OCinBuffalo

This conversation belongs at the 50k foot level, because you aren't capable of discussing this at a lower, more detailed level, as you said yourself with your "I don't want your theory comment". Yes, you don't want to hear things, that are both widely accepted, and seriously detract from your belief system. I have news: this is not "my theory". No amount of accusing me of "making things up and attributing them to others"....is going to save you from the fact that these "new" concepts, for you, are actually concepts that have been generally accepted for at least the last 500 years. While I will admit that my command of these concepts is exceptional( ), don't let that confuse you into thinking I am their author. It's hysterical that you are trying to avoid both the truth they provide, and the real world examples of that truth I've given you...by trying to make this about me...instead of the obvious effects of these concepts that is happening right in front of you. The relationship here is the key...we have more people on government assistance...because we have a government who has spent its way into that. The link I posted proves that, and proves what I am saying it true: massive amounts of new government spending, over the long term(3 years of Obama) is more likely to create poverty, rather than fix it. But what the hell do you know about that? You say you don't believe in the effect inflation has on the poor/middle class....yet, you do believe in the COLAs, whose reason for existence....is to help the poor/middle class avoid the effects of inflation. Again...the above says it all: you simply don't comprehend macroeconomics. Nothing has changed since the above cause/effect post. Economics is rarely about ALL or NOTHING, nor is it about point in time. So, this discussion is actually about what happens when government spending is increased over a set of rates, or massively increased such as what Obama has done, and, what will happen as it is decreased over a set of rates, or if it is massively decreased all at once....with, of course, the expectation that tax rates stay relatively constant. Now, we can generate models for cases and see if we can poke holes in these models .....but you don't get to do any of that...because you don't understand the basics yet. We cannot, and you will not, disagree with the fact that government debt creates inflation, and inflation creates higher prices...how much this occurs is dependent on how quickly that government spending increases and by how much... ...not if you want people to take you seriously on this board. Serious includes: a basic handle on macroeconomics. However, if you choose to head towards the land of conner/DaveInNorfolk...that is on you. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Ahh but it does have significance....to the people who are more interested in affirmation than information, and by that are locks to vote for Obama. You know: the emote-first, think-never people. It has significance in that it keeps telling them not to worry...Obama will be fine. These aren't political essays....designed to convince people of their worthiness, or Obama's. No. These are pieces designed for a single purpose: stave off the slow-boiling panic....that the election is a little over a month away...and Obama still hasn't built the lead that will allow him to overcome the undecided voter/IND 3-5% that always swings towards the challenger in the end. That fact, and the fact that the race remains a statistical tie, despite all of the money Obama has already blown and all of the non-stories that are brought up each week, with 0 real movement in the data....is a cause for real concern. But really, what else can Roger Simon do? I mean, if we are to be objective...how can we fault them for doing the only thing they have? On the flip side, I think Romney's campaign has been foolish to keep responding to these 1.5 day stories...and not ignoring them. I see that as the main reason Romney isn't leading right now. It will come down to the debates...and I think Romney is holding his cash in reserve...looking to pounce on the gaffes that I am almost certain will come from Obama...sans teleprompter. The trouble for Romney is: I don't know if that will work. I'd much rather see a positive message, and a "here's how we plan to do it" because I think that will motivate people more than "look at how much of a dope Obama is" will. We already know Obama's results are bad. We need to know that Romney's will be better.

