OCinBuffalo

WTF are you talking about? Seriously. I am not the one who has been holding up Single Payer as a panacea. Of course private, wealthy, individuals can pay extra for health care. WTF do those 2 things have to do with each other? Nothing. You've made a false equivalency, or relationship(I'm not really sure because I having a tough time cutting through your incoherence) and you're demanding that we recognize it. F you. I've had my patience tested at Sabres and Bills games for years by clowns who have demanded that I recognize that Single Payer is the best health care system on the planet. Now, we have incontrovertible evidence that proves that is not even close to being the case. Period. Let's cut the crap: what you don't like here is the fact that PHI is making a huge comeback in Europe. Europe: the Mecca for all the "progressive" turds. But, now that they are doing something that directly contradicts your vain assertions, you're angry about it. But here is the real kicker: That job description? That job is for somebody who is clearly part of: THE MIDDLE CLASS and that really sucks for you, doesn't it? You can talk about rich people being able to pay extra...and la ti da. But, now we are seeing middle class people being offered PHI in Europe, and that, my friend, is the end of your argument, isn't it? When the middle class is being offered health benefits at work? There goes the entire liberal rationale for why Single Payer is better for all. I am already right. Now, the only variable here is time: how long will it take you to admit it?

...lybob...are you trying to use data and/or #s to make a point, and not a dopey youtube video, or something you just made up? I am proud of you. All this time I never thought you had it in you. Gold star for the attempt at real thinking this time. Now let's correct it: Congressional Approval rating IS very low. But if you'll see here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html it's been low for quite some time. In fact, if you look at the chart objectively, you can see that the goodwill that both the Democratic Congress elected in 2008 and Obama enjoyed...has been squandered. But, even at its highest point = Mar 15 2009? It was only at 37%. In fact, it only took them ~1 year to drive it back down to below what it was when they took office = Feb 13, 2010. The simple reason for that? Obamacare. This was the time when the Obamacare law was being gimmicked, pandered, and corrupted into law. People don't approve of the branch of government that gave us Obamacare, and they will not, until it is gone. Period. If I am a member of Congress, and I've been re-elected multiple times since 2008, on either side, given the #s shown over time, not at a point in time, I ask you ...lybob: why should I care about the body's approval rating? It hasn't meant a thing for me. Now that the 2010 election's consequences are clear, even to the dumbest of liberals, they realize that attacking Congress? Means very little in the end. So, no, approval rating, especially at this point in time, means literally nothing, and therefore, no, it is not an incentive to work with Obama. Nice effort though.

So....instead of "no WMD"...it's "moving weapons of moderate destruction"? At least the speculation fits. It make all the sense in the world for us to pull found weapons out of Libya and give them to the rebels in Syria. But, do it as a secret operation. And yeah, we'd need to cover our involvement in that up. We aren't formally moving things in there, and, its scope is limited to whatever we find in Libya, so there's all kinds of deniable elements to it. It's like Iran-Contra, but with an much simpler set of transactions. However, none of that excuses going to bed during a firefight, or, telling Susan Rice blatantly lie on 5 Sunday talk shows, or, having the only phone call you make all night be about the plan to minimize the poltiical damange. So, the ball hasn't moved at all for Obama/Hillary. If anything, they've lost yards here. More people on the ground means: major operation. No way in hell Obama AND Hillary didn't know about it in detail, so there goes that excuse.

And therefore, again, I ask: what incentive do members of Congress have, in either party, to work with Obama today?

Um, no, you said "as we'll ever know". But, I do know about NC, and, I do know about NY. So, no, NC is not as corrupt as I'll ever know, because I know about NY. My reading is just fine, thanks. How's your math?

