OCinBuffalo

More Romo excuses? Did the O line make Romo fumble a hold? Did the O line make Romo throw game ending picks 3 times? Even if we give one of those to the O line, what about the other 2? You are talking about the Bills O line, since Romo has been in the league? How many of those years exactly have we had a average O line, and not a horrible one? If you don't want to talk about it, then don't come here and say silly things like Sanchez "beat the Bills". Sanchez has had as much to do with beating the Bills as the equipment manager. Yeah, both have to show up or there's going to be problems, but neither is the reason that they won.

What is Ryan Fitzpatrick's propensity to choke in big games? What is Tony Romo's? Running up stats means nothing. If I had to play 1 game, against the Baltimore Ravens in the SB, and I had to choose between Romo and Fitz? It's Fitz every time, all day, and twice on Sunday. Why the hell would I put my faith in a guy, who I can't put my faith in? Edit: Why wouldn't I rather trust in my defense, and go with a guy who may not win it for me, but at the very least I know won't give the game away? A choker is a choker, and always will be. I've seen this personally, on the field, at the D1 level. Some guys can do it fine, and even all whatever level, when the lights are off. But, when the lights are on, they just can't put it together. That is Romo, period. Romo is the king of the 1pm game, and the Joker in prime time. Edit 2: What is the difference between saying Sanchez has done well against the Bills, and saying Brady has done well against the Bills? Oh? There is a difference? What would that be exactly?

Looks like somebody has been watching entirely too much ESPN. What's next? Telling us that Tony Romo is a HOF QB? I remember the Jets/Cowboys Sunday night game a few seasons ago...neither of these clowns could win the game, and both did their best to lose it = INTS, fumbles, missing wide open receivers, etc., despite being given the ball in decent field position, over and over and over. It was a comedy of FAIL. Especially since ESPN had spent the 2 hours of pregame touting this as one of the great QB battles of all time. Yes, a great QB battle, that turned on a blocked punt, and ended with a Romo INT, followed by Sanchez going 0-2 and leaving the kicker to win it with a 50 yard FG . "BEST EVA!" Those of us who are old enough to have seen Marino, Kelly, Elway, Moon, Easiason, and later, Warner, Manning, Favre, and Brady know a "winning QB", the kind that wins games all by himself, when we see one. Those of us who have seen those guys play, know what a real "great QB battle" looks like. Sanchez, Romo, aren't those guys, and they never will be. Sanchez isn't even close, and to say otherwise is flat out absurd. In fact, I can't think of a more embarrassing night for ESPN(and there have been many), than the Sanchez Romo Debacle. EDIT: And yeah, the order of who is closest(not close, but who is closest) to a real "winning QB who wins the big games"? 1. Fitzpatrick 2. Romo 3. Sanchez

Never fear...this is PPP, therefore, all it takes is: 1.

Nice. I've been too busy to give this the proper attention I feel it deserves, but Jack has provided an efficient look at essentially what I was saying. Of course, what I was saying was going to be pedantic and overly complex. It's better for everybody that Jack has intervened. The central point is: Bitcoin doesn't need to be a full blown currency for it to have the desired effect. In fact, the use of Bitcoin in a practical sense, not Bitcoin itself, is probably best defined as what I would call an: integration outcome. You take existing systems, just like Jack described, integrate them with Bitcoin and you still get the desired results, with minimized hassle. We don't live in an SAP, IBM, "everything to everybody" world. Some would question whether we ever did. The bottom line is that integration is how we do things today, and therefore, Bitcoin does NOT need to have a standalone approach to be effective. In fact, and this is hilarious: Talk about a Keynesian approach! The idiot left is driving and creating demand for Bitcoin, that wouldn't otherwise be there. It's not government spending $ Keynesian stimulus, it's government largess, and the ever-expanding ego of the statists...that is ironically simulating Bitcoin demand!

You will find that exposing "ripping your nose off" activity basically comprises 80% of my reason for being on this board. Then, it's 10% drunken silliness, and 10% writing stuff that is in my head, that I need to get out of my head because if I don't, it distracts me, and there's no place else to put it, so.... Hehehe...back to the haze. Some posts got moved over here. Now, let's see if any of the posters who posted them have the cajones to stick around and back them up. My guess: As soon as they saw it got moved, it's "run Forrest, run"!

