OCinBuffalo

But, I don't regard them as epic failures simply because you have a different point of view. I regard them as epic failures in part because you typically base them on opinion masquerading as fact, or, as you did here, based on a false assumption. Or, they are just hilariously absurd. But, given all of this? Lighten up Francis, I'm just goofing on you. Or, did I make a false assumption, and you are actually here to terrorize us, thereby making the Justice Department seizure 100% legal? Also, got any inside info on exactly how the Buddy thing went down? (Regardless of all his PPP nonsense, wawrow is no joke when it comes to football)

Yes, and also many many Jim's Steakout receipts. How funny is it that these clowns, who were all howling when the Patriot Act was passed, and were all cheering when Micheal Moore said "there is no terrorist threat", suddenly go all Neo-con when their Dear Leader goes after a newspaper due to a leak? Is the AP a terrorist organization now? Well, wawrow does come here and attempt to terrorize us from time to time. His failure is epic and hilarious though.

Again Magox tries to deflect his guilt onto Obama And nothing on you, huh Magox? I wonder how you sleep at night.

http://dailycaller.c...y-also-leaking/ Well, here's the first "leaking" story I've seen in print. It's one thing to ask for the wrong information, have a process snafu, etc. It's entirely another thing if the reason you are asking for this info, is so that you can turn it over to political campaigns, opponents, etc. I see smoke, not fire. But, you have to wonder if that Crossroads thing is evidence of leaking. How did they get the info, if it is still pending?

This starts with the UK and Thailand media covering this CF better than our MSM, and me even being aware of it from them. This ends with LABillzFan covering this CF better than our MSM, and me even being aware of it from him.

ASS! I almost spilled my Dr. Pepper. I laughed hard, I'm still laughing, dammit. Because that is the perfect image. The bedraggled, shirtless, working man, for whom Joe advocates, is ironically also one of PastaJoe's employees, who rallies him to PPP, at the slightest mention of Hillary. And with the size of that gong, Joe could be deep in the "News And Announcements" Forum, and still hear it.

No, I don't think any of that. You'll see.... I think Obama et al used to work at the same hospital in Chicago, and that this group of opportunists did a very fine job of taking advantage of the opportunity that no WMDs in Iraq created. Then, I think these opportunists created the "we don't want people to think he's an AA President" inculcation. Which nobody was saying. That nobody was saying that, until the opportunists posited the "some people hate Obama because he is black" ? That's the "take advantage" part. Bill Clinton, not me, said as much a long time ago. I think the people who created this 1st black President = warm and fuzzy positive meme = "vote for Obama and self-congratulate for being: enlightened", are the same people who have created the "Agenda About Nothing". Following Seinfeld's example, you can't be criticized for an agenda about nothing, and just like Seinfeld, the important...is whatever we happen to be talking about today. Once in office, you can't be criticized for doing nothing, after the initial things you did, Stimulus, Obamacare, were horrible...since doing nothing now is an "improvement" over that. Hence, the 2012 Agenda About Nothing. Thus, the only tangible thing was "the symbol", and, since that was the only thing there is to know about Obama, why would anybody vote against that? Sure, let's call it what it is: I am sure there are lots of people who feel that, but very few who actually think it. Only an idiot doesn't know that, never mind think it. Neither, with Obama. Look the Iraq/WMD thing created a unique opportunity. The far left saw an opportunity to one of theirs into the WH. The soaring speaking skills are the icing, not the cake. The cake is that you have an intelligent black guy who thinks socialist, but is able to speak/behave moderate, and that is his appeal to the far left. Nobody wants their ideas, so, you have to have a guy who can disguise them. They win the election. But, what they didn't count on him being an empty suit. I honestly did not. I figured that he would learn on the job, and that the beginning would be rocky, but that he'd improve. Who expected him to be lazy? To refuse to take his job seriously? To refuse to immediately start working Congress, which by LBJ's account, is job #1? The left bought their shiny new toy, came home and found an empty box with a note inside that said: "I got this". A wonderful recollection of history. It all means: the great ones, however they get there, lead once they do. The weak ones, who got there as a preordained symbol: are utterly feckless once they do. Or, is Obamacare, Obamacare, or is it "SomethingCongressMadeUpACare"? Would Teddy Roosevelt stand for this thing, created without his having a say on every detail, being called TeddyCare? Eisenhower was a symbol too. He could have run for either party and won. The difference between Eisenhower and Obama? Eisenhower led something a little bit bigger than a parade prior to taking the job. Same question: IkeCare? Obama doesn't care, because he doesn't know enough to know that he should. I said that to make a point, but not the one you thought. (I tend to do that, you see, ) And, I see that it has worked perfectly. ----->Look how agitated it has made you. Not crazy, not unhinged. Agitated. Your post is written in the language of the agitated. Now, take that same agitation, and transfer it to every black American voter. What do you get? Is anybody thinking about Obama's results/qualifications/issues anymore? Nope. I am saying that Axelrod, not me, called him the Affirmative Action President long before any of us even knew who Obama was. Axelrod created the inference, and left it around for everybody to pick up. What is it exactly? Imagine a memo that says: "Hey, Obama's great and all but what if people say he doesn't have enough experience, and call him the Affirmative Action President" with "From the Desk of David Axelrod" written at the bottom. Now, every single black person in the country knows that memo, and the feeling that comes from it. Especially the white collar people. The notion that "well you really don't belong here, but, since you're here, we might as well give you something to do, so..." is feared, and people have heard about it from their friends. It is the basis(at least in part) of your agitation, isn't it?

