OCinBuffalo

I thought the RNC guy Reince Prebus or whatever, said that if they ran this, they can forget about hosting debates in 2016, and that NBC/CNN has a problem now. Seems reasonable to me. If you are going to act as a propaganda network(which NBC most certainly has), why should the RNC dignify you? Of course, that's like waiting for CNN's fat ass Crawley to apologize, to this day, for involving herself in the last debates, and being completely wrong.

Hmm. Hagan = Derek Hagan. He was a training camp hero for us in 2010. He ended up starting for the Raiders against us that year. That's why I said: maybe. Why that underscores CardinalScotts point: I remember pulling for Hagan to get a chance. Because he had done some good things. Seeing the guys we have at WR last game? Yeah. Fitz had no real weapons, because my memory of what real weapons look like has been refreshed.

What?

I swear I started by accident. Then, it was funny, so why not keep doing it? My buddy has his fake summer teeth thing. They cost ~$100, but they are horrific( lulzy). His schtick is hilarious, and yet, interesting, to observe. People go out of their way to avoid him when he has those things in, and, and of course, he goes out of his way to get in their face when he is talking to them, and tries to find a way to talk to the entire bar. When we are leaving, and he takes them out, waves, and shows off his perfect sales guy smile? That's his thing, I have my thing.

Exactly....what?

This is the part where I usually fail. And, if I don't, one of my buddies will cover for me, and he will fail.

What?

I think this: 1. Rex knows he is going to start Geno 2. Rex is lowering expectations wrt to Geno. 3. This way, if Rex is right, and Geno stinks, then it isn't his fault. The Bills screwed them out of Austin, and took EJ ahead of them. They planned to take EJ in the 2nd. And, if he is wrong, the lowered expectations mean: Geno is the hero, for overcoming the adversity, and Rex is the "great coach" for coaching him up and motivating him to do better. The very last thing Ryan wants is the story to be: Geno is a mediocre QB on a bad football team, EDIT: or, this is just an injured QB trying to play his way back, whatever he does going forward is due to his ability, and Ryan's coaching was never going to help him. Consider: if Cleveland is the "factory of sadness" of the NFL, then, the Jets are the "factory of melodrama". Melodrama. As in: how does a crappy, 6-10 team with every indication of being worse this season, get all this attention? Ryan has been drawing attention to himself and his team since day 1. He has gotten great at manipulating the media. Now, that his ass is on the line, why wouldn't he immediately turn to that tactic, and create a no lose situation for himself?

Birdog...reinforcing the Ugly American stereotype. We should be more like Europe. They are so tolerant.

Some days, it all works out, and your crew having a good time is predestined.

I too want the answer to this question. All I have is: "we don't like the French" "we don't like accordians" "this is a rock n roll town, you mincy little..."

Whoa. Dude. However insightful this may be, you aren't going to get it by the "Fitz sucks" crowd. And, I think some of these guys are still on teams. Nelson for sure, Hagan maybe. Naaman for sure.

WTF? Birdog is 3:20 in the afternoon. Put the bottle away. Don't you still have patients to see/squash to pick out? Jesus. At least I'm still operating on the 5pm rule.

Stop getting all butthurt about some guy saying you're going to "burn in hell for all eternity". You don't believe in it, so what's the worry? Burning in hell only matters, if you believe it's possible, right? So what's going on here Frenkle? A little bit of apprehension? Perhaps not butthurt, rather, a sudden tightening of the sphincter? It is. Why do you think I spend so much time here ridiculing you and others? Why is ridicule my weapon of choice? I don't have to write this way. I could write lots of ways. Ridicule is not only valid, it is effective, especially when arguments of emotion prevent clear thought. You're "burden of proof" argument makes exactly that claim. You can say there is no God with certainty, and unless they provide evidence, you are right. Please. Of course, why wouldn't I want to go to Bills/Sabres games? Does that mean the answer to my question is no, you've never encountered the "I can't concieve of it, that means it doesn't exist" mentality in your 15 years of working in IT? That question remains. How many more posts until you answer it? What? I am asking you 3 questions, rather than telling me about the claims you aren't making, how about you answer the questions? Frenkle, are you trying to do this? Well, you suck it. Re-read what I wrote and tell me exactly where the error is in any of it.

