OCinBuffalo

You heard it here first: The O/U on Jay Sekulow becoming the new liberal bogey man is 2 weeks. I don't know about the rest of you, but Jay Sekulow is handling this quite well. I guarantee that this repeating pattern: 1. Release a tidbit of bad info to the press. 2. Have the WH deny part of it, or try to compartmentalize it, and then have their media lap dogs run and post it online 3. Release a little more, but not too much, that refutes the denial, breaks the story open again, and forces the lapdogs to eat their own schit that we have been seeing since the beginning, is no accident, and while he many not have created it, he is executing it brilliantly. The hilarious part is: you look at RCP, and every day you see these lame attempts by the liberals to put a cover in this thing: 1. "Ok, it's bad, but here's what we can learn..." 2. "It's not like the higher mangers, or the campaign was involved" 3. "This is not an indictment of the big government/liberal agenda"(Take heed: These are the Ds that have seen the very real danger here, clearly, and are setting up to blame Holder, then Obama if necessary, to preserve the party) 4. "This is not a real scandal, this is a controversy, and it's a lesson about fixing government" (These are the other Dems, who will gladly destroy the party for 2 elections in a row at least, to save Obama. They foolishly are playing right into what is coming soon) 5. "I have nothing useful to add, other than I wish this story would just go away, because I'm tired of being laughed at in the comments section" If somebody besides Sekulow was running this show, these covers would start to gain traction. But, every day, another detail leeks out, that is news, whether they like it or not, and it blows their cover right off. It's like watching people run and wipe out/run into something on youtube. I am never going to tire of it. It's really cracking me up. Each "Ok already, we know what we know, this is the full extent of it, it's bad, but it's time to move on" story is , because they are like Qadafi's "line of death": they move backwards every day. And then, NBC finds out that signatures from higher ups are on the letters...that they go from Sekulow. Now, the extent of "what we know", from yesterday: isn't. There goes the premise for the cover, and the columnist, right into the wall, squish. Frank Luntz is done(and I still don't know how the hell he achieved Karl Rove status). No, Jay Sekulow's face is going to be on MSNBC et al...so that the hater, I mean host, can spew loud incoherence at his picture, as if that's going to help. Will it be..cathartic? No, it will be even more hilarious, for me. Given that MSNBC's ratings are now the lowest they have been since 2006, I am probably 1 of 10 people for miles around who watches them, and I only do if for the humor value.

I am sorry, I cannot. If this were a matter of opinion, I could, and gladly would. This is not. This is a matter of truth vs. its bastardization. I am not accusing you of anything, and I most certainly will explain: Saying we have different opinions of what America stands for is both irrelevant and erroneous. We probably share many of the same values to the letter, in all likelihood. We'll see. The concept of a natural right was something somebody(um, Paine for example) had to think up, and write down. Specifically it defines what man is allowed to do, unhindered. Principals, and attempts to define them, such as the Ten Commandments, define what man is not allowed to do. There are many such attempts at documentation of principles, however, none of them were necessary, because we know them when we are born. The real advantage to the documentation, and the reason for its popularity, whether it's the Bible, or anything, is that each person can learn these lessons quickly, and without having to go through them personally. (The wisdom of the Constitution, is that it defines what government is not allowed to do. Thus it creates a "morality" for government) Don't like semantic approach, how about the logical? Consider: do we have a treaty with any other country that says "murder is bad, and we both agree that it must be punished"(not what happens if one of yours murders one of mine/extradition, etc. No, the act of murder itself)? Why not? Murder is bad, isn't it? How about stealing? Cheating? Lying? Given the obvious nature of these things, why wouldn't they be the very first thing we put in a treaty with another country? Simple: Everybody at the table already knows. Principles do not require written definition, they are both absolute, and universally, inherently accepted. However, we have all sorts of treaties, and are working diplomatically with many countries, getting them to see the value of religious freedom. That is because: while religious freedom may be a right, as defined by Paine, the Founding Fathers, or whoever, it is still merely: a value. Conclusion: Free Religion is clearly not inherent, or even obvious, to "every person on this planet", otherwise, the diplomacy would not be required, would it? Consider 2: I go deep in the jungle, find some guy running around with in a loin cloth, and ask him if he agrees that murder, lying, cheating, etc. is bad. Of course he does. How long would it take, especially given the fact that the words I would need to use probably don't exist in his language, to explain Freedom of Religion, and it's usefulness/superiority? How can he be aware of a principal, that for him, doesn't exist, and is in fact incomprehensible? Even if he does comprehend, what are the chances he's going to let some of his people start practicing Scientology? (Or, what is the likelihood that those that do, after a few weeks of "Do you sometimes feel sad? Well then..." end up as dinner?) Conclusion: He is aware of principles, because we all are, from birth. Values must be explained. Values are political. Values are opinion. Principles are morality. Why am I making such a big deal about this? I have grown extremely tired of people(not necessarily you) putting Principles and Values on the same linear scale, thus pretending that they are the same, and merely moving up and down that scale, whenever it is convenient for them. This is how they attempt to avoid the pesky nature of morality, especially when it threatens to expose them as the immoral people that the are. This is why being a "Global Warming Denier" , or for traditional marriage, can never be immoral. Those who say otherwise are being immoral themselves, by denying the true definition of principles, and inserting a patently false equivalency between them and their values.

