OCinBuffalo

Yep.

Yeah...there's been so many stories like this: remember the Beer summit, or the "stand next to the felon" photo op, or the Russian Reset Button? It's hard to keep all of them straight. Someone recently reminded me of the Beer summit. I forgot all about that. But honestly? I doubt Ryan cares. Anybody can talk schit in situations where you can't or it isn't worth responding. I've left a decent sized trail of fools who've paid for their mouths on the field, legally, Never once thought it was worth it to fight some clown at the mall, movie theatre, or later, the bar, etc. I just laughed, asked them for their jersey number, and wrote it down. Never had that problem with the teams that could beat us. Only had it with the scrubs who had no chance. Hence, the laughing from Ryan. He wasn't sitting there all pissed off, he was scoffing at these scrubs, and writing down their numbers. Nope. IF you recall correctly, Obama went 0-2-1 against McCain. All the polls, even the ones with (D) had McCain ahead as a result...and then the crash happened. Now we can talk about where Romney stands in terms of McCain. But, I think Romney is quicker, smarter, but McCain had more "reps". Perhaps the biggest myth in the history of politics is Obama and his team are good campaigners. No. They beat Hillary based on an inside straight draw = Obama being one of the very few Democratic Senators who didn't vote for the Iraq war. That war goes the other way, or is just marginal, Obama is still a "present"-voting Senator from Illinois, Hillary is probably President...and we wouldn't have half of the trouble we have now. Obama was losing until the crash. And, Palin....Palin beat Biden. I know how much that sucks for you. I don't care at all, but it sucks for you, doesn't it? Or, do you not suffer from the pBills disease...whose chief symptom is giving Palin power, via not being able to shut up about her?

Ahh....the wawrow....and the OCinBuffalo excuse....very nice. I can say...nothing. Other than: this 4 am thing sneaks up on you like a dirty, dirty whore. Or, drinking till 4 am makes it easier for the dirty, dirty whores to sneak up on you....or something...something like that.

Guys like Paul Ryan have the unique ability to reach through all the crap, and make you think. Not saying everybody will agree, but they WILL pay attention. It's a hell of a lot harder to claim victimhood, when you are being intellectually challenged to prove that, and a lot of other people, who are now also paying attention, are watching. That's what Ryan looks like to me: a deathly serious intellectual challenge. That's why I thnk this will be effective. This white house, and "progressives" in general have gotten so far away from true intellectual activity/approaches, that they're "out of shape". Think about it, when is the last time you could identify one of their polices as having been seriously thought through and tailored for the situation at hand....and not just some boiler plate that was ripped out of a 10-year-old 3-ring binder? Compare that to Ryan's budget. Ask him what's on page 112. They will try to blow Ryan off as an extremist, and in the beginning this will seem to be working...but each time he will land a punch. At first it will seem like it's irrelevant. But, over time, day after day, he will start to resonate, and people will start to remember, because he makes them pay attention. Then they will come at him, but they will swing wildly...because unlike Ryan, they haven't been to practice every single day for the last 20 years. The true test of this will be: in 2 months...go down the street and ask random people who Paul Ryan is...and THEN ask them if they are victims. If they know the answer to the first question, you can bet the answer will be no to the 2nd one. Laugh now...watch Biden get KOed later. And, then, watch Romney take the cue, and proceed to knock off-prompter Barry out as well. And we already have the evidence: Ryan torched Obama in that Obamacare "meeting". The WH did the only thing they could do to try and get back at Ryan: they invited Ryan to an Obama speech on the pretense that Obama would discuss his plan....but then he just bashed Ryan....with the convenience that Ryan couldn't respond. That they had to do this, set him up and not give him a chance to respond....and that all Ryan did was sit there and laugh at them....is all we need to know about how scared they truly are of Ryan, and now unafraid Ryan truly is of them. False bravdo is the talking point I am seeing consistently on every news channel today. Yeah they "wanted" Ryan. Utter horseshit. Ryan is the very last thing they wanted and we all F'ing know it. Look, it's all they can say. I don't blame them, but it doesn't make them any less pathetic. It's a lie, and it's not even a very good one.

