OCinBuffalo

The only certainties in this entire debate is: 1. We simply do not know what is causing global warming, and we don't know the true scale and scope of the warming. 2. Some people, and some politicians are psychologically committed to man-made global warming not only being the exclusive answer, but one that demands an immediate end to our way of life. 3. The people in #2 should be psychologically committed. They are no different than the religious zealots they abhor...and the fact that they either can't or won't see that simple truth...is all the evidence we need to prove that they are insane. Both want us to believe in something we can't see, can't falsify, and can't reproduce in an experiment. Therefore, both want us to completely reject all scientific methodology, and simply take what they say on...faith. Worse, they want to do violence to others both physically and economically based solely on that faith. The only difference between these people is that: the religious one will cry "heretic!" before taking the life/property of others. the evirontologist one will cry "denier!" before take the life/property of others.

Why study history, apply it and draw rational conclusions about the legalization of drugs when: 1. Inner city Democrats can demagogue this into getting more free money to fund "outreach programs" that are either run by themselves...or one of their campaign contributors. 2. Suburb/Rural Republicans can demagogue this into yet another way to demand more money for law enforcement they don't need and also scare the hell out of their voters. 3. Both can continue to demand that we all throw even more money down the government rabbit hole...and siphon off some for their own special projects. 3. Both can demand more money for the prison systems...and both get paid off because: the failure of the inner city to serve their community gets turned into the state's problem in the form of new inmate 45543244 rather than John Smith, unemployed, unskilled, uneducated directly due to failed liberal social engineering. the suburban rural area now gets yet another prison/expansion to existing prison which means more government-dependent jobs...which means more people are now dependent on rural Republican politician. I could go on. The simple fact is that for far too many people: illegal drugs = money/power. There is nothing "immoral" about doing any drug. There is nothing "immoral" about selling any drug. All the self-righteous morons in the world don't change the fact that the individual person(over 12) who uses drugs is 100% responsible for their use.

Hysterical. So instead of the usual she-male thing..they would be showing pics of their weinises. Or, is that "weeness"? W for Weiner and/or W for woman. Double Entend-weiner. Uh...as usual you are completely mixed up. 1. Frat boys have no trouble getting girls, as it is doubtful they would be in the fraternity if they were nerds. There is of course the nerd fraternity...but nobody cares about them and people routinely piss on their lawn. Even the occasional female grad student can be coaxed into pissing on their lawn. 2. Rather, it is the nerdy, geeky, "I can't get girls unless I talk about women's rights and global warming" kids, that are "too good" for the nerd fraternity, and "don't want to have to hang out with the mindless jocks"(groundless assertion/defense mechanism) that have the trouble with women...hence the need for their rhetoric. Said rhetoric works...10% of the time...on the girls that have given up on getting the frat boy's attention. 3. Under no circumstances is the "I talk about global warming, the environment, US militarism, racism, etc." kid ever a "popular kid". 4. The nerdy kids are the ones that end up with the megalomaniac and narcissism disorders...the frat boys are boozing and getting laid, and having a blast. So pick 1(one): Brietbart is either a frat boy or a nerd. He can't be both, per your absolutist parameters. Frat boys always have a date to the formal....because it's their formal, and because it so happens girls, like it or not, like frat boys...a lot If you have a problem with that: take it up with the girls. OTOH: Weiner is clearly the nerd who couldn't get a date here. And, we are rapidly finding out: Weiner is also the kid who would never dream of joining a fraternity...because it would mean subjecting his awesomeness to the judgment of others.... ....as we have seen, his awesomeness is for no one but himself. Where the hell did you get that? I haven't heard anything at all about this. Transvestites are funny as hell. If this was "going to come out" the late night people would have it. Never mind the internets. So...link...please! And, the weiner jokes haven't even started yet. There will be new weiner jokes every day...or until he resigns...or more likely, gets his district cancelled. Why? Because they are funny...and because are likely to piss you off. So, every Weiner joke is 2 times the fun! Finally, I was thinking of adding a new word to the Urban Dictionary: "weinis" n. A picture of your junk that will be sent to others via electronic media. I haven't looked yet, but I bet something like that is already there.

