OCinBuffalo

....and few care. The ones that do, like me, wish he had stayed wherever he was. Pat Buchanan is the single biggest threat to libertarian thought advancing. He is the Nancy Pelosi of conservatives. He is a big government/small government hypocrite. He is the perfect useful idiot for the left. His entire existence is caricature. He doesn't represent ideas that win, he represents a road kill that attracts every left-wing fly.

I will do no such thing until you respond. This is not some dopey board where saying "well, your only saying that because you didn't read X" qualifies as a argument. I am quite familiar with the material, as evidenced by my replies above. Now, you are in the same boat as Chomsky, and the "burden of proof" you love so much, is upon you. So let's hear it. Or, haven't you actually read Chomsky? I am thinking of asking you some "prove you read Friedman" questions as well, but, let's just stick with what we have, shall we?

Yes, the Iraq war justifies Chomsky. That's funny, I bet according to you, the Iraq war justifies Obama too. Blaming Bush for Obama's failures in 5....4....3....

Looks like Pete is gonna struggle with Chomsky's default position that all authority is illegitimate unless proven otherwise, and that the burden of proof is on those seeking to claim the authority....and trying to resolve that against Obama's relentless power grab until he was stopped by the 2010 elections. How does having the most Czars by far in history = proving legitimate authority? When and where was the authority handed to them proved? By whom? Where does the authority for Obamacare come from? How does the manner in which Obamacare was passed = proving the authority to force people to buy insurance? Why isn't Chomsky standing on a street corner in Cambridge screaming bloody murder decrying this unproven authority? Answer: because he is a f'ing communist in anarchists' clothing. End of story.

I gave you a clear point, and you haven't refuted it. I am all about keeping an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out. You should try that. Resolve Chomsky and the Dept. of Education, or Obamacare, or Welfare. Go ahead, try. I will be right here for the next hour awaiting your response. You go right ahead and try to "win" with Chomsky, right now, today. It will be highly entertaining for me, and for many on this board.

You forgot to tell him to click his heels together 3 times. It doesn't work otherwise.

So you agree with me that your use of the word "take" in the context of your comment above, is both ironic and moronic? OK. Glad we cleared that up. Let me help you out: the smart response was to say that there are corporate people who take what is given them as well. You being you...well.... Only the weak "take" what's given to them. They may earn their first job, but from then on, they are in cruise control, and simply exist to protect their pay check by showing as little initiative as possible. Risk takers that create jobs don't only exist in small businesses. There are a lot of them in major corporations as well, and they "earn" what they get, because they usually risk a lot more than the little guy, and there's a heavy price to pay if they are wrong. Nobody can accuse them of "taking" anything. The problem for your post above is: you are giving Carter credit for blaming ALL Americans for the weakness of SOME Americans, and taking none of the blame for himself. Where to begin with this one. John Stewart is wrong, all the time, and when you point that out he says: "it's comedy, of course we are going to be wrong, exaggerate, misrepresent". But, when he's right, oh, of course, he's a trusted source for news! How many reporters does John Stewart employ? How many of his people have been to Iraq and seen it for themselves? How about Afghanistan? Why is it that John Stewart gets every story he talks about from somebody else, and therefore, has no idea whether it is accurate? How many stories has John Stewart's show broken? How many national polls cite John Stewart as a trusted media source(Uh, the most trusted name in news, in every poll, is Bill O'Reilly, and the last time O'Reilly had Stewart on, he destroyed him) As good as it gets? This is patently retarded, not one shred of evidence backs up that statement. Conclusion: you are a unmitigated moron. Chomsky? Yes using Noam Chomsky as a response on a message board. Here, of all places? Now that I think about it, the better question is: have YOU ever read Chomsky? You bring your self-contradicting "anarchist" to the fight, and I'll bring James Madison. I'll tell you right now Chomsky loses, and not just because he is an intellectual lightweight in comparison. Yes Chomsky hates ALL authority, except when that authority is over-taxing people, invading their businesses and telling them how to run them, picking winners and losers in markets, and on and on. Massive hypocrite. He is 10x the megalomaniac he accused Bush of being. The best example: his support of Obamacare. NO REAL anarchist would ever support something like this. Chomsky is a F'ing communist, who has been trying to hide it since the Berlin wall fell, by calling himself a "libertarian socialist"....whatever the F that means. If we are to take Chomsky and his ethos seriously, then by HIS definition, the Department of Education should be shut down tomorrow. How much do you want to bet he doesn't support that? Chomsky. I almost spit out my iced tea when I read this.

