OCinBuffalo

I'll remember that, and refer them to you, the next time I hear somebody on this board use the terms, "neo-con" or "uncaring libertarian" or "'You're all-on-your-own conservative" in the place of a rational argument, regarding WTF we do about education, Medicare, etc. The choice of how to deploy your Meidcare, or SSI for that matter, is a new solution to the "entitlements WILL Fail" problem. Telling us that we evil for wanting to fix them, and absolutely guaranteeing that they won't be touched...merely guarantees that they will absolutely FAIL. And, no amount of raising taxes, when tax rates of 100% on the rich, yield $90 Billion, and current deficit = $1 trillion, solve the problem. Where do we get the other $910 billion from? Cutting DOD? Spending NOTHING on DOD doesn't even come close to solving this problem. It's time, for ALL of us, to be "progressive"...if not, then ALL of us are idiots. No, I didn't. There was a real, by the book, "progressive" movement in this country started by TR, and continued by Taft. It was co-opted, and taken in a completely retarded direction, by Wilson. This doesn't mean that, by the book, being a progressive has changed. It is as you said: assclowns have once again co-opted the word, bastardized the meaning, and now it means heading in the direction of old ideas that have failed the world over, and not reforming things that badly need it. Moving towards the EU model, especially given their results, is anything but "progress", using technology to create new systems, or doing anything other than trying to hold the line on the bad old days. That, in fact, is a conservative approach. Anyone that wants us to be more like Europe is anything but a progressive. How the F can you square moving towards 60-80-100 year old ideas...with being "progressive"?

You mean like how "Forward" was the magazine/pamphlet/whatever that both Marx and Engels worked at? Again, somebody doesn't know their history....this time, it's the Obama campaign. Hell of a way to prove you aren't a socialist, huh? But, it's better than WTF, I mean, Winning The Future, right? Let's see...internet age, FAIL, history, FAIL. 0-2...not good. Progressive means you support the use of new technology and new research to either improve or replace the existing way of doing it. You look to apply technological improvement in other fields into government and government programs. You do not accept the failures of the existing system. This is what is so curious to me. Rather than coming up with a new way..."progressives", with things like Obamacare, have simply extended the old way. You don't have to be an IT guy to know that extending an existing architecture is not "change". It's merely finding way to get another few years out of your old system, as a hold-over, until you can get the resources to build the new thing. You know the old thing is old, and will eventually have to go. If it's done objectively, it's a well-founded business decision. However, most of the time, it's a bad business decision made by people who either aren't capable of, or are too afraid of, making the real changes necessary to meet the organizations current needs, and more importantly, addressing the needs we see coming 5 years down the road. How many times have we heard about "exchanges" etc. This is not a new idea. This is a vehicle...to drive people into single payer...the old idea. Where are are we going to be, with any of this, education, or anything else...5 years down the road?

See...that's what I'm talking about: The "progressive" thing to do, by the book definition, is to start that new school and make avid use of the technology that is available to you to make that school a significant improvement upon the existing system. (EDIT: Be warned, strict adherence to this definition, given the context of California, may result in exposure to Deepak Chopra, a new school of thought/technology to be sure, but one that will get your kids beat up in high school) That's the by the book definition, especially the using technology part. That part makes it a literal, and model, "progressive" choice. The conservative thing to do, also by the book, would be to support the existing system, and demand that others do as well, because the institution has always provided results, and, your school is either a determent to that system and therefore counter-productive, or, because it deviates, will NOT get the results the the existing system has.