Then why use it in that context? Yes, I pointed out his use of the term ridicule, properly. You are using this argument out of context, to suport an atheist, and not deist, argument. No, I am not. I am saying that any postion that represents non-belief, other than, "I remain unconvinced based on the evidence at hand/you've provided" is the opposite of reason. That's because making claims that God doesn't exist = authoritatively saying you can prove a negative. That is idiocy. Moron. I've never stopped writing code, and I never will. If you were a technical architect, as well as a REAL project manager, you'd know why I do that. You are not, so you don't. I was team leader when I was 23. You want credit for being an individual contributor for 14 years, and just now getting your frist promotion? Ok. Nice job. The question remains: are you familiar with the fallacy that is "If I can't conceive of it, that means it doesn't exist", found so often in IT? Or, is it going to take another 14 years for you to get it? If you are, then, do you understand how saying "I know there is no God" is patenty retarded? Believe whatever you want. But don't come here and try to pretend that your belief = reason, and therefore, trumps everybody else's belief. The only thing any of what you wrote proves is: we have an "I'm infallable" problem in this country. This attitude of "I know it all, and need learn nothing" is why software projects fail far too often, it's how Global Warming became Global WarmingTM, and, it's how Obamacare became Obamacare. I agree that the decrease in going to church probably has to do with the fairy tale aspects of organized religion. However, the vast majority of America would be well served by spending an hour a week contemplating their failures, admitting their mistakes, most importantly to themselves, and, resolving to do better. Don't want church? Fine. Replace it with something else that requires humility and introspection, and stop pretending that "we know nothing about the universe"...is going to be solved in a few years, and mostly involves you watching the Discovery Channel and PBS.

Hehehe...I do this on purpose some days. I've walked into a bar, scruffy, wearing dirty jeans and flip flops and a Bills shirt on for many a Bills game. I'm there, I watch the game, interact with the bartenders, be as goofy as I am, etc. Then, after the game, I go home, clean up, eat something, and go back to the bar. Invariably, I freak the bartenders out, because I will mention something that was said earlier, and they demand to know how I know about it. They can't believe that I am the same person. Anybody who's ever taken a class in behavior psychology know why this happens. Nice! When your political power is primarily based upon splitting the country into tiny demographic slices, and setting those slices against one another? When you require a permanent underclass, to pander to, and then recieve votes in return? (As in LBJ: "I'll have those n____s voting Democrat for the next 200 years!") When you have been extorting money from the Federal government for decades, based on the lie that says some people are 100% for their behavior, while other people aren't? Everything must be about race. Ask yourself: Is Reilly Cooper personally responsible for his behavior? Is Trayvon Martin?

:lol: :lol:

Frenkle has missed the context in which Jefferson spoke. Frenkle is Frenkle, of course, but I think this is an honest misinterpretation. Let's correct Frenkle: Jefferson was not denying the existence of the trinity(no founding father would have ever made such a claim, period). He was saying that no man could define it properly. This is important to understand, because, at that time this was a very relevant discussion. "Reason" as a way of life, was still a relatively new, and still not fully accepted, nor fully understood, way of life, in terms of the previous 500 years. The variance in the Protestant flavors was largely due to their definition of the trinity. Jefferson is merely demanding: humility, in that no one could claim to have the right definition, because no one could rationally show a distinction from one definition of the trinity to the next. The very notion of "Freedom of Religion" is based on this concept. It never had anything to do with respecting atheist's views. Thus, Jefferson's comment is about the variations of Protestantism, and calling that discussion "ridiculous"(hence ridicule) and is not about God exists vs. doesn't. The Carl Sagan line of reasoning is a cop out. People who say something doesn't exist, and they "know" it, have the exact same burden of proof as those who say it does exist. A scientist like Sagan, especially Sagan, should know better: what if there are tests that can prove the existence of God, and we simply haven't discovered them yet? Thus the claim cannot be tested, but, that is due to our lack of knowledge, and not because the test can never exist. Ah yes, the famous fallacy: "Something doesn't exist, can't be done, won't work...because I can't comprehend it, do it myself, or I don't understand how it works". Frenkle: work for 1 week in IT, and you will hear this argument 3 times before the rooster crows on Saturday. How's that for a prophecy? This argument puts Atheists in the unenviable position of claiming their own omnipotence, rather than claiming they don't believe in an omnipotent being. The line is crossed when you say/imply that you "know" God doesn't exist, rather than saying: "Given the evidence you've presented, I remain unconvinced", which is the only reasonable position to take. As I said, and more importantly, as Carl Sagan himself said, we know next to nothing about the universe. "Knowing nothing" doesn't mean: you know nothing, except, when it comes to God, you know everything.

