OCinBuffalo

1. It's not about the hick counties or their leaders. It's about the heavy hitter Republican lawyer from Charlotte who handed the leaders of the hick counties their speeches, position papers, and talking points on this subject, and them, repeating it all, verbatim, as ordered by the state party chair. So, no, it's not Hollywood at all. It's pretty much how any state party operates. The Charlotte lawyer was hired by the state party chair, and, the hick counties and their leaders were used, because they are electorally safe. Those hick county leaders could say they want to hang every gay person in the state...and they would still be re-elected. So, they can easily "sponsor" these laws in the legislature as they have nothing to lose, and may even gain support from their hick constituents. No. If this had come from the suburbs of Charlotte, then somebody would be risking something. That it comes from the hick counties proves my point. 3. The AG has no choice in the matter. If NC passes a law, and the Federal Government creates a regulation that contradicts it, he is duty-bound to sue as he is the attorney for his state. It is his responsibility...by law. Not to mention the fact that this duty gives him perfect political cover. He represents the law of NC as it is written, and as such, he must go after anyone or in this case, anything, that breaks that law. You cannot criticize him for doing: his job 4. The fact that the AG is powerful and well respected, gonna be governor someday? Yeah...that only means that: instead of this being the state party chair's idea...it's probably Roy Cooper's idea. Consider: the best thing a politician can do is have people watch him do his job, and suceed at it, on TV. If you say you, and most people, already KNOW he's gonna be a governor, then it's almost a lock that Cooper thinks: why not Senator/President? Thus, why not be the guy who gets NATIONAL attention, rather than just state-wide? I don't know who Roy Cooper is, but, if he proceeds and succeeds with this lawsuit, all of us will. Nothing says national attention like being the guy who won the SCOTUS case that took down Obamacare. Cooper would start at least $2 million ahead in IA...and he'd carry that right through to NH. Certainly he'd never have a problem raising money in a NC race...as it would be coming from all over the country. He might even lose the case, but if gets job #2 done: expose Obamacare as the douchebaggery it is, and shift even more public opinion nation-wide, he is guaranteed out-of-state money...for life. He also would get a seat at the National Republican Table...for life. Starting to see why this has nothing to do with what is written on your county courthouse? You think Roy Cooper gives a schit about that?

Hehehehe...that whole "hey there's a sudden increase in NEOs" which set up the CNN anchor asking "is this due to climate change"? That is stll hilarious. Gonna see if I can find the video..... http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=BpZmI5OTp3a6zD1VpOfPmgFm9DA-s9w2&width=626&video_pcode=9kcm06PtVGNZkFkXR2898mHnBha_&deepLinkEmbedCode=BpZmI5OTp3a6zD1VpOfPmgFm9DA-s9w2&height=352 :lol: I always saw the short version. I had no idea Bill Nye was involved. Lamley trying to play it off: "The word meteor and the word metorology come from the same root so....." This is the best ever.....unintentional trolling of Bill Nye...and he has to sit there and take it. Priceless.

You know what you think about posting here? You know you're going to get banned. You think it's alright. You've posted a long time. You've had some good posts, and some posters that have even said they loved you. You did some trolling that you thought made a difference, that you thought was honourable. You even complimented an idiot poster in another thread for saying something funny. And then you see them post this. .... I look at North Korea 2 ways when stuff like this comes up, either: 1. They are out of food again, so it's time to start up the "Nuke -->UN pussification--> Food" machine 2. Well, maybe this time is different because: you can't build your entire economy, culture, and society on the premise that attacking South Korea is the ONLY goal...and not actually have to do it...sooner or later. I give them credit in that they have been able to counterfeit our money, and extort food from the entire world for a very long time, and make that work. However, this kid in charge now? He has grown up completely in the Big Lie that is socialism. Maybe he actually believes it?

