OCinBuffalo

Yikes....after spending lots of my fun time looking through various message boards, and comments sections of blogs and articles? We now have Bush derangement in reverse. ODS(Obama derangement syndrome): no matter what happens, it's never Obama's fault. It's either Bush's fault, or the Republicans fault, even when they are merely reacting...to things that Democrats have done. I wouldn't be surprised to wake up some day next year and find out that somehow, it's my fault. ...... This led me to an idea: Each PPP poster should be assigned days/weeks next year, or whenever we want to start it. You get specifically set aside time for it to be "your fault". Then, we can all blame that poster for "their" failures, and, they can then demonstrate how to publicly take blame, and be accountable, in a constructive(and funny) manner. We can use it as a teaching exercise, and thearpy for those with ODS. And of course, I expect humor. I will volunteer to set the schedule, and remind those whose "fault" it is. Or, I can just do this at random, without any plan whatsoever. That may be better. Thoughts?

"But it wasn't the political appointees". So what? Sure, it probably wasn't. Doesn't that make it worse? A real political appointee, personally appointed by the WH, knows better than this. A low level clown who got moved to the top of the pile of resumes, as a reward for campaign service? They do not. I am less concerned with political appointees, and infinitely more concerned by political operatives infiltrating the inner workings of our government entities. Political appointees have to leave, low level supposed "civil servant" tools do not. We don't need to look for big conspiracies, the perps may have nothing to do with the campaign...it could be as simple as: naked self interest, manifesting itself in the low level D-bag who says "I am here to pass judgement on you, because your ideology is looking to take power and $ from me, and my ideology says I'm entitled to both by merely existing". The bigger picture? While Obama and his direct reports probably had nothing to do with this, Obama's rhetoric and his entire ethos could easily have inspired this. I wouldn't be surprised if the perps have Fatheads of Obama on their walls at home. JFK inspired a whole generation to service. Obama inspired a whole generation to....what exactly? This?

What? Oh...it's just part of this ongoing analogy. Darn.

I do today. I am telling you: that first segment had me LOLing for real.

Hahaha....so I turn on MSNBC to see what Chris Matthews has to say....and what do I get? Micheal Smerconish. Way to duck it there Chris Tingle. (Yes I am sure he was planning to take Friday off...in the middle of a huge political story, right) That press conference was hilarious. Now, Smerconish has hack 1 and hack 2 lined up and ready to go.....can't wait to see what they say. I will edit this post to include the hilarity that is about to ensure. How can I not? Edit 1: Only a mother jones tool like David Corn would take away "The Repbulicans theory of the case has been disproven...by the 12 emails". Yeah...that's what happened, moron. It still going on... Edit 2: Corn keeps trying to tell us that all of this was resolved, addresssed, already. Then in the next sentence, he says they did lie. How is that possible, if it's already been addressed? Now he's saying that lying is on a 1-10 scale. So, he's admitting they lied, but now, it's only a 3 lie, not a 10. Dude...the entertainment value of this is off the chart.

I was gonna say: you mind giving the Marines there a 5 minute heads up? I'm sure they'd appreciate it. But yeah, the Bush policy? Capture and grill em. Obama Policy? Kill em, so we don't have to send em to GITMO, and embarass ourselves for doing, exactly, what Bush did. That's what this comes down to: it's "better" for Obama to kill innocent people(a hellfire missile isn't exactly "surgical"), or risk doing so, rather than facing the political music for his retarded campaign promise. Yeah...that's right: Dead innocent people <<< political consequences. I wonder if birdog would call himself "more moral" for supporting this? I wonder if our friends in Canada, who love to lecture us about how moral they are...will self-congratulate for supporting this "moral" position? Ahhhh....feel the phony moral superiority being exposed. Bask in their FAIL! How about "Obama denies(Bush policy, reality) and everbody(in the kill zone) dies." Bumpersticker argument! See, I can do it too!

What is retatta? Why is the number 3.5 significant?

http://www.wgr550.co...tentId=13022419 Personally, I don't know how they cut Pears, even if Hairston is better. Somebody has to be the swing tackle backup. Is that Sanders? Or, is he the new LG? Also, much depends on what happens elsewhere...in KC, for example. They have extra O line, and the Dolphins arlready tried to trade for their LT. For my part, I am really interested in how the Bills approach the O line. I will reserve being concerned about it, until I see the solution, and see if it works. Brad Smith had the veteran mini-camp of his life a few weeks ago, and that is a good plan for him regardless of what happens. I can see him as gone however, because why play him when we know what his ceiling is, when we have WRs who are already as polished, and they are rooks? Kicker scares me. For no reason. It's not rational, It's purely emtional. I am scared of random irony when it comes to kicking. You can imagine why.