We all know who they are supposed to be, and, we all know the time-honored definition of these words and concepts. But...I've now asked myself that question 3 times in the last 4 days. If you are for: keeping the same system in place, even though it has demonstrable faults, and your rationale for doing that is: "well, what you are proposing makes ignoring the glaring failures of my system worth ignoring", then...aren't you the conservative? If so, then which party is conservative when it comes to education? the military? SSI? Medicare? Medicaid? Tax Code? IRS? EPA? Insurance reform in general? Energy policy in general? IF, and this is a big IF for many of you, you really think about it....the Democrats are now the conservatives. We have all these New Deal/Great Society/Department of Miseducation programs/grants etc....all of which are in need of either immediate reform/reorganization/consolidation or removal... ...and who is in favor of "doing what we always have done"? Who is in favor of fixing the problems? The only thing that is "conservative" about conservatives these days...is the social stuff. Who is the stodgy old man, who doesn't want to admit they, and their old programs, are antiquated, and in serious need of being updated to reflect the times in which we live? Who is being the obnoxious guy at the meeting, because they seek to distract from the points they know they can't refute.(Seen this before in my work) Who is the tired, old, mainframe guy...who is screaming at the internet kids? Who are the internet kids, who both laugh at, and feel sorry for, the mainframe guy...and promise themselves, now, that they will never let themselves become so pathetic? I need to see more, but as of today, it seems to me that both parties are heading in opposite directions. We have hippies getting old, and nasty, and about as far away from cool, open to risk, and forward-looking as you can imagine. That position has been take over by libertarians. They are now the can-do people, and dare I say, responsible for 90% of the "progressive" thinking we have.

I often find myself asking, no one in particular: who the hell are the conservatives, and who are the progressives, when it comes to education...or lots of things? In fact, this is the 3rd time I've done that, in the last 4 days. That makes it thread worthy in my book....off to start it.

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment of the OP...sorta. I don't know why we would not consider using a top weapon at least 1 time in 3 downs. Perhaps Fitz needs a game where he only has to focus on a few things, does them well, and gains some confidence? But, does the intentionally lightened workload mess with his head worse? One thing is certain: whatever the throwing adjustments are...they are not working. Perhaps its time to let that go for a while, and tell him to just go out there, throw, and not think of anything? In all cases, we could have done A LOT WORSE at the QB position this week. There are plenty of "elite" QBs that had a bad-terrible game today. It's one thing to be critical of Fitz, but it's quite another to judge him in a vacuum, when you have guys like Aaron Rodgers finding a way to lose to the Colts. Or, since Mark Sanchez beat the hell out of the Colts today...does that make Sanchez >>> Rodgers?

Ridiculous, isn't it? EDIT: Don't confuse me identifying a pattern in the "conventional wisdom", with me thinking that "wisdom" is involved in this in any way whatsoever. I'm merely saying, that had we played a great game, and coached a great game, but lost, it wouldn't matter to the people who are looking to get rid of Fitz and Chan. They would simply say "we lost". There is a perfect analogy here, but I'm not allowed to use it. I can merely say: using "we won", as the sole predicate for an argument, is equally as mind-numbing as saying "we lost", and I am merely illustrating that.

But....we didn't lose. We won.

When the Bills lose, they do. So, why allow a double standard?

Yep. See, if we had lost, but...Chan had coached a great game and Fitz had thrown for 3 TDs and no picks and Fred ran for 100 yards and so did Spiller and Stevie had the catch of the weekend and the D line had 10 sacks...but we lost? Then... We lost...Would be what the negative people would say. So, for today. They have to deal with We Won as the only thing that matters. It's pig-headed, it's frustrating...but so is saying "We Lost". So, today, you have to deal with We Won. Enjoy!

I said to start with... Originally I had a lot more stuff there before I posted it, but then I said "forget it, most of them won't get past the first one" You can live wherever the F you want, as long as I can get a hold of you...and send you to wherever the F I want, for as long as I want. Syracuse can be your "home" in that it's where you keep your stuff. For most of the year, your "home" could just as easily be a U-haul storage locker by the Newark Airport. But, what's better? Do you know any service industry/contracting stuff/food, health care, etc. really, really, well? IF you do, then I'd rather have you as a partner, and not an employee. I will give you access to a system, that will work as you define, that will make a real difference in that industry...because it relies on you do know that difference, own it, and share it with the people you work with. Then, you can do whatever you want, and you don't have to listen to me. And, when I come to Syracuse, you can be in charge of the strippers!

