OCinBuffalo

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/kmov-anchor-the-irs-is-targeting-me-163945.html I figured this would happen. Notice how at the top, this post has been "updated" to say that this guy has had a problem for "several years" prior to the interview he initially said was most likely the cause of his IRS woes? I'm not sure how to feel about this: On one hand, perhaps people with legit grievances now feel safe enough to come forward? On the other, this is a giant CF waiting to happen, as now every single case/audit/issue can be re-raised, even if it is ridiculous, on the premise that "how can we know the IRS didn't F this up too"? Given the current tax system, we have to have the IRS, or we'd never collect any money. The only choice left: modify the system. Perhaps the end game is: flat/fair tax is implemented? Consider: by the end of this, we are certain to have had an object lesson in what happens when we concentrate this much power into a single agency, and what can happen as a result. Massive Centralization, and then the expectation that this new organization can manage itself properly, depends on expert leadership, and everything breaking the right way, all the time. In my experience, it's a 50/50 proposition at best. As bad as this is, perhaps the silver lining is that Obama's ability to obstruct is destroyed, and we don't have to wait until 2017 to get reasonable tax reform = fair tax?

Oh please, and you lost your right to arbitrate threads...oh, well I guess you never had that right, did you? And, if you can't see the progression here, then I can't help you. All I can say is: do me a favor and stay out of my way. I'll make it easy for you: this is about my last post, and not about your dopey "salaciousness as a function of your criteria" theory. I couldn't care less.

Ah HA! SEE? Magox knows who the head of the IRA is. Terrorist! That's because Magox and his fat cat Wall Street pals sell guns to the IRA. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Organizations experiencing significant, turbulent, external change, however defined, do not typically actively improve their business processes in the midst of it, or see improvement by default. They weather the storm. They re-commit to what they are doing today, and just try to do it faster/better, with the intention of making changes/repairs once the storm has passed. Low level employees possess neither the guts, interest or power to effect this level of both precise and accurate questioning. The criteria is one thing, the questions themselves are another thing. Both tell us different things. And the work product being requested from the groups seeking exemption has a specificity that no low level employee, or any employee of the IRS in general, cares about. Speaking of telling us something, read this: http://www.propublic...nfidential-docs and realize that these ProPublica clowns are merely trying to wriggle off the hook they are on with this article. They are saying "look what the IRS gave, I mean, forced on us...last year". Yeah dickcheese, and it was suck a hot story, that you waited an entire year to report it. These people personify the new "progressive fascist" ideology, as they are supposedly an media outlet, who is willing to deny themselves a scoop, for ideology alone? The only people who do that are ones who figure they've got something better coming.

Here's some real stats on this: http://www.footballo...rs.com/stats/wr The best way to understand these sites: Imagine an imaginary, average WR, on 2nd down and 10 from his teams 35 yard line. This average WR will do X. In comparison Steve Johnson, per the site above, will do X...-5.3% Steve is #44 on that list, and they only bothered ranking 86 WRs. But take heed, the first disclaimer of this analytic is: We cannot yet fully separate the performance of a receiver from the performance of his quarterback. Be aware that one will affect the other. The data bears this out. You see WRs, more than 1, over represented relative to their QB. It's relatively easy to see that, even though they haven't controlled for it yet, QB play has a massive effect on WR outcomes. In fact, when and if they do develop a control for it, I'd like to see it, because I doubt it will be 100% sound.

I will let it slide this time, but I will be watching you. Any further offenses and the compensation will be: naked youtube pushups, or, a shrubbery.

Good for 3 reasons: 1. Telling Steve Johnson he's a #2, is like feeding spinach to Popeye. 2. Please talk more schit Brian Hartline, when your WR corps haven't played a down together, or with your 19th best QB in the league. (see here http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr). This way, when you come to your senses and realize that the 2 guys they got are overpaid, and merely mediocre, it will be funnier for us. 3. I don't want anybody to know anything about this team. The more stories that say we have nothing but rookies and a not #1 at WR, the better. I want ESPN et al to completely ignore us. I am displeased with John Clayton mentioning our WRs today, and calling Woods a potential steal, after 5 days of practice. I want us to come out and shock the hell out of people, exactly the same as 1988. Why? Because that was what created the mystique of the old Bills. All of sudden, some guy from Kutztown State was leading the league in receptions, and had no fear of going over the middle and getting hit by LBs, and this USFL Qb was winning game after game, and had a better record than Marino, Moon, Elway, and Montana. "Let them spin, we will win"

Um...that's why I did the "design version" thing in the title.

