OCinBuffalo

Uh...perhaps I should have added background. If I ended up working in a job like the ones on 8th street, my grandmother would have beaten me with more than a wooden spoon. Anybody can work a schit job and not speak English here. But, that's not really the definition of "be successful" is it? I notice that Marco Rubio speaks better English than most WASPs I know. He's from around that way, right? I bet Paco the cuban sandwich stand employee wishes he knew English that well, because Rubio could very easily end up being President some day.

Heh. You dare question the CMS Grand Inquisition's #s? They have legions of Ph.D nurses and physicians who do nothing but research.... ...and not one of them knows the first thing about cost accounting. Its entirely possible that they don't even know how to calculate cost, other than financial allocation, meaning they don't know how to calculate cost. So, is it possible the numbers are dubious? You betcha. Look, I have already posted numerous "deliverables" from CMS on this board. They are laughable, and would get you fired immediately from any corporate consulting or research firm. What I can tell you is that this concept has long been accepted as common knowledge in the industry, by pretty much every provider I have every spoken with, so there's a fairly good chance that its close, if not exactly accurate. However, the providers don't know cost either, so...that's why I am working in this industry now. Nobody can prove what they say when it comes to care/$. We can make it so they can.

Merriman. The entire team could turn on him being healthy and good. Merriman at 80% of what he was makes this a completely different team. Merriman provides a frightening, never mind legitimate, pass rush threat which only compounds the value of the DL guys we now have. Merriman, if right, means: 1. No more getting beaten by crossing routes that take 5 seconds to develop. 2. No more double teaming Kyle Williams on every play. 3. No start to double teaming Dareus. 4. Teams will have to keep their tight end on their side of the line unless they want to roll the dice on losing their QB 5. exactly what the F we have needed, and thought we got in Maybin, for the last 3 years.

Ugh. This thread is weak, and not that funny. Let's bring the truth: 1. All Americans, regardless of their current ability to do anything, must assimilate into our culture in order to be successful. My Polish grandmother knew this, which is why she forbade my mother from teaching me Polish, despite my repeated attempts to learn. I remember her saying "you are an American, and you will learn English, nobody wants to hire people that can't speak English". She was right then, and she is right now. We certainly retained our traditions, especially on the holidays, but the edict had been given, and the wooden spoon was applied to any kid who didn't comply. Ugh. Why do I need to invoke my Polish grandmother, and the hated wooden spoon, to tell you all something you should already know? 2. The US government is not supposed to be in the business of handing people their place in our society and it shouldn't be. Helping is fine, but handing is not helping. Every single one of us has an immigration story. We may or may not take pride in it. It may be shameful. But, regardless of what has happened in the past, we are in control of what we do next. The pride of individual accomplishment should never be subverted by some tool thinking they need to "repair our lives" and rob us of our humanity. Nobody in this country should be treated as a farm animal that must be "cared for". 3. Both 1 & 2 apply equally to everybody, all the time. So, first of all, the government should not be handing out checks to anybody if that person isn't demonstrably actively involved in either seeking work or education. You want to talk about retarded? "Dial 2 for Spanish AND dial 3 for Arabic" is patently retarded. It retards the ability of people that speak those languages to assimilate, and the money being handed out without requisite effort on the part of the handout taker retards their ability to do take pride in making good choices.

Did anybody bother to read the actual paper? If not, link here. It seems that the interpretation of the article is biased, as it really doesn't touch on the central point of the paper. Namely, DC_Tom's contention is reinforced. The observational data from the satellites proves only one thing for certain: the IPCC computer models are seriously flawed. The paper basically says that there is way too much uncertainty in everyone's methodology to say anything for certain. The paper says we need a better mousetrap, because the observational data doesn't jive with the current modeling techniques, and, that the current modeling techniques DO NOT isolate the variables well enough for any sort of causation to be proved. The only thing that jives with the article's interpretation is: the observational data from the satellites shows the probability for radiation to escape is a lot higher than any current IPCC model allows. The only rational conclusion: AGW is NOT settled science, and anyone running around with any of the current computer models demanding that we make policy using them is a turd.

