OCinBuffalo

I have been guilty of posting things like that in the past. On paper, I was right. The problem is: even when you correctly identify a problem with the Pats, and even when it plays out as you said...they find a way to overcome it with something else. For example: I said the Pats LB were too old, (and I was especially right about Adalius Thomas...so blow that out your ass) and that their defense wouldn't be anywhere near as good. I was right. So, the Pats go out and sign Randy Moss and suddenly start scoring 40 points a game...making the fact that I was right...irrelevant. In every statistical category, the Pats defense was worse. In many cases worse than non-playoff teams. But, suddenly they turn into the Colts and every game is a track meet.???? WTF? Bah! This year's example: The Pats do not have a good pass rush. That is a fact. Now, let's see how they compensate. Right now, it appears they will compensate by scoring TDs at a rate of 3 a quarter. They will have to, because, they don't have a good pass rush. What about teams with a good pass rush that can mitigate their passing game? How will the Pats beat them? My guess for "thing I didn't see coming" is: this year the Pats will suddenly be able to run the ball like the Bill Cowher Steelers.

Yes, as if the time hasn't already come for states with high taxes to make tough choices. The single biggest reason NYS is in this mess is: a commitment to the idea that we are permanently living in 1965-->that we can manufacture mediocre stuff, pay workers more than market value, and huge benefits, because nobody will ever compete with us because we are so good(false, actually because all their factories and countries are still messed up from WW2). Oh, and while we're at it, incorporating your nonsense, we can afford to tax the hell out these manufacturers. They make so much money they won't miss it, and use those taxes to literally piss it away on things like housing projects by f'ing lakefront property, because poor people deserve to live like rich people, and who cares what it does to the property value of a major civic asset? Who cares what it does to the image of our city? Besides, if we give them free housing, they will start working! So yes, lets do exactly what drives middle class jobs out of the state, keeps poor people down, and destroys our image nationally....for 30 years...and then, in 1995, start asking ourselves "Hey WTF happened to all the factories?" like the unmitigated morons we are. We have people living this delusion serving on Empire zone boards all over the state. The faster we get rid of them, or get rid of the delusion that it's still 1965, the better.

No. Character, as we have seen, is hugely important to the fans. They will run somebody out of town, even a good player, for character flaws. I happen to agree with them. Bills fans are wise, if nothing else, and we know the kind of player we need on the team. When it's freezing cold, in the 4th quarter, we don't need somebody who is character-deficient. On a darker level: we don't want players who are going to party for 2 weeks straight before the SB, as we have seen the results. The problem is: every sports agent/the Bills PR department knows that character is important. Which is why JP Losman was cleaning up the city, and spreading incoherent crap to kids. They are confused. They think Bills fans will somehow forget about a player's ability if they do things that make them look like they have character. They are mistaken. We know a real character guy when we see one, and, we know a good player when we see one.

Or, do you mean the delusional Bills fans who try and convince themselves that Brady is even close to being as good as Montana?

Do it.

Go back and re-read it.

1. I tell the truth, too bad if you don't like it. If you try to duck it, I hit you with it again, and again, until you accept the facts as they are. IF that take 4 words or 400 words, too f'ing bad.. 2. I do know a lot. I certainly know more than many posters but that's not the real reason I know a lot. The real reason is: I haven't stopped learning. They have. It's pretty funny when people who call themselves "intellectuals" mess up basic economics, history, statistics, etc. They could choose to take these classes any time at community college. But they don't. They could choose to educate themselves a number of ways but these "I am on the left, so that makes me smart" people choose to argue based on ignorance. The same goes for the Ron Paul people. Few of them can actually back up their wild ass accusations, and even fewer, including Ron Paul himself the other night, can tell us HOW they would accomplish their agenda in the real world we live in today...yet they all tell us they are smarter and know more than we do. 3. I am wholly unconcerned with contrary opinion. That is because I base what I say only on what is true, not what I wish was true. 4. If you really look at it though, them "failing to comprehend incontrovertible truth" is exactly what has happened. I have been right on so many things, and they have been wrong on so many things, without being accountable for any of it, issue after issue, year after year. That's also why I write such long posts sometimes, so I can absolutely cover the entire issue...so that they can't come back later and say "yeah but". So they can' t come back and say "yeah but you didn't write about X, so you weren't 100% right".... Another fish? Go back and re-read the post.