You are right. But, the thing that burned my ass was watching Duper and Clayton. Everybody in the stadium, or in the room, KNEW where the ball was going, KNEW that they had no running game to speak of, and then we'd see Duper and Clayton catch a 20 yard pass, 15, 30, then the near sack incomplete that always raised your hopes a little, followed by a yet another 20 yard pass. And then? The obligatory comeback rout TD , where the ball just crosses line, but it always looked like our guy kept them out of the end zone...only to see the ref's arms go up. And that was with them starting from their 10, after we had a great special teams play, because the Dolphins were always horrible at it. ............... But then we grew a defense, and the Dophins didn't. Then we got a QB who specialized in beating Marino. Jim Kelly: Reason #1 why Dan Marino has 0 rings, and that will be true forever. Eat it Dolphins fans. 4-2 vs. Elway, 15-8 against Marino, including 3-0 in the playoffs. The Steelers are the next best Jim Kelly "team that thought they were good" whipping boys, who talked huge amounts of schit before the game, only to be wholly owned. "But...but....but...we have Barry Bananas Foster, and he ran for 122 yards and a TD, and our D had 2 INTs". "Yes. But Kelly is in the midst of throwing 6 TDs this game, clown, now go get the next pitcher, because your fake ID is better than mine". Kelly had to retire for Bill Cowher to get a ring. Yes, it used to be fun watching Kelly crush the hopes of my Steeler fan friends. Next is the Chiefs and the hapless Raiders. Ahh...it was nice to do a little smack talking for once. Hopefully we will be back to it soon.

None of this is President Obama's fault. Magox is guilty of terrible crimes, which I will detail here. Magox is the problem, and if anybody defends Magox, then that just proves the level of Magox's evil influence. If Magox defends himself, then that proves his status as a detestable fool, who is also an incredibly skilled liar, as my rundown of typical Magox distortions and lies will prove: 1. Obamacare would be much more popular today, if it wasn't for Magox and his propaganda posts about it. Perhaps the single biggest liar on Obamacare, Magox says he knows about finance and economics(like we care), and applies that useless knowledge to Obamacare. Clearly he doesn't understand that Obamacare is about our children, and not just another venue for him to spout his right-wing capitalist lies. Or, he just hates children. 2. We all know of Magox's obsession with Mitt Romney. What else should we expect from a finance person who routinely uses his dirty tricks to defraud the middle class of their money? And, just like his hero, Magox hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years either. What a surprise. I heard it from one of Magox's clients. Hey, it's not like Magox has released his tax returns, so what does that look like to you? Only a small-minded TEA bagger doesn't see the obvious connection here. Or worse, they do, but they just don't care. 3. Magox rabidly supported Romney's futile attempt to unseat the best President we've had in our lifetime, so, clearly he is a racist. That's also why he is against Obamacare. He'd rather see black children running around in the streets half naked, with cleft palates, than pay his fair share of taxes. 4. Magox tells people that raising taxes is a good idea, but that's just a false flag. We all know he's only doing that to make himself look reasonable, and therefore, make President Obama's debt ceiling tax increases look unreasonable. Magox thinks he can fool us with his duplicity, but we know better. 5. All we need to see Magox's propaganda on Global Warming in full effect? Look at his avatar. He's promoting carbon as a viable and important part of life. Jesus, is there no low to which he will stoop? He is so insensitive, that he makes jokes about carbon, the most dangerous substance known to man. What if a kid read that? These crimes against decent people are undeniable. No wonders Obama can't get anything done with people like Magox around. And the latest? Magox has said he likes chicken. But I've heard it as: "he likes chickens". Of course Magox will deny it. People like Magox 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 Magox around?

