OCinBuffalo

Easily played. I expect DC Tom to get it sooner or later. The rest who knows? Booster never will. All respect to pyrite, which inspired my thinking on this approach. Well, the method, not the intended result... Anyway, all fun tactics aside, wrt the article: 1. How is this not a shock to anyone? Anybody who has ever collected unemployment for longer than a few months will tell you....sooner or later things start to get weird. Now try what amounts to a lifetime of unemployment...yeah, things would be really weird. 2. A long time ago, the content of this article was related to me practically word for word by a black guy . I had always thought that my negative experiences with social engineering in schools was an aberration, and that overall the ideas were sound. I was told that not only was I mistaken, that I was actually being a bastard by supporting things like affirmative action, and my new black friend was imploring me to cut it out. 3. As I was saying elsewhere: unfortunately we have people in this country who both lack introspection, and, are arrogant enough to have appointed themselves the "life builders" of others, and see no solutions other than taking command of other people's lives, based purely on the supposition that "they know better" with no contingency for "what if they don't?". 4. Despite all their efforts, their entire set of arguments are based on false premises...and arrogance...and on the systematic dehumanizing of other people, and given their abilities....it's all FAIL! Liberals love to bring up Jesus and ask conservatives "what would Jesus do?" Let's bring that full circle and ask: would Jesus create the Department of Education? HHS? Medicaid? Whatever happened to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", there Mr. "What Would Jesus Do?" Smarmy Assclown? Would Jesus support the destruction of a man's intellect, self-respect, and soul....for a few fish? We have problem children in this country who think they are both Jesus and Caesar. As if that wasn't enough, they honestly believe that their seriously flawed ideology will work, simply because they are wiser and more capable than those who have failed with it in the past. We need to free ourselves from their delusions of grandeur and their breathtaking arrogance. They are nothing but FAIL, and we can't let them be in charge ever again.

What court ruling/execution was stopping countries that would do such a thing from doing it prior to this decision? Heh. The difference is: I could probably use just smileys for my explanation, and it would make sense. Booster on the other hand, well, we'll see, won't we? Booster would be required to use something other than emoticons...and that can be tough...for him.

We may, or we may not. Why don't you define it for us...in detail.

Perhaps you should ask Governor Cuomo why he made such a big deal out of limiting the liability of religious organizations and their members and protecting them from lawsuits. If it's "no big deal" then why did he bother to go through all that negotiation for the last 3 months? Oh, I know why: because if he didn't, the law wouldn't have passed. Idiot. Moreover, he was concerned, rightly, about providing gay people the rights they deserve...and not concerned, rightly, with providing the ACLU and other militant political organizations the pretext to declare war on religion and the religious. Or, perhaps you are simply ignorant? Perhaps willfully so? Perhaps you'd like to be coy and pretend that the usual assclowns would not have taken a gay marriage law without these restrictions, and run wild suing everybody. Or, perhaps you are just too dumb to see the obvious unintended consequences even when they are staring you in the face, like most liberals of the last 60 years. In all cases, you should ask Gov. Cuomo, not me, why it was such a big deal. The only thing left is what you think won't happen: people suing for the rights to other "alternative" marriages based on this law. Hey, personally I never cared about any of this, I still don't, I just wanted to expose the buffoons here and I did. Incidentally, I wouldn't care about the other "alternatives" either....provided they: 1. think it through first 2. remove the emotional, Hallmark-moment seeking people from the room 3. don't let people like you, or other far-left loons, have any part in the process 4. create equitable laws that deal with ALL consequences Because, as we know: "If you want something to be done, let the far-left be in charge of doing the opposite!TM"

2 pages and nobody thought to consider population and/or wealth and/or demographics? Without assigning proper weights to each stat...like murders per 1000 people for example...this is almost without meaning. More people = more crime. More stuff to steal = more crime. More encouraged and unpunished bad behavior(um, Louisiana) = more crime. Not shocking at all: New York is near the bottom, not the top. Amazing what Guliani and Pataki were able to accomplish. NY has more people and more stuff...but look what happens when bad behavior is stifled and punished severely. The sheer # of people and stuff means NY will never be in the top 5....but 15 ain't bad. NYC went from Dinkins' "ungovernable" excuse-ridden mess to not that bad at all. Isn't it amazing what happens when the far-left isn't allowed to be in charge? Now let's see what happens when Bloomberg, who absolutely followed Guliani's plan, leaves and if he is replaced by a far-left loon. The almost certain rise in the crime rate will be the falsification that is required to prove the theory. But of course, I am sure I am a racist for pointing out the undeniable historical facts wrt to crime in NYC and NYS. Yes, Guliani was the most effective mayor, Pataki the most effective governor, in turning the state's crime rate around....but they were also the biggest racists ever! Hey! I know! Let's take a look, using proper statistical methodology, at a city where the far-left has been allowed to be in charge for a very looooong time: San Franciso is safer than 11% of other cities and you have a 1/21 chance of being a property crime victim! Tolerance! Hooray! NYC is 3x safer than San Francisco at 33%. See? We don't even have to wait for a leftist loon to be elected mayor in NYC. We already know what will happen.