No, you are trying to duck the logic here. Specifically using the left's own logic against them. It's merely a side argument/hilarious benefit, though. To the point, the SPLC did a fine job of creating the template for going after those who actually do, or conspire to, deprive others of their civil rights. Why do I need to re-invent the wheel? I don't see a need. In fact, I think not using the SPLC template is foolish. We already have case law that has passed Constitutional muster. Why would we want to risk some technicality being missed, when we already have the method defined? Radical Islam, Jihad, whatever...is a political movement, not a religion. Especially not when what it espouses violates Constitutional amendments. So, it's simple: anything, a pamphlet, a speech, a meeting where this stuff is discussed, that is in violation of civil rights law, and is by definition, political? Open season. Anything that doesn't concern itself with violence, or doesn't refer to changing the secular law, or is by definition: spiritual, is not only left alone, but is protected. Then start posting like it. Again, I am not entitled to First Amendment rights, when, by definition, my behavior, my speech, or more importantly, my organization conspires to violate civil rights. This much has been proven, specifically by the KKK battle. If you've done the work you say you have, then you know the KKK tried specifically to hide behind religious protection, and FAILed. How is radical Islam any different? Other than PC idiocy, how are they any different than the KKK, using religion to hide, just like the KKK? In fact, they are not. And, if we were to attack them the same way SPLC attacked the Klan, using the same method, then I would expect the same results. I wouldn't have had to do any of that had you used either term properly, and hadn't implied that I have to check my principles to see if they are objective. Which you did. Principles, by definition, dictate no such thing. So, now we are back to you no not knowing the difference between the two...only one sentence later? If a group of people all agree that we should allow for many religions, and not hold one above the other, that is called: "sharing a value". That sharing can be traditional, and, it can even be written down in a document that is put on display in a glass case But, it is not a principle, never was, and never will be. The value I place, on values like free speech, free religion, and free trade, are so high, that yes, I would gladly resist/sue/fight anybody who tries to destroy them. However, I would never consider violating a principle to get that done, unless there is imminent threat to life/limb. (I wouldn't say the same about property. This is the USA, and these Fs have another thing coming if they think we can get new property, any time we want.) That's why we use words like "imminent threat". It doesn't mean we can investigate these people eternally, and secretly, without due process. It does mean that if I am walking down the street, and you hand me a pamphlet with the words "(Radical) Islam is the Answer" at the top, followed by your reasons for why, I can sue the hell out of you for conspiring to deprive me of my civil rights. And the reason? If Islam was the Answer, you could have me executed for suing you, and that would be done with due process, according to Sharia law. Pushing for a society that executes dissenters like me...is by definition, conspiring to deprive me of my civil rights. Period.

