OCinBuffalo

Sheppard's read was a veteran play. Nice to see that out of a 2nd year MLB.

We'll see.

Well, you or not, it's about to get lighter.

I don't. Did you see how often the 8 yards on 1st down/2nd down/3rd down is open? Every time. I am quite pleased, because this is what CIN did to them in the 2nd half last game.

Depends on your definition of the word happy. There is a little known Mayan god Bungi-Bungi, whose festival is on that day, and since it's the last day of the world, all those born on that day are sodomized in tribute, in the hopes of privileged treatment in the after-life. On the other hand, all those who weren't born on that day are ritually sacrificed. As I said, it's a matter of perspective. If sodomy is your thing, you'll be quite pleased.

I heard this described as...."darker things are suggested to have happened to the body of the ambassador". Sodomizing a dead guy? Or, was that done before he was killed? As he was being suffocated? For Ron Paul supporters: What exactly is does more free trade with these people do...on the necrophiliac sodomizing front? For Obama supporters: Of course we have to tolerate this, right? After all, sodomy has a long tradition in the war practices of the Muslim world. Or, do you think this isn't an act of war? Just ask Vlad Tepes, who many think became Vlad the Impaler....primarily as revenge for his being sodomized by Muslims. But, according to you, not only should we be tolerant of the Muslim culture on display here, historically consistent mind you, but we must also be tolerant because gay sex is involved, right? All sarcasm aside: it's far past time for both groups of children to grow up. There really is evil in the world, yes, there are good guys, and bad guys, you Jimmy Carter neophytes, and if the good guys do nothing, the bad guys, do...in fact...win. You have no moral high ground. You never did. You merely deluded yourself. Even if there was moral high ground? You wouldn't know where to find it.

Well now we all have evidence to back you up: http://www.realclear...s_115513-3.html The 36%, of all voters...are the people who are dependent on government...who Romney isn't targeting, and doesn't care if he offends, because as HE SAID, they aren't going to vote for him anyway. And, while I am sure that Romney would rather not have offended ANY independents, we also KNOW that many of the people calling themselves "independent" this time around, weren't so independent last time. Many of them are "I don't want to call myself a D because they are stinking the place up"....so yeah...25% of would be Ds are offended...but 75% aren't. And, the 15% who like it...are the other "fringe Independents" who don't want to call themselves Rs for whatever reason. The middle...the real Independents....DON"T GIVE A F! Ds need to own that, and move on to why their President felt it was necessary to lie about terrorism. That story will last the next 3 weeks, and into the debates. The 47% story dies...today. Own that too.

It was only a catastrophic mistake...for people like you birdog. The data is clear, right in front of your nose. 75% of independents don't care or like what Romney said about you. Own that, and stop pretending like Romney had a chance to get your vote. Also, stop ducking my response to you, and answering PastaJoe's instead. His assignment is his, yours is yours.

Republicans like you just hate change. That is your problem. Oh...wait...is this 2008? "Is this a....what day is this?"

Tgreg: Doing everything in his/her power to propagate the "Hollywood is Batshit Crazy" meme.

