OCinBuffalo

All of you need to understand how this entire debate evolved: This was a political calculation by the left. It was designed to be a wedge issue. IF you don't know what that means, google it. The goals were always political = excuse and distract from the utter failure of the 2006-8 Congress to deliver on anything it promised, and try to gain back ground lost to the right by forcing them to either choose their religious beliefs, or, choose to look insensitive and sketchy at least on civil rights, and thereby weaken their political position. Notice: nowhere above do you find "the left was genuinely interested in gay rights, or, the main goal of the effort was gay rights". Everywhere you find the word: politics. Fortunately for the country, the left's craven political goals were seen through, and they were punished for it. Fortunately for the country, now that this is being properly approached by reasonable people on both sides, whose main goal is to remove inequity, and not create pretense for war on religion, or political gain, we are seeing positive results. So, especially wawrow, spare me the BS. The only reason you are talking about "civil rights", now, is that talking about "religious zealots" failed, then. Now, after you get busted and beaten playing the game you created, you start crying? You should have spared us you stupid little game in the first place.

No. Actually I am not. I have consistently posted here that the the African American community has been absolutely used and abused for political gain by Democrats. Hell, I have been personally affected by liberal hubris in the educational system and I have posted that here as well. I have even been called racist myself, which is hysterical on so many levels. If any of you actually knew... And for what? Calling out the self-righteous fools here for their arrogance in believing that it is not only their business, but their duty, to "repair" other people's lives? The fact that nobody asked them for their advice or efforts towards inserting themselves in other people's lives is completely lost on them, due to what currently appears to be a problematic estimate of their self-importance...or some other psychological problem. Apparently their mother's never told them about MYOB. Invading other people's lives and telling them how to live is not "compassion". It is the opposite, it is to disregard them as human beings. Here's the thing: it's not that I don't recognize that problems exist wrt race, it's that I recognize the utter failure of the Democratic party's solutions to them, to the tune of either making them worse, or creating even more problems. We simply cannot continue to accept these failures, in favor of having a Hallmark moment and calling ourselves "enlightened". However, the difference between you and I is: it's not the only thing I talk about.

If you think about it though... he's not really losing much, unless he gets hurt or sucks. If he plays up to expectation, he will gain the money he's not getting now as a veteran, and, if he plays long enough to get vested, he will get the retirement benefits that are being agreed to right now. Also, the worker's comp issues will probably be set up to pay hurt players fairly well, so, again, it's hard for me to see how he is really losing much other than guaranteed money for not doing anything. Clearly, that was a ridiculous state of affairs to begin with, see Aaron Maybin.

As this is the first time I have ever heard that Bucky Brooks actually reports on sports in general, or the NFL specifically...he has apparently accomplished his mission. Without this thread, he would have lived on in anonymity for me. I think that's what most of these online "reporters" and/or paper columnists are left with--> say something controversial that grabs headlines...and then disclaim it in the body of the article. There are so many options now, it's hard to stand out unless you have delivered consistent quality content for years. And even then, given the amount of idiots consuming sports media today, you still may get ignored in favor of Deadspin or whatever. Being a sports reporter, or a reporter in general, has to have gotten more difficult...but that's not a bad thing, given that we have had to endure bias and laziness for so long. However, if the internets continue to be unimpeded by government silliness, like all unbiased systems, they will move towards an equilibrium and the best will benefit. Regarding Merriman...boy do I wish he pans out. Even if he can get back to 80% of his old level, that's a serious upgrade for us.

My sincere condolences to you and your family.

Ok, not probably, there is. Unlike far too many, I am extremely hesitant to call anyone a racist, on any other -ist, without ample, tangible evidence. Hell, I probably require more than enough.

