OCinBuffalo

:lol: Thanks for proving my point. Gotta love it when they walk into it....and so easily done. Now, moron, go back and re-read both posts. Take out the liberal part of the second: and realize....they are identical policies in every way.

Nothing? Read it again. Now, moron. Like I said above, reading comprehension is slipping. Perhaps I should write it this way: "See, liberals are right. We need to do this the liberal way: only apply enough strength to show we are serious, but no so much that we escalate things." Then of course, my post would be prodound and useful, wouldn't it, you giant d-bag?

There is a giant difference between "cautious" and "policy that is willfully ignorant of the facts and/or based on Woodrow Wilson, college professor-based weakness". Both may produce the same result, at a point in time. However, over time, the first can get results, while the next ensures failure until it is corrected. Or, ask yourself: how did a guy with a campaign slogan of "he kept us out of war" also be the guy who committed America to WW1? Answer: pretentiousness, followed by correction of pretentiousness. The course is plain as day: send in at least one carrier group and sonic boom the hell out of them for 3 weeks. Do not fire even if fired upon. Just scare em and run. Break some windows. That's plenty "cautious". Don't fly over land beyond 5 miles. Yes, some planes may be shot down. Yes, somebody might be captured. Those are the risks you take, when the alternative is: all out war, or, allowing this turd to "win", which will only embolden him. = we will almost definitely be fighting this war in 2 years, instead only possibly fighting it now. Or...we will be conceding the game to China and North Korea, which will force Japan, South Korea, and every other Asian country, including Russia, to upgrade their readiness and military. Asia will turn into an armed camp w/ nukes. Great. Your "peace through weakness" plan will ultimately lead to almost certain war. Millions will die, and so will our economy, all so that you can say you were "cautious"? What exactly is your pretension worth? Should we let this happen, and then try to correct it? No. Our old standby of the "proportional response", which we got away from with Iraq, is the answer. (Surprising too...as Dick Cheney was one of the inventors of the proportional response, see: Qaddafi in the 80s) Proportionl response = "how much strength do we apply"? It is never "let's apply weakness".

1. No defense of Al Gore, and thus admitting the accuracy of my analysis 2. Tacit admission that Bush started behind Obama, yet is clearly going to finish ahead...at the very least: economically. Try this on for size: IF Bush hadn't cashiered his credibility with Iraq, he would easily have been able to put an immediate end to Barney Frank's profligacy, and Chuck Dodd idiocy. 3. Do you admit that without the politicization of Iraq, and the fact that Obama is black, there'd be no way in hell he'd be in office? I mean really: given Obama's ability to get results, do you really think his election is/was about qualifications? Look at it this way: Al Gore, by the numbers and if Nate Silver was around at the time, using his methodology, he would have sworn this to be true, should have easily won. Al Gore was trained from birth to be President. He was a Governor of a Southern Red State. He served in Viet Nam. He was the ultimate Democratic Candidate, having all of the historical strengths, and none of the historical weaknesses. He was part of a successful(mostly) administration. But, Al Gore is white. Thus, he failed with the primary qualification for Democrats. And, he failed with the primary qualifcation for human being: he's a douchebag. Think about it: the guy doesn't even have the class/sense to keep his mouth shut to a reporter, at a dinner party of all places. Do you attend social work events? It is wise to be loudly critical of a colleague, at a work social event, especially in front of wives/husbands etc.? What did Gore think was going to happen? If you were Gore, wouldn't you think your work colleague would nail your ass to he floorboards on Monday? I would have. Woodward did. But, Gore is either a moron, doesn't care, or doesn't care to recognize that there is no 3rd martini at a work party(many shouldn't have the first), so why should we? IF Al Gore had been black, he wins easily, using the same Nate Silver method Obama used.

Photo #1: Guy all the way in the background has "Flawless Minor Victory" written all over his face. His wife will just have to eat this one. Photo #2: (Going for the obvious, but, not much to work with) "Look me in the eye, and tell me you are done with other women, Vladimir. I don't mind the other men, so long as they join us." Photo #3.: "Yes the principal is secure...but my ankle is TWISTED! Whose stupid idea was it to issue brand new dress shoes?" And... Nickolai found, as he averted his eyes, that he enjoyed the caress of the girl's breasts. They tickled his nose as he tackled her. After all, he had done a good job at his job, so what could she really say this time? But, his mother's rebukes were sure to come anyway, making him suffer hours of humiliation in trade for a moment's pleasure. Nevertheless, this was enough for today. Even though he was in his 40's and greying rapidly, he knew his mother could not live forever. As he lay down that night, he began thinking of that caress. He wondered aloud, daring to be lurid within earshot of his mother, "I bet that's what Olga's breasts feel like". As he drifted off to sleep, he resolved not to ignore the cafe cashier's eyes on him tomorrow. Tomorrow he would conquer. Photo #4: "Of course I'm pissed. I have socks on my teeth, and I can taste them. See? Free dental means nothing in socialist paradise. We only make 50 US a month, and I ain't spending that on toothpaste, you ignorant American." She slaps you, but says "Now kiss me. You love it. You want to marry me, don't you? Talk to Sergei....he has paper for you to sign."

