OCinBuffalo

You will have a good laugh with that crew. Regardless of what happens with the game, it was always a good time. Even when we only had 12 people, it was a riot. Now there are 100+. I keep thinking about landing there some weekend, just to watch the game with those guys.

Wait...we measure lots of things by how much money they make, and that works more often than not. We also expect some things to simply break even, because they have intangible benefit. But those are the only 2 rules that we are willing to put up with in our daily lives. Nobody is f'ing about throwing money at something that fails, year after year, and shows no improvement, even when we spend more money on it. You would sell or scrap any part of your life that did that. I am all for things that can break even, and I am for running a little deficit here and there, provided it is made up. But, when you are already taxing 45% of my income, you can blow telling me to support things that consistently lose money and consistently do not achieve results right out your ass. You can also blow painting me, who has been paying MORE than my fair share since college, as greedy, or cold, or whatever else, out your ass as well. The simple fact is the government's scope is way out of hand. The solution is to cut the scope. Period.You know this.

My God....all this flailing about grasping at whatever straw you see, never mind what you can reach...trying to find any way to present Obama, and your support for him, as rational. Boy, oh boy....looks like the people who reasonably questioned Obama's lack of executive experience aren't "racists" after all, huh? Looks like we were right, and you were all, again, unmitigated morons. Incidentally, I was just as right about McCain, and that sniveling turd would have been just as bad. The good news for the Republicans is: they let him have his shot, and now he's done. Perhaps if the leftist media had actually done their jobs? I don't mean be petty and cheap and talk about birth certificates and church pastors. I mean be competent and objective and talk about the massive executive experience hole in Obama's record. Perhaps if the real Democrats had stood up the progressives, and told them that their need to have a Hallmark moment with a black President, was not more important than the party's need to prove, after 10 years of being irrelevant to the Presidency, that it did have someone who could handle the job like a grown-up. The Oprah-fied phoniness...the 60k people in Denver...all of it = what happens when you let marketing people run wild. Nobody talks about making sure "the product" works and/or can actually deliver, because everybody wants to go the big trade show, get hammered, talk schit and tell each other how awesome they are. ... Where's Steely Dan? I told him this would be trouble in 17 months. This is the opening stanza in the "OCinBuffalo is right/EPA will suffer for their bufoonery" saga . Obama's own staffers created the regulations, at least in part, to placate the left. Then, EPA willingly adopts these new regs without any thought or care. Then, Obama and Co. turn on them like a mother-in-law? Guess who will be blamed? That's right, Steely, the EPA. Guess who will use these regs, and the fact that "even Obama wouldn't support them", to prove that the EPA is completely out of control? Guess who is right, again, and will be laughing at Steely Dan's "EPA's budget slashed/EPA investigated" threads that will begin around 17 months from now?

The last thing I want to do is invoke TO...but...he also had a lot of potential, and dropped the ball a lot when he first got going. Hell, he dropped it when he was an all-pro. We'll see. If he does start doing well, hopefully he heads in the Steve Johnson direction and not the TO direction attitude-wise. The one thing I don't get is Donald Jones. I haven't seen enough to know why he is starting, over Easley or, over Nelson for that matter.

He looked really good returning punts. And, if my Roscoe Parrish does well theory holds, we won't be able to risk him doing it. Rogers is very quick and very fast. My only question is: can he come up and tackle an NFL RB?

Nobody on this board would rather be wrong about it being only Parrish, and have it be multiple guys kicking ass, more than me. I would love to see what amounts to an updated for 2011 "run and shoot" offense...that can also run the ball consistently, and involves the TE position...somehow. I don't know how, I am not an NFL coach. Here's what I do know: If Spiller can motion out to one slot, which should also expose the defense they are playing btw, and have Roscoe in the other...that's nasty. How many team's 3-4th best corner can cover those guys? Or the other way, how many team's 3rd best corner can cover Steve Johnson? You work in the TE, David Nelson, and disguise a few plays that look like short ones, but are actually bombs to Johnson...this could be good. We'll see. Right now I see Parrish being more experienced, and more likely to be in position to make plays...with the occasional big play going to Johnson. That's the thing. We almost HAVE to start hurting people with Parrish/Spiller/Fred Jackson catching balls, for Johnson to get a chance. Or, this could all be September Wishful Thinking

This! Really, it is as simple as stop the run. Oh, wow...that's a great nickname. How cool would it be if they an actually live up to that? Only problem is....if they don't....then we will hear "didn't find any WMD" jokes. Also, which one is: Nuclear? Biological? Chemical?

