OCinBuffalo

Hmm. Much has been made of the "brain drain"--> the movement of talent from manufacturing, energy, etc. to finance by liberals. If you listen to most liberals, they will tell you it's because Wall Street is out of control, and most smart kids are going where they can make the most money as fast as possible. And then of course we hear that we need to get back to making things in this country and away from simply moving money around for profit. I supposed it hasn't occurred to most liberals that they and the policies they support are the cause of of the problem they have identified. The smart kids also don't want to waste their brains being told they can't innovate, or being told that there's only a 20% chance they can benefit from their innovations due to government regulations, taxes and the effect they have on securing capital.

The thing is, it's not the $500 that gets you. It's the useless ****, but even more so, it's the logic. I'd pay $500 a month for them to put in a bank in case something happened to me without batting an eye. But then I think: why the F am I paying you anything? You have a job. So...out! Out of here! I want to watch my on demand shows in peace....yes, I know I should eat less pizza, and drink less, yes, I remember about next weekend, and yes, I know there's nothing in the fridge but ketchup. Don't you think there's relationship between me booting you and you asking me these questions? What, are you getting them in now cause it's your last chance? It is Hienz though, so it's damn good ketchup, which automatically makes you wrong about everything and absolves me of all the stupid things I say and do. Now out, damn you, woman. Do not return for at least 36 hours, and only if you come back bearing treats and a DVD that pleases me. Yes, of course we can have dinner tomorrow, but only Indian and only if you go and get it. I'll pay. And....that's why I don't have a wife!

Yeah. Histrionically.

Dude...do you really think that I need to stipulate the obvious? Oh, that's right, I forgot which board I was on. Now, let's see....I can write 4 paras as a haze for the ill-informed....or I can just say: if people are too dumb to understand that spending less money than you take in, means less debt, no debt, or a surplus, depending on how your financing works, and having a surplus can mean paying off debt you owe, then perhaps we should look into a "take your vote away for being stupid" amendment. I think the Founding Fathers missed on that one key point. They shouldn't have talked about owning land to vote. Instead, they should have talked about being a serious, educated person. I wish they had instituted a citizen's test, that has to be renewed like a driver's license. Hell, if we are going to spend all this money one education, we might as well get some performance indicator out of it that holds the people the money is being spent on accountable. Nothing like giving a test that provides consequences for those who won't teach, those who won't learn, and those who won't support either. For some reason I bet you and I would have a good time at the bar. But, it's too bad, because I ain't going anywhere with a guy that wears a scarf.

Yes, lybob, I can understand how, from your perspective, you may arrive at this conclusion. If was as under-educated, ill-informed, and as incapable of conducting argument with anybody on this board as you....I'd be feeling inferior as well. However, please don't transpose your inferiority complex onto me. Remember, I have nothing to do with you knowing so little about so much, or why that status doesn't change.

OK, well then if we are going to have new methods, let's start by identifying some requirements: 1. All new methods cannot rely on "one-size-fits-all". Let's see if we can both comprehend and agree on this one, shall we? Example: A "two person assist" at a nursing home in NYC simply doesn't cost the same as in Niagara Falls, or in F'ing Nebraska. Fixed, variable, direct and indirect cost is all different everywhere. Therefore, relying on a centralized, homogenized system that pays them all the same, or more accurately, rates that activity in what amounts to "zones", is patently retarded. Philly is not the same as NYC either, so reimbursing them the same is wrong too. The current method removes all incentive for each individual home to manage itself, never mind focus on cutting that cost, individually. Instead, "one-size-fits-all" means that somebody else tells you what they will pay you, and you simply have to deal with it, however unrealistic. You could be making a killing on it, or losing, all of which has nothing to do with your performance as an organization, or your treatment of your customer. The only thing this method does well? Makes it easier for the centralized managers to do their job, a job that adds 0 value to the result, therefore it's a job which they shouldn't be doing to begin with. So what do we gain from having this "one-size-fits-all" approach, other than tons of empty dollars being spent on regulators, useless work product, and other things, all of which add 0 value to taking care of the elderly...which is what the F we are supposed to be doing? Answer: nothing. So why are we doing it? Answer: because liberal constituencies live off of these empty $$. So I ask you: where is your compassion? Why don't you care about the elderly? I know they can be annoying, but, why do you support the people who routinely F them over? You're not being moral, John. You care more about government employee largess, and the evil, corporate, mercenary, private contractor, regulator's profits, than you do about old people. Mere words aren't going to convince me that you actually care about old people. In all seriousness, are you serious about new methods John, or do you still want to pretend like it's 1965? If it's the former, then can we agree about "one-size-fits-all"?