This is all great. But none of it, and no amount of campaign money removes these judgements that are almost set in concrete: 1. Obama is a so-so leader at best. 2. Obama has no clue how to run the economy And also, no amount of schit talking on cable news removes the "we are getting an object lesson in "why Keynesian economics doesn't work on an large scope or scale" conclusion from people's minds, and that is a much bigger concern for you than whether one bad candidate remains President. This is now about setting the left back for all time, and that's what you need to consider. Drop all the bombs on Romney that you want, it won't fix the "candidates don't matter, your ideology sucks" problem. Is dropping bombs on Romney in a vain attempt to save Obama...worth losing the 10 points of independents? If you lose them, you lose every election for the next 12-20 years. If the ideology successfully challenged and exposed...they will be gone. You do not want to let Obama continue to undermine "Democrats are for jobs for the middleclass". That's precisely what he has done by listening to the socialists and extremist college professors. If anything, you want Obama gone yesterday. You want to run Hillary Clinton or Ed Rendell. Somebody who gets results first, and has not been affected by the fantasyland college environment. Somebody who will save the ideology from extinction by using it, properly, to get results, and not using it to "transform America" into an assclown European country. Finally this is like the two guys and a bear story: Romney doesn't have to out-run the bear, maybe he can, be he doesn't have to. All he has to do is out-run Obama, and right now? That's an easy one.

"The office at the Jesse Owens Memorial Complex wasn't supposed to open until 8 a.m., but some applicants started lining up at 10 o'clock Wednesday night" Hysterical. And also, sad. I wonder if, when he was winning in the Olympics, and directly refuting Hitler's master race and statist ideology, Ownes was thinking: "I sure hope that some day black people aren't going to be running to a building with my name on it, merely to glorify the state and their dependence on it. Because otherwise, WTF am I really doing here besides running?" And, there is nothing racist about this article. There is nothing racist about my comment. However, as has been observed by others, there is probably something racist about the pattern of threads started by the OP. I am +1 of the people who are not pleased with this pattern. At some point don't the rules that were applied to Molson_Golden/Conner, also get applied to the OP as well?

I think you have me confused with another poster regarding the meds thing... ...and, I noticed you don't deny what I am saying(because you can't) all you can do is, lamely, attack the messenger. Ironic: since this is they type of behavior that I am pointing to above.

Again, I will say that "given your and other Democrats behavior since 2003" I firmly don't give a F about your whining. You lowered the bar, now you have to deal with the consequences. You should have thought about the consequences of what the Republican party(you know, the guys you keep saying are pure evil?) with gloves off would do to you before you decided to drop yours. What if you are right? What if they are pure evil? You thought it was a good idea to behave away all rules/standards of conduct, such that now these evil guys can do whatever the F they want with impunity, granted by George Soros minions like Media Matters and legitimized by elected Democrats like pre-President Obama? Now there aren't any rules, and the gloves are off, and frankly: if you thought the beating you took in 2010 was bad, wait till 2012. You can save yourself and your party from this. But you won't listen to me , just like you didn't listen when I told you to accept a few union defeats here and there, and consolidate your message and position, don't risk proving that a single governor can beat you in a big fight, because if one does, then they all will. Stay focused on what you can win, don't get spread too thin. You chose the opposite: and, as I specifically told you, it's now open season on all unions everywhere.

No. For a long time(to me) quite the opposite in fact, I was very much part of the institution. You might even say I was the tip of the spear. Then, I realized the whole thing was silly, and I left, because I could. The people who stay are unable to leave. They lie to themselves and say it's not silly. They lie to themselves and talk schit about us, rather than facing up to the truth: they would be nothing without the institutions. Are there any posters here who seem to have an undue hatred towards those who refuse to suffer their institutions and chose not to pay their dues?

I don't know...as I said. What would be the effect of focusing on China and not on the Euro? I don't know. That's why I posted it here. If you aren't a finance guy then skedaddle. If you are, then remember, I have no "position to defend" when it comes to lengthy financial discussions that go on here. I am curious what you think, and I certainly hold no pride in authorship of an idea that may easily be rejected as lunacy.