Fundamentals. The US economy has great fundamentals. Rule of law, raw materials, food, our currency being the reserve currency, Wall Street(a huge asset, if properly understood by the non-deranged), etc. Therefore, even if we had a massive financial depression, on par with the 1930s....left to itself, the US economy WILL ALWAYS recover. Therefore, the only question that remains, and the only thing the executive and legislative branch should be judged on is: how fast and how big does that recovery happen? For every single President/Congress: it's their game to lose. If they did nothing at all, there's a 80% chance that the economy will improve, and they can take credit. But, what are we seeing here? The economy is being held back, like a 3rd grader who can't do long division. And you think that we should keep allowing that situation to continue? Moreover, you want to teach the 3rd grader about women's studies(and more social engineering), rather than focusing on the math that we know works? You complain about people calling you an idiot...and then, you post this? Has it even occurred to you...that other countries have a capital gains tax as well? Has it occurred to you that we live in a global economy now? Has it occurred to you that we MUST not only participate in the global economy, but also LEAD it? (Don't worry, you are not alone in this, a buttload of people haven't been able to conceive of this abstraction either, starting with Obama) You are talking about what happened in 1986...when the Cold War was in full force, and half the world was suffering under centrally planned economies. And you wonder why you get called an idiot. Want to stop being called an idiot? Familiarize yourself with what other countries, especially ones most likely to benefit from not having to play a balance game between the US and USSR for fear of being the next Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc.(um Brazil), have done to their capital gains taxes....since 1986. And then, determine the relationship between those countries who have lowered it, or removed it all together...and their respective economic growth trends, from 1986, to today, especially the last 2 years. Then, look at what has happened in Europe, since the end of WW2. While you are at it: investigate Venezuela's economic growth, since Chavez took over until today, and destroyed their fundamentals(no rule of law, government seizure of assets, etc.). The reality is right there for you to grasp. Unless you choose to continue being an idiot. "What happened, Bob?" "Look, I told you that this diplomatic initiative wasn't going going to go over well with our Caribbean neighbors, Mr. President." What about CHANGE? Does Obama hate CHANGE now to? Seriously, this is breaking Obama's #1 promise. He proposed to "change Washington" by his sheer awesomeness alone. Now, his response to Romney crushing him on this is: "Uh....What kind of inside job is Romney talking about"? Really, Mr. President? You might as well have told Romney to take a long walk off a short peer...cool guy. Yeah...the problem for you Joe....this is only from your perspective. Oh, no, Joe....it's that damn thing you hate so much...raw data: "We see this with the now-infamous “47 percent” comment. Gallup described the statement and asked how it would affectrespondents’ votes. Twenty percent said it would make them more likely to vote for Romney, 36 percent said less likely, and 43 percent said it would make no difference. (So.....that's 63% that don't care Joe...and 36% who do, who were voting Obama anyway) Drilling down to self-described Independents, 15 percent said it would make them more likely to support Romney, 29 percent less likely, and 53 percent said it would make no difference. You can try to sex that up (as Gallup did) to read that Independents say it makes them less likely to vote for Romney by a 2-1 margin, but you could just as easily say that three-quarters of independents say the gaffe makes no difference or helps Romney." http://www.realclear...s_115513-3.html So, yeah....he's shooting himself in the foot....with you. But, he doesn't care about you, because you were never going to give him a fair shot, and actually listen to what he had to say...anyway. Or, would you have us believe that there was ever a chance that you were going to vote for Romney?

Surely you can't be serious: Ever seen a grown man naked? Do like movies about gladiators? Ever been in a Turkish Prison? -------------- Airplane is on....I had no choice.

So this is where Dave in Norfolk has been. DIN: "What? You said turn this knob to the right and then press this button. No. Well....yeah, I did hit that button, but only because you didn't tell me I couldn't. Hey, you didn't train me properly, so it's your fault." "Ok..OK I ate some of your lunch, but, where's the free food for employees? Oh come on, if I wanted to pay for things myself, I woulda stayed in Norfolk. What are you talking about, 'I have to bring my own lunch'? Aren't you guys supposed to like the opposite of the US?" "Well...why can't there be an employee cafeteria down here in this bunker, that sells them baggie sandwiches? Those are good. Yeah? Well where the hell are we supposed to take these breaks, and what is this little rug for? Wait, you expect me to kneel down and do what...on my break? F you!" "Dammit that's it...they don't give me a 15 minute break every hour, instead they make me kneel down, mumble stuff, and put my face on the floor 6 times a day. WTF is that? Some kind of new-wave, dopey yoga crap? I wanna smoke cigarettes, be surly, and complain on my break, just like I did in Norfolk. My damn knees are killing me...and somebody pissed in my safety boots. Enough is enough! I am going to press that button and burn this place down". "Dammit...not that button, that's the right button...which one is the wrong button? See I was right, they didn't train me right, this is not my friggin fault! I better see some baggie sandwiches, and this rug crap has to go, or I will press this button every damn week!"