There's that...and...then there's this: http://www.rollingst...2?stop_mobi=yes Matt Tiabbi....who literally looks like the word "snarky", saying exactly what many said he would, exactly how many expected. Isn't it funny, that you don't have to work very hard to predict the behavior of the far-left? It takes barely any effort at all, and certainly no deep analysis. They have literally nothing to offer. If we already know what they are going to say, before they say it, every time, then we can learn nothing form them, and they are useless. And, while these people laugh...they lose. They lose, and then they tell themselves it's everybody else's fault. It's amazing that even after 2010, and what is coming now, they haven't yet learned to be introspective. It's also amazing that a guy can spend an entire article breaking down a plan, rightly or wrongly, but not recognize what is right in front of his nose: where is the Obama plan? Why aren't you comparing one plan to another? Because there is nothing to compare. Keep laughing jackass....but don't expect us to take you seriously any time soon. You are a joke.

Well, to start with, do you have a wife, kids, or anything that you can walk away from today, in the next 5 minutes, and perhaps not come back to for a month or even longer, with no real way to predict your return? No? Then you don't get no hockey tickets. The amount of Team Building you get is directly proportional to the amount of BS you have to put up with, and of course, the value of your $/hour rate on the open market. Look, in terms of industry standards, I'm actually on the frugal side. You want to see ridiculous? Go to apply to somebody like Accenture, and see what their project managers and group leaders do.

My entire family, even the Democrats, agree that my life history and entire existence is an obvious counter to that argument.

No there isn't. And Tom is wrong, or, I haven't heard about "bunker busting" Tomahawks, and therefore I am wrong. I also haven't heard about any fuel-air explosive Tomahawks. We'll see if that works = Drop a heavier than air explosive particulate that seeps into the air vents, etc. and then light it, it literally sets all the air on fire. Yikes. And, after that, for the sealed areas, drop those new Air Force bombs than can go 4 stories down through reinforced concrete before it goes off. As far as the other stuff goes, we will do what we always do, send bombs from far away, and have the SF/CIA who we sent in a week before, and who are now nestled in a safe hiding place, tell us what happens. The problem is: you rarely get them/it all. Perhaps these new weapons will this time? Who knows? And, once you bomb them, they tell the rest of the world there were civilians there...and the liberal clowns in this country buy it, co-opt it, and start calling for impeachment. They learned from the Communists: oppose every war, except ones that help communists, and try to gain political power through that opposition. Precisely how we have Obama in office today. The real problem is, once you bomb them, you give them a pretext for war, and now the whole thing escalates. So, by "avoiding war" you are actually fostering it, because your air strikes/naval bombardment, have no staying power. The next day, you wake up, and the a-holes are still in charge of Iran, and now have a story that fires up their people. The Army and Marines are what wins wars. Period.

Never....for now. I almost guarantee you have some Air Farce Major General telling his Joint Chief not to worry, that his wings can take them down in one strike, and that everything will be fine. This is how the trouble starts. The Air Force doesn't win wars. In fact it isn't capable of that. It's great, you love to have them overhead, but the only thing it can completely defeat...is the other side's air force. But, the politicians like the Air Force, because we can "take action" with very little chance of loss. We can hit and run, and it even looks good on a balance sheet. Thus, we will never go into Iran because of the Air Force, for now...until what always happens...happens. Then? We will see.

Yes...might and may. May and might. Assertion, not fact, then link to more may and might. You are the only one who is being definitive here. Your article is not. Example: You might be a D-bag, on the other hand, you may be an idiot. I actually haven't called you any names, but now, I've associated you with them. Think for yourself: why may and might...in an article whose goal is to PROVE something? This article proves nothing. Rassmussen has been the most accurate the last 3 elections in a row, and there is no question: http://electoralmap....8_election.php. This has been analyzed by independent groups, it has even been confirmed by Democratic groups like Slate magazine. He is either the best, or tied. End of story. Your pissant Nate Silver( ) article doesn't even do it's comparison properly = more evidence that people who don't know math should STFU. More evidence, that I should keep saying Nate Silver every time his name comes up. This was one, of many, articles by the NY Times around a that time , that were trying to take the pain of the 2010 elections away, by lashing out wildly at whoever they could. The mays and the mights give it away. He is taking shots, for the sake of taking shots, but covering his ass with the mays and mights. EDIT: I just realized...because I'm an idiot...that all of Silver's links point to his own work, or a neutral fact(RCP's Obama approval ratings average). Yeah...great way to make your point Nate..."I'm right because I'm right". Pathetic.

