OCinBuffalo

You just don't get it at all. Edit: see my edit above. Simply stated: you don't act like that much of a tool around here. So, I have less to work with. The amount of bad behavior is directly porportional to not only what I say, but most definitely, how I say it, length of post, and absolutely the tone in which I say it. But keep talking smack...I'm sure I will find something to use eventually. And, do you really think I give a crap about the cooking thing? Jesus...are you going to tell me that you can't interpret the emoticons now....because I use too many of them?

They guy was trying to welcome troops home. That is why he was there. That was the "event". If somebody either 1. didn't realize that saying mission accomplished would be extrapolated by the craven 2. wanted to try and benefit poltiically from it is f'ing irrelevant, because Bush didn't go to the event for the single purpose of making Democrats lose elections. Obama's Gun control, sequester approach, ALL OF IT, AND WHY HE IS DOING IT...is for political gain. There is no other objective. The only reason he is pushing on these various issues is to try and put House Republicans in a tough spot, and hope he can gain from that. The reason is: to make Republicans lose elections. You really don't understand the difference? Really? Do you really think an = belongs between these two things? So, that's why I say, I hope you work for House Democrats in 2014. Why not complete the circle of FAIL? You can really do some damage sporting this level of delusion.

Nope. I'm not the only who is tellng us we should modulate the argument because "guns were designed to be weapons". You are. You are telling me that we should put 100% blame on the human...except in the case where something is designed to be a weapon...and telling me that isn't relative? That is the definition of relative, moron. Are you high? Sorry to disappoint. You clearly don't know me either. You have no idea, in fact. I suppose I could troll the hell out of you for the next 2 weeks, and you'd think it was about what I was saying, and not because I was just F'ing with you. Edit oh, and for clarity: using what you post, and more importantly how you post it...as the template. You haven't picked up that when I post long...it's in response to long posters...when I am self-serving, it is in repsonse to the most self-serving posters? Really? You think it's a coincidence that I am at my most arrogant...when I reply to DC Tom? But, please, continue...

So yes, you don't see the difference. That's hilarious. You think a single, clearly F'ed up event = a President's entire 2nd term agenda, and an entire election strategy My biggest wish: the far-left puts you in charge of something. Then, you can tell us all how, eventually, we will all love your idiocy as well, of course, once we see the benefit of it. But, for me? I've already seen the beneft of your idiocy.

So...you really don't understand the concept of a "political tool", do you? The above? That's not a political tool. That's a guy who was trying to do one thing = congratulate homecoming sailors, and albeit stupidly, him or more likely his staff, not realizing the larger political ramifications of what he was doing, or that saying "mission accomplished" for a ship...would be crassly distorted into "mission accomplished" in general, by a bunch of tools. Bush walked into it. That is the opposite of a "tool" that you set up and use against other people. You In contrast, Obama's ENTIRE agenda is the 2014 elections, and, since it is an "agenda" it involves all sorts of activities...and not a single speech. The agenda is to force votes and the hope is to gain politically from that. How is the above even remotely similar to that? Which Democrat(s) was targeted to lose his seat, as a result of the above? Such an unmitigated moron.

"Dear CNN: It's OK to say "we don't know"." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0418-20130418,0,7691778.column I think it would be hilarious to do an entire thread in that ALL CAPS format.

As B-man said, this says a hell of a lot more about you...than it does about us, our approach, John Boehner, or anything else. Let me educate you: The reason the recent gun control law failed is 100% due to Obama being a weak-ass, non-leader. He's already cashiered ALL of his political capital. Especially after the sequester debacle. DEMOCRATS, not John Boehner, in the US Senate, not the House of Representatives...killed that bill because they KNOW that having anything to do with Obama-->lose in 2014. This is because Obama's 2014 election strategy calls for forcing Republicans to make tough votes, and the hope is that Obama et al will be able to use those votes against them. This is the real agenda here. The problem is: Obama's team are too stupid to realize that forcing tough votes ALSO puts a lot of elected Democrats in precarious positions. And, these Democrats have seen enough of Obama to know that he is not only inept, but that he cannot be trusted. They learned that in 2010. Frankly, I really didn't see that much wrong with the compromise the 2 senators worked out. But, I see plently wrong with how Obama went about it. Was it about solving a problem, or was it about, yet again, political gain? Here's the part that's going to piss you off...because it's true: If that law had been worked out when Bush was still POTUS, it would have passed, and why? Because Bush wasn't weak, and Bush wasn't trying to play political games with most of his issues. He was wrong about Iraq, but he wasn't wrong beause he was trying to use Iraq as a political tool.

