OCinBuffalo

As I said, you're being silly. This post merely confirms it. The act of making a prediction now....is silly. IF I am a narcissist, why would I want to put myself in the silly position you have chosen? How about reality? I'm merely a pragmatist, with a penchant for telling the truth, especially to people that don't like it, because I couldn't care less about their reliance on emotional arguments? Edit: Who's the narcissist again? As if a "challenge" from you is something nobody is allowed to ignore...as silly.

Bigger Dolt. Nobody knew the guy in 2008. Incompetent, or otherwise, partisan, or otherwise, pragmatic, or otherwise. Instead, due to the media blatantly failing, he wasn't vetted and the pretense was that doing so = racism. Or did you forget about that? In the absence of knowledge about the man, all sorts of attributions were made to him based on nothing more than what people wished he was. Or did you forget about him winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Now, we, and especially the independents, know what he is = FAIL. You based your prediction on the fallout from a particularly nasty, ongoing, primary "debate". This is silly. Just as silly as me making a prediction before the conventions and the beatings Obama gets this summer. We simply won't know how effective they are until then. Instead, you are pointing to dislike of Romney/Gingrich at a time when they are being attacked in the media on a daily basis. This is silly. The straw-grasping is at an all time high, and you are buying into it. Silly. The best thing to happen to Obama since May is the Republican Primary process, since it has put the focus on campaigning and taken it off of governing. However, when it concludes, it's right back to Obama governing FAIL, all day, all the time. See? You are being silly. I am merely giving you the opportunity to see this for what it is, and make the necessary corrections.

All we can really say is: The correlation is undeniable. Now, as to causation? .....who knows?

Wow. You may not have intended this, but, I think that would make for a hell of an ad. Use the same music, lighting, etc., and then hammer it home with "regardless of how likeable the current guy is, and how much we wished he would be the man, we all know when it's time to change the QB". It's like JP Losman. That's how Obama got elected in the first place: since he had no record, a lot of people simply attributed their ideal qualities to him. Bledsoe, the guy who couldn't beat Pittsburgh's 2nd team = Bush, Losman = Obama.

A even simpler bullet point that kills all of those: Obama isn't competent, and the truth is we all know it. Nothing you've written stands up to the above. Nothing you've written can be put into a 10-30 second spot and hit any harder. Who cares about "I asked a commission to come up with a plan" and the rest of the machinations, when we have "Obama doesn't know the job, and neither do his people: remember the stimulus?" You have presumed that Romney the Rich Guy is anywhere near as important to people as Obama the Failure. Nope. The first is an attack on Romney the person. The second is an attack on Obama's actions, and therefore, much more powerful. Remember Reagan. Good old Jimmy was "winning in all the polls" back then at this point in the race too. Everyone was so "surprised" when Reagan won. What we have here is the effects of denial, just like with Carter, both in the media and in the minds of the people that voted for Obama. The media will persist in it's denial until election day. However, I sincerely doubt all the people who voted for Obama will. It's comforting, and therefore, easy to attach oneself to anything that supports this delusion/denial, which is why the Republicans beating each other up is so popular among Democratic voices and constituencies. However, it's only a small respite in the storm that is Obama's failure. As soon as it is over, we go right back to "ObamaFAIL" every day, all the time, like we were last spring. The fact that you want us to take polls taken in the middle of a pissing contest between Republicans as some sort of serious indicator of where this election is going is.....well, it's not the first time you've been silly on this board, is it John Adams? That plays with the 20% of America that was going to vote for him no matter what. It doesn't however play with independents, who see smelly people every time that line is invoked.

Prince Valiant! ! !

I wonder if the irony of that occurs to: 1. Brightfire 2. The reporter 3. The turds who support this 4. The people who read this article. I'd like to see % of readers who get it vs. their political beliefs and tolerance for faith-based Global Warming.