Reasonable. Of course, that begs the question: Did you think, when you started this thread, that the Pavlovian political, "Corporations are bad, man" response wasn't coming? Or, did you think the ESPN programming sucks enough, that it serves as a unifying force?

I'm not the idiot here, Tom you are. You ought to know better by now. Do we really need to go back over why, since 2005 when I got here, I do what I do? You do you, and I'm gonna do me, fair enough? Nobody stops you from having your fun, I see no reason why you have to prevent me from having mine. So there's no chance at all that, she's actually pleading the 5th...because she is actually refusing to incriminate herself? How did you arrive at that? I'm not saying you're wrong I just want to understand your thinking here.

hehehe...fresh meat at PPP. I wonder: how many people are familiar with exactly who owns Disney stock? I wonder how many of them would be as OUTRAGE!d as they are here, to find out that their union pension/401k mutual funds do. Therefore, THEY are, in fact, the evil stockholders that require a profit on the backs of the poor, virtuous ESPN victims. Or, if it's not Disney stock then, perhaps Haliburton? Gotta love the people who decry "corporate America", but whose entire retirement is predicated on it. Clowns. And, what happens every 6 months if they don't get their evil profits? Do they stay with that fund? No, they coldly move their money elsewhere, with 0 emotion. There is no end to their evil calculations, because it's all about money for them. Bastards. No. Hypocrites, Idiots, etc., is more like it. Any of the Wall Street Jedi Council here want to tell us the answer on Disney? ................... Two things are absolutely true: 1. When ESPN did the original ESPN, it was the best product they've delivered. It was perfect. For some reason, they decided to F with that. Perhaps the execs were bored with doing the same old thing, but there was absolutely no reason to change any of it. I smell ego, "creative vision" or whatever you want to call it. They've added stuff, website, blog, fantasy, but so what? Nothing they've changed has ever been "better" by any standard. It has simply changed, and the change always been worse than the original. 2. ESPN has been and forever will be a function of the North East. The original wit and charm of it was solid football analysis with pure NE satire no different than the Onion or the old National Lampoon. Trying to adjust to "reach other markets" and dumb it down to make it "more accessible" to the ignorant, has simply decreased the value of the product, and frankly they didn't need to do it. We are talking sports here, and their target demo, in every market, would have watched, ignorant and all, anyway. They tried to make it into McDonald's, when that simply wasn't necessary.

So good that I just used it in my "It's Meazza's fault" post....for laughs. Since we are doing "root causes" here, do you, or the morons at the NY Times, care to remember WHY the Republicans demanded investigation? (Bipartisan? Which Democrats called for this investigation? Names.) What was the root cause of that? Oh, yeah, that's right: the Obama Admin purposely leaking classified information to make themselves look good politically. So now we have politicization of national security by the Obama administration, causing rational demands for inquiry as to why/how that happened, turning into police state tactics after they "tried" to find the leaker after 8 months? And, if that's not enough stupidity for one sentence, now, you/the NYT wonder why they couldn't find them, when they were looking for: themselves? /facepalm Yes, an "exhaustive" search that could have been handled in 5 minutes had any of this been real. Instead, we have you and the NYT being idiots, and thinking we are even dumber than you are. And of course, ALL of this is the Republicans fault? WTF? Republicans aren't the ones who leaked to make themselves look good, they simply responded to it. Do you understand the difference between cause and effect, and which comes first?

Seriously: do you have to ruin every single F'ing thing? You don't see any humor value in using every single Bush era argument that was made by the "I heard it on MSNBC" people, and have them argue against those arguments, while being completely oblivious that they are doing it? None at all? I WAS going to have lots of fun with this. Whatever. The second part of what I said above is much more important, because it's much more convincing for the average Joe. Everybody knows the IRS. Much fewer people know the difference between a US Attorney and a District Attorney, and the only reason they know the latter? Law and Order. In terms of scope and scale, the IRS affront to the Republic is just a tiny bit larger than some USA nobody knew or cared about, don't you think? I'm not excusing that bad behavior, just the opposite: I'm taking it into full account and using it as a precedent. Gonzales ended up gone, and that's as it should be. Given this IRS thing's scale, a whole lot more people than a guy like Gonzalez, will end up going, and somebody WILL have to serve time, if Obama is to have any chance of retaining any power. This will also likely cost Obama 2014 and his 2nd term agenda, unless something like "John Boehner and 80 House Republicans use military aircraft to ship coke." happens. His legacy remains for him to determine, no different than yours is for you: the choices he makes starting today are his legacy.

Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man, and so does the evil, equally rampant and pervasive, Meazza!

(Apologies for lateness) We have breaking news from the White House: None of this is President Obama's fault, still. Meazza is guilty of terrible crimes, which I will detail here. Meazza is the problem, and if anybody defends Meazza, then that just proves what you can buy with Meazza's Canadian equivalent of fat cat Koch brothers loonies and toonies. If Meazza defends himself, then that proves his status as a detestable fool, who is also an incredibly skilled liar, as my rundown of typical Meazza distortions and lies will prove: 1. Obama wouldn't be stuck defending Israel, and we'd already have an agreement, if it wasn't for foreigners like Meazza derailing the process all the time. Perhaps the single biggest liar on the Israel/Palestine question, he constantly applies what he calls logic to this situation, but we all know he's only doing it because the Jews are paying him in Jew gold. On several occasions perfectly reasonable arguments have been put to Meazza regarding the Zionists and their internet meme activity, and every single time he has shot them down. There was nothing wrong with the arguments, what's wrong is: Meazza. How in the hell is Obama supposed to provide leadership, with this foreign menace from the north constantly spreading his lies and sedition? 2. Speaking of Canada, Meazza is on record as a Quebec basher. His racist comments prove one thing: he wants Obama to fail. He said French Canadians want "misery for all". He actually said that! Where have we heard that before? That's right: the TEA party. They say the same thing about Obama, for the same reason. Racism! Guilt by association be damned, this is guilt by correlation! And yes, I know what a correlation is, I've spent 3 years in sociology, which makes the rest of you ignorant of statistics. I also have a minor in Women's studies, so don't talk to me about correlation. 3. The insidiousness that is Meazza is as rampant as it is pervasive. And here's another example: Meazza sends PMs to everybody. Why? What's in the PMs that can't be exposed to the public? What is Meazza hiding? What are his crimes? How is Obama supposed to run a government, when we have Meazzas sending private communications to: other people? We need to "Stop the Leaks"(now bolded, per Pasta Joe douchebaggery), immediately. We can't have Meazza talking to anybody in private, ever, because if we do, this foreigner might pose a threat to Obama, which poses a threat to national security. Is Obama not the POTUS, morons? Then what? We can't go after people who are leaking bad things about him? All we are saying is that we need something like a moderator to ensure that nobody says anything bad about Obama while he's the President, and endangers national security as a result. That's all. 4. And, it's not like Meazza doesn't have a record of making other people take the blame. He has openly stated that he blames fatigue, Carey Price, and Republicans in Congress, for his idiocy. How is Obama supposed to escape that ridiculously wide ranging net? I have news Meazza, the poor are sick and tired of being sick and tired, and you fat cats are to blame, not Obama. Blaming a perfectly good NHL goalie? That's just irrational. I can understand blaming the Republicans in Congress, but again, what do they have to do with Meazza's many failures? So, of course Meazza's going to blame Obama for being an idiot, because that is the best way to deflect our attention from him being an idiot. These crimes against decent people are undeniable. No wonders Obama can't get anything done with people like Meazza around. And the latest? Meazza has said he likes spaghetti. But I've heard it as: "he likes little boys, that play soccer". Of course Meazza will deny it. When he was confronted with a list of serious, unforgivable charges against him, he only denied being a monster, and said nothing about the rest. People like Meazza prove why the Constitution is an outdated document, and we should just keep the parts we like and drop the parts we don't. Clearly his hate speech, and his distortions, stand in the way of creating a more democratic society. How can anyone blame President Obama, with people like Meazza around? Update: A correction to our last article. It turns out none of this is Magox's fault. Our mistake. I mean, it's not like I we had any malicious intent towards Magox or anything, we were just printing what was known at the time, so you can't sue us.

