OCinBuffalo

You understand that I could take out the words "the rich" and replace them with "the unions", or, "organizations like ACORN" in that paragraph...and not really have a problem, right? I mean literally. So what's the real problem? It's not one side or the other. Nope. It's the fact that the Federal government, and those that participate in it, have found a way to whore themselves out politically, and make a whole lot of personal $$ in the process. That's the real problem, and the ONLY way to fix it is to take away their ability to do the whoring. Reduce their power-->reform the tax code down to a postcard, and there won't be ways for any special interest group to get over. But, what are the chances that you support that...the actual solution to the actual problem? While we are at it, let's increase per student spending another $3k per kid, and then self-congratulate ourselves for being "compassionate" while we also ignore that fact that the increased spending has no effect on results. How wonderful that so much spending, time and effort is expended on people who refuse to utilize it, and consistently choose idiocy instead. How great that we can spend so much on make work jobs for government employees, that either do nothing to improve things, or make them worse. Yes, thank God we are spending all this money on entitlement bureaucrats who see themselves as entitled as well. Governor Cuomo didn't just come out and say we need to cut taxes and spending in this state, right? But, even if he did, you know better than the #1 Democrat in NY, don't you? No, you said you refuse to judge people by their status in life, yet, you have done so in every post. I'm simply improving your soul by correcting your unseen errors.

The first one is true. The only reason it exists is to hand out money to liberal activists/researchers...who conveniently conclude that it needs more money. However, we do need a Federal organization that keeps people from NY from "pissing" into rivers that go into Pennsylvania. Now if that's ALL the organization did, it would make sense. The EPA needs to be restricted to cases that cross state lines, or in instances of extreme threat. Use the same rules as those for the FBI. Let the individual state EPAs handle individual property owner issues. This would make sense. Here's what doesn't make sense: The EPA keeping people from building homes on property they own, in an already residential area, because they say there are wetlands there , and then to make matters ridiculous, never mind worse, saying that the land owner has no right to sue them in Federal court, after they threaten to impose 30k fines, per day, on them? http://www.foxnews.c...stopped-by-epa/ This is retarded. Yeah, in a pig's ass. As if you would get a fair hearing in a "court" where the EPA is judge, jury, and unregulated finer. That's one of the reasons why we have Federal courts, and courts in general, you twit. We don't live in a totalitarian state where the government cannot be held to account. Perhaps you need to get a copy of the Constitution and read it. Why do I have to explain something so basic to a supposed Supreme Court worthy lawyer? The EPA needs to gutted and the leadership needs to be retired. Clearly these people are out of control, and it's time to reorganize the department and redefine it's scope.

"Don't listen to experts who have found serious, unresolved, and unlikely to be resolved, issues with the plan. Focus on me, and what I say is a NEED, because I know better than experts who in this case have nothing to gain by fudging their #s! Ignore the terrible choices we made when things were going well economically, that have put us in a situation that is untenable when they are going poorly! Re-commit yourself to bad choices, things are bound to get better, and the consequences of all these bad choices will go away as soon as the economy recovers!" The original headline(see your browser's tab for the page) was "Keeping faith with California's bullet train". Yes, keeping faith with idiotic solutions that were predicated on poor/non-existent problem definition. Par for the course for a liberal twit. It's interesting that we must have "faith" when it comes to this liberal solution. I thought everything liberals demand is based on science and data? It's hysterical that this turd tries to equate his lack of proper contingency planning with being "visionary".

Hence why the word ANY was and remains in caps. For ANY, or ALL, government spending to be reduced, it needs to be reevaluated...like Obama promised, but, actually done by someone who is both genuine and competent. Or, wait, didn't Obama put together a panel of former Senators and Congressman, and various others, to study this and provide recommendations? Oh, that's right he did. But, did he act on any of them? A single one? Nope. We already have what you are asking for, but we don't have the person to lead it, yet. We also have the tax reform plans completed and ready to go, but we don't have the person that can lead the way on those either. The plans aren't the problem, the person in the WH is.