I wanna see Woods Vs. Gilmore. Then we will know what's what with Woods. And, while we are watching that, we can see what Steve can do, when the best CB is covering elsewhere. I also want to see what Steve can do in the slot. I also want to see what happens with Steve when Goodwin and Graham are on the field at the same time. I'd like to see how the defense reacts to that too. Love to see those guys obliterate the top, not just take the top off, the defense, and see what we can do with that. Imagine a Tampa 2 defense that has to deal with that. The entire back 4 is gone, and if you can run the ball out of that, and get to the 2nd level...then it's a TD, or at least a 60 yard running play, if it's Spiller.

I've heard that they asked for donor information, and that there is evidence that the donor information was passed on to Democratic campaigns. That may seem like no big deal, but, it's actually a huge deal. If you know where the money is, and where it's going, how much and from whom, you can extrapolate/deduce the entire Republican electoral $ game plan, and if you do that, then a pro can know everything. But, I heard a pundit say that on TV. I've yet to see it in writing, and I haven't heard anybody confirm it yet. Thus the grain of salt is the size of a house at this point. As far as who could do it? This is vile speculation, but, I wouldn't put this past Valerie Jarrett. It fits her profile thus far.

Well this is a well considered and insightful post. I am impressed. You should come on over to PPP, as I am certain the rest our fellowship would love to hear your thoughts on Global Warming. We have very intellectually stimulating discussions there, and I am sure you'd fit right in immediately. Who knows, you may even become one of our favorite posters. This post is certainly a good start. All you have to do is click here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/forum/14-politics-polls-and-pundits/ That's right, click the link. It's no big deal. The link is your friend, and all you have to do: just click it.

My point is simple. There's no reason to cut Smith, and a $500k roster bonus is not a reason either. $3 million? That's a reason. This doesn't mean that a reason to cut Smith won't present itself sooner or later. You're crediting Smith with more than he deserves at this point, IMHO. Not having a reason to cut a guy '= having a reason to keep him. As I said, given how he's been used thus far, a reasonable case can be made for him having an upside. But if this is a linear scale that takes everything into account, then Brad Smith is at 0, or perhaps 1. He can do things to move himself - or +, but, so can other people. In contrast George Wilson was at -2 at best, and practically nothing was going to move him from there.

Not really, he just played against Marino a lot. See, I figured somebody would bring up Marino, after seeing Manuel this weekend, and sure enough K9 was on it. Absolutely right about Fitz. Fitz is like a pitcher who can't throw from the stretch. His windup motion is why he got hit after the throw so often. And, Marino's release is why, given the old rules on defense, he made the HOF, and not the IR list.(It also helped that Don Shula sat on the officiating committee for years, such that if anybody dared touch him on anything that was close, out came the flags) Marino could also move around in the pocket very well. (Bledsoe's sin was that he couldn't) I can't believe I'm doing this, but, it's instructive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm3ErTOp0JQ and some wonder why the fans who can remember still hate the Dolphins more than the Patriots. You watch that whole video, and remember this happened before the rule changes, and you think: "Marino makes Brady look like a 3rd stringer." Marino, and nobody else, not the defense, not the kicker, would light the Bills up, and there was nothing we could do about it. Not until Bruce Smith came along, and Duper/Clayton slowed down a bit, did we start to have a chance against them. That's why EJM makes me nuts, his release reminds me of something I haven't seen in a long time: Marino's. It scares the crap out of me, that he might actually have a chance to be that good. And then I think: "somebody is gonna yell at me for not being a realist". It's like I only want to whisper it to myself

I don't agree with your assertion. The staff had no idea how the draft was going to shake out, and, no idea what's going to happen with the rest of the standard off-season stuff (June 1st cuts, etc.) So, you keep Smith on the team, unless he's going to cost you an awful roster bonus. Now that they know they have a lot of WRs, and, if and only if they show, then you start thinking about cutting Brad Smith. They get to have 90 guys on the roster, and a lot can happen between now and the first game. The difference between Brad Smith and George Wilson was: Brad Smith has potential upside, while they knew what they had in Wilson, Barnett, etc. None of this means Brad Smith doesn't end up being cut. It only means that it's not prudent to cut him yet. In fact, activity at another roster position may end up being the reason he gets cut, or kept.