What? You're just noticing this now? Typical far-left demagogue ....so slow on the uptake, and committed to your fantasyland perception, that you don't see the real problems until it's too late. :lol:

What? Did I start this thread, idiot? What is the title of this thread? Oh, so 2 people did. Do you want to have another vote Booster?

Any of them could have told me "Hey, they are already addressing that" at any time. The news articles were all over the internet. All they had to do was read one. But they didn't, and now: they have no outs. You are a moron for not seeing how obvious this was. All they had to do was read. Anything. What makes anyone on this board not immediately go to the internet to find a link when opposing what someone is saying? What makes them miss an opportunity to say: "you are an idiot". In this case, only one thing: the need for the self-righteous Hallmark moment. I didn't do anything...they did it to themselves.

This is just a set of questions, and hypothetical ones at that: Does anybody consider the concept of inserting a small set of otherwise urban people into a small community of 39k as one liberals would pursue intentionally? I mean, as a tactic? If my agenda was to disperse smaller groups of people who vote Democrat, in what amounts to pre-packaged "communities", into the vast suburban world, wouldn't this fit? Before Peace says anything ironic and therefore unintentionally funny: I am not saying any such agenda exists. But, think about why it would exist: 1. Democrats know that demographically they are going to lose more and more elections going forward. This about both population shifts as well as gerrymandering. The way the electoral maps are shaping up, their voters are far too concentrated. This is fact. 2. They only way to combat this problem is by dispersing their voters, but that creates a logistical challenge: their voters don't have the money or motivation to move, and nowhere to land if they move. Therefore, the only solution to the logistical problem is via the courts and Federally funded housing projects. 3. The image that confronts the Democrats-->The Result of Democratic Control of our Cities....is a bad one. The problem is, the current urban political leadership is stuck with the "hand-out class" they created. Understand, I am not talking only about the poor...I am also talking about the rich people who live off city contracts, middle class city employees, etc. There's no way to turn this around with more $, especially when the State and Federal spigot is being slowed and/or cut off altogether. Therefore the image will only get worse if nothing is done. 4. The fact is that for almost all historically Democratic cities, the liabilities far outweigh the assets. With no capital forthcoming...the only way forward is to cut your liabilities. You aren't going to get rid of the people who give you campaign $ = the people who will back another Democrat in a primary if you don't pay them off, or anybody else that is wholly dependent on you that does something you can claim to be beneficial-->those are your assets. Rather, if you can move the non-contributing poor to the suburbs, isn't that a hell of a way to cut your liabilities(thus solving local Democrat image problems), while at the same time disperse your voters(thus solving the national Democrat electoral map problems)? I'm not saying that Democrats are this smart in general, but do you think some of them are?. Do you think some of them would be able to see this the only way to protect the "liberal brand" that is circling the drain? Do you think some of them are capable of being this pragmatic? EDIT: I have a name for this..."reverse gentrification"

Yet more ironic, unintentionally funny statements from Peace..

You know this is the kind of story that would be top of the headlines if Bush did it. You know that we'd have a brand new Molson Golden thread as well. But here's the difference between us and them: 1. we are grown ups, so these kinds of mistakes aren't that appealing 2. we don't care if somebody misspeaks....we do care if they miss-do 3. we aren't hateful pricks who want to pile on a guy when he's down...because.... 4. we put the current effectiveness of the country ahead of all, because we aren't on a never ending quest to gain more power over people's lives and therefore don't see every little thing as a tool to gain that power.

Hmm. You make a point about me liking Jefferson....to which I respond with "liking Jefferson is not the same as being in lock step with him 100%"....then you tell me that I shouldn't be worried about unintended consequences in another thread....but then you tell me about Jefferson's unintended consequences that were significant...to which I respond "Yes, you are making my point for me, in a hilariously ironic way, that you are too dumb to be aware of"...and now you are restating the obvious, and dare I say, trying to cover your ass with it? What do you want me to say besides: unintended consequences are bad, therefore, we need to deal with problems holistically, from the beginning, with honor, and not let a few hateful leftists with a craven political agenda deter us from doing what's right for the country as a whole? That's pretty much what I have been saying the entire time, hell that's pretty much what I say ALL the time in every thread. You have seen fit to argue against, and for, and then against that position in this thread and the other. So I simply ask, WTF? Are you John Kerry? Were you for attention to detail, before you were against it? Again I say: you are an unmitigated moron.