Edit: Alright, alright, this is becoming boring. Dude, I thought you would catch on...when I specifically used the word in the last sentence, and referred to "interpreters". I would think that the words: radio, audience, tune in, and Howard Stern, would be enough for anyone to know that I fully understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, especially somebody in the friggin industry. After all, these aren't the IT gibberish words that we use in my industry, are they? I guess I was wrong. But, really, hopefully it's clear that this was not the intent of the post. Saying subtext was. Just think about it objectively, like I do. Do you really think anybody, doing any sort of gig, would be able to stay on the air for as long as Limbaugh has...if we wasn't "entertaining"? How about for just 1, 3 hour show? Oh, we have an example, don't we? Air America. No talent, no "art" = gone. So obviously, they are what they are. Now(for some more fun, because this is a multi-layered thing I've done here), do you think that Sorkin is just looking for a free plug, or not?

Not nearly as laughable as you....Biden? :lol: Might be time to lay off the kind bud for a few weeks. Clear the resin out of your brain. Because...apparently you're so high that you don't even comprehend the John Stewart show....which makes at least 15% of it's money on the plethora of Joe Biden gaffes. They could sell "Gaffe" cologne, with a picture of the state of Delaware on it, and most of the country would get the joke. For the rest of PPP: See? I've been saying since 2009 that they will now grasp at every, Mitt Romney gave my wife cancer, straw...and here it is. Short of Ryan having a coniption, rational, objective observers would put the O/U on Ryan ripping Biden at 10...per debate. But who am I kidding? There will be only one debate, on the west coast, at 8pm, if there are any at all.

Never underestimate 4 things: 1. Any public debate's ability to produce noteworthy soundbites: "you sir, are no John Kennedy" was a VP debate. 2. Joe Biden's propensity for unintentional hilarity 3. The American people's hunger for seeing a public humilation, and willingness to laugh at one liners/stupid things pols say, and hammer away with them...even if they are "out of context" 4. Late night TVs need for material. Hehe. Well, Tom, you've been saying that we're all idiots, and that Obama will win by default. But, that's what you were saying last year at this time. Look how far we've come: a non-hack, sincere candidate who actually has experience(...at something, anything ) working with many sorts of people, but more importantly has experience fixing other people's massive F ups, and a sincere, ballsy policy expert who has learned to synthesize, not lie about/gloss over, his positions on every single issue, but can drill down into painful detail on command. Now, if everybody was as dumb as you say....we'd have Newt and Santorum/Pawlenty. But...we don't, do we? Some of the American people made that happen. Not all of them, but a lot did. I watched Ryan's speech this morning. More importantly, I watched Romney's later in the day. That was the best I've seen Romney so far. Seemingly, off the cuff(I said seemingly), but sincerely passionate, finally. Ryan clearly fired Mitt up today, and Mitt looked and made a solid connection with his audience. That alone may be all Mitt needs to win. Lord knows it was the first time I've seen, that he looked like he was willing to fight, and fight hard, for the job. Now is that a coincidence? No. Am I an optimist that believes that people will vote for real ideas and problem solvers, rather than blame-everybody-else, empty suit lawyers? Yeah....I am.

Do yourself a favor, and re-read my....subtext....post. Wait. No,...subtext...don't, I may be...subtext...able to pull this...subtext...off again. I expect Tgreg to eventually figure this out. You on the other hand? I suppose I have either no expectations, because I really don't know, or low expectations. But, it's nice knowing I'm 2 for 2 so far.

No look post based solely on ambiguous thread title: Do we have a new Ref CBA? If not, I'm sorry, but I'm still feeling the panic.

My standard response: threads like these are what make TSW a worthwhile activity. Mr. Crayola has nothing....etc.

Hey, it's not "my" plan. It's not even your plan, or Paul Ryan's plan. It is...the plan. Here's the trouble with DOD: 1. Democrats tend to look at it as another of their jobs programs, no different than HHS, DOE, etc. They also want to send little bits of it all over the world, not solving anything, and often exposing our people to serious risk. See: Somalia. I missed that suck by a whisker. The DOD is not a humanitarian organization. But it's been used that way, way more than it has been used as what it is. So we end up with all kinds of crap that doesn't actually help us win wars, and we end up with all kinds of people drawing paychecks...that don't help us win wars either. 2. Republicans want to use it as way to fund extensive industrial research and weapons programs, in the hopes that not only will it be a source of electoral power for them, but that it will be a real source of power and a handy negotiating tool. They also(usually) never want to send it to actually fight anywhere. So...why bother having it? The thinking being straight out of Sun Tzu: the best warrior is one who never has to fight. That's why it has to be so big and bad. Economically, they want the threat, but they don't want actually have to use it, because that means diverting money from Lockheed Martin, and spending it on ammunition instead. We don't learn anything from 7.62 rounds. So the goal is to keep spending more and more on something we never use, and get better and better weapons that will make the ones we have now worth something on the open market. We make a lot of money on weapons....but we also make a lot of money selling the civilian spinoff applications those weapons systems create. In either case, you aren't going to see real reductions in defense spending...and "your guy" is a complete idiot for listening to the far left on this. He's going to be pilloried on this issiue, and no amount of "OLB is dead" is going to fix that. Most of his own people will NOT support him on this: Do you think Chuck Schumer or whatshername is going the let the air base in Niagara Falls go? Think of the jobs that will be lost. You can talk all you want, when you get done...defense spending will still be what it is, because both parties need it, and have plans for it.