I have watched almost every single Republican debate. Clearly, you haven't. If you had, you'd know that they have a whole lot of ideas. More specifics than I can remember in any debate for either party. Which of Obama's ideas are better for the country in general, and NOT simply better for specific Democratic constituencies? Where are the results? The difference between Hannity and Olbermann is really straightforward: Hannity is a good person Olbermann is not That's why Hannity still has a job, and Olbermann doesn't. We can talk for hours about this, but it simply comes down to the fact that Hannity is not a mean, self-centered jerk whose efforts at convincing other people of his superiority fail to the point of convincing them otherwise. Hannity goes out amongst the people via fundraisers and concerts and has a ball, Olbermann couldn't be bothered with such trifles as actually interacting with people that watch his show. Hannity's entire perspective is based on humility and self-determination, Olbermann's is based on hubris and self-congratulation. Hence there is no mystery as to why either get the results they have. Oh, horseshit. Nobody I know blames the initial problems on Obama. Nobody. Certainly nobody on this board blames them on Obama. Liberal victim mentality on display here. Too much Oprah there wawrow? The fact is that the economy should have turned around, as it has historically, which is why the WH went with the whole "recovery summer" thing. They expected it to come around, and when it didn't, they were left holding the Obamacare/Dodd Frank bag. The fact is that Obama's policies have either slowed down or killed the recovery in some verticals/sectors, and there's no denying it for rational people. Ask Bill Gates or Steve Jobs if they would rather have been born with a silver spoon. Hell, ask me. Part of what motivates is the desire to finish stronger than you started, and as banal as it is, it's definitely enjoyable to pass the blue bloods along the way. The fact is that everyone's lot in life from 7 years old on is largely due to the choices they make, and in many cases, minorities and women now get the game called their way, so they can even afford to make a bunch of bad ones along the way. After all, Obama is President, isn't he? I have never met a Canadian doctor who defends their health care system, and I have met 40+ so far. Now, is that an accident? I wonder if birddog can tell us where all the "I'm overjoyed to be a Canadian doctor" people are hiding. Probably the same place where all the striped ass apes are hiding as well. Since we are talking Bible, and mortal sins, where is the discussion of pride and envy? Pride as in "we can create a Welfare system and other government programs that will end poverty that is so awesome that it won't be effected by the participants making bad choices and/or dehumanize them, because we are awesome". Envy as in the endless talking about what other people have, instead of talking about making the most with what you have. What is the point of having a life, or being human at all, if you are going to spend it wishing you were somebody else and not wanting to earn something that is great for you? We pay billions of tax dollars for education, yet it's our fault that it is underutilized, managed poorly, and executed poorly, so we must pay more? GTFO of here. Just a little more. But don't you understand the need? Not the problem. The need. Wawrow doesn't want to define problems properly, therefore, he is doomed to support solutions that don't fix them properly. Well, you have to stand in line at all, so it's the same thing in liberal land. Liberals are absolutist when it comes to the need, but then suddenly relativist about the very same need, when it comes to judging the success rate of their solutions. As above: we NEED universal health care, but, when you NEED to be universally checked out for cancer, well, you can afford to wait a little while, right? Here we go again: the NEED for universal health care is absolute. "Everyone must have immediate medical attention, especially preventative care". (Think Walter Sobcheck conducting the choir as he says "there going to kill that poor woman") But, when we quantify the liberal methods used to supposedly achieve universal health care and attend to preventative medicine....well....you don't actually need it, do you? The pattern here is hysterical. Really? Then how do you explain your constant assault on those who have made a lot of money? How do explain your reasoning that the less fortunate need your help, if you haven't judged their status in life? How do you continue to support one failed government program after then next, if you haven't judged that people's status in life warrants that ongoing support? Yes, naive. Childlike, really. Since FDR we have had all sorts of social spending programs in place, and spent a buttload of both tax dollars and charitable giving all over the world. We have fought awful governments with the military spending you hate so much, and won. We have done a ton. Yet, it will never be enough for people like you. I have news that isn't naive, it should be refreshing for you: bad things happen to people, and that's unfortunate, but destroying our wealth as a result only means that: a lot more bad things will happen to people.

Oh yeah, one other thing? The reason Reagan and Clinton got 2nd terms? You know...when there were still a ton of economic concerns, terrible data, and uncertainty about their policies? We had little doubt about them as leaders, and therefore people were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Who here has real faith in Obama as a leader? If you owned a company, and wanted to hire a GM, would you hire Obama? The other difference: People weren't looking trying to interpret obscure economic data, massage it to their needs, and have that be the story on the front page. Nope, instead, Clinton/Reagan was the story on the front page, exercising their leadership ability. They were not complaining about being unable to work with Congress, they getting things done with Congress. Both Reagan and Clinton were able to establish a rapport with Congress after the mid terms. Obama has done the opposite: he was petulant from day 1 to today, and arrogant, and learned nothing from the whipping of 2010. Now, he has no chance of developing that 2nd-term winning rapport. So, throw around all the #s you like Dave, they won't change people's minds about "strong leader"/"qualified to be President". That ship has sailed, and the only thing left is: attack the Republicans! BushBad, (insert Howard Dean scream here).

