 2012 numbers, they are screwed in 2014 and 16. The generic Democrat candidate needs to be running at 55%, minimum, among young voters to have any chance of winning. http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/ Right now, Obama is running at 47% young people that would recall him? Not just not like him right now, but throw him out of office? 46% would not. Cripes. Even if we are generous, Obama, and you bet your ass: the generic D, who isn't Obama, is running 9 points behind where he needs to be. As my link states: it's about turnout. You don't get the turnout, and you get less than 55% of those that do? That's a slaughter. That's the math. The older voters who can't stand the guy will turn out. If the younger voters don't show? Slaughter.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-04/last-gasp-of-the-keynesians.html Let's redefine the problem, or, let's just change the nature of the problem...or...whatever it takes to admit we aren't wrong! Yes, in an age where new technology is literally being invented every single day, if not hour...let's pretend that it's lack of capital, investors willing to invest, rough and ready entrepreneurs, or the old standby: "general malaise", that is causing a lack of growth. Let's not consider that its our own stupid policies that are both the root cause of, and causes dependencies that create, the problem. And of course? What's the prescription? Even more of the awful policies that got us here to begin with. It's never the policy itself, its always that we didn't do enough of it. Hilarious that there's apparently no such thing as increments in Paul Krugman's world. No. We must do 100% of what he wants, because we can never see half his promised results for half of what he wants. "It doesn't work that way". Imagine if your job was so easy: you tell your boss that you didn't get things 100% your way, so, you are not responsible for any results whatsoever. If in the future you were to get 100%, then you'd get great results, and anybody who doubts it is an idiot. The rest of your time: you tell other people what their problems are, and chide them for not getting results when they don't get 100% of things their way. Again, like the article asks: what has changed, really? The ONLY thing that has changed is Dodd/Frank, Obamacare, idiot environtologist-driven energy policy, dumb moves overseas...which translates to skittish investment strategy at home...the list goes on and on and on, and the lucid among us know everything that's on it, in detail. Here's what won't change: dolts like Krugman and his "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to everything. Everything is a black box, and is unimaginably "difficult to measure"...when the outcome is bad for Krugman. However, when the outcome support his positions? Oh, no then everything is empirical and causal down to the centimeter.

Yes, it's "fanatic" to call things what they are. And, it's "racist" to criticize a man for the content of his character.

Well, this was from the 2nd of August. I guess we will see as the 2014 elections get closer - won't we? Hint: um...this was before the shutdown and before the well-predicted Obamcare meltdown. Somehow, I don't think TEA party primary challenges will the #1 story going forward. Call me crazy.

So, you still haven't showed how this is black box thinking, and it's been a week. Didn't think you had it in you. Clearly you don't. Let me try to help you out some more: does fire exist in wood? I mean, all you have to do is rub sticks together(input), and, if you rub hard enough, you break the barrier in the wood that contains the fire(black box)...and the fire gets let out(output), right? That's also black box thinking. Observing the inputs and outputs to a system can help us, but only a fool pretends that they define the system. You trying to attack me personally, and failing hilariously, is no substitute for proving that this isn't classic black box thinking. All this proves? You're lucky you come to PPP. See, left to your own...devices...you don't know "black box" when you see it . Without PPP, you were doomed to miss the craptastic tactics Krugman uses here, or someone on the right might use in the future, for the rest of your life. Luckily for you, as a fellow Bills fan, I refuse to let you continue through life like that...without correction. I am brimming with compassion. If I really hated you, I'd let you go on all stupid, so that the next guy could really light you up. Except some of us get paid to deliver solutions. Sometimes they are perfect, sometimes they are intentionally mediocre, because we know things are changing soon. It all depends on the situation. You want perfect, you go to the people that do that, and F'ing pay them. But, even that's not the real story here: again, those of use who get paid to do this, understand that it doesn't matter how good we are, if the client is F'ing around with the requirements, or, gives us a jacked up set of requirements and expects us to create a not-jacked-up design from them. RNs are the only way what I do has any chance of working. #2 on that list is CNAs, housekeepers, techs, etc.

Yawn. I can have all of you sign an NDA for the information I've written here, if that's all it takes to win. I've got one all ready to go. Just say the word. I'm surprised this thing is still going, actually. I would have thought that the data speaks for itself. Then again...it's not like Chef has the understanding to know he's wrong, or, the willingness to admit he's wrong....so....PMs?

My question? Are we down by 2 TDs? Oh, we aren't? Then.... What exactly? We were 3.5 favorites. Matt Ryan is a real QB. I just hope we can start hitting our blitzes. They picked them up too well 1st half. Need to be a little less exotic IMHO, and see if Marcell and Kyle can carry the load a little bit. Give them a chance to beat them straight up on a few call. Just my uneducated opinion.

This is math. There is no disagree. I get the "Pats give the players a rest" point. However, we are talking pure math in terms of "best chance to make playoffs". I think the swing is .1 anyway, so it doesn't matter. But, if the Pats had lost, then it definitely would have, as we might have been able still win the division...which...is why the .1% difference. So we lose that scenario, but, it wasn't likely anyway.

First! And...I think if we can cover a little better, Ryan is going to knocked out of the game by Jerry Hughes.

See, Obamanation sucks for both sides, which is probably why it hasn't come up much. Abomination is bad for Ds. However, Obama Nation is bad for Rs. I think a lot of people have come to this conclusion privately, without telling anybody else, because they don't want "the secret" to get out.