This about trying to bust guys who post links to movies, but don't actually host them on their site. Allow me to impersonate illegal movie guy: "Apparently the author of Senate bill 978 doesn't know what a web service is, or, that I could link to it, snag the "embedded" code from it at run time, and never "embed a youtube(or any other video) video in my website". My simple response being: "show me where the code I embedded is, you f@cking moron, because you will not find it anywhere in my stack and/or how do you know what the web service does, unless you illegally hacked it?". Meanwhile, you have bigger problems: because I created that web service on Amazon's cloud...and now their legions of lawyers will be stopping you from doing anything to me...I don't even have to pay them I do what I want, don't pay for it, and get lawyers I don't pay to both defend me and go after you. Fun! Try again kids, and as they say Good Luck! I'm behind 7 proxies!" (note: I just picked Amazon at random...just like illegal movie guy will, and then change to another infrastructure and park his old domain ) We have to create workarounds every day all the time...and we usually get little notice. When are these morons going to learn that simple fact? .These fools want to give 6 months notice on something I, or anyone that is at least a competent member of an enterprise project, have already beaten before the ink is dry? Lawyers/Politicians and all the rest: apply yourselves elsewhere. You are never going to beat the illegal movie guy, because illegal movie guy is a programmer, not some Napster dipschit end user... or some 18 year old grocery store working wanna-be. If you refuse to see reason, and push too far, then you are going to drag people like my crew into it, and then you are done. Better to stay out of it all together. The problems you are trying to solve will be solved, but not by you. The people whining about copyright infringement simply haven't learned that they are working with the wrong people, using the wrong tactics, who don't even know that there is a game...much less the rules of it..

Booster demonstrating his ability to use emoticons...again. I wonder...will we ever see Booster deliver anything useful? We've seen the emoticons....and lest I forget: the famous 5 paragraph posts of other people's thinking...to which he responds "I agree...sort of".

You're asking Booster to think in the abstract...and not linearly. Good luck. See in booster land, you do one thing at a time, you think one thing at a time. Which is of course why he posts one sentence at a time, and can't handle anything else. Moreover, that's why he doesn't get your posts, gets frustrated and tells you your jokes aren't funny and that you should STFU. The fun part is that he thinks he's in on the joke, and doesn't realize, he is the joke.

So much for this being an aspersion.

Funny how I keep getting tons of comments, never mind PMs, to the long posts no one reads. I wonder how both things can exist in the same universe...do tell there Ph.D. Tom. And funnier still that you read every word...in the vain hope that one day I will make a mistake that you can cheap shot. How about, you keep waiting for that....and I will keep waiting for post from booster that adds value of any kind.

And now, a nasty aspersion: what if the reason he can't say "with certitude" whether it's his junk, or not is because he has loads of photos of his junk...making it hard to pick a single pic out of the "My Weiner" photo album? An even nastier one: what if the reason he can't say is that he has lots of photos of other men's junk? What if he trades photos of junk with other men...and got them mixed up, thus making it difficult to determine "with certitude". I am pretty sure I could take many pictures of myself, mix them with others, and still would know which ones are mine. All master of my domain jokes aside, something is weird here....and funny.

