OCinBuffalo

"No reply. There's no reply at all. No reply at all". Sing it with me!

Well, that's a start. Care to name anything else you were wrong about? How about The Surge in Iraq working? How about the distinct possibility that you are wrong about the above? How about the concept of putting your faith in Nancy Pelosi's ability to accomplish anything politically in the long-term? How wrong are you to think that Pelosi can take on Gingrich, and win, at anything? If I had what she supposedly has, do you think I would be dumb enough to blab about it BEFORE Gingrich was nominated? No, I'd wait until there was no going back, until after he was nominated, and then turn it loose... ...that is, unless I was scared pantsuitless of him actually winning the nomination, because I know he'd own me every day as President. Either she has nothing, or she is afraid of the Newt, or she's a moran that blew a perfectly good attack. Pick one, as those are the only logical conclusions available.

I honestly just did what I read on the site. However, do you really want me to ObamafyTMthe rest of that? Somehow I don't think you'll like the result.

I listened to that once, because I got an email from a client who thinks its hysterical. I will never listen to it again. Musical ability and training is both a blessing and a curse.

This is a sexist study. We all know most girls can't throw, hence the term "throw like a girl". So, if throwing is indicative of high-ordered behavior, this study is basically saying most girls are retards. Be careful in this thread, however, since the girls here are likely to try and throw their poop at me, and hit you instead.

Since the WH marketing people(let's call them what they are) have seen fit to claim yet another famous Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, as one of ole' Barry's role models, and guiding lights , and, since these same marketing people don't know history well enough to realize how unintentionally exploitable their ploy is, and, since I am a wiseass who especially dislikes phonies... It's time for PPP arts and crafts! We can't all be quoting physics, engineering, economics and whatever we learned for our Series 7 tests every thread and call ourselves a well-rounded board. Now, everyone go get your smocks out of your desks while I lay out the materials. Ok? Good. Now first we have this website: http://www.brainyquo..._roosevelt.html We are going to take any of these quotes, and Obamafy them. That means we are going to replace some of the words, or alter the sentence structure a touch, to more accurately reflect what the quote would sound like if it actually came from Obama, and not TR. It still has to sound close to the original quote...or you FAIL. This is not an exercise in free association: DaveinElma/DaveinNorfolk. You may use whatever materials are available to make the new quote, including whatever you have in your desk, at home, or on the internets. I'll do the first one, and then you can try. I won't do the best/most ironic ones, I'll just start with a simple one: Now, ObamafyTM: Probably the greatest harm done to we of moderate means is the harm done by those of vast wealth so letting envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures is natural. "See, what Anondra did"? (We need the gay guy from the Orbitz commercials-->who rocks btw, I was hopelessly addicted to Project Runway for a while. We need somebody besides me to do what he did in that show in this thread.)

I have become convinced that every so often we actually need to use the big stick(and yes, since I just saw that Obama is on the TR train today as well, it's going to be all TR aphorisms until the end of this thread) instead of merely carrying it around with us. If we don't, then the average scumbag leader out there, thinks Mao had a point, that we are paper tigers, and then we have to spend even MORE money on an even bigger mess. There is no such thing as a pacifist world leader. Pacifism is only for people who can't fight. They attempt to hide that in "won't fight", but it's really "can't". World leaders cannot lead if fighting and winning wars isn't one of the clubs in their bag. Defense spending is like insurance spending: it's no good unless you can collect. If we don't get a peaceful world, and peace of mind that we aren't looking at another WW2, whether it's a forced, Pax Americana peace or otherwise, then yeah, it isn't worth it. However, iIf you can fire up the white ships, sail around the world, and let people know: we are watching you, and we can hit you where your kids live. If that message is received loud and clear, then there's a good chance that we benefit in all quarters: less war, less dbaggery, open and stable markets, etc. In long-term, big picture terms, if we can do that, and it works, then there's no doubt about the ROI. However, as I said, it appears we have to actually use those white ships, and go after Raisuli every so often, to make the threat stick.