You said destroy you. Ok. No problem. I made it plain for you...and you still don't see it? This has nothing to do with all the things you've posted in this thread. This has everything to do with setting up a legal challenge to Obamacare's ambiguous and dopey legal language, that allows the political appointees at HHS to require that a relgion-based employer, and especially a religion-based health care provider, provide insurance to its employees that MUST include contraception and abortion services/drugs. What's it going to take for you to see the real deal here? The NC Republicans probably have some pretty good lawyers in their ranks, and they've spotted a legal weakness. These lawyers are setting up the language in the bill they've created, that is tailor made for their lawsuit, such that it will present a real problem for the SCOTUS, so that they will have to agree to hear the case. That's the key: the SCOTUS decides what it will hear and what it won't. It is the only court that works this way. They can decide to ignore the case, but, not if the NC law's language compels them to take the case. The thinking being: if they don't, chaos will ensue. So your legislators don't care if this appears chaotic(start Civil War 2, whatever ) to you. Frankly, you couldn't matter less in this process. Chaos is precisely what they are going for, because the right amount of it, presented the right way, will force SCOTUS's hand. They will have to take the case, and rule on it, and the NC legislators believe that this is a case that they can win...or they wouldn't bother. The secondary, political, objective: re-litigate Obamacare, again, in the public eye, so that even more support is eroded from it. Get it?

Do us all a favor? Don't "surmise". You aren't any good at it. Clearly, that was a 2 part post...I suppose: "Now, as far as the video goes" didn't make that obvious enough for you? My God you are an unmitigated moron. And, it is in fact impossible for me to say "I understand the reasons and likelihood for war in the middle east better than Wesley Clark" because: it is impossble to determine Wesley Clark's understanding because: he hides his real understanding behind whatever political agenda item he is currently trying to achieve. Translating Greek into Mandarin Chinese, is a more useful activity than trying to figure out what Wesley Clark really thinks, and is certainly more useful than listening to him tell a story about the time he "dropped by" the Joint Chiefs, and everybody was so excited to see him, and made sure to correct themselves and call him sir, and he handed out sage advice to the, 1-4 star, pages and clerks there. Only someone with your level of affectation doesn't see that "story" for exactly what it is. An aging Dallas socialite tells more interesting, believeable, and less self-important stories. I know, I met quite a few in my travels. That was funny ...lybob. You are improving. I like improvement.

But...they earnestly believe that starting a war, is the only way to for the messiah to reveal himself, and that he will lead the forces of Islam to victory, world wide. A great peace and enlightenment will follow. Edit: this prophecy hasn't been around since the 8th century, and these guys absolute belief in it...has only been around since they took over Iran. Certainly no Sheik, Prince, King has ever used it as a basis for his rule. Nope, only the Mullahs, who are none of those things, of THIS regime have based their government on this. So, no, actually there's no debate. No 8th century. This is a 21st century problem that started in the 20th century. That is what we are dealing with here, nothing less. Regardless of whatever you say, this is the problem we face. Given this: what exactly is your solution? You have a group of leaders...whose sole purpose for organizing their governement is: to start a holy war. What does whatever I say have to do with that? Believe me, if there was something I could say, however silly, that could get them off of this notion, I would say it. If saying JtSp is an enlighted, educated, and worldly man whose opinion should be valued above all....would do it, I would say it. But, reality is speaking here: nothing I say matters when we are dealing with this set of values, that are so deranged, that they contradict human principles that we ALL share, and we all KNOW are right. So what is your solution to the people who require a war, not looking to get food(North Korea) or looking towards defense(India/Pakistan), and want to start it by gaining the most powerful weapon we have? What do you think....anyone...can say that will either deter or contain them?