Yawn. Look, the fundamentals of the American economy basically mean that we simply cannot stay down for very long. Sooner or later things will get going again. The difference is: if Obama had done NOTHING, we'd be further along. There can be little doubt anymore that the net effect of Obama et al has been to impede growth. Yes, Obamacare is a big culprit, but there are a TON of other laws/regulations that nobody hears about, that are just as brutal for business. The smart play for Obama would have been to get the economy moving again, and THEN, push the "social justice" agenda. Instead, we got the dumb play: all Obama has accomplished is introducing things that reduce investment, and therefore retard growth.

This is predicated on that fact that they think we are idiots. This premise is fascinating to me. They really don't understand that the feeling is mutual. I mean, honestly, it has to be hubris, DC bubble, whatever. In my travels I have yet to meet a relevant person who sees a government employee/political staffer as an equal. Sure we respect them as people, but WE are the idiots? Yes, the sitting POTUS as an...outsider? You are right, this WH seems to be stuck in the 50s/60s, where the internet doesn't exist, neither does talk radio, the only way to get news is from the NYT or Walter Cronkite, and somehow Harry Truman and LBJ are wise figures that need to be emulated. Christ, why don't we just go back to Huey Long and Andrew Jackson? We can all sit around our radios by the fireside and be regaled by stories of Obama living in his log cabin and being introduced to far-left thinking by the Welfare fairy leaving food stamps under his pillow.

No. I was telling you Gingrich has a political skill set that is elite. That is...until he stops using it and lets his emotions run wild. But, I have no dog in this race. I still want to hear and see what happens in South Carolina, as I think that will answer the questions regarding the ultimate goal. I am firmly in the "get rid of Obama" camp, because he is simply incompetent. If there is anything to learn from Bush2/Obama, we have to vote for the best leader, not the ideology. I detest protected incompetence, as in the VP who sucks on wheels but will never be fired for reasons not pertaining to their performance(nepotism, don't want a civil rights suit, shamelessly banging the boss-->sexual harassment if fired, brutal lesbian that scares boss...and the new one I've seen recently: Female boss's favorite pet gay guy). As this drags on, I think it will become increasingly clear Democrats are willing to overlook Obama's incompetence, because he is their favorite pet black guy, but, I ask you: wouldn't you rather it was Hillary running right now? Hey, you did it to yourselves, again. But, to get back to the point of this post, think about it this way: would Gingrich be doing any of the things Obama is right now if he were the sitting President in an election year? Nope. Would Hillary? Hell, Hillary would be doing the opposite of Obama, and better than Gingrich would be.

And all 3 have awful draft performances over the last 5 years, which is why I am saying, "who gives a F?". The fact that demonstrable idiots do things that are demonstrably idiotic doesn't mean we should. I don't care about other teams, I care about this one. This stupid, "we could have traded down because some reporter from another team who is either getting played by their FO, or willingly going along with it so they can keep getting access to info, wrote a story that says the Bills didn't take their trade up/down offer" scam that the less intelligent posters here invariably fall for is far past getting tiresome. Meanwhile, because Ralph and the Bills have class, we never hear their side of it, and instead, we have to listen the BS here for 5 months. You are the one who said "the talent has flattened out" and I got the impression you meant the entire draft, cause you didn't specify. I said, yeah, in rounds 3-7, not the top 20. What are you telling me?

And ain't in the playoffs, directly due to both sucking horribly in a games they had to win. Yeah, it was Romo's O line that got him those stats, but since when do stats = big game wins? Before you talk about hurt hands, remind me when Romo has EVER showed up in a big game? Cause off the top of my head, I can't remember a single one. In fact, how many times has he directly contributed to the losing the big game? "Tony Romo, 2 yards over the line of scrimmage, throwing the pass!"....because WEO says his hurt hand made him do it. You can sum up that game = "Dallas, forced to punt". Such a loser. Yeah, those stats = his O line. Sanchez is the exact same. Look I am sorry to burst your ESPN-indoctrinated bubble, but these guys aren't even close to "playoff winning QBs". Neither is worth half of the coverage they get. They literally the "pet rocks" of the NFL. Lot's of marketing and accessories, but in the end, all you get is a rock in a box. The rest of their teams weren't able to carry them this time, and when it came time for both of them to pick up their team, they both FAILed. This is undeniable. Both sucked in the first "who sucks more?" big game of the season, and both sucked in the last big game of the season. Those are the facts you keep denying. Yeah, teams called the Pittsburgh Steelers, or the Baltimore Ravens, don't exist in WEO land do they? Are you saying that the Pats have no fault in what has happened to their defense and that their "stockpile" draft strategy hasn't bit them in the ass over the last 5 years? Just come out and say it, you'll feel much better: you haven't been right about this, not even close. We'll see. Playoffs is a whole different bird as you know. Who knows? Maybe the Pats will suddenly be able to stop the run and cover more than 1 good WR? Try harder to not ignore all the ones that don't fit what you've been selling here the last 5 years. The reality of the Pats drafts for the last 5 years is what it is. But, when you try to refute that with a single draft pick, in one year? Well, you are supposed to know better. Based on the above? I'm doing just fine. Actually, based on my expectations, I'm ahead of the game. Next.