Here? http://www.wgr550.com/pages/16311388.php?contentType=4&contentId=13022419

Yep. Either he didn't know, and he's incompetent, or he did know, and he's extremely cynical. It can only be one, so take your pick. Exception: Since we are talking Obama here, I could even see how it could be both things at the same time. At first, he couldn't be bothered to take the time to understand the situation, and, once he did, he figured the political gain with the left, even though he had no intention of following through, was just fine by him. Of course, with Obama's record of predicting how issues will be seen both politically and practically in the long term("Don't worry, you'll all love Obamacare, soon" ), it fits that he had no idea this issue would end up as bad as it is for him.

I am sure that they are still trying to execute a self-inflicted embargo of the story. They don't seem to realize that all this activity does is become cannon fodder for the conservative media. And their efforts will only succeed in making things worse for them, and Obama. They are manufacturing OUTRAGE!...but doing for the wrong side this time. It's like they really don't understand that this story isn't going away. They still think they have all the power. Not since Dan Rather, guys, not since Dan Rather.

Sorry, but I really haven't been paying too much attention to how JTSP's world view fits much of anything. Israel my be wrong, but, when you have Palestinians saying they'd nuke you, right out in the open, are you telling me that they don't have a right to protect themselves? Or, victims don't run around swearing nuclear revenge. The exact opposite of victims do that.

2 things: 1. Why do I care what Steven Hawkings' political position is on anything? I think we've learned all we need to know about the effectiveness of putting college professors in charge, without anybody from the real world along to ride shotgun: see Stimulus FAIL, and Obama Presidency in general. Rahm Emanuel was that voice (see: "That's F'ing Retarded"), but he was cast aside, so that Obama & company could go "full retard". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q 2. I love how the Palestinians are the virtuous victims here. http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/09/palestinian-authority-leader-threatens-to-nuke-israel/ That's the guy who runs the Olympic team saying that. JTSP: get a life, get a clue. You're not ever going to be right about this, not ever.

The outcome? No. The polls that said she was up by 9, with 2 weeks to go? How can we classify those as anything but "surprising"? Edit: But for me? Not surprising either, really. There are either significant methodology problems with out polling process, or, 2012 was an outlier, or worse: both.

"FAILing...to...blow...over... must...reset...media...stabilizers...and...activate...media...governing...mechanism" But despite that effort, we already know how this turns out: crash and burn. And, the reason is: Kathy Sunshine and Bobby Happy have the story now. It's amazing that we've had to wait this long for the story to be reported properly, it's a credit to the Republicans for sticking to their guns, claiming the moral high ground and demanding real answers, and damn the political consequences, and it's a horrible failure for the MSM, having given their own credibility yet another self-inflicted gunshot wound.

2 weeks out....is not when the Gallup Demo Model was created. It starts for real at least a year in advance, so that it can be used to correctly weight poll samples. And, of course, it's an ongoing process over time. The entire thing comes down to: if you looked at the Gallup model, as we have since literally forever, it said that the polls were significantly biased. The process for buidling the demo model hasn't changed, and it has been consistently accurate. But not this time. This is why I'm fairly certain that 2012 demo electorate will never happen again, because it contradicts too many long term trends. As far as black people voting black? Are you kiddding me? Yeah Jesse Jackson. That's a lesson the Ds learned well. Just like with Jesse J, a black president is a symbol, a trophy, really, that is a whole lot more important to black people that any other rational argument. Once they elected the man, doesn't matter who, they sure as hell weren't going to have him go down in flames as the Affirmative Action President(that he so obviously is), and have people like me say "I told you so"(because...like I wouldn't ). And, they absolutely did not want to issue a free license to people, not like me, to tell their kids horrible things like "see, black people can't be president". Whether that is real, in a large enough number to matter, or not? No. They weren't taking any chances. The preservation of the symbol is far and away too important. That's the demographic that showed up in 2012, along with a whole lot of white people who didn't show up, for lots of reasons, and a whole lot of latinos that went aloing with the black people for the ride. And frankly, under those terms, I don't blame anybody for anything. The country can endure 4 years of this clown, especially since he's already a lame duck, and therefore, there is little he can do to F things up worse. Currently there's more evidence for than against, that his FAIL = the Rs get the Senate in 2014. So, I say "have your symbol, that is ultimately irrelevant, whose failure ensures D defeats for the next 2 elections". Yes they wouldn't have voted for Cain, but not because he was Republican. As I said, a black president was a trophy. You don't let somebody tarnish your trophy by saying "see, he actually just an affirmative action president", and have him be a 1 term guy. They've proven that the symbol was more important to them than any policy. Going to Cain, even though he is black, tarnishes the trophy. Now, if Cain comes out and runs for 2016? Hmm. That's a completely different ball game. And I say, if the trophy truly was that important to them, what's wrong with them having it? Certainly it goes a long way towards healing the psychological divide. And, if it lulls the Democrats into believing that most people like their policies, which merely sets them up to be squished in 2014 and 2016, where's the problem?