If you were around, I laid out this "plan" on this board, starting in 2005. And imagine, I didn't have a pipeline of info from the DOD to tell me. All I needed was the ability to read a map properly. It's amazing what you can do, when you know WTF you are talking about ...lybob. A feeling you will rarely experience. But maybe, someday... You could tell from the way they approached Iraq in the beginning = take the main cities and create a land supply route to the sea via Iraq and Kuwait. Use the SF/helicopters to divide Iran's army, which has a lot of dudes, in half, and keep half of them defending the Afghan flank. Cut off their supply routes = easy, Turkey is our ally, Turkmenistan is run by a nut who we could easily buy off, etc. We already had the tanks, logistics, and the "safe" supply route. I bet the furthest thing from their mind was "Iraqi clowns we just freed giving us hell". They became myopically focused on the route, and to hell with the country. It's easy to see why: we could run an endless number of tanks up that road, and anvil/hammer Iran. Too tantalizing a setup to bother with things like securing the entire country of Iraq/making it safe for the average person. No, the supply route was the flame, and they were the moths. Now, as far as the video goes: Wesley Clark characterizing a conversation with a flag officer...like he was talking to some CQ corporal? Yeah...no embellishment there at all. Wesley Clark has already established himself as less than truthful, on multiple occasions. I doubt that this guy had "no idea" why we were attacking Iraq. I also significantly doubt that the Chiefs are gonna let a retired, now obviously political guy, just stroll through their offices, and ask him for his advice as in " Oh no, Wes....I mean...sir (did you catch that? ) w-what do we do now? If only you were here, sir, then none of this would be happening". Only an idiot believes the conversations went the way Clark says...and you ...lybob could just be the right idiot for the job.

Bah...beat me to it. I didn't think JtSP was dumb enough not to perceive the idiocy here, especially since we both pointed it out to him, in detail. Guess I was wrong.

This is not about the myriad of FAIL that is Obamacare, in terms of practicality as a health care system, it's effects on business, or it's inability to be implemented. No. This thread is about the politics of it. Given what we have seen this week and last...Obamacare is failing, in the real world. Whatever will birdog do? This is because, it is a theory that has no basis in the real world. We can go all ridiculous and try to pretend it it's doing great....but...when this guy: http://swampland.tim...e-incompetence/ says it's failing, and specifically blames the Obama administration( yes, a liberal hack, actually laying the blame where it belongs...but only because the mass FAIL will cause his beloved "activist government" concept to fail as well)...well, you know there's a real problem. (What a ringing endorsement of "activist government"..."bend over and take this one, because you really don't want the bigger one".) Now we know that many more people, who aren't hacks, also say it's failing. It's actually failing in 3 major areas, all at once: 1. 33 states have no exchanges at all, and almost all of the rest aren't ready. 2. the Obama political machine says it's better to start implementation a year later, because it will lessen the impact on the 2014 elections for them. This is the opposite of right. What do they think "Look, they can't even implement their own plan! " will do, to them, in 2014? And, why do Democrats feel they have to run away from their own law? Way back in 2009, they told us: "You just wait until the public feels the benefits! Then you mean boys making fun of me and my unicorns and rainbows will all be sorry!" 3. there is no political WILL to implement Obamacare, from the top to the bottom. Funding is nothing compared to WILL. Look at my sig: not even the execs at HHS want this abortion. Given these facts, is it time for the right to take the foot off the gas politically, and coast? At first look, this may seem like a stupid question. Why not keep the foot on the gas and ride Obamacare straight into the wall? But, consider: you have to stay in the Obamcare car to do that, hope the airbag deploys, walk away unhurt, with no Obamacare supporter blood on you, that might engender sympathy for the supporters, or their idiot law. And, you definitely don't want to be blamed for driving the car, and "killing" them all. This is what happened with the Clinton/Lewinsky thing. Rather than letting him face the wall by himself, the Republicans decided to ride shotgun, and in the end, it was about the Republicans driving the car. When...all they intended to do was ride along. Why not get out of the car, and let the Obamcare supporters drive? Especially if you believe that Obamacare-->wall is inevitable? Even better, why not provide the color commentary, safely from the sidelines, and explain why the dumbasses in the car are going to hit the wall, get in some nice comments like "look at dumbass's face, he has no idea the wall is coming", explain that they are too stupid to avoid it, and while you are at it: explain that "such is the fate of all activist government supporters"? I am aware that no Republican should pass up an opportunity to cash in on the political disaster that is Obamacare...I am merely suggesting a different way to do it. Does any of this make even the slightest bit of sense?

