OCinBuffalo

Perhaps you haven't considered the less nefarious causes behind this? Every year the same people do the schedule. This means that after so many years of doing this, they are bound to find ways to make it easier, and, to also account for things like what to do with a team who just played Monday Night on the road, across the country, etc. Like everything else, I am sure that patterns have formed, shortcuts, etc., and that these people have seen how to use them to make the job go faster. One of those patterns, since the Pats have had to have their bye week later than everybody else in the division, for literally all 9 years we are talking about here, is probably to bye them before they play all of their division opponents the second time...or, at least try to. Meanwhile, since the Bills have more often than not had to have their bye early....they are the most eligible team for the Pats** to play after the bye....as were the Dolfags last year.* It might be as simple as that. *I have a "every 3rd time I refer to a team in our division, I modify their name appropriately", rule. Hey, it's not every time. It's every 3rd time.

Assad having his weapons destroyed in the field, by people who know how to destroy only those weapons, and not the houses, etc. next to them, is optimal and is probably the only feasible thing. Handing over the keys to a...let's just call it "mobile artillery vehicle", and training Achmed to shoot it within 3 miles of the target over the course of 2 months is hard enough. Expecting Achmed not to cause collateral damage, even after 6 months, is a pipe dream. Chances are he will never care, and will blame you when he Fs up. Such is the life of most SF(Green Berets) officers. Trying to do this on a massive level was difficult in Afghanistan. Doing it in populated countries like Syria with real cities? Nope. You realize that you are now referring to the same people who advised Clinton to let Bin Laden get away? Those experts? On the State side, you mean the people who told Obama we could simply talk to people, and that would stop them from being the a-holes? Like, today...when N. Korea launched a rocket they said they wouldn't if we gave them food? Where's that engagement crap now, morons? Experts? These people have exactly 0 credibility left. Hillary is about to schit a brick, and start cracking heads, and who can blame her? I guarantee that Susan Rice better start looking for a new job. Yeah, that Susan Rice....the current UN ambassador, and the very person who specifically advised Clinton on Bin Laden. The same assclown who came up with the "engagement" plan. Because they rely on ideology, and not on competence, and common sense, the Obama NSC is paralyzed. They won't listen to the professional military, except for the empty suit yes men they have installed, and there's nobody left on their bench who knows what to do. Doing the right thing here...requires contradicting the nonsense ideology they have gradually deluded themselves into since the Cold War. Good luck! Well, get prepared, because you asked..... (can't wait to hear the whining about length of post, as if a military campaigns can be explained in a sentence.) We do....WTF I wanted us to do, with Iraq. First, what we did in Iraq instead of what I wanted to do: re-fight WWII, as though some big tank action was going to happen, and we were repelling an invader from the countryside. The French wanted their entire country liberated and were just as offended by German presence 30, or 300 miles away, as they were 1 mile. Defining the Problem Forget all that. The Middle East is a tribal culture in general. They think in terms of acres, not square miles, not highways. If you blow by at 30 mph and "liberate" all these acres, treating them all the same, without understanding that each one has meaning for them, you achieve nothing. And, these folks think in terms of decentralized little fiefdoms, and villages, etc. If you go kill somebody 30 miles away, and don't kill anybody less than one mile away, that only proves what the "less than one mile away" people have been saying about the "30 miles away" people for years -->"told ya they ain't schit". This pervasive medieval thinking and mindset, requires compatible medieval military objectives. Otherwise, "victory" by our definition, has no meaning, by theirs. Solution Therefore, I build castles. Yes that may sound ridiculous, but think about it: what is a castle? A safe place. I don't try to make the entire country safe by driving tanks up a single road in 72 hours. Instead, I land Marines and I capture the right amount of acres, secure them, and STOP. Like chess, it is now the other side's move.....not really, but in the minds of the people it is. After all, this is land where chess comes from, and when people ask WTF did I stop, this is what I say. While they are thinking, I build my castle...I offer food, medical and security to anyone who will come to my safe area. I guard my walls and I let the people who are in my fief see that, and