OCinBuffalo

I never said anything of the sort. I said, you have a political problem, and you think redefining success is the answer and/or you want to apply fiscal policy/terms to a political problem? OK Ross Perot, have at it. When you are done with your flip charts...you still have a political problem, and your answer, and what a surprise, it's the only answer we ever hear: "raising taxes", is not the solution to the political problem. If you think it is: then you sir, are the dolt here. Unless of course you want to see a massive beat down in 2012 elections for Democrats. Not the point, Tom. He wants to get out his spreadsheets and flipcharts and then say "see my awesome financial ability?" Therefore my answer "raise taxes" is correct, and who cares about the political albatross around my neck.

Well there's "act like you care" and care. Just like there's "progressive" and progress. And then there's "well we know we are going to get smoked, again, so let's try to do nothing until the election". Instead of taking a "hey, we were able to work with Republicans" small, 15-20 house seats/4-8 Senate Seat/hold on to the Presidency by less than 6 electoral votes beating.... ...you want a 40 house seat/15 Senate Seat/Republican President landslide and the mandate that comes with it, beating? Uh, OK. Is that "progressive progress"?

I reserve the right to beat any fool who uses arguments of convenience. We have the ability to fix this now. And instead of that, you tell me to be happy with 80%....yep, that's "progress" for ya.

Big Labor is in big trouble. I predicted this would happen, to include the Democrats turning on them. pBills predicted there would be a major uprising of public support for unions. I am right, again. He is not, again. 1. As I have been saying: This is only the beginning. Now that the example has been set that not only Republican, but high-profile Democratic governors in high-profile blue states, can push the unions aside, it's only going to get worse for the unions. The very last thing you wanted was for the Democrats governors to think they could do it, too. 2. As I have been saying: This whole thing could have been avoided, had the unions not acted stupidly. They will lose even harder if they continue with the a-holes in the streets and the recall votes nobody wants. These fools have already damaged unions in general severely. Every company will declare open season on their unions over the next year. So will every government. They will do this because: it's an election year and nobody will help the unions. The public opinion edge the unions should have focused on keeping, as it was their #1 possession since the 1930s, is now gone. 3. I don't buy into the "other groups" argument all that much because the union "DID" have an automatic money raiser in forced union dues. These other groups do not. I see this netting out to be a deficit for the Democrats on the whole. Yeah, yeah, in pure numbers George Soros/Hollywood can probably make up the difference or whatever, but they don't have the legitimacy that a large number of middle class workers did. The Soros money that lets a Democrat buy 10 commercials is easily countered by a Republican appearing on the talk shows, which costs nothing, and saying the words "corruption of our political process", "socialist", "agenda to radically chance America by force", and George Soros. Union political $ could not be dismissed so easily, since it comes from average Americans. 4. This is another example of the far-left killing the Democratic party. The far-right is nowhere near as detrimental to the overall political agenda of those on the right as the far-left is to those on the left. Again, they will try to blame Republicans for what they did to themselves. Again, everybody will call BS, and then not care. Well now, let's see if pBills wants to keep telling us how scared we should all be of the "consequences" . Let's see if he thinks Mario Cuomo, or Scott Walker or Chris Christie or John Kasich, for that matter, are going to be doing anything other than gaining huge political capital from going toe to toe with the unions and winning...in a fight they knew was already won. The unions were dumb enough to walk right into it, rather than deferring and waiting until the conditions suited them instead. Hubris in rare form. I wonder if the boycott on the Wisconsin "Republican" bank matters? I wonder if the threat to boycott any business that didn't openly support the unions matters? I wonder if, for the first time a veeeery long time, the unions will be an issue to be attacked, rather than an entity to be coddled, in a Presidential election. I wonder how that will make pBills feel. And, remember, this is for posterity so, let's hope he'll be honest.

So, when the biggest retirement plan of all time fails to return more than putting your money in f'ing saving account after 50 years of "saving"....not only do you call that "progress"...your only solution will be "raise taxes/SSI contributions" in 25 years? You have been portraying SSI as a F'ing savings account since FDR....but only now that the flaws in it are becoming clear...once again you redefine "progress" and "success". Yes, pardon me for not seeing the wisdom of your liberal philosophy. Once again we see the difference between progress and "progressive progress". I think it's far past time for the rest of us to ban your use of the the word "progress" to describe anything you support.