Your attempt at being a wiseass has FAILED. Now go back, re-read the post, and realize your error.

The short version: a number of factors, including redistricting, demographics, and trends means it is the liberal party, not the Tea Party that is mortal danger of disappearing everywhere but a small concentration of districts, that are incontestable anyway. If you can't accept that accurate and rational conclusion based solely on the data, read on. If you can't because you're retarded, don't bother. ... In the history of politics, I don't think any party has ever misinterpreted, or ignored, election results worse than the Democrats have with the 2008 election. The country is center-right, and always will be. Deal with it. Nobody wants irrational change. We'd rather make our own hope, than have the government issue it to us. How about the data that proves you wrong: 1. Every poll, every longitudinal study, every long term trend we have says: the Conservative movement has grown steadily since 1950. But, we are supposed to throw all of that data out because you say so? I'm not talking about one month or "the day Obama was inaugurated". I am talking about year to year, decade to decade. 2. The recent massacre in the state houses means a net +12-15 auto-elected seats for the Republicans, maybe as high as 20...making the house nearly unobtainable for Democrats for at least the next 10 years...and you think...the Tea Party is going to die? How many Democrats will want to run in bloody elections trying to unseat incumbents in districts where they start down 10-15 points? That gets old quick. So does not winning the House year after year after year. Get used to it. If anybody is going away, it's the liberal party, not the Tea Party. This is based on sheer relevance alone. You won't have the seats to be relevant. And the swing seat moderate dems that do win won't be caught dead in a room with Nancy Pelosi, or they will be gone. 3. It's not party affiliation here: The data says that for every 2 conservatives there is one liberal, in terms of "values". So, on the extremes, the Right wins big. This is why no moderate Republican can simply ignore the far-right, because there are far too many votes there. This is part of the reason why McCain lost. This is why a Republican has to go out and win that base first, and then come back and pick up independents, because if they do, they start out with a 2-1 advantage on the Left. The votes, not the Tea Party is what matters here. Whatever those votes want to call themselves is irrelevant, provided the average Republican candidate can secure them. The difference is: the Tea Party far right doesn't have the religiosity that has traditionally made them an easy target, and, that's what correctly scares liberals. 4. This is why the far-left should be ignored by Democrats. They simply don't have the votes. Do you get it? Far too few people agree with you and, those that do, are concentrated into uncontested areas. This is why the average Democrat candidate has to forget the base, and move to the middle, everywhere but the coasts and Chicago. And thus, this is why Obama's approval is 40%, not 20. There are tons of people in Democratic urban centers, and they all suffer from groupthink, which is why we probably won't ever see Obama get less than 35%. But, the Tea Party is everywhere, spread out all over. This is why, if you can secure them, in any moderate district, you start the election ahead by 10 pts at least. Given this, the Tea Party, or whatever incarnation of them, will always be relevant. Liberals in swing districts have to look to far away cities for $ and support...it's like Mecca. Conservatives only have to go to the local bar, Rotary club, bowling alley, etc. "All politics is local", which means Tea Party WIN, liberals FAIL, over time. It is inevitable. Democrat leaders know this, but they can't respond, so the get good little parrots like you to repeat the only thing liberals can say: declare victory over the Tea Party and go home. Say they are dead, and stick their heads in the sand. What did I tell you? "You have an overdeveloped sense of wishful thinking. It's going to get you into trouble some day". For the last time, the country did not move left because of Obama. For the last time, stop the wishful thinking.

Yeah, Hope and Change. Obama hopes something changes. Will be added to my sig shortly.