Ah, let me correct you: YOU HOPE, not "I think". And, your hope is delusional at worst, and, as I said above, wishful thinking, at best. All this time and you guys still don't get it? What is bad for the goose(Democrats) is not bad for the gander(Republicans) here. Yes, when circumstances pit Big Labor against Big Lawyers and/or Big ALGORE, Inc. it causes serious problems for Democrats. It is only when a Democrat who can browbeat all of the malcontents of this country in unison is in charge, that you have success. The TEA party works in the exact opposite way: 1. Unlike the "Bigs" in the Democratic party, the TEA party is not dependent on the Republicans for its livelihood. It has no self interest. It is not a "special interest" group. 2. Despite all failed attempts to spin it otherwise, the TEA party is now accurately perceived by the all important independent voters to be: just a bunch of average Americans who want limited government. 3. The TEA party has no leaders to be paid off, no JV TEA partiers who want to be Varsity some day, no structure to penetrate. It is therefore incorruptible, and therefore, inviolate. So, when the TEA party says they don't like something, it's the people voicing "what's good for the country" Republicans are listening to. The more revved up the TEA party is, the more of a weapon they are in negotiations. Conversely the more Big Labor is revved up and voicing "what's good for me", the more they become a weapon for the other side, and therefore, cancel themselves out.. Finally, the dissent of the TEA party can be used as both sword and shield for Republicans. Sword as in: "Do you see those people in the street? I have been elected by a constituency that demands immediate action, and that's why I am voting yes" Shield as in: "Hey guys I'd love to help you out and vote for it, but you know what the TEA party will do to me". In contrast, 0 Democratic special interest groups can be used as either by Democrats. You won't find a Democrat saying "Do you see those union thugs in the street? That's why I am voting yes!"

I was listening to the radio a few days ago, don't remember the show, don't know who, etc., it was quick...and they were talking about China purposely devaluing their currency, and yes, I have heard many people talking about going back to the gold standard etc. and I had an "uncertain"? idea. My finance background is average at best, passed the classes, etc. So, this idea may be stupid. No sweat off my back, I just thought it might be useful. There is a concept in programming known as a pointer. When you store data, you can store it by value or by reference, by storing something that points to a value elsewhere. A pointer is the latter. Why can't we, rather than attaching a direct value, or standard, to our currency use what I would call a pointer? A pointer that exposes and operates on China's devaluation tactics? Or, we use a series of pointers to determine the value, rather than just one, and apply some formula. This way, the more schit China pulls, the more they screw themselves....exactly like Chinese handcuffs. Rather than "storing a value", as in, rather than using a fixed value that everyone can clearly see and then apply their nonsense to, the value is based on a formula nobody knows, and of course can be changed? It's like the BCS! Look, I don't know the jargon, and I frankly don't care. But there has to be some set of quantifiable #s/ratios/etc. that we can attach pointers to, and use them to define the value of our currency, that punishes both China, and Europe for that matter, for financial bad behavior. It would be even better if it rewarded them for good behavior, since I don't want to start a friggin war here....

Yeah, coming from you this is hilarious. ALL people like you have done since 2003 is exactly what you are talking about.... ...and now that it gets turned back on you...and that means you are going to lose election after election, and you know it... ....you don't want to hear it? Too bad, tough schit. deal with it. You could have spared us since 2003, and you chose not to. Payback is a bitchass, isn't it?

You aren't being serious. Let me help you to re-think that statement...or at least the word protege. You actually know something. Booster often knows less than nothing: as in, he is out to prove the inaccurate. This is about schadenfreude for you. This is about self-congratulation for Booster. You can actually make a point, never mind defend one. Booster struggles mightily if he succeeds at all. There is a giant difference between: "Article 1, section 8. You're an idiot!" - you = short, accurate, biting and - booster = meaningless, clueless, pointless Need I continue? Protege? No.

Babble in place of reasonable refutation. You and Booster should be good friends here.

Or... For some people, being on the right is about freedom, equity, and the limitation of government, as government has proven itself to be self-serving. For some people, the people themselves are the concern, not the institutions. And for other people, being on the right is all about looking down on people, 100% about the institutions, demanding that anybody else on the right respect those institutions and adhere strictly to their doctrines and pay their dues to them, while being jealous and hateful of anyone who was able to bypass/ignore said institutions and have success....while also being on the right.