Quit while you're behind. We all know how this works. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The problem for you here is that you are claiming that the macroeconomic data is garbage, and it isn't. In contrast, the healthcare data that was input was utter crap, and used 3 years(the most generous interpretation for you) of revenue coming in, without costs going out, to attain it's phony deficit-neutral status. And, we don't want the CBO going out and getting it's own input data, because then we will never be able to catch the turds doing what they did with Obamacare. No, we want the CBO to be reliant on the political people giving them data, so that when the data is exposed as fanciful, as it was with Obamacare, there are political consequences for those political people, and they don't get to blame the bureaucracy. The reason people are against Obamacare, is that it is fundamentally based on 80% lie, and only 20% truth. That's the entire point of this thread. You don't have a problem with the conclusion....you have a problem with how they arrived at it? Hmmmm, focusing on the machinations/ideology, and not on the results. Isn't that the same approach Obama took to the economy? I have an idea for your team of economic experts: you could go find the very best economic professors at places like Harvard, Berkley, and Stanford....and one guy from Chicago, just to make it look good. Those of you who want final proof as to whether BFBF is an idiot? See if he gets the above sentence.

Nah, it's much simpler than that: If Oprah has told you that you are a victim of someone/thing, over 9,000 times...over the course of 15 years If Hollywood has been telling you that vaccines cause autism, the US government is out to intentionally spread AIDS, 2 words: Sean Penn...for 20 years. That basically nothing bad that happens to you is ever due to your bad choices, or simply, bad luck, and is instead more likely due to corporations doing something, somehow....that they can't define clearly and If Obama is telling you that you aren't responsible for your own lot in life...that in terms of Christianity, that's actually your brother's responsibility, not yours... ....and you listen to these clowns... ....chances are you end up spewing crap like this.

The only thing this protest has evoked: Reducing the cost of ad content for the Republicans this summer. The OWS idiots are one thing. The fact that so many elected Democrats not only failed to see this for what it is, but openly or at least tacitly supported it in word and deed....is quite another. Early on in this thread I said that this was a very bad idea for Democrats. I was right. Now, this has 0 chance of going away. Therefore, I fully expect this thread to continue right through to the election, as the Republicans will be all too happy to help the Democrats reap what they have sown. They'll even drive the tractor for them. The Democrat thought it would be a good idea to try to create their own TEA party.....except they forgot to use the rational, mature, intelligent, non-violent people, that you find in the TEA party, to do it. Now, that's either because they are stupid, or, it's because they feel quite comfortable around irrational, immature, stupid, and/or violent people. Oh, wait, which party has today's labor unions in it again? Adam simply hasn't learned patience yet. There already has been some great lulz out of this. But the real fun we are going to have with this won't start for months.

Perhaps the biggest loss for liberals over the last 10 years is their ability to effectively turn ALL people on the right into caricatures. The simple fact is that the average joe knows what the current conservative message is, and it ain't about guns or bibles. It is about the failure of big government to do the big things it promises. Again, motives aside, the method of taxing and spending simply doesn't work, and that's an effective message, because it has the advantage of being easily demonstrable. "Guns and Bibles, yeehaw!" simply doesn't stick anymore. Look at this thread. Nobody here thinks this guy's "test" is even relevant, never mind worthy of serious consideration.....except maybe birddog. Birddog's problem: he found 1 idiot, but that doesn't mitigate the routine beatings by 20+ posters he takes here due to his silly arguments. I bet it's comforting to birddog that he found his 1(one) guy to hold up...as meaning something...to somebody... But, his story doesn't mean schit to any of us, regardless of where we line up politically. Conversely, it has become increasingly easier to broad brush liberals over the last 10 years. Why? Because most of them stopped thinking for themselves a long time ago and/or have stopped thinking in general in favor of emoting/wishful thinking. When they all say the same thing, because they are all getting what they say from the same place, and it is proven wrong(left's batting avg since the Surge in Iraq? .050?), then it's easy for us to say they are ALL idiots, even if that isn't the case. We need look no further than the OWS turds repeating whatever the "leader" says on Youtube. Nobody remembers what they said, all we remember is their totalitarian tactics.That's a message that is undeniable. That's a picture that is unforgettable. And as I told you all in the OWS thread(um early on), thanks to inexplicable stupidity on the part of elected Democrats, that image is now 50x more powerful that some tired old caricature about guns and bibles, because it is both accurate and relevant, and is now hanging around their necks. This summer is going to be a barrel of laughs....for me, not birddog....as I watch the political ad content that the idiot Democrats have provided us all....for free....being re-cycled.

