OCinBuffalo

...lybob, please. I am not you. You are you. That's the first thing to remember. Thus, I understand all of the above, and more. This is about particulate matter being in once place, the atmosphere, yet causing 2 effects simultaneously. How can the excess of carbon in the atmosphere, not in the snow, or at the bottom of the ocean, both block radiation, and, at the same time, cause global warming? It stands to reason that it can only be doing 1 of them. Volcanoes hurl...something...I'm not touching that word , let's say: particulate matter, into the atmosphere. We have seen a cooling effect as a result. So, if carbon emissions do the same thing? Ok, I can see that. But that's all they are saying, is it? No, they are saying that the same particulate matter, in the same place, both causes cooling, and warming, at the same time, and, that THIS is the reason that all of the computer models have failed so miserably. I understand particulate matter: the question that remains is, can you be logical? If you can, then you'd understand the significance of saying an entire "settled" theory...now hinges on 2 speculations. If both prove false, the theory dies right there. But then...shouldn't this "settled" theory have been able to stand on its own, without the need for last minute, "saving" speculations? I have been applying logic. That's what I do. Especially to ...lybob, 100% of the time, and ~99% of the time, it stumps him. Your bottom line is all the majority of the right leaning posters on this board have been saying since I've been here. "We don't know". They used to get called all sorts of names, and told they were enemy's of science for their trouble, for even daring to suggest that all wasn't exactly as ALGORE said it was. That is the history of this issue on this board. The inference I make: that the whole thing is likely to be phony, due to the behavior we see from the left, is mine alone. Put it this way: Global Warming being at best way overstated, and at worst, a complete fabrication, is what fits the pattern of behavior we've seen the best. Why else do we have supposed ethics in Science professors, forging documents and lying about it, and then having the rest of the environtologists close ranks on that behavior rather than condemn it?

They can ban me, but cannot take away my ability, or my propensity to see my will done, and my trolls work! That's funny, neither do I. But, what appears to be important to you, is whether you friend who does this for a living has any earthly idea WTF they are inferring. "Sounds like"? Nope. They are saying it. They are saying that not only is the ocean absorbing the heat, but that it is being stored at the bottom. Again, convenient. A simple perusal of ocean surface temps over the last 15 years is too likely to produce the same results as air temps = no change. And really, that sorta stands to common sense, and a basic understanding of physics. So....its a real Race to the Bottom! Yes, the only place where the heat is hiding, is also the place we don't have 24/7 temperature monitoring. What a coincidence! Ok, but that doesn't address how carbon can be both the cause and the mitigation of Global Warming, at the same time. Look, I bet if you asked most people, of any class/belief/country, if they'd rather have pollution or not, they'd all say no. But, that's a child's question. You like you sneakers, and making them causes pollution. Life is balance. Environtologists want nothing to do with balance. They want their way, period. Their publicly stated goals include bringing about a wholesale "way of life" change. You living in your own house? BAD! You should be living in a ****ty little apartment in a city, and the animals should be running freely through your now abandoned property. The trouble is: you like your house and your lawn, which wastes water and causes you to introduce fertilizer and pesticide into the water table. EVIL! So, the only way to force you to live in that crappy apartment? Scare you into doing it because the world is coming to an end if you don't. It's the same old song: they can't win at the ballot box, so they tried the courts. They lost there, so what's left: Hollywood BS. I told you this was all about making a movie, didn't I? Consider: how many movies/media shows have they done? Vs. How many laws have they passed? Whatever in the world makes you think I am confused by it? As I've said repeatedly, these are the same tactics I've encoutered on numerous occaisions in my job, which is why I immediately recognized them as such back in 2006 when this whole thing began in earnest. That's right around the time that the "denier" word started getting used. There is nothing confusing, to me at least, about any of this. They are grasping at straws on the way down the hole. The latest straws are: "bottom of the ocean" and "carbon pollution both causes and mitigates Global Warming, at the same time". The "we need fear to get this done" part? That is a new one. But, that part is specific to ze Germans. So, why should we expect anything different? Let's make a deal then: I will agree to your request, if you agree not to lump me in with "oil company executve" or "hollocaust denier" or "luddite" or "bible thumper that says only God can change the climate" or "science hating enemy of science", because I am none of those things. I do math and science at work, every day. I'm just a guy who knows BS when I see it. In seriousness: I am an expert observer of human behavior at work. I didn't set out to become one, but, it has developed as a result of the kind of work I do. What I have observed, is a singular set of behavior on the part of MANY, not all, climate "scientists". Be it personal need for funding, be it personal political agendas meshing with those who can give them funding, be it need for personal glory, be it some combination of all? The behavior is undeniable. You don't see arheaologists with this behavior, certainly not to the scope and scale. Why? Nobody is handing out millions of $ to confirm their political views using Archeaology. But, we did see that in the 30s, didn't we?