Read the article. If Axlerod goes out an decries Gallup, then Gallup loses. They have to placate Axelrod, or he goes on national TV and cries. And, if there's even a shred to back it up, Gallop is in big trouble. It's way too big of a risk to take. So..now we have a 68% white electorate even though we know it will be more like 74-5%. It's a business, and these guys would rather be placating their #1 customers, political campaigns and the media, than worrying about whatever I say. We don't pay them anything. Oh, and who are Rassmussen's customers? Yep, businesses, that's why he can tell Axelrod to get F'ed. Everybody but Rassussen decided to use 2008, D+7 electorate as a model, a long time ago, and they aren't supposed to change that, so that one poll to the next = apples to apples. That was a stupid decision, in light of the 2010 electorate, but, they say its because the mid-terms are useless because they are smaller, different, etc. Yeah, that, and The TEA Party is dead! Bottom line: do you really think that this is a D+8-13 election? If you do, then there's nothing wrong with the polls that had Obama ahead by 7-10. Reality: this is a D+2 election at best. And, given what has transpired up through today, that is a pipe dream. Today, this is most likely a 0 or R+1 election. (EDIT: Keep in mind I'm talking turnout here. Turnout does not necessarily = electoral college win. Romney can lose California by 10..instead of McCain losing it by 24 in 2008, and get more turnout, but still lose.) That can change....but I seriously doubt that the Libya thing will be knocked off by any other big story that might help Obama stop the bleeding, or more importantly, fire up his base to turn out in such great numbers that they beat the R turnout. It would certainly take something bigger than dogs on roofs of cars, etc. Hey, I can't prove that the media put pressure on the people they pay...to fudge the #s this time. I can prove that the Washington Post and NY Times has done it in the past. Given what we have to work with, and what we know, there's a lot that makes it look very suspicious.

Sold? Try read. I've read about this. I've even had to "live" it in more ways than you may imagine. We've made this mistake before. Do you know anything about why I would call this Viet Nam, or refer to Lost Battalion? What can you tell me, honestly, that makes these guys any different than the ARVNs? I am not faking anything, and you've never seen me outraged. Put it this way, if I were, I wouldn't be F'ing about on a message board. No. is pretty much my thing...until it's not. Just got done watching this again. Biden is CLEARLY saying...that the mission does not change. The same mission...is the same mission. We have to do what we were doing 2 years ago, today, and for the next 2 years...with less, reliable troops. This is retarded. Even a civilian should be able to understand that less is not more, ever, in modern conventional combat. As I said, if we get over, and nothing happens, great! You got lucky. If not, then a lot of people will be killed for no good reason, and you'll be an idiot for supporting this idiocy. I'm not talking about one guy here or there. I'm talking about losing whole units, especially as the idiotic deadline approaches. I mean...why wouldn't they pull their own Tet Offensive....if they know we are leaving in 2 weeks? Moron Joe talking about Special Forces. We aren't fighting a special forces war here. We did that, in the first 6 months of this, 10 years ago. This is a company action war fought in a mountainous region. This is a regular army war, that we have been fighting with reserves and national guard. The more I think about this...it comes down to budget, really. They don't want to pay for it, but they know they can't just leave, so, they half-ass it for 2 years until the money runs out.

Look, this ain't my video, take it up with meazza... And, we work with what we have. Here's a group of undecideds. This is what they say. Undecideds are what is important here, not pundits. I mean...what do you want me to do? IF you really hate CNN that much, I'll just use the focus group guy on Fox. MSNBC is completely useless. That's the last debate I spend looking at their coverage this year. I mean, I thought CNN was better, because I wouldn't hear the same old crap about Faux News. <Throw my hands up>Now, CNN ain't good enough either?</Throw my hands up> This may be a very big deal because of the reaction of women you can see for yourself, or it may mean nothing. It's a hell of a risk to take with them. Besides, Biden is now allowed to run free...who knows what he will say this weekend! By a week from now, that could be 3x more deadly than this. Hey, don't get pissed at me: It's Biden.