Sometimes I wonder if Sorkin is an idiot or a genius. Not WRT writing. Clearly he's a genius there. However, every time Hollywood puts something like this show out, they have to know now that Rush Limbaughs of the world will pounce, or they are the biggest idiots of all time. Or...are the really that affected, and living in their own little world? Who knows? Thus, if Sorkin's agenda is to socialize unwitting viewers to the liberal POV, then he's clearly an idiot. All he is accomplishing is giving the right's machinery more fuel, and socializing a hell of a lot more people to the conservative POV than he could ever hope to gain. If he's trying to reinforce the base...all he is doing is growing the other side's, not to mention reinforcing the very Republican machine his show decries. Nothing says "listen to my radio show" as well as: "see I was right, the media is biased." However, if Sorkin's agenda is to get Rush Limbaugh et al talking about his show....for free? Then, he's a genius. He's reaching a massive audience, via the Howard Stern model, who will tune in...just so they can be the 54th caller on Monday to say how much they don't like it. Without speaking to Sorkin directly, and observing his answers, it's really hard to say. Of course, as long as we have expert subtex interpreters around...maybe we don't need body language/listening skills?

Hey, at least you didn't link to a hack's work, and did some of your own instead. That's positive. Historically, we have proof that you can't spend/regulate your way to prosperity. From FDR to today, it just doesn't work. This is not opinion, this is fact. The problem that I acknowledge....is that you can't feed a child tonight with economic/historical fact. I get it. Really. However, this level of government spending is killing our currency, which means the method we choose tonight means it's going to cost more to feed that child tomorrow night, regardless of who pays for it. And, the big problem for you is: even if we could spend our way out of the mess....what chance is there that the people we have employed in the Federal government right now, today, could be trusted to use that money properly? We both KNOW that chance is rapidly approaching 0. Even the DOD, who used to have a great reputation for doing more with less...is no longer getting that done...but, with 2 wars, WTF did you expect them to do? As it is they took crap for not having reinforced vehicles, body armor, etc. All of that costs the money...you say you don't want to spend. We have to choose: do we want to be a super-power or don't we? Actually, it's a fools choice: how many more times to we need to learn the lesson that "Hooray! 'The War' is over, now we can go back home and nobody will ever start another war again. We win!", is as naive as you can be?. Even if we choose to spend less now, that just means we will have to spend a lot more, later, to ramp up for whatever the next military commitment is going to be, regardless of who is in power. There is nothing approaching veracity in your link. Notice, I am That's cause I don't take it seriously. It's not even worth the energy that contempt requires. Rationalize? More like scoff. That's correct. I am scoffing, at you, the author, and the silly Wisconsin lightweight. But mostly....most of all? I am laughing at Joe Biden's communication officer tonight. Actually, we should all chip in at PPP and buy that guy a bar tab somewhere. Oh wait, he's a Democrat...then perhaps a gift certificate to a spa or something?

So...after spending most of this thread complaining about nobody being willing to discuss his point...and it being more than a day later since Tom's response... How many think fjl2nd got his questioned answered....and how many still think PPP is ducking him? I can say...from a BI perspective...that we risk much when we go looking for patterns in data, rather than letting them come to us.

Oh don't worry, this time I was the one who wasted their time on a conner link. Somebody else's turn next time. The best is, I doubt conner can make the connection between: 1. Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin 2. Recall was in Wisconsin 3. Boy that recall was an idiot's move....and now Romney intends to fully exploit that idiocy = Wisconsin is now fully in play, and Obama will have to spend resources he can't afford to lose defending it. Obama will probably still get it, but it will cost them dearly. I'm liking this big time. It proves that Romney has more of a killer instinct than some thought. No "safe"(read: boring) Ohio Senators etc.

