OCinBuffalo

You may not be in favor of the fandom debates, I don't think anybody is, but they are upon us whether we like it or not. Based on your definition of being a fan...you are a much better fan than many of the fans I have encountered in the "status seats" I have routinely been in during my career. It's pretty bad when you are more knowledgeable about the team you are watching, and significantly more interested in the game, than the guy who bought the seats, and it's his city. I mean, literally, STFU and watch the game. Why the hell do I want to go to a game and talk about work? I do that, at work. When I say "customers" and "partners" are replacing "fans" at the game, that's what I mean. When I say that expectations as a fan are being replaced by expectations as a guest at Disney, that's what I mean. Or worse, if the fans lose this debate to the customers, then this is going to be like the "Small World After All" ride. It will turn into what baseball has become: a social networking event whose outcome is nearly irrelevant, rather than something to get fired up about. It will be like golf: where it is all about the customers, and "to whose tent were you invited", and not the players, or the game. Half right. For saying Roger Rabbit :"I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Education, not wealth, is the #1 factor in determining a person's "success", if you want to measure it in terms of net worth. Disclaimer: yes, we all know about the masters prepared social worker who makes crap money. The problem is: they are a statistically irrelevant minority, so spare us the anecdotes. It's education, dummy. And, what have we done about education? Well, both parties have seen fit to spend a hell of a lot of money. What are our results? Poor. Is that because we aren't spending enough money? No, and we are far past proving that. So if money isn't the answer, what is? The problem is kid's attitude and hustle, and no amount of money spent on the school, or magical teachers, will resolve that. Those things have to come from a choice, made by the kids. The ability to make that choice correctly comes from their parents. This is a matter of identifying the problem correctly. We are trying to solve the wrong problem(bad teachers) with the wrong solution(more money). The problem is parents. The solutions are: more taxes and/or less benefits for bad parents. If the kid doesn't turn in homework for a month, we need a court order that both child and parent attend mandatory 3 hour study hall. Make exceptions for night workers/people who don't work = they have to attend 3 hours of school with their kids See? This isn't that hard. Put this in place, and I guarantee results. And, before you say "big government": The amount of intrusion by the state into a parent's life must be directly proportional to their performance as a parent. The results of bad parenting affect us all, directly. If the kid tries hard, but is an idiot, and the parent's doing their job, then the teacher will know that, and can let them off the hook. We have every right to free ourselves from the results of bad parenting, by requiring the government to take appropriate action. If parents want the state to educate their children for free, then, the taxpayers have a right to demand proper parenting.

Yes, let's ignore the terrabytes of empirical data we have that says that's the only way to get the economy working... and instead... cling to the distortions and flat out lies that the New Deal fixed the Great Depression, and didn't prolong it, and WW2 had nothing to do with it. Amazing what happens when the rest of the world is in full war material production, and then in 0 production, leaving our economy as the only large producer of consumer goods for a 20 year period. But why bother with historical, economic fact when we have myths and FUD to spread? Hell, Nixon imposed price and wage controls! That means they work! Because Republicans did it, too!

Yes, I'm the narcissist here Peace. You have such a high opinion of yourself...that disagreeing with you = I'm stalking you...but I am the narcissist. God you are a phony. Perhaps you should look up the same word as Tom. I'm not the one running around claiming that my throw away votes make me better than others. All I am claiming is that my decision not to vote for people who I observed to be assclowns, and who then proceeded to back up that observation 95% with their behavior, was the right one for me, and no worse than your decision to vote for the irrelevant.

I'm being pretentious? How so? I am telling you the truth. Since when is the truth pretentious? Where did I claim that my judgement is anything other than: my judgement? Do us a favor and look up the word: projection.