#1 Merriman. - Do I need to explain this? #2 Parrish - Roscoe Parrish will be an unexpected star in this offense. Roscoe will be on Primetime, and they will have to come up with a nickname, because he will light it up. That's my call. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. It has become clear, to me anyway , that the type of offense Gailey wants to run is a deception/speed/quickness from the skill players and 2 second throws from Fitz. This is Roscoe's game to the letter. There will be lots and lots of WR screens, reverses, and of course, snap throws to Roscoe...all done in order to get him in space with the ball, on the move, or standing still, it doesn't really matter. Roscoe in space is the key. He is far quicker than all but a very few opposing D players, so space is all he needs to gain a serious advantage. If he is already moving in that space...then they are screwed. We all know what he can do when he is moving in space...on punt returns. The difference is: as a WR there are only 2-4 people that can actually tackle him, rather than 5-8 on a punt. There is no middle ground here. Either this approach will work, and be used a lot, or, it will fail miserably. Much depends on Roscoe himself, and whether he uses the assets he is given on each play properly.

Yes, it does say something. Given this: It says that Ryan's ego, and failed attempt to show us up, almost put a bad player on his roster. It says that the GM finally had to step in and stop Rex from embarrassing himself and the organization.

Dave_In_Norfolk basing a post on proper understanding of economics? Bishop Hedd thinking instead of wishing his way through a thread about the TEA party? pBills not being in denial in every thread about unions? Any of these would be completely different.

It's getting to the point that the very word TEA party causes so much consternation for these people that they will quite literally say anything, no matter how foolish. To steal LABillz's line: How can a small group of radicals, that are dead, btw, that nobody will listen to, that is now irrelevant... ...also be the same group of people that have and will continue to be blocking everything the Great Leader Obama does? This is like Bush Derangement Syndrome all over again. "Bush is a great liar, so good that he was able to deceive the press, the military, and 70% of the country...but at the same time...is a blithering idiot." Given this "reasoning", the only valid conclusion is that Bishop Hedd and the rest of the Democrats, who lost to him twice, are simply bigger idiots than Bush. These fools are arguing themselves into a circle, again. This time with the the TEA party. So, if the TEA party is dead, what does that mean about the liberal party? How relevant are you, how effective are you, if you can't beat a supposedly small group of irrelevant morons? If your ideas are better, why aren't they working? You had the liberal economics professor "dream team", and one guy from U of Chicago. How could the best of the best not implement your ideas properly? Your response: "nothing wrong with my ideology...the professors simply did it wrong! IF we had better people in there...." Yes, the people who know liberal economics better than anyone in the world...didn't apply it properly.