There's a major difference between CIA paramilitary and the actual military. The first is working for a contract, the second is serving the country, and that's where the trouble lies. We don't care much about a mercenary, who likely isn't even American, dying somewhere we don't care about. However, if a single soldier dies for his country in Uganda...well look at the lack of perspective over Iraq. Now we will have people looking for revenge, and politicians who don't want to look like they made a bad decision, deciding it's time to up the ante. We know how the story goes from there. And yes, I am aware that when we say "global war on terror" we mean it. We have troops fighting Islamist terror in the Philippines, and a ton of places, and nobody seems to care. Where's the "outrage"? The only reason they don't say anything about the civilian casualties of these other "wars" is that the "No Blood for Oil" charge doesn't stick well. There's a major difference between that, and this nonsense. In that our very real enemy is a world-wide organization, and we must bring the battle to his doorstep, everywhere he has one. What the F we have to do with an internal matter of one country who poses no threat to us at all(unlike Iraq, Iran, North Korea), and has no means, never mind plans, to attack us, I'll never know. This looks like Somalia all over again.

Ha! This is ironic and moronic at the same time. There is a huge difference between "take" and "earn". Your use of the word take is very telling. Government employees take what's given to them, while private sector people earn what they get. Taking care of me, yeah, that's all about me. I don't expect anybody else to take care of me. And, if I F up, I don't expect to blame other people(unless I'm being paid to blame other people ).

Clinton tried the health care thing, and was badly mauled for it. Amongst other things, that is how he lost the Senate/House in 1994. It wasn't anybody else's fault. Clinton blew it, and Democrats in Congress caught hell for it. Veeeery few Congresspeople are good enough in their own right to be immune to effects of a bad president. Nobody in their right mind would blame anybody else but Clinton for at least 75% of that disaster. And, nobody would give credit to anybody else for Clinton accepting his mistakes, and righting his own ship. The problem here is leadership. People remember a schitty leader more than they remember what they did/didn't do. People remember Jimmy Cater's "general malaise" speech = blaming Americans instead of himself. Few remember Camp David. How about you? Without google, what about Camp David is especially significant for Carter? See? Now go look. That's a big deal, but nobody gives a F. Jimmy Carter will always be the guy who schit the bed and then went on TV and blamed everybody else.

Where's Micheal Moore saying "there is no African threat". Eisenhower. We backed into that war big time. The same thing can happen with this thing. We have 0 national interests in Africa that necessitate troops, and, we have no enemy that poses a serious threat. It's easier and cheaper to buy what we want. I pray this isn't like Somalia. That was a nightmare. Why are in we in Africa? Do they have any oil in Uganda?

Less partisan time? Bull. The first 2 years of Clinton = the first 2 years of Obama to the letter. The difference is, Clinton called up Dick Morris(Republican attack dog) and said "help me". Obama fired everybody but Valerie Jarrett(socialist). The results speak for themselves. And, WRONG: Obama made it about himself during the campaign(or his people did), and then proceeded to hide/punt on every issue on "his" agenda. Pelosi wrote Obamacare. The American people had nothing to do with any of that. I am getting sick and tired of the people being blamed for Obama's failures. In fact, I am getting sick and tired of people blaming anybody other than Obama for Obama's failures.

Liberals have been 100% in charge of most of our major urban centers for the last 50 years. Would you call their results "advancement"? The #s for the working poor say things have stayed the same or mostly gotten worse. How about the sit on my ass poor? Their numbers have increased. How many liberal policies have solved problems? How many have failed? How many have solved some problems, but created others? It's one thing to want something. It's quite another to know how to achieve it, and to do so without unintended consequences. The real problem here is not motives. The problem is methods. Being "for" something, doesn't mean you know how to do it, and, me being against you doing something I know you will fail at, doesn't mean I am against the effort, I am simply against your method. The difference between Clinton and Obama is: Clinton didn't care if a method was Republican, as long as it got results. In fact, he based his last 6 years on Republican methods. Obama is a prisoner of liberal methods, and doesn't understand why they aren't getting results. Obama can't use a Republican method, because he doesn't understand how they work.