Not really, I'm just seeing if I can push your buttons into doing something besides saying "everybody sucks" in every thread. Our military hasn't been there "for defense" since Teddy Roosevelt created the white ships. Look that up and understand. (Edit: and, ask the Native Americans about our military being "for defense". Now that's funny.) Our military has been in fact the reason why we can sell our goods in every market we choose. Now, ask a Ron Paul supporter how the market became "free" and what keeps it free. Then ask them if they know anything about the Barbary Pirates, and if our actions were "militarist". You want a laugh? That's good for at least 15 minutes of humor.

I am the one who said what I said, so I know what I said. Enough distortion. Ok, if I am wrong about people not understanding, then why don't you understand it? The math is simple enough. We cannot afford it, even if we gut defense spending. Period. You want people to "work for it"? Ok, then you are for means testing and increasing the retirement age. No? Why not? You want people to work for it, well, working for it starts with those two immediate reforms. In the immortal words of Toby from West Wing "FDR didn't intend SSI to mean 20 years of shuffle board!". You like reality? Ok, that's as real as it gets. Now, I dare you to get up in front of a bunch of Baby Boomers and say that. In New Mexico, or how about Brooklyn?. You're Jewish, right? You won't have any problems! They'd love to have a nice Jewish boy come tell them why the LBJ programs they have believed in their whole lives, and a lot have made a nice living off of, need to be changed immediately. Meanwhile, I dare you to also get up in front of my cousin's fighter wing and tell them that they will only be able to train 1 day a week, because of your defense cuts, and then pay $1k for every pilot who retires over the next year, and an additional $1k each month for every slot that remains unfilled. What? You seem to think this is all simple: OK, I just made it simple for you. If you are unwilling to come up with better solutions, and want to decry anybody that does, well...go ahead and try my dares and see what happens to you. You want to blame ALL politicians, then why don't you try dealing with the Democrats unwillingness to change something that is screaming out to be changed? They love change...except when it hurts them, but since this is all so simple, and you have the answers, what's stopping you?

Then clean the F'ing environment, and stop using it as an excuse for "fundamental transformation of America". I assume you clean your house, or pay somebody, because it needs cleaning. Do you use that fact to demand that you get a new house, or move the kitchen to the living room, because it's supposedly "better" and because some scientist with questionable motives and even more questionable work tells you to? No. Cleaning the environment already is a source a new jobs: have you seen how much dinero the average environmental engineering firm charges? Have you ever tried to build a new building, anywhere? Do understand that they are getting away with murder because of the laws you have seen fit to support? Often the environmental nonsense is what slows down/kills deals that have no real environmental impact, but because of the laws and bureaucracy, die. How is that "progress" there Mrs. "Progressive"? That's the problem: your need for regulation, and government control is the single biggest barrier to success of your need for a clean environment. You support creating ridiculous environmental laws, then support an organization of documented crackpots(the current EPA) to enforce them....and then whine when Republicans are able to easily use the stupidity in those laws, and the stupidity of the EPA, against you politically. You are handing them the gun and saying shoot, and then crying when they shoot you! Is this that hard to understand? Really? My advice: resolve your schizophrenia on your own time.

Ugh. When will guys stop misquoting me? I said we need a person who says: "I don't care if I get another term. I am going to do what I think is going to solve our problems and if I am wrong, I don't deserve another term", publicly, repeatedly. That would be accountability. And, that would prove that the person was about leading the country, not holding onto the job for the sake of the job, or the party. I thought that's what Obama meant when he said: if what I do doesn't work, it will probably be a one-term thing for me. Turns out he was just playing semantics games. In fact, based on his words/actions, I am with Chris Matthews on this: I am not sure why Obama even wants a second term. I have an easy way to deal with Defense spending issues: we haul out something from the Romans. Tribute. If Europe wants to live as our protectorates, as they have been for the last 70 years, they need to start paying for it. Same thing in Asia. Japan and India wouldn't be anywhere if they had to pay for their own defense. Neither would f'ing socialist paradise Sweden, or supposedly hard working, but socialist poster child Germany. Until then, defense spending is what it is. And, one set of terrible circumstances does not have anything to do with the other. This is not a zero sum game. We cannot afford (edit: unreformed) Medicare/Medicaid/SSI in any way shape or form, period. The numbers simply aren't there, even if we were to gut defense spending. This is about magnitude, and orders of it. People don't seem to understand just how big of a problem Medicare is, and, it's something, unlike defense, that we have total control over, and only effects us.