I wouldn't put Buftex on that list. Bigfat hasn't been here long enough to warrant conner comparisons. Hey, I'm an optimist. Actually, if that really is conner? Hell, I'm pretty sure that even DiN only has a probationary place on any list that includes conner.

So, apparently the choice to betray your country, and actively seek it's destruction, means you haven't made a choice to give up the rights it provides you and everyone else? What about the rights of the people you are betraying? Their right to life, liberty, etc. doesn't apply? That's the "reason" that defies logic here. The American citizen who got drone striked made a choice. Choices like that have consequences. Don't want to get drone striked? Don't be a traitor. Don't want to be excoriated and forcibly retired immediately, or imprisoned for following an illegal order? Don't drone strike the wrong people, or go along with something you know is wrong. Again, choices = consequences. Ollie North went to jail, didn't he? He forgot that his oath was to the Constitution. Period. It's really quite straightforward if you actually think about it objectively. You think talking about the TSA....is an example of "looking at the big picture"? Histrionic for you, maybe. Or, am I simply trying to educate the clueless by using certain words a certain way? I'll leave that to you to determine. As I said, some day heads will be extracted from asses and we will finally be able to accept the reality that is right in front of our faces: this is a war, not a criminal proceeding. On the positive side, the great thing about America is that, as we see above, most people get to spend their entire lives being completely clueless about these realities. That's a testament to just how strong we really are, and I like that we have created a place where lots of nice people don't have to get their hands dirty. But make no mistake, the weak's existence is provided for them by those that know these realities quite well. And their "big picture" analysis and the freedom to spew this silliness? Yes, even that is worth defending.

You misunderstand...woefully. Somebody has to do the killing on behalf of this country, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. These are serious decisions for serious people. The only relevant questions are: who does it and how. I want the threat much more than I want the actual deployment of the ordinance. We cannot possibly hope to achieve 100% success rate with air power. Actually, we'd be lucky to even get 30%. However, we can make the bad guys keep looking up, keep hiding, and being scared, all the time. The deterrence is the play here. That and it hinders their operations, and, there is no doubt in their minds that the gloves are off. Now they know that we can hit them where they live, just like Japan learned. The difference is: now we have a much more elegant solution that doesn't kill everyone around them, it just kills them. And, nobody cares what you think. That's why it's called "credible threat". That's also why it's called "clear and present danger". These words mean things, and have been defined as legal standards that must be met by the executive branch. In order to see if the standard has been met, a ton of people have to be involved, including members of Congress. That means if something isn't kosher, somebody WILL tell. That, and every officer involved has taken an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies, foreign, and domestic, not the Administration. EDIT: Look at what's happening with Fast and Furious. Those ATF agents have all ruined their careers, but they retained their honor because they upheld their oath. Their oath is job #1. They told. Not only because it's the right thing for the ATF and the country, it's the right thing for them. These are how MILITARY operations are run, and that's what these drone strikes are. Due process is a legal standard for criminals. There are no criminal considerations here, because terrorism isn't a criminal activity. It's warfare, and must be dealt with as warfare. Someday, heads will be extracted from asses, and the acceptance of this reality will occur. Finally, you blatantly aren't aware of just how much thought goes into any operation...when it isn't being hindered from above. People's careers are on the line, and there is 0 tolerance for mistakes. You think some Air Force Colonel isn't absolutely sure his orders are legal and correct before he orders the shot? Christ, our guys in Afghanistan have had to wait for hours and hours to get air strikes authorized, precisely because 2 flag officers have to sign off, and often have to cancel because the enemy is long gone, or there's even a minute chance of civilian casualties(which we learned to be smarter about from Viet Nam)...but you think, "we need to think things through"...more? WTF do you think is going on with orders moving up and down 2 separate chains of command, who will all be RIFed for 1 mistake? Opinions are fine. Uninformed opinions are a waste of time.

