OCinBuffalo

Can't believe I'm going to bother saying this to crayonz: when you can't argue with the content...you attack the messenger, huh, crayonz? And, no, I haven't touched the stuff for years. I'm not in the "you have an expense account, so get me some strippers and blow" business anymore. Now, it's the "you have an expense account, so take all of us to Friday's, so we can all get umbrella drinks, and make everyone there assume you are our gay friend" business.

Who is producing my product? Answer: I did. Past tense. There is no further need for development. That is because what I designed is perfect(and you thought my last was arrogant ) . That is not an opinion, that is a quantifiable fact. We have spent 0 time/money on improving the core, and have released 1(one) version, as designed. Quantifiable. So actually, it's not arrogant at all, it's the truth...tough schit if you don't like it. I think people at Apple have lots of talent. That they exist, doesn't mean I don't. Your dopey article above says I can't exist. Yet, here I f'ing am. I think most plumbers I have worked with and deployed software for, never mind met, have more talent than you. Yes, like your posts, it's the same thing over and over, but, at least they have to do it in different conditions with different constraints. Your work here is rarely your own, there...Mr. Cut and Paste. At least plumbers mostly do their own work. Since I worked at the highest levels at GM(edit: if we are talking manufacturing in general, we can add Boeing, St. Gobain, and other smaller firms to that list), and the lowest, I know more about the existence of assembly line workers than you do, and I know more about what happens in the CEOs office too. I sure as hell know an idiot VP when I see one as well-->paying janitors $70 an hour, but only hiring a small amount of them, and working them like crazy/paying a lot of overtime, in an effort to avoid having to pay benefits(health care, pension, etc.) for additional janitors, because it looks like a good idea on paper, allows you to "prove" you "care about your people", and the union went along because they want the "look, we got $70/hr for a janitor" story....is idiotic. Especially when you keep turning them over, and/or they keep having accidents at work and at home. But yeah, I don't know anything about an industry I've billed ~$40 million in, , according to you, an unmitigated moron. Yes, and you also might be a good guy, be a good drinking buddy, somebody that's cool to work out with, have a hot girlfriend, or...who knows? a hot boyfriend. I don't doubt any of it. But, none of that is relevant to my point. None of that says you have the ability to conceive an original idea. None of that says you have the confidence, based on experience, to try to execute it, and the mental strength to stick through that process. If you think that people like me don't exist, because some clown on a website, who has never even tried to be me says so, most likely because he lacks the ability, doesn't like that fact, and writes crap like this in a lame effort to avoid admitting it, then you're mentally weak for not seeing through it and/or considering the source. You may be a good guy, but you are still, mentally weak. If you think that the only reason I have been able to take my original thinking, and apply it effectively, is because I exploited someone, then you are insulting me, but more importantly you are insulting the people I work with. On their behalf-->F you. If you think that real entrepreneurship and innovation, and the real individuals, not always teams, who execute it, are a figment of imagination....then, I am a figment of imagination as well. In an effort to address this, I have gone out of my way to insult you, and provide a specific, real-world basis for said insults, so that you are left with no doubt in your mind that I am as real as can be.

Eventually, eventually we will realize that drug laws we've had are largely an emotional argument. Talk all you want, when you get done, all you'll have is ultimately an emotional argument. Sure facts can be drawn in and nicely put in place, but the root argument will still be emotional. I am merely patiently waiting for you, and the rest the emoters, to finish your tantrums, calm down, and see reason. I am aware it will take years, and I am also aware some tantrums will never end, because ending them would mean admitting they were pointless, and that you were wrong.(ahem, Bill O'Reilly) You would have thought that we would have learned from the 20s. You would have thought that we would have learned that locking people up is not a valid response to them offending our sensibilities. Our sensibilities just aren't that valuable, and become completely insignificant when the cost of defending them requires us to voluntarily put large sums of cash in the hands of criminals and/or create a vehicle to fund violence all over the world. That's what the alcohol "war" was all about: a way to lock up the immigrants who dared to offend our sensibilities by being catholic, and new, and shabby, and enjoying their booze. That's what the drug "war" was all about: a way to lock up the people who were tired of uptight, boring and uninspired, being the new normal, and who not only offended our sensibilities, but dared to question the judgmental, yet hypocritical, phony moral superiority, and the mass denial of reality, domestic violence, and anything else that wasn't "pleasant", of the 50s. As always moderation is the key. Too many hippies, or too many squares, pushing the pendulum too far to one side or the other, is problematic. But, in all cases, making something illegal, and opening the door to criminals, is NEVER a solution to anything. It certainly will not make parents better at their jobs, cops better at theirs, or people in general better at making good choices. The solutions to those problems have 0 in common with drugs being illegal or not. The only thing drugs being illegal does effectively: create an underground economy that draws a lot of good people into bad choices, because it's so lucrative.

