OCinBuffalo

I can name 3 that are free to download that don't do this, and there's probably more. hehehehe On Red Eye last night they were talking about a new phenomenon that has emerged: "hatefacts". As in, facts...that are offensive to some people. Not opinions, not speech, facts. Yes, some idiots have now found a way, and think it's OK, to be offended....by facts. I think we have a clear case of you illustrating this "hatefact" phenomenon. I didn't expect to run into it in less than 12 hours...but here it is!

The thing that is mindbogglingly stupid here is: they are taking on Catholics, the highest concentrations of which are in Democratic strongholds. Scott Brown's Op-Ed works because of the sheer # of Catholics in Mass. It would be one thing if they were fighting with the evangelicals in Alabama, because they aren't going to win that state, and they might pick up some independents on that. But Catholics? Lunacy. And, if anyone thinks that Catholics will forget this, or that the "convert issue to war on women" plan will work on them, of all people, they are mistaken. Catholics live with these issues every day, it's not like political spin will change that. Agree on Rubio. The working assumption has to be that it will be him. But, if Martinez is a warrior, that could work quite well. Jindal...meh.

I don't know what's more annoying....the 3 "big return" closing tags in every one of your posts = "<br />" which indicates that either your browser is crap....or you are somehow pasting this by accident in every post.... ....or the fact that you don't understand any of the logical and straightforward facts that you have been confronted with in this thread. Right now, I gotta go with the "<br />"s, even though the blithering you've done here is quite awful.

Or he's looking to begin his political career. Here's the things that I'm not buying: The coincidence of the timing. Are you trying to tell me that as soon as OWS dies out....this guy just "happens" to appear. Conveniently attempting to recycle the argument? It takes 12 years to arrive at this conclusion? Where was this guy in 2008? The coincidence of the message. This is far too cut and dried. It's far too prejudicial. And, back to the timing thing, it's far too convenient. The approach. Why would this guy voluntarily make himself a public figure, subject to all the scrutiny...with no prospects in the Financial sector, unless there's a Phase 2 to the plan? Yeah, he might have FU money stashed away, but if so, why not just quit and sit on a beach? Why make your life into hell, unless, you WANT the attention? I considered him starting his own fund/firm, and rejected the idea: why would a guy start a business like that based on bad blood? Makes 0 sense. You need to prove your experience is worth something in order for people to trust you....why would you denigrate it, and yourself? The obvious potential for quid pro quo. No, this guy took a rocket launcher to the Financial Services Sector bridge....and is never going back, given this, the timing and the message, and the fact that the sitting President now owes him one....starting a political career is the most likely explanation.

Privatize is an inaccurate term AFAIK. Allowing the individual account-holder to manage their own money....is not the same as outsourcing the entire system to an investment bank and having them set policy. Or allowing them to buy it and we have another private bank doing public business. Or, do you not understand the difference? Even if it is completely outsourced to Goldman Sachs, and headed up by the most evil banker they have.... ....the plan is still predicated on the individual citizen making choices with their money, no different than a 401k....and only if they choose that. I've never heard of a plan that doesn't allow people to choose to keep things as they are. So the policy would be set by the individual, which is as it should be. God forbid we allowed people to actually add extra money to it...which they could get interest from, that would both fix the problem nearly instantly, and provide low interest loans to the government, which would serve as a cheaper source of money and reduce foreign borrowing. Hell, they might even be able to turn a profit and pay off some of the debt. I assure you: there is 0 danger in allowing some big bank(s) to maintain the system....especially if there are performance incentives attached. And, really, why does it have to be a bank? IBM could do that job easily, and for far cheaper, then the current SSA. You could make it even cheaper by simply allowing IBM to subcontract various pieces of it, like reporting, printing and mail, phone applications, etc.

Interesting. A latino woman would certainly have the potential to turn this "war on women" thing on it's head. It's a matter of whether she wants to be attacked in the worst way by the worst people. But, actually, you want them to attack her as nonsensically as possible, and follow the Sarah Palin gameplan. The reason being: these idiots haven't learned anything from that at all, and they aren't about to. Amazingly, now they have an erroneous and classless hit piece movie coming out. Question: Who keeps putting Palin's name in the news and insists on keeping her there? Palin? Or, the idiots that continue to unwittingly give her power/give her the opportunity to put herself in the news? They are idiots, so they don't understand that question, or the answer, or how the equation works, and they think they are "helping". If you can get the same equation running for Martinez....that would be hysterical, for me, and also, highly effective. Nothing would be more funny than Obama Pac money-->attack Martinez-->gain women's sympathy for being attacked-->Obama's own money takes votes away/makes women stay home and not vote for him. Hysterical. Picture these dopey liberals sitting around afterwards saying "I don't understand how we lost, we had the best attack ads ever". The left has no defense for it's own identity politics being used against them. That's why they've historically gone bonkers, to the point of losing the election/supreme court nomination fight, when they are. A latino woman? That's like a bunker buster hitting the DNC's HQ. And, even if they can maintain their class, composure and discipline, there's no chance that they can control MoveOn, etc.