How many times am I gonnna have to tell your stupid azz that most Americans don't give enough of a crap about this to care what you condone? If, in the 5 minutes we spend over the next 2 years really focusing on this issue, we see a single Palestinian doing something violent, then that's who all of you are. You may not like it, it may not be fair, you may be right: so f'ing what? Those are the current conditions we find ourselves in. You can either deny this rules of the game and continue to fail, or, you can start playing by the rules and getting better at the game. Your choice. Fine example of what I was saying above. These are all details that nobody in America(except the CIA, State department, and Israel/Palestinian political groups) cares about in any shape or form. We simply do not spend enough time on this issue for the distinction you are trying to make to have anything other than a small effect on our opinion. It's not a matter of our ignorance, it's a matter of your relevance. And, attacking our people as a way to make yourselves relevant? How has that worked for you so far? Sure it makes sense. And it probably will for all time. I have no real way to know what's fair. This seems like a property issue that should be in front of a judge....not a political issue that nobody is going to win short of all out war. But here's the bigger issue: What effect does that have on the "Palestinians are all a bunch of rag-head terrorist a-holes" perception that Palestinians, through actions, not words, have been creating in the minds of Americans for the last 60 years? Answer: none. I already addressed this. My answer is Yes, I would the worst enemy that the invader ever had....which means I wouldn't spend 60 years repeating the same failing tactics and expecting a different result. What difference do tactics make provided the strategy is accomplished? That's the difference between Palestinians and me: they love their losing tactics, losing, and then playing the victim. Do I need to shoot myself in the foot in order to appreciate that doing that is a stupid plan? Do I need to go live with the "footshooter" tribe, so I can appreciate their "shoot myself in the foot" culture? No. They are idiots, and I can sit right here at my desk and tell you that. Question #1: No, not really. Question #2: No, not really. Question #3: No, not really. Statement #1: No, not really. The only behavior you can truly control is: Your own. You can't control what the Israelis do. You may have deluded yourself into believing that, but it's just a delusion. Take that, the fact that I can answer all your questions with the same answer, and the fact that this isn't all that relevant to Americans and what do you get? The only thing you should be focused on is: "How do we not look like A-holes every day, all the time, thereby make a clear contrast for the American people between us and Israel. If we can truly look like the misunderstood good guys, then we will win. IF we keep making excuses for our bad behavior, using other people's bad behavior, then we will accomplish nothing." Yes, PR. No. No, I think Palestinians have stupidly done everything to play into the hands of the Jewish dominated media of this country. Go ahead and have more wide-eyed psychopaths chanting some gibberish in the street....it's not like that image is the only one I have seen in the media my entire life. Again, dumb. EDIT: We just had our own wide-eyed psychopaths chanting gibberish in the street in the form of public union members...how did that work out for them? Hell, they lost in states with Democratic, never mind Republican, governors. I think you could have our media firmly in hand, in under 6 months, if you do the following things: 1. After 1 year of 0 terrorist attacks, launch a "victimhood" media campaign. 2. Proceed to go on every single women's show in this country. Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. Send a Palestinian woman to talk about the suffering of the children, etc. Talk about how all you want is to live in your own homes without fear....blah blah blah 3. Once that's done, get a television sitcom that features an Palestinian family on TV...difficult, but the reward is worth it. No single thing in history did more for race relations in this country than "The Cosby Show". It has to be funny, and not say a word about the conflict. It has to show the family dealing with issues just like everybody else. 4. Once that show is doing well you go find the smartest Palestinian nerd you can, but, he has the be able to speak good English and have 0 temper and/or pride, and he must have a good sense of humor. Then, you set him up as a FOX news contributor. Why Fox? Because the viewer of Fox news are the people you have to convince. All you have to do is have this guy make good, consistent arguments, never defend terror, always talk about the virtue of putting another Arab democracy in place, and say something positive capitalism now and again. You do those things, and if you don't have the media, you will be well on your way to having it. The Jews had their sitcom: Sienfeld. Where's the Arab/Palestinian one? Did you think an overtly Jewish show about NYC Jews acting like NYC Jews was an accident? Here's my 3 real options 1. Care slightly 2. Don't care at all 3. Care in a major way and support massive retaliation if any Arab decides to make me care more by attacking us. You don't seem to get that you are the one asking us for something: stop supporting Israel. It costs me nothing personally, in any real sense, to do nothing and say nothing and go along with my country supporting Israel. So, you have to sell me on why I should do/say anything at all. First rule of selling: figure out what your message is going to be, then stay on it, and don't let anybody on your side detract from your message. Your people have done a schit job of selling us anything other than the "stereotype". But here's the thing: you created the stereotype. I didn't know what a Palestinian was, until I saw one blowing something up, and then another picture of his buddies cheering about it.