Actually, and I could be wrong, but, I think that's exactly the reaction he is attempting to extract. Everybody who isn't an idiot, or affected by wishful thinking, knows that the Republicans have already won on this. Consider: At the outset the Leftist position was: no entitlement discussions, no benefit cuts, raise new taxes on the rich Obama's position was: separate the debt ceiling vote from everything else, get it done quick and quiet, threaten Republicans and their supporters with moral hazard and whatever else, and not concede anything. Yeah. What's the scoreboard say? We are already looking at 2.something trillion in cuts, everything being on the table, Pelosi being pushed aside and ignored, no new taxes, Obama "wanting", now, a big bill that is completely integrated, not separated....and all the left gets is a few tax break loopholes for corporate jets closed that don't amount to jackshit? Why on earth should the Republicans stop now? They have most of the Democrats running, might as well finish the job and ride them down. McConnell is saying: F U, it's time for you to lose big Democrats. So, he plays the whine card. He whines, and the entire right stream media kicks into gear and tries to help him out. IF Mitch sees that that all he needs is a few more horses to flank the entire Democrat political position and get them all running, why wouldn't he push to get them? So what if some of the attacks end up on him? He's not going anywhere. Also this has the benefit of being a very good feint at weakness to conceal strength. Now the story is that the Republicans aren't winning, even though they are, and rather than allow the MSM to talk about the terrible things they are going to do , they force them to talk about this instead.

As I said with the Michael VIck thing, and many, many others: This "right to be massively offended by things that have absolutely nothing to do with me" is an effect caused by a confluence of celebrity worship, Oprah victimhood pandering, and the political tactics the left used to gain power = calling people racist, homophobe, etc., while at the same time demanding tolerance. (Said tactics have been recently made useless, but their residue remains) It's simple really, IF: 1. YOU have concluded that somehow your existence is "nationwide" and therefore all things pertain to you and/or all things and people's lives are your concern. 2. Due to 1, you have concluded that your opinion not only matters as such, but as a phony celebrity, others actually give a F what you think and must listen to you...because you have a right to be heard. If they don't you can call them any name you want depending on your gender/race/religion/sexual orientation...or, because you are a white male that "gets it". (Actually you are a white male that doesn't get it much at all, so you run this game, and hope that you get more) 3. You have concluded that the tools are available: Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Content Management Systems etc., and anybody can use them...so it must mean that your conclusions in 1 and 2 are correct! 4. You have concluded that Oprah is right, and everybody but a very few people in the country are victims of somebody/something, and that nobody is a victim of themselves. (Oprah: "Now buy this book on Amazon.com, "Accountability Ruins Self-Esteem. So Avoid It.") 5. You have concluded that you "know" what other people are thinking, to the point that the context of what they say, hell, the meaning of their words, doesn't matter at all, because, they are white, they are male, and they always think and do the same thing = something racist and homophobic. In this case, the ad supports domestic violence: because the you "know" that it does. The concept that this strict stereotyping of white males is completely racist...doesn't enter your mind at all. You are of course stupid(and a loser, how else did we get here?), or, you tell yourself your hate is OK, because they are bad people anyway. Due to your near omnipotent powers derived from 1, 2, 5, and your rights to use them under 3, 4, 5, you can now do what is beyond all reason: project your thoughts onto others, affix them as though they are theirs, and then be offended by them, in one motion! And, Bingo: You say this ad means that the white males who created it think that beating women is OK, and so do the other white males who like football, as you have "known" all along. If we were to assume that the level of your stupidity is on par with the rest of the people that have drawn these moronic conclusions? Well, then that's how you make a guy who used the word "niggardly", correctly and in context, into a millionaire and that's precisely how things like the Duke Lacrosse case happen.