Perhaps we should just look to those enlightened fellows on the left, who make that distinction on a daily basis? They have no problem issuing their expert opinions on this matter, so, let's simply let their standards be the guide. And, it's lawsuits. And, they will be specific to the things I already cited, and take care not to overreach and create an opening for the idiots to cry "persecution" It's simple, really: Human rights violations, or the conspiracy to deprive others of their human/civil rights, that contravene all laws and treaties in the nation in question, are the guide. Just use the very same case law that the SPLC created. Example: If you say you support a Caliphate, or the imposition of Sharia law, then by definition you support, and are conspiring to deprive, violation of Civil rights of all people, not just women. Again, using precedents set by SPLC, we ALL have standing to sue. I don't have to do a lot of work here, I just need to modify the arguments that have already been made, and supported in court, by the SPLC. I am aware of what they have done, how, and why. If you want to learn about it, google is your friend. But this is where you FAIL. The FBI has much less to do with the eradication of the KKK, than does the SPLC. You need to read up on the history of this. The SPLC is a great triumph of liberal thought, just ask any liberal. No, I'm being serious actually. The SPLC literally destroyed the organization, and therefore the capability to spread KKK ideology. You could not do the same with the TEA party, for example, because the TEA party is not violent, nor does it support the use of violence, nor does it conspire to violate civil rights. Are you getting the sense that the word "conspire" matters here, yet? Again, read the material, you will see exactly what I am saying. Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between a principle and a value. EDIT: (Bah! I will be eternally cursed by the principal vs principle spelling problem, and that is probably due to the principal NEVER being my friend) Human principles are something we all share instinctively. Do not murder, lie, cheat, steal...these are things that we find, over and over, without exception, in every culture, throughout history. This is no coincidence. We are born with principles, and nobody needs to tell us to have them. Those that aren't born that way? We have words to define them: sociopath, psychopath. Values, on the other hand, are a choice, and are subject to change. How much value we place on each is also, a choice. When the worth of one of our values, necessitates violating a principle? Then you have trouble, or dare I say: sin? Every time. Values can be qualitatively objective. Principles are morality, they are absolute, and aren't subject to personal interpretation, objective or otherwise. In fact, anyone who does try to belie the absolute nature of principles, and says they can interpret them personally? They are, by definition, being immoral. Now that we have that out of the way: this is a value judgement. Do the values and tenets of radical Islam merit anything other than contempt, especially when they so often proscribe violations of principles? Of course not. So, we can easily seek the suppression of these values, or their outright destruction, and, as long as we don't violate any principles in doing that, then there is nothing immoral, or even, unseemly, about proceeding.

Oh...but you forget: radical Islam, is not Islam, if we are to take what Obama, and everybody else on the left, says seriously. So, in fact, per their definition, I am NOT declaring war on Islam in any way. I am declaring war on something, that is supposedly, NOT Islam. Put that in your pipe.....and remember that if radical Islam is Islam, then, the KKK "religion" they espouse is Christianity. Edit: and, since radical Islam is not Islam, my principals values stay intact.

The above is why I say: SUE THEM ALL. This is no joke, I am seriously considering starting a 501c4, no different than the SPLC, whose donors are anonymous, whose sole job is to sue to crap out of radical Islam everywhere it can, world wide. It's existence is by definition a violation of multiple human and civil rights laws, treaties, and, it has never been shown to provide any benefit to the world, or individuals. In fact, it has proven to be the opposite: those that participate either stay the same, or move backwards, in terms of civilization. Scientology is a problem. Radical Islam is a war. Why not fight this war on every front available to us, no different than Reagan did with Communism? Of course, I have a lot to learn about how to go about doing this, and/or if there is some hangup. But that's what I have you guys for...

Hmm. What does crayonz have to do with 3.5? It's just that this number has an amazing ability to coincidentally pop up when you least expect it. Especially when means are involved.