Does anybody else see a pattern to the last 3 weeks or so WH stories? By that I mean, does it seem that Obama is purposely doing far-left things that he even he can't possibly not know are going to be used directly against him in the election? Slashing defense and demanding 3 separate major increases in social/Federal Employee spending at the same time, in the same 2 week period? Is he that clueless, or, is it something else? Does he know he's going to lose, and therefore, figures he has nothing to lose? Is it possible that he's trying to swing the pendulum as far to left as possible now, while he can, before he gets beat? Basically operating on the assumption that much of what he does will be difficult to undo, or will move the definition of "middle" to the left, or will provide some political points for those still around after he leaves? Is it possible that he's being coerced into this by his donors? Quid pro stupid? Or are they operating on the same pendulum assumption, and figuring they might as well get as much return on their investment as possible now, since they are shorting Obama futures? I dunno how this is supposed to work, but, it seems to me that moving to the left, instead of the center, right in the middle of a phase when Republicans are getting a ton of free TV time to blast you repeatedly and generate 1000s of soundbites...is not a good plan for winning an election. Instead, it seems to be a "get whatever we can while we can" plan. Meanwhile, every time the Republicans have a chance to look bad for a few days, it seems he's putting himself in the position of looking worse, or at least stepping on the Republican "story". It's like he can't stand it not being about him, even for a few days, even when it not being about him helps him. We need a :facepalm: emoticon. I really don't understand this approach or why he keeps giving speeches that distract from the Republicans killing each other, as Romney continues to cruise along virtually untouched. Perhaps some of you can help out.

After reading through the rest of this thread, I suppose I don't really need to respond to any of this, now do I? But, what the hell, I will anyway. See, some of us work in the corporate world, and therefore, our work can actually interfere with our posting, as is the case here. Please don't misunderstand, I would have loved to continue this. If you had told me you were going to predicate posts on your nitwit understanding of health care, insurance in general, risk, risk mitigation, and how these things are managed properly....and try to use that as justification for why we need to continue welfare as designed ...well, nah, I probably still didn't have the time, but I would have tried a lot harder. For the last time, first you created a straw man and argued against "my position". When I called you on that, you tried to get out of it. When I wouldn't let you, you whined, threw up on the page, and finally admitted it. Then, I demanded that you respond to my actual point, and restated it: I said "welfare hasn't delivered on it's promise to reduce poverty. It's been 60 years and we've either stayed the same or gotten worse, because welfare over-emphasizes the survival needs while creating deficits in the other 4....because it f'ing does." Then, you said "well, we'd need an interim solution...". To which I responded "When do you think these idiots will get to work on fixing this crap? Next year? IF the first 60 years is the beginning, then the next 60 is 'interim', with of course another requisite 60 years for the 'transition'". That is if we are to excuse Welfare's poor performance, or defend not changing it immediately, with your ridiculous "interim" excuse. That's how we got to 180 years. A few individuals succeeding, IN SPITE Of, the generational debilitation of Welfare, does not excuse the massive problems it exacerbates, causes, and causes to be ignored. There is a time to enhance a design, and then, there's a time to scrap the thing and start over. Welfare's results clearly means the second choice is what is required. And, Social security covers the type of disabilities you brought up, not welfare. Again, based on what you posted.

Playing with you is getting more fun by the day. Consider: I say that the Democrats have blown the biggest lead in the history of politics directly due to their bad behavior. You respond by not refuting a single point made, and instead bring up somebody else's bad behavior in a vain attempt to establish equivalency.... ....and you then feel the need define straw man, as if...talking about Bush as though I am arguing for him, and not attacking the Democrats..isn't the perfect example of a straw man argument? Thanks for the definition. You posted it, as expected. Now I will make use of it, as intended. Have you refuted my original argument that the Bills are most comparable to the Democrats? No. Have you instead replaced that with a superficially similar yet unequivalent propostion about Bush's performance, designed to distract from my unassailable argument? Yes. Me saying Democrat bad is not the same as saying Bush good, is it? Yet, that is how you responded, and now, YOU are talking in terms of straw men? Buddy, I knew what you were going say, how and why, better than you did. Do you understand, that you are a guy who says strawman too much, while he uses the very tactic he decries, on a regular basis? Do you understand that there's no practical way for me to resist something like this? Perhaps next week we can move on to non sequitor? Or even, ipso facto, as in: "Obama not only nationalized the Auto Industry, he also took away the private property of bond holders, and gave it to labor unions, all without the consent of the American people or their elected representatives, ipso facto, he is a socialist"