even fight along side if they want. I support their local tribal leader, with the ultimate goal of having him take over the fief....as my vassal, sort of. Above all I take my time, and I don't move until I am sure these people are pacified, but also safe. Then, I attack again, and create another fief, and so on. I get whomever I need to help me constantly understand the tribal politics, and use that understanding to very carefully select the next fief, based on political reality, keeping the us vs. them to a minimum, and refocusing that onto the enemy, etc. I make sure it's known that people in fiefs have it a lot better than those who aren't(psy ops job #1). And, pretty soon, the next time I go capture a fief...I roll in and find everything already set up and ready to go. Now I have people asking be the next fief, so I tell them "clear out the enemy and we'll see". People love order. If I show them that I am bringing order, but I am doing it slowly, and in a manner such that they can see the difference acre by acre....I'm there. Now, I start training those who want to fight, and raise militia out of my fiefs. I use the militia mostly for securing their own land, and a few select guys to start forming a field grade officer cadre so that many fiefs can work together if necessary. As each fief gets farther and farther away from the front line, I allow them to desert, and go about their lives. Now they can say they defended their land....as men, which is a high honor, but I am not asking them to go 30 miles and defend somebody else's, unless they want to. I may even form a battalion of these guys, and they will be the starting point for the new national army. This army rapidly becomes veteran, because I demand that they fight in every engagement. Sooner or later, I draw the enemy into a major engagement, because he can't melt away into my secured fiefs, unless he deserts(bonus!), and while he can run back into unsecured area...every time he does, he looks very bad to the "less than 1 mile away" people who live there(psy ops job #2). Sooner or later, he is going to refuse to go out, because he's tired of coming home and admitting he ran away...for the umpteenth time. Sooner or later his commanders are going to realize that they have to defeat me in the field, or by this time next week, they will have no army left. Up till now, we've been doing this with a Marine division and Army SFs, Rangers, etc. As soon as the enemy forms for a major engagement, now we need the full weight of the Army. Ergo, an armored infantry division has been rolling along behind our line of fiefs, waiting for the big fight, since right after we secured the first fief. But they aren't blasting through people's houses. You aren't trying to blitz them, so you can afford to send them through slowly and carefully. They are our Queen on the chessboard, moving behind the pawns...which is doubly appropriate, as Infantry is the Queen of Battle. The last thing you want is to "shock and awe" people who are more curious than anything, and are shocked plenty by your command vehicle. Keep the big guns back. Let em know you've got em, but keep the tanks away from the kids wherever possible. Here's the part you won't like. Make no mistake, I'd love it if the attrition of the fief tactic works all by itself. However, if and when that major battle is engaged, we show no mercy. This part is just as critical as the rest. They have to surrender, publicly, and swear not to take up arms again on whatever book is appropriate. If they try to melt into a fief after they lose...that's fine, the gradual fief approach means we will find them. Leaving them with no choice but death or personal surrender? That's how you win in chess and that's how we win this. I will keep prisoners for as long as it suits me, until we process every single one for possible war crimes, and I make sure all this is known in the unsecured territory as well(psy ops job #3). They will leave my prison camp thankful that they fought with honor, and can return home as honorable in the eyes of their citizens. Or, they will leave it feet first, for fighting dishonorably. No exceptions. The machinations of the process will be up to the people, but the 2 outcomes are fixed. It has to be that way, so that the country can heal. That's what I would do. Above all, it requires patience, and constant improvement, again, like chess. Not reckless aggression for aggression's sake. This strategy takes more time, but costs a hell of lot less in money and lives. Who cares how long it takes, if we are always winning, and are sure that we don't have 30k ex-soldiers melting into the population and attacking our now-impossible to defend supply lines. It kills all the dead-enders, or puts them in prison. And it minimizes civilian casualties, as they are protected by each "castle". And, finally no, this is not the "firebase" strategy from Viet Nam. That was about a misguided artillery officer protecting his artillery. This is about creating castles that protect the people.

