OCinBuffalo

What are you two idiots doing? Don't you understand that point in time analysis is the only kind we accept now? Forget about trending, and why are you guys bringing up Bush? We stopped blaming Bush...weeks ago. On a side note, we are also replacing B.C. with B.O., for Before Obama, and A.D. with A.I., for After Inauguration. So, today is now 3 A.I. and therefore, you are bringing up ancient history. Weak. Nobody wants to talk about B.O. Regards, The White House Political Office

What happens if you get idiot from your parents? I can assure you idiot doesn't seek out poor people or unhealthy life styles either. The typical VC firm has at least one partner who inherited gobs of money, yet suffers from severe idiot. At one point in time Jane Fonda was the healthiest woman in the world, yet she still suffers from idiot. What is idiot's cost to society? If we are going to base health care on this argument, shouldn't we also require people to buy "idiot insurance" so that when they do stupid things that cost society money, we can file a claim against that insurance? Knocking up 5 different women with 0 chance of supporting any? What is the cost of treating cancer....compared to that? What is the cost of treating cancer, compared to Dick Fuld's severe case of idiot causing Lehman Brothers to fail? What is benevolent about using this argument for people who get sick, and not using it for confirmed idiots? We don't know who's going to get sick, but we do know the idiots. Isn't that a stronger case for forcing idiots to buy insurance?

The difference is, every other President has learned from breaking their promises. Instead, Obama is recycling speeches, and still not understanding that it is his support of tired old failed policies, that is the primary reason his supposedly new, promising policies....fail. Yeah, seeing both sides of an issue and trying to play it from the middle....that's exactly what we don't need. How does Obama claim to be a uniter, while only operating from the extreme left on everything but drone strikes? Yeah, let's keep an extremist in the WH, or, put another extremist in Santorum in his place. Good plan. What a shock that it comes from DiN. What a schlock.

Krugman is not alone, and acting like he is pretends that 30-40% of economists don't exist. The entire Keynesian school of thought would patently disagree with the your definition of economist above. You may be hanging out with supply-siders, or Adam Smith fans, but that doesn't mean they are the only brand of economist out there. The notion that there is universal agreement, in of all things, economics, is absurd. You might as well say there is a consensus on Global Warming. Well, we could say that about anybody. You take almost every CEO out there, and ask them how important the people they have around them are. 9/10 they are very important. Listening to qualified people is important. But, if the qualified people know that you can't understand what they are saying, because you aren't qualified yourself, or are only familiar with a single approach, what is the point of that conversation? You're better off just letting them do whatever, and staying out of the way. In Obama's case, WRT, to economics/business, we had the worst of both worlds: an unqualified leader listening to unqualified college professors, with none of them ever knowing what it feels like to have to make a payroll every 2 weeks. Romney knows what it's like to have to make multiple, very large payrolls, and a whole lot more about how to get an organization off its ass and moving. So, yeah, by default, he's more qualified. Anything is better than 0. I would gladly take the evisceration of a bunch of college people, over the client meetings I took when I was put in charge of a project that was 6 months behind, or client meetings any time. I sincerely doubt many scholarly types have thick enough skin to handle that, or to be put in a position where intellectual results are required daily, not yearly. Some of the people I used to work with are professors now, because they wanted an easier life, white picket fence, kids, 6 hour work days, summers mostly off, nobody coming after them on a daily basis, etc. They like that they can communicate the ideas and ideals, without having to worry about the details. I will give you a real world example of college professor FAIL, WRT the details: College Professor-driven Workflow tool and Consultant-driven Workflow tool Guess which one is poorly documented and isn't up to standard(BPMN 2.0), which means it gets rejected at the tool selection committee meeting. Guess which one is more of a vehicle to sell books, and less of a vehicle to solve problems. Guess which one has clients you've never heard of. Guess which one has clients you have heard of. Guess which one is designed for the real world, fitting into existing systems, and more importantly, fitting into client perceptions. Guess which one is was primarily created as an ivory tower standalone, and a way to publish more white papers, without the entanglements of potentially letting existing systems continue to perform some of its functionality, and therefore diluting the credit. Guess which one knows it's foolhardy to claim "Leading the World in Process Innovation", when you aren't even leading a single sector in it. Guess what the first thing a CIO, who wants nothing to do with you or your stack, but is taking the meeting because one of the line people cajoled him into it, will ask about, with the purpose of attacking your credibility, now that you have claimed "world leadership". Guess who knows better than to leave themselves open to be so easily crushed, because they have actually been to a meeting like that more than once? Need I go on? Hey, I have no horse in this race, but, because I know racing, I already know how well each is going to run. These college professors are going to fail, because either they haven't bothered to see to the details, or, given the "world leader" thing, don't have enough experience in the real world, so they aren't even aware of them.