You, not I, have been making assertion after assertion after aspersion, about Israel in this thread. I simply applied your assertions and aspersions as though they are absolute truths....and came up with the only logical conclusion that can be drawn using them: If Israel is forced back to 1967 borders, there is a 95% chance that they will attack(according to you), preemptively or otherwise(a.t.y.), at the slightest provocation(a.t.y.) or if they decide that they want the land they gave up...back(a.t.y.). So, based on your premises, the only thing we can expect from forcing Israel to accept the 1967 borders is: an all-out attack from them, made even more likely if even 1(one) dopey Palestinian sets off even 1(one) rocket. Given that you have been arguing these points for 10 pages of thread...I don't see how supporting the 1967 borders squares with "being for peace". And how did it get to be OCCUPIED? By accident? Could it be that somebody was shooting from that ground, and the Israelis moved their units there to stop the shooting...thereby occupying said ground? Politics are exactly what you need to be talking right now. Every time some tool shoots a rocket, you lose us politically. Every time you give the Israelis an excuse, you lose us politically. Every time we see more wide-eyed psychopaths babbling stupidity/lunacy you lose us politically. Now, you started out by saying that you want the US to stop supporting Israel militarily. My friend...that is a uniquely political decision. It ain't about us winning the political discussion, it's about YOU winning the political discussion. Think about that for a second. The only way you achieve your goals is politics. Wise up. Stop the babbling idiots from being on TV. Clean up your message. Get your f'ing act together. Start looking like serious people. Stop looking like pictures from the Old Testament. Nobody wants to see Omar the Tent Maker screaming "Death to America". Understand...that Omar guy doesn't make us afraid...he makes us do something much worse for you: change the channel. We don't give a F about Omar, and Omar is deluding himself if he thinks he has any real power. Is this really that hard? Of course something is wrong: you have an entire set of people with next to 0 power over anything that goes on in their lives. And, instead of doing things that will gain you real power...you have been renting power from other people...like the Soviets, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. As GG said, and you missed, you have been their pawns this whole time. So, it's up to your people, do want to keep renting power by taking Saudi money only to blow yourselves up, buying Soviet AK-47s only to get sauced by Apache helicopters, supporting Hamas/Hizbollah only to find out your real master is Iran? Or, it's it time to stop doing their bidding/making them money/fighting their wars for them?

The bottom line is: your butt puckers ever time you hear the word Christie....just like you can't help but post something every time you hear the word Palin. These Pavlovian effects must suck for you.

"I have a question and all I read was your post:" Swing and a miss Tom. Again, right over your head. Yet more evidence.

Yeah...you got it. Right over your head. What a shocker. Yet more evidence that you can't post anything insightful no matter how hard you try.

You should definitely join. What they say has exactly the same value as what you post. It all amounts to an emoticon.

I have a question and all I read was your post: What if porn causes/exacerbates the psychological problems of those inmates? I have heard that this is possible. I am not a psychiatrist, so I have no way to say for sure. However, what if it does? Wouldn't these same lawyers be suing the state for negligence for allowing porn to be distributed to inmates whose problems can be set off/affected by porn? Interesting legal question....and once again we see the fallacy of the left's, oh sorry, the ACLU's, "one size fits all" thinking.

It's not a matter of me dealing with it. As I said, my opinion doesn't matter, and basically I won't really care unless somebody decides to do something stupid. And, even if you solve all your problems and live in joyous harmony...I'll spend the 5 minutes watching that one the news...and then flip to Yankees game. Besides, why would any Jew or Arab care what I think? Oh, that's right, because both of you want my country to keep handing you money/saving you from the other people. Well then, since you both can't seem to resolve your differences, perhaps we should cut both of you off, then blockade the Mediterranean Sea, take over the canals and impose a no-fly zone from Jordan to Algeria. You all keep talking about things that happened in the Stone/Bronze age. Perhaps we should force you back into those times and see if you are happier? If neither of you can accept the fact that the date is 2011, and want to keep pretending it's 1000s of years ago, then perhaps you aren't ready to live like everybody else? See? It's a matter of you dealing with it. I don't see how supporting 1967 borders, while at the same time claiming that Israel is likely to attack for land, makes any sense at all. I don't see how obsessing over what happened over the last 60 years, or the last 600, fixes anything for you on June 1 2011. That's the real question: are you willing to deal with the reality of today's date? I will be impressed if you can simply get that one accomplished for 80% of your people. Then we can move on to the more complicated things.