As of today, there are 6(six) that allow it. Moron. You have yet to get a single fact right in this entire discussion. My concerns were so trivial.... ....that Gov. Cuomo, whose law this is, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THEM BY MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL PERSONALLY, AFTER MEETING AGAIN WITH REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO GET THE FINAL VOTES REQUIRED AS HE HAS BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 3 MONTHS. You are absolutely wrong, and the modified language of the law itself proves that. The hysterical part is that you were wrong before my first post. This was going on the entire time but I knew some were blinded by the need for a Hallmark moment. Ergo, I decided to go fishing for emoting idiots...what a haul. Why does the language of the law SPECIFICALLY protect churches and clergy...if my concerns were invalid? Why does the language of the law SPECIFICALLY protect non-clergy, like the Knights of Columbus...if my concerns were invalid? Answer: they already were addressing "my concerns", before I even posted anything in this thread. Where do you think "my concerns" came from? Answer: you think I spend my days worried about what happens to the f'ing Knights of Columbus? I got "my concerns" from the same news that you could have read them in...if you weren't more interested in your Hallmark moment. We don't even know the rest yet(the speculation is that it isn't even written yet, and will be negotiated behind closed doors)....but more of "my concerns" will be addressed in this law, that was modified, and will continue to be modified, by both the Governor and Senate Republicans, specifically to protect us from your stupidity and unintended consequences, that you would otherwise have gladly accepted....if it meant you got your Hallmark moment. Yeah, you were really thinking, rather than emoting your way to your Hallmark moment. You were thinking so much that you and others walked right into this. Idiots. Any of you could have done a small amount of reading and came back and told me - "hey, they are already working on this". But NONE of you did. Can't wait to hear the excuses and lame attempts at trying to play this off. I want even more lulz out of this. This one was faaaaar too easy. Pretty sure that the principal who was begging my dad not to sue...didn't think it was much of a fantasy. Pretty sure the school board, who asked my mom to come in and talk about it...was fairly scared that their liberal assclownery would be exposed. You know, posting out of ignorance isn't working very well for you: Look at what happened above. No...given this post? It's time for OCinBuffalo to ask: uh...who's delusional again?

I don't need to wonder why, I know why, and so does everybody else that bills by the hour. You are way off base, and this is silly.

No, as the posts above clearly show, you said one thing, and after I deservedly mocked it, you edited your post. Now I am mocking you for pretending anything but that occurred. How's the "vote" coming? Were you able to pick up any key swing posters? Listen booster, I don't know what to tell you about all that stuff other than: 1. When you criticize me I react with laughter, because your attempts to "get" me are funny, and so is the fact that I can goad you into them. 2. I do take advantage of you to achieve my own goals: making fun of others...and you, a person who has such a high opinion of himself that he feels it's necessary to send me PMs stating as much. 3. I don't feel excessively self-important, in fact I make fun of myself here all the time, I even make fun of the over-the-top version of myself, especially when dealing with Buftex...it's just that you don't get the joke. Think about that for a second. 4. My talents are constantly being rated and are quantified every day. It's degrading, but I have gotten used to it. 5. You know I am preoccupied with one fantasy in particular: the Bills winning a SB. I seem to think that the more I read, post, know, listen to....that somehow that will make them win. It's quite insane. 6. Uh, I have lived on airplanes for the last 15 years. If I had unrealistic expectations of favorable treatment, either I'd be in prison right now, or the flight attendants would all be wearing hot pants again because I was able to "will it" to be so. And don't take that the wrong way: I'd want to see all of them in hot pants, gays, grannies, and grandes, because I think that would be hysterical, and, it has the added benefit of them never being able to take themselves too seriously. 7. I go out of my way to be left alone. 8. Anybody that knows me knows that one ain't true. I am mostly bored with myself, but I don't care enough to do anything about it. 9. And, finally, I wouldn't have the job I have, or spend the time I do doing it the way I do, if those last 2 were true. So, no, except for the Bills thing, my odd, but practical desire to see flight attendants forced to wear hot pants, and doing whatever is necessary to make fun of your campaign to "get" me, and you in general....I really don't have any of the qualities you describe.. ...and I'm not a racist either. That was fun. Got anything else?

Well, it's either that or ask you to explain the logic behind your expectation that you will get a resounding affirmation from this board at 9:30 pm on a Friday. This just keeps getting more funny. Bigot, blah, bigot. Do you have a coherent question on that subject, or this more of the same?

Why? Do you need validation from this board? It's just getting worse, booster. Time to put the shovel down.