Apparently Scott is working with the first team: Apparently Scott was on 5 teams last year starting with the Steelers in camp, and on the Bills twice: http://www.kffl.com/player/22525/nfl/chris-scott Clicking around on the 2nd link and, it appears this guy was active for the Steelers for 2 games in 2011. 5th round draft pick of the Steelers in 2010. Was Tennessee's LT. http://www.steelers.com/team/roster/chris-scott/f12c26a6-d755-424b-94c6-fd5eea10fc6f http://www.steelersdepot.com/2012/04/post-draft-state-of-the-steelers-offensive-line/ (Last April) The forgotten draft pick. This gives a lot of detail: http://www.steelersdepot.com/2011/05/chris-scott-the-forgotten-2010-draft-pick/ Looks like the guy got injured his rookie year, and lost a lot of ground as a result, including getting cut. He's supposed to be a T, but, it looks like they are making him a G. So, given all this? How do you like this solution?

Yes Russ Brandon, you do have a plan. Also, I created this: http://postimg.org/image/8lryqugtz/ and this seems like as good a place as any to put it, and it definitely defines what is happening today.

Bwaaaak! I wanted to punch the lady that leads the chorus on that song. Got to a point where I would turn off WGR during commercials. Then I would start forgetting to turn it back on, then, I just stopped listening.

Are you serious? How about looking that the front page of this site 1.5 weeks ago? The articles are out there. Here's one: http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap1000000167678/article/draft-notes-ej-manuel-over-geno-smith-not-that-surprising. Yeah, most teams had Manueal over Smith. All you need to do is use google. I refuse to provide any more links on something I know you can find if you put 5 minutes of effort into it. Like I said, the argument for trading down again is stupid, wrong and dead. It's over. Deal. There's no way EJM gets to 41. All it takes is for the Jets to be one of those teams that had Manuel rated higher. That leaves trading up, or, doing what we did. Enough of the nonsense. This issue is done. The "we could have traded down again, and still gotten EJM" people will never be right. Time to lay it down.

Yes. Both times I've heard things get contentious with the media. Whaley has stood his ground, and hasn't allowed a dumb assertion, buried in a question, to go unchallenged You called BS @ 8:15am The OP (and me too) listened to the first 40 minutes of the show with no football, and posted about that at 6:40. I posted at 6:45, because seemingly out of nowhere, as soon as his post came up, it was all football, all the time. Could be a coincidence, of course, but, it seems like recently, whatever is on the front page/shout box is driving whatever they are talking about. And, I don't thing it's unrealistic to expect something about the Bills in the first .5 hour. Not everybody is me, who has the radio on all day.

(First this disclaimer: the rest is of course depending on EJM not suddenly developing off the field issues, or Reevis disease, etc. The is 0 reason to believe he will, but, just covering the bases.) If you take EJM's existing skill set, and he can get to 40-50% of Montana's ability to read a field and make the correct throw, and avoid the rush? Then the Bills will be a consistent playoff team, whose down years are 8-8, like the Steelers, never mind relevant. If EJM can get to 70-80% of Montana's ability? Then EJM is a HOF, and the question will be: how many SBs will he win? If EJM can get to 95-100% then he is the greatest QB of all time. That's pretty much the scale.

Tinfoil hats? Is it that hard to believe that liberals in the media have a terrible view of conservatives, and what's worse, that view not squaring with reality? How did they characterize the TEA party initially. Was that even close to accurate? Nope. Is it that hard to believe that given that view, they would argue that certain stories must be embargoed, based on the assumption that conservatives will react violently, with their guns and bibles, to those stories? Again, think about the "violent" TEA party lie they spread. Was that close to accurate? Nope. Is it that hard to believe that all of this nonsense in happening in their heads, and no place else, due to the fact that they have a "my ideology means I don't think, really think, that much for myself, and instead I simply defer, or submit, to whomever the pack has declared to be an expert"? That one is almost a surety.