"Was it over when...ze Germans...bombed Pearl Harbor?" (This is a 2 for 1 movie quote, whoever gets both right first gets a ). Hey, I love the optimism. This who we are, for Pete's sake, and certainly not something to be seriously negative about...unless...you have different "needs". Like it or not, we now have shades of fandom. It would be easier for everybody if we didn't. There is an eternal battle between competitiveness and community for Bills fans especially. We want our team to be competitive yes, but we also want to enjoy the entire experience on the whole with the rest our community of fans, win or lose. Notice I said fans, not customers. Not so for many other teams, where community is merely...status, that lasts as long as you keep buying the right tickets, and where competitiveness is measured by the image of the team in the media, and whether that image can be transposed to a team's customers(not fans). Look at the Tampa Rays: they are good. They win. Few attend games because few of the people of that area would be caught dead in St. Petersburg. It's bad for your image. Is there anyplace in WNY you wouldn't go to watch a Bills game? How about on the planet? Unlike in many other places, we actually have to try and square our genuine need for the Bills to be competitive, for football, not image, reasons, against our genuine wish to be an inclusive, positive community. Unfortunately, some of us have bought into the destruction of that entire paradigm. Where being an actual fan = being poor and/or an idiot. Specifically, the fandom we all grew up with, and is on full display by the OP, has been actively targeted and hit, repeatedly. But the good news is: the OP is still hanging and banging, regardless. This is why posts like this rule, because it reminds us that real fans still exist. That, even as their place on game day gets smaller and higher up in the seats, it is the real Bills football fan, and not the charity?(don't you mean marketing?), client juicing, corporate/state employee greasing, Disneyfied "partnering programs"...that are the reason these teams exist all.

The thing is: I'm not apathetic. You know that. It should be obvious to you by now. You do have an interesting point. Perhaps you are right. Even a small chance is better than no chance...I will think about it. But, perhaps that's too small of a chance? In any event, it's nice to see you posting something useful.

The TEA party have proven to be practical. That's why you can't peg them, and that's why they have kept the religious thing out, so that you can't hang them with that. In all but a few instances, they nominated good candidates and won. And, for the vast majority of them: they did all that without any real political experience. I will say that they will turn on Bachman like a mother in law, if Bachman puts their agenda in jeopardy, as they should. You are confusing them with the far-left, who will nominate a weak candidate like Obama, and then blame everybody else when he fails.

That's how bad Obama is, because, so the F would I, and I refused to vote him, twice. Hell, if the Democrats got serious about running Hillary, I would even consider that, depending on if the Republicans nominate a dope. Anybody but Obama. I might even come off the bench and work for a campaign. I might even move, so I can vote in a swing state. That's why the Republicans are breaking tradition and don't already have their candidate locked in. They want to be absolutely sure Obama loses, and, they want Obama to have to blow his money on lots of candidates.

Second! The fact that: they already bastardized a classic sci-fi movie by changing it's entire premise to suit this exact same scenario(The Day the Earth Stood Still), and bastardized it further by letting Keanu Reeves star in it and ham it up... ...apparently has no effect on Dave. This was in a F'ing awful movie, a movie for Christ's sake! The only thing cool or interesting was the little nano-bugs. This is your definition of "science"? Or, scientific thought?

I am participating. In each instance I carefully considered each candidate. I thought about why I might vote for them. I thought: will this guy do things that will make the country better? Is this guy somebody that I know will improve things. After doing reasonable research, in each instance, I came up with a resounding "no". Who is participating more? Me or the guy that flips a coin before he votes? Is the guy who stays home, when he doesn't like his party's candidate, and won't vote for the other party, participating more? At least I have considered both candidates. In all honesty, except for 2 of the chances, I had the resources to vote. I could have made it an issue. But, given the choices, especially the last one, they just aren't worth my vote. Why is that so hard to get? Obama has proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that he is completely unworthy of a anyone's vote for President. McCain proved that a long time ago. I refuse to vote party. I vote for the person. I hate these men for President. I may like them for Senator. But I hate them for President... ...and you are arguing, that I should do something I absolutely hate...for no other reason than because you say so? Blow it our your ass! Do you have any idea how bad the Republican candidate has to be this year, for me not to vote for them? That's how bad Obama is. My usual careful consideration and standards will be relaxed...because the chief priority now is damage control. This is not about who is better, or who is worthy. This is now about stopping the bleeding.

Blood for the Blood God Khorne! Nice Warhammer reference. EDIT: Buddy Nix: "Knowledge is power. Guard it well". Ralph Wilson = The Emperor. "The Emperor Protects".