I think pBills wanted something more like this: "I'm glad that he took a helicopter to support his son at his game, it shows good family values, and who cares what it costs the tax payer". But, actually, I have to say, my parents spent all kinds of money and my father certainly used the company car inappropriately....to attend all of my games. They did it without a care in the world with me and my siblings. So, this doesn't look good taxpayer wise...but it also doesn't look like anything my father wouldn't do...if he had the helicopter of course. Actually, I shudder to think of the embarrassment my father would have caused with a helicopter. Visions of hovering over the game hanging out the side with a video camera...ugh. So, is that spin? Or, is that: the truth? Also: I wonder why pBills is posting potential attack ads about a guy who isn't running for President? Is it because the mere mention of the possibility of Christie actually running is enough to cause pBills butt to pucker? Now that Christie met with some Iowa Republican leaders...I bet a whole lot of Democrat butts are puckering. Gotta love that they are already spending campaign money on attacking a guy who isn't even running. Tells you exactly what the campaign strategy is: "Attack everybody, don't talk about our record, and don't talk about the economy, stupid".

What you deny the enemy is irrelevant. IF you take good ground that can be defended, destroy airplanes, cut off water supplies...it doesn't matter. ALL of these operations are part of the same tactic: deny the enemy the means to attack successfully. So, by definition, it is a defensive tactic. That is plain and simple, because that is the reality. You take advantageous ground to prevent attack. Israel took that ground, and they hold it...to prevent attack. They have been holding the Golan heights and other territory because...it prevents attack. No amount of spin changes the military realities. The Golan Heights were taken for military advantage, FIRST. Now, if you want to say "but...but..but... the water supply, the agricultural value" etc. Then I will say: that was a secondary concern, and losing wars has consequences. IF the Syrians didn't want to lose the Golan Heights, they shouldn't have attacked Israel. They made a choice, took a risk, and lost. Now you want me to feel sorry for them? Sorry dude. Worse, the Jews tried to give the Golan Heights back...in exchange for lasting peace with Syria. The Syrians, not the Jews, said no. Why? For the same old reason: the Syrians continue to think they can beat the Jews on the field of battle, and the refuse to see the reality that you yourself wrote above. Is that the Jews fault? Is it my fault? The Syrians could have had the Golan Heights this whole time...as long as they promised not to be D-bags. They couldn't make that promise...so F them. There was no "might" here. Syria did attack, and they lost. They lost because frankly, they suck. They refuse to admit that they suck, and keep trying to pretend that one day...they won't suck. That's what this is about. However, I see whining as progress. IF you are whining to the UN, and to the media, about territory you lost...it may mean that you are done with the expectation you will take it back by force..."someday". Whining is good. Whining means go get a lawyer and go to court...instead of go get a gun or a suicide vest. The more whining we hear, and the less psychotic babble...the better off we all are. EDIT: And, you still didn't answer my question: IF we take your assumptions at face value(even though we probably shouldn't, not all of them anyway): Israel just wants land Israel will attack if they feel threatened, even if they aren't Israel will defeat any Arab force because apparently they have the best army in the world And any other ones I missed.... THEN how is creating the conditions for them to attack helpful? for anybody? You want to force them into having a 12 mile strip of land to defend...and at the same time you say they will attack to gain land. By your own argument, you are setting up a situation where they are almost sure to attack, preemptively or not....yet you say you are for peace???? WTF? It looks like instead, you are spoiling for a fight. If you put Israel in that position, according to you, that's just what you'll have. Good luck with that.

15. If you stick with your team, through 4 awful head coaches and 3 either clueless or listless GMs, terrible drafts, horrible FA signings and the retention of below average players for reasons passing understanding, you might be a Bills fan. Uh, actually, you HAVE to be a Bills fan, because, let's face it: the Dolphin fans would be gone because the team would be gone, the Patriot fans would be gone and back to rooting for the Giants, along with most of the Jets fans.