The blue dress is now proverb, trust me. Nobody will remember the detail, or how it was...soiled. All they will remember is an even worse version of the "smoking gun", because there was a massive denial before it was produced. See? Nobody remembers why the gun was smoking, or who was holding it, or why, or who got killed. All that is remembered is the gun...smoking. How funny, and appropriate, would it be if all we remember is the blue dress, soiled, and none of the idiots involved?

Why because the Sabres put a beating on him the other night and Boston is mostly liberal? Guess I should click the link, huh? But, I'm not going to. Tough schit if you don't like it.

You know it's getting to the point where, even though I know it's stupid and will cause more problems than it solves, I wish they would raise taxes and get it over with. Then, everyone will be able to see that raising taxes doesn't even come close to solving the problem, and hopefully then we can finally focus on entitlement reform and controlling spending. But, then I catch myself and remember that we are dealing with an infantile mentality, and that they will never admit to being wrong even when they are confronted with the proverbial blue dress.

So the problems of the inner cities have nothing to do with the behavior of the people in the inner cities, and instead, have everything to do with corporations and people that don't live in cities? Just wondering....so that we can accurately measure, and then quantify the blame: how far must one live outside of the city, and how far does the boundary go beyond that, to be part of the suburban "problem". For example, do people in Lancaster count...but people in Alden not count? And, how many goods/services must a corporation deliver, build in, sell to a city in order to receive blame or not? And, there's that word again: culture. I wonder, which culture is more destructive for cities? Suburban, or the one that says "I must go after anyone who looks at me or my B word the wrong way, and it's not my fault that I do bad things, it's the fact that we didn't receive enough welfare when I was young ". So silly it's laughable. See, it's not that we are racists, it's that you're a moron. Perhaps you need to go ask the Mayor of Philadelphia whether being an asssshole, his words, is OK because we didn't spend enough money on being "compassionate" towards the people who choose that behavior. You really don't understand, do you? Why would conservatives, who hate people who don't earn things for themselves, support corruption? Look, most of us a small business owners, right? Why do you think we have anything in common with, or support these clowns in any way? Perhaps it's time that you realize that we are every bit as much a part of corporate America as they are. So when you support things that go after them, without making the distinction, all they do is hire more lawyers, while we end up getting massively F'ed. Great plan, though, because then you get to self-congratulate on "teaching us a lesson". Yes you are....tithead. You are, and you don't even know it, do you? No wonders what you say is so moronic. You don't know any better, do you? Obamacare F's us over, because we can't afford to hire a lobbyist who will personally see to it that we get a waiver, unlike those who can afford to be a big Obama donor. The difference is: I don't need your law to tell me that buying insurance for my people is a good idea. I already knew that, thanks. However, I do need to be able to afford it, and Obamacare has done nothing but increase premiums, and cause every single person I have talked to about expansion $ to tell me "not until we find out what happens with Obamacare". So again, thanks for your "help". Dodd Frank puts serious compliance trouble on small banks, the ones where most of us(not me) get our financing from? And, again, the big banks who are the culprits, brush aside your regulations like the minor annoyance they are, or move more operations off-shore, while the small guys get the shaft, and then, so do we. You are correct, so when can we count on you getting the rest of the story correct? I'd like to know how many more times you're going to support completely f'ing us over between now and then, because then I can plan. Edit: Actually the single best way to get the economy moving again would be to know the answer to this. Just tell us exactly how many retarded policies we can expect, and their exact effects, and then we will be able to accurately forecast our businesses and start hiring/selling/planning accordingly. And, as we've seen, the liberal methods of the last 50 years since LBJ and his nonsense haven't made it so either. You know what else isn't going to make it so? Calling people you don't know names, or questioning their motives, for accurately pointing out that liberal methods suck. Wawrow: the plan sucks, it doesn't work, time to put the shovel down. Now, are you going to pull a Krugman and tell us that the only reason it failed is because it wasn't big enough? Or, are you going to try to salvage some scrap of integrity and intellectual honesty in this thread, and admit that what we are doing, in general, ALL of it, isn't working. We need new methods. We do not need people who refuse to deal with reality running around calling everyone else names because they can't deal with the obvious. And it doesn't matter anyway. We are OUT OF MONEY to spend, so even if you wanted to continue this ridiculous effort, we can't. We need new methods. Whenever the left gets done talking, this will remain the case. Call me a thousand names, we still need new methods.