Hehe, such an unmitigated moron. How about we at least describe the approach properly? "Let's turn the control of Social Security back over to the individual person, who is then FREE to manage it as they see fit, and take away control from the government turd, who cannot even beat the return of savings account". Since when has anybody suggested that we turn control of SSI over to anybody...but the customer?

Heh. The Bills......not...random, pointless discussion about "which movie makes me poop". A massive departure is the past few days activity. Rather than "covering" the team by using the "every 20 minutes" guy's headlines, we actually were treated to rapid, and more importantly CORRECT (ahem, PFT) info. Actually the tirade was about trading Lee Evans. Link to that thread here Believe me....as soon as my thread went up, they really started hamming it up. Which was the reason I wrote it the way I did. For the next hour they kept right on flipping out....and they had the whole city paying attention that day. How that doesn't make sense...from every perspective, for that show, and how "instead of talking about the Bills, let's listen to funny things we think are funny and...talk about the Cleveland Indians, who, since it's August, are 20 games out of 1st place" makes more sense....eludes the rational. As I said, things are improving. But, why do we need to give credit for something they were supposed to be doing all along? How does it not make sense, in this town, to spend the first 48 hours of EVERY FA period for both teams, using the same approach? Where are we? Buffalo, or, Austin, TX? If I wanted fruity, marginally eclectic discourse about random schit that tends to be weird, I'd go to Austin and listen to their radio. Buffalo is about the Bills and Sabres.

This. All Roosevelt has done is come in off the street, twice, in the late season, and make plays. Either something we don't know about is wrong with this guy, or, I think he's earned a chance. Also, Donald Jones is a big reason why we beat the Chefs, Faders, and Pats last year. Big reason. Go back and watch them again. I think Jones getting hurt messed him up more than we thought. Can he come back? Easley was looking very good in pre-season last year. He deserves a shot. And, Aiken and Huggins and whoever the hell else we have: many have looked decent. They all just get hurt, except Roosevelt. Bottom line: it's not the end world if we don't sign a WR. And, why can't David Nelson run some routes outside? Don't forget about Jackson/Spiller lining up as WR. There's a lot of options. Many may be junk, but there has to be at least one guy who can step up and take the job. I don't need another flashy dude....just so we can say we have one.

cool story bro....

I am certainly one of the "bashers"....but....not really. I am critical when WGR does/says stupid things. But, I am honest, so I am equally supportive of them doing the things they are supposed to do. Logically, you are SUPPOSED to cover the Mario Williams signing 24/7.....if you are "THE sports source for Western NY" and the major, flagship, whatever, radio station. Not doing so is illogical. Why call yourself THE source....and then not be? IF they chose not to do what they are supposed to be doing, that's a stupid choice. That said, WGR, since Bulldog's tirade in pre-season last year(which I gave him credit for in the thread I started then), has been paying a lot more attention to the Bills over the last year. I gave him credit because, for once, they weren't talking hockey in late August. As a result, I have listened to WGR, on Android, a lot more this year than I ever have. So, with that said: good job guys. You are finally doing what a hometown radio station is supposed to be doing. Things have improved since 2005-10, when they were horrible.

You sound like you have experience at this. Which is fine, as long as you get the girl, and aren't just running around c_ckblocking people.

Yes. I remember that as well. But, that came from a guy who is crusading to get religion removed from public discourse...and also ended his show by having a younger minority guy, who was a good speaker, win a populist campaign based on moving all of health care into....F'ing Medicare. Unbelievable Idiocy. And, naive, and ignorant idiocy at that. Soorkin made life imitate his art.....and we are paying for it to this day. The only thing that doesn't follow? Soorkin's populist president actually had more than 2 years of elected Federal experience, and had actually won hard fought campaigns prior. I suppose even a guy as imaginative as Aaron Soorkin couldn't conceive of having a guy who cake walked his elections because they were either against nobody or scandal-ridden political suicides, and had 2 years of voting present in the Senate, actually run for President.