I dunno. I'd probably vote for you, given the choices we usually get. However, that would be on the condition that you hired Dana Perino to de-Newt you every 2 days. Np. Now, tell me how you the TEA party figures it doesn't get a governing guy in Romney, who won't kill off the spending they hate? Why on earth would the TEA party do anything other than fully, vocally, support Romney, when you consider the alternative? They don't care about social stuff. Or, at least I've never heard a TEA party "organizer", as they don't have a leader, talk about it much. Right now: it's highly likely that the House and Senate are Republican. IF Romney wins, do you think that we will see spending increases like we had when Bush had both houses? I could be wrong, but I think Republicans have gotten the TEA party message, and, Ryan has made it OK to talk about SSI...so...what? Yes. I bet this is the primary reason for the liberal exodus....not many of them have Buftex thick skin, or Buftex honor.

And i think we all know whose fault that is....after all, he probably inherited that IPad.....

Does no one understand proper problem solving methodology? Hint: First we start with defining the problem(s)....properly. We don't jump to conclusions, or solutions, or debate about either, before we have agreement on what the problems are, whether they even exist, and their scope, scale, dependencies, etc. So, here we are, 6 pages later, and I have yet to hear a quantifiable definition of the problem(s). Are there problems with the Ralph as is? If so, what are they...using real #s, not what somebody thinks/may have said? Honestly. In of all places WNY, and NYS in general, have none of you learned what happens when clowns insist that we deliver "solutions", without trying them directly to properly defined problems, without any way to accurately measure the success of these "solutions" going forward, and no mechanism for shutting failing non-solutions down without a massive political fight? How many more monorails do you clowns want to buy? (Edit: or trains on Main Street for that matter? Clowns) How many more times do NYS people need to learn this the hard way? "Hey look, somebody said that's a fire! Well, it could be! .....what to do? What to do? I know, let's try to put it out by throwing big bags of money at it! It didn't work last time, but that means it will this time...because...because of the law of averages! We can't be wrong every time! No, we don't need to bother with how the fire started, or if it even is a fire, we have tons of money, so here, take a bag and throw! Better still let's hire a bunch of state employees we can never fire to throw the bags of money. We created jobs!" Enough. Show me the problem(s) in a quantifiable manner or STFU. Then, show me the solution, and how we will know it's working, or STFU. Also, show me why other solutions, if you have even considered them, are not as good. And finally, tell me what our exit is out of the solution if it doesn't work, or how we can mitigate losses and recoup some of our investment, or seriously, STFU. Again we see what happens when "solutions" don't come from people who do solutions for a living: We end up having a debate over whether a dome is "cool" or not.

Yeah....but normally that depends on the next guy being worse, right? An argument can be made that the current guy: 1. Who supports terror 2. Has chemical/bio weapons 3. Is a surrogate of Iran 4. Is killing his own people indiscriminately pretty much means the next guy can't be worse.

Here we go again...just when you think the Obama campaign actually did something marginally right, for once = successfully turning the religious freedom issue into a women's rights issue.... They find a way to F that up, re-open the debate, and attack not just religious women, but now all stay at home mom's in general? Another example of: if you want something done right, put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite. My prediction: this costs Obama 5 points with women in the next polls...with women now being polled specifically to see the effect of this....hysterical.

Hey assclown, don't put me in that group. You are thinking about me responding to Frenkle's frequent use of homophobic barbs. I don't require calling someone gay to make a point. I do require it if, as in Frenkle's case in this thread, it is necessary. But for the most part, it's lame and unnecessary, for me anyway.... You said Romney can't represent the TEA party...because they are so different, and, that now WE are spinning that as though Romney was who we wanted all along, etc. I argued effectively against those "points". Now you are telling me you didn't say this? Ok...then what did you say? See? I have no need to tell you that you like sweaty fat girl carpet....to destroy your silly argument. And I merely chose to respond to silliness, with silliness. That, and for some reason, though I've never met you, I got this tube of you doing the "Obama can govern" boogie stuck in my head. Yeah....self-loathing is accurate. Further evidence for canonization of Tom's wife....