Nothing...other than: you don't know your Presidential election history very well. Look up how many Republicans have won PA...since WW2. Without looking...I'm pretty sure only Reagan has, in 1984...when he won ALL the states, except Minn(Mondale's home state). I never believed PA was in play. Yet, I do believe we've had mostly Republican Presidents since then....none of whom won PA. But, you have looked at it properly. If they have PA as unwinnable...then that tells us a lot more than a poll. The "coal state strategy" is not undone by losing the most Democratic state in it. Let's see what happens with IA, OH, VA, etc. The fact is that many states that aren't supposed to be ? for Obama...are. WI, MI, MN, OR. Money has to get spent there now. And if Romney is smart, he'll keep making Obama spend money/time defending states he isn't supposed to be. It may be over in PA...but not before Obama had to spend money...on things like banner planes flying over Pittsburgh? That's the real story here. Romney's approach is like using cavalry to disrupt Obama's supply lines, make him go back and patch them up, and Romney gets out without having to fight a major battle...on what is supposedly Obama's ground. This disrupts Obama's "grab 5k votes here and there" strategy, because now Obama, in order to pick up/regain the D vote in PA, has to alienate the I vote in Iowa, undoing whatever he did there. Not saying it will work, just seems like what Romney is doing. Obama trying to run a 50 state strategy was a joke....and now he's having to play defense in all sorts of places. Hey he may pull it off with some memorable speech or quote in a debate, so you never know...

Yes, and if Newton was brought forward in time to the 20s, he'd run screaming from the Model T...that is based his work. Imagine his reaction to a Corvette coming at him. See? It's all a matter of perception....and "quickening" is the only refuge for people whose entire ideology, from 1965 to today, has been proven to be hopelessly wrong. Rather than admitting they were wrong....they assign some sinister, otherworldly cause as to the reason they are wrong. After all, we largely listened to them, and built the big government they demanded. Now, when their constructs haven't delivered the promised results, and in many cases have been proven to make things worse? It's time to blame something besides those constructs...and certainly not the idiots who created/supported them. Why not blame some non-corporeal entity like "the quickening"? It's convenient...because nobody can define it's properties. Thus, they can't be held accountable for this ghost entity...as they are by the obvious causes and effects of their failed big government programs, which in contrast are very tangible. Wait: aren't these the same people who hate those who believe in anything supernatural? What is the quickening...if not a supernatural entity? When liberals who believed they were smarter...are confronted with their failure, apparently the only place left to turn...is the supernatural. How fun! Perhaps we should pray to "The Quckening" and ask it to spare us? I'm pretty sure I know what we'd get back: 42

If I'm such a waste of time....why do you blow whole page after whole page on me? Could it be because you don't like getting publicly whipped, and thus are compelled to come back and drop a book on us...in your defense? Is dispositive your word of the day? How many more times is that word going to show up in this thread? And, you got it from B-mans post in the other thread, didn't you? 1 .Once again we see how poor your command of macroeconomics really is. Inflation affects ALL prices. That's why we call this class....MACRO economics. Thinking in terms of MACRO, and ALL prices, yes a 5% uptick in them can in fact put people into poverty. Or, haven't you paid attention to every single union vs management debate that has ever happened in your lifetime? You worked in DC...and you don't know the concept of "COL adjustment"? One story about one person....isn't MACRO, in any sense. I should fail you right now for that. The topic at hand: what happens to the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and the prices we ALL have to pay, when government debt is massively increased, and the value of the $ is decreased? The answer is, yes in the MACRO...a large % of these household will be in poverty...because the "poverty line"...will have been inflated...just like everything else. Apparently you are also unaware that such inflation often prices whole companies out of markets, or out of business completely. They respond by laying people off. Again, in MACRO terms, government spending induced currency inflation can and will cause 5x the unemployment...that your "benefits" are supposed to assuage. You know nothing about me, or how I grew up. We were just as poor as you at one point, if not, worse. I also know: amazing things can happen when you don't blame others for your situation...work your ass off, put in 16 hour days for 2 years, and stay positive, because I saw my parents do that, right in front of me. 2. Oh...so you do know what a COLA is? Then ....whatever happened to your 1 guy story? COLAs are aggregate. You just got done saying that your policies don't create inflation...but then, right after that, you say that a $200 increase does have an effect for these people? Yes, the extra $200 COLA...has precisely the same effect....as the inflation that ALL COLAs are designed to counteract. That's whey they are are called COLAs. ROFL. ROFL. Inflation is the reason COLA exist in the first place. ROFL Now....you like COLAs....why don't you hate/acknowledge the inflation problem they attempt to solve? Unmitigated moron And, apparently...according to you...once government $ is being spent on someone...spending more on them...whether it is $5 extra....or double...is as irrelevant as it is the same...because...they are already on the dole? Are you trying to make me laugh? Are you trying to make this easy for me? 3. Again, we are talking MACRO effects...not one guy, or one story. And, http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/07/news/economy/government_assistance/index.htm there. There is your proof about how many people are now on public assistance. Your "challenges" are like stepping on ants...for me. The JayZ stuff was just there to piss you off. And, I see that worked as expected. JayZ has claimed he sold crack, and shot his brother. Rappers = Pro Wrestling. It's entertainment, and any taking them seriously, ends with the TV show/song. It's a dream world, you go in, have your fun, and then leave. No different than a video game. But, I notice you didn't answer: did JayZ "build that"?