Great Justice!

Reagan was smart enough to sell the Russians on the fact that we had super space satellites that could hit an ICBM moving at "ludicrous speed" with lasers, particle beams, whatever from ludicrous distances. Is Obama smart enough to sell them on this performance data, and use the same tactic? I bet the Russians are certainly dumb, or more likely paranoid, enough to fall for it twice. Or does he actually want to give them the actual performance data, like the foreign policy dope he has proven to be so far? Hey if the Republicans know he's being a dope, and their only recourse for preventing dopiness is dopliy inserting it into an appropriations bill, thus making his potential dopiness public, doesn't that have the same effect as a double negative?

Their sacrifices are certainly appreciated by me. I can't even imagine being a company-grade officer in that army in that war. I've tried, and I can't. But, you can also blame the machinations of the Communist state for the scale of their casualties as well. Stalin did have to kill off 80% his officers before the war...because historically that's what Communists have to do to stay in power. The red scare thing would be valid....except lo and behold, we found out that there were in fact Soviet spies in the State Department, etc. Whether Rand or HUAAC actually knew about any of this, and weren't just talking schit? We can never know that fully. Could be that they only had suspicions and were trying to smoke people out, or, it could be that they were just as callous, self-aggrandizing, and full of it as the Hollywood movies said they were? Just saying, there were a lot of witch hunts, and in most cases this was terrible, but, there were some witches too. It's not a black and white issue as much as it's been made out to be. I wonder though....what would have happened to Greta Garbo if she had gone over to Italy and sat in an an anti-aircraft gun in 1936? Would actors today all line up behind her and call her "courageous"? Sean Penn goes to Venezuela today and nobody is holding hearings over it...so, if anything, I think we are more tolerant of assclowns now, because we know that they are assclowns. They don't have the effect that they once had. And come on, it's not like the general public takes socialism/Communism seriously anymore. 20% of the country does, but who cares?

It's even more fun watching you pretend that only you do.

Yes, Ron, let's rely on the free market for all our solutions....without actually asking ourselves how the free market got, or stays, that way. Or, as a more likely characterization of you, Michael Moore, let's pretend that oil is the reason people are terrorists. Their bastardization of their religion has nothing to do with it, and if we simply prance around the world apologizing for being good at our various jobs individually and as a whole, they will stop being terrorists. Hey I love the free market as much as Ron, but, is the free market going to make sure that the Straight of Hormuz stays open? Does the free market go over to countries who allow people to train to do ****ty things to lots of countries including ours, and kill them there, before they have a chance to pull their ****ty schit here? I acknowledge that fear of terrorism can be used for political gain. It's a valid point. I also acknowledge that hitting the wrong people can come back at us. That's a semi-valid point that has been distorted: nothing says those people wouldn't have become terrorists or supporters regardless. It doesn't help, but no one can say for certain what it does. But, does that mean terrorists and enemy nations like Iran don't exist? Didn't we hear that from Michael Moore, before there were 5 more attempted terror attacks and a planned assassination on our soil? Why the F are you listening to that proven idiot? Your valid points don't resolve the very real threats that terrorism poses to us. This is a lesser of 2 evils situation. We don't have the luxury of waiting until they come here and then arrest and try them in a civilian court. No, I said it right: it's a luxury. Are you willing to risk innocent people's lives for your luxury? I know, it's OK when it's other people's innocent lives, just like it's OK when it's other people's money, right? If you are serious about your position, then sure, you should be talking in terms of defense spending reductions, however, you then MUST also advocate for 3x the budget for the FBI, Homeland, etc., and you should be a big fan of the Patriot act, because those are the only tools that make your approach viable. Now, let me guess, you don't want that either, right? What else is left? Oh, that's right, the Free Market....