Well, now I have completed my drinking for the day, and I still haven't seen Flufftex explain how Obama is better at governing than Romney, or that Obama has even one example of governing when the other side controls the legislature. And, I saw no dancing today. Not even Frenkle doing the "Do you want to touch my outrage?" dance. I guess the following is therefore incontestable: 1. Romney can govern in all cases, Obama can't 2. The TEA party is fundamentally about killing spending before it kills us, and if Romney does that from the center, then that is the best way for the TEA party to achieve its stated purpose. 3. Frenkle doesn't realize that fear, or ignorance, take your pick, is what drives liberals like himself. 4. Frenkle doesn't realize that being driven by fear and ignorance makes you the perfect farm animal, and therefore a perfect follower for the far-left. Then, when they inevitably lead your causes, noble or otherwise, to ruin, you are too afraid to hold them accountable, and still ignorant as to why they failed.

Some Big Love action going on here? or are you referring to your breasts? your dogs? Hmmm you are one of those social conservative guys, right? Mormon by any chance? That place was good. I ate there a few times. Too bad it's closed.

Difficult to be brief when you have so much to learn. First, does Fast and Furious sound familiar to you? Think. I see you have given up on the "Germany will take care of this because they are more 'moral and compassionate'" plan. So there is hope for you, huh? Anyway, let's assume your plan, and we pump more weapons in. Then what? China, Russia, and Iran will reciprocate. Escalation. Then, we go from things being fought at the squad level, to major engagements. That's pure terror for both sides. And, it has nothing to do with greed, or Machiavelli. It has to do with evil people seeking power, and us preventing it. It's far past time you accepted that reality. You want to add weapons, but you are ignorant of what that does, and have no contingency for when it goes bad(<--biggest sin of the Bush admin). Here's how you and George W Bush are the same: both of you think it's possible to fight a war on the cheap, him in terms of money, you in terms of commitment to victory. The upside of deploying our guys instead: We keep our weapons, we have disciplined commanders and troops which means 95% of time they won't be misused, and when it's over, we either take them back with us, or we destroy them. Nobody calls in artillery on a school for revenge, etc. Also, what happens if these weapons are turned on Israel, or Turkey for that matter? Now civil unrest/war and small arms conflict has turned into full scale regional war, because your weapons are there to conduct it. Syria is already shooting at refugees over the border in Turkey as I write this. How much longer do you think Turkey is going to stand for that? But, you think that "alls we have to do is give em weapons"? You want us to fight a war by proxy with no way to control what happens to the weapons we provide after we give them up? Again, I ask...does Fast and Furious sound familiar to you? Man, it's a good thing we don't have far-left people in the WH....oh, wait. Why do I feel like I'm writing a "Now do you get why your Iraq War arguments were retarded" essay? My only hope is that you take what I write here and share it with the rest of the "understanding and being realistic about war"-challenged community. Perhaps you could even "raise awareness" about Donald Rumsfeld making an accurate statement. Listen to yourself. You've stated it. Think like a doctor, doctor. Doing more harm than good is the most likely outcome of your plan(as it is with most liberal plans), because it's based on emotion. Do you just give the immune system more weapons because "something has to be done right now", and hope it works, without regard to the consequences for the liver, kidneys, etc.? (BTW, I have no idea if that's right, I got it from House, The difference is: I don't go wading into medical arguments like I know WTF I am talking about, and, my knowledge base WRT war doesn't come largely from watching MASH) You want to do something? Then the something is bring in our troops, get out of the way, and let them win. Yes civilians will be killed. Grow up and deal. Yes, terrible, unspeakable horror will occur. That's what happens in war. Grow up and deal. Cut domestic spending to pay for it, raise taxes, whatever, I don't care. I do care that we either fully commit to victory, or fully commit to staying home. The real question: how much of your Medicare reimbursement are you willing to give up to see this injustice dealt with properly? Because that's where we are now. Insistence on ridiculous spending over the last 50 years has put us in that "one or the other" situation. And, even more ridiculous spending in Europe has put them in "do neither" mode. But, that's only because the world doesn't need war, or warriors, anymore, instead it needs hand-outs, right? Is this the "moral and compassionate" wisdom us rednecks haven't learned from Europe/Canada yet? When is the right time for us to: demand that the 500 million people of the EU "pay their fair share" when it comes to keeping the bad guys in check? demand that the nonsense brokers in the EU STFU rather than complain about how we go about doing what they refuse/can't afford to provide for themselves? When is it time for us to call Bullschit on European thinking in general? Isn't that what this country was fundamentally founded on?