But, isn't the intent of this: to prevent the Federal government from determining what is backing a church and what isn't? Isn't that he spirit of the law, in terms of the Constitution, AS WELL AS the letter? How about we just cut to the chase: this is about Obamacare, and declaring the forced insurance for employees of religion-affiliated organizations, for abortion, birth control, etc. unconstitutional. NC, the state, once it passes this law, now has "standing"(legal term that determines who can sue and who can't), and therefore its AG can sue the Obama HHS people, because their regulation contradicts NC law. The state court cannot resolve this issue. So, it goes to Federal court, and the hope, I am sure, is that it ends up at the SCOTUS, where a resounding 5-4 victory causes the law to fail(as if the Obama administration isn't already doing a fine job of that all by itself) So really, this is about chopping out of significant portion of Obamacare, by making it unconstitutional, due to trampling on legal protections granted to all religion-affiliated groups in NC. Thus, 2 things are true: 1. This has literally nothing to do with morality, "in God we trust", backward hicks, or whatever else. 2. This is only happening because Obamacare = idiocy, and, the designers of Obamacare = idiots. This lawsuit would not be possible, and, and the rest of this rigamarole would be unnecessary, had the designers of Obamacare not overreached, and ALSO screwed up the legal language so horribly. Well if this was California, it should say: "Eat at the In-n-Out Burger", or "Shop at Ralph's" or "Windows 8"...because those bastards need money....quick. The Joker? Or, did you mean...Cesar Chavez...since Easter is now Cesar Chavez Day? Or, did you mean Geroge A Romero, the horror film guy, along the lines of that annoying "zombie Jesus day" that a poster I will not name(because I won't give him the attention) keeps trying to start? My religion says that's not true, so, by saying that it does, you are forcing your religious beliefs on me. I should get a lawyer and sue you. Or, as a settlement, I will take: 100 naked youtube pushups, or, you must put "OCinBuffalo is a narcissist, but he is the best at it." in your signature for at least 30 days.

As you know I am pretty much down with the libertarians as a rule...but I'm not down with any ideology, if it means I have to forsake all reason to stay with it. Also as you may know, I am a big proponent of "choice theory", but...with the case of North Korea, or Iran, I don't see very many options here. Could GWB be right, and even, insightful to the point of being prophetic(oh, that must sting for the Bush-deranged), in that the "axis of evil" both going belligerent at the same time, could start WW3? Seriously. No trolling: what do you hear about this? Never mind the fact that we are signalling "weak as schit, and being run by people who don't care about the US government's job #1", do the people around the office think that we are going to have real problems with these idiots?

I wonder if Buchanan is suffering from dementia. How exactly do you contain...a nuclear bomb that can be delivered in a suitcase? Or a missile? Besides, only a moron determines that a nuke that can't hit us doesn't represent a major threat to our way of life, and national security. What does a nuke hitting Israel-->$10 gas do to our economy, there Pat? What wonderful effects, and not war(yeah, right), can we expect from a global economic depression? And if you include "arming and advising the Afghans with real CIA/SF people on the ground" or "deploying our troops in 30 other countries and fighting the spread of communism on all fronts, a la "bear any burden, pay any price" JFK doctrine executed by Reagan, in your definition of "deterrence"...then yeah...deterrence won the cold war, Pat. I don't want to go to war with Iran any more than anybody else...but come on. Treating these people as though they deserve to be negotiated with in good faith, when the basis for their government is that a "great war must start, so that the savior will reveal himself and lead the forces of Islam to victory"...seems flat out retarded. The reason for the Iranian nuke is: to start the great war. These mullahs have a wacky obsession with mysticism, and prophecy. Hmm haven't we heard this before, and didn't another wacky regime, with an unhealthy obsession with mysticism and prophecy, start a war that killed 100 million people? Does Pat not know his history? You can contain crazy...until...you can't. How do we contain somebody whose purpose in life is to start a war, and cares nothing for whatever deterrents/incentives we might offer?