I have no problem in any facet of cooking. I have an uncle who went to CIA. No, not that CIA, the other one. He taught me a lot. I just like my slow cooker, and while cream of mushroom soup is handy, on lots of things? My slow cooker chicken cacciatore, but only with the right olives or I won't do it, is the best.

Soo...all of that...and you still won't admit that you got caught being stupid initially? Please. Now 3, 2, 1 pages later you are telling us "oh I know that all of those thigns could be true as well". Yeah, that's not what you said to begin with. I am done with this. My point has been made, you are backpedaling now(as evidence by tiresome word parsing), and therefore my objective has been met.

My slow cooker owns your pressure cooker. Especially when it comes to short ribs.

No. As I did, in fact, without equivaction, clearly, and in brutal honesty...say: The majority of Democratic big donor $ wants to take away all guns, and have stated that, publicly and consistently. I have no idea if they would use repealing the 2nd amendment as the vehicle for that. We are talking some of the biggest loons in America, when we are talking biggest Democrat donors, and perhaps they would be stupid enought to try that approach. But, I imagine the professional Democrats would prevent this. However, there is no doubt that the big $ wants ALL the guns, which is consistent with their "we should do everything Europe does" belief system. So, now I ask you: are you really having this much difficulty understanding the difference between Steven Spielburg, and...some rank and file union carpenter from Pittsburgh? Are there more of the latter, yes, do they make up the majority? Yes. And...so the F what? I have news: What the "majority of Democrats" think is no longer relevant. What Big-Gay thinks (hilarious...but true, now the Democrats have their own version of Big Oil ) asolutely is, because Big Gay has deep pockets. If it didn't it'd be community-organized gay, and recieve Federal funds like ACORN. The problem for Democrats is: most of their big money comes from nutcases, so, that's why we have Joe Biden coming out for Gay marriage...seemingly out of nowhere. No. Not out of nowhere. Out of the fact that Big Gay called up and said "no campaign money unless we get movement on this issue". That is what happened, like it or not. ......... The MONEY, not the number of people, is what I CLEARLY referred to, and yes, it was highly entertaining for me to be able to use this...as the response. I haven't ducked anything. I simply pointed out that 3rdnlng accurately called you on your inaccurate characterization of what I said. You kept asking me a question based on that inaccurate characaterization, but, as I said... ...it was fun to just keep doing that double quote thing. Now it's not, so now I have responded, accurately, to your dopey supposition. Absolutely. And, you were around for the "Oh yeah, I was supposed to know that you weren't being serious. You only had 2 emoticons in that entire post." When I asked "how many should I use?" I was told, "You need to use more emoticons, should have been at least 7 in there." To which I have...responded. So, WTF? You know why I do it.

yes, yes, and explosives were originally designed to be weapons, or at least as a tool of war, as well. You're being an idiot. Did you forget why the Nobel Prize exists, there Mr. Physicist? Edit: And, before you answer...make sure you know why I asked that. Hint: I don't buy the philsophy behind it at all. The human behavior is all that matters, and you know it, unless you are an unmitigated moron. Acting like human behavior is less at fault, when it comes to guns, and more at fault when it comes to pressure cookers... IS moral relativism. The moral basis for our society(which does exist) is predicated on the exercise of free will, properly. It's about choices. Telling me that a Chicago gangster who chooses to kill somebody with a handgun, is more moral...because of all the standard, liberal excuses, than these two Chechnyan clowns...because they chose to use pressure cookers? That's f'ing retarded, never mind BS. We should place exactly 0 focus on any inanimate object, never mind its design, and 100% focus on what human beings choose to do with them.

Yes, but do we want to base our thinking on the exception, or the rule? I just think the draft is such a crapshoot with regard to QB, you have to try to go with the known, rather than a projection. And, yeah, 4 year starter is a known too.

Fine analysis. Now...let me ask you this: Do we want a guy who arm strength is, per your work, inconclusive? Wouldn't we want a guy who we KNOW has a good arm? It doesn't have to be a great one(cue the Jeff Geoge, or more recently, Jemarcus Russel, meme), but at least, by watching one game, don't we want to come away with "there's no doubt the guy can throw"? And...I agree with Kelly the Dog, if we've learned to speak Nixley properly, then the above means: "Ain't no way in hell".