Simple: It was never simple. No really, you asked for a serious and helpful answer. I am giving it to you. Attempting to shut down a military base with a mere executive order...was a simpleton's solution. Shutting down the base isn't even a real solution, simpleton or otherwise. It's not about GITMO, the place, it's about the prisoners at GITMO. Would you have been more comfortable if he had just ordered them all shot? Why not? That is simple. Too simple for you? These turds are illegal enemy combatants, by the book. If we are talking absolutely by the book, the closest this is supposed to get to the President is a report after its over, if he cares to read it. A general officer has the right, and the duty, to convene a military tribunal all by his lonesome, and s/he can order executions if the tribunal finds them(most) to be what they most certainly are. There are regulations that define it all specifically, but essentially: it's not really an issue for the President, who's supposedly in the middle of leading an entire war. The thing is, we wanted to get intel from these guys. Rather than them simply being shot by firing squad, or just by some random MP sergeant, hours after they were captured, where they were captured, and never even seeing GITMO, we moved them there, and not to US soil, so they didn't automatically gain rights granted under US law. Rights to which they are NOT entitled. They are not criminals that we've extradited. They are illegal enemy combatants, who by law are entitled to nothing more than a swift execution. In seeking intel, we've created a conundrum. We can't bring them here. That's idiocy. We can't send them back, because either we know they will go right back to trying to kill us, or, nobody wants them, so there's no physical location for them to go, or, we know they will be tortured then killed where we do send them. Just shooting them cleanly is a better and more merciful solution than the last one, isn't it? So, where is the standard, liberal, "my opinion makes me more moral" answer? There isn't one(as per normal ) Thus, it's as I said: it's not about closing a military base(which we absolutely do not want to close, for other reasons). Of course the President can close any base he wants. It's about having no place to put the prisoners who are at that military base. See? It's not simple, and only a simpleton thinks that closing the base solves the problem. The only thing to do? Keep them right where they are, and that's just tough schit. They chose to get themselves involved, and for some the punishment is greater than the crime. But, it beats 2 rounds in the head, which by law, Army Regulations, and international treaty, is precisely the justice to which most of them are entitled.