You have accurately characterized some dependencies. But telling me "this leads to that" without including all the inputs and outputs for the entire system is pointless. Yes of course I am aware of the inner workings of the system. The difference between me and you is: apparently I am aware of ALL of them. When I say: cost benefit analysis I mean, cost benefit analysis of the entire system. In this case, the health care system, the part of government that interfaces with it, and the consumer. That is the only proper context in which any evaluations can be made. In that context, you are simply wrong. The government has no business promoting anything, and here's why: 1. It will fail. The government simply will not be successful in promoting healthy foods, because it never has. The behavior change you seek will not come from the tactic you support. The government, whenever it is put in a position of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, inevitably makes things FUBAR. Why am I explaining this concept to f'ing trader? In addition, we have all heard "you can't legislate morality". That is a truism. But the following is just as true: "you can't legislate desire". In fact, the more you try to limit something, the more desirable you make it. 2. Why don't you see the obvious parallel between drugs and unhealthy food? Both are bad for you, both can make many "feel good", both represent serious health risks. Because all of these things, and more, are attributed to these products, rightly or wrongly, the are: desirable. To be sure they have different levels of utility for different people, but so does every other product in every other market. How is pigging out on McDonalds any different than scoring an 8-ball? If you do either once a month for the rest of your life, the effects are negligible. If you do either every day, the effects are relatively immediate and life-threatening. 3. Please don't quote Medicare/Medicaid scripture to me because it makes you sound like an idiot and you're not. One, of many, ways you are wrong here is: The CMS average #s say 90% of ALL the health care costs we expend on anyone will be in the last 6 months of their life. This is why they are pushing palliative care(the government pushing, not the care, now that's a waste of tax dollars-->which cardiologist is not going to perform that heart surgery and get paid?) instead of the full spectrum of interventions, orders, procedures, prescriptions. The machinations you describe above are correct, but, the resolution of them, which will fail anyway, represent pennies and perhaps nickels. The $1, $5, and $20 bills are being spent on the last 6 months of life, and mostly on the HEALTHY people. The unhealthy people simply drop dead of a heart attack, etc., without the 6 month, hyper expensive science experiment. As it stands right now, your correctly defined problem is blown out of the water by 5 orders of magnitude by my correctly defined problem. So, you are ultimately wrong: the problem you have defined won't be solved by government, is made irrelevant by other problems. Therefore, 0 $ should be spent on promoting it. You are right about how some of the system works, but, your lack of understanding of the system on the whole tricks you into thinking your conclusions are valid. They are not.

All drugs should be legalized immediately. Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. Keeping them illegal costs us more, actually, way more. Period. The government should not promote anything. Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. The government money spent on sending this message does not return the required benefit to justify the expenditure, not even close. Besides, the pea and carrot trade associations both have access to the capital and the various media methods required for getting their messages across to consumers. I have no problem with public safety announcements like telling you to wear a seat belt, or STOP DWI, Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. The costs of not doing these things far outweigh the costs of the ads. But, Government needs to learn what it is good at, and stick to only that. Government sucks at prohibition, as we saw in the 20s and see now. Government also sucks at telling you how to live, because nobody listens anyway. We should never support and sign up for continued failure simply because it gives the misguided, on any side, an opportunity to emote and have their Hallmark moment with Oprah, or, because it gives a business the opportunity to get free advertising on our dime.

between you and briddog? that's a tough one. How about we base it on: who is the biggest phony when it comes to pretending that their opinion is based on what is good for the country, rather than what is best for themselves? This is hilarious because of this: 1. First of all, you are both assuming that ...lybob knows what the word actuary means, and what one does as an actuary. 2. We know that the left in general is unfamiliar with the terms: actuary, actuarial, calculus, and doesn't have the slightest clue how to apply them to anything. 3. Contradictory Evidence of #2: sound actuarial methodology wasn't included any of FDR/LBJ "math". I have it on good authority that it wasn't until the late 70's that somebody said "wait a minute, we better get some real actuaries in here, because the numbers when the baby boomers hit benefit age don't look so good." 4. Further contradictory evidence of #2: all of the LBJ "great douchebaggery" ideas were formulated in the economic context of "the rest of the world has barely recovered from WWII, and the money we are making now, and our economic dominance will never be in doubt, and who cares about the Baby Boomers? We will all be dead in the long run anyway, right Mr. Keynes?" The bottom line is: every health care provider I talk to tells me that their main enemy is Medicaid now. This is starting to follow the same "design pattern" as rent control. Providers are trying desperately to get out of the Medicaid business any way they can because of the "rent controlled" prices that are forced upon them that DO NOT cover their costs by as much as double. Providers exiting the market means less supply of health care to the poor/lower middle class. Government needs to either tone it down and let the market serve the poor without hindrance, or, providers will continue to exit, which means even less supply, and even higher prices than would be there without their "help". Inefficiency means NOTHING in the face of these much larger and market-wide artificial, government-imposed pressures. How the F am I supposed to improve efficiency(which is btw exactly WTF I tell my board I am supposed to be doing every day) if there's nobody left in the business sector? Idiots like ...lybob are apparently too dense to understand that it is their very policies that are making health care unaffordable for the poor. Worse, when they realize that the rich private pay/insurance patient/resident is making up the difference, they want to tax the insurance provider/rich and make them pay even more , thus raising the price for the ENTIRE market, making it even MORE unaffordable for the poor, and now threatening the middle class's ability to pay. Actuarial calculus? You are asking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much of ...lybob and his friends. Let's start with ECON 110 and for that matter, algebra, first.