Are you sure? This poses the the only questions that matter, in this entire thread: What is actually going to happen if we are let down again? and Since the answer to that is: nothing...why should we care if we are let down? I mean, this is not like some girl that keeps leading you on. Or, some client that keeps promising you business, and then let's you down. That is real life. That has real consequences. Continuing to put yourself in position to be let down, by the same people, over and over in real life? Yeah...that's a big problem. This is football. Technically, in every way that is real, this has nothing to do with your real life. You have no personal consequences whatsoever. So, why do you care if you are "let down"? Techically 31 fan bases are let down, every year. This is not even close to a real problem. Since it costs you literally nothing to be either a pessimist or an optimist(other than season tickets, but, you don't need them to be a fan), why bother with pessimism? I imagine that when you are on your death bed...you're aren't going to be saying "Dammit, I wish I'd been more realistic about the Bills chances in the off-season." I hope I say "I'm glad I had as much fun as I could have realisitically expected to have with the Bills...along with my family and friends".

Your entire premise is: if they were married, then this wouldn't be happening. Those are your words. Married means: we, as society, accept that lifestyle as = to our own, because, as such, marriage would then imply an equivalent status. That is acceptance. Legislated acceptance. That is not toleration. Show me where you understand the difference between tolerance, and acceptance. I won't wait, because I have to go to the gym and chase a particularly fine POA, and, and I know that you're too much of a moron to understand the difference between words that may sound similar, but are not the same. How do I know? Easy: "the lion's share of Democrat big donor $ money" '= "the lion's share of Democrats". But you think they mean the same thing. That's exactly what I did. You still don't see it do you? Well, I have no more time for this idiocy. Go back and re-read your own posts in this thread, never mind mine, for now. Now ask yourself: where in those posts do you account for the possibility that: 1. The guy is an a-hole, before he is gay, straight or anything? 2. The other guy's family are a-holes, before they are anti-gay? 3. The family is perfectly fine with their son's lifestyle choices, they just hate this particular guy? 4. anything other than the guy being gay, might be the #1 driver of this situation. You stated, mutliple times, that the driver is gayness here. I took all your words, as I just did above, and applied case logic to them. (well, I got lazy and just sorted lumped the rest under #4, because that's the point anyway) So, now I just did. "And, yet"? This is the first time you've asked for this. Unlike you, who still can't answer a question when asked 5 times in another thread, I have no problem responding immediately. Of course it's a lot easier for me because I know I'm right, and you're an unmitigated moron. Keep talking...I have to go, but the last thing I want is for you to stop. It's working nicely so far, just keep running your idiocy, as I'm fairly certain I know where this is headed, and it'll be quite funny, for me, when I am done with you.

Somebody should tweet Moore(not me as I refuse to be involved with twiiter): "Hey Moore, still think "There is no terrorist threat"? #footinmouth And, then, when he tries to wriggle out of it by saying, "but..I said there was no massive threat"....which he did say, but is also, lame, because he went with the first sentence, which he knew would be the soundbite, and then amplified right afterwards, purposely so he could make that excuse... ...you can then tweet "There is massive, like you, and then there is massive, like 8yr olds gettng blown up after hugging their dad, huh?" It's all "misunderstanding", and all "not massivel", when it involves terrorism, but, when it involves mentally unstable people with legal firearms, only then is it "absolutely wrong", and "massive". Right, 6 year old dies from gun, huge 8 year old dies from pressure cooker, nothing...and it's only happening because we caused it. The pressure cooker companies, and the ball bearing companies, will get a complete pass, but the gun companies are evil for profit. The textbook definition of moral relativism.

And, guns don't kill terrible gun-control laws, agendas, and politicians....bad arguments do. Especially, tired, old, poorly considered, fact-free arguments. If same the SameOldBills wants to use the SameOldArguments, then why be surprised when they FAIL? Or, why be annoyed when the SameOldBadLogic can be so easily applied to pressure cookers and exacto knives, and therefore exposed as buffonery? SameOld: if your argument had merit, then it wouldn't be so easily defeated by a moron running around with an exacto knife. Just think about that for a second. No. Really. Think. We can ridicule your argument, easily, due to the actions of a single moron. That says a lot about your argument, doesn't it? This is the worst case, since, as I have stated above, the argument he would be demonstrating against, isn't worth his/her/their despicable example. It was already easily defeated by a guy running around with a knife.