Everybody in this thread realizes that this story was purposely "trashed"(released on a Friday afternoon), right? And, it was done in the most underhanded way possible: completely out of context, at a weekly conference call for tax lawyers. As I understand it, those weren't reporters on that call, those were guys who are looking to understand tax rules. And then this comes out. This Lerner lady is either incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid. She's smart if she figures she will get a pass, since she's the one who fessed up first, without being asked, and nobody will remember the details, or, she's incredibly stupid for introducing herself to the nation as a liar, since we already know what she said will be contradicted by the IG report. Perhaps she knows she is screwed, and she figures inappropriately spilling the beans outside of the normal channels is her only chance?(doesn't the IRS have a spokesperson? shouldn't this come from the leader of the IRS? No. Something this bad, should have come from Obama himself.),

Yeah...that's the point. Great job, you nailed it. Anybody with the handle CodeMonkey should understand what the word "approaches" means in the context I used it, and the context overall. Or are you an Drooopal kinda guy?

It's as if they are trying to lose. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx Global Warming not even mentioned. Foreign Aid/Focus overseas is a bigger issue that Global Warming. Consider that for a second. The issue that only we here and the weekend news shows discuss...is a bigger deal. Not really though. This is just more confirmation of what I said in the last Global Warming thread: the environtologists still have some cash, and this memo...a Fundraising Memo...is designed to extract that cash. This is happening because: Obama can't get $ from anywhere else, and he has to get it now, before somebody else does, and, before he starts talking to the labor unions. I wonder if anybody wants to take issue with that election analysis, now that it's been confirmed?

Actually, if this was 1985, media today wasn't 100% driven by click traffic, and the quality of content and most interesting story, and not whatever is most likely to be the next "Look! A squirrel!", was the diver of what was covered? The 2013 Bills would be a hell of a story in 1985. It'd be on the cover of SI. A coach that doesn't take his own college QB? A sports media either duped by a crafty GM, or, an idiot GM outsmarting himself. A huge risk on 2 QBs in Manuel and Smtih, that has all the boom/bust of Ryan Leaf vs. Peyton Manning? There's all kinds of quality content here. That's because a compelling story is a good story no matter what year it is. By 1985 standards, the 2013 Cowboys are a terrible story. Jerry Jones doing the same old act, and refusing to admit he needs to hire a real GM, after another questionable draft? News? Hardly. That wasn't "news" 5 years ago. You could write that story today, and publish it next year and nobody would notice. But, due to the "business model" that is sports journalism, you can get more "squirrel" out of saying Cowboys than Bills. This is the only reason ESPNDallas exists. But, ultimately, this over-centralization, and, attempt to cherry pick the market, will FAIL, because it always does, in everything. Why? Because it is fundamentally bad business to go out of your way to annoy half your market by telling them they aren't worthy of you, and all but dare somebody to compete with you, while conceding the half that is "beneath you", right out of the gate. The good news is that people like Joe Buscalia and Chris Brown get to do a job they wouldn't, if it was 1985. And, as true as everything I wrote here is, and as great as the Bills story really is.... ...I still don't want these Fs anywhere near my new head coach, and my new team.

When I am on my deathbed many years from now, or even if something happened to me today, I sincerely doubt my last thoughts will include: "Dammit, if only I'd been more realistic about the Bills chances in the off-season". When you think about it that way, being "a realist" starts to approach absurd, doesn't it?

What? I don't know that! Ahhhhhh!

This isn't going to make me watch the video. Your assessment of me is hilarious. It is literally fact free. And, the hilarity of you getting me perfectly wrong? That's not going to make me watch the video either. You still lose.