Mine is: The Gathering Storm

I'd take a long look at a guy who can make the big catch in the big game.

We have, unprofessional, undignified, and a willingness to use the office for petty nonsense, already in the WH. Santorum is supposed to be drawing a contrast, not a comparison.

Right, me "not knowing how the industry works" = Netflix false advertising. Dude, I've done work for Hollywood. I know how the industry works, probably better than you do. That said, the stat of neither of our knowledge absolves Netflix for their advertising. 7.99/month is simply not worth what you get, because I sincerely doubt I would rent $96 worth of awful movies in one year. Maybe $40 And, last year getting to see all 3 original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies was cool. (So, yeah, there are some unexpected gems here and there) But, the rest ain't worth $96. I am sure there are things I haven't found. However, I am just as sure there's a lot of crap. Or, sometimes people realize that they are in the minority on an issue, or set of issues. And, the clever amongst that minority understand that no matter what happens for the rest of their lives, they will always be in the minority. So, they go looking for another issue, or set of issues, that somebody else cares about, they pick the side that's winning, and when it wins, they claim that it was because of their help. Then, they claim that the people in the other group owe them. Now, they say they are a majority. (This is how the college professors/professional left/socialist-progressives have usurped the Democratic party from the working person) (and, it's also how the Neo-Conservatives were able to steamroll Bush over McCain in 2000) Now they say they are a political party. Are they? Well, there's more people, and they start claiming that they have a "big tent". Nothing could be further from the truth. And, if attacked by external forces, this single issue, extremist-led version of a party is likely to splinter quite quickly. Things like the Iraq War or Obamacare, which were both, clearly, extremist minority-driven, get you crushed politically and your big tent disappears.

They have responded. Jesus. I have never seen either GG or DC_Tom spend this much effort on a single poster. They tried multiple approaches even! What else do you want? Here, I'll put it in your terms: If HealthSouth suddenly went....south... and was about to go bankrupt, that would be no big deal. We wouldn't bail them out. Besides, it's not like they haven't had problems... However, if they, and the other 9 of the top ten LTC/Rehab chains all screwed up their MDS's, or filed them improperly, or Medicare screwed up and told them to do it the wrong way, whatever....the end result being so bad, that it was going to make Medicare crash? No reimbursement for you, for at least 6 months, because, it will take at least that long to review and fix everything, because, as you know, Medicare has a hard enough time dealing with normal, and this is major crisis. (You know, now that I think about it, this is plausible) In the meantime, should your facility go without reimbursement? We are talking prevention of Medicare, the system, crashing, by sending money to Medicare, so that can find a way to keep paying you, and, the top 10 chains, so that they can fix their MDS's and resubmit them, Medicare can review them, etc. In this case, wouldn't it be right for us to make sure that the reimbursement system kept flowing, even though it's the big guy's/government agency's fault?

this.invokeGoodComment("absolutely")

EDIT: How funny is it that I can predict ahead of time, with ease, that the only team dumb enough to make this trade....is the Redskins? How many unproven draft picks did it take to get Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, or Jim F'ing Kelly--->this list goes on forever. So, you are saying that this guy is a better player, already, than those guys + whoever the next picks are? Ludicrous. Oh now this is just F'ing hysterical. What have the Redskins been doing to the their fanbase for the last 10 years? Adam Archuleta ring a bell? How about Albert Haynesworth? It would be a lot more funny if it was the Dolphins, and the fact that it is the Redskins, again, reduces the humor. Deserve? You actually used the word....deserve? Look, I understand antipathy for DC as much as next guy, especially given the people that are there now, but, how in the hell do the Redskin fans deserve another ass raping? Dude, Giant fans are feeling sorry for these people today. The only thing the Redskins fanbase gets from Dan Snyder is BOHICA. Any self-respecting Redskins fan is either over 50 years old and still doing the dress up like a pig thing....cause there's nowhere left to go, or is a Ravens fan now. You've stated it. No brain. A safety that can't play in your scheme...or, for that matter a DL that refuses to play in your scheme. No Brainer! Hysterical! But hey....these are "aggressive" moves, right? And what about McGahee? Hey, you started it with the "genius trade up moves" you've already referred to, why not finish it off with the rest of the idiocy? Worth the shot? Again, given the last 10 years of Dan Snyder's "aggressive" (read: stupid) moves, you think this one....is going pay off. Really. You have the memory of a single cell bacteria. Yeah, there may be a lot of you, and you can reproduce yourselves rapidly.....but....we're talking bacteria Serious....about.....winning.... with the Reskins pattern of behavior and accompanying results.... 2 words come to mind: Ricky Williams. Google that, if you are serious...about....winning....and "moves of the decade". Keep in mind: you said Big Things....and, expected..... As I clearly disclaimed in the other thread prior to this idiocy: the only people stupid enough to make this trade were the Redskins....and that if they came to us looking to trade up....we should rape them, because for some reason they seem to like it. The Rams? This isn't even outside the conference Yes, the Rams will be dominating the Redskins you know where for the next 4 years. 2 things I know to be true: There is no difference between good flan and bad flan and the Redskins will offer their backsides to whatever Thespian comes along. Money? That's why this is OK? There are a lot more guys who have pissed away fortunes than have capitalized them properly, going all the way back to the Phoneticians. The main thing that I find over and over with "the rich" is: too many get outside what they know. Snyder should have stuck with annoying direct mail campaigns. He knows that. He sure as hell doesn't know football. Are you guys trolls? Or, are you simply doing the CYA thing now that we see the actual cost of an RG3 trade?