I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm taking the spin out of the numbers...and presenting them in the only objective way that exists. I told you not to base your feelings on this data...because they will be hurt, but you seem to be determined to do so regardless. Let me ask: did you KNOW about the bias in the sample...before you posted the poll...or only after I showed it to you? If you are telling us that no poll can be taken on its own....I only partly agree on that. Some polls have been done correctly, therefore you can take them on their own. Some polls have a +8 Democrat bias in them, like the one you posted, and therefore are simply wrong, under any objective standard. Certainly many polls, properly conducted, would give us a better answer than just one. However, mixing in polls like the crap you posted...merely distorts things. This is a matter of good science vs. bad. Don't tell me you don't know the difference. The methodology of your poll here sucks....and that's before we've even had a chance to look at the raw data, and how it was collected. This all comes down to what Tom said above about turnout....and....what happens with Independents. Whenever you and the rest of the left gets done talking, this will still be the case. And, you will still have a D vs R turnout gap problem, because of Obama's behavior...not because of some abstraction. That gap, and the turnout projections....are the ONLY thing that has been polled consistently correctly. And why? Because these media outlets, who are trying to spin up D turnout.....need to see how their efforts are doing, don't they? The problem that confronts the Ds and their media puppies: is low D turnout, or, = turnout...because Obama still loses in that scenario. The solution is trying to fire up the base by telling them they are doing better than they really are. Clearly, with his behavior over the last 2 years, and in the last year of campaigning...Obama has given up on independents. The man has thrown out red meat to his base, over and over, even though we all KNOW how bad that is for independents. So why do it? Answer: you think you aren't going to win them anyway, so it doesn't matter. This is the telling BEHAVIOR. Again...polls can tell us some things...but behavior....behavior tells us almost everything.

Ya know what else....I love the consistency of the math. Every time they overwieght by 6 pts...Romney is down by 6. As above, with 8...he's down by 8. 4 it's 4. In fact, and I haven't looked at every poll, but for the ones I have...I have yet to see one that isn't sampled exactly the same as the difference. So, inadvertently, their math, taken in the aggregate...is proving that the race is a tie...by the sheer consistency of the their biases.

Oh....and btw...Romney is viewed favorably....by 45% unfavorable 50% in +8 D weighted poll? Hmm. Uh...that's only a difference of 5%. Now, are we supposed to believe that independents account for all that? Hardly. Romney's favorables with INDs have never been that bad. So...someplace, there's likely at least 3% of Democrats in that sample...that don't see Romney as unfavorable. Of course, other than Rassmussen and some of the college polls....we aren't going to get a straight answer on this.

