OCinBuffalo

But, don't fret. I'm sure DC_Tom is compiling a list of things you don't get. And, if he isn't, rest assured, I am. All will be explained to you in the most humorous, for us, way possible. Like in this instance: You don't get that U and You can be interchanged? Have you never sent a text message? Do you have a granny phone? Like was said elsewhere: dense. I will spell, phonetically, it out for you. What if we replace You with U? Then if we say U Suck A$....we get USA. Get it now? Good. Here have a cookie. So far, we have: 1. Doesn't get groupthink 2. Doesn't get Occam's razor 3. Doesn't get the difference between objectivity and subjectivity 4. Doesn't get how to properly recognize bias 5. Doesn't get phonetic spelling we also have 4. Doesn't get basic economics 5. Doesn't get the difference between fiscal and monetary policy 6. Doesn't get the history of American foreign policy for the last 80 years That's the list I have so far. Anyone else care to add/revise?

Dude, you don't get the concept, nor do you get how it so obviously applies in this situation. Own it and move on.

Two things: 1. If you sign up to be in a move that has Shannon Tweed, the Queen of "We didn't even try to make them look real" in it, then you deserve to be perma-banned from all further movies. This is why Maher has to make his own movies, because nobody else will let him be in theirs. 2. Cornell should invalidate Maher's degree on the sole grounds of this movie. That's cause....I've seen it. Well, part of it. It wasn't until today that I remembered that he was in it. And, he was trying to be funny in it. He sucked so badly that I completely forgot him, or, he was crowded out of my memory by aforementioned awful plastic surgery. Either way, he should never be allowed to invoke "I went to an Ivy school" again.

You are dreaming if you think Obama will touch refining. Entire careers as the EPA have been based on having all these various blends of gasoline, and then regulating and fining people for not following the regulations. Yet another case of the bureaucracy expanding, to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy..... ....but you think Valerie Jarrett and the rest of these Government First people are going to do anything that cuts into the means and reason for the existence of their buddies? Dreaming. EDiT: Christ this new keyboard sucks ass. U Suck Ass! That was funny in the other thread.

Oh, don't forget this part of that: "We need to raise the price of gas, towards the levels in Europe(which is $10), so that alternative energy APPEARS to be less expensive". - Energy Secretary Chu Yes, this is all about appearances. You are asking us to choose not paying $2.50-80 for gas, sot that instead we can choose between $8.00 for gas, and $9.00 for some alternative, which we will be ok with, because 9 is only a little bit more than 8? Is there anyone left to wonder how the policies these clowns keep pushing keep failing? The above quote is now #1 on my list. The "meaningful use" clause of Obamacare used to be #1. As if the word meaningful....is a standard, for anything. But Chu's irrationality is now #1.

If we want instant gratification now.... ....then why does anyone care if we also drill? Drilling doesn't do anything to stifle any immediate solution. That's the most illogical part of this. Drilling doesn't stop algae or wind or solar power, or what have you. Oh, wait for it..... (idiot environtologist response) .....the subsidies of the oil companies means that wind power as an alternative....is being stifled. Drilling is not a new idea. Windmills aren't old ideas. Because I said so.

We have an out of control debt, wars on multiple fronts all over the world, serious constitutional issues coming up, entitlement and tax system in need of massive and immediate reform... ....and this horseschit is a national story? A story, about highschool kids doing highschool things. Yeah, this is important. Jesus, when I was in highschool we had 3 all out brawls after basketball games, causing a bunch of injuries and two kids charged with illegal weapon possession. ...but chanting is a national story? WTF? Perhaps we are lucky the MSM wasn't so out of control then. Or maybe not. I think our antics at those games were certainly worthy of a national attention, as they were a lot more creative than a USA chant, and significantly more funny. Although, chanting USA against one rival in particular....yeah, that would have been funny as hell--> because in soccer, 8 of their players were f'ing foreign exchange students.

This is the fallacy of the argument that drilling doesn't do anything. So....let's see. Should we make the decision, now, that screws us over 20 years from now? What purpose does that serve? What if it doesn't take 20 years what if it only takes 4? Price might suck now, but it we do nothing, now, they are sure to suck later as well. It's completely illogical.