Lois Lerner, or her attorney, may have just screwed the Obama Admin. with their pants on. When somebody takes the 5th, suddenly the concept of criminality comes into play. If there is the potential for someone to incriminate themselves, then logically, there is the potential for criminal behavior to have occurred. Potential criminal behavior REQUIRES a criminal investigation, or, the rule of law truly is dead. Thus, now, the only solution to this is a special prosecutor, as they are the only ones who can conduct criminal investigations. ........ Also, looking at the big picture, and speaking of logic, there are only 2 possible outcomes here: 1. Obama et al did this, they ordered it, or somebody in the campaign/WH ordered it, possibly along with members of Congress. They did it, it was their idea, and the IRS simply followed orders. 2. Obama et al had nothing/little to do with this. IRS employees on their own concocted this mess out of personal and/or political interest. They took it upon themselves to use the regulations they created against those with whom they disagree, or, more simply, against those who seek to reduce their power. That's it. Pick one. You can't pick neither, and be a serious person. Now, I ask all of you: which schit sandwich do the big $ leftist donors like the best? We will soon find out the answer to that one. But, think about it: If they go with #1, then Obama, and any Congress people who are part of it, have to be done. Perhaps not impeached, but done all the same. You can't have these guys running around being the Geico lizard for progressive politics for the next 3 years. That's entirely too much time, even for Republicans, to have to wail away at them, and therefore their ideology. Instead, you have to tell him to basically shut it down, and just try to get as many compromises as you can, concede 2014, and hope that 2016 is far enough away that people forget, and are willing to give "the life of Julia" another hearing. If they go with #2, then Big Government is done. Perhaps not permanently, but, if they save Obama, then the IRS and therefore, "activist government" takes the huge hit. In fact the term itself is done, because, think of all the "yeah we've seen what happens when activists are in government" jokes. Jokes, that will be funny because they are true. How can we have this kind of abuse? Answer: Bound to happen when you give people this kind of power. And, therein lies the end of liberal/progressive politics as we know it. For a generation, anybody suggesting that we increase the scope of government will be beaten down by this scandal, because Big Government, and not Obama, IS the scandal. "May you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse that is now upon the left. It will be interesting indeed, to see which choice they make. I assure you, they won't be able to avoid picking, and sticking with one or the other. Perhaps the smartest thing they can do is waffle between the two for as long as they can, and hope we eventually get bored with them lying.

That's why these stories just keep getting better. Every .5 hour there's a "time to eat schit" moment for the left, Bush Derangement Syndrome "victims", and the like. They are all going to need whitening tooth paste with the amount of stool they've had to consume. I mean, at some point, you have to say "I'd rather not", right? At some point don't they have to say "I guess I was wrong, and that the problems I identified had little to do with Bush, and more to do with government"? Nope. There they sit, ready for another helping, grin and all. All this moral superiority being washed away so easily, because it was entirely phony.

You didn't really understand my "column" did you? There is a giant difference between taking the job, and doing it a different way, and, re-tasking the job such that it is completely irreconcilable with it's Constitutionally defined requirements. This is being done for the same reason an anti-pope was necessary. Anti-Pope: We don't like the man in the office of Pope, but, we can't be critical of the office, so, we create an new office. What we have here is: Obama doesn't like the office itself, because, performing the actual duties of the office(Specifically working Congress), will expose him as a lightweight, will expose his agenda for what it is, and will expose the people he has around him for what they are. So, a new office has to be created, because operating in the old one would be Obama's undoing. The new office, as we've seen recently, allows Obama to deny everything that is governing, because the new office doesn't require: governing. A new office has been created by Obama, he resides in it, and the old one, the one he was elected to fill, is vacant. Nobody voted for that. Nobody wanted that. Nobody had that in their mind when they got behind Obama in May of 2007. Apparently, to the abstract-thought challenged. Why do I always think of "Flowers for Algernon" when I read EII's posts? Not Charlie, no...more like Frank and Joe.

You are right. That is why I am speaking to the only fact we do know: private relationship messages being released to the public via a F'ing lawyer. That is detestable weakness and dishonor. It shows us the character of the woman, and yes, as it is a fact, it allows us to make a judgment about it.

So, now you've stated it. She is dishonorable, or, at the very least her honor is a cheap commodity that can be traded for $. I think about my sister, and I don't even need to ask the question, and I haven't, because I already know the answer: that ring would have been Fed Exed the day of, period. The #s would have been changed, and/or Williams would be blocked. End of story. No press, no BS, no lawyers, no weakness. That's the difference between having honor and not. You don't have to think very much. Of course you may waver, but in the end you just: do.