Yeah. Right. There are about as many TEA party people are there are liberal party people atm. So, which small group of morons will you blame when Obama continues to punt on every single issue? The TEA party or the liberal party? Once again, the far-left is severely confounded by the TEA party. They have no answer for them, and nobody to vilify because the TEA party has no leaders, and is truly an organic group. The left tried: 1. Calling them racist. FAIL 2. Marginalizing them. FAIL 3. Saying they were the worst sort of radicals, and attributing violence to them. Then, the real pictures of these "extremists" come back...and we see...grannies and people with their kids....EPIC FAIL 4. TEA party candidates win 40+ primaries and general elections in 2010. They lose 2 senate elections with bad candidates. However, the net result is a national slaughter in the House, State Houses, Governors Mansions and -6 Senate seats...but they try to focus on Christine O'Donnell? ASTRONOMIC FAIL. 5. Saying the TEA party is now: dead. "That's right, the TEA party is over with...because we say so. They are gone. We close our eyes, and they disappear." EPIC FAIL. Now, the left is back to calling the TEA party racists again. FAIL! The TEA party is a problem for the left, but not the biggest problem. Here are the left's biggest problems: 1. The worst thing that could have happened to Obama is losing the House. Now, he can't defer every single command decision to Nancy Pelosi as he had since 2008. Now, he is exposed, and there's no place to hide. 2. I don't know which is more infuriating for the average person, Obama's refusal to lead, or, his insistence that his refusal to lead proves he is "above" everyone, everything, etc. I have news for you. Talking about the TEA party doesn't solve biggest problems #1 and #2. You leftists need to focus on those first, or the beating you will take in 2012 will make 2010 feel like hanging out at a Dead show.

You know when ESPN does those live text/chats? How funny would it be if we trolled them by asking about Ryne Sandberg and Ryan Fitzgibbons? I bet they wouldn't even notice. Might be worth a few laughs. Ask them things like "Do you think our punter, Brian Baschnagel(sticking with the whole 80s Chicago stars thing), is done, or does he have a few more years left?"

What? Did you forget that Canadians are Americans? Did you forget that we aren't allowed to call ourselves Americans? Did you forget that we are too dumb to come up for an actual name for ourselves that accurately describes us? I have taken the liberty of assuaging the major offense we have put upon all "proud Canadians" . From now on we should call ourselves: USers. (You think I am kidding? Nope. This is the kind of crap I have to listen to inexplicably and consistently in the pisser at Sabres games, from random dudes in Allentown, etc.. So, no, not everything about moving to Buffalo has been awesome) On that topic...whoever the Canadian guy is that keeps pushing past everybody in line, and talking this schit...the other regular users of the pisser by the bar and elevator in the club seats and I have determined that the next time? It's your ass. Wedgies and a swirlies have been put forward as firm options. Just sayin'...fair warning dude.

No way this thread leaves the front page. I won't stand for it. Oh, and isn't it right to say: The first game's chances are 1/31, the next game's chances are 1/30, next 1/29 and only then the last game is 1/28? Didn't you guys learn anything in 8th grade math? For those that took statistics: how many standard deviations is us playing the Lions every year? Anybody want to do a regression?

Yes, but "the class" isn't there yet. That's next semester. We are just trying to get through "standard liberal economics position". Many are struggling with this material. Dave_In_Norfolk is failing, btw, you may want to restrict his "talk economics" privileges, as he is making your side of the aisle look extremely dumb. Perhaps you can take him on as a student, as I am rapidly growing tired of having to teach him everything. I would argue that your interpretation of Keynes is not 100% accurate(some quibbles...80% accurate). But, as I said, we are just getting through "What is Keynesian Economics?". Once I empower these liberal parrots to actually present their own side's position properly, then we will move on to Supply Side and Free Trade. We will need to work hard to remove the "invisible MSNBC hand" from some poster's rear ends. It is turning them into puppets, who are unable to think/argue for themselves. But, like I said, that's next semester. You will get nothing from me until you answer my question, Mr. "I want to know more about Econ than the average bartender"(that's for Booster. ) trainee. You want to know my opinion on deflation. You are a trainee, so you don't realize that is a dumb question. I am trying to educate you. So, what is your unqualified(tried "context", didn't seem to work) opinion about purple, mint green, and oral sex?