You are exactly right when you say "Sanchez WENT to AFCC..." Yes, went, just like the trainers, the bus driver, and and the cheerleaders. They all went too. They didn't do the winning the games to get there, but they all went. Sanchez sucks, it's been 3 years, we can easily say he wasn't worth the draft picks, and no amount of marketing spin changes that. Do I need to haul out my Cowboys vs Jets "which ESPN over-hyped clown QB can lose the game first" thread from the first game of the season? I was right then and I am right now. Sanchez and Romo are products of being on teams with good O lines, period. Neither is a SB winning QB. They may be Trent Dilfer, "along for the ride" QBs, and win one, but they won't be in the top 3 reasons why they win. You really want to cite the success of the Browns, Patriots...and the F'ing Redskins in the draft, as a reason why the Bills should.....this is retarded. As I said above, the talent in rounds 3-7 is becoming almost indistinguishable. That is NOT the case for the the top 20. Don't be absurd. Yeah, drafting Dareus is the same as drafting Troup. Google the Pats drafting history for the last 5 years. The Pats have seen fit to either trade away their ability to pick solid guys on D, in favor of assclowns, and to boot, have invested in old FA LBs, thereby keeping any picks that might have made it...off the field. Know what they are doing? Hey look, it takes time to build up a great defense, and, therefore, it also takes time to destroy it. That's what they Pats have been doing the last 5 years: destroying their Defense with horrible drafts/FA. Or are you going to tell me Adalius Thomas(ask WEO how that worked out), Junior Seau, and Albert Haynesworth is also "knowing what they are doing"? Ask Dan Snyder how his 10-year, "trade draft picks for 'proven' free agents" plan worked out. :lol: Now, they are in year 2 of trying to copy the failed, Bill Belechick trade down plan. You are telling us to emulate the biggest idiot owner in the league. Why? Yeah, Dan Synder was a real "innovator". I have an "innovative" idea, how about you buy me 4 season tickets next year, and pay for my flights back to the game? Hey, it's both new and different, right, so why isn't it innovative? Just because something is new, doesn't mean it will work. Just because you can change something, doesn't mean you should. Just because somebody says they will bring you hope, doesn't mean they know WTF they are doing. Seems like a good theme for 2012, doesn't it? I wonder how many people who bought Chevy Volts wish they hadn't "lead the pack" today. We don't talk in terms of 1 draft class here to define a trend. Somewhere in this thread somebody posted the Pats last 5 years. That's a trend. Clearly the trend of trading down has failed miserably. One decent O lineman doesn't make up for 5 years of losing elite D players and not replacing them, or replacing them with old FAs. Any objective observer can see what has happened to the Pats Defense...and why. I said all but a very few players, not, all players. For every example you can point out, I can bring 5. How about we start with: Ricky Williams and the New Orleans Saints? You have missed the point completely. This isn't only about "this year". This is about what has happened over the last 5 years. Hmm 5 years ago...when the Pats had the 6th best D in the league, including #5 against the run. To, now, when you know that they are going to get run on next week regardless of everything, with the only way they win being: if their offense can score enough to force the other team to throw too. This is about how you go from that great SB winning defense, to a defense that if it was on any other team, would keep it out of the playoffs. 5 years of poor drafting, based on a poor strategy, that for some reason has been raised to the level of mythical greatness by the misguided. The Pats have seen fit to destroy their elite defense, 1-2 players at a time, over the course of 5 years....by relying on a draft/FA strategy that clearly FAILS. This is the correct conclusion based on the facts. It's far past time we make sure the conclusions suit the facts, all of them, and not the other way around.

Then I will haze many. It's nothing new to me. You should have seen PPP during the Surge debate. I am no stranger to being right, because I base my positions on reason, data and fact, and taking on a ton of posters who are flat out wrong, because they base theirs on emotion, wishful thinking and delusion .