Speaking of public humiliation....conner is here. Edit: Alright, I'll take you seriously, and read your link. But much will depend on its content, and what I can find out on my own. Edit 2: Done. Now you, again, are an unmitigated moron. That author is a blatant hack...especially using a quote that blames Ryan for the bond downgrade? One guy has to be removed....and that means Ryan was criticized by "many" constituents? The place he held his event is the one doing the charging of the $15...but we don't find that out until halfway down the page? It only happens at this one place...but what is the headline? If you want to talk to Ryan you have to pay $15...(all the time)...or..."during the recess"...actually one time during the recess, but why bother with accuracy, right conner? Something Ryan has nothing to do with...makes him afraid to defend his policy? If Graeme Zielinski was worth Ryan's time....I am certain Ryan would slice and dice this lightweight, and easily defend his policy, any time, any place. :lol: Paul Ryan knows more about policy than you, the unmitigated moron that wrote this article, and Democratic Party of Wisconsin Spokesman(yeah...there's a great place to get a newsworthy comment) will ever know. Edit #3: Upon further review, I am sitting here, asking myself "why the F did you bother? You know better. How many times do you need to touch the oven?" I should have just stayed with: Speaking of public humiliation....conner is here.

I was thinking about "topic tags" for this one. Perhaps: Recall Wisconsin Morons Unions Overreach Reality Budgetary Discipline Monetary Policy Medicare Reform Anyway, I am of course quite pleased with this selection. I think Ryan is an example of what qualified government looks like. Big or small, we need qualified government. On a smaller note: I now have something to look forward to in politics: Ryan Vs. Biden debate. Nothing like a good public humiliation for us to laugh at. Biden's people: all faces in palms, trying to remember which folder their resume is in. On an even smaller note: CMS is also considering stopping by the liquor store tonight.

Meh.... The problem with this...is how easy it is. You can hardly call it an intellectual endeavor. I could go to wherever you work and find fault with everybody. You, well maybe not you specifically, but somebody could come here and find fault with me and mine. It's not difficult. What is difficullt is finding the people you can work with, the ones that are actually capable, and then getting something done despite the idiots. The only thing that makes this guy right: bad results. IMO people like Paul Ryan, and even Dick Durban are the sort that take the job seriously, and try to get things done. The problem is the "safe" people, that come from districts/states that are dominated by their party, can force moderates to do things like pass Obamacare. But, that's a choice. Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to be an idiot. She chooses to be. She chooses her idiocy, and then the moderate Democrats all get voted out of office. But, then a new crop of moderates on the other side are just as weak, don't chair any committes, etc., so their side can force overreaches and they have to go along too, or face being kicked out of the party. The moderates need to look out for their districts/states, so they can't be too beliigerent, and are kinda trapped. The real problem is that currently politics is valued over sound policy. That's how you get Obamacare and things like "meaningful use" , instead of something that will actually work. The other problem is that yeah, government people in general are inferior. The politicians aren't making good policies, and we are over-payng their surrogates in government service who are doing a terrible job of carrying it out. But think about it: if we really want government agencies that dwarf companies like GM in terms of employees....then we will have to pay for the management of those agencies just like we pay top executives. What's the point otherwise? Why have a massive, unwieldly agency that can't deliver? Or, we can choose to not have these massive agencies. We can't have it both ways.

What? No seriously...what the F are you talking about? Edit: Even ...lybob knows better than to bring the incoherent to me. To which crusade do you refer? The only crusades I have ever been on: 1. Crushing the "we could have traded down because somebody on the internet, who has no sources whatsoever, said so" people. 2. Crushing the "I'm too dumb to realize that Dan Snyder is tampering with Aaron Schobel, and then he got busted for doing just that with Lance Briggs" people. 3. Crushing the "I am for gay marriage, and demand you recognize my moral superiority, because I am too dumb to recognize that this issue is a political one used to divide the country and try to get votes, and not a moral one....as has been consistently demonstrated ever since the Congressional beating the Democrats took in 2002 and 2004, and has been futher reinforced(as if we needed it) by Obama's recent "I need the gay/Hollywood money, so I will evolve" change of position on it. That anyone would continue to think of gay marriage as a moral/civil rights issue given the consistent bad behavior of the Democrats on it...just proves how much of an unmitigated moron they are. Now, if you want to accuse me of those crusades...I won't deny any of it. But this? Ridiculous.