No amount of calling me names....mitigates your phoniness....that I have proven, routinely, for years. You are not morally superior, if you demand tolerance from others, yet refuse to demand it from yourself. No, you are simply a self righteous, self-congratulating phony who is no better than the televangelist caricatures he judges to be morally inferior. I am not the one claiming to be better than other people...you are. So, who's the narcissist again? It's called projection, John Adams. You are projecting.

No, he really can't. You A) have to have respect for those beliefs, and JA doesn't, he believes they are beneath him, and therefore, so are the people that hold them B) can't be a phony, who of course considers himself tolerant and therefore a better person than most people, while at the same time being intolerant of other people's beliefs, because of A and expect to comprehend other people's religious beliefs. I have called John Adams a phony multiple times on this board.... ....because he absolutely is. Now you can see it for yourself. How is he supposed to respect his "lessers"? But, yeah, I am the "narcissist" Nope. I simply won't tolerate phonies like John Adams, regardless of the how they arrive at their phoniness.

Or, the literally millions of literally peasants, who are being forcibly kept away from the cities. I bet they would like to have a job at Apple. I wonder...in a leftist society, are there supposed to be peasants? How come you only find peasants in leftist societies? Where are legal US citizens that are peasants? Oh, that's right, we don't have any. Why? Because other people, from other countries, are all too happy to come here and be our peasants for a while until they can go back home and live like kings, or, they can move up and become legitimate citizens. Funny how nobody wants to be the peasant in leftist societies....look at Europe. When they demand that they live like the rest of their citizens, or earn their keep....they riot. They do so, because it ain't that great in Europe to begin with, and, they really don't have much to gain or lose, so they might as well fight. In contrast, our peasants would never riot, because they have far too much to lose. The smart play is to make their money, do their time and go back home, while doing nothing to risk it.

Yes, and once again, the "all or nothing", "one-size-fits-all" mentality is on display as the premise upon which this progressive (*^*&%^$^#bases his argument. So, we are not allowed to kill any enemies, because we might make a mistake? All drone strikes are bad, because one of them might be? This notion is ridiculous. Any misuse of drone strikes is simply impossible to contain. It will get out just like it always does. The 4th and 5th amendments are protected by the 1st, but this clown doesn't want to recognize that. What this is really about: If he doesn't get to decide what is right, nobody else, especially wiser, smarter, more qualified people who do this for a living, don't either. Progressives want sole control of government power, which is also why they always want government to have more of it, but, they go apeshit if somebody gets government power they aren't allowed to have, or even know about. We are talking about taking out a single person, who has openly declared war on us. IF he is a citizen, then he is absolutely a traitor, and since he wears no uniform, he qualifies a spy. Actually, the fact that he is a citizen works against the above clown's argument. Since when do we not have the right to summarily execute spies during war time? They have made the entire world the battlefield and declared war on us. That means we can kill them wherever we find them, with 0 due process, because this is war, not criminal proceedings. Somebody needs to wake this guy up to that fact. And, back to the first point: This clown is crying because of absolutist, one-size-fits-all thinking on the part of Democrats being applied to "their dear leader". Instead, he wants their absolutist, one-size-fits-all thinking applied to his assclown assertion that we aren't fighting a war, but rather, we are simply dealing with criminals. A f'ing clue: the problem is progressive absolutist thinking, regardless of how it's applied. And yeah, due to it's nature, it's going to make a lot of people hypocrites on regular basis if it continues.