Perhaps, but, how many of those are now paying 2x for what they thought they were getting for free? "Believe" is one thing, and I get it: just look at the Global Warming clowns. However, being confronted with the bill is quite another. Also, I don't believe only white people are being forced to pay 2x what they were, for things that they don't need. Pretty sure this effects everybody. We'll see how long the D's "Demographics" Fairy Godmother holds up in the face of taking money from middle class blacks/hispanics/women. That's the real thing here: women. You think the same Obama-supporting, now screwed by Obamacare woman is ever gonna look at Big Government the same way? Well, in your experience, how likely are women to just forget when you've done something wrong? How many years exactly do they tend to retain that info? How accurate are the details surrounding the event, and how amazed are you that they can remember them all?

No, no my friend this is 100% science, done on a political stage. I'll show you. (It's even admirable, if you are into observing how movies get made/the creative process). Consider: I have a problem with my movie being believeable. Specifically my plot falls apart if I can't find a place where something big and bad is hiding on earth. Well, scientifically, what part of the earth do we, even scientists, know the least about? (In staying with the analogy, why, in Wag the Dog did we go to war with Alabania? Answer: "nobody knows from Alabania") That's right, the bottom of the ocean. Where is real research the most difficult and expensive to conduct? Well, top 5 on that list has to be the bottom of the ocean. So, isn't it convenient? They, not me, have said that the heat, not carbon, is being stored at the bottom of the ocean. How it got there? Carbonation, masturbation, cavitation = all irrelevant, and here's why: If I say it isn't there, then I have to go down there and prove that it isn't, don't I? How convenient. Meanwhile, they can say "oh it's there alright", and use all sorts of babble to claim that it is there...circumstantially, and, when I demand that they prove it? They whine and say "we don't have the funding to go down there and show it to you"....which...is what this whole thing has always been partially about = $ Convenient. If you wanted to run an insurance scam on your car, where is the very best place to make sure it is never, ever, found? Yes, the bottom of the ocean. ******************* On the pollution thing. No. It's quite literal: they are saying that increased pollution from China is so large, that it is masking the effect of Global Warming(caused by the very same pollutants) by cooling the earth, and not letting sunlight IN, never mind keeping it in once it's arrived, via "the Greenhouse". That's right, the other "the only way this can be true" speculation says "pollution is blocking sunlight, but also causing Global Warming", at the same time. Dude. So, to try to use what you are saying: extra carbon in the air is only a pollutant when it causes global warming, but, not a pollutant when it blocks sunlight from coming in, in the first place, so....what, exactly? Carbon isn't a pollutant when it suits the environtologist's purpose? Otherwise, it is a useful thing that is saving us from Global Warming? This doesn't pass basic logic, never mind science. Isn't it true that any theory has to do that, before we even bother start running experiments on it?

I get that this is the new argument from progessives. I don't get why in the 9 hells anybody, including Tom, thinks it's going to work. This isn't the IRS scandal. This is about real people really losing their plans/paying more. And, we haven't even begun the small business fiasco yet. Need I remind what % of country works for small business?