Am I the only one whose gonna haul out the "what else do you and your wife do with those candles...in the evening"? Hot wax, proximity to San Fran and it's proclivity towards S&M? Nothing? "Ow, hot. Ow, hot. Ow, hot"

10 Sapphires, and then only if she was the safest bet in the bar. I just see: bad at it. Annoyingly bad at it. There's a lot more of us than they thought, huh? Too bad that a bunch of the characters are now dead via the movie. I've wondered if they did that on purpose to quell any attempts at revival? ............. Look, the fact the the POTUS is calling this girl, merely serves to prove that all of this is a cheap tactic. Really, that's all that this is. It's politics. Poorly done politics at that. Good politics means that the President ends up with a net positive out of this. I fail to see the positive message here. "We are going to attack religious people to defend your reproductive rights!!!"? Where's the positive? Where's the "my Presidency = moving the country forward by working together"? Here's the positive message: "We worked with religious institutions to create a policy that not only respects their Constitutional rights, but also creates a policy that makes birth control safe and affordable for those that choose it!" But, we don't get that with these clowns, do we? It's always about....strutting. "We're in power now and our first priority is making sure you acknowledge that!" It's like Inspector Clouseau... Women. The polls say women are Obama's only chance to win. That's what this is about. How many of the women you know will appreciate being pandered to in this manner? Perhaps not all of them are smart enough to see through it, but I bet most are. Oh, and the polls on Obamacare with women?...still not good, despite this tactic and all the others. And, for the last time, Tom already said it: The Supreme court either kills this whole thing 7-2 or 9-0 based on the 1st amendment. That's why it could be 9-0. The leftists on the court have defended the 1st their whole lives, and they will not ruin their reputations and legacy over a poorly conceived, to the point of numerous viable constitutional challenges, law that has next to 0 national support for it's constitutionality, and is likely to be repealed. (Edit: poll here, Not Rassmusen, so there goes that excuse, and, what a surprise, that same old 20% figure again. Hint: The far-left is the 20%. 80% of the country is rational. 20% is not.)

DSL and DSL DSL FTW

This is why I say that the guy is nowhere near the campaigner, politician, and certainly...leader he has been made out to be by the media. Nobel Peace Prize indeed. The 2008 campaign was a sham. A literal example of "preparing the path for the kid", because it's now widely evident that this guy wasn't prepared for the path. Consider: you go out and lobby people. By doing that he makes the fact that his ideology, and NOT Republican blockades, is responsible for his actions...a matter of public record. A public record, that directly contradicts what his own Press Secretary said not a month ago? Yeah, expert skill. Even more campaign commercial content for Romney. The smart play would have been to make a general speech, attempting to "clarify" what the press secretary said, not calling individuals personally like some Congressional staffer. This way you can save ass to a degree, cover ass if things get worse, and retain some dignity for the office you are supposed to be holding. Instead we get amateur hour. The only reason I can think of is: this is about money from the environtologists for direct action. If that is true, he's in even bigger trouble than I thought. And Republicans should be scared of this guy's political ability? I know half-assed VPs who scare me a hell of a lot more. At least they are able to see more than 2 moves ahead.

Yeah, getting caught cooking the numbers, a guy stealing and lying, and the general non-scientific approach to all of this....yeah, there's no indication of bias there at all. Are you really this obtuse? If you can't see the blatant bias here, then you are part of the problem, certainly not part of the solution. Forget the analogies, the best way to say this is: if there is in fact a problem, we cannot count on people who think like you to solve it. We can't trust that you will be able to put aside the political opportunism/careerism and simply pursue the truth, wherever it takes you. Clearly, as I have documented exhaustively on this board, you've blown whatever chance you have to ask us to merely trust you. It's over. And, now, politically? Global Warming is rapidly becoming a liability for Obama. He knows it, but his continued silly actions regarding the Canadian pipeline show beyond all doubt that he is still hoping to turn this thing around. He will fail. Again, he has catastrophically misread the American people's opinion, like he has so many times in the past. The only reasonable conclusion for why this is happening, again? Obama's ideology drives all chance for pragmatism and being solution-driven right out of the room....just like 2 of his well-regarded chiefs of staff. So, now, instead of being the political weapon it was intended to be, it's yet another albatross. Or chicken, coming home to roost in November.

Do you like losing as we have been? Are you really interested in continuing it? McGahee....traded up and what did we get? Losman....traded up and what did we get? McCargo....traded up and what did we get? See a pattern here? If not, then consider: when we draft a dud we lose that value not for 1 year...but for the next 4-5. Example: Aaron Maybin is still contributing to the value deficit on this team. Trading up for a dud, or even a good player, doesn't generate enough benefit to justify the cost...unless you are a playoff team who lost last year because you are missing one key player, and with that player you can win it all. Then, and only then, draft value is better spent on a single player. The Bills haven't been that team since 1995. Even if the player is worth it, even if he's gonna be great, way more often than not, the value lost in getting him by trading up, does NOT cover the value lost in the picks given away. It's an 11 man team game. This is not the NBA, and it sure as hell isn't Madden, , which I hold primarily responsible this. (And, for the trade down people: Exhibit #1: Bill Belechick's draft days for the last 5 years. Case closed.) My best trade up example is: Cornelius Bennet. We traded a hell of a lot to get him....but what did we really get? We got a good player, but did we get a great one? Is he a HOFer? Oh, I thought we had to trade up to get guys because they are "gonna be HOFers". We gave up 2 #1s, a #2, and a good RB in Greg Bell....for a guy who ended up being good, not great. This trade up/down nonsense is silly(Disclaimer: unless it's the Redskins offering to trade up, and in that case we should rob them blind, because they will let us). But again, short of Madden-think, I don't know why it continues at a board whose knowledge of the game is elite when compared to that of most other team's boards. Perhaps I should email Madden's development team and request that they tighten up the trade process and it's validation...surely that would remove some of the trouble.