Uh...Keynesian economics can work. If it is done properly. If it is not used to solve structural employment issues. Education solves structural. Government spending on Demand(Keynesian multiplier) does not. I know, I know, what the hell? How can I, of all people, say that? Easy. I tell the truth. Tough schit if you don't like it. Keynesian economics works just like any other tool, and, just like any other tool, it can be abused, misused, and flat out FUBARed. The problem is: Keynes himself would disagree with most "Keynesian" economists of today. Most of these people are merely socialists. I know, we aren't supposed to use that word. But, when we talk in terms of economics, unlike politics, things have to mean what they say, and in economics, socialism means socialism. More truth: if Obama had created a team of people including Magox, SDS, EryntheRed, TPS, and myself, put us in charge of spending the stimulus money, and instructed us to strictly apply Keynesian principles...the stimulus probably would have worked. Really. The problem here is not the tool. The problem is the tools...that have taken Keynes' work far beyond his imagining and far beyond all practicality....into the socialist/Environtologist land of unicorns, rainbows and green shovels. Keynes would never have suggested that we massively spend money on unproven technologies. Instead, he would have supported spending that increased demand for consumer goods, and also, lowered the cost of raw materials, food, and any other component that is used to create consumer goods. Consumerism! Instead, we have had to endure bastards and their bastardizing. What? Don't you know that misleading is what all propagandists like bladiebla rely on? How much do you want to bet bladiebla is from Europe...where lies(too strong? major distortion?) like this are commonplace. But, guess what happens when you stack (we are going with distortion then?) upon distortion over the course of 60 years? You get: Greece, Spain, etc. Hysterical. The walls are falling all around Europe, and their whole model is being severely exposed....yet they still want to claim superiority over us. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Pftt. Like I wasn't educating others besides Dave as well. Or, do any of you actually think Peace or 3rdndlg know this stuff? Highly doubtful. Both are just happy I decided to pick on Dave, and not on them. Now, if they want to get into it, I have a whole list of google-proof questions....and we will see who is educated, and who is phony...Peace?...not a good plan for you. Trying to lawyer/BS your way through will be exposed, in as funny a manner as possible. EDIT: I am still waiting for Dave's context-free opinions on: 1. Purple 2. Mint Green 3. Oral Sex Right after I get those, I will give my context-free opinion on deflation.

Wrong. Just the opposite. But when it comes to people like yourself, I am absolutely absolute in my demand that you cease the phony baloney. First, you tell me that you are just about the science. When I refute that, you go right back to liberal bread and butter--> "well, it's because I am smarter/wiser/morally superior...and let's add a new one....more mature...than you are". Nice. My posts have worked as designed--> expose your phoniness and the foolish liberal belief that being liberal makes you better. In the past, I would have written a super-long post and made you read it. Or, I would have continued trolling you for fun. But, my point has already been made, and this board has seen fit to roundly reject the phoniness that was rampant here when I first joined. There are just a few phonies left...so no need.... You aren't smarter than most of the people on this board. You aren't wiser: you walked right into this. You aren't morally superior, you are morally relative. The concept that you would claim any of these things, and presume to look down on us, when there is 0 evidence to back any of it up? Yes, that's the height of maturity. There's only one thing I have an absolutist view on: most liberals are every bit as phony as televangelists. The difference is: the liberals don't know they are being phony. That's where I come in.

Pretty bad when I can refute you with a single wiki link. The wonderlic does not only pertain to football. In fact, it doesn't pertain to football any more than in pertains to being an engineer, or an astronaut, or anything else that involves problem solving. I was specifically referring to the quote above...and that quote has everything to do with bad parenting and ignorance. In fact it is a direct result of it. Do you steal? How about murder, are you big on that? If not, then not "everyone" does it, do they? This moron is trying to justify his bad behavior by lowering the bar, for "everyone", to a staggeringly low level.

Very little, actually. It says a lot about his parent(s) though...and a lot about him. Perhaps he will grow up in time to not completely f up his chance at making it big in the NFL, perhaps he won't. Consider: we have people going to school for free right now that think 9/11 was an inside job, and believe in a whole host a of other douchebaggery, and I would say the same thing to them: perhaps you will grow up in time to get a real job, perhaps you won't.

