OCinBuffalo

It's like the EPA: instead of focusing on the things they are supposed to be and are good at, they focus on stuff that is way out of their scope, and in doing so detract from their mission and lose their credibility. Somebody needs to kick the far-left nuts out of the left-leaning institutions what we rely on. There was a time when both the EPA and the ACLU were respectable. They weren't trying to push a socialist/one-world government agenda. They were focused on clean air and keeping the police honest. It was easy to respect that. It's impossible to respect their recent behavior.

The fact that the AGW people would co-opt the word "denier", as if denying their questionable science, and unquestioned political beliefs, is the same as denying the Holocaust, tells us all we need to know about these people. It's shameful. It's the same tactic used by the Communists, Nazis, and Japanese Militarists: dehumanize the opposition, then, whatever you do to them is justified...call someone a racist, that way nobody will listen to what he says....and on and on. We all KNOW that this science has been hopelessly skewed by politics to the point that it is worthless. Whether some of us want to admit that we know this is something else. We basically need to start all over again, with people who have no ties to politics, colleges, or energy corporations.

Then, who becomes chairmen of committees? The whole thing is based on seniority. Not saying I disagree with you, but, we'd need a plan to deal with the consequences.

Not one thing in that entire screed about....spending? How about how ineffective the Federal government has been at overseeing the education of children in Butte, MT and Buffalo, NY, or the care of the elderly on medicaid in both cities, at the same time, with a one-size-fits all set of policies, reimbursement and regulations? Given the FACT that we could tax every billionaire at 100%, and still not balance the budget, never mind start paying off the deficit, where the F does this guy get off talking about taxation, while pretending that spending is not completely out of control? It's "interesting" that now that this guy is looking at retirement, suddenly Paul Ryan is the enemy. It's dumbfounding that he apparently has his cause and effect screwed up: Michelle Bachman didn't decide that the government cannot be trusted, the people did. The people began to arrive at that conclusion starting with the bailouts, and finished when Obamacare was shoved through even after Scott Brown was elected-->mostly by Massachusetts Democrats. Even they could see the overreach, yet they were ignored. That was the cause. Michelle Bachman having any political capital, never mind enough to run for President, is the effect. Michelle Bachman is what you get when politicos like this staffer are allowed to run things in DC and create abortions like Medicare, drive it's scope far past ridiculous, and only make it worse over the course of 60 years. IF things are as corrupt as he says, then doesn't it stand to reason that we MUST immediately reduce the scope of government, and restrict what it can spend money on, and how it can spend it? Of course it does. Tax money is their power. If we take it away, we take their power away. Period. Why then is he attacking the TEA party people he names? Could it be that perhaps they don't fit into his little view of how the world should work-->all driven by Congressional staffers like himself? Why on earth should a pissant Congressional staffer have more power than a CEO? If neither should have power....then why should we enable the staffer to gain power from and over the CEO, by means of campaign money coming in for tax money going out? Killing the money is the only way to break the cycle. Or am I wrong? Is there another way to remove the cycle, that doesn't involve spending even more money we don't have?