http://www.nationalj...t-lead-20130731 Now this is just hilarious. It's an idiot's attempt at introspection. I say idiot, because the obvious eludes this guy, over and over. He's just stumbling around, because he's finally obtaining some clarity on Obama. It's a very emotional and personal time for him, and I probably should be more sensitive to what he is going through. F that. Let's exploit the lack of logic, just like always! The best part is this guy is really trying to be critical of Obama, but because he can't actually be critical of what Obama represents, or more importantly his own errors, that created Obama, he fails miserably. First, idiot premise: Yeah...that attitude and conclusion? Nothing wrong there at all right, clown? I've used that sort of crappy, but more importantly, lazy approach to dealing with contentious, or just straight up out to get me, VPs to great effect. Yeah, just go into the conferece room and call them names, and even better, reduce their position to a caricature, without the slightest consideration that some in the room/audience might actually consider some or all of that position to have merit. A fine example of how to lead the meeting right there. I guess leading by example isn't an approach here? And, given this attitude, they wonder why the Republicans refuse to deal with them? There is no point in dignifying this attitude or behavior with your presence. You just leave the meeting. So, for those keeping score? The Leadership FAIL starts right here, with this attitude, that both Obama and this clown share. Moving on, idiot construct: Yet, the clown says, only 4 sentences earlier And reading comprehension here is a problem? This guy doesn't even read or comprehend what he wrote, in the same damn paragraph! Apparently redistricting is only making the GOP less willing to compromise? Does this clown have amnesia? Who said "Republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to get in the back"? Who said "we are here to rule"? Who shut the Republicans out completely from the the design of Obamacare? Who used gimmicks and payoffs and corruption to get Obamacare passed? So, again, when you can't see things clearly, you miss the root cause. Republicans aren't unwilling to compromise. Republicans are fighting against bad policy, and since you clowns shut them out of it, and everything else for 2 years, they have no reason to work with you, to fix the bad policy, because none of their skin is in the game! What is there to compromise on? When you own 100% of the solution, you own 100% of the issues with it. The only compromise going forward is: you have to give some the 100% away. WTF else is there? Fundamental error in Leadership causing FAIL #2. If you don't obtain commitment from all parties with interest in the issue at hand, any of them can run away from your solution at any time, leaving you holding the bag, and no consequences for them. Even a rookie consultant knows this one, or, they learn it pretty quick, the first time it costs them their weekend. And finally this takes the cake: The clown here exposes his real thoughts with what is bolded. So much for "compromise with Republicans", huh? He spells out accurate criticism, but then, catches himself and marches straight back into the "tyranny is OK, because it's our tyranny" mindset. And, does anybody really think it's the messenger, and not the message, at this point? Only a fool would advise Obama, to go out and make another speech, rather than going in, to his desk and finally getting to work, on the phone, begging, yes, begging Congress to give him another chance. Again I ask, when this guy has treated Congress so badly, what incentive do they have to work with him, either party, today? The best part of all? This guy accepts exactly 0 of the blame. 0. Did he actually making an honest attempt at ascertaining Obama's actual leadership ability BEFORE he and the rest of liberal media back stabbed Hillary and annointed Obama the Lord and Savior? Hell no. That's the most hilarious part of this, which is why it's the best: Introspection, real instrospection, starts with: "What could I have done differently, and how did I contribute to the problem? This guy has no clue, I can't even give him credit, because he doesn't even know where to begin.

Why do I get the feeling that it will be Thanksgiving before this thread dies?

yes, subimitted plans....that's what will make this go. It has nothing to do with the fact that the single white male in his 20s ain't going to sign up for these plans....because it's far cheaper to pay the fine, and of course, we all know how likely 20 year old white males are to pay attention to some d-bag government person, nonsense, agenda, etc. EDIT: I know! Let's hire some cool Hollywood actor to tell them to sign up....because...yeah, when I was in my 20s, cool Hollywood actors weren't the people I would routinely mock as tools. I'm actually sitting here trying to think of somebody like Tom Hanks...telling me I should overpay for something I'm very unlikely to need...and if Youtube had been around at the time...and what I would have done to his dopey commercial. Yeah...proper marketing concepts applied in the field! I don't remember by marketing practicum working this way. Not even kinda. I'm sorry...were you saying something about competence? As in: the IRS people, who are supposed to help enforce this nonsense, don't even want it for themselves? Or, the call center employees, whose job it will be to answer Obamacare calls...not even qualifying for Obamacare...because their hours are being intentionally limited to ensure that they don't? Darn it! I've digressed again. I apologize. As you were saying: Competence. Please continue.

Again. Nonsense. Now you are telling me my own life didn't happen? Wait...I am an IT guy...is this...the Matrix? Pleeeeenty of people belive that Single Payer is healthcare utopia, and these are the same people who have been selling it as such. Do I really need to google this for you? Buddy, at this point, it's far past time for you to consider that, even for reasonable Democrats, it's much closer to "nobody believes the ACA is rational" than "nobody believes the ACA is perfect". See here: http://www.washingto...g-on-obamacare/ I'm just saying: it might be time to consider updating your language on this subject, because you don't need to engage somebody like me to see which way the needle is pointing on this. I agree that Republicans were dumb about this, but, nowhere near as dumb as the health insurance clients who flat out ignored the proposal I put in front of them, which was based directly on the results we were already getting on what would have been a congruent project. We could have taken away the top 3 Democrat "Insurance company = evil" talking points in a matter of 8 months there, EDIT: profitably, and then why wouldn't the rest of the industry follow along? That's how they all operate. None of them have any reason to innovate...which is also part of the problem...because the dopes won't allow interstate competition. Do you know why that is? Because the union insurance companies that are poorly run, would be blown out of the water. Talk about corporate welfare.