I always wonder how they can say they aren't "tax and spend" liberals....but then turn around and talk about taxing and spending. 5 things Nixon-to-Carter proved, and then Reagan confirmed, beyond all shadow of doubt and for all time: 1. Wage and Price controls, and government picking winners and losers via regulations and unfair laws, is idiot economics. 2. You can't spend your way into prosperity. 3. You can't tax your way into prosperity. 4. No Federal Department should be thought of or used as jobs program, and absolutely not the DoD. DO NOT hire soldiers without the weapons they need, or sailors without the ships and gas they need. F the air farce. They will never win a war on their own. It's a lie. No really, what that guy is telling you sounds good, and right, and wouldn't it be great if it were true...but it's a lie. Now deal with it. 5. You can't get bad actor countries to like you by being a candyass, saveass, or kissass. They will hate you regardless. The only thing being a candyass, saveass, or kissass does is cause them to lose respect for you. I'll add a 6th thing we are about to learn: If you are dumb enough to repeat 1-5, because you've learned nothing from history, then you are probably also dumb enough to believe that you won't get the electoral beating that historically comes with 1-5. Why? Because the rest of us do know our history, and you are making us all re-live this for no reason other than: You're An IdiotTM*. And, as Rahm said: "That's F'ing retarded". *You're An Idiot is a PPP registered trademark of DC_Tom.

Just like..... Buffalo's saving grace was getting massive chunks of money from the steel/auto industry Detroit's saving grace was getting massive chunks of money from the auto industry Cleveland....Kucinich ...etc. nuff said. The fact is that these towns were managed terribly by either the corrupt or the idiotic. Whether they continue to be depends on the people who continue to live there. Chicago is the exception that proves the rule: it's too big and diverse to be affected by a single industry, and agriculture cannot move it's means of production away. The other exception is Pittsburgh, which is interesting because they largely have the same attitude problems as Buffalo. However, they have differences: they aren't as willing to feel sorry for themselves, or believe in socialist BS as much. It also "helps" that Pittsburgh is easily the most racist city, while at the same time being the most Democratic/pro-union, I have ever lived in. As such they don't struggle with questions as to whether social spending is "moral" or "honorable". They aren't going to spend money on "disproportional number of minorities" problems, because they just don't give a F. I am not exaggerating. Go there and see for yourself. However, if you ask if we should spend $180k on an operation to give a white, 90 year-old, union, steel worker 6 more months of life.... Hey, I'm not defending or supporting....I tell the truth, and tough schit if you don't like it.

There's Newt, and then there's people who need a teleprompter. Nothing about Newt's beat down came off as rehearsed. He sounded like he was the GM of the company "counseling" a junior VP. Look at King's body language. Hysterical. He ACTED like the junior VP, literally standing there on the carpet he was called out on. Since when has being full of **** not a core competency of a politician? The difference with Obama is: he isn't even aware that a lot of what he says is ridiculous. I'm done with blaming the WH staff. Clearly they are terrible, but look what they have to work with. There's already been the turnover in staff, yada yada. The root causes of this Administration's problems lie with Obama and Jarrett, who still has a job, which is also Obama. Meanwhile, Romney has been trending towards Newt and away from teleprompter, since the beginning of this...whatever it is. Still, nobody has been able to land a clean punch on him. Just as in boxing, only clean punches count. Romney has made serious progress, and has made it without much resistance, especially from the media. What happened to the Bain Capital story? Now it's taxes? None of this is going anywhere. Basically? I think the MSM knows Obama is likely to lose, I mean come on, they do this for a living and they have to at least be aware of it. They are pushing Romney as who they perceive to be the least conservative. Meanwhile, the ones that still think Obama has a chance, or more accurately, wish he did, are pushing Paul like crazy. They know that if Gingrich gets it, there's going to be nothing but beat downs for them and Obama. Their only hope will some sort of Newt the Child gaffe....which means they will over-hype anything he does that comes close...but if they miss or it doesn't connect, they just opened themselves up big time. I wonder if anybody at ABC, etc. is smart, or wise, enough to see this. Hell, the media blatantly conspiring against Gingrich, has the very serious potential of putting him in the WH. Americans detest bullies and love it when the bully's weakness is exposed and used to kick his ass. This is the only reason Clinton remained in office, when Newt was doing the bullying. Nothing would please me more: not Newt winning, I'd take Newt or Romney, rather, the MSM silliness being used against them. Dan Rather Round 2