First, I mean AntiPresident in terms of antipope, not anti-Christ. Liberals: let's not focus on the silly, as this "piece" is ultimately about the political future of your philosophy(and others as well) and the very real danger it's in, I ASSURE you. Antipope was a purely political creation. If you want history for why and how antipopes came to be, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope Q: Why does antipope fit here? A: The irony of an antipope. The Pope, by definition, is inviolate. He is supposedly infallible as well. So, to have somebody, anybody, call the Pope illegitimate...is shocking, bizarre and offensive to those who respect the office of Pope. President of the United States is similar, in terms of the office, of course, not the man. (The problem with the Pope is that distinction isn't made) What separates the great Presidents from everybody else? They come the closest to personifying the office. Just like the Pope, the President is expected to lead "the flock" and execute in the office via generally accepted standards and precedents. To have a President who doesn't do these things, and therefore, delegitimizes himself...is shocking, bizarre, and offensive to those who respect the office. President Obama isn't being the President, as we know it. The office we expected to be filled, by the person we elected, is vacant. Instead, I submit for your consideration, that Obama has created, and installed himself into the office of the AntiPresident. No different than was done in Avignon in the 1400s. Although the method and mechanics are different, the motivation, pure politics, is the same. The office of the Presidency, as defined, does not suit Obama's needs, his stengths, or the political realities of the day. Yeah, part of those realities are the Republicans who are more afraid of their primaries than their general elections, with good reason. However that is not the only part, and it's not the biggest. Obama's approach to the job, and his American Idol, all sizzle, no steak, approach to getting elected, are problems #1 and 2. Thus, the office of AntiPresident fits perfectly. My evidence? A memo from a respected Democratic strategist, that is a great piece of analysis, by any standard: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dem-strategist-warns-party-in-decline-91172.html If you have the time, I highly suggest you read the memo: http://images.politico.com/global/2013/05/09/sosnik_memo_59_final.html as it is very useful. Conclusion: Doing harm to the faith(or the party, in this case) in favor of preserving the man's claim to the office, is both how the antipopes of the 1400s came to be, and also how Protestants came to be. We could more accurately say that both "factions" are destroying their collective "faith", as the only 2 legit parties. We can also say, as the memo does, that Obama removed his own electoral mandate, because of how he won: not setting a policy agenda. Is Obama the self created Avignon faction, and the Republicans the Rome faction, who are, as the memo says, both declining in influence at the same time, and therefore, clearing the way for a new "Protestant" Third Party? When the history of this is written, will Obama be remembered as the AntiPresident who is chiefly responsible for "change"...but just not the kind of change he intended, or that any of his supporters signed up for? I don't imagine many Democrats having the objectivity, especially being under attack, again, this week, to see this clearly now. Obama's decision to cannabalize the party's credibility and capital, in order to keep his office, and refusing to lead "the faith" or even acknowledge his duty to do so, is a problem correctly identified by a Democratic strategist, not me. The massive losses in the states is also not something I made up. If Obama's actions on Benghazi, and sucking up all the oxygen leaving none for his party, ends up making it impossible for Hillary to run, never mind win, when there's really nobody else who can? How can we not remember him as AntiPresident Obama I? Will anyone even remember the "The Tea party is tearing the Rs apart" meme, if time and reality proves that Obama did much worse damage to the Ds? ............................. Aside: it's clear from the memo that the "demographics means D are inevitable winners going forward" is false. You aren't inevitable if you are losing support across the board in your coalition, and have 0 chance of repeating the black turnout. It doesn't mean that 242 electoral votes against from day one of the 2016 cycle is any easier for Republicans to deal with. However, it does mean that the 242 is anything but permanent, especially when one considers how much of the "grass roots" and political infrastructure the Ds have lost since 2010. And, God forbid a political expert was talking about party self-ID...because it actually does matter. The next time you see a poll, remember that.

You said: 1. privacy 2. government surveillance 3. human needs 4. technology I'm a recognized expert in 1 and 4. People even invested in my company(fools ). I've done a project for the government in 2, and I was one of the project managers at the company that created one of the first spyware architectures(we were around before DoubleClick). I'd say 20 years of doing my job since high school, specifically the fact that no project has been the same, and I've worked 8 different industries, makes me as knowledgeable as anyone on 3. So, it is as I said: I don't need somebody to tell me what I already know, because I literally have a track record of knowing it. I get paid to know it. If you can't give me what I asked for, that's fine. Either way, I'm not spending an hour listening to this guy. That is what you want, and it ain't happening, so: you lose.

I don't have an hour to listen to some guy tell me things I already know, and then base a questionable argument on those things. Can you just give me the cliff notes? Or, is there anything in this that you think I couldn't write up and present myself?