1. Go back and read your own OP, moron. I am not the one claiming to "know" people, you are. How the F would I know who YOU are talking about? If YOUR premise is false, that's your problem. If you do know people, and they do have inside info, then answer my f'ing question: why should we believe in their assessment? 2. Retarded. Tell us why we should accept the judgement of the people YOU claim to know, when all the evidence we have says the Obama administration, and campaign, is populated wholly by unmitigated morons. 3. I think I deleted what I had there by accident, I usually do this stuff when I am on a boring call. Wait, so you do "know" people that have an inside track on the Obama administration's views on Romney? And, you know full well what Rove is saying, and so do I: more evidence that the people who you say you know, in this paragraph anyway, ....have no idea what the F they are doing. They have seen fit to fully destroy whatever standing Obama had as a "leader" in order to "help" him politically. Amazing staff work. Ahh, so it's back to this now? Thinks? I am not the one who said what they think-->you ARE! The only conclusion I have drawn = The Obama people you say you know, talking schit about how easy it will be to beat Romney and saying they aren't afraid of him is retarded. If that's what they think, according to you, then they are clueless. And, their performance to date supports that conclusion. The Administration thought: 1. Obamacare would be a well-like piece of legislation 2. Obamacare would be better off being written by Pelosi and Reid, rather than by them 3. Talking to Iran, SA, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and China in the weakest way possible....was a better plan than demonstrating power and resolve. 4. Cap an trade was a good idea 5. Card Check was a good idea 6. Letting the EPA run wild was a good idea 7. Hiring college professors who have surpassed Keynesian economic theory to the point of FUBAR and putting them in charge of the economy, was a good idea 8. Shovel-ready jobs existed, and given the amount of regulation, corruption and malfeasance their party has engendered in nearly every urban center in the country, it would be a good idea to hand these corrupted officials billions of dollars to create jobs. 9. Hiring a self-admitted socialist revolutionary and empowering him to not only create but to define "green jobs" was a good idea 10. Becoming a VC for green technology companies, even when the engineering was demonstrated to be questionable, never mind the financial statements, was a good idea yet, you are arguing they haven't acted based on hubris? or bravado? How the F else should we define 1-10....besides hubris? You want to invoke Mrs. Lincoln? Ask her what she thinks about how to handle those who plot assassinations on our soil, and compare that to this administration's approach. Look, forget whether you agree with the motives of each of the 10, think about how they were conceived, how the policy was created, how it was sold, and how it failed in deployment. Whose job was it to do each? Wasn't it the very same people who "aren't afraid of Romney"? Where's the haste? It's taken us 3 years to compile this list. The only hasty thing is: it only took me 30 seconds to write it down. Think about that. I am certain there's more, but if I can write down 10 damning things in 30 seconds, what can a guy like Karl Rove do? How in the hell am I supposed to buy that "we can beat Romney easy" is anything other than pure insecurity? These people are either insane or stupid if they really believe that beating ANYBODY the Republicans nominate will be "easy". and it's "psyche", not "sike".

My sarcasm, because that's what it is, is directed at Juror#8....and designed to preclude him from dismissing Chris Tingle as a "talking head"...as he inexplicably dismissed the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and James Carville...as "some guys on TV" The fact that Juror#8's chances of accomplishing anything near what these guys have in politics is near 0, was also on my mind. We can make fun of Chris Tingle all we want, but, there is little doubt that he is a seasoned Democratic political operative, as you have pointed out, and thus, when he breaks ranks, it's far beyond significant.

On one hand....this appears to be a sincere frustration/venting session. On the other....how do we know this isn't the overture of the retarded, "we're coming back!" opera? Look!: Chris says Obama needs to call Congress.....and amazingly, MSNBC runs 1 story a day about Obama meeting with Congress! "Amazing how he meets those tough expectations!" Chris says Obama needs to lead out a plan on SSI...and amazingly, Obama unveils said plan on MSNBC = 2 hour special on Super Tuesday! "Wow, he's really doing the job now!" Etc. "Amazing!" Feel the infomercial. Also: I wonder if Juror#8 is pleased that Chris Matthews....another "talking head" who has 0 political campaign, or governing experience()...a blatant Democratic operative who just happens to have his own TV show...is calling Obama's staffers, and Juror#8's friends, a bunch of propeller-heads? Matthews literally says "give us our orders". WTF else do you want? Now we have Chris Matthews who has every reason in the world to support everything Obama and his staff says, does, is....telling us that they suck on wheels... ....but when these same people tell us they can easily beat Romney, and aren't scared of him....we are supposed to believe these "propeller-heads"? :lol:

Answer, sort of: The fact is that the office has already earned its respect. America is a great country, because we have had some great people, and, to a lesser extent, we have had some of those great people hold the office of President. Therefore, our office derives its respect directly from our largely outstanding results as a country. If we were talking the President of Spain, then how much real respect are we talking about for that office? The men who have held it have basically done poorly or nothing: not a lot of respect for that office on the world stage. The world hasn't been made significantly safer/better by the office of the President of Spain. And, from a military perspective, the office of the President is the top end of every soldier's chain of command. The philosophy is simple and it works: your personal feelings about those in your chain of command are separated from the office they hold. You WILL respect the office. It's up to you whether you respect the person that currently(<--important word) holds it. The office gives you your orders, not the person. That's why orders are to be obeyed completely, and, equally, illegal orders are to be disobeyed completely. If it has nothing to do with the person, then it makes it simple. It must work this way, or the military cannot succeed. In this case, there was no political statement happening here...or, nothing happening on behalf of the person, or the person continuing in the office. The office was the only thing attending the NASCAR event, period. As such, booing the office is disrespectful. Booing is a choice, and those that are unhappy with the First Lady could just as easily have chose to say nothing, thereby maintaining their respect for the office, and their class.