Everybody missed the obvious: No, because Buddy gave Fred his word that they would get his extension done before training camp. They just needed the time to focus on UFAs first. We are learning that this has more bearing than anything. Sooner, or later, Bills fans are going to learn that Buddy Chan pretty much do what they say. I am sure the situation would have to be drastic for them not to do what they say. Richardson falling to 10? Not drastic enough.

The only players I wouldn't interview/spend time on are the ones I don't ever want on this team. Short of that, I'd interview everybody. What is a GM's #1 job? Make decisions about players. Most of the time, most managers don't get enough info, and have to make decisions based on what they do have. You are asking why a manager, in any business, absent pressure to make a decision, would take an opportunity to get quality first hand info with little effort/cost? Actually this is a no brainer, isn't it? Consider: What happens in 4 years if Richardson is a FA, I'm the GM and I need a RB? Is he worth the money? How is he as a person? What about his football IQ? It would help if I had a chance to meet with him personally when he was just a college kid, ask him about things that are important to me, etc., and then compile that info with everything else I have gathered over the last 4 years. Right?

Shovel-Ready is mine, and it's multi-faceted: First he talks about the wondrous shovel ready jobs readily available if we would only elect him, and then after election, support he non-Keynesian Keynesian Stimulus. Then he hits the wall of regulation he and his party have supported for 50 years Then he jokes about shovel ready jobs not being ready Then he proceeds to go out and attack Republicans for wanting to get rid of the regulations that played a major part in killing his own promises He has the memory of a fruit fly, or he thinks we do.

Normally I hate birther, truther, etc. type stuff....but, how many of you think Kagan tipped off Obama about the preliminary vote this past Friday? She was his lawyer after all. It's a dopey claim. I am aware of that. But, the intensity with which Obama has come out on this seems to warrant the question. It could also be a poor attempt at damage control --> nothing like keeping just how badly you, your lawyers, and your policy just got whipped in the news, rather than trying to change the story. Either is plausible. It's not like this WH knows how to handle a crisis properly. Oh we could do this all day: "Did you hear shovel-ready jobs weren't ready, because the government regulations you support interminably delayed the shovel selection process?"

Pfft. Sapphire, clown. Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whore house drinks Absolut.

Absolutely. "Hey leather, you're with me!" Ever hear that story? I think it was on TSW once. That's a bit of an !@#$ move. Not major, but, a bit. Unmitigated Moron is mine. Idiot is Tom. Or, Tom is idiot. Trying to make that stick huh? Hmmmm. My response is either: "It's not bragging if you can do it, especially not if you can do it while laughing at people who call you names, and super especially not if you can do it while laughing at people who call you names, and wearing nothing but flip flops most of the time" or "You can't be a narcissist if you don't consider yourself, what you are doing, or who you know, in any way worthy of facebook" or "Dude...what are you even talking about? Man, I am drunk....again! " Due to your self-characterization, can we assume that you will be telling me which response is correct, and how much of an idiot I was for even considering the other two? Edit: and, whoever said "Al Gore is dumb for going to Olbermann for high quality standards in journalism" or whatever in the other thread....yeah. That's funny because it's true.

Nah, I got a badge in the mail, it's just that it doesn't say moral superiority on it.

Should have ended this post here. No they don't, and/or, it depends on the economist. If you think Paul Krugman is an "invisible hand" guy, per your description of "economist" above, you have another thing coming. What exactly do you collaborate on with economists? Solutions people are....who we are. The only solutions person I know, who is also a politician, is Mitt Romney. That's merely a statement of fact, not an endorsement. When lawyers, economists, wall street people, and definitely, college professors, basically anybody who either doesn't do solutions for a living, is put in charge, mess ensues more often than not. Not all the time, and not for everyone. There's no problem having these people contribute, but in letting them run things you risk: The lawyer assuming he knows things because he's a lawyer, and claiming the things he doesn't know are irrelevant The economist ignoring critical things because they don't fit into his model The wall street person limiting things because they don't fit into her statement, or because she struggles with some of the concepts The college professor missing things because they don't worry about details

Yeah. The difference is, both you and Buftex(apologies, Buftex) are liberals, but she'd never post the idiocy we see from you, because she's not an idiot. Or, are you arguing that idiocy is pervasive in liberals? Still waiting for anything, anything at all, that even attempts to address the content above. Actually, I've been waiting for that for at least the last 50 threads you have chose, poorly, to engage me in... When can we expect you to have your Idiot Insurance policy executed? After all, your logic in this thread demands it, in multiple ways.