I was sitting in the 5 row/45 yard line last night. I ended up stub hubbing these tickets for $45. Where I was, it was like going to a PGA event. No joke. Or, watching the game in an "old guys" bar. We were all talking football and it was kinda fun hanging with the older fans, asking them about the games they've seen, etc. We had skins fans around but they were relatively cool. We had one douche skins fan in the beginning, but ultimately he went elsewhere. Look, all I did was stand up and glare at him(my mom was with me and was giving me crap for that all game, but other Bills fans did it too, so why is it my fault? ). When some of us tried to stand up, other's bitched about it. The thing is, I had some difficulty seeing all the plays, especially in the flat. The people in the front row were standing, and I don't blame them. There were little kids all around me + my mom...so I seriously curtailed the F bombs...mostly But, hell, she dropped one on that 5 yards out of the end zone "touchback" call....so F her and her hypocritical nonsense . Sitting where I was was completely different than what I saw going on in the endzones. Looks like there was some big fights. Saw Redskins fans being hauled out. But also, those gusy had the most spirit. I felt like a tool most of the game because I was just sitting there, clapping. As far as history/what goes on at other stadiums...for every story you tell me about how tame it is elsewhere, I can tell you one about the awfulness I've seen. Like a guy trying to protect his girlfriend, getting jumped by 4 guys in Chicago. The worst trouble has come where the home team has been losing. Philly in the late 90s was far and away worse than I've ever seen anywhere, in any sport, and I've been to soccer games in England. You are lying to yourself if you think Buffalo is anywhere near as bad as Oakland, Philly, or NY Jets games. Losing has a great effect on the behavior. Before we talk about beer, weed, or anything else: losing is what makes most of the difference. Notice that the teams I mentioned were all mostly losing when I went. But ultimately....attempting to judge any of this based on your individual experience is patently retarded. You just ended up in a bad spot, that is all. Go again and you will find something different. It really is random. I sat in the same section 4 different times one year, and it was different every time. As far as pissing goes, I was at the blackout game. You will never find a more wretched hive of urine and villany. I don't want to hear anybody's stories about urination, unless they were at that game. The guy next to me's wife was apologizing to the section for them having to leave...because his sneaks literally made a squishing sound when he walked. I felt bad, but it was hysterical. One poor guy had a stain from his butt to his ankles. The pathetic look on his face of "but why?" makes me laugh to this day. I know it's wrong...but it's funny. I escaped with nothing more than a splash...on my elbow. Turns out the guy next to me was missing the trough high and hitting the corner where it connects to the wall. The good news is it was mostly blowing back onto him....so...take comfort in the fact that there is justice at the Ralph when it comes to pissing. Just remember, in the immortal words of this girl you don't know..."it's better to be pissed off, than pissed on". Hearing bad language is not as bad as having squishy sneaks. Try to remember that, and that you, and especially, your kid, just aren't that special. Your kid's going to hear the same bad stuff every day on the school bus. Just ask them. Acting like this is specific to Bills games...simply makes you naive. Oh, and before you talk about paying money blah, blah...you are paying taxes for school, are you not?

Without a doubt. The definition of sheepish: the head ref walking daintily from midfield towards our sideline on the 4 yards from the endzone touch back call. He started his walk of shame right after the replay. It was kinda fun seeing our whole sideline going ballistic, and him having to walk over there into it. I don't even think Chan threw the flag. If he did, I couldn't see it because we had people throwing all sorts of stuff. Stevie got tackled in the middle of the field...and the ball got there a full second later. How in the hell do you miss that? I guess I need to see it on replay but WTF? The not facemask call. I could see fingers in the mask from the other side of the friggin field. The Chandler?(or Smith) holding call....that was textbook blocking...since he was never behind the player, and had both hands inside and on his shoulder. This was the worst I've seen for quite some time, if not all time.

Dude, now that I'm home, and I've had a chance to check the box score....I find that I was right: we didn't call a single running play until 9:45 of the 2nd quarter...long after the 1s were out of the game. Now, I am I supposed to believe that this is how the O will work this year? Come on. They were trying to throw at every single WR/RB. Fred got 3 reps and was out, with 1 ball thrown his way? Nelson gets 2 reps with 0 balls. We threw at least once to every other guy. This was a practice...with the intention of putting on a vanilla set of plays, intentionally throwing at everybody, and seeing who could make plays even though the D knew what was coming. In contrast, the Redskins didn't do any of that with their 1st offense. No. They ran a gameplan, and I don't blame them because RG3 needs a lot of work. They might as well start now, and he has to be the focus. Instead, for us, this was a painfully obvious WR/RB/TE ball catching/rout running clinic....and certainly not "what can we have Fitz do to beat the Redskins". Judging Fitz on this agenda just isn't accurate. We weren't running our offense as much as we were seeing "can this guy beat his guy on this kind of rout?".