Yes, this represents the "cut the baby in half" solution. Well, it does to the "just as committed as I am dopey" progressive who still can't fathom why the law s/he supports isn't working, primarily because s/he was never able to fathom the law in the first place. So, it's "wrong". From the libetarian perspective, nothing would be finer than having them pass that addendum, because it would virtually seal Obamcare's fate. The cost of allowing all these people to retain their doctors and plans, while also allowing all these new old/sick people FULL coverage, absolutely sinks the thing. The truth is: covering the 58 year old, with pre-natal care, and drug counseling, and using that as an excuse for charging him more for his family insurance already sealed Obamacare's fate, the minute it was designed. This is just the faster way it dies. As many here have said all along: they have to kick middle class people off their plans today, so that they can pay for sick people tomorrow, and they will pay for that by, charging the middle class 2x what it was paying. Yeah, the middle class. This time "the rich" get a pass. The only way they justify it? Giving you coverage you don't need, telling you that your doctor was overcharging you, and so was the insurance company. Does it matter than all of this was a lie? Forward! No it isn't. It's simply logic Who in their right mind, in the center-left, center, center-right, far-right, is going to come away from this thinking: "well, ok, next time we'll only sign up for a wildly massive, poorly designed government system...provided that it's a "pure government" system"? Maybe 20% of the country has your takeaway. That means 80% does not. That's the stupid here Tom. That's the wishcasting: that somehow the majority of the electorate isn't going to refuse to support the next Obamacare, or, that somehow they aren't going to remember Obamacare, when it comes to SSI/Medicare/Medicaid/Immigration reform. You're an unmitigated moron if you can't see that. This isn't some DoD massive spending boondoggle, which we can't know anything about, and only judge based on whether we see it go boom/kick some ass on TV. No. This is something that effects every person, and it's failing, miserably. And the real thing here is: who wants to be 3.5 guy? The minute you bring that up, everybody says, "well, I might have had some dumb posts, but, at least I'm not that guy". Who wants to be, right now, an Obama voter? You can bet they will be made fun of mercilessly going forward, especially on the internet. That's the price you pay. So, now, remind, me...how is the very word Obamacare, causing these people to cringe, not the stimulus I say it is? Rush Limbaugh was able to use the word "liberal" as such a weapon, that they changed their name. Are you telling me Obamacare, which is infinitely more insidious, won't be the most deadly weapn they've ever seen. Are you telling me it won't hurt to be hit with it?

You are missing the point my friend. You are living in the same delusion this guy is. Cut it out. You're way better than that. "Don't compromise on activist government" is the message that...the same people who thought McGovern was a good idea will take away. Remind me: what % of the country do they represent? How do they do in the context of the entire country? Not so well. If anything, I WANT the far left to think that they should push for government-only solutions. I want them to go even futher to the left. A stationary, easily identifiable target, is always the easiest to hit, at any range. Don't let them camoflague themselves with pretend embraces of the free market. Don't let them move around by pretending to be about results/solutions. Nah, let them do exactly what this guy says, and do it as big as possible. Big targets are great for artillery. Hell, let them nominate the Indian Princess Warren. Let her go out and attack business, every day, all the time, and suggest "pure governement" solutions to replace it. I can't believe you don't see what I'm talking about. Or, I can't believe that you don't see it now.

