OCinBuffalo

Beats the hell out of "the funniest movie draft". Beats the hell out of saying "well, they lost me 5 years ago, so we're not going to talk about it". How does this not make for killer ratings for them? I don't want Colin Cowherd/Skip Bayless inaccurate nonsense. I want analysis about the teams I love for at least 2 of 3 hours a day. All: when Buftex and I actually agree on something, the rest of you are screwed

Just happened to flip on WGR today. I haven't listened in a while, and was hoping to hear about training camp. I know, I know, that's usually too much to ask, when there are things like "which movie is the funniest" to talk about. However, my expectations were absolutely wrong given what I just heard. Bulldog was literally screaming into the mike. Hope everybody in the studio has a raincoat. Demanding that the Bills try to win, that they not trade away 1 of 2 proven WRs, as having 2 is "how you win". Demanding that this team try to win "before my kids are in college". This is the polar opposite of these guys usual shtick = "we are above all this, let's talk soccer or baseball". Finally, we are getting what we are supposed to get out of our local am sports radio station. As some of you know I have lived a lot of places, and am on the road as a rule. Finally, today, WGR is acting like the other sports radio stations in other cities I have been. No more enabling. They need to get on the Bills organization, and spend 3 hours a day on them, until we see some goddamned movement from this team. What is their job other than holding the teams in the area accountable?. Spare me the crap until they do job #1. He's still going off right after the commercial break....awesome!

I am saying: voting for a guy you know has NO CHANCE of winning is throwing it away, especially if you live in a swing state. If you do, then you almost have a duty to vote for who sucks the least, because that will have a real effect on things. I am saying: all should vote for the person, not the party. I learned that from my elected Democrat grandfather when I was 8 years old. It was true then, and it is especially true now, as it's has become painfully clear that nobody did any research on Obama prior to voting for him. I am saying: I am fairly certain McCain would have Fed up just as badly as Obama, as he would be trying to be a Maverick instead of trying to practical. Therefore, voting for either of them has proven to have been completely ineffective and irrelevant. I am not a fan of being ineffective or irrelevant. I am a fan of being right. I was right to refuse to vote for either of them. I was exactly as right in not voting for them, as Peace was wrong in voting for Barr. Period.

Aren't the rules of this game = we only need 7/12 to agree to get something done? I am pretty sure that's the case. So, Bacchus is your 1 Democrat. Kerry and Murray are simply there for show and soundbites, as are the rest of the House Democrats. Conversely the Republicans Senators Toomey and Portman are rookies from swing states...which means they get "experience" and "accomplishment" points out of this. But, Senator Kyl, whose job this is anyway, is the real guy here. My call: they will NOT put Paul Ryan on this. Why? Because even though we'd all like to see it, the Democrats have too much to lose by having Ryan gain even more credibility. They already know that in 9-13 years, they are going to have to face in a national election, and that he's already made his domestic policy bones. They don't want to just hand him "bipartisan" points too. So, if they put Ryan on this, the Democrats will raise hell.

Don't sweat it. We are far past used to it. Here's one thing you can do: can you please get all the damn ex-hippies to die or remove themselves from public life? We need them to stop screwing up our future. We haven't asked you for much, so, can you try and get this one thing done right? You think I am kidding? About 5 years ago, I heard a guy who's in charge of an Empire Zone literally say "we had a good year last year, the 5 board members who were the biggest believers in the pipe dream that manufacturing will return to NY, without any changes to NY policies or tax codes, all died". It has come to this: we literally need these people to die off, because while they are alive, they will do everything in their power to prove that their 1968 horsecrap isn't wrong, including destroying the country.

Knew I wouldn't have to say a word, as others would be critical immediately. How did I know? Because it is obvious to me that Peace is one of these people that thinks throwing his vote away is somehow better than treating it like the sacred thing that it is. Worse, peace is one of these people that thinks throwing his vote away makes him BETTER than everybody else. Peace doesn't understand: my vote is not disposable, and I refuse to throw it away. I also refuse to grant it to someone who clearly doesn't deserve it. Example: given the choice between McCain and Hillary, I would have voted for Hillary. Why? Because for all her silliness, she knows how to run the country, and she is about results, not attention(McCain). But, I didn't get that option did I? Instead, we end up with Mr. Incompetent. Who do we have to thank for that? The far left. Another example of why we should NEVER listen to them.