Looks like Bmore has joined the long list of posters who can't debate, rather than won't debate, and of course blame us because they can't win an argument. Bmore, you came at this topic entirely wrong. I know what you are trying to say, but, your premises are F'ed. They are dependent on things that aren't, and you have a cause and effect confused. Without this, you have the makings of a reasonable point, but, your logically sloppiness and over-reliance on failed ideology is why you CAN'T make it. Get a clue: you don't need the FAIL to make your point. Free yourself from the FAIL, and then I believe you'll find it a lot easier to form convincing arguments.

I'd like to tell myself that I'm too busy for things like Christmas lights, but, the truth is I'm too lazy and apathetic for them. The difference is: you are too lazy and apathetic towards knowing the material we discuss here.

I heard an interesting analysis on Gays in the Military in an airport bar the other day: "Gay guys have been in the military since Alexander, doesn't mean we have to like it, but we do have to recognize the fact that gays have just as much of a duty to protect the country as any of us with the ability. If they want to live here, they better pick up a weapon and stand a post, because if we lose, what's going to happen to them? We took the same oath(speaking to me). We are both honor and duty-bound to put aside our issues and allow them to fight for themselves the same as us. If anything, we're focusing on the wrong people. We should demand that they all serve, because they aren't earning their keep. They are the ones that our enemy hates the most." So it's the inverse. Instead of allowing them in, he is demanding they serve. Makes you think, huh? Especially the last part. Not saying I agree with it. Is there such a thing as quantifying the average Islamic terrorist's hate and/or categorizing it? (Could be Christian's too if we are talking abortion clinics) Is there a "hate-meter"? Would we be in less trouble with these maniacs if we weren't so tolerant of gays? If that's true, then isn't he sorta right? Don't the people who cause us the largest % of hate(for lack of a better way to define it) owe us the largest % of service to defend against it? To take it a step further, don't feminists owe us a least 4 year hitches? I think it's safe to say we know what these maniacs would do to them if we lose. Or, is hate simply an irrational emotion, therefore there's no real way to quantify it, therefore it's silly to try and say who owes the most? Hard to say, isn't it? If you REALLY think about it, and not simply play your automated PC message that I am sure we will see in this thread: "This is (insert (*^*&%^$^#poster here). You are a bigot because you said something that doesn't fit into my absolutist PC thinking. It challenges it, and therefore threatens me, and my perception of my intellect, so I will call you names instead. Beep!"

I think it simply...is, and that's really all there is to it. There is no denying it exists and that's what I find so troubling about both the liberal and conservative approach to it: neither seems able to process that simple reality. Liberals are demanding that we not only accept it, but treat it as something much greater than it is: a worthwhile lifestyle. Why do I have to accept it? Why can't I simply acknowledge it as a lifestyle that some people feel compelled to live? I feel being tolerant of it is being fair. I don't see any value in going out of my way to harass somebody about their life choices or beliefs. I've got much better things to do. Liberals apparently don't. It seems that unless we all fully accept behavior that we have nothing in common with, and some of us don't agree with, the liberals will never leave us alone. Why can't they simply accept our tolerance, and leave it at that? Answer: because as typical liberals, they not only foolishly think they know better than us, which is hardly ever the case, they are also incapable of minding their own business, and bound and determined to try to solve 1 problem by creating 5 others, and calling everyone who correctly sees the 5 problems they are creating....a bigot. Conservatives are demanding that we not only see it is undesirable, but treat is as something much greater: a threat to our existence. Sorry, but most of the gay guys I know do not pose any sort of threat to my existence. The only threat they pose is making me laugh at their sissiness(one past client in particular) at inappropriate times. It's a challenge I believe I can overcome, ergo no threats here. The notion that we should treat all gays the same is absolutely contrary to conservative values. It directly contradicts both "individual liberty" AND "personal responsibility". We are going to have idiot gay people do idiot things, but we should not restrict all of them as a result, and we should absolutely hold them accountable personally, not blame their behavior the group to which they belong. That's liberal thinking. So why do conservatives contradict themselves, and why can't they simply accept our tolerance, and leave it at that? Answer: because as typical conservatives, they think they are the only ones capable of foresight and it's accurate here, which is only the case about half the time. But, instead of minding their own business, and focusing on the real threats that liberals are too dumb/naive to perceive, which is what conservatives are supposed to be doing, they are creating a non-problem and proposing non-solutions to it that will only end up causing unnecessary pain/annoyance and add 0 value. When you all get up tomorrow, gay people will exist. Same thing this weekend. It won't change, deal with it, and leave these people alone. But, at the same time, when most of us get up tomorrow, calling us all bigots because we don't accept the gay lifestyle, is only going to get you a beating: intellectually, electorally, and perhaps physically if you dare say it our faces. I just saw that last weekend. Somebody forgot their internet muscles aren't real. Oops.