Authority? Nice word choice. Since when has Obama ever been, this whole time, in a practical position of authority? When has he "taken command" the way a leader does? Authority, either the power definition or the expert definition, is not a word that can be associated with this administration. The aren't experts on anything, and they certainly don't know how to use their authority, and therefore grow it, properly. The only authority they have comes from the office, not the man, and that authority has decreased the longer Obama has been in the office. Conversely, Jackie Robinson initially defied authority and persevered, such that he gained authority via his own merit. His work on civil rights has orders of magnitude more positive impact than anything Obama has done. Robinson's effect on sports, and the culture in general was massive. As such, when Jackie Robinson spoke, you were compelled to listen. You weren't compelled to listen because of some office or rank, but because Robinson had earned your respect through both word and deed. Respect is where real authority starts(that, and knowing the job). To get respect you must be respectable. How much of Obama's behavior this past year has been respectable vs. not? Perhaps if Obama has been an Army officer, like Robinson, he would have learned these things.

I have a another one. This time it's Maybin talking. "Hey Mark! Nice to meet ya. So the Bills got Brad Smith and we...got me. Haha. I bet the Jet fans are just loving how we suckered the Bills on that trade. Uh, yeah, I know it's not a trade, trade, but still. Hey man it's all good, you didn't want that cat coming in and cramping your style anyway. You can play every down, just like me. Speaking of playing where's the locker room? Nobody told me yet. They just took my playbook and told me to report to the Maintenance Department. Is that some sort of new PT thing? You know, I could have used some maintenance this off-season. I had this illness "sitonmyasstosis". Levarr, I mean, the Doctor, said it builds up an intolerance of iron, aluminum, mirrors, cinder blocks, no skid floors, and florescent lights, and, if I listened to Danzig it could make me damn near crazy. What do you mean how did I work out in the gym then? Arrington and I worked out at the same gym every day together. It's called Felchers, in South Beach."

Not that we need rules around here but...a guuuuuiiiiiiiideline might be: you must format all potential/actual drafted player posts to "Good, Bad, Ugly" or "Positive, Negative, Uncertain" -or- We can go with the strict OCinBuffalo rule. if you choose to forgo all relativity/outside influences/unforeseen events and demand that we accept that you are 100% absolutely right about a player, good or bad, then you must also pay the absolute price for being wrong: 100 naked youtube pushups, per my rules. This way, when these guys get into these 15 page yelling matches about dopey college football, we can invoke my rule and just force them to bet, and either way, we win, cause in the end, somebody is doing naked youtube pushups...and that's funny.

"Hey Aaron, thanks for the Bills defensive playbook and the film session last night. You can get your check from Patty... Oooo! hehehe...the fat lady that just fell down over there, uhhh, right, she better get her shoes back on if she knows what's good for her... anyway, get your check from Patty and be on your way. What's that? Ah, no. No Aaron, you must have misunderstood. We just wanted the playbook, we're all set at TE and S, thanks. Sure, we'll keep you in mind. Yes. Of course. Well, we are fairly sure of our ability to make decisions, being a playoff team and all. Right? Hehe. No. No we don't think the Bills had it in for you. If they did, why did they keep you on the team for so long? Yes well if that's all, I have to go get my ass waxed. Thanks again Aaron."

Yes, and sometimes you see a thread like this and think: "Man I'm glad I didn't post in that one. I resisted the urge to defend the team, pick, player while likewise resisted the urge to trash the team, pick, player...cause I really had no idea WTF I was talking about regarding this guy". And then you read some of the posts in this thread and

Did you just call Tom...Maybin? And then back it up with the "press conference" answer that says "he tried hard while he was here, but he still sucks....f'ing Maybin, and I just want to put the league minimum of class into my statement and not totally barrage the guy, as I am contractually required".

WTF? The "promise schit you have no way in hell of delivering" tactics just served to get an inexperienced, petulant, linear thinking, sycophant elected POTUS. Hell it turns out that is precisely what Democrats in general have been doing for the last 60 years. Why are you denying Bachmann the opportunity to use the very same tactics? Because she's a woman?

You know, when I say: "The trouble with you and far too many Democrats today is: you base your arguments on some of what is true, but more of what you wish was true, rather than what actually is true." And then you post links like this.... You are doing a fine job of proving me right. I wonder if Sage against the Machine appreciates the superiority of my "perspective" here. Thanks for making it easy for me this week. I'm going to be kinda busy, so it's good that you are allowing me to get right to the "You're all idiots" inevitable conclusion in one post.