Or, maybe the PA announcer has his own deceptive role to play as well? "Starting at Free Safety, number 99, Marcell Dareus!" I bet, literally(see above), that many wouldn't. You make a good point about subbing giving away something....or...maybe you don't. Taking Kelly's point, but the opposite, along with this packages thing. What if we sub in people...for the purpose of making it look like we are...only to run an "un-package"? For example, 3rd and 8, convention says you bring in a nickel. We bring in a nickel, but we blitz him? That's an un-package.

Well that settles it: Moorman just put the hex on the Steelers. Hopefully it's not a new hex. Hopefully they just take the one that's been on us since the Forward Pass that should Never Have Been, and just recycle it.

WTF? Which is none of our business, and it wouldn't be known to us at all, if it wasn't for her, right? That is, if we have any class. None of that excuses her behavior, and none of it has anything to do with HER BEHAVIOR. Running to a lawyer and having him release private discussions? Detestable weakness. Again, right there, that's ALL WE NEED TO KNOW. The rest is BS. Mario said this Mario said that, and then "let's all put on our pseudo-psychology hats and pretend we can not only read minds, but, read into text messages!" Of all things, text messages? Idiocy. Utter nonsense. What if a lawyer took what he heard from his client, specifically the exact same thing that Mario told this woman? and blabbed it in public? Oh, that's a big deal! Oh, man, that's a breach of trust, and highly unethical. What if a judge ordered the lawyer to tell what he knew, since he deemed it to be in the client's best interest = mental health? We'd have lawyers peeing themselves nation wide, and running to get on whatever talk show they could. And, why? Not in anyone's self interest but their own: lose the confidentiality protection and it makes it their job 5 times as hard. This woman does the same thing, quite literally, breaks the confidence in a relationship, releases confidential messages, and we all know what that means(unless we are children, or lawyers), and, now, we are talking evidence and legal procedure, and NOTHING about the ethical realities of this? Hilarious hypocrisy. Dishonor, is dishonor. It's no matter of opinion, or based on some relative set of values that change per our convenience. What she did is dishonorable, since, she hasn't apologized. So now we have: intentional, planned dishonor. She's a scumbag, so is her lawyer. Anybody who defends this behavior, Jet fans or Bills fan? Pathetic.

And, what happens when the street-taking citizens find out that, in fact, they can protect their property quite efficiently? What happens when they become more feared than the police? What happens when the police fear them as well? What happens when policing, both from the ground and the leadership level, gets back to being about policing, first, and not about a jobs program first, and an extension of wing nut PC policy, second? What happens when the police aren't just paid, health-cared, retirement planned, decorations of authority....but are actual lawmen, unpaid, un-PCed, un-government provided for? (Lawpeople?) Answer: the end of liberal socialism, progressivism...whatever we are calling it these days. Everywhere I look, I see the same pattern. The entire leftist agenda is falling in on itself, and everything they do(the important things), either increases the magnitude of it, speeds it along, or both. The cops response is to do as little as possible, and that is their public, stated response? This fascinates me. Only a very few of them understand what is happening, see here: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/02/obamacare-incompetence/, and what THEY are doing to themselves. In the link, the ENTIRE PREMISE of the program is that only government can take on such a big project, and in failing to take it on, they not only belie that premise, they are proving why government is the last thing you want handling the matter. The damage they have done to their brand since 2006 is uncanny. It is the exact opposite of what I expected. But this pattern of behavior is unmistakeable. In a single 10 year period, the people at the controls of the left have completely destroyed the faith in government that the previous 60 years had built. And believe me when I tell you: we are only seeing the beginning, and I don't like any of this at all. There are far too many potentially dangerous outcomes.

No, because where is the threat of violence. Bitching, which is what you can boil this guy's entire schtick down to, is not threatening. Now, why anybody would want to sit and listen to some guy B word...for an hour? Bad judgement.