Add that to the list of curses your generation has bestowed upon us.

Then, by your own standard, you no different than me. WTF? Nice hypocrisy. You think it's OK to not only contradict yourself, but that you are perfectly justified in doing it: but I am the narcissist? Yes, I'm the one who thinks so highly of myself that my own standards don't apply to me, you are just "appreciating nuance", right?. Don't give me the "I threw away my vote on a third party" crap either. You live in PA. PA is a swing state. Your single vote matters a lot more than somebody who lives in Alabama or New York. I notice you didn't provide your votes for any other election. That is because you cannot defend them, and you know it! So spare me the BS. Laughably pathetic.

Sooner, or most likely later, you will come to realize that I pretty much find them every day, all the time. Much depends on you. I will be here, consistently being right, waiting for when that realization occurs. The one cool Baby Boomer bails his buddies out.

I have a simple and straightforward solution to the "one size fits all" failed socialist approach to college funding. If you want a degree in Women's(or any other identity) studies, that has next to 0 chance of making you employable by anybody other than than government, or the University where you get said degree, then you should have to pay for it yourself. Note: I am not talking about all of the liberal arts and social sciences, just the ones that have proven by now to be less than useful to society. We should give a lot more scholarships in History and Econ, not social studies mind you, because far too few people have a fuggin clue that "we've already been down this road". If you pursue a degree in something we need = science and math, we help you pay for it. Of course, we still apply the income-based parameters we have, and get rid of all racially-based parameters. There is simply no point in creating more useless government eaters, that politicians have to create programs/grants for, so that they can find a home. There is no point in awarding anything to anybody based on anything other than merit.

I love to end inter-generational arguments with this, and a bevy of other stats, that prove beyond all doubt that Gen-X out-performs Baby Boomers in the most important things. They are usually shocked by the cold hard numbers. And why wouldn't they be? They are the "me" generation, why wouldn't they have a higher-than-accurate opinion of themselves? Divorce rate - no contest Paying Child support - no contest DWI - no contest Charitable giving as a % of income - no contest Spending time with kids - no contest In most ways you can measure, we behave better than our parents. I have a theory as to why: we all grew up with either a train wreck for a family or with friends who had train wrecks. You see enough bad behavior, and you make a deal with yourself that you aren't going to be the same. Most of my friend's parents are divorced. None of my friends are divorced. Coincidence? Doubtful. Are you kidding? They will never get this. Cool reference tho....

Buddy, you can't respond rationally to any of it, because it is the truth. Hate, Love, That Not so Fresh Feeling, or any other emoting doesn't change that. "You said it man, nobody Fs with the Jesus"!

Ok tithead, go ahead and post your voting record....and then be prepared to defend it. Good luck. This will be an exercise in your silliness. Thanks to your vote for Obama, we have chaos. If anybody should be losing rights here, it should be Obama voters. How much time did you actually spend researching this guy before you pulled the lever? None? Did listening to Chris Mathews talk about the feeling up his leg close the deal for you? How much time did you spend researching McCain? None? Before you say anything about me, perhaps you should commit to putting the same level of work I do into voting, for every level of office, or, as the case may be, not voting. Or do you want to continue getting told who to vote for by the clowns in Old City or on South Street, so you can be "cool" too? Notice: I never said I haven't voted for anything. I only said President. I said that partially because it's true, and, partially because I knew it would catch tools drawing sweeping conclusions based on sweeping assumptions, and it would certainly crush the "you didn't vote for an idiot, therefore, you're not doing your job as an American" nonsense. You just happened to be the tool that was caught this time.

You have to type them. Do the following: 1. when you are creating a new post, on the right, at the bottom of the emoticon lists you'll see "show all" 2. click on that 3. see the text in the left column? Type that text, literally, for whatever emoticon you want. This is either a bug, or, a "feature" of the message board software.