Ok, but remember, you asked for it. I originally included this next section in the post above, but I figured you would say what you did, and, I didn't want to hear "post too long", etc. When you say what you said, it merely reminds me that you've been where you have, and I have been where I have. You haven't really been around truly powerful people. I have. And, I have had the benefit of being there by request, not by compulsion. Therefore, I understand the game, as I was there as an objective observer whose reason for being there was to solve problems, not genuflect. The interesting thing is that, while your "psychopathological" conclusion is blatantly false, your analysis of "protect the winnings" is accurate. It's just a game, nothing more. However, it's a game that can have serious consequences if you lose, and, it's a game you can never truly win. The main objective, is to keep playing. I can prove it with real world examples, but that's a long post.

I am the living, breathing embodiment of people like you being completely full of schit in every way. That is because every aspect of my existence contradicts every argument that is listed above. I relish this status...up to the point that I know that if people like you ever gain power, you will have to kill me to prove that I don't exist. But remember, LABillz is first, because he is even worse for you than me. Ask him. All your post proves: this is what happens when the weak/non-responsible/incapable express their opinion on business/economics. Christ, off the top of my head, there are at least 3 other posters on this board who need only exist as they are to prove the above to be patently false. Learn this now: you can choose to be us, if you have the talent. Or, you can choose to be one more weak, non-responsible clown, that blames everyone else but themselves for their weakness and lack of ability. Hint: you'll be a lot happier if you can find a way to learn what you are good at, maximize that, know your limitations, make peace with them, and understand that while you may not be fully responsible for where you've been, you and only you are responsible for where you are going.

Douche! The internet is the ultimate decision support system. Rather than fear it/be upset by it, you should be thankful. Would we ever have found out about Dan Rather's blatant BS, without the internet? We may have....but it would have been 4 months after the election, with John Kerry winning. The internet will evolve, just as it has so many times already. Right now, it is like the wild west, with yankee traders and the renaissance and French Revolution mixed in as well. It's chaos. But remember, people will eventually gravitate towards order, and those who will provide solutions that create order will profit, while those that create chaos will eventually lose. It's just a matter of time. However, one thing is certain: any government involvement will retard this evolution, and, when said government activity inevitably fails, things will be worse than they were before it. Think Russia, post-Communism. In the meantime, just do what they did in the Wild West: carry a "gun", know how to use it, and most people won't mess with you. I couldn't care less about party. I do care about people that refuse to learn from history, refuse to admit their mistakes, and are willing to choose failure for the sake of consistency. I do care about false premises driving false logic driving false conclusions that lead us into things like considering Obamacare as a good idea. It is intellectually dishonest. But not only that, when we prove it to be such, I am very concerned that a group of people would be OK with the tactics, and payoffs, that were used to force Obamacare upon us, even after Mass. gave a Republican Teddy Kennedy's seat for the express purpose of blocking it. The second that election occurred, the right thing to do was accept defeat, and look to build a consensus as to what to do about health care reform. That didn't happen, because these people are fascists. Their behavior IS defined by that word. It is not "name-calling" to call something what it is. We, as Americans, who derive our identity from the true meaning of that term, are therefore obligated to fight their efforts to restrict liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. If we refuse, we don't deserve what our forebears worked so hard, and risked so much, to provide for us. Party is irrelevant. If any group decides that they know better than us what we can do with our lives, bodies, work, money, etc. it is our duty to fight them, and defeat them. The role of government is not to support the tyranny of the minority, or majority, or tyranny of any kind. I'd be just as willing to fight evangelicals who want to ban all abortion. They have no right to decide what the next 18 years of 1 or more person's life will look like. That is just as tyrannical as Obamacare. It must always come down to the consent of the governed. Please understand: he reason I mostly attack the left, is that they mostly want to operate without our consent. It really is as simple as that. But see, I don't feel "fired up" when I say these things. Why would I feel "fired up" by simply telling the truth? This fires me up = reading a manual on SQL. The people who may get "fired up" by these simple truths, are just flat out wrong, and their emotional response proves it.