As a guy who moved back here....there are definitely 4 camps of people in Buffalo based on my extensive observations: 1. The positive, "let's have a IT show on CTG's lawn and talk about what we can do for once". These people are about 30% of the city. The Buffalo Rising people are cool as hell and part of this group. But, it seems that this group isn't getting any larger. 2. The people who just don't care, are gonna put in their 8 and go home, watch the game, and still not care. 20% 3. The pedantic, cynical, "I don't want to get to know anybody who isn't my friend from 2nd grade, and I hate every new idea, yet I can't conceive of why nobody wants to come here, bring business, or hang out with my miserable ass in general". They are completely delusional: they are their own biggest problem. See, having low expectations for yourself and your city works out great, because then you never have to do anything well. Amazing how easy life is when you expect to suck or be mediocre, and then meet expectations. Meanwhile, those that supposedly don't suck, "The Rich" people in this city, are a massive source of humor for me. They act as if owning a small business here makes you a celebrity and/or a business tycoon. I know tycoons, and these people....no. Since I've been here, it's like observing 100 Kings of Siam running around. "Et Cetera!" This attitude is pervasive throughout upstate. "Pretty good for (Insert Upstate City here)". If I've heard it once... People with these ridiculous attitudes are unfortunately about 40% of the city. This is problem #1, and it certainly won't be fixed by a billion dollars. 4. There is definitely an established wingnut population who thinks the only way to solve the city's problems is socialism. Make no mistake, these people are socialists. Yeah, nothing chases new business faster from this town than these nuts. I've seen it right in front of me. The disturbing part is that there seems to be more of these people every time I hit the usual "political" bars. 10% and it better not get bigger or I am outta here. So being an optimist in Buffalo means you are outnumbered 2 to 1 by the oblivious, delusional, and preposterous, and occasionally have to deal with someone following you down the street, even after you've done the smart thing and walked away from crazy, still demanding that you agree that a "living wage" is what Buffalo needs. Yeah, it's a great place for business, and Buffalo's problems are everybody else's fault but ours.

Dude, you are ruining it for me. Dave was supposed to answer this, not somebody who actually knows WTF they are talking about. But, perhaps this is a good thing: perhaps Dave will realize that he's much better off getting his info from PPP than from Moveon.org. Yes, I am an optimist.

The B word is that the money some people get to invest is inherited. Oh wait, didn't the Death Tax go back into effect? Perhaps Dave can explain how it's ok to tax inherited money 3 times(first when it was income, then when it was inherited, and again with capital gains)....and still say it's not being taxed fairly. The number #1 thing this economy needs is the willingness to risk capital. As soon as that willingness returns, the economy will literally boom. Now, let's also ask Dave: what's the best way to get that willingness to return? More taxes on capital gains? Or less? How about an even easier question for Dave? Why do cigarettes cost $10 a pack in NYS? I think we can all agree it is because they want to get rid of cigarettes, right? Amazing. You tax something more, and you get less of it, you lower the taxes on it, you get more. But, apparently that simple concept only applies for cigarettes for Dave. We need more capital investment immediately, yet, according to Dave, we should tax it more. On second thought, why bother asking Dave? It's not like he's going to understand the above anyway.

Uhhh..... During my casual review of RCP...I found Newt's debate blurb last night. John King Publicly Humiliated First debate I didn't watch live, dammit. That is killer TV. I'm not so sure whose nads are getting rocked here anymore. If anything, the story is the whipping Newt put on CNN. I doubt anybody is going to care about anything else now. Just sayin', again: you can talk all you want about the man, but you cannot deny his political skill set.

Last time I checked it was a hell of a lot easier to get a tank from the Ruhr to France than Volgograd. Logistics? What does that have to do with Monty not moving fast enough in the first 5 days, wasting the initiative, and then designing an awful attack that failed miserably and got a lot of Canadians killed? They had all their supplies, they just had a bad plan, and a poncy commander. What were the 5 things Eisenhower credited? I always forget. I know one of them was the bazooka. Was spam in there?

No reply at all....there's no reply at all. And yes, I'm doing the Phil Collins dance right now, just messed up my schema documents...all over the floor. Still dancing.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DisZ6qmNdbo