This is great. Not only did you not answer my question, you suggest that this objective observation of their abilities is....f'ing partisan? Buddy, perhaps you need to leave the bubble and hang out here more often: I'm not saying they suck because they're Democrats, I'm saying they suck because they suck, and it's obvious to anyone who pays attention. And, we had to deal with Reverend Wright, because there wasn't anything else to talk about. Think about that: we couldn't discuss how well Obama's Illinois health care plan went when he was governor, because there wasn't any and he never was anything, really, but a state legislator. He didn't do anything in the Senate. So why are WE the idiots, when the media should have been all over this, rather than giving him a pass, or worse, kissing his ass every day? How's Chris Tingle doing? Is he one of your friends? Media? You mean Sean Hannity by himself? Look I got sick of hearing it from him, but what did I hear on MSNBC? Chris Tingle. You are fooling yourself if you think the majority of the media did anything with any of the stuff you listed above. Obama was given a massive pass, by 90% of the media. Concluding otherwise is delusion. Ask yourself: how did he get the Nobel Prize, and what did the media have to say about that? That was the day I saw a look in the MSNBC anchors' eyes of "Oh F, we overdid this didn't we?" Reading comprehension is important. Words mean things. When I said "policy approach", I meant it. Here's an example: "well, there's 40 different ways we can approach Obamacare"....and they picked the worst possible. Part of my job is working in health care. In fact, I can do what you can only wish: tell you the cost of doing business in any provider in the country in real time. I know how we would have approached Obamacare, and more importantly, since we have to do this every day, I know how I would've sold it. Again, I am looking at this purely from a competence standpoint. We identified plenty of good things, and plenty of bad things, in Obamacare. The stupidity here was letting Pelosi create a bill with Obama's name on it, that has over 300 idiot provisions, and worse they are almost all unnecessary to support the overall plan. How about you define "meaningful use" for me. That will be fun. We can take any of the other 15+ policy APPROACHES, and find the same thing. I understand Obama is a Democrat, and what that means. But, I also understand stupidity and incompetence. Are you are suggesting that being a Democrat means it's ok for you to be incompetent, or that it's inherent? Republicans have done nothing other than take advantage of idiots who keep fumbling the ball away. If you call falling on the ball after it's been fumbled "great"...OK. But how hard is it? You should know this better than anyone: who cares? It doesn't matter. The 2nd thing I teach rookie consultants: "It's my fault if you are dead wrong, but it's your fault if you are dead right. Being right doesn't matter if you are dead, and if you are dead, there's good chance the project is next." Buddy, I did a project for the 3rd largest mortgage company in the world. I know exactly what the Democrats did. I spent a year of my life listening to my client whine. If you throw out 50% of it as just that, the remaining 50% is patently retarded. I physically had my hands on the laundry baskets, literally, of mortgages that were classified, literally, as "we don't like these, but we have to because of the Feds" by the manager of one of the processing offices. I helped carry them, because I always physically participate in the business process. So please, spare me. Perhaps you should carry some laundry baskets full of mortgages, rather than sitting in DC unaware of the real effect of it's "activities"? I will give you the opportunity to withdraw this. They ain't got schit on me, because my data says the opposite, and my data is every day, all the time, not some lame sampling. This notion is retarded in health care specifically. The massive cost of compliance with regulations that are nebulous at best, constantly changing, and 50--60% subjective, for everyone, every day, cannot be justified. The reason fraud is so rampant, is that the regulators have no idea what constitutes quality, or how to maintain it. Focusing on the patient, rather than the process = amateur hour. Consider: do you judge a football play based on whether it scored a TD, or got a 1st down, or, do you judge it based on what each individual player did on the play? IF you don't know the difference, you are part of the problem.

Ed Henry, a former CNN WH reporter, joins FOX and now he's...the spokesman for Romney? Henry is simply doing the job FOX asked him to do, j Seems to me that Ed Henry is simply a Pain In The Ass, which is what he's supposed to be as a WH reporter. But guess who can't handle that that simple concept? That's right, Obama. So what's more likely here? That Ed Henry, P.I.T.A, is now Ed Henry, P.I.T.A. because he now works for Fox and Romney? Or, is it that Romney's punch, "If you want strong vote for me, because you know Obama's weak", hurt Obama when it landed? Why attack the reporter who is simply quoting another politician, something reporters do all the time? If this is "no big deal" then why did Obama choose to make news about it? And, this is for Juror#8: perhaps the people who advise Obama aren't scared of Romney, but, given this amateurish display from Obama, it looks like he certainly is. The stupid part is: now Romney's quote gets 20x the air it would other wise have gotten...and now it's a 2-3 day story, because you know they are going to follow up with Romney on this. Did your friends who are familiar with the incumbent campaign devise this strategy? Is this how they prove they aren't scared of Romney?