EDIT (WTF is going on with emoticons lately? I have to "code" them to get them to work properly. ) EDIT #2 (And, I don't have the heart to tell Tom who the most trusted reporter is now. Or who the most trusted channel is either. I don't want to see an conniption take place on a message board.)

Hauling out comebacks from the 50's means: you lose.

And thank God for that, otherwise, we'd have Dave_In_Norfolk and his friends Huey Longing their way into power... ...and when they ran out of chickens? They'd pass a new regulation on chicken farmers that not only blames them for running out, but does nothing to keep them from running out, makes chicken farming more difficult and costly, causing massive uncertainty in Philly and Chicago, thus inflating the price of chicken, and then of course blaming the chicken farmers for the middle class being unable to afford chicken. Then, they'd Huey Long their way into nationalizing the chicken business. And, when that fails? It's time to haul out the "it's all your fault" Jimmy Carter speech.

With the rider: "As long as we all agree to never vote the socialism they impose away" firmly attached. What's that saying? "everything that comes before the ", but" is irrelevant".... We don't agree to having it in the first place, and we sure as hell don't agree to not being allowed to get rid of it if it doesn't work. I know! Exactly like what will be happening from Feb-Jun 2012. I can't wait to hear the crying. What? You give me an opportunity to bury them and you expect me to take a pass? Never! The distinction between capitalist/libertarian philosophy, and all the other ists, is that your opinion matters and you should be free to act on it, without undue hindrance from anyone. Yep. And there will be proportionate consequences for their bad behavior. We aren't going to tar and feather Dave_In_Norfolk and his friends, but, mark my words, if they persist in trying to force this country into some pissant European dystopia, we may very well see the tar and feathers come out. I'm not encouraging that, and I would very much like to avoid it, but*, as I said: proportionate consequences.

You are not following right. I was tempted just to leave it at that...because it would be funny, and because it would say it all. The ifs are all firmly in place. There is nothing wrong with open resistance, or warfare, or passive resistance...the tactics are unimportant...to anyone who is attempting to oppress you/take away your rights/way of life without your consent. The amount of resistance required needs to be directly proportional to the bad behavior exhibited. If there's no bad behavior, there's nothing to resist, and therefore, nothing to talk about. In this case, if the mosque is not a source of bad behavior, then it should be left alone, as whatever else goes on there is nobody's business. Consent is the key word here. Without a people's consent, no law, no government is valid. Marxists want to govern without consent. Socialists want to govern without consent. National Socialists/Fascists want to govern without consent. Now we can add these Islamists to that list. What do these groups all have in common? They think they know better than you how your life should run. They think that your consent doesn't matter, because, let's be honest here, they think: you don't matter. And that is the question each American must eventually, after clearing away all the BS, ask themselves: do I matter? That's the key difference: You will have a very hard time finding capitalists who think your opinion doesn't matter. The same is true of our political parties and government on the whole. Or do you not know how much $ goes into getting accurate market/political/opinion research each year?

Says the guy who doesn't come here enough to know that we are all quite immune to: 1. dropping Mediia Matters/Huffington Post/DNC talking points as though they are your own insights, 2. assuming that somehow we don't know and can't infer your party status from the "rinse and repeat" of #1 3. the phonies like yourself who claim independent status, yet spend every off second inserting their political beliefs into incongruent places, then ask "what party? i don't know what you're specifically referring to" Bottom Line: I never thought this should be anything other than a simple property issue, and so did the rest of the people in my "party". You cannot say the same. Period. You can say whatever you want about yourself, but your party is clear, and so is it's failure.