Thanks....for the obvious. One of my internships in college was development for a continuing care community. Long story as to how I ended up there. So, yeah, I am quite familiar with all of this, in detail. I fail to see how any of this is relevant. The issue at hand is: single payer being sold by clown liberals and Canadians for years as the be-all, end-all....and me having to listen to this crap in no small amount at Sabres games. Only to find that "we never said that". Or, "It's a work in progess....for 70 years". Or, "we never said it was going to make health care better for everybody". Horseshit. They've been saying exactly that, for decades, to the annoyance of people, like me, who not only know better, but who just want to watch the F'ing game/take a piss in peace.

Oh...so it's been a WIP for 70 years in England...but darn it....they still haven't got all the bugs fixed yet? I'd love to be on a project that lets us fix bugs over the course of 7 weeks, never mind 70 years. Yeah...70 years of bugs is the reason why people are being hired in England to manage "PHI". It has nothing to do with Single Payer sucking balls. Hmmm....where have I heard this before? I know! "Communism doesn't suck...it's just that those peasant Russians didn't know how to run it right. It's the same thing with all those dopey brown and black people in the 3rd world. Too dumb to actually run Communism properly. "Now, if only we'd run Communism in a first world country, then well, us white smart people? We'd really do it properly". The excuses never change. The only difference is: at least you aren't being racist with your version of the same old excuses.

Well then you haven't heard many proponents of single payer. It's utter crap to insist that single payer hasn't been sold as a panacea...to all problems. Keep doing it, and I will keep, accurately, calling you phony. See this is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. It also represent both sides of the "talking out of both sides of your mouth" that you engage in. Since when does insurance the vehicle have anything to do with better care? The real problem is care, not insurance. What's the infant mortality rate of a baby whose mother is a crackhead, vs. one whose mother is a lawyer? How about the propensity for child obesity amongst a mother who makes dinner every night, vs one who lets McDonald's et al do that most of the time? Think you'll find any pattern there, Mr. Analytics? Who is giving better CARE? Would "food insurance" solve that problem? Does making food stamps acceptable by McDonald's solve that problem? What difference does it make for that child, if a charity is allowing the crackhead/lazy ass mother to be be crackhead/lazy ass, or the crackhead/lazy ass's family is supporting them, or the government is, by enabling the crackhead/lazy ass with welfare? Is more insurance going to fix this? How is it moral to keep that kid at risk, so that you can say "look how wise we are, stealing money from the rich and giving to the clueless and the careless, the same way we give to the the helpless". Robin Crackhead in the Hood. You can't tell the difference between the helpless and the clueless, and you don't even want to know. Why? Because "one size fits all" is the only way you can manage all of this from DC. That is why. Because this always been about managing things from DC, so that your masters can have more power. No, they are all just the "30 million" uninsured to you. A faceless, nameless mass of useful idiots, by which you can derive: more power. Edit: Insurance isn't the answer. Making people accountable for their own health, and the health of their children is going to fix this. The free market, and not the government, will provide. Where there is demand, there will be supply...provided the government isn't crowding out that supply or F'ing with it and keeping it from appearing. But, this can't be allowed to happen if you are a Democrat/wannabe government employee with big plans in the "taking business".

That's right, double down on your "bait and switch", rather than admitting that you've been selling single payer for years here as the be-all, end-all. Yeah...we should implement socialized medicince, because it's "the more moral thing do", "the more intelligent thing". That's your sales pitch. Except that in practice? It is neither. So then it's "but look at these numbers over here..." SQUIRREL! I've proposed solutions here and elsewhere that are superior to both what we had and the idiocy of socialized medicine, which is clearly worse. It is worse. If it wasn't worse, the solution to it, and such a valued solution, that is offerred as a benefit to the "high profile clients", wouldn't be "PHI". "Single payer" was always about: MORE POWER for government people and their political pals. It's never been about solving problems. If it was, it would actually solve problems. Instead, it only, as you describe solves some things, sorta, for some constituencies: only the ones that vote for the people who tailor it for them. You've been telling us that it solves all problems, because that's what the people who want power centralized in DC, so that they can sell that power to the highest bidder, have been telling you. When are you going to wake up and realize that this is the real game here?