Hold on a second....let's get our history right before we talk in terms of Buffalo being cool, BEFORE the 90s teams made it that way. Kelly....went to the USFL rather than playing for us. Then later, only after negotiation, came to Buffalo as obligated. Thomas....a RB with a knee injury that basically was passed over in round 1 and had to feel lucky to be here at all in round 2 Lofton....a scandal in Green Bay forced him out of there, and he landed with the Bills Bennett....we traded the farm to get him, he had no choice to come here...but he left didn't he? B. Smith....we had to go through hell just to get him on the field his first year, and clearly this attitude didn't change....until the 90s when he had a chance to grow up, and with, his teammates Reed...hell he was amazed he was even drafted....same can be said for a lot of Polian's picks. Most of the team was "just lucky to be here, gonna make the most of it" Tasker...cut, "lucky to be here", etc. Shane Conlan was the only guy that I recall came here without issue and remained positive on the city. Oh, and hell, Fred Smerlas? Where the hell else was he gonna go? So, please, the 90's team was formed in the most unconventional way possible....which is why people called Bill Polian a genius. Certainly that formation was not dependent on Buffalo being a "cool place to play". Rather, Polian's achievement seems based a lot more on finding players who wanted to win, but had some defect, little or big, that was preventing them from getting a big opportunity elsewhere. (That's why this new team is so exciting....cause I seem to be reading the same headlines all over again) What made it "cool" was the player's effort on the field, and the eventual tight bond they formed with each other, and by extension, with all of us. What made it cool? It was REAL. It was never about the status of the city, domed stadiums, corporate ass kissing, team ass kissing, or whatever the hell else that has 0 normative effect on playing football on Sunday.

Nice post. Now that I have the benefit of your work.... ....unfortunately, I don't see the Bills signing him. It's not that I think they shouldn't. Clearly, if we get Kyle Williams back as expected, having Mario would mean we suddenly have a ridiculous DL. Christ, that would even make Kelsay into a potential all-pro. Kelsay, Williams, Dareus, Williams. Right? Well, it's nice to dream....

You're just pissed because Breitbart was able to use the very same tactics the left has been using for years, but much more effectively, and in a highly entertaining way. Moreover, Breitbart was a very likeable guy. The left can be snarky, crude, and sarcastic too, but few will come away from that liking them. Look at Bill Maher's show.....I haven't laughed since he was on ABC....when he was actually concerned with being funny, not merely hosting an infomercial. Re-inforced opinions....given Maher, the Daily Show, etc? Are you being serious? That's your objection? How about objecting because competitors of Breitbart on the left, with 80x the budget, can't do a better show than Red Eye? There was more humor in a 5 minute Red Eye segment with Breitbart than in whole seasons of Maher's show now. Breitbart was the king of busting the hypocrisy of the left, in the way most likely to cause you to laugh at him more than them. Or, are we talking Rush? You could interchange either name in the above and it would have 0 effect on its validity.

No...it would be "Well, it's only your opinion that the chicken crossed the road."

The #1 demographic that Rush influences? Answer: The professional left. Not a day goes by that they don't pay attention to what he is saying. They have to, because when they inevitably screw up, listening to Rush means they know what they will be hearing about it from the right in general, months before the screw up. They have tried to marginalize him for years, but the sad fact is, they listen to him because a lot more often than not he ends up being right, and they have to figure out how they are going to respond to him. When Obama refers to Limbaugh by name, and literally refers to something Limbaugh said on his show, as a sitting President, giving a nationally televised speech? :lol: Yeah, you better believe they are influenced by him. I agree with the above: Rush has lost a step in his presentation. He used to be a lot funnier, and quicker, etc. However, he's lost nothing in terms of his ability to analyze a situation and bring significant insight and a unique take....most of the time. He was able to make talking about things like the Fed, which usually is reserved for boring ass Sunday morning shows with boring-ass people....actually entertaining. That's because before being a conservative, a wiseass, before anything else: he's a very talented guy. The reason he scares the crap out of the left is his ability. Without his talent, given the amount of money and resources the left has spent trying to destroy the guy, he would have been eradicated from the airwaves a long time ago. It's the same reason Colin Cowherd will never even approach Rush's ratings-->Cowherd will never approach Rush's ability. Red Eye did a tribute show to Breitbart.....it was perfect.