It's significant. But right now, in terms of sheer usefulness, effect on others, shaping our culture, every way you want to look at it, Jackie Robinson being the first black baseball player is more significant. It simply is, by a lot. How can we confirm this? Obama's Nobel Prize. Contrast that to Jackie Robinson's first MLB contract. Which was earned? Who continued to earn it? Who has continued to fail? How many African Americans are likely to remember that Obama was given a Nobel Prize? I guarantee 85% of them know Robinson is a HOFer. Obama can still change things. He has time, and this election is by no means certain. It's too early to tell on a lot of things. However, the concrete is out of the truck, has been poured and is sitting in the mold. Obama needs to hurry before it starts to set.

You sure? Walk down the street, or airport(you fly, right?) and ask the next 50 consecutive people who Jimmy Carter was. You may get more affirmatives in the airport, because it skews that way, but, do you think you'll get more than 30%? I don't. On the street? 15? 20? So, you see, he's already been forgotten, for all useful purposes. I do not include you dominating the trivial pursuit game your wife's couples party, and doing your endzone dance after each right answer, as a useful purpose.

Yes, because dumping them on 18-year-old clueless girls who are only going to be here for 3 more days, or will leave whenever it's time to crap out another kid, to be replaced by another crop of dilettantes, and 40 year old battle axes, managed by burnt out, jaded people, and regulated by the clinically insane... ...y know, making this a Federal, one-size-fits-all, problem, which it patently is not... is working soooo well. What you don't realize is: for every 1 positive thing there is to say about that approach, there are 5 negatives. This is reality. Want to test that reality and look foolish? Be my guest. On the positive side, the fun part of this for me is I get to make the battle axes and clueless girls jobs better. which means they get along better, and actually start taking real, not melodramatic, pride in what they do. Most of them take a long time to understand that is one of my objectives. But when they do, it's a cool moment...and then it's on to the next gig. ... You asked if the elderly were better off? The answer is absolutely not. In no quantifiable way are the elderly on the whole better off as a result of Medicare/Medicaid. Overall, the elderly were better of in the 30s. That is a fact. Can we find an anecdote here and there? Anecdotes are meaningless, unless you are an emoting assclown. I don't do anecdotes, I do data and process, order and method. More importantly, I have actually been to a hell of a lot of these places, and just like with hospitals, just like with everywhere I have ever worked, it's my job to see the root cause of problems properly, and quickly. In many cases the government itself, in a feeble attempt to solve a problem, becomes the root cause of 3 or more other unintended problems. The ridiculous part is: when you point that out, when it's so obvious you can't stand it, when the government people suddenly realize you are about to have them lined up for a head shot, instead of standing by their banal arguments and pointless hindrances...they turn and run, only to wait until you are gone(or so they think, like I said, I do data ) and return whilst STILL being the root cause of the 3 unintended problems. Nothing will ever get solved this way....until I can take that shot, consistently, and before they can run. Soon.

(No, I'm just forecasting future results based on past performance.) Perhaps the best way to put it: what is more likely right now? 1. Obama going down as a great domestic policy/infrastructure President, like Eisenhower? or how about a great progressive President like TR? 2. Obama will be nearly forgotten in 20 years, never mind 100, like Carter?

Nobody cares and... Nobody cares.

Ok Tom, as the self-proclaimed history buff, please explain how this won't be the case. (Also, I am just demoralizing them for the fun of it, and because they can't say anything substantive back, right now anyway...pretty much what I do here, for fun. So quit ruining it with your damn intellectual honesty).

This thread turning into one more, boring, "my conference is better" college football tardfest in 5...4...3.. Look, as a Bills fan that doesn't care whatsoever about college football, largely because the entire premise of "who is better" is solely based on opinion polls and promotion, with play on the field taking a back seat...and as this is a Bills board, I have to say: spare us the college conference crap. This is a retarded argument made by retards, supported by their retarded allies in the media, in hopes of getting other retards to spend money. Does anyone honestly believe that the retards at ESPN aren't promoting the hell out of whichever conference of retards they have a contract with? Said promotion then serving as "proof" for the contracted retards that their conference is better than another conference of retards? In the immortal words of Hancock: "You're all idiots".