Read: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/opinion/zelizer-obamacare-liberalism/index.html?hpt=op_t1 Normally I say "laugh", but this time? This time it's "guffaw"! Apparently this guy thinks he's Marc Antony. You know "I've come here to bury Obamacare, not to praise it". Then, he thinks he'll be clever, but turning the whole thing around, and in the end, the reader will agree that the death of Pure government activist policies/approaches is something that will be mourned tearfully, and that that masses will rise up in praise of it, and demand the heads of those evil Senators who.... Come on. They killed it themselves. This "metaphor" doesn't even work, and he thinks purist Big Government will? Talk about wishcasting. The man doesn't seem to know his history, or the status of his ideology, in terms of winning elections. Every single time a liberal has run as who he really is (which neither Obama or either Clinton has never done): you get Mondale/McGovern/Carter. Liberals have learned, through punishment, since Mondale, to stop putting forward governement-only solutions and running on them. This guy wants to throw all of that conditioning out, because: it pleases him to do so. My response? Go ahead, in fact, I'll send you money. Let's end this war with you losing it big. Best thing for the country. *********************************************************** Next up? Oh man, and you thought the last guy was a clown? Read: http://www.thenation.com/article/177109/why-obamacares-troubled-rollout-might-force-cooperation-health-reform-needs First of all the guy thinks that Republicans have some sort of duty to work with Democrats on this thing? What? The Ds passed this thing in the middle of the night, improperly, using trickery, and over the objections of Massachusetts Democrats who purposely elected an R to stop this mess, amidst back-room deals and payoffs that have caused most of the players to resign in disgrace, and the designer of it to resign and call it a "train wreck". There was not 1 single R vote for it. And, to make matters worse, they've called Rs every name in the book, and flat out accused them of not caring about sick people, because they opposed this abortion. So, where in the hell do you get the notion that Rs have to do anything for you, buddy? If I'm one the guys who've been around for this whole thing, and especially if I'm one of the guys who was purposely sent to DC to kill this whole thing? Here's what I say: "You have to be on crack to think I'm going to work with you on anything. You've been arrogant, you've been ignorant, you've been childish. You created this mess. You clean it up. Why should we give you anything? What have you done for us in the last 4 years, besides attack us? There are consequences to be paid for you, and especially your donor's behavior, and you are all damn well going to pay them. Period. If for no other reason than: you all need to learn this lesson, because you never would have behaved as you have, since 2005, had you known it already." Then, he concludes with the very same authoritarian language that got Ds into this mess in the first place: "there's no going back". So let me get this straight: You've decided that we all have to play ball with you, on a national scale, becaue Terry McAullife sqeeked out an election, that he almost lost because of Obamacare, to an extremist opponent who you sandbagged with a 3rd party candidate? You are saying that Rs should work with you, to do exactly what you want, and in return, they get a few concessions here and there, because "there's no going back"? There are too many WTFs in there to contemplate. The political tone-deafness requried is amazing. The wishcasting here? He wishes that this was 2005, before the Iraq War allowed these clowns to think that opposition of that = broad acceptance of progressive policy. He wishes that his party didn't have to honor the checks, and/or default on the debt, that it's many mouths have written since 2005. He wishes that consequences weren't part of bad behavior. And most of all, he wishes that the same disinterested electorate that allowed his party to F this up so badly, won't be just as disinterested when the other party destroys it and starts over....especially inlcuding the Medicaid expansion he says can't be turned back. He wishes all of this. How many of you think his wishes will come true, and that Fairy Godmother "demographics" is going to save them from Average Joe, of any skin color, has to pay 2x more from health care, through no fault of his own?

How so? Do you want me to list all of the liberal blogs I've read over the last year that specifically address or at least touch on this very issue? Are you saying they don't exist? Please say that. I haven't owned you in so long, I actually think it might be amusing again. EDIT: Another way to look at it: 3.5. We say 3.5 here, don't we? Why do we do that? How did that come to pass? What does it mean when we say that? What thoughts does it invoke? You don't think that Obamacare can easily turn into 3.5? Of course it can. It can do it on a national stage with relative ease. That's what I'm saying, and you are calling it stupid, when you have an immediate example, right under you nose, on this very board, of that not being the case? Are you saying you don't believe in 3.5? If so, then that is THE biggest story of the year, bar none!

I think the fact that Obama is the fraud that some of us called out in 2007(not me, I actually believed for a time that he had a chance to be great), is only the minor story. Make no mistake: it's a story, and it's a story that will have a huge impact in terms of trusting the media to do it's job, and trusting the DNC to do it's job. However, I think the bigger story is: the death of activist government. Liberals/Progressives/whatever: they have finally killed their own baby. I've been telling them they were going to do it since 2006 on this board. Sure enough, they have. You can't combine that much arrogance with that much ingorance and not have this result. Liberal bloggers/columnists have all touched this issue at some point over the last 4 years. Most have barely grazed it. Some, like in my "What if Obama can't lead" have come closer. One that I recall specifically said that Obama has a very real chance of killing activist government for a generation. That is the story here. And, this guy: A liberal professor at Princeton gets it, sorta. I'm starting a thread on that article, btw. Many of them are seeing the writing on the wall: If they ever try to pass another behemoth Obamacare law, Obamacare will be the chief piece of evidence used to oppose it. And, it's bigger still, in that sooner rather than later, now, we are going to have to reform SSI/Medicare/Medicaid, and, the context of that discussion will be massively influenced by the failure that is Obamacare. All self-delusion aside, they have to somewhat know they are now screwed in terms of the 30k foot level discussion of domestic policy. Everything they say, on every issue, every time they say it, will be put into the context of Obamcare.