Well, a kick in the nuts is provocative...but it's not like you learn a whole lot the second time. The difference is: ...lybob is actually familiar with the material when it comes to the Bills. Yes, yes, we should all be taking supplements and homeopathic treatments because the people that make those products are all non-profit organizations. Good thing they don't make massive profits by putting something readily available in a box, labeling it "alternative medicine" and then charging a 1000% markup. Nothing wrong with that, since it's not coming from the "Evil Pharma Companies". Would anyone care for another Pet Rock? The difference between the people that made this movie and Fox News: accountability and relevance. Think about it...then open your mind...hey, if it's good for the goose, it's good for you...and realize...I'm right. Fox has to accountable because Fox is: relevant. The movie's producers are allowed to be crackpots, because what is the point of holding some irrelevant pissant accountable? He's not as bad as the people with three 10x10 plywood boards...and a full stage...with similar writing that would set up in front of my bank on Market Street across from city hall. They'd love to set up on Friday afternoon, babbling nonsense, and had decided that the best way to get me to give them my money...is to purposely stand in my way...and prevent me from getting my money.

Boy...you still have carp on the brain...don't you? (It will never die as long as either crayonz or I am here) So, suffice it to say that you think the entire far left, especially Michael Moore, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and a certain Senator from Minnesota...are all unmitigated morons. As far as the thread goes: It's not that Obama is a hypocrite...you actually have to take a position, show real belief in it, and then contradict yourself to be a hypocrite. Obama is either: a. an idiot, because he didn't understand the position he was taking against the Patriot Act, GITMO, war in general, the Office of POTUS, etc....until the cold, hard reality of actually being the President slapped him in the face. b. a lemming, because he was just going along with everybody else in his party, and didn't want to make waves....until the cold, hard reality of actually being the President slapped him in the face. c. a naive intellectual, who actually believed in the wishful thinking so much...that it displaced all fact and became reality for him....until the cold, hard reality of actually being the President slapped him in the face. d. a person whose brain has been so addled by the retardation that is socialism...that he thinks there's nothing wrong with saying one thing and doing another...since he is part of the intellectual elite, state-ruling class...and therefore always right and accountable to no one. e. a cynical turd, because he didn't really care what he was saying, as long as it got him votes. And, now he still doesn't care what he says or what he does, as long as it gets him votes. In all cases, it's beyond doubt that President Obama and "reasoned position based on solid, time-tested, guiding principles" have never met. In fact, but for a few flashes...we have Senator Obama serving as Acting President. It remains to be seen if Obama can stop being a-e...and start actually acting like a real leader overseeing a real government that gets real results. So far, in general, he has acted like a real candyass, overseeing a weak government that only gets results for a few ideologues...and even those results are fleeting. Unfortunately, it appears we aren't going to see anything new from him now...as the campaign has already started. But, you never know.

1. You say you are against violence as a means of achieving the Palestinian political goals. Ok, so does that mean you would pick up a rifle and take a position in a trench to defend Israel from an all out attack by Arab countries? Would you be celebrating in the street with the rest of the Arabs if Israel was overrun? (Given the current conditions...it's not that outlandish of a hypothetical.) I don't think you would be celebrating...but I also don't think you'd lift a finger to stop the psychotics either. So...what good is your "position"? Are you at least going to tell people in your family to STFU if they start talking about violence? 2. Do you think overrunning/attempting to overrun Israel will bring peace to the region? If so, how does that not cause the USA to be involved, militarily, instantly? Do you really think that multiple divisions-strength, but under/non-trained, non-soldiers can win against a single brigade of...let's say...the 82nd Airborne or 1st Marines? How does getting 3 divisions of Arab Infantry/Armor smoked by a much smaller American force...bring about peace...or, for that matter, remove the shame of losing to a much smaller Israeli force? I don't see how getting a lot of Arabs massacred, or worse, re-embarrased, solves anything. If not, then how does supporting anything(1967 borders for example) that has the potential to invite any Arab country to think it can overrun Israel...help? Even if no attack ever comes...how does it help to make the Israelis MORE paranoid than they already are? You are the one saying that they attacked back in the day with little provocation...OK, if we set aside the speciousness of it, then, using your own argument...if Israel was forced to accept the 1967 borders...why wouldn't they attack again? What would make them lose this time?(Answer: nothing) Therefore, what would prevent them?(Answer: nothing) Aside: a preemptive strike is, by definition, OFFENSIVE. You are saying that like it's some pearl of wisdom nobody knows. No. It's just one more example of not knowing the difference between a Tactic and a Strategy. The TACTIC of attacking the enemy before he can gain the territorial/logistical advantage, and, taking the initiative away is part of any DEFENSIVE STRATEGY. The fact that it is offensive, does nothing to change the fact that any preemptive strike in any war in any country is based on the other side creating the conditions that merit it. So, the short answer is: don't like preemptive strikes? Don't do things that invite them.