Nah. You're looking at this all wrong. The municipalities that are run by far-leftists, like Oakland, actually think that they are on the OWS team. The fact that Oakland's mayor has now permanently doomed herself from having any chance at re-election won't be considered...until after she loses, and promptly blames Rush Limbaugh for her failures. So, if you are the Republican you seem, you want these "footholds" to occur. In fact, you can't wait for spring, and you want this buffoonery to last all summer and into the fall. If you are Rush Limbaugh, you are dying for these footholds to occur. The entertainment value alone, of having one more trust fund baby be unable to articulate what they are pissed about, is worth it's weight in oil, never mind gold. Let the far left F themselves over as they always do, have patience, and don't worry: the only way this doesn't turn out well for you is if your party gets in the way of them F'ing themselves a la Lewinski.

Leaders, and I mean real leaders, do not subscribe to the need for nostalgia outweighing the need for solutions. That's what phony leaders, or, "the guy that got the job because he was next in line" leaders do. Nobody "needs" unreformed Medicare and Medicaid. Nobody "needs" unreformed SSI. Well, except the phony leaders of the current Democratic party. They need them because they have nothing else now that the Global WarmingTM meme has died. Unfortunately, "the next in line" pretty much defines the Republican Presidential thinking for the last 60 or so years. Every time but once, with Goldwater, the "next in line" candidate has lost, or has been a one termer = Ford, Bush Sr., Dole, McCain. While the innovators, Nixon(hey say what you want but he created a lot of new ideas, the EPA for example), Reagan, Bush Jr.(new ideas galore, a lot bad, but still new) have all won twice. Entitlement spending is the single biggest threat to the economic and national security of this country. No amount of Norman Rockwell "comfort food" ideas changes that reality. Somebody is going to seize this opportunity and act on it. This is America after all. Why does it have to be an innovative Republican? Why not an innovative Democrat? Easy: because the Democrats are all still living in 1965, and have been, especially in New York, since 1965.

That's what both the "start an extreme left/right wing party" and the "start a centrist" party people don't seem to get: they need a party BEFORE they need a candidate. They seem to think they are the only people who have ever considered the idea of a 3rd party. And, since they are so gifted, now that they have thought of it, the rest of us are morons because we don't just make "their" "new" idea magically appear. Getting somebody elected to Congress out in the sticks, who isn't a R or D, is nothing special, and proves nothing. It is simply not on you Chef to provide a viable 3rd candidate, and platform, to vote for...it is on them. In this day and age of treating politics as marketing, (hey, I hate it but I also recognize it) you are the customer, in every sense of the word. Blaming the customer is simply stupid. Unless they want to put in serious, long, tedious work of actually creating a viable 3rd option FIRST, and only after that, complain about people not paying attention, they really need to end this phony moral superiority crap. The truth is that current 3rd parties all suck on wheels, never mind their candidates. Anybody can put up John Doe, some person I don't know, and tell me I am an idiot for not voting for them. It doesn't impress me, as I am not an idiot, am probably smarter than they are, and frankly have to laugh at their Mickey Mouseness. No. Creating a viable 3rd party requires discipline above all, and, how many of these fringy people have that world in their vocabulary? If done properly, it will require a long-term effort: 1. Slowly attracting people 2. NOT immediately putting forth candidates and therefore creating an immediate "us vs them" mentality which drives away the sensible people, and attracts the nutcases 3. Creating a set of values that are easily defined, tested, and therefore understandable, 4. Purging any nut/bad actor from the leadership that can kill it before it starts in one interview, 5. Ensuring that your focus is always on growing the # of supporters That is how a 3rd party in this country begins...properly. That's phase one. Notice I didn't say "identify candidates" anywhere, did I? That's because it's the second to last thing you do. Of course, the Ron Paul people will tell me I am wrong. Yeah, because what you have chosen to do instead is working so well, tools: annoying people at NFL football games with Ron Paul signs and accompanying buffoonery, well then you are no different than the Lyndon LaRouche clowns, are you? Your numbers don't grow, because the only people you have convinced are yourselves, and the rest of the fringy people who were looking for a something "different". The only reason you have those people is that you got them before the Scientologists did.