Hmmm....you might think I'm joking when I say: "Well, since Obama has lost Mead107, it's over". But, actually, I've been here long enough, and read enough Mead posts....to think that this is a pretty darn reliable indicator, actually. Mead is an even keel guy, from what I can tell. Perhaps even...a real independent? You rarely see them in the wild...of PPP.

Peter King needs to remember that if Fitz is on, no amount of run defense will save the Browns from their horrible, horrible, Dick Jauron, give up 8 yards on 1st down because of a 10 yard cushion, pass defense. In fact, our "normal"? offense is designed from the ground up to beat this defense. I'm not sure about the analysis that "the Brows have a great run" defense...as much as they have such an awful pass defense, that teams only feel the need to run on them for short yardage, and "keep them honest" purposes. It could be a statistical mirage, and one I have no interest in disproving: do the same thing that the Bungles did. Throw it on them over and over, and only run it when you feel like it. It worked for the Bungles, who were up by at least 2 scores, twice in the game, but then they Bungled...both times. Once with an freebie INT, and once with a bad run and 2 god awful throws in a row.

Unworthy of a serious reply. I will admit...it's hard to tell what is real sometimes. Sometimes I wake up and think I'm in California, and it seems real...but it isn't. Sometimes when I'm there, I think I'm here, and that rocks, because when I figure it out, I get to sleep for 3 more hours. Am I talking to Ze Germans at 3 am today...or tomorrow...wait, that is tomorrow, isn't it? "Is this a...what day is this?" http://www.metacafe...._estate_part_3/ My drinking...both here, there, and everywhere, doesn't help this condition at all, but it does make it more tolerable. Ahh...an unsuspecting IT question! Woe to those who don't realize they are asking IT people about IT. Now...I can bore you to death or, I can just tell you: they need to improve the performance of their system. It's possible that they haven't properly anticipated the "work load"(we just call it load) that their system has to handle/sold more than they thought they would, etc. Thus, "scaling" is improving the amount of "work" a system can do per second, via more hardware, better software, or both. Sometimes scaling is straightforward, sometimes management is lazy/cheap about it, and sometimes it's like basing a plan...on the weather in Fall/Spring. This may also have nothing to do with NFL.com....since I saw my ISP(internet) had it's people working outside my place today.

Somebody had to deliver on that 57 states joke.... ....I'm still trying to get past that image. I had seen that picture, I had no idea of the context.

Holy....This is just brutal, and disgusting. Timing? Ya think? Jesus F'ing....this could change the game all by itself. Made me instantly sad, and then pissed. Now, it remains to be seen how this will be used. My hope is that Romney himself doesn't touch it, or allow anybody associated with him to touch it. That would be classless IMHO. It will get around on its own just fine.

As has been said before: We have much more to fear from those who support Obama, than we will ever have to fear from Obama himself. Or, getting rid of Obama means getting rid of Susan Rice, the clown who said our ambassador was killed due to youtube videos....not terrorists, and has now been publicly humiliated, by her own administration's press secretary, less than a week later. It's infinitely more important that we free ourselves from Susan Rice, and the HHS Secretary who thinks she can break the law at will, both by participating in the campaign, and countermanding welfare reform, than Obama himself. These people aren't elected, and they clearly can't handle the power they have been given.

This is the real question: how many of these...."do gooders"? show up for the election, how many were already voting for Obama anyway, and therefore aren't "swing voters" in any sense of the word, and how many vote in general? And of course, how many are real independents....vs those who just say they are...because they don't want to tell a stranger they are Democrats, for any number of reasons. That's why "independent" is always a range....5-10%....rather than a fixed number. These are the little things that these polls have no chance of telling us right now.