All we need to know about your poll is: PARTY ID RV LV Republican 717 665 Democrat 869 803 Independent 757 661 And, what do we find? Shockingly....Romney down by 8 pts.....in a poll that has 8+ pts more Democrats? In fact, .825% and .828% respectively? Yeah, that's a coincidence. I hope you aren't basing your feelings on polls like these....because they are likely to be hurt as a result. Don't tell yourself that this is anything other than a tie, because that's what it is. Start telling yourself that the lie is right in front of you, I have just made you aware of it. I have no reason, other than my demand for accuracy, for telling you this. What you do with this accurate info is on you. Here's some more truth: There's no way that this is a +8 Democrat turnout election. No way. If anything, it's either 0...+1 D...or +2 R. That's what the turnout polls suggest. But, these clowns keep insisting that Obama will get the turnout he did last time....even when their own polls show that enthusiasm for Obama in his key demographics...hell...in every demo...is down, in some cases by double digits(young voters, etc). It's just not there. It's not. +8 weighting is the purest example of the wishful thinking that is dominating media/democratic pollsters. They aren't thinking at all in fact. This is pure emotion. It's up to you whether you want to get wrapped up in the storybook...or deal with the reality.

As I said, it depends on your definition of laid. Ok....Bob Weir/Art Bell. So now we have that tired old "The Quickening" nonsense they espouse....being morphed into the Mayan thing? Nice work. It's entertaining even...to see the creativity involved in trying to keep these "theories" alive...in the face of overwhelming evidence against. Read this...if you want to decrease your IQ for the next few weeks: http://awakeningasone.com/seek-the-truth/the-quickening-transcript/ Here's a hint: nothing is "quickening", Bob/Art...and every other baby boomer D-bag...you are simply getting old. Hahahahaha. As far as this board goes....it was way nastier....and way more full of nuts....4 years ago. Y'know, with people who actually believed that Obama = end of all war, end of all poverty, end of all reliance on fossil fuels, etc. They would go full retard if you dared poke the obvious holes..... Wait: didn't Obama get a peace prize? If you really want to identify a...talisman...that indicates the "great fall" of mankind? There it most certainly is.

Wrong. Once again you are either woefully misunderstanding my premises, doing it intentionally...or, you simply never possessed the required didactic preparation to understand them. 1. Buying habits? This is not marketing class. Marketing is 2 years from now...but not for you, if you don't pass this. Financial solvency? This is also not finance class. This is macroeconomics, a basic tenet of which informs us that inflation of currency due to government debt = increase in price. That has nothing to do with these mothers, their buying habits, or their financial decisions that would effect their solvency. A mother, poor or rich, has no control over the price of milk going up by $1.00 over a year due to inflation. She can't adjust her buying habits, nor can she plan her finances for that. 2. Most people live on a relatively fixed income, and have no real way of adjusting it. Sure there are bonuses, raises, etc. But not for most of the people who will be most likely to be hit the hardest by the inflation your policy creates. Your inflation drags people into poverty. Like it or not. When everything costs more, and income stays the same, you run out of money. Period. When you can't afford what you need...you are in poverty. Either, we raise your income, or we control inflation. There is no 3rd way....unless you are nut. Forcing a raise of your income does one thing: creates more inflation. Why? Because what we are paying you is not market value. It is now...inflated. So, your company has to charge more for what it makes...for the simple reason that it has to pay you, and everybody like you, what you aren't worth. That price goes up, and everybody else has to adjust their prices accordingly. Are you beginning to get a glimmer of the stupidity of your policy yet? 3. Whenever you put people in a desperate situation, and raise them to believe that this is who they are, and the only way to improve that situation....will 100% come from the government...you create a culture of dependency. This is historically proven. Did the slave's economic future not depend 100% on his owner? Now...should we ask JayZ...if the government is the reason he has his money? What would he say? Was the government responsible for putting him where he is, or is he? Did he in fact, build that? Can we say...that without the government-induced poverty he comes from....would he be as "real" as he is? I don't know...but where would JayZ be without "the projects"? Isn't that where he derives his badassery? Perhaps the government can take the credit in this instance? Premises? You don't even understand the basic material they are based on, therefore, how the hell are you supposed to agree with them, one way or the other? Show me you understand the basics of inflation first, and how market price is determined in general, and then we can move on to more difficult concepts.