Yes, but we also have our share of cowards, or people that have never been heroic, ever, are too self-involved to even wonder what that would be like, and whose self-loathing causes them to lash out at those who don't have a problem risking a lot to make things better for everyone. It's what makes this place interesting. If we didn't have any self-righteous/phony turds showing up with their.... "check out my new moral superiority badge! I just got it in the mail from the Democrats/Libertarians/Republicans. It lets me sit in judgment of other people, for no apparent reason. You can get one, too! You can vote for people nobody has ever heard of, and scoff at when they ask "who?"! You can know nothing at all about a subject, stick to platitudes, and claim they make you right! Or, you can sit on the sidelines, keep score, never take any risk, talk about how other people play the game, but never have the guts to step on the field yourself! It's the best!" .... posts, I'd have been out of business on this board, long ago.

Economists are where this argument is coming from, so this is no surprise. The problem is: economists don't concern themselves with the law, freedom, limits on government power, unintended consequences that arise when any of these are screwed with, etc. For the economist, this is a black box. It's possible for the input to return the same output, regardless, so why does it matter? Tell the economists you collaborate with that they have their own problems to deal with, focus on them, and leave the solutions to the solutions people. Example: They should be worried about what happens to the value of the dollar, and the likelihood of any Keynsian tool ever being effective again, if the cost of Obamacare is off by $1.9 trillion. Tell them they get to talk about this stuff right after they have addressed that problem. Bring your own chair, as you will be there a while.... And it's a price that is controlled by Medicare. And, once Medicare sets it's price, ALL the other insurance companies set theirs. Yes, government setting prices....what did we learn about that from Nixon-Carter? And, not only do they provide nothing, they impede the market from competing. The reason is: if we could buy insurance across state lines, like we buy electricity, then the union-owned/sponsored health insurance companies would be driven out of business. State regulations should have no bearing on this, and the ones that do need to be taken to court and killed. Also, we should allow "insurance unions" no different than we allow "credit unions". The argument is identical.

In the other thread, I started thinking about the bad, either real or supposed, inherent characteristics people possess, and forcing them to insure against them due to the effect they may have on society. This is the argument that is used for the healthcare mandate. "We need to force people to buy insurance because so many people aren't covered, and that costs society a lot of money." Well, the same argument could be used for the less intelligent, those with poor coordination, those with addictive personalities, those with low moral character, etc. And these arguments are stronger than the one for health insurance, because we don't necessarily know who is going to get sick, but, we are sure that an idiot is going to be an idiot 80% of the time. So, here's my new line of insurance products, and the useful thing is they can easily be, pooled, sold as TPAs, etc. Idiot Insurance: Have a crackhead for a mom? Leaf's fan that keeps telling yourself your franchise isn't that bad? Then this is the insurance for you. You were born an idiot, and it's not your fault if you wind up dead. However, it is a problem if you take other people with you. Therefore, the government can force you to buy this insurance to protect society from paying for your idiocy. Full coverage for all of the stupid things you do, say, and think, that causes either you or society general harm. Government imposed, regulatory anti-idiot beneficiary clause: you may not name another idiot as beneficiary and have them name you. Otherwise, you both might die doing something idiotic, and then the evil insurance company keeps all the money! Just ask Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden....they're both happy customers! Clutz Insurance: Do you trip over the invisible, causing co-workers to study flat carpet to see if there's even a microscopic wrinkle, thus wasting time and enraging your boss because now we are late? Did your boss have to buy you a new machine 3 times because you keep spilling your soda/coffee/wine onto it? Did you spill multiple wine glasses, twice, at a work dinner, giving your boss wine swamp ass? Is your name Paula? Then the government, and your boss, can mandate this insurance for you. In fact, your boss is calling his Congressman right now! Ignorant/Lying Slut Insurance: You can also buy companion anti-slut insurance. Look, not everybody was raised properly, so not everybody knows that they don't have to be a slut. And, not everybody realizes that while it may be OK to be a slut, it's not Ok to lie about it. You can't control yourself, because daddy couldn't control himself. It's not your fault, you were made this way, and society will get violence, diseases, and Paris Hilton as a result. Before you kill your own kid, because you don't want to be tied down and a little chloroform will keep her quiet, please consider buying our slut insurance. For those people concerned about getting involved with a slut, the anti-slut policy indemnifies against all financial and court costs resulting from slutty behavior. We can force sluts to buy insurance, solely based on the trouble they cause in bars, where they insist on hitting on strangers, who have no idea that the slut has a boyfriend/husband. The aggregate cost of that to society alone, more than justifies the mandate. I am sure there are more!