I would never say that any candidate, on either side should not be worried, under any circumstances. I get your joke....but, still What's really preposterous...is the media continues to miss this point: the only people Romney may have offended...are within that 47% anyway. And, the enthusiasm gap suggests there's no way all of them show up. Perhaps it's time for the media to start reading their own polls? Hmm.... Interesting analysis here. I hadn't thought of it this way. Yes, it is sorta similar. The difference being that individual votes are a lot more granular, and heterogeneous than delegates. But still, the concept of divide an conquer by winning 4-6/10 in each little group, and hoping that you get more 6/10 than 4/10 and win by <1%, is relatively the same. The problem is, you end up with a whole lot of "the other" 5/10 = pissed off Hillary people. That's because this strategy is doomed to keep your opponent in the race, just like it kept Hillary in the race, right until the end. Ask Pasta Joe: he's still butthurt about Hillary to this very day. Hillary hung around, and gained almost as much support as Obama. It's OK for a primary. But in a general? No way. That's why I say: Even if Obama wins, he will be 4 year lame duck. Romney/Republican House and Senate candidates are hanging around, just like Hillary did. In a weird way, Obama winning may actually be the worst thing for the Democrats, in terms of their agenda. I know that sounds crazy but 4 years of "Obama is clinging to the agenda" WILL cause a scrutinization of that agenda, on a daily basis. This is a lot to risk....just to preserve a law in Obamacare that 65% of the country dislikes. It virtually guarantees a loss/major concession on every other issue, just to stay relevant, or dare I say: in office. This strategy also virtually guarantees a Republican Senate as a result. Because...how can their be coattails in a <1%, scorched earth victory? But, does anyone think Obama truly cares about what happens to his fellow Democrats? hehehe exactly. It's not that they are all completely wrong....it's just that they aren't capable of showing us the little things that ultimately makes one team win vs another. Those things aren't clear until the season really starts...in this case, the debates are the "real" season. This is true because of the nature of this election, the economic conditions, etc.

As the leader of the "polls are oversampling" school here in this thread(look back about 20 pages).....I can say that they will just keep doing it. But, it's not designed to "tamp down the R vote". These polls themselves contain both the problem and the attempted solution to it. The problem is low D enthusiasm. The solution is: attempt to shore up that enthusiasm by projecting Obama as the winner. "Come on down to the polling place, and vote for the winning team" is the pitch. That pitch is not for Rs at all. How could it be? The intended audience of this pitch is the white, working D, who has voted D their whole life, but who also thinks Obama = Carter. Reagan Democrats. These ladies and gentleman stay home in the numbers being suggested by these polls? Massacre. But, the flip side of this whole thing? Oversampling of Democrats could also mean oversampling of enthusiasm problems. Reagan already proved that polls, in this economic environment, mean less than nothing. He was down 47-39 in October. The country is ready to fire Obama, just like they were ready to fire Carter. All Romney needs to do is apply for the job and have a good interview in the debates. Thus, I refuse to bet anything based on the polls. In fact, forget the polls altogether and look at the behavior of the campaigns: 1. Romney has changed nothing: he is still running to capture the 5-10% independents. He just got done saying so with his "I can't get 47% of the country to vote for me, because they rely on the government, so I have to get the 5-10%" comment. The second part is the real message here. When the liberal media gets done yammering....they will have missed the point: Romney doesn't care if he offends the 47%, because he feels comfortable closing in on the last 5% of votes that will put him over the top, and he's not doing anything to piss them off. He must have data that suggests this course = win. Or, he's an idiot. We'll see which is true. 2. Obama has changed nothing: he is still trying to shave off 5k votes in this county in Iowa here and 10k over here in this little demographic over here. Each week it's another little packet of votes: this week was the autoworkers in Ohio. He also hopes that he will be able to "gin up" the same amount of anti-Romney sentiment as there is anti-Obama on the right. He hopes that he can put all these little packet of votes together, and that the sum will = a squeak by Romney. This is the same strategy he has been using for a year. IF "THE POLLS" really were changing....we'd be seeing a change in behavior from both of these guys. We aren't, because the REAL data hasn't changed. It's still a tie, and most people are waiting for the debates. The Democrats/Media commissioned 80+ polls this month....that's a record. Why? Because they are trying to inundate the market and shore up the enthusiasm of Ds. "So many polls saying the same thing". Look....just like with gay marriage, some people are wise enough to see what is happening....and others...aren't. Talking about polls right now puts you in the latter group.