Not so: please see page count. If trolling, this is true. However, it's kinda lame in that the answer is so obvious, it minimizes the lulz. Now the reeeeal trolling thread: "We should NOT take a WR in the top three, because teams that do that do not make the playoffs, and WR is a dime a dozen, look at Steve Johnson, James Hardy, etc." See? This way you could easily get 2 sides fighting each other, but say "wut? I just started a thread about football. Jeez." I am contemplating....

Cool. I will see what if anything is up with this tomorrow, as it is time for the bar.

I always love those passive agressive motivational posters that "managers", in place of real management skills, use to "motivate" their workers. Yeah the concept is older, but, it's still funny. Now, we see this: http://www.buffalobi...c6-5b0ef1f6ad51. And I thought: "let's have some fun with arts and crafts". First you will need the following materials: 1. A Bing(or your favorite search engine) image search that will get you a pic that you want to use. 2. This link: http://bighugelabs.com/motivator.php = self explanatory 3. This link, to upload your finished product and make it a link(or whatever image uploader you like, this one has the benefit of being "Anonymous" oooooo ): http://postimage.org 4. A working knowledge of the English language(although, our French speaking posters shouldn't feel excluded) 5. A working sense of humor(more important that the familiarity with English) 6. Basic Internet skills to include the ability to download/upload images. Here are my examples: and Edit: And for the insightfully challenged, yes both guys were facing the Giants, but clearly, one handled it better.

For the record: Al Gore would have completely F'ed up 9/11. So when the intelligence came in about Iraq, yea, we wouldn't have gone, because we'd already be so screwed in Afghanistan. How so you ask? Imagine trying to herd around the armies of our our 56 UN allies , who sent 4 - 400 troops each. But, this wouldn't be until 2003, as it would have taken Al that long to get UN agreement. Of course, AL wouldn't want to send a real combined arms task force of Americans for fear of hurting eveybody's feelings. And, of course, we would have withdrawn after a year, right in time for re-election attempt in 2004, and because Al was in Viet Nam. Dude: the fact is the GWB was dealt an even BIGGER raw deal than Obama, cleaning up Clinton's recession and 9/11, at the same time. He wasn't anywhere near the idiot he is made out to be. Had he not gone into Iraq, Obama wouldn't be in the WH today. It's as simple as that.

Yes, but did you really understand why you were voting for them, or, did you just hear about them from the chain smoking, cutoff jean jacket-wearing, short haircut weezer who you met one day who called you a: "a shallow, conformist piece of crap" when you told him you were a Democrat?

Nah...this is not that. Although there's some effect, it's not the real reason for this..anomaly. In fact, nothing of the old way of analyzing elections pertained, hence gallop wrong. And, it's an anomaly...therefore, Nate Silver is only right, as long as Obama is the candidate. So you really didn't understand what I was posting and why. Whether Obama had a strong lead was unimportant. Why he did, and why we were seeing returns and early ballot numbers that simply didn't jive with the polls, meaning somebody was serious F'ing something up someplace. That was the point. Again, go back and look: I said over and over, Either Gallup is completely screwed, or Nate Silver is. Turns out both are, if they don't change their methods. In all cases, Ohio will NEVER vote that way again. Well, until the next time we have a first time black President against a first time Mormon challenger. See? Never again.