Define rush to judgement. She not only kept, but released, private messages between people in a relationship. She did this intentionally. That behavior is inexcusable, period. It does not require further thought. This is fact. Tell me a story that has that in it, and, 100 out of 100 times I am going to judge the person who does it to be dishonorable. There is no "context" that excuses dishonorable, and I would question the character and motives of anyone who says there is. Those who support/defend dishonor typically have a reason, and we are all wiser in finding it out. And yes, judge, as in judgement, the thing that separates man from animal? I don't care about the "nuance" , because that is simply a lamed_cked way of trying to justify bad behavior. Is it not? More moral relativism? You can reply will all of Mario's bad behavior, but that has nothing to do with this, and it does not justify it. I am so tired of people pointing to one set of bad behavior as a way to try to avoid dealing with another. We can talk about what he did, but, these are 2 separate people, and therefore, we must deal with them that way. IF we truly want to be "fair" then this is how.

All fair points. However, I look at one thing: intent. This was intentional. This wasn't an offhanded comment, or somebody "close to her", speaking anonymously, or her lawyer reading a prepared statement where the lawyer cites the facts of her case. What did she intend to accomplish, via her lawyer, by putting out these private texts? "Her side of the story" could have been put out to the public a number of ways, I've just named 2 above, since we are doing the "nuance" thing here, right? Instead, she chose this way. That was a choice, and, our choices make us who we are, period. What does the choice to use private discussions, and not another approach, tell you about her?

What? conner is looking at the same one you are. Didn't the internet decide that your homepage should be changed too, and that seeing low prices on Viagra is in your best interest? Who doesn't want to save money, Tom? Man, you're an idiot sometimes. After all, conner believes that other people should make most of his decisions for him, and help him along, since that is "the more Democratic" way. So, what's the problem?

I completely did not care about this story, until now. "Never treat a lady like a slut, or a slut like a lady, never think you can turn one into the other, and never let one think they are the other, because that ain't fair to nobody." Turns out that was excellent piece of unsolicited advice I got from 75 year old mobster when I was 18. I was at wedding of all places, which is why I was howling laughing inside, because, it was surreal and cliched at the same time. The only major woman problem I've ever had, is the 1 time I haven't followed that advice to the letter. Looks like Mario tried to turn a slut into a lady. Bad plan. This B word has no class, and she lost me immediately today with run running her mouth about private personal business in the press.

I'm going to the bar, but rest assured, I think this is an interesting discussion, and I will return...just not tonight. (No wawrow behavior here, but I will check, and if he shows up at his appointed time, all bets are off....) I will leave you with this: If I signed up to pay off your credit card every month, relative to the services or goods you rendered to me, or my "exchange", would you care how I did it? Do I need a full blown currency to do that, or just access to your credit card? The vehicle is not the issue here, and my "bank" actually isn't a bank in the traditional sense. It's in Belize, so Tom's regulator point is marginal at best. And really I just said that to make it easier to start with. This "bank" could be a sum of parts deal whose parts are located all over the place. Many people don't yet understand the cloud. Few people realize it's intended design, and what a properly designed cloud app means/is, but many people run around saying "the cloud". It's the new "windows based" or "mission statement" "win win" etc. I heard that if you say it enough times, it increases your IQ 20 points. But I gotta go....

No it isn't, not even close. Look: I can write out the entire design for you, or, you can take my word as an expert that this is easily done. It's up to you. For now, no, finding a bank that accepts bitcoins = non issue. Think bigger. The people where we would go to get the money for this certainly do. What if I create my own bank? You know, I started writing it all up again? How about, rather than just giving you the answer: What if I have the resources to start a bank in Belize that can process bitcoins into cash? What would you do with that? I was fooling around with this idea, as, lots of businesses can create points for credit card holders. Why can't I create points from my bank in Belize? In fact, why not have two business lines? One that creates points, and takes a tidy 2% per transaction for doing so, and, another that turns bitcoins into paper currency, or even gold? Why stop there? Why not also be able to exchange for notes, bonds, stocks even? Or you could go hog wild, and be the bitcoin paypal?

I have no doubt that what I heard may be incorrect. But, it seems more likely that it isn't...as of this .5 hour. Think about it: doesn't it follow that the IRS, and only the IRS, would have a "has to be approved by the Prez" policy, specifically because it's the IRS? "We want to avoid corruption, or even the slightest chance that the IRS lifer employees could be accused of giving themselves bonuses, or the Republicans will kill us", a la the GSA scandal, seems like a policy that a career IRS leader would want in place.