Nope. We could easily argue that the +9, is only 9 and not 11, because a significant portion of the R electorate, in a special election, whose turnout historically isn't that great to begin with, stayed home because they thought it was "over". There's no way to know, unless you did a poll now that tried to find people who didn't vote and stayed home for that specific reason. Good luck. Nobody will pay for that, because nobody cares now, so it won't get done. Second, Bob Bradley, Washington Post Editor, is on record as specifically and intentionally skewing polls, and he did affect the outcome of Reagan's 1984 election as a result. Reagan would have won all 50 states, but diverted money away from MN because he believed, actually, Nancy believed, Bradley's bogus polls, and that money was moved to CA instead. History is your friend. There is your on-record example of what you say can't happen. I refuse to do your reading for you. Google is also your friend. Just because she didn't win, doesn't mean the polls had 0 effect. Nate Silver has a pretty good write up http://fivethirtyeig...dals-revisited/ and he lays it all on the sex scandal, and that it jives with an earlier study. But, that can't be the only reason. That article begs so many questions: 1. How come the Pelosi extra strength crappiness of the D candidate wasn't even mentioned? 2. Can't help but notice that Silver uses PPP regularly, even with his "house rules", but decided to "caution" us against these polls this time around? Why? Should we expect him to remove these pollsters from his group next time? Why not? 3. How come he never talks about the obvious: over-representation of demographics?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/08/mark-sanford-win-south-carolina-bad-polling Here we go again. This is going to be fun. Once again we have people who can't weight their demographics properly telling us that this Sanford turd, and he is a turd, was going to lose by 9, 2 weeks before the election. Trouble is: Sanford won by 9. That's a massively skewed poll, and, importantly, this time it comes from both right and left leaning pollsters. Specific reason for PPP failure: Specific reason for RRH failure: Given the 2012 electorate, we would think these assumptions would be valid. But really, this is just more evidence that 2012 was an outlier. Even with turd-boy Sanford, the black and women vote was overstated = an 18 point swing. It wasn't until a few days before that these guys had the D up by 1. Still wrong by 10 pts. The worst part? This time the internals couldn't even get it right. They had the D up by 2-3. So I will say it again: we cannot trust anybody's polls right now, because as you can plainly see, it's more about getting lucky and guessing at the makeup of the electorate, rather than scientifically proving it. Somebody has a lot of work to do(ahem, Gallup) on getting a proper demographic model together, so that polls can be weighted correctly. I strongly suggest that they start by throwing out the 2012 data. This race tells us nothing about what is to come. This is simply what happens when you try to elect Nancy Pelosi 2 in South Carolina. And, a Nancy Pelosi 2 that was an even worse public speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Apparently, yes, that is possible. It's the only truly shocking thing to come of this. ) There was never any way Sanford was down by 9, but, if you listened to these polls, and are a marginal R voter, there's a chance you stayed home, and that may also be part of why Sanford only won by 9, and not 13+ too. That is my chief concern regarding all of this. Polls are supposed to give us the score, not create the score.

I couldn't care less if a liar goes to jail for one reason or another. What we ALL must care about is the fact that the government: 1. Was failing 2. Was warned that it was failing 3. Failed anyway 4. Lied about failure and the height of absurdity: blamed youtube 5. Tried to play save ass, because of the campaign, instead of being accountable for the failure 6. Lied to Congress when the save ass part didn't work, because of the campaign 7. Tried to play it off when it was caught lying @ #4 8. Stonewalled in order to cover for the lie at @ #4 9. Failed at stonewalling due to inevitability that there was at least 2 decent people at State who weren't going to allow it to continue 10. Tried to play off lie @ #6, since now the stone wall is broken 11. Failed to play it off, and sent out Press secretary to say "it was a long time ago" (How in the sam hell did they think that was going to work. How incompetent do you have to go with that as plan A? ) 12. Thinks that this whole thing will blow over 13. Does not seem to get that when the Kathy Sunshine and Bobby Happy do the story at 6:30 am...when they usually do stories about girl scouts and whatevertheF is happening at the zoo? It's your ass. Kathy and Bobby have seen this story now. And these brainless nincompoops, and those that watch them, must now attempt to comprehend it. So, there will be questions from Kathy and Bobby, and "viewers" too. Which means, the networks will have to get somebody to get answers to those questions. Those people should have been driving this, now they are being forced to do their jobs, because unmitigated morons 1 and 2 have to be prepped for whatever "the story" is tomorrow. It remains to be seen whether they will do their jobs earnestly and professionally. But, there is no "blow over".

Yep. There are all kinds of observations of this data that just doesn't match history, and strongly indicate that 2012 was an outlier. Unemployment, approval rating, demographics...all the same: 2012 was odd. A lot of evidence for outlier, and very little for "normal". What evidence there is, per my link above in response to the OP...is inconsistent at best and flat out contradictory at worst. But the key takeaway is down turnout. IF we were to believe that 2012 was indicative of a new norm, and that demographics and lack of support for things like Gay Marriage meant real problems for Rs, then the turnout would not have dropped as much as it did. 2012 appears to be 100% about who the candidates were, personally. Which is why the expected demographic turnouts weren't even close to being right. IF that is true, then all Rs need to do is nominate somebody who can connect with a friggin voter. Because: look at the issue by issue polls, 33-37% support for the D position. The Democratic Agenda hasn't been this bad off since 1993, if not, 1979. You don't have guys like Joe Klein fearing for the future of "activist government" less than 100 days after winning a Presidential election...if it doesn't matter who the President is personally, because demographics means Ds will always win.