Bitchin about shrillness is not dancing. Dance "the Obama can govern" boogie. Get Frenkle to help you. He likes to dance I bet. We'll get Frenkle a pole, since he seems to be into the gay overtones, and you can have a couple fans...this will be fun!

The only TEA party people I have heard have either said nothing about Romney, or are grown up enough to realize that when one is the Republican governor of a top 5 liberal state, one must....govern. That means actually get things accomplished, even if you don't 100% agree personally. I don't have to spin a thing when I say: Romney has proven he can govern, even when he doesn't control the legislative side Now, let's see what kind of dancing you have to do in order to convince us that Obama can govern, whether he controls the legislative side or not... Show us your dance! ...I will be in the corner ing....and....hell, it's almost 5....drinking a nice cold Sapphire and tonic.

Yawn. Just read the bold. And remember....I am at you as you do. Enjoy. Lord knows I will.

This why we have to resist the "rich vs poor" argument that Obama keeps trying, and failing, to make. Rather we need to look at it the way it is. Focus on the problem people and leave everybody else alone. Problem people can be easily divided as follows: 1. The helpless 2. The clueless 3. The shameless We need to help the helpless. These people have problems the government needs to help with, through no fault of their own. Contrary to the lies, everybody wants to help the helpless, except the shameless. More on them in a sec. Helpless does not include elderly people who give away all their assets to their kids and then go on Medicaid so they don't have to pay for their assisted/skilled care. Helpless does not include assclowns who knock up 5 different women with no way to support them, but, it does include the kids themselves. Helpless means what it says. We need to make the clueless uncomfortable, and want a clue. We need to make sure that the clueless are motivated towards getting a clue. I am not saying that they have to suffer. I am saying that they need to be constantly reminded that having a clue is preferable to not having one. We need to flat out punish the shameless. Look, "tax breaks for millionaires" is a tired cliche that nobody responds to. When Obama people say "we didn't message it properly", I say "yeah, because you can't stop using that cliche". If you can't tell the difference between a self-made millionaire and a trust fund baby, why should anyone pay attention to you or your message? Screw jail time. The people that can afford and have the ability to abuse any government system, IRS, Medicare, VA, GSA, etc., only care about 1 thing: money. I have personal experience here: the guy who stole $20 million from my investors, and causing us great hardship as a result....didn't care about spending 3 years in jail....because he had $20 million when he got out. I guarantee he is infinitely more afraid of running into me, and what I might do to him(nah...don't think that....think "8 heads in a dufflebag", as that is more my style), than he is of doing another 3 year stretch. Jail? Foolishness. Force these Wall Street people to work for the SEC for 1 year/million $ stolen/scammed, and take $2 million out of whatever they earn next. THAT is real punishment. Force them to work for the government in any capacity. That is a deterrent. Same thing goes for every other scammer. Hit them in the wallet, forget about jail. That and simplify/decrease the scope of the tax code, Medicare, etc., so there aren't so many ways to scam.

I'm just laughing. And I will remain....laughing. Because it's funny. Because JA remains butt hurt, and because the 2 of you are butt hurt from other threads/trolling is...hysterical. Or is it just a coincidence that JA, DC_Tom, and GG also all feel the need, "think enough of themselves" is it?, to post about me in this thread? Like I said: butt hurt, while I