1. F them. Throw them all in jail. I couldn't care less. If there's anything we've learned, that's been reinforced: positively, from Wisconsin and negatively, from Detroit it is that these people do not represent the majority, and that they are ultimately cowards. They will break, because their positon isn't based on morality. This isn't the 1800s, and they are not oppressed coal workers. No. They are weak, LCD losers, who are best served by being forced to re-evaluate their life choices up to now, asap. I'll say it once again: "Self control is the chief element in self respect, and self respect is the chief element in courage." These people have no self control, and until they get some, they can forget about having any real courage. They are weakness personified. So, don't fret. Their cowardice, and selfishness, will free you from them, all by itself, soon enough. The exact same thing happened with OWS. 2. Clearly you haven't been following NYS politics for quite some time. Where NY used to lead the nation in lots of things, now it leads in balatant corruption and incomptence of Democratic politicians. Never mind the current mayor of NYC. Never mind Weiner. Sheldon Sliver is still in charge of the Assembly to this day. That single sentence tells you all you need to know about NYS tolerance of incompetence and corruption, in the name of the Democratic party's choice to put its well being over that of the state's.

Oh Jesus Christ on a crutch! For anybody that wants to know why I call most liberals phony? The above is your answer. After decades of enduring our liberals, every European/Canadian douchebag I've met in my travels, or had the bad luck to sit next to at a Sabres game, or been trapped in bathroom by, swearing up and down that the American Health care system is inferior, flat out, to the superior socialist systems they have, and that they solve all problems for all people, and it's merely a matter of us following your collective embrace of "more intelligent solutions"... ...now you, and they, tell us "Well, I never actually said this was the best. If you want the good stuff, that costs more."? Coke dealers are more sincere than you are. Explain to me, exactly, how your post above differs in any way from that of the health insurance company executives you hate so much, when they are asked why they won't cover a procedure...after spending millions of $ on "look at how much we care, and how much we do for you" ad campaigns. Phony. So now, when it's been clearly demonstrated to you that places where SINGLE PAYER health care has been the "intelligent choice" for years...are hiring people to create and manage private health insurance, your answer is "well, I never said single payer was the sole solution". YES YOU DID. YOU'VE BEEN SAYING THAT SINCE YOU GOT HERE, CLOWN! Phony. Hilariously Phony. Hmm. I may decide to PM you some time. I may not. I have a mouse trap. But, it's actually your mousetrap, if you want it to be. It catches bad business process.

Perhaps a new slogan? "...because we don't want to end up like Detroit?"

Pounce, in terms of investing a company that has done what it has always done? Or pounce in terms of raiding/competing with a company that does that?

Pfft. And they say Mods can't troll. Was that a draft trade? I really don't know. I knew about it, but I didn't think it was a draft trade.

First, listen to this if you haven't already: http://www.buffalobi...05-6c48184d4bbe It's Heath Evans talking about the Bills offense, in the context of him being in Sean Payton's offense, and suggesting Marrone's will be more of the same. He refers to it as a "no tendency offense", and specifically talks about doing it different, every time, as in "throwing a bomb on 3rd and 1". Now, certainly I don't want to pee in the Cheerios here. I am traditionally just under The Senator's level in terms of optimism. But.... How often did we find ourselves pulling our hair out over "We threw the ball on 3rd and 1? When we have Fred Jackson on this team? WTF?" play calls last year? How often did we fail to find the genius in running a draw play on 2nd and 20? How often did we say "Why the hell are we not running the football? The run is working, forcing the pass 3 times and out is not."? Well again, not to be douche, but, all of those ARE in line with "no tendency" football. Are they not? What does that mean to you? Does it mean nothing, until you see Hackett's play calling in a game? Or, are you saying you don't want to see passes called on 3rd and 1, no matter what, and to hell with "no tendency", given last year? Or are you comforted by the notion that "no tendency" could also mean "hey this time we are running it on 3rd and 1, next time, who knows, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it"?