And that's OK? Even if we take what you are saying as the truth, by what standard is getting F'ed out of 20% of your money...OK? Is that the Democrat standard? The Obama standard? We have the means and method to fix these programs, and make them better...but according to you, and the rest of the left, we should settle for a precarious 80% instead? Yeah, this is why we should never let the far-left be in charge of anything: because when one of their grand, sweeping, one-size-fits-all plans fails, they always tell us to be happy with what got, and forget about what they promised. Or, they tell us to be happy with nothing, and blame the failure on everybody else but themselves.

Good points here. However, b.harami and the rest of the Palestinians seem unable to make use of any of them. The problem is: you can't claim to be a victim, but then be a terrorist, at the same time. Conversely, the Jews can't claim to be a peace loving democracy that's simply dealing with the "Muslim problem" the same as every other country, but then turn around and oppress people, settle on land that isn't theirs, shoot protesters, etc. Nobody is buying either story, and they shouldn't because both are blatantly obvious BS. However, I will say this: whichever side puts the right words together with the right actions first, and is consistent for 6 months, wins. The only way your ironic prediction comes true is if the Palestinians/Hamas don't find a way to F up what Israel hands them by F'ing up themselves. This is like retard Survivor. "Which people are the biggest idiots, Palestinians or Jews? Stay tuned, folks!"

I can't believe that Palestinians expect anybody to report on the "Martin Luther King/Ghandi" story, when the "Hamas shooting rockets and suicide bombing" story is happening at the same time. You're so dumb. I can't believe anybody would be too dumb to run Ghandi playbook, and mess up the simple concept: "no violence of any kind". That's like saying we're going to run a power blocking, run-heavy offense...without making sure you have a devastating fullback. I can't believe that you don't seem to understand the rules of the game, after all this time: if all we hear about from you is "Allah Akbar" and then something blows up, then that's who you are. You can say it's not, but what you say is irrelevant when we have images on the screen making you a "liar". Don't you get it? All you have to do is win the PR campaign, and the US will force Israel to do whatever you can make a reasonable case for them doing. Instead of doing that and the rest of the right things right, you do the wrong things in a way that passes all possible understanding. You'd rather choose moronic chest pounding and poverty and violent insurrection and then death? Rather than simply getting a solid political/PR strategy together and sticking to it? Oh, and incidentally? Mahmoud Abbas agrees with me. Look at his editorial in the NY times. Notice where he says "Make this a legal matter not just a political one?" Yes, that is precisely what is needed here. Stop throwing rocks at tanks. Start throwing lawsuits at a government who has no way of beating you in court. Get it yet, you morons?

Just read my signature. I have been saying this since college.