Yeah...that and China, Russia, and Iran. As if some Syrian "tycoon" has anywhere near the effect that these 3 countries do on what is happening is Syria. Will you admit that they are enablers? How about evil? What about Europe? I thought they were so wise, and forward thinking, and ahead of the curve on everything. Why can't they do something? They're right there. The EU has 500 million people and plenty of resources. So, what are they waiting for? Aren't they more "moral and compassionate" than we are? What about the UN? I thought they were so wise, and fair, that we should allow their rulings supersede our Constitution, and accept whatever treaties the UN passes without Senate approval. Why can't they do something? Or....are they mostly just a bunch of corrupt, dictatorial clowns as well, who are afraid that if they take on Assad, that they will be next? Come now briddog? All you clowns have demanded for years that the US be subject to the rest of the world's will when it comes to the use of OUR military that WE pay for and THEY don't. Why aren't they ordering us to go in and attack? Where is the courage of their convictions? Where are yours? For years you have been telling us that Europe is better than us, because they don't spend on military and spend on entitlement. Well, if their approach is so superior, then why can't Germany go in and take out Assad? After all they have socialized medicine. Why isn't England and France doing something in Darfur? Why doesn't Canada send in their military? After all, they were supposed to be able to "treat the people of Afghanistan with more respect" than us, so why should we assume they won't do the same in Syria?.... Clowns. Who's going to produce and pay for the weapons you want delivered to the rebels? Holland? Sweden? Denmark? Spain? Get serious. IF anything happens at all, it's going to end up as a line item on our Defense Budget, isn't it? But aren't we supposed to be cutting that budget? Let's just come out and say it: The rest of the world needs us to do the killing. As unsettling as it is, killing must be done in these situations, and they know it. But, their insecurities about being unable/unwilling to do it themselves means that they lash out at us. Some Americans, and MOST Canadians, are dumb enough to buy into that....as is on display here. Growing up, and seeing the world as it really is...it's a B word, isn't it birdog? There's hope for you. But it starts with the understanding that if you want to stop injustice, the rest of the world can't and won't do schit about it without us. No. You have to come see us about that.

Bringing me up, when I have nothing to do with the subject, over and over, is not going to convince anybody that I have an ego problem. Honestly. It may convince some that you have an obsession problem, or, more accurately, are still butt hurt over losing the gay marriage debate, but that just proves you are sore...a sore loser, not that I have an ego problem. Perhaps if you focused on adding less lugubriation, and more lubrication, your butt wouldn't hurt as much at the end of a thread.

Insecurity....Insecurity.....Insecurity.... "Sometimes, do you put your fingers under your arms, and then smell them, like this?"

Horseshit. You like examples and numbers? Here you go: 1. Libs here in 2005 posited things like "Democrats don't start wars", "Global Warming is man-made and anybody who questions that is on par with being a racist", "I can say without a doubt that Bush is such a good liar that he can fool the entire world, but, at the same time, that he is a complete idiot", "we have to hurry up and elect the liberals in 2006 because there's so much to do" 2. Many posters here fought this nonsense tooth and nail. LABillz is just one of many 3. Reality becomes history, and history proves over and over that these liberal premises, arguments, and conclusions are mostly wrong. LABillz has 0 effect on this. 4. Pissant liberal cowards, who are the exact opposite of LABillz, as he would not slink away never to be heard from again if he was this wrong about this many things, have all run....because.... The President YOU wanted, the Congress YOU demanded and the Party policies YOU supported, have all failed. Here's the 2 I know you like the best: 1. The environmental movement has been set back politically by at least 30 years. You have no one to blame but yourselves for being fascists about it. You chose....poorly. 2. The religious have been galvanized by your party's stupidity, to the point that now you have silenced the "Jesus is a Democrat Catholics", and made the Cardinal in NYC look like he's more in touch with the common man, than you are. An amazing feat of stupidity. The churches out there are no longer on the defensive, you've given away the initiative. Therefore, prepare for the offensive, there secular people. Better dig deep holes w/ cover, because they will be bringing the heavy artillery you've seen fit to hand to them. Be honest: The obvious failures are what scared the libs away. They know that if they stayed here the fire that would be returned on them is more than their fragile, phony self-righteous, egos can take.