The objectives, in order of priority: 1. Cause chaos for radical Islam 2. Cause them to spend $, lots of it, on lawyers 3. Expose their daily activities to the media, which will make people take notice, and embarrass the hell of out them-->make them a joke. Nobody is afraid of a joke. Thus, terror is impossible to achieve 4. Win the cases 5. Make some money If are getting 1-3 accomplished, with only the occasional 4-5 happening, then this plan is: at plan.

Yes, ....lybob! I wonder, how many years have you been waiting for me to mess something like that up, just so you could do the fixed thing? Well, now that you've slain that comedic dragon, what's next? And, as far as the video goes? I'll make it ..lybob simple: That guy is his own worst enemy. There are blatant examples of it throughout, and that's funny, because here he is doing the Hitler thing, when most of what he used for the subtitles? His own fault. I am nothing like that guy, for 2 reasons: no Dr.Pepper, no excuse for putting in interns in spots like that

Nah. New York Governor? Besides, the question was really "who can get nominated that isn't essentially a D in name only"? Cuomo would have a miserable time trying to win, with the far left running the endless parade of commercials I see right now, today, that are basically an infomercial for Republican ideology. Cuomo, lying or not, just comes right out an says "cutting taxes for business, no new taxes, controlling spending, focus on business, end the government expansion". I've never even seen him come close to saying anything about "the rich". I would argue that Cuomo is losing the War on Guns in this state. They tried to take a guy's gun here a few months ago, and the uproar sent them scurrying back to Albany. Now? Everybody is blaming everybody else, because the public is pissed, and this is NY for God's sake. When his gun speeches hit the national air? He's done. Cuomo was being really smart, and setting himself up...but he may have blown it with the guns overreach.

Read your history. The SPLC did exactly that. They sued many a so-called Protestant church, right after the Klan went from being the Klan, to being a church. How is radical Islam different, in any way, from the KKK, in the KKK's church form? It is not. Why should I care if a radical Mosque that is spewing crap, or allowing it's members to spew crap, has to close it's doors...or is seized as a result of a lawsuit? Where is the downside?

A finer example of "If you want something done right, put the far left(Obama) in charge of doing the opposite" you will not find. ............................. Speaking of obliterating the Democratic Bench for personal gain, can PastaJoe or any other unmitigated moron, I mean progressive, tell me: which D is running for President in 2016? It ain't Hillary. Not now. I will save our time, and annoyance, and bring the facts: Most serving D governors in red states, are problem children(um, Montana governor calling his own people rednecks, anyone?), inexperienced, or, basically Republicans that are OK with abortion, and, there is no Obama, after Obama. Wo from the Obama side of the D party is even kinda experienced enough to do the job, since GOVERNING WILL BE a 2016 issue? I know the answer, but I doubt Joe does: There are 2(two) D guys(Edit: perhaps 3, and he's moderate too), both moderate, that might have a chance at winning in 2016. The best part? IF either of these 2 guys I know get nominated and actually win? That is the end of the far left agenda. Everything but abortion will go out with the trash, or be completely FUBARed, especially Obamacare. It's going to be interesting to say the least. Does the far left go all Ralph Nader, and ensure their party is doomed? Or, do they play it smart, go along with the moderate, hope he loses but they keep some key Senate/House seats, and then tries to start their nonsense again for 2020? However, why would non-Ds vote for a moderate D, when you can vote for Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or Rand Paul?