Trading up is ridiculous. Period. Even the SB winner will have huge holes to fill due to lost FAs. Unless they really only need one more player, it's stupid. And, we've all seen what injuries do to teams. Trading down is not feasible. Period. Nobody wants to pay what is required to trade up into the top 15...only to get Mark Sanchez as a their QB. Ask the Jets how that "genius" move worked out. Honestly, ask yourself, what is Sanchez really worth today? More than a 3rd? Not really. Not when you are just as likely to get a better player with that 3rd. Blaming WRs for Sanchez? Who wouldn't like to have a talent like Santonio Holmes on this team, tomorrow? Are ya silly? Can you imagine Fitz with an elite rout-runner like that? And, ask Bill Belechik how his "genius" trade down strategy has worked the last 5 years. What? They have around 3 guys left on the team and the worst defense in the league? That's what happens when you "stockpile" crappy picks, and pass on guys like Clay Matthews. Your "stockpile" really is a "shitpile", and if you can't convince people to take 2-3 off your pile for one of their good picks...well you end up right where the Pats are on D, right now. These are myths that simply need to be dispelled permanently, and I am doing my level best.

How is that relevant to: blowing the biggest momentum I have ever seen the Democratic party have? Blowing it all, and then going further and willfully eroding their traditional base? Replacing the low/middle class whites with...what? College professors, kids and minorities? Which is more relevant election-wise? Which has been more loyal? Which has been more likely to consistently turn out? How does this make any sort of political sense? Who taught these people their jobs? Oh, that's right, the college professors, and their disciples, are now running things in the Democratic party. They are the new, and only real, constituency the Democrats have. Awfully difficult to represent the low/middle working class whites....when you don't have that many in your party. We can talk about Bush stupidity, but that pales in comparison to the sheer idiocy we have seen from the Democrats since 2006 when they got the House/Senate. Remember? (EDIT: And, we could easily argue that the BushBad CREATED the opportunity for Democrats that they would never have been able to achieve for themselves.) If you made a list of the top 20 things not to do since then, they have done almost all of them(drone strikes). I'm not kidding when I say they have blown all of Emanuel's work. He has to be the most dumbfounded and frustrated man in America today. At least being Mayor of Chicago let's him focus on something else. Again, since 2006, when Bush was still in office, they have done nothing but F up both politically and policy-wise. There's no argument here. This is easily the dumbest set of people ever to be in charge of a political party in our history. If you had told me in 2005, when we could all see where it was going, that we'd be here today, no way I would have believed it. Now, to be sure, if you go back and look at my posts, I warned the leftists here. I told their cocky asses this could happen, word for word. But even I never predicted it going this badly. It's interesting that a "conservative" such as yourself, is so willing to immediately go BushBad, as his only reply. Interesting indeed. It will be interested what you have to say, now that those 2006 Democrats in the Senate, 23 of them, have either retired or will have to defend their seats. We already saw what happened to the 2006 House people.

...because it appeared to produce the desired effect. See here: Last year's "trade up/down" thread However, recent posts have shown that I need to bring this back up again. I can only imagine what will happen when the various "stories" come out. Again, for reasons passing understanding, we are having to endure misguided posts telling us that we could have traded down(up). Perhaps this thread will put an end to...for another year... "But...but...but why didn't we trade down(up)?" The first part of that answer is: it takes 2 sides to make a trade. The second part is: teams now value picks more, than only a very few players. The third part is: teams now value top 10 draft picks 5x more than they used to. This is directly due to the fact that over the last 20 years, the amount of NFL starter-ready talent has shrunk, while the # of teams has increased.(More kids spending less time in college, I remain unsure as to whether there is less talent overall) This is also how you explain the rise in the # of UDFAs coming in and out-competing #3-7 draft picks. Increasingly, top 10-20 picks are as close to the only sure thing there is. It remains to be seen how the new rookie contract agreement will effect this. But, for now, few teams want to trade these picks without a ridiculous price tag: see draft chart. And few teams want to pay it, just for the privilege of over-paying for one guy, when they could have had 3. New Draft Chart Please reply if you don't understand what this is/how it works. I will be more than happy to explain it to you. Perhaps understanding this chart properly will help posters who struggle with these concepts. IF you have a "creative" idea and doesn't even come close to following this chart, do yourself a favor(unless you want to get hazed, or are ieatcrayonz) and don't bother. And, no, just because you can do it in Madden, doesn't mean it can happen IRL.