Oh Jesus Christ on an crutch. You know, you are are the single biggest impediment to my fun here. Yeah, you f'ed it up again. Edit: I'm on a call so i dont' have time to chastise you futher, and, I have a new toy, so I don't care if u mess up my birdog fun as much.

Yes, I admit that is a first. Now, let's ask stuttering John if he thinks it's OK to pretend his values...are morality. That should be good for a laugh as well. And if he answers in any way that is unexpected? That is the 2nd horseman.

For everyone else, who isn't "he who I am not talking to": a national voter id would be unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly states that the states are empowered and required to handle all voting as they deem fit, and the Federal government cannot dictate the process. Thus, my opinion of this idea is irrelevant. So is the idea. Whether it has merit is also irrelevant, because it is unconstitutional. A national health care card is a violation of the 4th amendment, not to mention HIPPA. Unless you get a judge to sign off on a warrant every single time an SQL call is made to every single database holding health care info, in the entire country? Also unconstitutional. But yeah, go ahead and try to argue HIPPA, with a f'ing technical architect who has designed systems for 10k employee health insurance companies. I only have 10 mins, but it shouldn't even take that long to dispatch you.

Don't talk to me. I'm still in shock from finding out that deep down, you are actually a racist.

I just heard of this thing called the Bimbo Memo. This statement must be submitted as a nominee imediately. I found out about it from here: http://www.spaethcom.com/bimbo-newsletter.php, by going through here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323585604579008802563619722.html You should submit this one. I see no reason why Sebelius won't win "Bimbo of the Year", this statement is an object lesson in the "Bimbo" principle.

So basically, either you are calling bridog a racist or birdog has made himself a racist, by saying that Voter ID is bad for NC, but implicitly good for Kenya. Birdog, say it isn't so. All these years of you being morally superior to everyone but Mother Teresa, and now this? I am shocked, and highly offended.

I see. You weren't able to produce any evidence to back up your incoherent rambling above, so, to make up for that, you produce evidence that essentially says: Moveon.org = Clowns. Nice work. Oh yes you did. You, not I, CHOSE to create an equivalency between the rodeo CLOWNS, and, and a leftist political advocacy group. You are saying "But the Republicans complained when Moveon.org did this dopey thing...so...so...so...I can complain about rodeo clowns doing the same" In doing so, you are claiming that Moveon.org = rodeo clowns. You've created that relationship, by using the offense taken at one group to justify offense taken at the other. If they are the same, then we should take both equally seriously, which is to say: not at all. Hey, don't B word at me. This is merely the contrapositive of the logic you've laid out here. If you don't like the result, then you should have thought a little BEFORE you posted. (Remember when I said it wouldn't even be hard? ) Musical interlude. "Rodeo clowns yeah yeah yeah...." (Man, this was a fun song a while back) Speaking of that song, you will never hear truer, or more reflective of Moveon.org idiots like yourself, in general, lyrics than these: "Teeny bopping disco queen She barely understands her dreams Of belly button rings And other kinds of things Symbolic of change But the thing that is strange Is that changes occurred And now she's just a part of the herd yeah, yeah, yeah Man I thought that you heard yeah, yeah The changes occur yeah, yeah, yeah She's just a part of the herd yeah, yeah"