Yes, and shocking as this may be: that's not a bad analogy. We could have got into WW2 earlier. Hell, I bet if FDR had to do it over again, given the fact that WW2, and not his policies, got us out of the Great Depression, he would have had us in there in 1939. But, think about that for a second: what would have been said about that move? Wouldn't half of the world accuse us of American imperialism/Opportunism? We hadn't been attacked by Germany. Kinda like we hear today: "Iraq didn't attack us" blah, blah, blah. It's simple: if we did move to stop Hitler, people, especially socialists, would howl and complain. If we didn't move to stop Hitler, people, especially socialists, would howl and complain. There is no easy answer, and the only certainty is the scumbag socialists in this country and others will use every war for political gain. And, not for nothing, we already have a lot of foreign issues on our plate. We can't spend our entire time and all our money on other people's problems. I think we already spend more than enough money and time on this. If the $ is unbalanced,,,that is only because the odds against Israel are unbalanced as well. Of course, the flip side of that argument is: will we have to spend even more time and money later, i.e. Israel gets completely out of hand, and then we have to send in peacekeepers and/or all hell breaks loose and we are trying to help them defend their ground? God, what a mess that would be. Uh, because they already did? Lots of times. Got smoked every time. Unfortunately, this is important because it created Arab Baggage. Israel has been attacked by 5 countries. Israel has been surprise attacked on a holiday. Unfortunately, this is important because it created Jewish Baggage. This all boils down to baggage. Both sides have baggage, because somebody's family member was killed by (insert D-bag here). Both sides have baggage, because somebody's family member receives praise by the rest of the the family because they killed (insert one side or the others people here)s. Over the years, I have become gradually convinced that the Arab Baggage has a lot more to do with the shame they feel for being unable to defeat Israel in the field, despite having superior numbers and material every time, than it does with being "the victim". It's like the French: for all their bluster, you know that deep down they are ashamed of their military failures. That's the real reason why they haven't changed tactics. They feel they have to redeem themselves, and they don't see that they can do that with passive resistance. If you can go throw a rock/shoot a rocket/fire a rifle at the enemy, and then go home and receive praise, then you just took back a little piece of redemption. Over the years, I have become gradually convinced that the Jewish Baggage has a lot more to do with the paranoia they rightfully feel, but then use to claim victim status...which gives them the cover they need to excuse their bad behavior. As long as they can keep claiming to be the little kid everybody picks on, then they can start trouble, and then go crying the their USA daddy every time somebody hits back. They feel they have to protect themselves, and they don't see that they can do that without making sure they get the last, and biggest, punch in every time there's trouble, just before we step in and break it up. The only way this gets fixed is if smart, rational, patriots on both sides tell their own people: 1. Everybody on both sides has lost somebody, so, no, your little Johnny doesn't matter that much. You aren't special. If you go looking for revenge, you are going to jail. 2. Your family member was a soldier in a war that is now over. Stop talking about what your grandfather did. Start talking about what you, and more importantly, your kids, are going to do. 3. Recognize your baggage for what it is, and simply: let it go. Arabs are never going to redeem themselves against Israel as long as Israel has nukes and the military support of the USA. Get over it, and yourselves. That piece of redemption is not worth the gallon of bad will and/or reprisal that comes with it. Jews have exhausted their "We are the victim...that gets away with murder" motif. You aren't a victim if you are going after people. Get over it, and yourselves. That "security" you think you buy with being severe with the Arabs is not worth the gallon of bad will and/or hate that comes with it. You would think the Jews, of all people, would understand what happens when too many people are convinced they hate you.