How many times did we lose the battle in the air this year? Do I even need to name specifics? How many picks weren't picks at all, but instead, were a WR quitting or getting beat to the ball? Fitz got royally screwed a bunch of times on this. Also, how many balls were volleyballed up in the air by WRs/RBs(don't remember any from the TEs). How many drops did we have, by how many guys? Far too many, and with so many guys not getting it done, the answer is bad WR coaching. How many times did our DBs find themselves in the right spot, in the right coverage, only to be slow/stupid, and not get the ball, or at least knock it down? That's not the DC's fault(even though I am overjoyed he's gone), that's the DB coach. How many times did we see guys get flat out-techniqued? Out-muscled, out-positioned? Far too many, and with so many guys nto getting it done, the answer is bad DB coaching. There are lots of ways to fix this, but at this point, we are as bad as we can be at going up and out-muscling or out-jumping or out-positioning the other guy. It's so bad, I would even consider firing the WR/DB coaches. Are either that good? If they like one, then fire the other one to send a message. RE the players: this is about heart. Taking the punishment to get the ball, and, doing the right things right BEFORE the ball gets there and not being lazy about it. The WR/DB coaches, whoever they end up being, should be on the player's asses starting today on this. Why wait? This is perhaps the single most fixable issue we have, and it was one of the top 3 reasons we got beat this year, if not #1.

That's a good question. Really. It seems to me that there are lots of areas where anti-trust needs to be at least investigated, if not enforced. But, the government is probably still butthurt from losing to Microsoft so badly. Certainly we need to look at banking, if not forcibly break up all of the banks into smaller entities and force foreign banks to do the same if they want to work with us. However, why would the government enforce antitrust today, when they are currently in the trust-creating business? Or hypothetically: what would have happened to a private company if they had been able to eat Solyndra's lunch and was in danger of competing them out of business? Yeah, I'm so sure they wouldn't have been audited, harassed, investigated, etc. Another hypothetical: what would happen to a new American car manufacturer if they were to start killing GM? You can't be in the anti-trust business, and, the "picking winners and losers" business, at the same time.

Newsflash: The Great Iraq War Demagoguery Caper is over. You ultimately lost. Sure, it worked for a little while, and it even got you both houses and the Presidency. But then, as expected, you made/supported a boatload of bad choices(or plays, to maintain the analogy) in a row, and screwed yourselves right out of the game. Who does that sound like? Now: most of your best players are on IR (either retiring or kicking back doing nothing) you have no depth on your bench(almost all of the famous Rahm Emanuel House Democrat draft class from 2006 are gone, and the same thing is about to occur in the Senate Edit: I wonder how "F'ing Retarded"TMRahm says you are now, after blowing all his hard work? I'd be pissed off too if I were him.) there's no chance at picking up some new, quality free agents from the private sector to help you get out of the mess you have created, because they don't want to come play for a loser, and you have seen fit to alienate most of us you keep pretending that the ancient ideology you have that says LBJ wasn't a complete dolt, that pretends it's still 1965, and is predicated on John Maynard Keynes economics and Harry Truman politics is going to lead you out of this RUFKM? The political entity that most resembles the Bills is: the Democratic party. The only difference is the Bills current leadership have a much better chance of being successful, provided that they also remove the ancient ideology, or, the ancient one himself. Unfortunately for you as long as you keep depending on ideas from the 60s, or worse, from the 20s and even the 1800s, you won't win anything again unless the other team hands it to you, just like they recently did with Iraq. But go ahead and keep talking about the Bush Tax cuts and the Iraq War. Your fans will probably show up regardless, like the drooling Bill Maher audience, but your team still won't win anything.