Yes, I am sure that's precisely what the entire third world, and the Native Americans, thinks about bows, arrows, swords and spears. Not every concept is good, because it has worked before. Refusing to turn the page is usually spawned by laziness and/or fear of what you haven't taken the time to learn and/or sheer ignorance. Do you need reminding how often the Republicans have said the words "taxing the job creators" in the last 3 years? That's = to a bow and arrow.....if another person comes along with a "gun" innovative solution to our problems. Not only can you show them to be old, you can also kick their ass. History is important, but recognizing that you are holding a bow, in a world of guns, is more important.

Yes, I call this the Feminazi-Beck effect. On the one hand, you have Feminists demanding both sexual "freedom" to control their own bodies, and, the "freedom" from paying for the consequences if they chose not to control their own bodies properly...at the same time. So basically it's the "I can do whatever I want with my body, but am not accountable for it, and you have to pay for the stupid choices I make" plan. One the other hand, you have the Glenn Beck crowd demanding both that kids be taught nothing about sex but that "they're not allowed", and, screaming and crying when this willfully imposed ignorance produces a 36 year old with 10+ kids...at the same time. So basically it's "don't tell them anything, and then complain when they are clueless". When these two reagents are combined, we end up with gallons of assclownery. The only reactant in this process is my patience. Which is rapidly consumed every time this issue comes up. Perhaps it's time to tell women that their bodies are like owning a car: You can have all the control in the world, provided you accept all the responsibility that comes with it, and we, as fellow drivers, have a right to free ourselves from the consequences of your inability to control your body. I am unsure about this, of course, but it seems like something needs to be done, and we can't continue to listen to Beck/Feminazis on this issue, as both are clowns.

I said "Feds" not Fed, so I apologize for the confusion. There were private offers, at least 2 that we know about, that Lehman could have taken PRIOR to all of this. Instead, they tried to play idiot coy, because they thought they had the government as an out. Dumb. And worse, ego-driven dumb. Lehman had choices that were decent, if we look at this from purely a spreadsheet POV. But, we had the typical Wall Street "superiority" complex take it's inevitable toll, didn't we? I am not sure what could have been done to stop AIG from doing what it did, as that looks bad on anybody's spreadsheet. Short of some excel plugin that comprehends underwriting the failure of 80% of the mortgages in the world as the patent stupidity that it is, deletes your work, and calls some over-the-hill pro wrestler to come shove a pineapple up your ass....how can we stop insurance companies from taking as much risk as they want....without some kind of regulation? What did you expect from the Brits? They are over-regulated, and we could easily argue that stopping Barclays directly contributed to the problems in Europe now: so they "intelligently" screwed us, and in turn, screwed themselves. The fact is that we have elderly people, who refuse to see the world as it really is, in charge. There's experience, which is great, and then there's pining for the way things used to be, so that you can still understand them, and don't have to put any work into understanding the way things are now, which is awful, and means it's time for the golf course. The problem is we can't continue to look at regulation, in Wall Street, or health care, or the environment, as opposite ends of a volume knob. We need smarter people, with smarter ideas, and above all, we need to end the one-size-fits all mentality. Break up the banks? Hell, break up the regulations and the regulators. SMALL teams of people who focus on singular issues are much more likely to find the problems, and solve them, than a large group of people who are everything to every problem with the word "financial" attached.

We did let them go bankrupt, and look at the response: we got TARP and larger/merged banks. We need to take bailouts off the table, period. They have to know this. Not only will it precipitate better short-term thinking, as in Lehman taking the private offers from Warren Buffet, etc., and not holding out for the government, it will also mean better long-term thinking, as in not expecting to operate with impunity, because the Feds will always be there to bail you out.