No, it doesn't because the restrictions on assclowns like the ACLU, not the act of gay marriage itself, is what my logic is predicated on. The # of gay marriages prior to law is irrelevant, exactly as much as the number of lawsuits pursuant to those marriages prior to the law being signed. It is the law itself and the consequence of it that are at issue here. Moron. What is relevant is: the long history of the ACLU suing religious organizations using whatever pretense, false or otherwise. Those things are quantifiable. Your John McCain befuddled assertions are worthless and almost without meaning. The gay marriage law itself, without the assclown restrictions, would lead directly to and create assclown lawsuits. You cannot point to any direct relationship the ruling lead to and creates that doesn't already exist. The first has 0 similarity to the second. So, like I said: Moron. Andrew Cuomo's signature is also irrelevant. What is relevant: specific measures were taken to deal with tangible, predictable and quantifiable risks of buffoonery from the far left. Conversely, you cannot describe any direct consequence of this ruling besides: ruining you and John McCain's crusade against common sense. How's the moron thing working out for yah?

Look, more unsubstantiated "Winning!". Tying me in knots? Is that what you call: yet to have argued effectively against a single point I have made on this board, ever? And then: PMing me that you are "Winning!". See, this is why I call you a retard. I bet you honestly believe that you have "gotten" me, and that's what makes dealing with you so fun. It's a rare treat to deal with your level of delusions, based on projection and insecurity, in a way that has 0 consequences for me. Speaking of delusions of grandeur: perhaps you should call for another vote. Why not? It's 3am, all your "friends" are bound to be here, just waiting to cast their vote for you, the super awesome guy, just like they were there last time(Friday 9pm) because everybody on this board knows you are the cool kid nobody messes with, right? Well, that's what you and your "friends" think, anyway. Again, Pathetic. The only thing you can talk about is #of words in my posts and that's funny...... EDIT: and, 4 you Red Eye fans, no, I was talking about Booster = "Winning" way before tonight's show. Merely a coincidence.

Simple: The effect of making gay marriage legal, without the accompanying restrictions on the assclowns, and protections for the religious was obvious, and quantifiable = there would be massive costs in legal fees because the ACLU would sue every church for the right for gay people to be married there. Don't bother denying it: their crusade against the Boy Scouts is all the precedent I need for any reasonable person the stipulate the net effect would have been well beyond tangible and hell, even measurable. If you can't concede that, then you ain't reasonable. I knew the effect 3 months before the law was passed....and so did Gov. Cuomo. Ask him why he made sure these restrictions were in place before he tried to pass it, if he didn't know the effect prior to passing it. On the other hand, we have...well, the entire military history of the world...that shows us that "the rules of war" are followed about 20% of the time, and only when it's convenient and/or not doing so would have real consequences. Given the precedents here....your arguing that this case is somehow going to contravene these historical norms? Or, that it is going to make them any worse? Let's assume you are right. Ok, so now countries only do things properly 15% of the time...yeah, big difference. The truth is: this ruling will have no or a negligible effect, and it cannot be quantified or measured. If you ask any soldier they will tell you: they know the risk and they expect the worst from the enemy. That's why we call them enemy, and not "guy whose point of view I don't share currently". This John McCain argument is merely some sort of cathartic goofball construct...kinda like when he suspended his campaign to "save" the country...and had 0 effect on legislation that was already completed.

The only thing that is far past tiresome is your inability to add anything to a thread besides "I agree, sort of" or an emoticon. How are the posts above any different? Why do you even bother posting here? You contribute nothing. You aren't good at trolling, you never understand when you are being trolled. You never say anything even remotely interesting... ...yet you keep saying "Winning!". Pathetic.

True, there may be some sort of legal douchbaggery...but, what is the net effect of this in the real world, not the abstract effect in the land of courts 1000s of miles away from the reality on the ground? I would argue: 0. Aside from making a few lawyers some talking head money....I don't see how this has any real effect. The difference between the ACLU and the North Koreans being: the ACLU is subject to our laws and doesn't kill people( yet ). Whereas, the North Koreans have been kidnapping/killing people for years, and they couldn't care less about our laws. Did the North Vietnamese base their grounds on charging our air crews as criminals on some abstract supreme court ruling? No, of course not, as with many leftists there's was an argument of convenience, not principle. Like how our leftists were against war....before they were for it. So, without a provable effect you can point to(another difference between my "make good gay marriage law, not emotional arguments" and this is: there was a clear and significant effect I could point to) I will say the same thing to you that the SCOTUS said to Obama: you have made assertions that are unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.