It could, and probably should include those words. But since liberals like root causes so much....like the video tape = dead ambassador.... ....let's just start at the very beginning: either they are unaware of basic macroeconomics, or, they are willing to ignore their 1st year of college, which probably also included Western Civ...if it means they get to claim to be morally superior...or worse...if it means they get to gain political power a la Huey F'ing Long. Now, I ask: what is the root cause of this need to be morally superior, yet in the phoniest way possible?

Now...I've laid out a clear, logical, case for just how immoral your nonsense is. Let's see who stays on point...and who says "strawman" or some other logical construct 80 times...and doesn't address a single point that is made. The fact that you have to claim victory, in these posts...rather than making it merely evident, as I do...says all there is to say.

Hyperbole? How about basic cause/effect loop? Ok, in our idiocy, let's go along with your emotional argument...and let's have the government feed those kids tonight. Then, when the price goes up for food, due to spending = debt = inflation....let's have the government do it again. Now, other mothers, and other children can't afford food either, because you've seen to it that the prices are inflated(oh, and how's that green energy thing doing on the price of food?). So, the government buys food for them too. spending = debt = inflation Now even more mothers can't afford groceries....to the point that 1/6th of this country is now on food stamps. Great work Morons. and you say...what? Good? Look how moral we are? Don't you see that you are spreading a disease? You are infecting whole extended families with poverty. But that's not good enough for you. No, you want to spread this disease over generations. You want to spread it to certain "victim" groups, so that all of them become dependent on your "treatment" while you do nothing about curing the disease. You are just as bad as the pharma companies you cry about, because you do the same thing. After all your "solution" is responsible for creating more poverty than ever would have existed had you done nothing.... .....completely unaware, in your folly, that YOU are the one doing the victimization now. And for what? Votes? Power? I say you are unaware, and folly...because I don't want to believe that you are capable of actually doing this on purpose. Where's the morality, in any of this? As I said before, you severely underestimate people's demand for public order. Or...do you still think that OWS is relevant, to anyone, in any way?

Why would I want to revisit 20, not 10, pages of you not answering questions, obfuscating when confronted with fact, relying on logic constructs...in place of logic itself, and when finally, and absolutely being pinned down....hoping that we forgot what you said 19 pages ago/changing the subject...and trying to pretend that words don't mean things? Still waiting on how in the hell we should rely on the political instincts/analyses....of the the people in the Obama campaign/political office....given their performance over the last 4 years...from you. Or...have people actually started to like Obamacare....now...3 years later....as projected by these same clowns? Same line of reasoning can be applied here: why the hell should we keep listening to FAIL? Or...if you had a magic wand, and could automatically wave money from one group to another....what historical, economic data can you point to, what results...in the history of the world...that guarantees that 20 years later that money wouldn't end up right back where it started? There's not a single piece of historical data that supports that it wouldn't. Even in the most leftist economies = USSR...money still ends up with those that have the most ability. Good ability/bad ability whatever. Ability is ability, IQ is IQ, and balls is balls. This is because Juror #8 doesn't seem to get the simple concept: There can be no mission...without a margin. It's a cause and effect relationship....and no matter how many books are written by Marx or his wanna-bes, people are killed by Communists, or Che T-shirts are sold...when all talking finally ceases on this....this relationship will continue to be a truism. This is like gravity...it has been a fact long before humans even existed. It will continue to be true, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it.

Well I don't know....I suppose it depends on why they have their anuses widened, and what, if anything, they plan on carrying in there, doesn't it? It also depends on whether strippers/hookers/porn stars are trying to gain political power, or nuclear weapons technology, rather than just $1 bills. And, thanks for ruining my plan/joke. Jesus. Now my only hope is that NewBills doesn't scroll down.