...lybob, how many business meetings have you been to? Really. You honestly think most meetings are about "commanding respect"? Let me guess, you're the guy who can never seem to reserve the conference room, right? It's a mystery to you, isn't it? And, wrong, again, about girls(why am I not surprised? ...lybob...wing-man...nightmare, "that guy" experience ) Whilst at the bar recently, this random chick suddenly appeared in my AO and demanded to know what I was giggling about. Thus I began trolling her as well. So take heart ...lybob, this troll is now multi-tiered, all thanks to you. And, she's a solid 7 and cool as hell, so I have that to thank you for as well...for now. We'll see.

You know I am right. As Tom likes to say "OC is never wrong". Here's something else I am right about: Talking about re-polishing the Gingrich turd, when every "new" idea Democrats have had the last 3 years comes directly from FDR/LBJ, as in 60 years ago, and, while Obama is now trying to run Harry Truman's campaign strategy, and, with "hope and change" being blatantly ripped off from Clinton.... ....is the height of ironic hypocrisy. The Democrats have not had a honestly "new" idea....since Clinton. And most of his "new" ideas were simply re-tooled Republican Revolution ideas that were wordsmithed to sound "liberalish". No, the only truth here is that we seemed locked in a battle of old ideas. DC loves to say the word "innovation", on both sides. It's far past time they look to their own work and realize that all they are doing is repeating what some Congressman/Senator said on the floor 30 years ago. That's because it's quite possible they WERE the Congressman/Senator saying it 30 years ago. The difference is: Obama knows he is ripping off old Democrats, and he is doing it on purpose, purely for the nostalgic effect. Look at my sig, and then think "Norman Rockwell painting". That is exactly the effectiveness/relevance of the same old Democrat ideas in 2011. They all belong in the nursing home, along with their progenitors.

All as expected, and as I predicted, in this thread. The MSM may think they are done with OWS. They are mistaken. They will get to re-live their stupidity in the Republican campaign ads. They will take money, of course, to run them on their air. They will also get another opportunity to re-live it in the debates. This has the potential to be the equivalent of "I voted for it before I voted against it". Perhaps even better than that, because instead of being a linear, singular thought, OWS can be interpreted so many different ways, has so many connotations, and therefore can be used a number of different ways. Again, if you want something done, put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite.TM

Not hardly. Ask ...lybob. I spent all of last week giggling. In a meeting? giggling. At the bar? giggling. Giggling, envisioning him at his machine: "hmmm, nope nothing on Daily Kos about Soros, nothing at Huffpo....hmmm, I guess I'm gonna have to google this like OC said...hmm, Bill O'Reilly....I'll watch this one...nope, this one, nope, ok, this one...yeah, but hey! wait a minute!" :lol:

Um....yes! Christ, it's not like I didn't call you rookie enough. You picked up on it....late. 1. I know. And I merely chose the insults I thought most congruent. 2. Hmm. I would assume nobody does. People tend to deserve what they get. For example, I don't like being grouped in with the stereotypical management consultant/IT guy, even though I am one. But, I feel that actions make it easy for others to make the distinctions I want. 3. Well, welcome to the board anyway, I think you'll find that we will be effective in changing your opinion. Well, most of us. The idiots will become readily apparent. 4. Look, with all these new people, somebody had to be taken for a ride, you're just the guy I picked. We like honest, cogent, BRIEF discussion here, and will really hate self-righteous phonies, or, at least I do. As long as you don't launch into long screeds about the virtue of volunteer firemen, or, how erudite you are because you take the time to speak to janitors when you go to Denny's, you'll fit in just fine here.

No, you FAIL, again. And I am being serious: I see one more dopey youtube video and it's open season. You think I am alone in my disdain of your assclown vids? Nope.

No. That is not a better idea. That is not even a viable idea. There were plenty of sources of funding that were available to Lehman Bothers, that they turned down. The only reason they didn't take them, was that they were operating on the assumption that the Feds would never let them fail. Bankruptcy was never on the table, and never should have been on the table. Bankruptcy is what they ended up doing, and it f'ed up the entire system = TARP. So, no, everywhere but in Tomland, bankruptcy is not a better idea. We need to disabuse them of the assumption that the Feds will save them, and we can NOT just let them file. So what's left? Until we break up these big banks, who were made big by the Feds in the first place, this is better, because this is the ONLY viable solution.