The irony of this statement is lost on you, but not on the people who have been here awhile. For the newbs: The chance that both DC_Tom and 3rdnlng would arrive at the same conclusion, using the same thinking, is infinitesimal, unless it's in response to a DiN post. Congratulations DiN, you are a real world example of "statistical outlier". Edit: forget what was here. No point. Tom is right. Let's just go with this: If you didn't have the inclinations of a farm animal, you'd understand this. Should we require idiots to buy insurance against the stupid things(or posts) they are likely to do in their life? Well, why not? If their idiocy is likely to cause society harm, then....what? Why not? We don't know if someone is going to get sick, but, we sure as hell know, as evidenced by you, that an idiot is going to say/do stupid things. Should we force you to buy stupid post insurance? Why not? Your posts clearly damage the society here. I grow tired of this...too easy. -------------------------------------------------- An interesting point that I read recently, that Dave is incapable of making, that seeks to legitimize Obamacare: If you simply give a tax credit to those people that buy insurance, isn't that the same thing as forcing them to buy it, in that they still have to buy insurance to benefit? The answer is: NO. The difference is obvious, and important. In this model, the government stays on its side of the line, controlling only what it is supposed to be controlling = taxes. This lets the market determine which products to deliver, and consumers which to buy. The Feds could also choose to give tax incentives to corporations to buy health insurance, which would easily be a revenue increase, never mind neutral, for the Feds. Yeah, imagine how much business currently being done off-shore would return, if we offered to give tax breaks for insurance, and let companies compete across state lines? But, that would be the smart thing to do, and as Democrats have shown since 2006, they aren't interested in the best ideas, they are only interested in the ones that punish people and pay off their cronies/constituents.

I was hoping we learned how to run it better, to the point that we could throw out of it consistently. Simple reason: Adding the run component to the QB position takes one guy out of pass coverage. Certainly a lot has to come together to make this happen. And, nothing says Fitz can't run out of standard formations. He already has with the draw they ran last year. The downside of that approach: we can't have our franchise(like it or not) QB taking hits. Smith at QB reduces that risk. That, and if you take a damaging Wildcat along with the 4-5 wide formations and screen pass stuff we did last year, you make it very difficult for a D to prepare for all of it. (Edit: and yeah, we need Fred/CJ to be threats as well) A lot remains to be seen, especially with the WR/LOT positions. But, if I was interested in making this happen, hiring the guy who basically invented it is probably a good move.