Actually, that's a short term maybe and a long term definitely not. I hate using anything as a one-size-fits-all...but in this case, this trend is simply too significant: Washington Post article link here Yeah, political leaders lead....and Obama has self-mutilated his own image as a leader to the tune of 10 points, now sub 40%. Obama has blown a huge opportunity to lead the Congress. He could have played it that way. He could have taken the tougher road, and the risk(honestly, what did he have to lose? getting beat by 10 points instead of 3? so what?). He could have basically saved his Presidency had he been able to bring a big deal to bear. Instead, he choose to take pot shots from the sidelines, and then blame people for failing after he, lamely, tried to set them up for failure. The problem is: we are all a lot smarter than they think. We have access to more info, and they are acting like its still pre-1995. The tactic was recognized by the people for what it was, and therefore had no chance of working. I wonder when DC is going to catch up to the fact that we are playing way past where they think we are...on everything. "Once again, if you want something done, put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite."TM (I am thinking I should copyright this line.) And, for the tools who will point to the end of that article? Hint: few independents will give a F about Republicans in Congress...when they are pulling the lever for President. It's about one person or the other, not a bunch of people they don't know and who don't represent them.

So basically this thread is about: 1. We are supposed to listen to the people who haven't got a single political call right in over 3 years. (Not convinced yet? Wait till the end of this post) 2. We are supposed to accept Juror#8 saying strawman 50 times in a thread as a mitigation of #1 3. We are supposed to accept Juror#8 quoting polling that is clearly not good for Obama, is actually good for Obama, and that not only does it mean that Obama will easily beat Romney, it also mitigates #1. "F'ing Retarded"TM Let's just end Juror#8's argument now, with something from Karl Rove, a so-called "talking head" Yes, as if Karl Rove doesn't have any political skills or experience, and is simply some guy on TV: And you know what? The first time I heard this was from Rove, but, looks like The Washington Post has picked up on this reality as well. This means that Obama's political strategy for the last year has backfired. Rove said, and only an idiot misunderstands: "the single biggest asset of a President is the belief in him as a leader". Almost 60% of people now believe Obama isn't effective at the #2 job for a President. This poll shows that Obama's own stupid staff has, once again, proven they have no clue what they are doing. Yes, yes, "run against a do nothing Congress" there, Barack Truman...and in doing so, destroy your #1 asset. Which, as promised, brings us back to #1 above. Why should we believe that-->specifically these people...are capable of beating Richard Simmons in an election, never mind Romney? Show me something that mitigates #1, Juror#8, or STFU and stop wasting our time. ------------------------------------------------------------- What is amazing here is the lack of humility that is readily apparent from the people Juror#8 says he knows. We should expect them to be humble, to acknowledge their mistakes, and redouble their efforts. What do we have instead? Talking schit about Romney? Why? I have seen this in organizations before, and what I ultimately ended up finding was: massive insecurity being cloaked in false bravado. "Of course the new product line is going to work, we said it was going to work, and therefore it will. We aren't afraid of the competitive advantages our competition already has in place, that the new line has no answers for, because we will ignore those advantages, talk schit about competitors, and kick their ass!" Consider: if they weren't insecure, they'd be humble, and say something like "we are obviously concerned about every candidate the Republicans field". But, instead we get "Romney doesn't scare us, he's a political hack and we can kick his ass". The funny part is: I don't even support Romney But, I simply cannot abide Obama staffers/politicos saying "Obama can easily beat Romney". It's "F'ing Retarded"TM, and that's all there is to it.

Ahhhh but the real question, and incidentally the most telling one is: would you go black? The slightly less interesting question: would DaveinElma?

Cool story, bro.

Yeah, antagonize Darin....great plan. But go right ahead, there's bound to be more humor in him going after you for your stupidity, than me for ripping on Ron Paul.