I am proved absolutely right, again.. For the newbs: get used to this. Instead of us raping the Redskins, now, it's the Colts. Too bad. Somebody is going to rape the Redskins at least every other year, it's just a matter of for how long and which....position. The Redskins are the Alsace-Lorraine of the NFL, because there's a 90% chance of them getting raped physically or fiscally by whoever happens to pass by on their way to something else.

"With me or against me".....can also be seen as "for the truth or against it". Polarized? Perhaps, but, why shouldn't something like "we need immediate and comprehensive reform of entitlements, energy, immigration and tax policy or this country is in serious trouble" which is absolutely true, polarize those of us who can accept this truth from those who can't? Why shouldn't: "we need to repeal Obamacare, first and foremost because it's bad law, suffers from numerous design flaws, these flaws are pervasive and have so many dependencies, that simply trying to fix them cannot work. With so many design flaws the only reasonable thing to do is start over." serve to polarize those who are looking out for the country from those who are looking out for their political party by denying their obvious mistakes? I want to know which people in government are avoiding, blocking, obscuring this truth. I want them to stand out like the turds in a punch bowl they are. We need to find out who is keeping us from solving our problems, regardless of party, and then do whatever is legal to get rid of them, or, at the very least, make them irrelevant. Look, Nancy Pelosi is in the best possible position, FOR THE COUNTRY, right now: she has no power, and, she is a crackpot that they stand up in front of the media every so often, to unintentionally serve as a great reminder for the people who forgot in 2006 why we need to keep her and those like her, from ever getting any power.

This has been the MSM's "standard" since Dan Rather took over for Cronkite. Paul Ryan is making good point after good point, anyone can argue, or not , but there's no issue with Ryan's content. It's interestingly presented, and he's doesn't scare the crap out of you when you see him on TV. Yet, we see this guy way more often, usually making incoherent arguments, about things that are simply not a priority. Why else would a completely superficial medium go out of its way to contradict those views only in specific circumstances involving politics? Other than: who they are "(D)" matters more than what they say, however correct and insightful it may be. Dude come on, like we don't know? I've had netflix for a while now. You can also get them at my favorite website that allows you to watchfreeseries.....com And, before Darin has a another hissy fit, yes, I know that's illegal. However, my original motivation for getting Netflix was because I did feel genuinely guilty for dling so many movies/series for literally years. But then you come to find out that Netflix finds a way to hose you at every turn. Like only having 1 season of something, or having season 2 today, then only season 3 tomorrow. Infinitely annoying. Think of the bottom 30% of movies, of all time....and maybe 10 good ones, that's what Netflix streams. As a result, I keep paying for Netflix, but I sure as hell use my pirate sites. And, until the product/service being sold is commensurate with the price being charged, I will continue to use the pirates, and tough schit if your dopey, tight ass don't like it.

Hehe.....useful information...for later. Thanks.

Isn't that obvious? List: 1. ...lybob 2. The second coming of BF(just waiting for the new version to provide the basis for another retatta level thread) 3. The 20% of America who is trying to tell the 80% of the rest of us how to live, what to buy, and of course, that we aren't as smart as they are. Hence, only they are capable of bending the laws of supply and demand in ways that you low-brains cannot conceive, such that they are not only above such laws, they exist on an entirely different plane. It's not that they ignore these laws, they simply don't feel the need to perceive them on their plane of existence, which, I assure you is a much more moral and compassionate one than yours.