I am sure I don't care what you pay attention to. However, I do care about trolling the hell out of you, and your phony, "I am above all this, I just want to see the science" load of crap. Actually, I hope you completely forget about this. It will be more fun for me that way. You are just a hair smarter, and just a hair less affected, than the ALGORE political supporters, as evidenced by you trying to hedge on this. So, I suppose that's something. You know that your political leanings are by far the guiding force behind whatever you say on this. The difference between us is I just come right out and say it. The only reason my political radar is even up on this? The left chose to make it a political issue.

Dave doesn't understand. Dave has no economics education. Or, if he does, he was hitting a bong before class. I will educate Dave, whether you like it or not, whether it makes for a long post, because it's the right thing to do. Saying "government spending increases consumer demand" is doing it wrong. I will say it right for Dave, because it's the funny thing to do. There is a reason that Liberals don't let anybody other than liberal economists talk economics. Dave's performance here is why. The trick for liberals is to talk about multipliers. I gave Dave "the answer" 2 posts ago. Dave has said nothing about multipliers. That is why Dave is doing it wrong. Smart liberals know that $1 of government spending does NOT create $1 of demand. Smart liberals know that in fact $1 of spending is diluted by both the agency that does the spending, and the "spendee". Smart liberals know that if they went out and claimed otherwise, we would laugh at them, like we laugh at Dave. Smart liberals know that the initial spending of $1 creates about $.10 of demand, if we are lucky. Therefore, smart liberals claim that the $1 has a quantifiable life beyond the initial "spendee". That, if specific "spendee"s are targeted, they will in turn spend money on specific things that will in turn create a little more demand. The second tier of "spendee"s will spend on demand-creating things, and so on. This process continues until the $1 of targeted government spending, by adding up the initial $.10 with all the other layers, hopefully creates $1.50 in demand. This is not enough to cover the government spending budget-wise, but, the hope is that it will be enough to kick-start the economy, and the Federal budget shortfall will be made up by the anticipated economic boom revenue later. This is the "Keynesian multiplier". Now Dave is aware of it. I doubt he will be ever be able to argue it properly. It's hysterical that I can argue Dave's points better than he can. Given this, in order for Keynes to be right, there must be extreme discipline when it comes to what specifically gets stimulus spending. Look at what happened with the Tax Rebate of 2000. It failed miserably. Why? Because people took that money and paid off debt. They didn't spend it on new stuff = no new demand. That is ultimately the fallacy of the multiplier theory: it assumes that you can actually pull the levers and switches exactly right, throughout the entire economy, at each stage of spending to produce the intended result. You can't. TARP proved that better than anything. This is the specific reason the stimulus failed. Lack of discipline. Waaaay too much ideology, and 0 practicality. That is why the "should have been bigger" argument fails on its face. The money was misapplied, idiots. More money only would have meant more misapplication. So, instead of having the states fight the government employee unions when they did, it would have been 6 months later. Big deal. The money was wasted on keeping state government employees in their jobs, which is patently NOT stimulative. It merely delays the inevitable. The proper way for liberals to argue this point is that they can in fact be disciplined and spend on only the things that are sure to create multipliers. If they are convincing, and we approve, then they need to show their work. But, the problem is: how many of people think "discipline" when the they think "liberal". Obama proved his administration is anything but disciplined. They spent maybe 25% of the entire stimulus on recognized multipliers, and the rest on paying off political interests. That ratio would not have changed had we spent $2 trillion more as Paul Krugman wanted. So, no matter what, 75% of the "government spending would do nothing to increase consumer demand". Instead, all we ended up with is a need to print money, twice, which did, and will, cause inflation.

Further evidence of the "2 second game plan" being by design, not default.

No, I prefer that I had thought of appointing myself the one person able to accept and then ask questions of...aliens...before she did. The "if the question is accepted by Nancy" part of this scam is pure genius. I would never charge money, because the trolling potential of being the only person able to communicate with aliens, and determine which questions are "acceptable", and then create the "responses", is practically limitless. That gig would make me the high priest of trolling. All trolls would have to bend their knee and kiss my ring The number of naked youtube pushups, interpretive dances in dumpsters, etc., framed in "the aliens say you must learn humility before they will share their secrets" alone....