Let's make this even simpler for you: Obama etc. suck at their jobs. It's obvious. What a blogger who supports another candidate has to say about Romney has 0 effect on that. Obama is about to get hoodwinked and beaten handily by the entire Congress, over the jobs bill that is happening right now, unless your boss and your friends vote against it. Silly Obama sent a non-starter bill to Congress to use it as a political tool, and instead is going to get a real bill in return, which means he loses either way....and I am supposed to be in awe of his/his team's political skill? I am supposed to believe them when they say they aren't afraid of Romney, and will easily defeat him? Where's my "straw man" in that analysis, moron? Where's the need for me to know each and every person you work with? I have been accused of being an expert analyst, and I know that doing that job means you often don't have all the facts, but get it right anyway. Obama will have to sign the "not his" jobs bill, and Romney will crush him with that. You think that some "But...but...but....Romney did this 20 years ago" thing is going to stand up against this? And the 100 other things like this that have already happened or will happen this year? Not even close. Time for some objectivity, pal. Time for some common sense as well. No the facts are quite clear: Obama has no chance with out his teleprompter. We have seen this so many times that we are way past a pattern or a correlation. Romney has been getting hit by everybody and training for months now. Obama : Rocky :: Romney : Clubber Lang. Now, my opinion is that Romney has been clearly holding back. He simply trying to get a hit every game, and get on to the next one. I think he won't start swinging for the fences until if and when he is facing Obama. Quinnipiac today. As candid as can be. You aren't disputing my analysis of these numbers, are you? Any more "strawmen"? Dude, you aren't honestly going to dispute something I have heard people say for years, are you? Are you telling me guys like Karl Rove, James Carville, and Dick Morris are idiots, and you know better? These numbers are what they are, and you know what they mean: time to rethink the "Obama will kill Romney" thing, isn't it? Dude you said Huntsman was electable, and you also said he was "pragmatic" candidate. I merely told you why you were wrong, and backed that up with questions you chose not to answer, because we both know you can't. Half my clients are screaming bloody murder, and the other half at least say something bad about government, and especially Obama. I added it up yesterday, because this has been going on for a while, and I found that I spent an 63 minutes yesterday listening to Dodd Frank/Banking/Obamacare bitching. Where's the "strawman" in that? People are pissed, the quotes above are direct, and you are acting like it doesn't matter. You are telling me that Romney has no chance...based on what Obama's "gang that can't shoot straight" has to say. The fact is that they are "the gang that can't shoot straight", having proved it themselves multiple times. The only opinion I offer is: saying that Romney has no chance against these people is ridiculous.

The problem is: I'm not a neo-conservative. I was never a liberal, and I really just don't care that much about Israel. So, swing and a miss. Starting to become a habit with you, isn't it? I am in merely in business. Some people even refer to me as a business expert, and pay me accordingly, and I know you can't sell stuff in South America, Asia and Africa without a Navy, because you f'ing can't. That requires no Constitutional substantiation, that's just common business sense. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with keeping the North Koreans from stealing our stuff. Here's a hint: business people rarely base what we do on some assclown's irrelevant interpretation of the constitution. If we are trying to buy oil in Saudi Arabia, and sell computer stuff, how the F do we "avoid" the threat of a tac nuke attached to a missile from Iran taking out the carrier group assigned to protect our tankers? They may not ever do it, but the threat creates or thickens the barrier to entry, inflates prices, and increases costs exponentially for that market, as well as all the dependent markets. The insurance alone....means the market cannot "avoid" these things. It is a market, after all, and comes complete with the people who make money on it failing as well as succeeding. You are showing you don't know how markets work, and how we make business decisions. Been in DC too long? Or have you never known how markets work? No. I believe what is true: markets exists no matter what. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the plastic dog schit market already existed. Markets are like gravity, they exist long before someone "discovers" them. Therefore, your premise is DC-retarded. You don't "impose" something that already exists. The reality is that markets can only be suppressed. And, the only way to keep them from being suppressed is the military, police, etc., and hopefully some useful diplomacy-->or else why do we pay you people? We cannot do business if somebody is preventing it or stealing from us. The Phoenicians learned this 3.5k years ago. Why haven't you learned it yet? The funny part is the scarf-wearing grad students who spend 10 years in college? Yeah, they haven't learned this either. Nope. Rather, it's a mostly idiotic demonstration that you really don't know how business works. There's no nuance here...just silliness.