How long do you think the post that does what your asking is?(To: DC_Tom From: OCinBuffalo....Merry Christmas!) If we go back to 2003 and study the behavior of the Democrats from there until today, it's practically impossible not to conclude that their intention was to make changes in this country that are modeled on European Socialism. Impossible not to conclude. Now, you want me to go through and cite every single example? Why? What purpose does that serve? Why separate Obama from this agenda? He most certainly was a part of it. Don't fool yourself, I can do what you want, but, before I spend 4 hours writing that post, and pissing everyone off due to its length, I want to know why this is necessary. What do any of us stand to gain from me exhaustively documenting something we already know? Why can't we just cut to the chase and say what we all know, regardless of whether we choose to admit it? I don't think of myself as a conservative as much as I try to be about results. Ultimately party/ideology matters not. In my lifetime, the people who have gotten them(Reagan and Clinton) have pursued government reduction policies. The people who have failed(Cater, Bush 2 and Obama) have pursued government increases. It's as simple as that. And, I already have eaten plenty of DC sweetie pies alive. Plenty. Last one was an Admiral's daughter who I should probably call next time I'm there because she's much better than I am. Look who doesn't know the difference between social security and welfare . Wait, don't you work for the government? Then why do I know which programs apply to whom better than you do? There are programs for the helpless. Welfare, on the other hand was purposely designed for the clueless, and my simple point is that it's keeping them that way. Able bodied, sound minded people, who could be working, are being handed money for doing nothing, and you think that has 0 effect on them? You think that 60 years of this has no effect on a family? Like I said, you are defending a ridiculous position based on nothing more than emotion and/or nostalgia. It's the same thing with the people who think drugs should be illegal. There's no logic to your position at all: all we hear is threats about the boogeymen that will appear if we don't go along with your delusions, and ignore the facts you don't like. Speaking of delusions: What happened to your "interim period" idea? Not so good when put into the context of Welfare being a 180 year program, is it now? Buddy, you aren't winning this argument. You can throw around some more useless paragraphs that contain the irrelevant, but it's not going to make welfare any less of a psychological disease that is purposely being spread by the government. It's not going to suddenly, magically, produce the results LBJ promised. And, it's not going to stop producing the unintended consequences he didn't consider back in 1965 either. I understand your motives, and in most cases I not only agree, I also share them. However, your methods suck ass, and it's far past time to get new ones. Since when should we be treating anything that came from LBJ, who sucked so bad he had to quit, as though it's sacred? Why is the guy who was obviously inept as a leader, suddenly a genius only when we talk about Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare, but goes right back to idiot again when anything else comes up? This is retarded. We should have cleaned out all of the LBJ mess in the late 1990s, when we had the money/time and replaced it with programs that work. Now, we are paying for that indecision.

Somewhere, somehow, all of this is important to somebody. The question shouldn't be importance, as that is relative. Instead, we should be judging this on what is urgent. And, this whole thing is ridiculous. We are confusing penny problems with $10k problems. It's time to wake the F up. Even if we taxed the %1 at 100%, we wouldn't even come close to covering what we are spending. Get that through your head already. Even if we taxed everyone making over $250k at 100% we wouldn't come close to covering what we are spending. Get that through your head as well. Raising taxes is not the answer for one simple reason: those that support raising taxes have no credibility. You can't spend what you are getting properly, and now you want more? This thread is an example for why, sure, but this is small potatoes. We need entitlement reform, immediately, before they cause us irreparable harm. For the left: The real reason you have no credibility is your refusal to deal with the reality that is government spending. If you can't deal with that first, on it's own, and stop trying to link your poor spending choices to revenue, then nobody will take anything you say seriously. Get used to losing elections until you prove you are serious people who take these problems seriously. The Great Iraq War Demagoguery Caper....is over. You lost. It was working for a while, and you even got all 3 branches of government out of it. But, ultimately, you pissed it all away with a boatload of stupid choices in a row, and worse, we all saw you do it. You ran your mouths for so long and so hard, there's nobody left in America who missed your act. This is why you aren't getting any real traction with people on the "raise taxes" thing. One poll says you are, 15 others say you aren't. Of course you will delude yourself into believing the single poll. IF you lose all 3 branches in 2012, regardless of how much money you spend, the reason will be: willingness to believe your own BS. You won't win if you don't start talking in terms of reality regarding spending.

I have learned, the easy way, that attacking problems in terms of pure financial considerations, as you have suggested, rarely produces improvement. Seeing the world from the limited perspective of financial statements is...limiting. The reverse is also true. Any purely fiscal/monetary solution we propose, however viable, is subject to attack from those who either don't possess the ability, or refuse, to see it reasonably. We see it all the time in the media, and even on this board. Politically, sure, anything can produce "change". However, simply changing how things work, as you propose, without the accompanying "chance management", fails. "Change management" is one of our buzzwords(hell we start most of them, so we are just as guilty as the finance people), and it's a nice way of saying: going around to most of the relevant client staff and convincing them of the merits of the change and how to approach it and benefit from it. If that doesn't work, it means charming, cajoling, shaming, threatening them, and it just gets worse from there. We can't just cut spending and raise taxes. Really, we can't. Not without the "change management". In this case, "change management" means we have to change the culture as well. You can't get ANY spending under control unless you convince, and then worse if necessary, those that rely on it to rely on it less. You can't raise taxes on only half the citizens of the country, continue to have the other half pay nothing at all, and obtusely call that "paying their fair share". You sound like an idiot to the majority of people in the political center and you are giving the far-right exactly what it wants...just so you can make 20% of the country happy. Ultimately, the best way to change the culture is: to end the tolerance of the intolerable from people in your own group. By that I mean: those on the left have to tell the socialists and environtologists, who are really unreconstructed socialists, to STFU once and for all. Same thing on the right, with all the "Jesus loves you, but I am here to affix your scarlet letter, because for all my personal claims on him, I still struggle with his most basic teachings" garbage.