No, you just like talking schit apparently, and are too weak to back it up. That's ok. Weakness is consistent trend among liberals, why should you buck it? How about I save you the time, and do the hard work for you? You aren't going to find anything in my posts on this subject that cannot be backed up. You will NOT be able to back up your claim of propaganda. But worst of all: you missed the entire point of my posts You saw them as partisan, and not what they were: critical of the methodology of both Gallup and Nate Silver. In fact, if you actually knew WTF you were talking about, you'd see that I was completely right: Gallup was way off. This is why Romney thought, right up until that night, that we has going to win. While, at the same time, Nate Silver appears to be right, but really, he got there by default, rather than by design. In fact, if he uses the same methods as last time, he will be off by 5-10 points at least going forward. All of it is there, if you care to comprehend it. But hey, it's not my job to get you to take what you say seriously on a message board, especially one that I routinely use to make fun of people. ................................... Oh here you go: if you want to get me to say something predictive, so I can be "wrong" later? No problem: Nate Silver will adjust his modeling from 2012, or he will be perpetually wrong, as we've never had as demographically skewed an electorate as we did in 2012, and we never will again. Or, do you, or Nate Silver, think that Latinos and Blacks are going to come out and vote for Hillary by a factor of 2x normal, like they did for Obama, and at 10 points more than normal(most elections are 80% black vote for the D, 2012 was 93%)? See? There's no propaganda, just fact. I am a libertarian...so, by defintion, I ALWAYS start with fact and work from there. I know, foreign conept huh? Oh, and one other thing? Why did you decide to repost what I wrote, as you did above, if what I write is: gibberish? Seems a little....strange, huh?

Who said anything about that? Specifically, look at my posts on the subject. Read them properly, comprehend them properly, and prove that there is: propaganda in them, as YOU have claimed. I am merely asking you to prove what you've said. Too difficult to back up your claim? Then STFU.

....but whatever we do, don't talk about Obamacare, dammit.

Well, he may read, but does he comprehend? I am seeing a trend on this board where the comprehend part is slipping. I will have to make use of that.....as I did with the GG troll.

But, I wasn't. Again, feel free to prove what you are saying, because I already know you can't. In fact, I am betting you will F it up, and walk right into the hilarity I laid out. So by all means, try and prove something. It will to watch you struggle, and then even more fun to watch you try to play it off. Go on... Show us your skills. Do you know what psychobabble is ? Define it please.

Well, apparently you have 2 problems: 1. ADHD 2. Reading comprehension, as I have explained, specificially pointing to Pyrite Gal as the genesis, why long posts are necessary, and hilarious. I have specifically explained this to you, in fact. Are you a moron? Do you not understand the concept of trolling? Will I need to explain this again? The hilarious part: "Im concerned that you take the time to read his long posts". Yes, you really don't get it all.

Show me where, exactly, I was wrong in my final analysis of the 2012 data. It's reading comprehension testing time.

Sounds nice, but how to you go about offering that on a Federal level, when that Federal level includes: 1. Califorinia 2. Illinois 3. Michigan 4. Massachusetts 5. New York (and that is only here becaue (*^*&%^$^#Sheldon Silver somehow still has a job, and we like to pass budgets in the middle of the night) These states are F'ing disasters. No surprise that they also are where most of the Democratic problem children come from. I wonder if it would be Constitutional to forcibly kick a state out of the union? I suppose it would be, you could do it just by getting an amendment ratified. California needs to go. Just think how much easier it would be on the rest of us without those idiots in Congress, and without their $ supporting so much nonsense? I wish there was a "state penalty box" that says: your delegation won't be seated if your state is bankrupt. Stay home, and prove that your ideas work in your own state. Until then, don't burden the rest of us with them.

Hmm. Michigan, Penn Sate, Indiana and Wisconsin. If she graduates from the engineering school at any of them, she is virtually guaranteed a job at the big management consulting firms. Not as much with the Ivy schools as those people aren't usually the right material for the job. Not to mention the fact that pretty much any engineering outfit in the world that is worth a damn spends big $ every year recruiting at those schools. The comments under the WSJ article are hilarious. You can basically tell the people from the useless "professions", because they keep saying she's done irreparable damage to herself Yeah, if she was looking to be head of the women's studies department at Brown someday, she's in trouble. But that is a loser's job, so who cares? McDonald's employees benefit society more. If she's looking to make some real money, "like people" , not live off the government, and do something that is actually useful to society? Nobody in corporate America is going to pass on this chick. Hell, the article will give her a leg up if anything. The wit, and especially the references to various events/memes, of the article alone tells me plenty.

Great. More emoting. Rather than form an argument, you'd rather post youtbue links...that aren't even funny? I'll be third person, asking for the 5th time: How will this situation resolve itself if the US leaves Korea?