But, we already know 2 things about the people you speak with: 1. They are the same people who thought "just pass Obamacare, and they will like it once they see it" and about 1000 other things, that prove that they struggle massively with perception and execution. 2. They think they are smarter than us, which they patently are not Given those 2 things, I simply don't respect their "we will kill Romney" opinion. That's for 2 reasons: 1. What possible Opposition Research do they have on a tight ass Mormon who worked at the same company for 25 years? There is a high degree of probability that whatever they have is only inflammatory and damaging to Romney....for them, and 22% of the country. There's a good chance that nobody else will care. There's a great chance that they are projecting their idiocy on us...again. 2. Even if they had such things, what on earth makes you think Obama will be able to make use of any of it? In a debate for example, what makes you think Romney, who has already proved his slickness, won't turn it around on Obama just like he turned the housing question around on the moderator in the last debate? Romney >>>> Obama regarding thinking on your feet, and a case could be made for thinking in general. 3. The newest poll shows Romney beating Obama in Florida and Ohio, and only 1 behind in PA. That's against a sitting President...a year out. The history of that suggests that Romney is already leading this race. Typically the incumbent President gets a 5-10 point "name recognition" cushion...Romney has already surpassed that. But you know that, because you do this for a living, right? Keep telling yourself Obama will kill Romney though....I want to troll the hell out of you for the next year. Dude, Huntsman is dead. It's over in Iowa, never mind New Hampshire. You are arguing for a guy that nobody cares about, who worked for Obama? WTF? Let me see if this penetrates your knucklehead beltway bubble: we KNOW Obama is incompetent. Anybody that worked for him is a friggin pariah, especially a trust fund baby who's daddy did all the work. We also KNOW that short of the new people that just got elected in 2010, most of DC is incompetent as well. I am not kidding. That's the real perception. You think people are screwing around when they talk about shutting down entire departments of the Federal government? Nope. Personally I am not convinced, because I always worry about unintended consequences, but, I am in the minority I assure you. You think a guy who believes in the politics of Global Warming is electable, with $3.90 gas prices? The default position is going to be: prove why the EPA needs to exist. Get it? You and your friends are in for a long-overdue wake up call. People are pissed, and I am talking hearing people on recent calls saying "I'm actually gonna give money for the first time/volunteer for a campaign", "anything is better than this", "now we have nothing to lose", pissed. Get it? Your bosses have everything to lose, and they better wise up. If you keep telling yourself that we're all idiots, and that you know better, it's going to be your ass. You don't know better, and you have proven it.

Are these the initial cases, that, later on the 'big investigation' of the future 'tragedy', will point to and say: we had warning sings, but they were ignored?

I started to reply when the OP was all there was. After I posted mine, I saw yours....and started laughing, because I knew that you would say this. IF we are going to be honest: your four words takes out my first paragraph...nowhere near my whole post. The assignment wast to explain "the catch". You say what it is, but you don't explain it. So you only get a C+ Also, your post is missing: 1. The obligatory shot at Ron Paul supporters 2. The obligatory disclaimer for Paul supporters like dev/null 3. The obligatory shot at the far-left...sos I cans trolls thems 4. A criticism of Ron Paul that uses his own mantra against him and that I haven't heard anywhere else. 5. And nice little twig of the "force my religion on you" people....designed to remind that their days of being in charge are numbered. Jesus Christ on a cookie...do you realize what you have done? Not sure you would be thanking me if you knew the terrible consequences about to befall you. Telling Tom anyone is better than him just isn't done on this board. See those 25k posts....yeah, it's your ass now.