Technically began? Wait: Are they gonna start trying to push the "Summer of Recovery" again? Or is this the new one: now that the truth is out about the workforce shrinking, their new excuse is to tell us that the reason the work force has shrunk is because of retirement? Clue: if retirement was the reason for the shrinkage...unemployment would be at .05%, and we'd have a labor shortage...since all those jobs that people supposedly retired from, all in the last 3 years, would all have become available. Dude, this cherry picking of economic data just needs to stop. "Poverty is slowing"....yes....because the working poor and lower middle class are all in poverty already, and it becomes harder to drag more middle class people into poverty the higher up the income chain you go. So it's...."slowing".

The premise of this thread is idiotic. Sorry, but it is. If 15% of the US pop is black...that doesn't mean all 15% will vote. Nor does it mean that all of them will vote for the same reasons, or for all of the same party's candidates. Ticket splitting is common. So, there no way in hell 41% are voting for Obama in lock step, and certainly not 41% voting for Obama, Senator D, Congressman D etc. Paul Ryan = the personification of why this premise is idiotic, since his district voted 64% for Obama. The reality is that the 5-10% of CONSISTENT, and therefore, LIKELY, INDEPENDENT VOTERS are the ones who determine elections in this country. The rare times when this isn't the case...is elections like 2008, where there were 8% more of total voters were Democrats. The simple reason for that: energized Democrats turned out way more than normal, and Republicans weren't too excited by McCain. If you want to complain....complain to the people who actually control the election. Democrats and Republicans, the lifelong kind, have nothing to do with it since they usually cancel each other out. Complain to the independents. If Romney wins...it will be the 5-10% of total voters, the independents, who make it so, because this is a 0, or +1 to +3 election at the most. Polls say it's more likely to be +2 Republican. And, who the f knows if the independents are hardworking, rich, poor, black, gay or whatever? You have to blame them if you think they support the %1.....and they will probably ignore you. You should never be sickened by diversity, or lack of it. You should however be sickened by incompetence and/or poor leadership, because lack of those two things, when diversity is present, almost always cause diversity to be blamed, rather than their absence. I will explain: The research is clear, and I've see this right in front of me: diversity creates a superior problem solving environment...when it works. It only works if solid leadership is present. Also, the group's competence is critical. But, we also see it work poorly/have no effect in government, where incompetence and bad leadership is the norm. Um, GSA? There can be little doubt that the GSA is diverse....but how is it performing? If diversity was absolute and causal in its effect, we'd see the same outcome for these groups every time, regardless of the other factors. We do not. However, we do see that when we take away leadership/competence...diversity matters little. Thus, diversity alone is never a solution to anything. (Neither is being "green", "safe", "sexual identity tolerant", "charitable", etc., more often than not these are constructs of the marketing group, and produce marketing, not management, outcomes) Just the opposite. Better solutions are typically made available by diversity. But diversity alone solves nothing without leadership and the competence to make use of it's value. Diversity is a raw material...not a tool. And: As a professional agent of change, I can tell you with absolute certainty: change is exactly like diversity. Without the right leadership, competence, and attitude to both identify and make the right change....change for change's sake is worthless. There's nothing wrong with hating something that is worthless. I mean...you hate Dick Jauron's defensive scheme, right? Do you want us to change to that? What? That would be change....so it's good, right?

Why? If he's right, it won't matter because we are all dead. If he's wrong it won't matter because we aren't all dead, and nobody will care that he joked about it. Isn't this like believing in God...because there is little downside if there isn't one, but, if there is...? You know...it's also like Democrats believing the economy is getting better, isn't it? What's the downside if they're wrong? Might as well say it's getting better, right? If it doesn't between now and Nov, there's a good chance they are done anyway, so there's nothing to lose. Until the October unemployment data, and gas prices, and other pieces of financial data are available on or about Nov 1....there's no harm in having faith in a better economy coming to save them, their party, and the President from their sins.