As simple as I can say it: Whether character on the field is all that matters, or not, is...irrelevant. Fans will judge players based on things they can know, and things they cannot know, just the same. So, you identifying it as "what matters" is also irrelevant. Because even though you are mostly right, it doesn't matter. However, every fan is not the same, or in the same circumstances... There are posters here...like me...who tend to run into players all the time, especially in places like Chippewa, etc. I also, run into them in the strangest places/circumstances(my favorite since moving to Buffalo? Running into Andrew Peters in a 4x5' ATM booth full of crazy/drunk people I asked him what he thought about Kaleta ). So, some of us have personal experience with players, and of course the amount depends on the player. I know what I am about regarding assessing character, quickly. It's part of my job. So, if I see a guy that clearly has a character problem, and it's bad enough to warrant a post...it's pretty bad. Otherwise, I wouldn't appreciate people posting everything I do at a bar, so I live by the same standard. It has to be funny, or important, to merit a post. Bottom line: Bills fans will judge player's character, regardless of whether or nor they personally see Marshawn Lynch serving as a DD for the night. They will, because they can. They are the customer. Regarding PR...the reason people give JP schit about "cleaning up the city" half because it was phony, and half because he sucked. As I said: I am close sometimes. Sometimes I'm standing 5 feet away. If I tell you something is phony, that's because I was probably crushing my Sapphire and Tonic when it happened, and proceeded to GTFO of the "event".

Spend 2 more years here and then ask that question again. If it doesn't pertain to the Bills, it certainly pertains to the board.

I thought it was simple to understand. Apparently I need to make it simpler. Bills fans aren't fooled by contrived PR "appearances" framed as substitutes for obvious strength of character. That may play elsewhere, in fact, I know it does, but it doesn't play here. I am saying just the opposite of your inference: Character, on the field, is the only thing that fans can judge accurately. Many fans will judge things they can't be accurate about, regardless. Yes, and if we aren't sure about your character from watching you on the field, hitting some dopey woman with your truck is a great way to let the people who do think they can determine a player's character without actually knowing them personally, have a field day. No, we won't excuse them. Especially if there is a FA/draft pick replacement out there. Uhh, Travis Henry/Makebaby/Lynch? This may be dumb, but I am merely stating things as they are, not as we wish them to be. That's your view. Few see it the exact same way, because NFL is a many-faceted product that people consume for different reasons. You're not wrong, you're just not the same as everyone else. These players have a good job, that no one is forcing them to do. If they can't handle the terms of the job, they can choose not to do it. Some fans, who aren't you, require the players to be principled. Their money is as good as yours is...perhaps better. The NFL wants everyone's money, so the NFL deals with everyone's requirements. Like I said: simple.

Yes, nothing like throwing that winning TD to win the SB...oh wait, that was Montana. Brady's Defense and the kicker won the SBs he...happened to play in/managed. He has been much better since then, but please, using the SBs where he wasn't even the best player on his team, never mind in the game, is silly.

Are you doing this because Micheal Moore did it too? Let me tell you, it didn't get him much either. Do you really think that we all need to be in an office in order to work? Are you one of those haters like GG who gets pissed because he has to wear a suit, and I wear flip flops, only, at work most of the time? This is silly. I would think that getting a President the F out of DC would be a good thing for people on the right who hate DC. Right?

Do you believe in the concept that space aliens would attack us because of our refusal to believe in your religion? I use science, and scientific principles every day. Believe me, in my work everything must be proven, and nothing can be taken on faith. I have no problems with science. Here's the problem for you: whenever credible data surfaces that contradicts your religious beliefs, you tell us to have no faith in it, refuse to explain how it exists, and you treat the scientists who provide it like radical Muslims would a blasphemer. Why? IF we are after the truth here, and not "wanting to believe" how does that square with your behavior? Wait a second...who is the religious zealot here again?