1. The NFL has has nothing, I repeat, nothing in common with either the real world, or, normal business practice. Therefore, all comparisons based on it, all conclusions drawn from it are, by definition, patently retarded. People like Bill Maher, who attempt to prove things in the real world using the NFL, are also, patently retarded. 2. Specifically, a number of fundamental conditions that all real world businesses face have been removed, or modified, and unique, non-real world conditions have been added. 3. Instead of competing to eventually destroy the competition, like we do in the real world, the NFL's goal is to ensure endless competition. Jerry Jones would lose his F'ing shirt, and so would Kraft, Dan Synder and every other big market team, if football was run like baseball. There aren't enough games in football, to spread the risk. Think about it: who's going to pay $2k to see the 1-15 Dolphins from a few years ago play...anywhere? You might be willing to pay Ralph's prices, you aren't willing to pay Jerry's. For the uninitiated, this is called tensile strength, and what it means is: Jerry better make damn sure he delivers quality on both sides of the ball, at each and every game or his costs will overtake him quickly. Ralph has a bit more leeway, (as we have seen ), but ultimately, they both must ensure that the outcome of every game is uncertain. The only way to do that, is to make sure the refs are right, and that both sides have an opportunity to put = skill on the field. Therefore, for those of you(as I already see some of the usual idiots in this thread) warming up to make the "Seeee....capitalism bad"...point, understand that I have already explained above why drawing that conclusion is patently retarded. Do yourself a favor and avoid proving that you are patently retarded as well. If anything, the NFL is yet another example of this fundamental truth: socialism works when applied to every world...but the real one.

The first one was a corporation making a choice, so I really don't care. They have a right to run their business how they see fit. The second one is completely unacceptable. Keeping with another South Park meme: it's unacceptable AND intolerable as well. Not only do I refuse to accept these people, I refuse to tolerate them in any way, shape or form. IF they are US citizens, then by definition they are traitors. IF they are not, then by definition they are enemies. What are we supposed to be doing with traitors and enemies?

Replied to for truth. (Could say quoted for truth, but this is the internets) Reasonable assumptions: 1. 95% of the use of these vehicles will be for drug-related search warrants, where said drug suspects have built a small fortress to protect themselves from other drug suspects, and a modern day "ram" is required to breech it's walls. 2. 4% of the use of these vehicles will be for anti-drug school programs, where said "ram" is brought in to scare the kiddies. 3. 1% of the use of these vehicles will be for a honest to God worst case scenario. So, you remove the cause, illegal drugs, you remove the effect, 99% of the need for these armored cars. However, Tom is right, when you need something like this, you REALLY need it, and there are few substitutes. Perhaps, instead of PDs having these resources, the National Guard could have a ready team that could be requested at a quick notice without red tape? I know, we are talking government here, so probably they are incapable of something so simple, and that means the police have to have their own.

No, that's impossible. I am constantly reminded that assclowns like you live in it as well. Where to begin? The stimulus, Obama getting elected...to anything, the not-war in Libya, the Frank-Dodd soon-to-be debacle....just for starters... Yes, I am constantly reminded of your and your friends aggressive pursuit of stupidity, and despite my ability to largely keep it away, you guys always manage to get some of your stupidity on me. Thankfully, I am also adept at cleaning it up. I could have stayed safe behind the walls of corporate America, and lived out my days making a killing for doing the mindless, for me, and boring. Instead, I ventured forth in the clownlands of government controlled or hindered industries. I will cleanse them of your stupidity, or I will die trying. I am bringing the light of reason, accountability, and efficiency and dispelling the darkness of the Big Government statist's emoting, inconstancy nearing the point of treachery, and infeasibility. And that's the point: if only I existed in my world, I'd be bored, because I wouldn't have any of your evil and stupidity to destroy, and much worse...I wouldn't have any fun metaphors to write.

IF you are telling the truth...then you shouldn't be calling me names and/or directing your anything my way. I'm not one of the craven assclowns that decided to weaponize this issue. Your friends on the left did that. You have an issue? Take it up with them. Meanwhile, the rational people like myself, who have been 100% about solving the problem in a holistic way, that does not give the haters on either side an opportunity? Well, I am happy things are moving along what appear to be rational lines, as are the rest of us. I don't know if you belong with us, the rational people, or if you are simply one more emoting assclown. Hint: there are emoting assclowns on both sides. In any event, I am never going to ignore truth because it allows for better emoting for others. Wawrow. you are dreaming if you think that this wasn't done exactly as I have described above. You don't like it? Well, as I told peace, take it up with your friends on the left. You find your friends' behavior morally repulsive and shameful? Well, I agree. There's no way in hell gay rights should have even been considered to be a political tool. But your friends made that decision. They, stupidly, wanted to make it a right-left debate, and they lost. Now, Republicans that have RECENTLY been supporting it are gaining mainstream/independent appeal: just the opposite of what your friends on the left intended. How many times need we say: if you want something done, put Wawrow and his friends in charge of doing the opposite? :lol: The simple fact here is: I am telling you the truth. You don't like the truth? Tough schit. Spare me your phony attempt at moralizing. Your party has no chance of taking the high ground on this, as you already attempted to sell that real estate for votes.