wrong. look it up

Hmm. And exactly how is this different than a cop, expecting a promotion, getting it killed by budget cuts, not being able to move out of his 2 bedroom into a house and feeling trapped? People have abilities, and make choices based on them. Some do well and some do poorly, but all of them have expectations and dreams, and I don't remember which law says we aren't allowed to dream bigger....haven't they passed one yet? Well, I suppose if you add base envy to the mix.... Then yeah, you have something that the 99% percent would get whooped up about....to bad for them 80% of Americans don't give a F what the 99% has to say.

You know what else? You gotta love people, who unintentionally go out of their way....to make people like Glenn Beck right. This now legitimized something I heard him say 2 years ago, and at the time I chose to change the channel. Now, I'm wrong for doing that, and Beck is right. Thanks, Turds.

Well why stop there? Under that definition, and given the generally accepted age of reason is 7, we should be able to kill any kid that's 6 or less, as, they cannot reasonably attribute value in general to anything, never mind the the loss of their life, until then. While were at it, let's tie in some performance indicators into schooling--those that fall behind get the axe...and we can really make kindergarten hell! "Color outside the lines one more time and you will be culled!"

I'm gonna steal something just heard Perino say and transform it a little: Can you imagine going through life haunted by strawmen, like the people behind this clearly are? They have to create "big bad banker bosses", if for no other reason than to feel like the self-imposed ghosts that torment them are real some of the time. Seems like wishing they were relevant enough to actually have someone care about oppressing them.

This is how we keep ending up with extremists on both sides being the only one who can win a primary, only to have them fail miserably when it's time to actually govern the country. And, it's not even extremists in terms of things that matter. Instead, we have people who are extreme on stupid, barely relevant social issues like abortion and gay marriage, when neither of these issues have a real effect on the future of the country. Instead we end up with people like Bush and Obama, who are great at talking smack to the base about their peripheral pissant issues, but suck when it comes to things like "should I massively expand an entitlement without paying for it?", or, "should I let Iran get a nuke?". Neither one these guys was able to deal with the truly urgent and important issues, because they both pissed away all their political capital doing non-important, non-urgent things that satisfied the jackass extremes. Yeah, and there's no pretense at all regarding the unions, environtologists and the college profressors/trial lawyers? Then you have your head firmly planted in the sand. Here's a reality check for you: 1. Union membership is at an all time low. Why? Because the environment people and the elitist left lawyers and professors have driven those white working males out of the Democratic party. There's nothing in voting Democrat for the average working guy anymore. Yeah he's loving your high gas prices right now, the one's you insist are "good for him", and I'm sure he can't wait to vote Democrat in November. We would have been better off had we simply used the trillion $ stimulus to buy oil, and then dump it on the market. That would have helped every single "working man". Instead, the Democrats have seen fit to destroy the 80-year dependable base they have had....at the behest of people who make up less than 15% of the total electorate....but the Republicans....are more fractured? 2. Latinos voting Democrat by 4 to 1....is not working out as you expected. You're idiots, which is confirmed further by the fact that you inexplicably listened to Geraldo and his buddies. He told you that Latinos are all Democrat voters waiting to be snagged....but, apparently he forgot to tell you just how conservative they really are. But you believed....Geraldo,. La Raza, etc. The billions in Tides money that has been spent....has led to 60/40 at best #s in the key areas you expected to take over. This means that not only don't you win, you get your ass kicked, because of the, yet again, unintended consequences: you opened yourself up to accurate and devastating attacks, which means any gains you made in latinos are wiped out and then some in other demographics....morons. Now, you have half the Democrat elites still trying to push this agenda, and the other half desperately trying to get the union voters back. Obama is deporting more illegals than ever...because he's seen the numbers, and now he's in the second camp.....but....the Republicans....are more fractured? You've destroyed your base in favor of voters who have 0 loyalty to your party or are too small in #s to matter. Nice work. But, the Republicans are....more fractured? More than you have ever seen? This is why you won't keep anything you win, because you can't win on your own merits, and even if you could, there's not enough of a constituency to win. You'll always be dependent on the other guy screwing up, because now...everything you do is based on....women! Enjoy that. Why? Because you can't say you represent the working man....if there aren't any, or only 20% of them are, in your party. Right now, there's nothing in voting Democrat for 50-60% of the American people. How many elections do you win with that? Ask yourself...from 1940 to today...how did you get here?