Easy: He attracts people who have a hard time dealing with the fact that their perceptions and reality rarely meet...the right's version of the scarf-wearing grad student. You take that and the fact that Ron Paul is the perfect internet anti-hero...I mean come on, look at him, you have all these newfags who hate/d their high school history teacher...rooting for a guy that looks like their high school history teacher, but saying things that their teacher wouldn't dream of saying, because...he actually teaches history. That, and Ron Paul embodies "I don't understand it, so let's destroy it!", for the internet hacks especially. I am certain Ron Paul understands why we aren't on the Gold Standard, and why being the reserve currency is the optimal position for the US dollar, but, if he starts talking about destroying the Fed, his click-rate goes through the roof. I am just as certain that 50% of Ron Paul supporters have no idea what the F I just wrote in my last sentence. The positive thing about Paulites...is that 50% of them do, which is a hell of a lot better than the far-left's 5%. Ron Paul is what remains of the exclusive little club of libertarianism from the 90s...where being a little nuts was sorta required, as it was the only way to get attention. Now, as libertarian thought is becoming more and more main stream, and is the entire premise for the TEA party(don't see a lot of religious talk at a TEA party rally, do you?), it's going to be time for Paul to get his gold watch and a nice card. IMHO, Paul does not represent rational libertarian thought on many issues, i.e., Paul's notion that the free market solves national security issues. Ron: it's awfully hard to have access to a global free market....without a Navy that allows that access to exist. It's impossible to access a free market that has been destroyed by threat of a nuclear attack from some tinpot dictatorship or theocracy, because you wouldn't prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

Are you schitting me? We'll see what you have to say when you get your first gratuitously insulting beat down. For some odd reason I have been sorta relating all the new people to Simpson's characters...just so I can keep track of you. Nothing permanent, just a sorting mechanism. However, you are starting make Martin stick. Team Discovery Channel! I don't know, and neither do they. Unintended consequences of the feminist movement. I do know that I don't want to be part of that neurotic discussion, because there is absolutely nothing to gain for me, and a lot to lose.

Apparently this is about F'ing over the guys like you who aren't in the association. The idea was, the big growers could afford the tax...fee....what the F ever....and you guys couldn't. Now they are saying that only association members would have to pay the fee, and obviously whatever marketing done would purposely exclude you, and may have even targeted you. And, Big Tree (wait, isn't that...) got Obama to do it's bidding. What a shocker. Again, to LA's point: there's no way in hell this was worth the political damage that has been done. If that's all this was, it'd be massively moronic. But wait, there's more: WTF is Obama thinking going along with a purposeful move to hurt the little guy? What in the hell is a democrat doing taking the side of Big Tree() and actively participating in their plans? Obama and his people are in 3/4 campaign mode, and that this was allowed to go forward without the slightest modification tells you just how competent and intelligent these people are. Lastly: I got this from the news this morning "only Congress can tax the people"....so WTF is the FDA doing taxing the people on its own...and calling it a "fee"?

Not trying to be a douche, but why should I care who Ratner is or what he says? I mean really, is this worth the time it takes to google? And, why should I care whether the pretentious PC crowd gets their panties in a bunch over somebody calling somebody a fag? That's what they do. They are morons, and nothing is going to change that. And, people are going to call each other fags, no matter how much they whine, cause it's funny. Calling Miami fans Dolphags is is funny, and while insulting, it's not overly so.

Yes, Drew Stafford is a well-known Festivus participant. But, using the Sabres as a model, how many of the rest of them have Christmas trees at Christmas time? I bet all the married guys do. And besides, the Festivus pole market is most likely complimentary to the Christmas tree market, as in "here's my Christmas tree, and over here is my Festivus pole!" Or, put simply, if I wasn't single and so lazy in my personal life that I did actually decorate for Christmas, that's what I'd do. Let me tell you: they better raise that tax to $2.50 per tree if their target demographic is me, and getting me to sign up for putting an auto-mess creating, soon-to-be eyesore that I will do everything to avoid getting rid of until at least April, tree in my place. There going to need a lot more money if that's the goal. Every tree better come with a "some lady comes and gets rid of it" option, of you can forget it. My cleaner lady already hazes me enough as it is. It's like paying to have an uncaring, alcoholic new stepmother come in and move all your stuff around so you can't find anything.

Yawn. Can we expect another phony, devoid of all insight, tilting at windmills that are obvious to everyone but you, post after the primaries as well? Your lack of insight is nowhere near as annoying as your pretentious expectation that whatever you post will automagically be seen as insightful by us that = the fingernails on the chalkboard. Edit: in that way, you are exactly like Mike Schopp. That's the best way to put it. Perfect analogy.

And you're both boring and pretentious...(Edit: and phony, let's not forget phony). You whine about something, I provide you a solution, but you are too phony to actually do something about it, aren't you?