If that is the case....than why would you expect the situation to change...as a result of activity by either party? Why the hell would you support ANY MORE government activity? Isn't time for the "help" to end? What's that about "first do no harm?" What if we applied that to government social programs? (Not military, as obviously the point...is to do harm) Why the F shouldn't we? ----------------- Also...if it is government policy....and that policy ABSOLUTELY has been to geometrically increase spending on social engineering(as forests of paper and petabytes worth of data confirms), and the social sciences that almost always conclude that we need more spending on both, form 1965 until today..... how on God's green earth can you support MORE of the same government policy that has produced these results? You are fond of calling yourself moral. Well, let's see how moral. Purposely continuing the policy that the Federal government has been running, since FDR, never mind LBJ...which most certainly is: big government for BIG GOVERNMENT, and not for the poor, sick, elderly or anybody else....spending all of my generation's money...and putting us in massive debt....just so you can keep your nostalgic notions... is perhaps the single most immoral act there is on this planet. Having anal sex with a dead guy is a close 2nd. Now, are you going to support this blatant immorality, or are you gonna finally admit that the 1960s was basically BS, and that the baby boomer mentality that has grown out of that era is crap, and has done more harm to the country than anything else in history?

How can "Free trade" be a solution to things...if it is taken elsewhere? It's simple really, Ron/HypnoNOT: The absence of Free Trade is not a solution for preventing the sodomizing of dead people, any more than the existence of Free Trade is. Think about what it would take for you do this act....or something of similar depravity. Just for 5 seconds, try to imagine yourself actually doing something this depraved. It's gross, isn't it? Now consider: If you really had the capacity for this behavior, and also felt compelled to do it, and this was something that you felt was necessary...do you really thing you'd be dissuaded by not getting the new iPhone? Shh dammit. I'm doing something. Don't ruin it.

Ask yourself: If there was a gay nuclear scientist who demanded that every single Mullah in Iran serviced him....and in return, he'd give them the tech they needed...would they do it? Of course not? Of course they wouldn't...they kill people for that right? They'd have to find another way, right? Looks like you have some reading to do. Perhaps googling....oh well...how about all Muslin invasions of Europe? I don't normally do google searches for people. I just tell them they are unfamiliar with the material being discussed and leave it to them to educate themselves. However, in this case, there is plenty of journalism being done to expose exactly what is happening, and, it is pure kryptonite to the liberal media: "After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam, However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [islamic] jurisprudence asserts that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you." http://www.gatestone...58/islam-sodomy Now, ask yourself again: If there was a gay nuclear scientist who demanded that every single Mullah in Iran serviced him....and in return, he'd give them the tech they needed...would they do it? Every single fact about this culture shows that it's primary goal is a return to 700 AD. Gaining power, is the only way to do that. This is about their power and them gaining more of it, and if sodomy is a vehicle, or murder, rape, cheating, lying, whatever is necessary, so be it. This is not about your sensibilities.

You nailed it.

This game, and the lessons learned/confidence built, will most likely show up later in the season. Listening to a moron caller on WGR right this second...talking about how Fitz stats don't count because they weren't all down field throws.... Where's that "throw down the field myth" thread again? EDIT: Here it is: http://forums.twobil...downfield-myth/ The team was shaken. No doubt about it. But, a with a team like this and how tight they are, how could we not expect them to be shaken up? Their friend just got hurt badly. You could say we "escaped" into half time. Fine. You could say that we didn't shake it off right away in the 3rd. Also fine. However, that's where the...valid...criticism ends. End of the 3rd/beginning of the 4th...we shook it off and took the game away from the Browns. This was a different team in the 4th qtr. That is undeniable.

Or...the NFL "official" who saw us heading in for a 21-0 TD...and decided to make the game better for ratings. </TinFoilHat>

The difference is: we have a real defense, who can step up and get off the field when required...and...stop a star RB. I expected Richardson to have a lot more yards than he did. And, the D completely owned him on screen passes, quick outs, etc. Very disciplined. OTOH, we faced a Dick Jauron D....which couldn't stop us from driving the entire field 3 times, without Spiller, all for scores.

Perfect throw to Stevie...some kids have some splainin to do...

D did what we needed them to do. Decent field pos. Time to win the game Fitz.