Wow. I stand in awe of this troll. Using their own stupidity/identity politics against them, and, as if that weren't enough, proving that identity, and not substance, is the only thing these Houston voters care/know about? Great Justice! This guy is a Troll Champion. EDIT: The most important takeaway, which like an idiot I forgot? Progressives: Your agenda is meaningless to these voters. Meaningless. You can forget any conclusion RE you agenda and the 2012 election. That was about non-whites not wanting to look stupid for voting for Obama the first time around, and, about identity, and, about not wanting to vote for the guy, that looks in every way imaginable, like their boss's boss. It has nothing to do with your policies.

Again, forget the spin/talking points/arguments on both sides. Look at the behavior. All behavior is supposedly purposeful. If we look at the end, these spam attempts, how did we get here? Better asked: what are the only possible premises that behavior this desperate can be based on? What do they know, that they won't tell us, that warrants this behavior? No one can read minds, but, we can apply logic. If this is a response deemed both necessary and acceptable, what are the only possible stimuli that provoke it? I would argue that they know they are screwed, and therefore, any tactic, no matter how despicable, is on the table, because it might work, but most important? There are no alternatives.

Tag Team, back again Check it to wreck it, let's begin Party on, party people, let me hear some noise DC's in the house (at least I think he's off suspension too, right?) , jump, jump, rejoice Says there's a party over here, a party over there Wave your hands in the air, shake your derierre These three words mean you're gettin' busy: Whoomp, there it is! Hit me! Well, for my first post since Simon banned me, I will debunk the bunk cluttering this thread: First of all, I am not the one claiming that massive, sweeping political change needs to be immediately made. The person making that claim, is by definition the person who needs to back it up. The rest of us are on solid intellectual ground when we poke holes in their explanation, and doubly so when they never plug them, they just release another report. I study: behavior. That's what I have my "Ph.D" in(I've been told I could get 3 different ones, in different disciplines, actually, for my research used to start my company). The behavior is the most telling. Given the extent of bad behavior we are seeing from these clowns, the hard science seems to barely matter anymore. While that is an awful state for things to be in, you tell me: should I ignore what I know? Also, all of the science stuff doesn't scare me a lick. I am a smart guy, and I undertstand English, so write what you have to write, scientific or not. Rest assured, I will understand it. The truth is: we don't know. The other truth is: Global Warming is needed by the left in order to avoid dealing with the impending collapse of SSI/Medicare/Medicaid, and now? Obamacare. The liberal state WILL have to be reformed without some external stimulus, like Global Warming. This is based not on the science of climate, but of: business. 2-300-level finance and economics classes, with a little financial acconting thrown in. If you are familiar with that material, then you KNOW why they need Global Warming. They need a political offset(in the form of a carbon offset) to counter the very real financial and economic realities staring them in the face starting in just a few short years. This is the only science I'm aware of, and perhaps I'm being naive with this, where we start with the solution and then proceed to seek evidence of the problem. I mean, hell, this crap happens all the time in my business, but we don't call what we do science. Over half the projects I've worked on involve some sort of shenanigans = VP of something hiring his buddy's firm to do something that their software can't do, that happened prior to my arrival, and invariably part of that job is to clean up the mess, one way or the other. Sometimes that has meant cleaning the VP and the firm he hired: completely. The VP knows he is in trouble, so, he lies, cheats, steals(one time I walked in and found all of the test reports: gone), distorts and generally does whatever he can to avoid his/her inevitable doom. That is the political environment I normally operate in. So, when I see the same behavior from the environtologists, are you expecting me not to recognize it? You need a grip if you believe you've destroyed anything, never mind anything inaccurate, in this thread. Go back and read the article(which you have yet to do), and then re-read my response. Yeah. I'm not the one saying we need "fear" to make this science "work". I'm not the one saying that things can "temporarily disappear". I believe the Conservation of Matter is a scientific principle, no? I'm not the one saying that the entire thing...now hangs on 1 of 2 speculations: hiding at the bottom of the ocean, or that pollution is hiding the effects, of pollution. (And here I thought the bottom of the ocean one was the most abusrd). Consider that for a second: here we have a supposedly long "settled" bit of science...which can now ONLY be true, if one of these 2 pure speculations is prove correct. Consider that again. And finally, explain the picture I posted. Oh, you did. You said: "that's a piece of data". You might be interested to know that this tiny "piece of data" has been used consistently to PROVE the Global Warming theory, and worst of all: convince EU pols to ruin their entire economy/power grid. Ignoring the magnitude of this "piece of data", in favor of its singularity? Come on. No the report won't go in the drawer. That is the problem. The report will go on the internet, as a fund raising tool, which propagates this idiocy. Yeah, it is a political tool created for political purposes. It's far past time to wise up, Professor.