As long as Palestinians allow Israel to look like Northern Ireland, rather than the apartheid South Africa, or, in the immortal words of John Lennon, "go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow." 1. Every single person is responsible for their choices. Nobody is forcing these Palestinian kids to go to Madrassas, or join terrorist outfits. Much the same as nobody is forcing any American teen to join a street gang. The people who join these groups make a choice every day to stay. They make a choice every day to do whatever they are told. In making these choices, they know damn well that there will be reprisals for whatever actions they take. They known damn well that they are putting Palestinian civilians in danger every single time they attack Israeli civilians. If they are too dumb do understand that, then why should anyone feel sorry for them? 2. There are plenty of people who have chosen to leave these terrorist groups, much the same as their have been plenty of American kids who choose to leave street gangs. If everything was preordained and nobody had a choice, then these people wouldn't exist. However, they do exist. It is possible to leave, reject violence, etc. 3. It is possible for the average Palestinian to realize that what they are doing, Hamas, etc. isn't f'ing working, has never worked, and will never work. It is possible for them to change their tactics from those that fail, to those that succeed. And that's the real point here: it's not just the dishonor that these people bring upon themselves and their people, it's the failure and doom they bring to their cause, that makes people like me say WTF? Sure, I understand that I would be the first to pick up a weapon and defend my country from an invader. I did already. I also understand that if, by some miracle, the US Army was defeated in the field by a foreign enemy, there's a good chance I would end up being a partisan. Here's the difference: if, after 5 years, I realized that what I was doing wasn't working, I wouldn't keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. That's because: I am not an idiot. I don't understand signing up for losing, and continuing to lose. I would realize, and so would a lot of other people, that it's time to change tactics. Tactics mean "what we do", not "what we do, that must be based on closing with and engaging the enemy". I think we can agree that Israel is not, and never will be as powerful as the British Empire was. Yet, somehow, Ghandi successfully defeated them. How? He changed the tactics. The strategy "force the British to leave India", never changed. At no time did he change the strategy to coexist or compromise with Britain. Nope, the only thing he changed was the tactics. The Indians had revolted violently for 150 years, with no success. Not even close. In contrast, Ghandi was able to bring about his campaigns goals, once the real campaign began, in just over 20. So what is the lesson from history that b.harami98 and Palestinians have failed to learn? Google awaits. When you complete that activity, you will realize that the only rational conclusions that can be drawn are: "Palestinians have their leaders to blame for not changing tactics years ago". "Apparently Palestinians etc. have become addicted to the fear, not respect, they have been able to create in others. However, just like US gang leaders, there's no future in fear, and sooner or later you end up with a bullet in your head, a fitting end to a wasted and therefore worthless life". "There will never be any monuments to Abdullah the suicide bomber, and even if there are, they won't last long. In contrast, if the tactical change is conducted properly, there will be monuments to Abdullah, the non-violent civil disobedience protester that was killed by the Israelis, those monuments will be respected by the rest of the world, and here's the kicker: Israel too" "If Israel is the oppressor Palestinians say they are, then they have to make sure that they are seen that way, by more than the leftist idiots in this country who are looking for an excuse. You have to prove it to rational Americans, every day, all the time, for years. Only then will you succeed in changing our policy." As long as Palestinians allow Israel to look like Northern Ireland, and not the old South Africa, or, in the immortal words of John Lennon, "go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow."

I've read this 4 times, and while I don't claim to be the coolest kid on the block, I am not the nerdiest either, and I still have no idea WTF you are talking about. I knew there were different definitions for fast, and I figured it had to be something like that. But I still don't get the striped, ass, and ape part. Although thinking about anything...with a striped ass...has been making me laugh for some inexplicable reason for the last few days. Google brings treats: Funny thread that actually has an explanation I can understand