But, Magox.... I believe you have things reversed. See...the problem for the left has been "how do we increase taxes in general, and how can we accomplish redistribution world-wide". Global warming was the vehicle. Your confusion: You thought Global Warming was the problem, and the taxes/redistribution was the vehicle. Actually, its not funny at all, when one considers the time and $ wasted on this buffoonery. I wonder what the next vehicle will be? Edit: Just think of how much "free mental health services"(the new demand from the left) we could have provided with those resources. It's a crime that those greedy fat cat climate scientists refused to pay their fair share, and move some of their money to the mental health people. Ever since the Berlin wall came down, the left has been desperately looking for anything, anything at all, that will serve as proof that their ideas are sound, and aren't just a function of believing in one idiot from the 1800s. It used to be: Sweden, until we said "you love it so much, go live there". Then it was welfare: until Ludicrous(right?) proceeded to cash a welfare check on MTV. Then, they really had something in Global Warming: "Do what we say, or you will DIE!". It was perfect. But it was just as superficial, and so it failed too. Krugman just tried to use: Latvia. I wouldn't be surprised to wake up tomorrow and find out that somehow Kim Kardashian is the new vehicle for why socialism must be implemented.

I don't like the Kolb signing. Now what are you gonna do? This thread is the exact opposite of the Monty Python, "I came here for an argument" skit. In truth, I like the Kolb signing because it was necessary, given how badly things have been handled regarding Fitz, as was stated above. Now, this is the Kolb plan, with the same intention. Moving forward, the real question is: If Kolb plays like a hero, and especially if he out-plays Brady and we beat the Pats* at home, with a glorious comeback... ...and BTW, if you had seen Kolb play in Philly, like I did, you'd realize that this has significantly more chance of happening with Kolb than Fitz.... ...how many here are going to want to stick to the plan, and, even though we take a rookie QB this year, draft another one next year? That's the problem. I don't think you could find very many people here or anywhere that would be thinking: draft a QB, after the Pats game in 2010. We, myself included, were all too willing to give Fitz a pass for the rest of the year due to cracked ribs, or whatever else.

http://www.economist...e-gas-emissions The article starts with "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.", and then proceeds to attempt to rationalize that fact for the rest of this hilarity, I mean, article. For the window-lickers: This data blows away any notion that Global Warming is "settled science". It may even debunk the entire theory in a few years, if the computer model's predictions begin to fail, as they are on course to do as of right now. We'll see. As of today: anthropogenic Global Warming, and especially the catastrophic predictions associated, is now merely a tenuously supported theory, and therefore, CAN NOT be used as a reliable input on public policy. This article is a hilariously transparent, PR move that hopes to "get ahead of the story so as to minimize the damage to us". Why the Economist? Because they have been pushing the Chicken Little version of Global Warming, as it meshes nicely into the rest of their left wing economic agenda, for a decade. How can that conclusion be proved? Easy, attend to the language of article: "The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now." Why the "just now"? If this has been true for 15 years...what exactly is "now" about it? Answer: by adding those 2 words, the hope is to distract you away from the Economist's, or the left in general's, history with this issue. Just in case you doubt that, the next sentence is: "It does not mean global warming is a delusion." This removes all doubt. Apparently, there is a "puzzle"..."just now". That's a hell of a leap for a group of people who have demanded that we accept ALL of this, the science, the public risk, and the policies to mitigate that risk, as "settled". And, who have gone further, and attempted to brand all their detractors as = Holocaust deniers. But really? Here is the delusion: the Economist, and the left in general, thought that a political agenda = fact-based, logical deduction. It's no surprise that a delusion like this would be created by the left, and believed by so many on the left, as they have so little experience with applying logic. They are great with emotion, and clearly "image is everything", but logic is their great weakness. My favorite part, and the best example of the left's struggle with logical deduction, is also contained in the language: emissions aren't causing warming "for some unexplained reason". Those of us who are familiar with deduction can see the obvious one: "there is no link, or only a minor one, between emissions and warming". It's not all that mystifying...it's just logic. But, rather than look at all possible deductions, the Economist, and many on the left, simply cannot entertain this as it would mean admitting their intellectual weakness. Once again, the only thing I deny: the left's ability to reason properly, since so often they have declared reason itself as the enemy.