There is nothing despicable about resisting a subversive and diabolical, political organization. In fact, the opposite is the case: If I was to set up a Neo-Nazi political organization in New Mexico, and start telling your neighbors that you were their enemy, that you were stealing from them, that the only way to stop you was to join my group, and that our goals are to remove all Jewish, or other non-white, influence from New Mexico and replace it with WASP influence.... ....you had better stand up to me. You had better not sit there an take it. That would be despicable. As an American, I would expect better from you. The "Islam is the Answer" people are some of today's Nazis/Fascists/Marxists. How many more lessons from history do we need understand that resisting people like this fully, and immediately, is the only choice?

1. How many future deals is this not costing him? At the very least he is destroying his "brand". Perhaps the answer to your question is 0, because tweeting that nonsense already killed any deals he might have had. He might have avoided this with an apology, but now, he's screwing himself as a "businessman". These athletes love to talk about being businessmen, well, if they are, then this is flat out stupid business, as any real businessman knows. 2. Which principle are we talking about here? No killing, cheating, lying, stealing? Which universally accepted principle covers foisting an opinion based solely on ignorance and/or stupidity on the public? Curt Flood...like...what? There is no comparison here. Not even close. When you say something stupid, you acknowledge it, you apologize and move on, if you are respectable person. It is that very behavior that derives respect from others, thus making you respect-able. Saying something stupid and then suing somebody who is directly hurt by it, makes you unable to be respected. Why would anyone want to do a real deal with a person they cannot respect? Oh, well, there's always Celebrity Boxing for Mendenhall...yeah, that's respectable.

Mendenhall's PR person needs to tell Mendenhall's lawyer to STFU. A lawsuit like this means Mendenhall is not only "the guy that says dumbass things", he's "the guy that says dumbass things and then sues you for refusing to let his stupidity ruin your business". This kills all future deals he might have gotten. Unless this 24 year old thinks that this is the last endorsement deal he will ever get, or he's going to be happy with endorsing "Assclown Possie's Energy Drink, Yeah!" from here on out...somebody needs to tell this young man that his lawyer is not looking out for him. Moreover some sales guy needs to tell him: while you are entitled to an opinion, you are supposed to be a sales guy, and for sales guys, stupidity or ignorance has immediate and severe consequences. For sales guys, the only opinion that matters is the client's. If you don't know what to say, don't say anything. If you struggling with saying something you probably shouldn't, punch yourself in the face.

Corporations are bad! Tax breaks for the rich! Oh, we are talking about green corporations? Oh, we are talking about ALGORE, Inc, and his crony (shh....capitalism) buddies? Oh, never mind.

If we are take Cain at face value...if we are to take this argument at face value, then, it all depends on whether you can prove that Islam is not a religion, only, but also a political unit that is capable of subverting local, state, and Federal law. But really, it depends on which interpretation of Islam will specifically be practiced at this specific Mosque. If you look at the "Islam is the Answer" people's interpretation of Islam, then it is most certainly a subversive political unit, we should treat it no different than we treat the KKK or the Black Panthers, and these people have every right to keep it out of their community. "Islam is the Answer" means what it says. Instead of Marxism, instead of capitalism, their stated objective is to impose Islam on the world. They want to destroy our culture, laws, and way of life, and replace them with their own. We, as free people, have every right to resist them and their actions, to include setting up a base of operations in our neighborhood. If you look at rational Muslims' interpretation of Islam, then the laws of Islam Cain is describing are as relevant to our civil discourse as the goofy laws in the Bible: they represent 0 threat to us as does this Mosque. So, this really comes down to which interpretation will be practiced at the Mosque. It literally comes down to the actions of the the people, not the labels and/or the stereotypes. If the Mosque is to be used for worship, gathering, celebrations, etc., that's one thing. If it is to be used for subversive political actions, that's another. It depends on what they do, not what anybody says. If this was happening near me, I would say "Welcome to the community, I look forward to seeing how you contribute to it", and, then sit back and see what happens. We are Americans, and as such we are about giving everybody at least a first chance, if not a second one.

Is there a finer example of just how frustrated the left is by the utter failure of their economic policy...than wishfully thinking that the Tea party, and not their best and brightest college professors, will be blamed for the f'ed up economy?