I have never voted in any Presidential election: 1. Too young to vote for Reagan 2. Too smart to vote for Clinton(I knew he was a scumbag and I was right) Too annoyed to vote for Bush 1. Would have voted for Tsongas. Perot was a tool. 3. Dole, please. I was actually going to vote for Clinton, but the project I was on was a ballbuster, and I was 1k miles away....and I really didn't have a residence anyway. I doubt I would have able to register, and it's not like I was going to ask my project manager for time to go vote. We barely had time to eat. 4. Then it was turd sandwich vs. giant douche, and the same problems as #3, but worse. I was in Dallas, but living in Philly, and I took over a project that was 6 months behind. 5. Then it was turd sandwich vs. "I turned my back on my unit, my honor, and my country....to get elected Senator", and I wasn't back in Philly long enough to register. 6. Then it was McCain the guy who would sell out his mother to get attention vs. "I clearly have no f'ing clue what I am doing" guy-->which I took all kinds of schit for on this board, but again, I was right. At this point I could do whatever whenever...but I refused to vote for either of them. So, please tell me: who exactly should I have voted for again? And, even if I could have, how the hell was I supposed to, other than the last time around? This time I wanted Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. Hell I would have worked for either, never mind voted. We'll see about the rest...but, Barry is soooo bad...but then, WTF effect will I have in NYS? Far too may tools who don't want to admit they were wrong in this state. Perhaps I should move to Florida or VA, someplace where my vote will matter. On the Dem side, next time around, I want Ed Rendell.

The Urban Dictionary comes in handy sometimes. When all else failed, I looked up thin mint As far as the "bickering", look back through this thread and the following pattern emerges: 1. I say something accurate 2. D-bags name call and refuse to refute it...because they can't 3. I set them up for failure 4. They fail 5. I laugh at their petty attempts at taking the high ground they already tried to sell, for votes. I also remind them that this tactic not only failed to get them votes(see the current house membership) but is now gaining votes for moderate Republicans = the diametric opposite outcome that they intended. The intent of this entire issue was to go after moderate House Republicans in swing districts. I will not allow them to lie and tell us it was all about "gay rights". Horseshit. They, in their naivete and stupidity, may have even believed it, but the people in charge didn't. To what end? A 63 seat ass whipping later, the absolute annihilation in the state houses, in a census year no less, and I'd say they pretty much failed miserably. The net effect of this is that Republicans will pick up an additional 8-10 seats on redistricting alone. Hysterical. Perhaps these craven fools should have been focusing their efforts since 2006 on the economy, and not on phony moral superiority, and wedge issues. But honestly, what else should we expect from these people? How many more examples do we really need? Again, when you want something done: put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite.

I don't know why you would think i would disagree with any of this. It is a cogent analysis. Rare, and pleasing, coming from you. The fact is I really don't know much about any of the candidates. The only ones I take seriously at this point are Romney, Bachman, and perhaps a few of the non-declared. My standard for "take seriously" is defined on purely political terms at the moment, since I can't really speak to whether any of them can run the country. I refuse, and I have 0 tolerance, for anyone repeating the mistakes that got Obama elected: no due diligence/"not Bush". So, we'll see...

I hate girl scout cookies. I am not a pederast(What's a pederast, Walter? STFU, Donnie). And I have zero interest in skinny black guys unless they can also run a 4.3 and aren't afraid to run routs in the middle of the field, and are willing to play for "cash to the cap" money. So, your point?