Hmm. Consider: what happens when the wind starts becoming a major factor from late October(sometimes late September) on? For me, the biggest thing about watching EJ throw effortless downfield pass after effortless downfield pass, day after day? I know I ain't the only person seeing that. The opposing coaches in our division are seeing it too. Or, at the very least their film guys are. We can talk and talk, but seeing it consistently, day after day? That has to make an impression. Sooner or later, they have to think: "this guy can put one up on us at any time, because he keeps doing it...all the time". Then, include the Sean Payton-->Doug Marrone "no tendency" approach to offense, which means any play can be called, on any down and distance. Add those two things together. Then, add the Ralph, and the wind, and us fans, and the hell we bring.... Now it's: "Jesus. This guy could be putting one up on us on 3rd and 1 from their 23 yard line, in 30 mph wind, bring the house down around our ears, and create havoc for us for the entire game!". Thus, the defense changes, because it has to. Suddenly? Yeah, a consistent tight spiral matters a whole lot.

have, right now, of being the 2nd most lopsided in draft history? I would say it can never be #1, because of the Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams Saints Fiasco. It's hard to top that(or the contuining idiocy of all teams involved see here: http://nfltrades.tum...kywilliamstrade). However, what is #2? And, what potential does this have to be known historically as #2, right now, today? First the disclaimers: #1. Yes, we know we are talking about rookies who haven't played a down in a real game. The question at hand: based on what we've already seen happen, in this short period of time, what is the probability that this trade is already looking to be a , historically? And, what chance does it have of being 2nd all-time? #2. Yes, we know that many things can happen between now and 3 years from now, and we also know that you don't evaluate drafts until 3 years from now. We also know that water is wet. None of this is useful, as the question is about estimating a %, not speaking in absolutes. #3. I am calling the "TJ McDonald @71 for Marquise Goodwin @78" aspect of this a wash. Of course lots can happen, and if you think it will either way, this should affect your % chance prediction. If you think it's a wash long term, then it doesn't affect you at all. The reason I am calling it a wash? I'm seeing the same coverage of both players = probably going to contribute sooner rather than later. Next the facts. The entire trade boils down to us getting: EJ Manuel QB Kiko Alonso ILB Marquise Goodwin WR Chris Cragg TE They got: Tavon Austin WR TJ McDonald S If you pay attention to the reports about our guys, and sorta average them out: You might have noticed a pattern: "Gragg is a name to watch" sums it up. But, when everybody knows you are sleeper? You ain't. The point of the term sleeper = you will surprise some people. If everybody knows you will surprise, who is left to be surprised? We already know Alonso is the starter, wearing the radio, and that was a major story in OTAs. He surprised. He won the job outright, right then. There hasn't been much more to say. Except this: Kiko is already rated as the 101st best Defensive player in the league, out of 352 starters? http://espn.go.com/f...fensive-players Without playing a down? Ahead of Alec Olgetree @ 108(ahem, 30th overall pick in 2013, ILB, picked by Rams ...so does that mean we've done them twice, with one pick?)? It's not just these guys saying it. I have a hard time with ranking Alonso at all right now, but, it ain't me doing it(so don't yell at me). We know what is being said about EJ. For lack of a better standard: Regression towards the mean-->what is the value of a solid WR, compared to that of a solid QB? Meanwhile, you could basically substitute what is being said about TJ Graham, or Robert Woods, or even Goodwin/ Da'Rick Rogers, for what is being said about Tavon Austin. People are happy with him, but aren't going bonkers for the guy. His coverage reminds me of the same thing Alonso is getting: "we know he's good, we'll see what happens, not much else to report". Given this, you could probably make a straight up trade, right now, Alonso for Austin, and feel ok, maybe not good, about it, right? But a trade for Alonso, Gragg AND EJ for Austin though? Even with the above disclaimers? Yeah, that's starting to look very unfair. My %? I'd say that this trade, today, already has a 30-40% chance of being the 2nd most lopsided draft day trade of all time. The difference between this and the Ricky Williams trade might be: the unfairness doesn't come from ego-->stupidity. If anything, it may simply come from the job the Bills did using the draft picks they got. With the Rams, while also doing a good job with the picks they got, ultimately rogering themselves, by giving away the chance to draft more players, for the chance to draft 1. Or, will it be as simple as: mistakenly bowing to the pressure to sell tickets in the short term?