Um, no. Guess you didn't read the article, huh? Small matter. It's a much bigger problem than NH when the Illinois Governor and the Connecticut Governor and NY Governor, and on and on, all Democrats, are doing the exact same thing Scott Walker did...minus the hubub. And, I told you this would happen, because nobody actually thinks the concept of the union is a rational one(every worker is not the same, doesn't do the same work, therefore shouldn't be paid the same). Instead, we are willing to tolerate them...until we are not. No. Marching in the streets is merely a tactic. When used properly-->Tea Party, it can be very effective. When used stupidly--->Wisconsin union people, it is self-destructive. The difference here is: I told you that the fight was already over, and that marching'/having hate spewing fools on TV saying factually incorrect things...would only hurt the unions. I was right. Nothing more likely to prove you are a paper tiger than a whole bunch of idle threats. Where's the recall? You threatened all kinds of other things, too? Where are they? As I said, all you are going to do with that is prove that you are petty and worse, impotent. Instead of seeing the political realities as they are, and preparing the proper tactical response...these idiots determined to have a prolonged nutty on national TV, only serving to confirm every accusation about unions and their members. Fail. What? Words from the article, not mine. A revenue stream that is constant and predictable is preferable to one that is not. That's the first point you missed. The second one is: For all time George Soros money will be seen as illegitimate since he is on record saying all kinds of retarded/socialist things and talking about his agenda. In contrast, find me 5 damning quotes from either Koch brother. Even if you can, nobody knows about it. Everybody knows about Soros. Apples and Oranges. Right, the major difference between the extremes is: the ones on the right wants to pretty much stick with the models/system/values we have. The left wants to create the USSR all over again. In general, the left's vision takes a hell of a lot more "suspension of disbelief" for people to accept. 1. You may not be worried about these politicians, but, you had better get used to them being in their jobs, or President someday. Because of their wins over the unions, they will all be re-elected. 2. You really don't understand political strategy do you? You LOVE the fact that a winning model has been developed, tested and implemented over 15 times now...heading into an election year? You love the fact that every other governor will soon be copy catting this model going forward? After this steam roller of anti-left thinking has been allowed to pick up momentum for a year...you love that next year at this time it will be peaking? 3. The pro-union groups can sign all the 10k petitions(where that # comes from) it wants. It's not going to beat the 100k people who don't agree with you who are enjoying not leaving their homes, not having to argue with you, and defeating you all the same. It's not a # of people in the street thing: and that's what you dolts don't seem to get. If all the people who don't agree with you get to stay home, do nothing, ignore you, and still see the union's collective bargaining ability severely curtailed....then they win, big. That's pretty much what happened. My only question is: the data i used to make my predictions was available to everyone, so why didn't the union bosses act accordingly? 4. Why are we talking about oil companies...in a thread about how badly the unions screwed themselves?

I love that you don't seem to understand the difference between: "every man for himself" and "some men deciding to work with others to benefit themselves, but can leave if the benefits aren't suitable" "a whole bunch of men deciding that they should all kick into something that benefits them all" and "Dan and his friends deciding what they will force on every man economically and socially." "Dan and his friends deciding for all that no man's individual rights outweigh the state's, that no man should benefit solely from his own labor when other men who won't labor can benefit too" Here's a hint. This nation was built on the middle ones, not the first one, and not the third ones. Get it?