That's funny, because on Greta's show an ex-FBI agent said something to the effect of "I just retired 2 months ago, and I'm not about to call up my co-workers and ask that question." So, I suppose there's hope? Then, I saw another guy say, when asked how he knew something, "I will tell you off air". I agree with your point, but, I remebered both of these things preciesly because there were so counter to what both you, it appears, and I expect.

the medicine...her and all of her assclown friends have been prescribing for the last 30 years. http://online.wsj.co...cleTabs=article See, in college, they've already gotten rid of the Constitution, and clearly, it's working great! So, now they are trying to expand. My question for this lady is: Now that you've been personally affected by your own agenda, and found large parts of it every bit as stupid as those of us who think first, as a rule, will you do any introspection? What else have you blindly, I say again, blindly, supported, without putting in any actual effort towards thinking through? I would love to ask this lady: what do you think(edit: not "what do you feel") about Obamacare? Gun-Control? Obama's approach to the economy? For a group of people who claim to have superior empathy compared to the rest us...it's amazing how it almost always takes a personal experience to get them to see that, in fact, their agenda is getting results they didn't even consider, never mind intend. Perhaps we should ensure that every liberal gets an IRS audit, and then ask them about their views on the role of government?

It's an interesting question, and, it's not like every police outfit on the planet doesn't use this tactic regularly. But, I would think that at first, the media scrutiny, and then the media absence, would all serve to improve the false sense of security you are talking about. If anything, wouldn't the added media attention, and then the "boy aren't those authorities dumb?", and then nothing, stimulate a psychopath? I suppose if suckering a guy was the play, I'd want the media to turn him into a star. Hell, I might even get lucky, and have him be unable to resist incriminating himself on live TV, just to prove how smart he is, and how dumb I am.

Let's just call this what it is, once and for all: hubris. The American people, or should I say, a majority of low-information voters, voted for Obama, no differently than they vote for American Idol: because voting for Obama = "makes me feel good". I've wanted to see if I could find a correlation between Obama voters and high propensity to voter for American Idol, but I don't have time. What's amazing is: that's the conundrum most liberals can't seem to shake..."but they voted him back in, so why don't they agree with his agenda, and why do more of them(2 points under water, and 3 points under 50, latest poll on RCP) disaprove of him?" Answer: because none of this is about Obama himself. ALL of it is about people making themselves feel "enlightened". It's a giant ego-enhancer, and it's just as phony as "come on down to my place, and buy something, and I'll give some of that to chartity." That's not philanthropy, that's marketing. Similarly, Obama's not an American President, as we've known it, he is the "mirror, mirror, on the wall, telling me I'm the most erudite of all".

"stopping war" Is there anything more naive? As though war is something that can be stopped by a giant kitty like this guy. That's just...hilarious. Talk about an over-inflated opinion of yourself. "Oh, so let's see, I am a warlord in Africa...who can take over a whole country, or at least a large part of it, and make myself obscenely rich. But I will stop, because David Sirota said so. And, when I do take over, David will demand that the US recognize that people I send to the UN are more legitimate than the US Senate. David, you're an idiot, but I love you. Thanks, pal!" Who in the world, who honest-to-God has the intention of starting war, is going to give 2 Fs what this guy, or any progressive, thinks? Now that, ladies and gentleman, is the definition of hubris. Or, dare I say: narcissism.

This is the screamingly understated fact that none of the "demographics" people ever include in the analysis. Reagan was elected, twice, despite supposed absolute polling data to the contrary. I imagine spending all of my 20s under ObamaFAIL...would definitely move me towards, at the very least, being more objective in my 30s. Too often "kids" are treated like idiots, or are taken for granted. No different than latinos or blacks have been. At some point there will be consequences for this, especially after years of FAIL. Consider: how many latinos can say "Thank God for Obamacare" today? They aren't stupid, despite liberal assumptions. The MSM "denial of half of reality" approach has a shelf life. The right doesn't have to do much at all, other than watch them drive over the cliff. But, that takes patience, wisdom, and discipline...3 things that the right hasn't had a lot of recently. I will say: if anybody has been showing these 3 qualities lately, it is Rand Paul.