So, you aren't denying it. I'm glad to hear you say "it depends". Perhaps there's hope for you after all. Now, let's apply the words "it depends" to a few scenarios, shall we? What are the dependencies for keeping Medicare, and the current Medicare promises, intact without any reform? Right now, one of them is $46-9 trillion, sitting in the bank, collecting interest. Perhaps you can think of others? Like the sudden, magically delicious, ability of CMS employees to actually run these programs, whose scopes have proven to be untenable? The proper identification of dependencies is a first step in process management. The next step is to remove as many as possible. What are your current dependencies when it comes to Medicare? How many of them could be removed instantly with no effect on your care process? How many of them exist for no purpose other than to provide a government employee or contractor with a job? Are you telling us that you are dependent on Medicare to make you a better doctor, or your nurses better nurses? Or, is the opposite the case? What are you dependent on CMS for, other than money? If CMS didn't exist, would you still be able to get money from patients? Would you still be able to give good care? Finally, if the TEA party has accurately identified the correct answers to these questions, which it appears they have, and has done it from the local bowling alley, what makes anyone think they are going away?

I agree. Perhaps the stupidest thing the Republicans did last century was to do anything on that other than sit there and let the media and the internet crush Clinton. It's unforgivable stupidity. In every way they acted contrary to their ideals, and came out looking like hypocrites. They chose to get down in the mud and wrestle with the pig, and didn't realize that the pig likes it, and all they get is dirty. You can't be high minded and principled if you go after somebody when they are down. They took the risk of backing severely wounded Democrats into corner, for very little reward. Clinton was already dead. The only way he could come back was based on them giving him their credibility and him using it. The smart play was to let him sit there in his own mud and wallow. The smart play was to keep it a strictly Democrat story. But, the good news is they appeared to have learned their lesson: look how they handled Weiner.

From the comments: "Was the report from scientists or Scientologists?" And you wonder why I call them Environtologists? The new motto for these people "I want to believe".

Buftex and others....want to know when this "political climate" started? The very second Bill Clinton said "it depends on how you define the word 'is'". The left, morally relative and unprincipled, said "how smart". The right, morally sound but zealous and judgmental to the point of silliness, said "how indefensible". The rest has been: "if Clinton can do that, then we can do X", and we are living the consequences. Instead of saying "how smart", the left should have said "how silly, we are smarter than that", and left Clinton to be destroyed by the media. Instead of saying "how indefensible", the right should have said "how pathetic, we are better than that", and left Clinton to be destroyed by the media. The fact is that Clinton is smart. Instead of him taking all the blame for his bad behavior, he got us to blame each other.

Are you denying that TEA party political support does not exist from sources like the bar, bowling alleys and the Rotary club? Are you denying that you are far more likely to get TEA party support from these places than Liberal party support? Of course there are exceptions. We are talking demographics here, and elections. Nobody is going to win an election with 100% of the vote in this country. After all, we are not Cuba, Venezuela, or Saddam's Iraq. There are no absolutes here. Absolutist, and wishful, thinking is the single biggest problem that confronts Liberals like yourself today. And, what is your response? Declare the TEA party dead and go home? Good luck with that. Declare that there should be no cuts to Medicare and that it's diseased, current organizational structure should not be reformed in any way? Good luck with that too. You cannot wish these problems away, or demagogue them any longer. You cannot dig deeper into a failed ideology in the hopes of protecting it. The math simply isn't there for you. It will be interesting to see what you do, and potentially it will be a great source of humor for people like me. When people who consider themselves superior to everyone else, especially morally superior, fail miserably, it's hysterical.

If the outcome is the same, what difference does the formula used to produce the outcome make, there physics guy? IF on the left side we have voting for unmitigated morons, and on the right side we have not voting for anyone...and they both have the exact same effect, in a practical senses they are equal. I didn't say less wasteful. I said less likely to encourage the morons. Isn't that something you should be on board with? Oh, I forgot, you like encouraging morons, don't you? Without them, you'd have little to work with, right?

I said good pass rush. Not sure I would be using the Bucs as a precise tool for measurement. Just like I wouldn't be using the Bears as one for us either. We'll see....but my guess is that we will be able to throw effectively on the Pats this year. And we'll see what they do that makes that unimportant.