Here's the problems: 1. This affords the federal government a new tax. They have abused every single tax vehicle they have ever created. The federal income tax used to be 15%, for only what those that would be billionaires today. At the time, most people said "well that's OK, they can afford it". Look how much they FUBARed that. We can't trust that they won't FUBAR the 9% sales tax. We can't. 2. It's regressive, and therefore easily attacked. It will cost a TON of political capital to withstand the "you are taxing poor people more" attacks that we will hear from the media and then Democrats every day, all the time. Here's some potential solutions: 1. The only way 999 works is if we pass a Constitutional amendment that either locks in 9%, meaning another amendment would be required to adjust it. Or, we build in some sort of "emergency" contingency that requires a 2/3 majority in the House, etc., for things like catastrophe, war, etc. This way, you reassure the Ron Paul people and the Tea Party people that you aren't casually adding a new tax. 2. The cool part here is that 9% income is separate from 9% sales. You could very easily convince people that the income part can be made progressive, depending on the economy. Meanwhile the sales can be adjusted separately. IF you do #1 to cap the max %, then you can allow Congress to adjust the two individual taxes as needed. In all cases, the corporate 9 is NEVER allowed to be touched. This way, you take that argument away from the left. If Democrats are in power and they decide low middle poor need help: Ok, we will reduce sales to 5% for grocery stores, home improvement and clothing, cut their income tax to 2%, and we will raise all sin stuff, and all luxury stuff to 10%". If you want that, you vote for democrats. If not, you vote Republican. 3. No matter what happens, every tax adjustment expires after 1 year, and, if not replaced, everything goes back to 999.

If B), then the Bills will remain at 4-1 at the BYE week, after being raided and shut down by the FBI for illegal porn. Dude this is both ironic and hysterical. Remember where you are. How many BBMB posters are quick enough on the uptake to make these jokes? Now, per your request, the Bills have faced a strong run team(4 in the top 10) and/or a highly mobile QB and/or strong screen game every single week. This week, they face a week run team, a statue QB, and a "no trickery that we have seen yet" team. The story is not what their front 7 will do to our O line. It's the other way around. Containing the RB/QB is replaced by kill the QB. And, I don't think we will have to blitz to accomplish this. We may blitz anyway, but I'd rather get it done with Moats, Merriman, Batten, etc.

Derogatory _unt? Dirty "? actually if you say that all together, it's funny! Dirty _unt Tom. Sounds like a pirate! "Dirt _unt Tom joins the Guild of Calamitous Intent!" Deranged Cacophony?

Here's the spin: "I read that wikileak and nowhere does it say that Obama was going to apologize" Technically that's correct. Look Media Matters is already all over it! But, here's the actual transcript: link Notice that Media Matters does't include the actual words, and instead only quotes what others have said. I wonder why? Let's apply some good old logic: If the "the idea" is a non-starter, then the Japanese didn't think of it. Why would they call their own idea a non-stater? Did they come up with the idea, and then have something change, and decide to change their minds? Why would they do that, and, what about their political realities has changed WRT this issue? Or, the more likely explanation: This WAS Obama's "idea". And the Japanese were responding to it. Where else did "the idea" come from? The Stay Puffed Marshmallow man? Sure Obama "was never going to apologize"....but that doesn't mean "the idea" to apologize wasn't his. Thankfully, the Japanese, who must be privately saying WTF?, saved Idiot Barry from himself.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Wb7gmBhM3z4/TGK9_CATVQI/AAAAAAAADOU/xeqKiXytQ2k/s400/stop.jpg "Sorry folks, park's closed, moose outside should've told ya" This is funny too.

Here, I'll help you out, I bolded my main questions:

Still waiting for my response juror8. You are new here, so perhaps I can help you out: I don't want to get into a debate with Magox over the methods of markets, as that's what he does, and you shouldn't either. We can talk about results, but you should stay away from the inner workings. Same thing goes for arguing with a business owner, LABillz, over what constitutes a sound budget. (The same goes for a lot of us. I suggest you stop telling us to unknow what we know, and do, every day.) You sure as hell don't want to argue with DC_Tom about science or history(or in Tom's mind, anything ) Actually, the best rule is stay away from history in general unless you really know it = "have read primary sources". Fair warning. Post some dopey conclusion based on some non-historian who's not even good enough to be called a "revisionist" saying, for example, that Lincoln would be a Democrat today, and you will be destroyed. Same rule for economics. We have highly educated, both didactically and practically, people here. Slip up once and you will be hearing it for weeks, for the exact reason that we like to antagonize people because we can. This is the high school locker room, and you are the new kid. Having said that, my response above is playing on your home field: Politics. This is something you say you know. So, let's hear it.

Bah! Beat me to it!

I was able to fire you up with a silly scarf thing.... You idiots better not ruin this for me...

This is done. Even the Washington Post says so. And they better, because of these people get attributed to the Democrats, it's a serious problem. 53 people in Manhattan today <40 in DC This is rapidly turning into a joke. The average bus of tourists has more people. Perhaps the NYC cops should just round them all up and leave them in Newark. Now that would be funny, and normal, since a lot of NYC trash goes to NJ. Maybe they get a few more this weekend? Oh, I forgot, they don't have jobs, and are sincerely protesting that, right? These aren't the same old Code Pink/International A.N.S.W.E.R. communist clowns, right?