Yes, now booster is a trained psychoanalyst. Tell me Dr. Freud: what point were you making by referencing a whip and a mask, exactly? What about that, by any definition, would any sane person see as needing to be addressed? Under my skin? Please define how you following me around this board posting emoticons, post length counts, and other inane babble = you being under MY skin. Perhaps some projection, Dr. Freud? Need to be wanted by who? Validated? By you? Or the other posters on this board? If that were so, then how can I possibly be a narcissist, Dr. Freud? As these things are direct contradictions.. ..perhaps it's time to check your psychiatry credentials. What a moron! It's so fun when you try to post anything other than an emoticon or a useless one liner. But, it's even more fun that I can so easily goad you into doing it. EDIT: Sending me PMs now Dr. Freud reminding me how awesome you are? Yeah, you are the one that's under my skin, there's no projection here, or need for validation, at all.

Wrong: You only needed you and Senator Obama to be who you were from 2003-2008 to attack President Obama, and the rest of you blatant 95% hypocrites, now. Are you really going to sit there and demand that now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans are supposed to give you a pass? You didn't give them a pass on the concept and content, never mind the fact that you attacked their character. You made your assclown bed, the Republicans are beyond justified in making you sleep in it. My real thinking is that the whole thing is a large distraction, as I said above, but that is way over your head, isn't it? That, and keep in mind "The Corporation" are the ones who will be doing the leading, fighting and dying, not some shmuck politician who will only be effectively around for 2.5-5.5 years. The military has every right to plan to fight the next war so as to survive it, and the flag officers in each service have every right to pursue the strategies that will mean victory. In fact, that's what we are paying them to do. It's only when they fail to do their jobs, or we have a nutty President, that things get way off the rails and we lose a lot of people, like Vietnam. By comparison, and in terms of effectiveness and losses, we have done a fine job with both Iraq and Afghanistan, in purely military terms. The fact that the civilians failed to do their jobs in many cases has nothing to do with that other than to make the military missions take longer and cost more.

Knew you couldn't do it. 1. Medicaid only pays a skilled care provider $18-24 a day, and demands that their resident get the same care as a Medicare or Private Pay resident. The provider's cost per resident is $60-70 a day. So, in order to offset the losses Medicaid creates, the private pay/insurance/Medicare resident has to pay more. 2. If there was no Medicaid, then the market would offer care based on what people could afford to pay. Since when does having Chevy money mean you are entitled to buy a Mercedes? 3. Since there is Medicaid, the market cannot grow and innovate because it is eternally cash starved, so, there's no way to offer poor people Cadillac care for Chevy money, because the government is stifling the entire industry with its useless program. Meanwhile, the people who can afford Mercedes care only get Cadillac at best care, but are required to pay Rolls Royce money...which means they are likely to avoid the market....which means less $ for an already cash starved market. 4. Nothing ever gets better, the price of care continues to rise because supply is either constant or decreasing due to lawyers suing this cash-starved market that cannot help itself get better, while demand and government regulation keeps increasing. But you think...that the government, not providers, provides health care...and you can't wait to support nurse aid unions who want money the providers don't have...and support lawyers suing for money the providers don't have...all because of your stupid Medicaid idea in the first place? Keynes would kick you in the nuts for misrepresenting this stupidity as his work.

Yes, but not that there's anything wrong with that... oh, wait....

Nah, I'm just pissed off today for unrelated reasons. I need to start drinking, but I don't want to go out this early, or I will wake up someplace strange and find underwear made by Omar the Tent Maker.

I think he's asking you to explain why government consumption failed, miserably, to create growth. I'm asking you to define how wage and price controls(remember cap and trade?) , um Obamacare, creates growth. In fact let's make it easier: how does the fact that Medicare exists not make health care cost artificially increase? How does the fact that Medicaid exists not also increase cost for non-Medicaid patients? Go ahead, Mr. Keynes, this should be entertaining.

Yes, booster is showing off his counting skills again. You know it's what he is best at. Now, being able to refute anything I say, in any thread, ever? Nah, that's not for him. He just likes emoticons and counting them. I should start a thread with nothing but emoticon posts for him. Probably keep him busy all night.

95% of the demagoguing and sloganeering that people like you applied to Iraq...can be applied to Libya: No blood for oil War of convenience Illegal War Unnecessary Civilian Casualties Creating Terrorists and people who hate us Libya didn't attack us(when the truth is both Libya and Iraq attacked us, and Iraq more recently) Blah, blah, blah But only if the right chooses to be as big a bunch of phony, political gain seeking D-bags as you were with Iraq. So, OK, you aren't a 100% hypocrite....only 95% of one. Great.