Not if you use it to win elections....or in more extreme cases, punish some classes in favor of others.

Amazing. Literally amazing. I tell you that your ethos is largely predicated not on morality, but instead on gaining power through whipping up hatred and envy....and this is your response? Perhaps your educational history deserves further scrutiny after all? Could be intentional...but I doubt it. But, aside from that, again, you cannot defend your methods, because they are indefensible. If we take what you wrote above seriously, then you also cannot stand on your values, because they are corrupt. There is nothing "moral" or "honorable" about you, is there? The only thing you can do is expose your hatred for other people.....and call that "having a perspective". No. That's being a douche bag. Apparently the liberal ethos is predicated solely on douchebaggery, because it sure as hell isn't about what's best for the country as a whole, or about getting things done properly.

Typical absolutist thinking that leads to absolutist policy on display here. This thinking doesn't allow for the possibility that the Chinese workers wake up one day and decide whether selling their labor so cheaply and at great risk is worth it. It is after all the Chinese workers business and their problems to solve. It also doesn't allow for some Chinese middle manager to wake up one day and think of a way to convince upper management to improve conditions in a cost effective manner at his line, and if they work, share the ideas with others and let them modify them to their needs. NO! The only way to improve conditions for everyone the same way, at the same level, because of course they all have the same job, and the same risks ...is 2k pages of sweeping, comprehensive, top-down, one-size-fits-all regulations. It all has to come from the government and it all has to absolute and it all has to be defined and managed by the bureaucracy, because they know better, dammit! All of you: what % of ALL effective, lasting change comes from the top of your organizations, what % comes from the middle, and what % comes from the bottom? Those CEOs among you: be honest. Just a quick exercise to show BMoreBills how silly his premises are.

Again, you are behind the times. Again, you've tried and failed to make something stick which simply doesn't anymore. It should be evident to you by now that many on this board are just as intelligent as you, if not more so, and have just as good an educational history, if not more so, yet they simply don't agree with you. More often than not, especially in the last 6 years, what you have supported/said has turned out to be wrong. Now, should we start inferring negative things about your educational history? Or, is it more appropriate that we simply be accurate: the methods you choose to support regarding attenuation of serious problems are terrible, because they don't f'ing work as designed. We ask for results, and you give us platitudes, abject failures to solve the intended problems, and more often than not: additional unintended problems that your non-solutions create. When we call you on this, you try to transform the fact that your methods suck, into a non-fact: we don't care about the problems. You question our motives, which is not only dishonorable, but also ineffective. In contrast, we simply question your methods, which is not only fair, but also highly effective. Let's put the focus back where it should be: your solutions to our problems suck. Period. What are you going to do about it? Also, they are easily critiqued, because they are very often less about solving the problem at hand, and more about phony moralizing in a cheap effort at gaining power, and punishing people you don't like. Xenophobia? Because I want our borders secured for national security reasons? Laughable. Why would a conservative, who according to your characterization, doesn't care about anybody but themselves, suddenly start caring about illegals being here or not? Their plight or not? You've argued yourself in a circle. Either your characterization is false, or, you don't understand what conservatives want and why. Take your pick. But, I am sure you will try to avoid a serious discussion by calling us all racists. See, it's like I said: you've cried Wolf/Racist too many times. Now, it's over.