This is the only point here. The rest is irrelevant to making a hard decision in practically real time, knowing that the consequences of failure are not only serious for you, but more so for the people who actually have to carry out the order. There are plenty of other terrible national security F-ups to be critical about with this President. There is 0 reason to try and marginalize the one right one. That merely makes it look like you're a clown who can't tell the difference. For example, leaking secrets for political gain. I am much more concerned about a President who deliberately breaks faith with the people who carry out the orders, than I am about one who makes the wrong call in good faith. Man...if I could get my hands on some of those. Hilarity. Merry Fistmas. All of it. First one goes to my now brother-in-law, with a Bills sticker on it, and a "Hey Pats* Fans! Enjoy our new line!" card.

Troll reply: Because picking on the intellectually weak is fun. Real reply: Because picking on the intellectually weak is....necessary? For fun, and other reasons. Look most of us do this because we can. Many of us do this because it's fun. Some of us do this because we are sadistic, masochistic, or worse, looking for attention/trying to be seen as "more moral and compassionate" (Edit: and have made the choice to come to an obscure politics board on a football board for that affirmation). A few of us do this because we are unwilling to let blatant lies/distortions/logical flaws go by. Fewer still do it purely for the free reign to insult people. But they, along with the "the only purpose I serve on this board is to be the human RSS interface for DailyKos and Huffington Post" posters are banned sooner or later.

Thereby screwing labor over in perpetuity. Now, did they sell their equity....their assets....or their liabilities....to Unilever? These things are all interchangeable of course, so you can sell any one of them to somebody for them to gain ownership of the company. But, they have to pay you in anti-dollars, so that there's no way labor gets screwed over by them getting surplus value in this deal. If they paid you in dollars, and the ice cream business does well, or they actually know how to run a company, then there's a good chance that surplus value will be created. However, whatever you sell them, it will turn into equity on the balance sheet, via the Clownasskins accounting treatment. Of course there's the gross future value of assets to consider, and adjusting that for surplus value is always a challenge. That was the first thing we learned in our 4 month training program in the Big 6. That, along with correctly fixing value on the Spurper scale, making sure to account for the velocity and volume of each load, etc. The women always seemed to have a easier time with that. Edit: And, while I'm sure that the pet rock guy was a genius, that would be nothing compared to whether he sold that business to Unilever.

...because the editors of the national section didn't think it was worthy of their section, and the local guys did? Please. 120 guys who are pretty much convinced that what they say should be heard by all on a daily basis...keeping honest to God secrets? Ridiculous. Especially when the topics are things like: who should be Vice President. This is the country club, and no, not the "we own car dealerships, flower shops, or are doctors" country club. This is the real deal, "nobody wants to be thrown out for even the slightest hint of impropriety" country club. Bilderburg, the ultimate resume builder/relevance maintainer.

I think I have this figured out. (Long, funny, story as to how, but a tangent). The term "surplus value" that MDP espouses is a lame, made-up word....for wealth. Wealth, as in owning the gold mine, rather than merely owning some gold. The intent here is to have you be horrified, by somebody who intentionally sets out to create wealth....actually creating it. Rather than calling it what it is: wealth, they are trying to newspeak it into "surplus value". We can always dispel ridiculousness like this with Ben and Jerry, which has the added benefit of countering leftist nonsense, with leftists. Do people spend 5x the price of other ice cream on Ben and Jerry's because of the value of their ice cream? Of course not. Even if we account for "ingredients" there's no way in hell the market supports that markup on that alone. People buy ice cream at that price because of the inherent value Ben and Jerry added to the brand - via the leftist nonsense printed on it. Fittingly, if you are dumb enough to pay $5+ for ice cream you can get for $1.50, you are dumb enough to buy into what's written on the label. The cycle of idiocy is completed by you buying more...since the label tells you that doing so means you are doing a good thing. Rewarding idiots for being idiotic is just as good as rewarding smart people for being smart. Now, did Ben and Jerry get wealthy, oh, sorry, "surplus value"thy, from their ability to exploit labor, and cows, or from their ability to market expertly? (I wonder what Ben and Jerry think about Michelle Obama and vice versa.) Or, for every $1 of Pet Rock product sold, how much value did the labor add? The act of putting a rock in a box, along with assorted plastic utensils, and closing said box...maybe .01? Now, how much value did the "inventor" of the idea of putting a rock in a box and selling it to people add? Yeah...$0.99. The surplus value/wealth was created by the marketing genius who dreamed up the Pet Rock, not the box of rocks who puts the rock in the box. Our next task to put an end to the box of rocks trying to tell us that wealth is actually..."surplus value"....and that labor is the only entity that can add value to a product.