If there ever was a "test guys in situations" game I have ever seen, especially in person, it was this game. Defense: First off WTF? Why didn't Kelvin Sheppard start the game a Mik? Scott McKillop was in there for the 1st 2 series. I thought Sheppard was held out....then he came in for the next 3. McKillop was OK on the run, but he was burned hard core 2 times on some of the down field coverage. Example 1: I, and I assume others who have a marginal understanding of what is happening in games, knew that they were going to throw to the TE in the 1st qtr(the one big play) They also had 3 WRs(or 2WR/2TE) in the game--> Instead of bringing in Bryan Scott and playing our nickel look, we stayed with our anti-run team, and let Morrison try to cover that TE down the field. He was close, but not close enough. Look, I don't claim to have the greatest football knowledge, but I KNEW that play was going where it was, and I have a hard time believing Chan/Wanny didn't. If it's a real game, they at least call time and get Scott on the field, if not send him on the blitz. Example 2: When they did finally get Scott on the field..."surprise"...it was against the Skins obviously intentional set of run plays. So then we got to see what happens when the nickle plays against the run. Example 3: We blitzed 1 time that I can remember, and it was a delayed/run blitz (Barnett) that was nullified by a sweep going the other way. So, we basically had the wrong alingment/package in for the entire time the 1s and 2s were in there. It was like hitting the wrong button in Madden....over and over. It's too much of a coincidence, and too many instances of it, for me to believe it wasn't intentional. IF I was a coach, I would want to know things like "what will the damage be if I call the wrong defense and/or what exactly can our anti-pass, 3rd and 8 D do against a HB sweep?". This seems to be the most likely explanation, as I have a hard time believing that Wanny sees pro-style offense/I formation personnel running onto the field....and says...."lets bring in the nickel package". But that's what he did, over and over. Offense: We ran the ball...after the 1s were long gone...in the 2nd quarter. I just got home, and didn't see the stats, but I am fairly certain we didn't give Fred/CJ a single hand off. When we did start running it, we were getting large chunks of yards...but then, seemingly on cue, they started throwing again. Then, also as if on cue, there was that riduculous "run it in the red zone series". Until we need a 1st down...and we get a penalty instead...so we go back to running it again. Try and tel me that wasn't intentional. The 17 year old kid behind me knew it was a run call, hell everybody knew, and yet they kept doing it??? Yeah, that was "beat the man in front of you even though he knows the play". The only reasonable answer to this seems to be exactly: put people in disadvantaged situations and see what happens. I saw that play right in front of me. Graham needs to lean to find the ball and make a play on it, regardless of the rout. But also, that ball was severly underthrown. There was another instance where the ball was in the air, underthrown, and he kept running the rout instead of coming back and making a play on the ball. You can't trust a guy that is going to go full robot, and only hit a spot on the field, regardless of where the ball is. Scott Chandler, with his "despite your being right on my hip, I will catch it over your head anyway" is what Graham needs to do. For now, it's realistic to expect that we just want to see Grahm run the correct rout, and we have to hope that making adjustments to the ball will come.

Perhaps the words "bigger picture" are also questionable? Or downright idiotic? To which bigger picture do you refer? Do we actually live in a world where doing a stressful job, and not exercising...has no bearing compared to the karmactic destructive forces wrought due to working for a guy who doesn't like gay marriage? What exactly is the message here? I don't get how an idiot's corrolary ends up being amusing...unless we are simply laughing at the idiot who made it. The contrapositive: If we see the CEO runing around with a black armband, with the words "fags killed my PR guy" on it.....then we will have a matching pair of idiot corroallies....won't we?

Perhaps they should "settle" on editing their own "writing"? Or settle on getting an editor? I honestly have no idea what they are trying to say here. Did he mean "not" settling? Why would we not settle...for the best of the best? Edit: Ah...I get it..."settle for ONLY". Still....crap. The first part of the sentence still doesn't fit with the second. Adding commas doesn't fix incoherent. Or, is this the "everyone can write better than me, therefore, everyone is qualified" approach? Not a very good effort on a "why you should have anything at all to do with us" page. Sites like this is why we like wawrow, and tend to overlook his definciencies in other areas.