Yawn...*leans back and stretch*....you still here?

What do you want to know? Or better, why? This is a fairly broad topic, from my perspective. I could point you in a number of directions, so it would be helpful to know what you are trying to accomplish. For example, if you want to see the industry standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Process_Model_and_Notation and bpmn.org If you want to see some software activiti.org (for workflow engine) and jboss.org/drools/ (for rules engine) or a whole lot of stuff. Too much to list here. This is probably the hottest business software right now in terms of dollars/effort invested. Or, if you are doing a purely theoretical thing...as was stated above, look up Deming, or Professor Scheer(Aris toolset) for that matter(btw, I have a decidedly German influence to my work/outlook...just so you know)

Yeah...nice comeback. Hilarious, for me. You care, moron. Otherwise, you wouldn't have responded. Actually, you had to, didn't you? You were: compelled. Almost too easy. Although I will admit it took me 1/2 hour to get it right. In this entire exchange, I've alluded to trolling how many times? "All goofing aside" blew right by you, didn't it? It was all...right there. Let's see..."what this discussion is about"... I'll help you out. This discussion is about two things: 1. me pointing out a slight inconsistency in your vaunted...position (we must first bow, then genuflect, twice). 2. me doing that for no other reason than because there was 0 chance you wouldn't lose your schit if I did. Who's the narcissist again? Come on man...don't tell me this isn't funny. Just shaking my head and laughing here. What else is there to do? I've come to the conclusion that the propensity for a successful troll is directly proportional to the target's propensity for pomposity. Look at how much fun I have with birdog.... Ultimately, I work with the material I'm given, and there's plenty of pomp here, so....

That's because you've never really thought about it properly, and neither has this guy. You haven't, because neither of you have been forced to think about it properly. You've never been put in the position to actually have to make a decision, in real time, about who dies and who doesn't, or more realistically, what % of risk are you willing to take on vs. mission objectives? Or, given the mission, and the fact that it must be done, for real, this isn't some idiocy from division, you know somebody is going to have to die to get it done....who should that be, and how many? Or, this mission is so important, that it's worth: all of us. Oh sure, as a doctor who lives off Medicare, I am sure you've assisted plenty of families with the EOL stuff. That's not this. This is saying: There is no "we choose to lose no one"...in the grown up world. And, if somebody is poor, there's statistical evidence for why: less intelligence. Sure there are outliers, but in general: lack of intelligence. We chose to lose the people that have the least likely chance to contribute to society, because we have to choose somebody. Btw, how many Rhodes scholars do you find on the average police force? Where are your stats about poor people joining the police and their propensity to die? IF a police officer, from a poor background dies, is that a great travesty as well...but only because...they were poor? What would you have us do instead? Turn all our Medical School kids into leg infanty? The same reason why we shouldn't do that, is the same reason why you should never be allowed to command an infantry battalion. Poor allocation of resources. You don't posess the right mentality for the job. There's nothing wrong with you, necessarily, it just meand that you must seek life elsewhere, never mind the fact that as a doctor, you are near the top of the list. (Is that what this is about, feeling guilty? Let me tell you: nobody appreciates your guilt based on condescension, certainly not Johnny Hayseed from Kansas) However, the job, must be done, and it must be done properly by people who are strong enough to bear the massive responsibility, and those people are near the top of the list, higher than you in fact, as well.