If you're saying we need to leave, fine, but let's do it now. WTF good is decreasing our combat power, and then make our guys sit there for 2 years half-assed? I'd be bitching up a storm if I was running a company over there. Nobody would listen or care...but still If you're saying we need to win, then this ain't how. It appears Biden was saying we should "leave-win"....and I have no F'ing idea WTF that is, and most likely, neither does he. None of this is a "good answer", but leaving a company of our guys, out there by itself surrounded by supposed allies, with no back up, because "we can't spare the troops"...is Viet F'ing Nam. And, it's WW1 as well, when we trusted the French not to run(WTF were we thinking), and left a battalion in the woods by itself, and surrounded. Why on earth should we sign up for 2 years of Viet Nam, in trade for political expediency...and because you think it's been long enough?. This is a recipe for disaster, and you better not blame anybody but Obama for it if something bad happens. I hope these clowns get over, and their idiocy doesn't get a lot of people killed. I also hope that if he wins, Romney can bring in a buttload of air support or do something, that helps the guys who have to sit there and deal with this idiocy for the next 2 years. Or, I hope Romney says this is retarded and orders the withdrawal immediately.

Even more evidence of poll tinkering. And, this is from people that know this stuff cold(not the author, but the people he quotes): http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/gallup_to_up_minority_representation_in_poll_samples_under_pressure_from_the_left.html Now, should we not call arbitrarily re-weighting your data, to reflect a batshit 68% white electorate...a methodology problem? Which methodology says dumping your weighting standards 4 weeks before the end is...rational? But...we shouldn't question methodology? The real reason imho? Axelrod NEEDS a 50+ approval rating/votes for his guy. The big $ donors know the game, or, they pay people who do. They know that an incumbent polling below 50 is going to lose, even if he is winning. That's why, when we were dealing with D+4-6 polls, we were only seeing 45-49% for Obama. Then, almost as if it were planned we saw D+8-13...and that got the "required by donor" 50-52%.

I've never heard of winning wars...by having less reliable troops than the enemy. Purposely putting more green, or undisciplined, or even traitorous troops in their place? Must have missed that day. Now, if we are going to talk about getting out, and not winning? Then just GTFO. This "transition" crap is retarded. This is how we turn this into Viet Nam, and take casualties for no reason. You can't fight limited wars. Better to just haul ass, battalion column, right now. IF our objective is to kill as many of them as we can before we leave...you don't do that with less troops. Why wouldn't we just do a full deployment, wail on them, and then get everybody out? This is going to leave some sorry-assed platoon, cut off, and taking fire, and calling in fire on their own position = total nightmare. I don't see how this costs less $, lives, stress...anything. No. What we have here, is political calculation...and F'ing about with a lot of kid's lives...for next to 0 strategic benefit. Soldiers fight wars to win, they don't measure their existence in terms of coming home for political expedience. What do we tell our company commanders? Hang out for the next 2 years...and try not to get enough of your people killed to make headlines?

That's the only thing I can figure: an uninterrupted 45 minutes of Paul Ryan was deadly for them. Instead, they went for the tie, and told Biden to act out, distract, be a clown, etc. The polls seem clear, a tie/slight win for Ryan. That's better than another 70-15% whipping. Makes sense. Basically this all comes down to: a punt for the Democrats. They may be "drinking Chardonnay at the kitchen island"...whatever the F that means...but that, however unreal, is better than getting curb-stomped again.

So...you've just discovered the "Coal State Strategy"? Pretty much the reason that one pollster just left NC and VA, and called both for Romney? Late....way late to the party birdog. That was the 7 months ago story. The coal state people have had the case made to them, consistently, since then. Perhaps, if you didn't live in the MSNBC bubble, where bad things for Obama/Democrats simply don't exist? So, yeah...you can bet coal will be brought up... I am sure Rachel Maddow will be shocked on election night, if this Coal State thing works, when PA is close, and OH, VA, NC, IA, MO, IN, and every other swing state Obama won, that is anywhere near Appalachia, is lost. And you know what she'll say? "It's not the EPA F'ing with coal, and Romney speaking those people effectively! It's racism!" See, how pathetic is it, when there is nothing to be learned from these people at all?