Or is it: Bob Woodward is just an average reporter? However, due to the overwhelming idiocy/shameless d-baggery of the people he covers, he keeps getting handed these "big stories", which makes him look a lot better than he is? And, it's happened so many times now, that Bob Woodward can get away with what ...lybob posted. The fact is that Al Gore was behaving badly. This should come as no surprise, since the man hasn't been reasonable since 2000. The fact is that the Obama Administration was behaving badly. This is now proven, as they are running an "all in" campaign to walk back everything their own cabinet secretaries have said about the sequester. I wonder: how are those cabinet secretaries feeling about being told to run a dog and pony show for a week, only to find out that 3 weeks later, Jay Carney is all making them look like fools who don't even know how their own department's budget works? This administration is rapidly self-destructing, and I wouldn't be surprise to see some secretaries choose "to spend more time with their families" over the next 3 months..... ...but hey, "let's talk about guns!".

Awesome. Hehe this just keeps getting better. I am starting to have some real respect for this Cooper guy, if he's really behind this, he is a master. He might even be at Clinton's level. And what's more, I'd vote for him, because that's the kind of guy I want dealing with North Korea. When he left the table, they'd be wearing nothing but their underwear. Look, the D thing means it makes even more sense: in a traditionally white, R state, Cooper, a D, wants to get elected? This is the single best way. What better way than to give the right in his state an open door on an issue, nobody, and I mean nobody, especially Red State Democrats, want to get caught dead supporting? Remember Manchin, the now Senator-WV? The guy shooting a rifle at the "cap and trade" bill posted on a tree? He's a D, too. He gives them this, and he virtually guarantees himself the job. The Rs would have little choice but to go along with it, since he helped them take down the big game. And, what can the adminstration/National Democrats really say/do about it? As a result, he's a Red State, Democratic Governor...which is the first step/prize in the process for winning Presidential/Senatorial elections, for Cooper, or some other D. And what's more? Cooper gets to come out of this looking "bipartisan". Not to mention "populist" as Obamacare is now only supported by ~35% of Americans, and I bet that number is closer to ~25% in NC. I still think that my original idea: high powered Charlotte/Triangle lawyer hired by Republican State party, and hick county leaders used to sponsor the bill, is more likely, but, it will be really interesting to see how Cooper handles this thing. If he says the words "I am duty-bound to bring the case" or something to that effect, then you will have a pretty good idea who's really calling the shot here. I'll be watching this now. It's gonna be interesting to see which theory is correct.

1. While we are at it: how is this crazy group of people who are trying to get a nuke, any different than the crazy group of people in Iran? How many "rational actors" in either group? And, define "rational"? Does "pragmatic" fit anywhere? 2. Moving on to the JtSP idiocy contaminating this thread....I suppose if we left both crazy groups to their own devices...they'd suddenly cease their nuclear ambitions. Right, just like if we didn't have any cops, there'd be no crime. It is truly fascinating that we have otherwise intelligent and educated people...who can't pricess this simple reality. It's like a single-issue retardation. But, no, not really. Here's what it really is: when engaged in other things, like taking a Series 7 exam, they think. When talking about war, they emote. 3. War doesn't get prevented by things like the UN. It's far past time we pulled the plug on it. How many wars have we had AFTER its creation? Just as many if not more. England fought Argentina...over a bunch of shitbird islands. If ever there was a war that the UN should have been capable of stopping, if it was worth anything at all, it was that one. If a fight broke out at an international table tennis game in Hong Kong, who would be able to stop if first? You or the UN? Who would you hire to make sure fights don't happen at international table tennis games? You, or the UN? That's right, you. You because: you could get on a plane, check into the hotel, eat a light lunch, get to the venue, and crack heads, all in the time that it would take for the UN to decide who would be speaking first. And, you'd hire you, because you could do the job at 1/10th the price, still retire with tons of cash in the bank, and you know you'd have a 10x better chance at being successful.

Oh it gets worse: Consider: The real objective? Cooper et al may just want to be governor sooner, rather than later. And/or he may want to consolidate and increase his reach before he runs. As in, the NC Democrats, as a favor to the DNC, get Cooper to lay off/drag his feet on this lawsuit. In return for removing a 2014 threat to the DNC...the DNC tells the local Ds to make it easy on Cooper, and he runs against token opposition. But, the only way that works: the lawsuit has to be a significant threat, and one that can return at any time, if the Ds don't hold up their end. Either way, Cooper, if that's who's doing this, has deftly positioned himself into a win/win, for him. Indeed, we may all end up knowing who Roy Cooper is very soon, if he really is this good. Or, I could be giving credit to the wrong guy. One thing I am sure about: this is a state party move designed to go after Obamacare. What they do with it? Who knows?