You know, of all the things that they could be working on they chose...jellyfish? What's next? Robot Penguin? Robot sloth? Robot Koala Bear? Jesus, do something cool: Robot Tiger...Robot Shark...Robot Sea Bass with Friggin Laser Beans attached to their heads. Hehe....ask DC_Tom how the DOD would stop the attack of the slow moving, rogue AI, jellyfish. You know what else is funny? I had to look up how to spell rogue right. It's one of those nemesis words for me. As I was doing so, the first definition came up, and it was "vagrant, tramp". And, then I thought, Sarah Palin. And then I thought..."oh yeah...she's a dirty little tramp alright". Hmm...be back in 5 minutes....

Ok, so you are after me. As such my response is: both sets of 2 were mine. Clarification is not contradiction, unless you work for the Obama administration, and say things like "obviously it was a terrorist attack" right after you spend an entire weekend saying "this was a spontaneous response to an offensive video". As I said, I am not "threatening", as I have already...done. Your eyes are now mine to control. Keep messing with me and I will ensure you see flashes of Barbara Walters, down low, every 10 seconds.

Without reading the thread my word is: pass. Now let's read it..... Yep. Pass.

This is what providing a reasonable argument for trading down, to include providing a realistic trading partner(s), looks like. I am quite pleased with these scenarios. Nice work Astrobot. I don't know how difficult this was for you, but hopefully you can set the example. The only question that remains is: how likely are these? What are the odds? 6/10? 2/10? IF they are likely, then, and only then can this be used to conclude that "Nix had real options to trade down, and he chose not to use them, therefore he is a bad GM". I also like it because it's predicated on something other than: "we should trade down because that's what Bill Belechick does".

It amazes me that there are still people trying to cling desperately to the "Nix is an idiot because he drafted Spiller" argument. Just lay it down already. :facepalm: Apparently we are at the last bastion of this argument: you can't be right about Nix/Spiller...so you use "the Bills/RBs", and try to be right, via aggregation, instead? Hilarious. Getting Spiller at #5, without having to use multiple draft picks, was THE BEST draft pick the Bills have had in the last 10 years. You are right. Winston Churchill: "I'd rather be right, than consistent". It seems we have people who'd rather be consistent than right, as in: "We should have signed Nate Clements, because then we wouldn't have had to draft CBs, and therefore, we shouldn't draft a Guard, because that's just recycling players too. See? I'm being consistent! ( Perhaps, but you'd rather be consistent than have a top 3 O line?.) The fact that Nate Clements didn't earn his contract in SF, to the point that they cut loose of him and now he is JAG on the Bengals...will never sink in. Not overpaying for a player, and drafting his replacement, is not "recycling". It's simply not overpaying for a player. Yeah, not overpaying means a hole gets created, but, that's not the point. The wisdom is that the overpaying costs you 1-2 other useful players, and that it is a BIGGER problem than the hole. Letting Nate Clements go was, both in real time and in hindsight, actually the right call. But, if we "know" it wasn't, then "that means we're not allowed to draft a Guard...because that would be recycling, and either makes us wrong about Nate Clements/drafting CBs, or is inconsistent with what we've been saying about it. So, we can't do it". Yeah, it's absurd. I believe I've diagnosed the absurdity properly. The next step is figuring out how to eradicate it properly so that it doesn't come back. What makes you so certain that 4 years from now is going to be = to today, on this team?

What, are you kidding? Wawrow never posts unless it's ~3:30 am, and he just left the bar. And, stop laying the blame for Wawrow's silliness on alcohol. Alcohol doesn't account for the fact that Wawrow doesn't know basic economics, or refuses to recognize simple truths like "Medicare must be reformed".