As a guy who did health insurance work, I can just tell you: rating by State is done only because they have to. If they had the ability to rate by wide, sprawling demograhic groups, and the ability to pool in sick/well across state lines, and underwrite that? They would do it in a heart beat. A simple TPA proves that, because most of what "across state lines" would look like? Just a huge TPA. Think: Selling health insurance at Walmart. Yeah, the cost goes through the floor, because that risk is mitigated by the sheer force of #s...and...it's Wal Mart, so everybody knows the score. Walmart corporate does what they always do: they unlock the office door in the morning, and tell the sales guys in the waiting room that they are willing to pay X for health insurance, Y for car batteries, Z for jeans, and nothing more. Whichever health care sales guy can, takes the deal, because he just sold 1 million health insurance policies. What idiot wouldn't take that deal? EDIT: To clarify, Wal-Mart, as the TPA, would merely move the money, which Wal Mart does better than any existing health insurance group, including Medicare. The insurance company still sells the policy, and deals with the underwriting of the policy they sell, etc. Hence, Wal Mart = Third Party Administrator. If Obamacare had done this, then it would have made a lot more sense. A LOOOOOOT more. No, no, no. The reason that they didn't drop the state lines thing? Union insurance companies, who are by definition incapable of competing in a market, would be instantly raped. Think about it: if I have the ability to come in and offer lower rates to all of SEIU over state lines? I blow them out of the water immediately. This is precisely what happened in Wisconsin, and THAT is one of the underlying causes for the union freak out. As soon as the average joe was offered competing insurance plans? He took em. The union lost its control over their worker's health plans instantly, and lost the $ they were taking as a result. It is the UNIONS and only the UNIONS, who made sure that "across state lines" stayed out. Now, the UNIONS are getting quite a comeuppance, as they thought getting their one thing, meant nothing else would effect them. Wrong.

Those interest payments that are "no big deal"? We are financing China's military buildup with them. We are also doing a fine job of financing Japan's as well. Meanwhile, ever since 9/11, we've basically let India do whatever the F they want as well, not to mention dropping cash bombs on them in terms of IT work. What can go wrong? Let's see: 1. 3 countries with too many people, and not enough raw materials(and that hasn't changed since before WW1) 2. Constant influx of our stable currency 3. Constant movement of our industrial capability to their countries 4. 3 cultures whose identities have all been largely predicated on war 5. Idiotic social policies leaving all 3 countries on the brink of upheaval (Specifics: 50 million Chinese men with no way to get a girl, never mind marry one, Japanese pols rapidly moving back to their "normal" culture, due to the failed 10 year, endless stimulus/socialism experiment, and India, with 1 billion people and nowhere for anybody to spend their new money/get new stuff without paying through the nose, because they have no raw materials) Yeah, there's no problem here at all. If I was Austrailian? Having all those resources, and not enough people? I'd be teaching every kid on my block how to fire a weapon properly, just in case. Speaking of that, how about this: if trouble breaks out in Asia, Gatorman has to enlist in the Army for 10 years, because that's how long that war will last. Or, gatorman can get a grip on reality, and admit that NOBODY, the world over, can afford for this country to keep overspending on dopey social welfare, weaken itself militarily, and further exacerbate the situation. This is what invites war. Real war. I wonder if gatorman can even comprehend what I am saying here? Yes, clown, learn your history: power vacuums is how war starts most of the time. Somebody thinks they can take a shot, so they do. Who's going to stop them? The UN? Russia? The Russians had to lay waste to 2 entire countries, because they couldn't defeat their army in the field. At this point, unless we get hold on our spending, the only thing left for us to do in the event of Asia blowing up? Close our import market. And, then, you want to see inflation? You want to see poor people suffering? But, yeah...this debt thing? No big deal. /facepalm