What? I had to go with the smell thing, right? "This is basically the liberal-hack version of a religious prophesy. If Scott Walker isn’t sacrificed to appease the gods then, yea, a thousand years of darkness shall fall upon the land."

Just curious...is this a "give the guy a real chance" post?.....or..... is it a "I am trying to cover my ass now, because before the draft, I posted: Bills should draft Floyd at #10 over 9000 times" post?

So....when I attempt to make him think before posting...I'm a narcissist...but...when you do it... Unrecognized, yet blatant, double standards...is indicative of...is it narcissism, or egomania? Perhaps we should ask Chef. What happens if you don't care enough to hate yourself? Or, what happens if you are just mostly bored with yourself, but don't care enough to do anything about it? This has to be the dumbest post you've had in this thread. Imagine that for a second...given the "body of work" of your idiocy in this thread. If I was your accounting teacher, I'd kick your ass. When do you take accounting? Well, then you will learn this: capital creates equity, lending creates assets(loans). They are NOT the same thing. I am not here to educate you, your ****ty professors are. Perhaps it's time for you to ask them why they are doing such a poor job.

For the last time: Iran's government is predicated on the very real, very serious belief, however ridiculous, that provoking world war/apocalypse is the only way for the identity of the 12th Prophet or Mahdi, to become known, and, that he will lead "the Islamic armies"...whatever they are...in that total war. They believe that his leadership...alone...will prove to be the ultimate weapon, and that therefore victory is guaranteed. Now, as far as what is rational and irrational, at the same time? Yeah, this is certainly 1st place. If you believe that you can't lose, provided that you merely carry out one act of war to kick things off, then doing it is perfectly rational. However, to the rational observer, believing in this crap, especially the part that the leadership of a single commander, not excellent leaders at all levels, not weapons capability, training, logistical superiority, etc., will nullify all of these? Yeah, nothing could be more irrational. The worst part about this: it's not even original. There have been lots of "Mahdis" ever since Muslim countries were so easily defeated and colonized. They were defeated precisely because of their peoples' prolonged exposure to irrational beliefs. That means they didn't invent the airplane, machine gun, or railroad, even though they had a 700 year head start in engineering. Instead, they sat around "studying" their own beliefs, and themselves, and learned: nothing, or, fairy tales. And, you wonder why I am against "identity majors"? Look what "the study of myself" did to the Muslim world. However, recycling the Mahdi story is a rational act, as it seems to be a good vehicle for getting a lot of idiot Muslims to throw their lives away on behalf of whomever can successfully tell it. Again, rational and irrational, at the same time. They believe that retaliation/minor skirmishes WILL NOT bring about the Mahdi. Hence the need for nukes. So, little to no response is in fact a rational expected result of an Israeli attack. Why waste the resources if the Mahdi won't show? Better to save them for when he does. That's rational though, if you believe this fairy tale to be true. Now, since we are on the topic of the rational vs. irrational...which is which? Obama decided not to support the 2009 Iranian uprising....because he believed his expert ability to negotiate with the current, nutjob regime was the superior approach. ...lybob...talking in terms of rationality....hysterical. Before you criticize this board, perhaps you should take a look at Team Obama? Without their aggressive stupidity on this topic, there would be nothing to discuss.

"The liberal media, we should have expected to find them holding Obama's leash. We recognized their foul stench when he was brought on board".

In this case however, I would condone acts of turditry. Perhaps "getting medieval on his ass" could be interpreted as building a trebuchet that launches turd? That, I would doubly condone. First, for the engineering prowess, and second, for the Great Jsutice.

One thing you've made clear: when you double respond to my posts, with a 4 hour gap in between, on a holiday weekend? That means that at the very least they are making you think. Therefore, they are operating as designed, and so are you. Perhaps Darin shouldn't kill you after all. It is as I said in my first response: guys like you suck because we will have to spend a long time de-turding you. This board is easily up to the challenge, the question is whether we want to bother.

Yeah, really. A new chewtoy is fun for a while, but then it's time to chuck it when it's all chewed up.