2 things: First this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/09/sweeping_conclusions_from_census_data_are_a_mistake.html Clearly everbody, even Trende, is still a little weirded out by 2012, and he's right to say: we don't know, because we know there's a problem. In fact, it's quite possible that blacks voted the same as whites, or even less, but over-reported. Turnout was absolutely down from 2008-2012. That alone tells us we should be very skeptical of any "demographics means Ds win forever" predictions. Therefore, we should also be skeptical of any "Rs have to change" wisdom, because if the electorate is "normalized" in 2016, that simply isn't the case. Then this: This election was unprecedented. Period. Anybody who says different is lying to themselves. IF the Gallup demo model was correct, then Obama loses. It wasn't, for the first time: ever. Saying you predicted that = saying you predicted the Bills comeback against the Oilers. Gallup's demographic model is not a poll. It's a friggin huge dataset. It's purpose is to determine the expected demographic makeup of the electorate. It's supposed to set a baseline so that it can be used to correct polls that deviate from the expected demos. If it is wrong, then all bets are off. Thing is, it's never been this wrong, until 2012. Nobody saw that coming. We are supposed to be able to count on a sample size of 20+k. Perhaps Gallup's error came from the same place that the link above describes? We can't know. What does this all mean? Well, either we are living in completely different times, over night, or, the 2012 election is an outlier. It's doubtful 2014 will help, because everything currently points to a repeat of 2010, in terms of the electorate. We'll see. Most likely, we won't really know if 2012 was an outlier, or if it truly does represent a new reality, until election night 2016. A safe bet: 2012s demographic makeup is highly unlikely to happen again, because the Ds can't run a black guy for President for the first time, ever, again. It's just as unlikely as the Rs running a Mormon from the NE, whose personality is a liability, ever again.

Hmmmm. You're a lesbian? It's Pavlovian. Even when a poster specifically calls it earlier in the thread, Pasta Joe still can't help himself. Dude, I saw the shortest soundbite/clip possible on the local news this morning....and it still sucks for Hillary. I've seen the whole dialogue, and they cut out the worst, but the part they left...still sucks. The average low info voter isn't being cut out of this one, they just can't keep the lid on anymore. No amount of wriggling by you, spin doctors acting as journalists, or Hillary herself, is going to un-F this thing. I still say she would be infinitely better at the job than President Petulant. But, I also know that this thing isn't going away, ever, and barring a miracle, this means she's done. Yell/talk all you want, when you get done, this will remain.

Yes, this is why we have, or at least try to have, real discussions about this here. IF it wasn't for those charts, then you'd be treated like conner and his "Lincoln(the creator of Corporate America) would be a Democrat today" threads. However, those charts don't account for why, and let me direct your attention to this link, from yours, which is under the third heading (Annual Land and Ocean Mean Temperature Change) and referred to as "page 2" http://www.columbia....ure/T_moreFigs/ the mean temps are flat, while the increase in CO2 over that period of time has been exponential. Look at the 4th chart from the top. Any reasonable person can see that it is flat. Is it supposed to be? No. Not if we believe Al Gore. IF the correlation, never mind causation, was there, then we should expect to see an exponential increase relative to the exponential increase of CO2 (that is coming from India and China, and not us, btw.) We do not. So, any scientist, or anybody who is familiar with deductive reasoning, would be correct in saying "CO2 therefore cannot be the only causal factor here. There must be either a more complex set of factors, or, something that is being missed, or, CO2 has at best a small relationship to mean gloabal temp." All of these, reasonable, conclusions indicate that exactly nothing is "settled" about this. Therefore, to make a political case for inflicting socialism on the entire world, based solely on something that clearly is NOT settled, is the height of buffoonery. Edit: I have a correlation for you. In the 2nd chart of your/my link you can see that land temps rise a little, and ocean temps stay the same. How about this: more pavement and development on land...and 0 on the ocean? The major straightline increase started right around the same time as Communism died. Imagine...Communism dies, Globalization starts, and what do you know, more development means higher temps on land. I am shocked.

I will NEVER drop the emoticons. Not until a certain poster publicly acknowledges that they demanded more of them from me, and even set a standard, apparently only for me, as to how many were acceptable per size of post. See why? That alone is hilarious. It's just that using emoticons, in a post where we are talking about emoticon usage, is counter productive. I will also NEVER stop dropping book-like posts on the deserving, or, refrain from them because they twist panties. In fact, the more they twist panties, the more likely I am to do them. But, talking about all of this, and alerting the unsuspecting, is also counterproductive. So, I have to wait...for a while...