Bah! Beat me to it! Leafs

Well, since this is a political discussion: 1. Politically, going forward this issue is a loser for those that support criminalization. Their position is 90% based on emotion, nostalgia, ignorance, or unwillingness to admit its failure. The only thing they have is the argument that says "the #1 root cause of children being put at risk(of everything) is drug abuse, and if drugs are legalized, that creates more risk". Even if that argument is logically sound, I have yet to see any numbers that quantify it. It assumes that drug abuse will increase if they were made legal. Did alcohol abuse increase as a result of the repeal of Prohibition? Nope. If anything, Prohibition stifled the treatment of alcoholics, because nobody wanted to come out and admit they had a problem and the helpers were afraid of the stigma of working with "criminals". 2. That last sentence above is key: drugs, like guns, cars, boats, alcohol and power tools, all require humans to perform poorly for problems to arise. The contrapositive: taking away drugs/booze/cars/power tools NEVER means that a problem person's problems, or their tendency to make bad choices, will magically go away. 3. The notion that kids are driving the illegal drug market is ludicrous. The vast majority of drugs are purchased by adults. Few kids can afford to buy a QP of weed, or an 8 ball, once a month. However, I continue to be a bit shocked by the # of very senior, very educated, very successful men and women I encounter, who can, and do. The kid who chooses to make drugs part of their life, can also choose to do well in school, go to college/trade school, etc. Or, they can choose to be a d-bag. Ultimately, if one is objective about this: the facts and the numbers do not support the case for criminalization. Neither does history. The truth is: more often than not drugs are the excuse problem people use to avoid facing their bad choices, or, as a poor replacement for sound problem solving in dealing with what life has dealt them. You don't get "mixed up" in drugs, you choose them. Freedom is good, but a minority of people can't handle it. The minority's failures can't be the cause for the majority to be restricted. It is impossible for the illegal drug trade to be a $4 billion market, and for the majority of illegal drug users to be all be on welfare, criminals, etc. Therefore, the majority of illegal drug users must be able to handle their lives in some fashion. Now, in Nick Fairely's case: should we blame the weed? Or, after having undoubtedly been trained on what will happen if caught, and also having a year of NFL experience under his belt, should we blame Nick Fairley? Who made the bad choices here? Who can learn from this, and make better ones? I assure you: the weed will just sit there on the table and do nothing.

Oh, I see..... So now that the "it wasn't bad policy, it was the messaging" excuse is completely worn out.....we have "well, it's not fair because we have to work harder?" And, "it's not our fault people don't take time to think our (actually awful) policies through"? I wonder: where is the study that examines libertarians? As in those who say: "I have listened to and considered in great detail, if not lived, everything you have ever had to say, liberals, and as a country we've even tried a lot of it. It sucks, it never produces the results you promise, and more often than not, causes unintended problems that, more often than not, are worse than the problems your policies fail to solve". If you talk to most libertarians, they've arrived there via the above analysis. I highly doubt you can find one that didn't. And, the above represents a much higher order of thinking than most liberal thought: it seeks to determine performance of solutions, not merely sloppily assigning solution to problem, for the sake of the solution, without regard for how well it solves the problem, or if it does at all. Or, how much high-order thought went into "shovel-ready jobs"? Now, the bible thumping ignoramus caricature that too many liberals believe represents all those opposed to them? Sure, this study may hold some insight as to why they aren't more like Jesus. But, Paul Ryan is whipping Obama every day, and is winning the budget argument. Is that because he hasn't carefully considered his positions?

Pffft! What the hell are you talking about? No, **** like this is why no one should care what "people"(you), have to say about me personally.

If it's not fair, it's not a fight. It is funny though. There's nothing wrong with verbally the idiotic things people say. All classic threads here depend upon it. Yes, I am aware. The problem is, far too many fans here aren't, hence the cavalcade of idiot posts we'll have to endure in May, all premised on things like "the Cleveland GM says we could have traded up."

Careful...you are beginning to confront the working class hero mentality. Next you'll be demanding that you don't want a leader who "treats everybody the same", and then they'll really get goofy. (Hint: treating everybody the same is fine, if eveybody's job is the same, and they put the same level of effort into it/had the same ability. It isn't, and they don't.) Ah yes, the great excuse of the artist : "I get to do stupid things that no one in their right mind sees value in, because 'you don't get it'" I am sorry but crap is crap. Or, does anyone see value 95% of the top 40 catalog from the 80s? What didn't I get about how badly that sucked?

The White House called.....of course they did . Actually, . We're now into "how much damage is this guy gonna do" territory. This has been the biggest week of idiocy for this Administration, or the last one(a feat thought impossible to surpass), so why wouldn't they inquire about a task for the local sheriff to finish the week off in style? If Obama had a white aunt....oh wait, doesn't he? Does she look like this lady? And, if I may be so bold, where's the standard rush to judgement? Why isn't this lady guilty as charged too? Is no one else looking forward to a beer summit at the hair stylist's shop? Seriously, it's getting to the point where I am unsure if we can make it to November. There's no way in hell you call this hair guy from a WH phone. Not smart enough to hire a lawyer to do it? Come on, man. Talk about demeaning the office. If this is how we handle this, how are we handling China? What happens when the office holder himself doesn't show any respect for the office? Should we still hold ourselves to that standard? I suppose we should...but man, this guy goes out of his way to make it difficult.