Until Germany pays for its own defense, this is merely an illusion. Until you accept this fact, you are merely naive. Who's stopping Russia, or China for that matter, from rolling their tanks? The EU? Where would dumbass Chomsky be if that were to happen? He'd be the same place he already is: hiding out on some college campus, hoping that nobody remembers all the dumbass videos he made. And we already have empirical evidence of this in: Where are all the college professors, the "dream team", who made up Obama's "economic council"? There were all going to show us how "intelligent () and reasonable () people manage the economy", so where are they? Answer: back hiding out on college campuses they came from, hoping nobody remembers how badly the ideas they have been preaching for 30 years FAILed. But yeah, we should listen to college professors/the non-responsible, whose job it is to never actually solve anything, or be responsible for anything. When confronted with the need to get something done today: Its always better to listen to some non-responsible person talk theory...than it is to listen to a seasoned professional speak from experience. Hehe. And that's just it: you and Chomsky have something in common, neither of you have any experience being responsible, in economics, high finance, or business in general. The good news for you is: you can change that. The question for you is: why are you listening to a guy who can't?

Oh...so you do want my attention, and now you've proven it.

Any study that doesn't include a global adjustment for the very real biological fact that women have the kids, and spend more time at home as a result, is retarded before it even starts. Why is this so difficult to understand?

The truth does hurt, doesn't it. Perhaps you should come back when you have the ability to handle it. But honestly? I'm beginning to doubt whether you could handle me lying either, or be able to tell the difference. I know, right? With the clown that currently holds that office? IF we are going to be nasty, then: Talking about Cheney is yet another distraction designed to make the monthly ass-raping Biden gives them hurt less. They have a gag-ball with Cheney's name on it. And, after Biden is done, they take it off and it reminds them to talk about Cheney.

Perhaps. However, if it causes consideration of correlation vs causation, then, it has high propensity for being 3.5 times longer than the average thread. Bill's position, in general, has been historically proven to be accurate in many threads, long before this one. However, in this instance: Most mocks had us taking a LT. Hell Holy God had us taking a LT.....but not even he had us taking Kalil. No, everybody had us taking Martin or Glenn, until the very end, when it became clear that neither of those guys were 1st round talent. We still got the LT most of us thought they would take at 10. The draft doesn't happen in a vacuum. Therefore, given our position, and the players available, I don't see how the Gilmore pick was stupid by any definition. So, what would you have us do? Take Glenn at #10 for the sake of symbolism? There's no way the Gilmore pick is stupid. The only thing that remains to be seen is: if Gilmore pans out, will the Bills try to extend him early, or will they let him walk? That's how the cycle EA describes will be broken, and that's how we avoid the endless recycling of DBs. Spiller showed big time last year. Does anybody still doubt that pick...objectively, not "I am still trying to be right"? With an "unknown to them" 28-9 year old RB on the team in Jackson, and the consensus "best player on O" at #5, I don't see how you can fault these guys for taking Spiller. How were they, or any of us, supposed to know that Fred was for real, at that point in time? Consider the team they inherited. They had to be thinking "we need a stud RB, and, we've been ordered to get rid of Lynch, and, we have no clue what to make of Fred, and, we have holes everywhere, therefore, we need a playmaker". I don't see how anyone can be critical of a new FO looking to make the team better instantly with a guy like Spiller. Did I mention, he showed big time last year? All you have to do is apply the same thinking to the QB position, and see the validity of it: "'we need somebody right now who can make an immediate difference, we'll worry about the long term later". They were in desperation mode when they put this team together, and it just so happens that those moves are now paying off. Did they get lucky? I dunno. Seems like a lot of coincidences...to many...to be based solely on luck.

Hmmm. Did you miss Magox's post? It's only 5-6 above this one. Sounds like specifically, and more importantly genuinely, pursuing an aggressive, "everything" energy policy will specifically help high energy use companies to specifically keep their jobs here....is Romney's vision. I wonder why Halperen didn't bother to ask Romney about Labor and Trade? Could it be that he didn't want to give Romney another 2 easy ones? Also: notice Romney is talking in terms of 10 years...not promising that Green Jobs will solve all our problems in less than three? I know who Romney is: he's not the clown that makes ridiculous promises, and tries to keep them by trading the cow for magic beans. (Yeah, 2nd time I've used that...but, it's perfect for this) Romney was originally a consultant. That means he doesn't care nearly as much about promises, as he does about results.