Neither. Obama is a guy who has been told he's smart(er than he actually is) for a very long time. He's been oversold, and overestimated to us, but, that's not the real issue here. It's the people around him, for his entire life, that have been preparing the path for him, rather than him for the path, that have created the great conspiracy here. Look at how the media handled Obama Vs Hillary. Look how they've handled him since. Again, preparing the path. They picked up where the local Chicago media left off, and they picked up where the college professors left off. My question remains: can we get a performance evaluation of Obama the community organizer? No. Can we get grades in school? Why not? Because none of these people want to be the guy who says the Emperor is actually standing there in his underwear. Doing so would mean admitting that they have failed miserably. This has gone on so long that Obama himself is now incapable of understanding how, after decades of being told he's so...everything, he is failing. The answer is simple: Obama himself was failed by all those around him. When are Buftexes going to realize that the TEA Party and the religious right are NOT THE SAME PEOPLE? The religious right may want to be in the TEA party. They may have even gotten a few of their leaders into positions of leadership in the TEA part. But the real power of the TEA party comes from focusing on abuses and failings of the Federal government, and keeping the religious stuff out of it. Once you understand this simple concept, you understand that Mitt Romney is perhaps the ultimate TEA Party candidate.....if you believe that he is in going to act like national guy, and not, governor of liberal state guy. I think Romney is a centrist, and as such, he is most suited to accomplishing the TEA party agenda. If spending is a problem, better to have a guy who doesn't respect either sides sacred cows, and indiscriminately shoots them, because he can.

Did somebody shut off the money spigot, or, did a new poll tell him he was gonna lose his own state?

Ask B-large about the ability of state and Federal regulators and whether they actually achieve the purpose for which they exist, without causing unintended problems and/or empty cost, and see what he says. Ask him how many full time employees have jobs solely to deal with the regulators....and then ask yourself how that helps the poor get healthcare. Then ask yourself why you are evil for supporting policies that keep the poor from getting health care (Hey, just doing what your side usually does) Arguing against misregulation, the act, or misregulations, the law/Congressional oversight/rules, is not the same as arguing for deregulation. You are acting as though it is. What I find in healthcare is that most of the time, the root causes of a bad regulation are: 1. Poor understanding of both proper quality assurance principles, methods, and how to actually deploy a system based on these concepts 2. Poor execution of the law/rules/concepts by people who are focused gaming the system.... designed poorly due to #1...and is therefore easily gamed, and/or, the good guys being so overwhelmed by the scope of what they are supposed to enforce(see #1), that they simply do what they can, with no hope of improving things. 3. Piss poor attitudes from politicians on both sides, and their staff people, and the bureaucrats, who can't be bothered to actually learn why they are failing, because they can't be bothered to actually learn about the business processes they want to regulate, or mind bogglingly won't admit that they are business processes(um money changes hands for a service, clowns)yet demand that we take their opinions seriously 4. Too many people who supposedly have too little time to understand the problem, but apparently just enough time to make it worse Just because, in your estimation, regulations are needed, that doesn't mean that the government can do it properly. You would be wise to learn to separate those two concepts. They are separate. And, when you add in the ability for good regulations to be F'ed with by bad politicians, and/or political agendas from special interest groups, you begin to get the accurate picture: in a lot of cases, the regulation you want will do more harm than good. Running around calling for regulation, without acknowledging the Federal government's obvious weaknesses and record of incompetence, and accounting for it, solves nothing.

Why? There's nothing wrong with this. Fun speculation. I think it's completely unrealistic, but as my sig says, anything is possible. The difference between this....and the posts that get attacked ....is that you aren't telling us you "know" this option is available....because some internet turd says so, or, because you got a quote from a GM, who is blatantly blowing smoke. You aren't some naive bumpkin who is posting crap, as intended, by media/teams looking to spin. Or, at least you aren't so far..... If you cross into that nonsense...then yeah, prepare for the beating.

I'm pretty sure God, by now, is extremely bored with both. God knows I am. God is not responsible for people who can't keep their faith, or lack of it, to themselves, or at least on reasonable terms. If God was here, I imagine he'd be telling us that of all our problems, doing nothing about the national debt will be the single largest cause of ungodly behavior going forward.