Sure, but, why would he talk about that? It doesn't let them avoid the fact that they are losing the shutdown "battle". 7 days ago all we heard was how terrible this was gonna be for Rs, politically. I believe this morning was the end of that meme. This afternoon, my link proves: they've lost, on to something else. Ah yes, very true. However, deep down, that joe knows that the only reason he voted for Obama the second time? He didn't want to feel like a sucker. Behavior, more so than polls, is the most indicative. What is the behavior we are seeing from Ds? Haven't we seen this before? How many "kick-start the OUTRAGE!" columns have we seen? But, what has been the behavior? They've essentially written the same article every single day...because it didn't work the first(8th now) time. It didn't work, because the Rs have successfully taken the moral high ground on this story, but more importantly, the Rs(of all people) humanized this story. Look at all of the links above. Humanize Humanize Humanize. Who Fs with a fisherman trying to do his job? What's the takeaway from that story? It's interesting that that Rs have put themselves in the "look out for the little guy" role. It's interesting that the Democrats have lost that role to the Rs. In all cases: Pivot means losing.

How silly. So now, it's not birdog's non-stop distortion of reality that is the problem, no. GG has the problem, and his problem is: he enjoys winning at a charity golf tournament too much...because he bought a mulligan? Jesus. First of all, how did we get here? Who the F knows for certain what GG enjoys? (My money is on raking the yard, just a feeling. ) You are ascribing a state of mind to GG, based on what exactly? That he found your comments sad and ironic(amusing)? At least my bet has a chance... Next, this is why I don't go to these things: sooner or later I end up with the "never-was" guy. The "never was" guy pretends that golf is an athletic activity. It is not. Darts and pool = golf. However, the "never-was" guy likes to pretend that there's that elusive varsity letter waiting for him at the end of the 18, and not simply a beer and a few laughs. This is the same guy who will get on you about your slice(so I do it for the next 2 holes on purpose...or...I tell myself that), tell you he's thinking about playing the Senior Tour, and gets mad and won't talk to you for 3 holes, when he finds out you've played Pine Valley a few times..and couldn't care less. There is no reasoning with this guy. That's because this is 100% about his pent up emotional asshattery. Better to simply pass. I'm a "has-been", proud of it, and done with it. The day they put pads/helmets on, and play defense in golf? That is the day that "never-was" guy can tell me about how awesome golf is. Until then? It's merely long range darts.

The status of this "battle" can be determined easily: The Democrats have "pivoted" to the Debt Ceiling. What does that tell you? What have you learned about how the Democrats conduct themselves when they are losing, over the last 7 years? The irrelevant liberal can yap all he choses. When he is done: The relevant and/or elected liberals are pivoting, because they know they are losing. The liberal columnist can call names and pretend Obamacare is popular: the facts remain. They are pivoting, because they are losing. If the Republicans are smart, they will pass a CR that includes a debt ceiling increase, but also, cuts some things out of Obamacare/delays the individual mandate by citing design flaws. Then, what is left for the Democrats to do but take the deal? If they still refuse to negotiate? Then, they will suffer greatly for it. The average joe doesn't know/care about this, but, the average joe just got a letter that says his insurance rates are going up. He does care about that. It's not too hard for him to connect Obamacare with his wallet: why else are his rates going up? So, joe suddenly tunes in to this, and finds what? Republicans trying to kill the thing that is responsible for his rates going up. That's all joe needs to know. The relevant/elected Democrat has realized this. They aren't winning. They need something else = Debt Ceiling. As I said: simple. EDIT: :lol: And, as if on cue, I refresh the page at RCP...and what do I get, at the very top? New York Times: Why the debt ceiling matters! How coy, and predictable!

All your base belong are belong to us "It's chowda...say it right!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fvTxv46ano&list=TLgkOawzCh1rYLHJwSTlyeBaIWNcSgQoh_

You know? Why not have fun with this? Is Mark Texiera = Bill Buckner? They both have had errors that cost their teams. So...by this "logic" we should say they are. Is Tom Brady = Joe Montana? No. Enough of that already. And, no Peyton Manning isn't either. Is Snoopy = Scooby? They are both dogs, so....see the connection? Is it entirely too early to make dopey comparisions between a rookie who hasn't even played half a season, and a veteran guy who got hurt 3 years in a row? ...perhaps?