I would think that there might be a very violent response, and not something as trite as bottles at police. I would hope that there isn't, as the very last thing anybody wants more death of innocent people. I would hope that a more intelligent solution arises, and I want to see what you think about it: When does radical Islam become something that must be eradicated with 0 tolerance, no different than the KKK, chicot? If I was a lawyer in England, the first thing I would do when these guys are found guilty? File a lawsuit on behalf of the dead guy's family against their families, their mosque, everybody who belongs to it, the al-Muhajiroun group they belonged to, and everybody that was ever in that group. Hit them all in the wallet, and at the very least force them all to pay lawyers and defend themselves as a group, and individually in civil court. You want to live in the West? Fine, but, if you want to act like this? Then welcome to our civil court system. Easy money. That's how the Southern Poverty Law Center made all their $, and some smart British lawyer could do the same. Make it so they can't even afford printer paper, just like the SPLC did with the KKK. Make it impossible for them to radicalize anybody, because every time they meet, you sue them all, all over again. Based on what? Conspiracy to deprive the entire American people of their civil rights. I'm no lawyer, but, we do have cases like this here all the time, and while many are ridiculous, we still have them. Why should I care if this Fs some of them over unfairly? That's the price you pay for DECADES of toleration of idiocy in the name of your religion, while doing 0 about it. A couple of lawsuits later, what are the chances that the next time somebody is screaming Jihad on the street, we see non-radical Muslim guys, who don't want to get sued, cracking heads, and thankfully, not EDL hooligans? The solution to radical Islam MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent Muslims, no different than the solution to white racism MUST come from refusal to tolerate it by decent white people. These lawsuits just help kick start that 0 tolerance policy. That seems like a much more reasonable, effective and damaging way to attack these people, than bottles and hooligan behavior.

Here that whooshing sound? That is the joke, flying over you. Well, given his clear understanding of some financial matters, I'd say: somewhere between 2 1/2, and 4 1/2 years of experience.

I did some quick quick internet searches, made some reasonable assumptions, and I created a relatively accurate algorithm. Given that there are currently ~ 94.6 million hits for "weiner" on the internet, along with the rest of my work: I'd say yeah, there are about 3.4 to 3.6 million jokes that can be made about Anthony Weiner's political campaign, with the time frame being now until election day. And if we take the mean of that, guess what? It works out to 3.5 million. It's bizarre, I know, but what can you do? An average of 3.5 appears to be about right in this case.

Seeing this, the first image that popped into my head(STG): And I thought I was all cool, with my original thought and everything....until I scrolled down...and found this: So, somebody beat me too it!

The Wall Street Jedi Council is one of the many reasons I love PPP. If you want to see some real use of the force, start a thread about Austrian Economics as it pertains to Obamacare. (The power of "The Individual", see it, you will. Fear it, you must. ) They even use real lightsabres and everything, it's a hell of a show.

From the Day 6 OTA notes: Actually, I think it's likely that the above is what we will need to get used to. In fact, you could do that by down and distance, and I'm gonna have some fun with it : 1st and 10 their 20-our 30: Alonso-Bradham 2nd and 5-10 same area: Alonso-Scott 3rd and 5 same: Alonso-Scott(cover TEs and RBs) 3rd and 10-15 same: Moats(blitz)-Scott(cover for Moats blitz) 3rd and 15+ same: Alonso-Scott(just cover it) 3rd and <5: Moats-Bradham Red Zone - our 30 Alonso-Scott Pass Moats-Bradham Run Even though I think these make sense, I bet posters can find fault with them, or, better combinations/situations, etc., than I did. And, a lot of the time these LBs could be replaced by nickel backs. But, that's seems to be the key to this defense: lots of intricate working parts and packages that make it difficult to read the overall plan, or know how each piece fits with the others. That blows if you're trying to create a software design other people can understand. But it's great if you're trying to create a defense nobody else can understand.

If they keep doing this, over and over, it's going to get difficult to ignore. From what I can tell the D is way ahead of the O(as it should be at this point), but, every so often this bomb gets dropped in spite of that. That does mean something, despite no pads, OTAs, yada yada. Executing that play is 100% about athletic ability. It's speed, route running, and a perfect throw. EJM and Rogers have it, so they can do it. If they keep it up, and I was the coach? I almost have to get that on the field.

Do you know what the word reiterate means? It doesn't mean say something ridiculous, and then spend 3 pages walking it back one step at time. Look, you were off base, and now, you've scaled it back to "performed his best against the Bills". I don't think there's anything wrong with that statement.