I think you have severely misinterpreted, and overestimated the mental capacity, of who elected Obama and why. Since "the liberal base" only made up 22% of the country in 2008, now less than 16%, liberals did not elect Obama. Independents elected Obama. In many cases, people who were voting for the first time. They were given the impression that a vote for Obama meant: 1. All war to end for all time. 2. Being nice to terrorists, countries that sponsor them, Islamic jihad-leaning groups, and all the rest would make the bad man stop. 3. Unicorn job creation based on rainbow Keysian assclownery and of course, "green, shovel-ready jobs". 4. Free money for no particular reason 5. Everything in the country would be changed for the better. No specifics as to what would change, when, and why....just "change". Don't lie to yourself, you know they were given these impressions by the campaign. Due to either their stupidity, naivete, insanity, or laziness, or a combination of these, these independents believed that the word "change" = the word "plan". That the words "yes we can" = "I will lead". That the words "we are the ones we've been waiting for" = "we know what the F we are doing, and we will be accountable". Now, those independents, to the tune of 68% of them(= Obama loses), have: 1. Grown up a little, and realized that there are now 3 wars, and none of them were ever going to end because Barry says the word "change" 3 times and clicks his heels together 2. Grown less ignorant 3. Gotten on some medication and stability is now common 4. Gotten their first job after college, or, still haven't, and they graduated in 2009. 5. Realized that words mean things, and therefore, realized "Obama never said a f'ing thing about how he would do anything. He never said he had a plan, he never said he would lead, he never said he would hold himself and others accountable, and I was an idiot for pretending that anything other than those exact words, in detail, suffices for a President". and they are pissed because any independent who voted for Obama looks like an idiot now, and unlike most Democrats, they have no interest in taking one for the team. They look like idiots, so short of a miracle, it doesn't matter who you vote for Buftex, it's going to be a landslide. The only vote that matters is perhaps Senate, if yours are up. But with 20 Senate Democrats defending seats this time around, with this record and this economy, with only 6-7? Republicans? Yeah, that's going to be a massacre as well. The Republicans will probably pick up at least 13 Senate seats, which will put them well into 60+ land. Obama's ludicrous adherence to ludicrous ideology, forgoing all practicality, compounded by his refusal to do the things good leaders do without thinking, hosed your party. When are you guys ever going to understand: the far left are not your friends, and their stupidity means BOHICA for rational Democrats?

Just so we are clearer: why the f would be bringing this up other than to knock those socialist hypocrites(which is like saying committed zealot) who won't pay for "Buftex Stupidity". He specifically said "those people who want Buftex Stupidity" and then said "don't want to pay for it". If he wasn't being critical of the socialist state he wouldn't have said the first part. He would have only called them tax dodgers. Words mean things. His meaning is clear....or...he doesn't know how to use words properly.

Obfuscate much? You can't refute a thing I say, so, as usual, you pretend you know me, attribute something to me that you "know" because you "know" me, and then criticize me for your attribution. Pathetic. You don't like the definitions of words...so you change them. Sorry, in the only world that matters, the real one, words mean things. For example: You are on the left. Period. No matter how much wriggling you do, no matter how much obfuscation, you know damn well you supported this whole gay marriage thing as one more "look at my post, I am superior" masturbatory charade. Look At My Liberal Superiority = the same premise every other post you have ever made on this part of the board. Weak. The funny part is: you don't realize, because you aren't here enough, that we shot down this whole "being on the left makes me better" notion...years ago. The consistent lefties here know that. You don't. You can't respond because there's nowhere to go. I have accurately described the events as they happened. You have done everything to distract from, obfuscate, and distort the truth. Hysterical. Hysterical that you think ANYBODY considers you to be winning this "discussion", or that anybody thinks less of me for whipping your ass in it.

I don't doubt you. As I said the article is biased. But... ....that does not address the paper, which clearly demonstrates that the IPCC models are total crap. And, the IPCC models are the ONLY thing Global WarmingTM environtologists have that proves what they are saying is true. As the "proof" has now been severely criticized, objectively, using data that was PROPERLY collected, the environtologists had better pull some amazing science out of their ass at the last minute...or face the facts that their entire premise has been refuted. If the premise goes, so does all the policy. And, then, hopefully, the EPA and all the rest gets back to doing its job-->protecting us from pollution, and ceases f'ing about in things that are clearly outside its scope, like economics, foreign policy, "fundamentally transforming America" and pretty much everything else that isn't "pollution".

Why is it "interesting that people who want a socialist state don't want to pay for it"? There is nothing new about that one. The rich left will get their politician friends to get them out of paying for it, or, they make all their money from capital gains, and 0 from income, or, they come up with scams like global warming and attacking currencies. The middle class left all works for the government. The poor left can't wait to stand in 3 hour lines for handouts from the government. All of them want to take money from us in order to enrich themselves. So again, I ask: what is interesting about this?

I could be considered to be trolling with that...

A funny because its largely true description of this guy here. Careful, as this site could be considered NSFW.