See, this is what qualifies as reasonable discussion on this. However: 1. The notion that a free market wouldn't still operate within the context of single payer system is patently false. The Free Market ALWAYS FINDS A WAY! Look at the following want ads.... ....actually? Don't. I was going to show you a plethora of London IT jobs that feature "private medical" or "private insurance" = PHI as a benefit, in the job description. I was looking throught them for work reasons, and it became uncanny/impossible not to notice. However, this is even funnier, and makes the Obamacare-->single payer clowns even more wrong : http://www.reed.co.u...g-SimplyHiredMS Yes, it's a job whose primary function is: "be responsible for administering and rebooking Group Private Medical Insurance (PMI) policies for several of the firm's high profile clients". Yes, an FTE whose sole job is to create and run private insurance policies for English companies, in London of all places. Anyone think there are "access to care" or "not enough people to create proper risk groups" issues...in F'ing London? Yes, the free market is operating, even in the places tools say it can't/shouldn't/doesn't need to. Ask yourselves: why would any company offer such a waste of money as PHI...if the government is doing it so well? England, and Canada(I'm including them only because they never shut up about this), has single payer. I thought that made them "better" than us. Well, if that is so, then why is some lucky SOB going to get a job in London with 4 weeks vacation, their own Private Health Insurance(PHI), a bonus, AND SEASON TICKET LOANS(that is a kick ass idea that I might just have to steal immediately) whose only job is to deploy the alternative to the very thing Canadians/English buffoons won't shut up about? I bet not a single non-progress progressive on this board has to balls to answer these questions, since they've now been confronted with undeniable reality, once again. No, just complain about this long post(becaue it is full of nothing but why you are wrong, and it's length is indicative of how much you are wrong). 2. The notion that "there was nothing wrong with Health insurance"? Nonsense. I worked in health insurace (2, 10k employee firms) for 2 years, specifically in understanding every single business process and every single piece/set of data they had, organization-wide, all divisions, all groups, in detail. Thus, I know, not only that "something wrong" exists, I know what it is, I know why they do it, and I know why they are idiots for doing it. They could be doing something much smarter and of significant profit increase to justify a change/ensure an ongoing ROI on the change. I had convinced enough of their senior managers of what I was saying, that I was invited to present the full idea to their board. The trouble is? Old, morally compromised men, AND, women(they were every bit as sketchy), who've been running the same game for so long? They don't want to learn new tricks. Well? Instead of doing the smart thing, never mind the right thing, they've driven their entire industry, and now the providers along with them, into the idiocy that is Obamacare. Instead of getting ahead of the problem, they've played into the idiots', who know nothing about health care or insurance, hands. They chose to keep doing what "they've always done". Blatantly stupid. They had the info + my project's clear results right under their nose, and they chose to ignore it. Stupidity really is a choice. I refuse to deal with stupid. That is why I left that industry. It would take a serious amount of $, and absolute capitulation to our way of doing things, for me to return.

See? It's as I said: EII is an M&M with a 10x thick candy shell. You need a hammer to break it open, and when you do, due to the thickness of the shell, there's little room for anything inside, so there ain't much inside.

Yes, now you are doing it. I've been watching this thread lately, and Now you see that you basically have to whip EII. There is no being nice, or discussing things intellectually. EII is like an M&M with a 10x thicker candy shell. Tapping it with a knife won't do it, you need a hammer, and when you finally squish him, you find very little inside. Yes, since EII places very little value on education(his posts are indicative), he doesn't see any reason why people that go to school for 12 years, rack up amazing amounts of debt, and have a wonderful insurance premium to pay as well, due to lawyer douchebaggery, should make more $ than he does. F being "rich", how about just "I need more money because I have massive bills to pay" practicality? Nah...the best and bright will just deal with that....and their bills will be carried away by Obama unicorns, just like every other problem Obama's "policy of should" creates.

From what I saw on NFL network thus far...this "competition" could very easily be over by the end of the week. I did see EJ screw up a play/handoff, in terms of who's going where playbook stuff. They reset the play and he made it. Everything else he did was pretty nice, nothing special tho. I don't know who had the last pass of the day, but that was really nice. I did not see EJ throw the ball, right when the NFL network guys were talking about the "Gatorade Boy is Kolb's favorite WR", on cue, to the Gatorade Boy. Kolb did that. I did not see EJ throw a ball to Steve, who had blown by his man(Brooks)...but throw it so weakly that SJ had to stand there and wait for it giving Brooks plenty of time to recover and break it up. Kolb did that. I did not see EJ fumble the ball out of the shotgun...WTF? Who is the rookie again?. Kolb did that. And, this was all in the 5 minutes of live practice that I saw. Also, Kolb is lucky it wasn't live, because it if was, he would almost certainly have been knocked out of the game, if not the season, by 2 defenders, sacking him at the same time. (Edit: if that was Brady, and a real game? They would have broken him in half. No schit. Here's hoping we see that D call again) I will continue to keep an open mind, but Kolb has to be significantly better than what I saw today.