Yes, but the burning question, if Thad Lewis doesn't play well? Is TL = J(emarcus) R(ussell)? That's if Thad has problems with reading defenses, since, if you misread a defene 2 times? You are Jemarcus Russell. Or, is it: Is TL = T(rent) D(ilfer)? That's if Thad tries to do things that are outside the scope of his athletic ability, especially if he throws a pick off his back foot jumping into the air, while throwing back to the middle of the field from the sidelines, since, if you do that 2 times? You are Trent Dilfer. Or, is it: Is TL = J(oe) F(erguson)? If Thad says anything at all about not being able to see the helmets, or being confused because both helmets are white, then he is Joe Ferguson.

Done! The early returns? 94% of the popluar vote for Astro. 144-10. Still have to worry about the TBDers who say Astro has this in the bag, and are no-shows. However, the vote ratio in the late-night TBD demo is breaking 14-1 for Astro, so...pray it doesn't rain.

Jackson was beaten out by Kolb in OTAs. That's exactly how that ended up going. We all thought it was about EJ. It wasn't. Not even a little bit. That was an extended try out between those 2 guys, and Jackson lost. If Kolb didn't get hurt(and if there is a mistake, it's in not factoring his injury property into the design) this wouldn't be an issue. He did, so it is.

It's like they think they are being clever, with the "Let the house vote thing". It's hilarious, though, because your response is instantly what comes back. Do they really think that they are "winning" with this? So far, with all of the ironic "government shutdown" stories, my favorite being "93% of EPA employees are non-essential", the Federal government is being exposed as the boondoggle-laiden, insane, or, the "unemployable elsewhere" asylum that it is. I want another 3 weeks of this. Every story that is supposed to be a vehicle for "RepublicanBad"...has unintentionally turned into an iroinc commentary on the uselessness of these government people, and/or the Media gets exposed for being a cheering section for Democrats. The funny part is: they think things like the OP...are going to be remembered, and not the officially stated fact...that only 7% of the EPA is essential. By all means, keep it going! Nice one. Edit: No, I'm being serious. Sorta like asking to see Huey Long's chickens.

Yes, and in fine leftist fashion, yet again he confirms the premise: "If you want something done right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite". I've spent most of the weekend looking for ways to cash in on this CF. I've come away with the notion that we need to pass, for now. We'll see what everybody else in my group says, but, they better have a hell of an argument. The risk is too high, and the reward is nebulous at best. My analysis, and it's only that, is that there's a 60-70% chance that the HHS "receiving end" of the architecture is massively flawed. I predicate this on: how is it that every single "navigtor" front end is having problems? Unless they all used the same software, which isn't unlikely either, the fact that every single 1st-3rd tier architecture is encountering difficulty tells us that the 4th tier is probably where the greatest # of issues lie. We should assume that at least one "navigator" is able to get it right. None have. However, that does not mean that 1-3 works, or is any good. In fact, since this "navigator" thing is now clearly a handout to political operatives/lawyers, for them to cash in on, it's likely that the 1-3 solutions are horrible as well. With this level of failure is very difficult to establish the nature and severity of the flaws. Yet another case of people who try to do my job on the cheap, or because they think they can, instead of paying qualified people to do it properly. In that, we are exactly like: plumbers! See, I can talk my job, and talk plumbing, at the same time! Everybody's happy! Please understand, this is about business, and nothing to do with politics. There seems to be a serious problem on the DC side of the architecture, such that regardless of what we might do on our side, it wouldn't matter. We will take another look in a month. Understand, if we think we can move in, we will. We have the ability and the agility to get there quite quickly. Hence, we are passing, for now. Probably the same conclusion that Microsoft, Google, and IBM, all came to, 2 years ago, because they had their DC guys look into it. That's perhaps the most telling thing. Why aren't they in this? This business problem is practically custom-designed for big software/cloud heavies. Nope, in the end? I think the ass falls out of this thing, without some sort of $5 billion intervention from somebody like Accenture. And, I'd lay odds that they do that, and fail anyway, after 10 years and $10 billion(which is Accenture's track record, btw). Doubt they will get the 10 years or the cash. They won't get the 10 years. In 6 months, the IT horror stories alone will be enough to kill this thing. And what's worse? State-centered health care is probably going to end up just as dead as gun control, as a Demcratic issue going forward.