Yes, but inebriation is. And, that's all that matters. I can drink you under the table, then do posts here, and largely get away with it. Oh look birdog following the lead of his PBS heroes, and trying to make this into a process story.... ...in the vain hope that this will distract from the content story.

Come now birdog, is every day for you Polyanna day? Pickering was a tactic, and now he's been exposed as a failed tactic. Nothing more, nothing less. He was a tactic that was designed to be an argument ender, since Pickering's cred is beyond reproach, and his scope was intentionally set up to produce the intended result: "There's nothing else to see here". However, it is failed tactic. This is because: Pickering is the perfect example of "government thinker". His decades of acting this way meant that he could be counted on to operate as intended. He himself used his "scope" all weekend, as in, what he was told to do vs. told not to do, and following that to the letter, as the reason why he acted the way he did. The failure occurred here: in doing that, he exposed the scope as the political hackery that it is. The hilarious part? Both the scope and Pickering operated as designed. So, once again, if you want something done right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite. If any of us here were asked to conduct this Pickering's investigation? Would we all not ask Hillary any questions, too? Of course not.

Perhaps, but, since the rise of the Saw series, doesn't unmitigated gore and horror, complete with "mad scientist" count as 4) on that list? Are you telling me that a KKK type, who runs around and kills black children on recess, would just be a "murder getting convicted of murder"? I'd say this is infinitely less about about ratings, and infinitely more about the MSM saying to themselves: "we don't want to report on a story that is going to directly lead to the lynching of black people, abortion doctors, and Nancy Pelosi, because, you know, it doesn't take much to push those crazy people on the right over the edge. They don't have any self-control, and of course everybody on the right gets their news from us."

Definitely not me. I was certain we were going to trade down to the Rams, but, I thought they'd go with the TE, if he got past the Jets, etc. Having said that, now that we have a complete picture of who did what and why, they did exactly the right thing. No risk, and decent reward, is better than super high risk(Manuel was supposed to get by a whole bunch of teams that need QB in the 2nd? Horseshit. ), and super high reward. Everything was better than having to trade back up into the first. The "we could have waited until 41" argument is both stupid and dead. Not with the Jags, Titans, Eagles, and Jets ALL picking ahead of us, with Manuel as the consensus #1 QB, by a wide margin, on most boards. I figured we'd use the extra picks on QB and CB, in that order. But that's because I didn't see Woods being there at our pick. I certainly didn't expect them to go speedy WR at 3, since they did that last year. Rogers wasn't on anybody's radar.

Good point. All the old standbys, which allowed them to do their shows with the minimum amount of thought required, are now gone. They are actually going to have to pay attention to the team, go to camp, watch these new players play, etc. They are going to have to deal with Doug Whaley, whom I sincerely doubt is willing to give them a pass for saying stupid things, like Buddy was. Whaley doesn't strike me as petty, but, he does seem like the guy who is going to calmly and cooly return fire on the media if they get out of line. That's basically what he's done so far.

I am becoming convinced that either a producer, or, WGR hosts themselves eyeball this site while on air. As soon as you posted this, they start talking football. A pattern seems to be developing.

Nice one.

What is that, like the 4th time in 2 weeks? I am rapidly tiring of these right wing websites stealing my ideas, changing them just enough to slide by, and posting them 2 days later. But by all means, keep posting them, right after mine, so that I know who's doing this. I only threw that in there because while I was writing it, I remembered CatholicMatch.com(per my mother, don't ask) asks you questions for your profile, and one of them is: Do you believe in papal infallibility?. Yes, utter silliness on my part, but that's why I said, "supposedly".

Care to explain how this: squares with this ? WTF? Did you get DC_Tom's point? Or did you just write something to make it look that way? I've never, ever, ever heard of people using scissors to snip spines. Yes no ratings there.

Oh, of course, on a bed whose sheets are made out of dreams you've stolen from the children, that is supported on the backs of the middle class. Are you high? Didn't I already make that clear?

Why did your article use the word "allege", and then go on to provide 4 bullets of undeniable fact/quotes? Habit? I mean, is there a jury/fair trial concern here? This whole thing is just going to keep grinding and hitting them, like Kaleta, until President Petulant comes out and takes responsibility for his role in this, and finally tells us where the hell he went that night.