Nobody has threatened to move to LA or tried to use LA as leverage. Instead, they have used other approaches. I just don't see the LA market as a significant enough to be used by an NFL team. Rather, there have been plenty of LA sports media tools who have started rumors about 5-10 teams moving to their city, right along since 1995. It started out with the Ravens moving to LA instead of Baltimore. Then it was Cinncinnati. Then it was Detroit. Then it was Minnesota. Then it was a whole slew of teams including the Dolphins. Then it was Buffalo in 2005, that was the strongest the rumor has ever been regarding us. More recently it was "the Rams are moving back". And now it's the Chargers. In other words, it's any port in the storm for these people, as long as they can continue to reinforce the delusion that their culture doesn't suck, and is worthy of an NFL team. Nope. I have just worked in LA and been to Anaheim often enough to know that they don't want an "NFL crowd" anywhere near them. And quite frankly, I wouldn't want to attend an NFL game in Anaheim. They would find a way to annoy me from the airport to the game and back. Even if I didn't have the personal experience, all I would have to do is pick up a paper, and read about the LA Dodgers mess. As I said: LA provides us an example that it's culture is ****ty every other day. You don't have to have lived and worked there to know that something is definitely, massively wrong in California in general, and LA and SF in particular. As always: I tell the truth and I don't care if people like it or not. If that makes me "right-of-center", then so be it. I am not worried about the delicate sensibilities of anyone who chooses to be an assclown, and/or keeps pushing 100 year old ideas that fail, and I never will be. And how long would that ruling last? How fast would it be appealed, and heard, by the appellate court? How much hell would Judge Cohen have to endure for making a rational decision? But that's not the interesting part here. The interesting part is that you did not reject the "mandatory interpretive dance alternative" issue on its face as being patently ridiculous, even though I am laying it on pretty thick with that example, and have given you multiple opportunities. And why? Because you know that while the concept itself is ridiculous, the likelihood for a court case coming to pass in which you friend will have to make a ruling on it? That's not ridiculous at all, is it? In fact, it's pretty darn likely in LA, isn't it? What is wrong with a culture where the possibility, never mind the likelihood, of forced interpretive dance this exists? You can say: "nothing". But as an NFL owner, I would say: "everything". You are way off base. Nothing of the above occurred. In fact I had a fine work experience and an even finer night/weekend experience while there. You will find that to be the case in almost all of the places I have lived and worked. It's very hard to make me not have a good time and get along with people I work with..... However, none of that changes the fact that my observational/information gathering skills don't turn themselves off. Even if I wanted to, I doubt I could stop myself from gathering info about a topic once it piques my interest. None of the fun times changes the amount or content of data that supports my position. Vitriol? You can't start fixing your problems if you won't admit that you have them, and everybody around you ignores them or buys into your delusion. I can either choose to ignore what I saw, and go on about my business, or, I can say "hey, you have a problem pal, and you'd better do something about it before it gets worse." I hardly think mine is the only voice currently shouting "LA, and Cali in general are completely F'ed"! right now. And again, even from so far away I am constantly being handed examples that attest to that fact via the media. Even if we threw out half the stories as sensationalism...the other half are pretty bad. Yet, what is being done about the loons that got LA/Cali into this mess? Nothing. It took 50 years to make the mess that is now California, and it started with toleration of loons. If the clean-up plan doesn't start with an immediate end to that toleration, it will fail. And back on point: no NFL team will move there. Uh, actually it's your turn to use google. You are looking to prove that there haven't been any real plans to put a team in LA over the last 16 years, and that nobody has spent any feasibility money on the effort. Good luck! I am using the NFL Europe, and other, behavior patterns. They could have done a lot of things with that. They just pulled the plug instead. Why wouldn't they do the same thing/hold the same standards, if not higher, since we are talking about a real NFL franchise? I would argue that the league already had parity before they joined, and that making the decision to join the league meant that you were also accepting the competitive disadvantages, along with the advantages. It's not anybody else's job to look into your business for you. These disadvantages were not withheld or distorted from the potential owner of the England team, nor were they deceived by the NFL about them, just the opposite. They knew what they would be going in, and the rest of the league isn't liable for their choices. Ultimately it should be the NFL, and not a single new team, that decides what is best for the NFL as a whole. IF the NFL wants to make special rules for the England team, so be it. Otherwise, we are back to "they won't be able to sign FAs". How is it inconsistent to call someone who has 0 potential to be anything other than malignantly self-involved...malignantly self-involved? How is it inconsistent to point to out a pattern of behavior and say: well, based on that, we know how they are going to act going forward? There is nothing "laid back" about leaving early. That is simply being passive aggressive, and/or, a douche with a completely Fed perspective, that, again, is a product of a completely Fed culture. It pre-supposes that somehow being at the game means you, personally, are being associated with the team, that somewhere, the score is being kept about your image, and that when the team loses, somehow your personal image suffers. I am not suggesting that anyone be happy about losing. I am saying that when people are obviously leaving so early so as to not only not be associated with the loss, but not even a few bad plays, as though anybody cares about them, or their image, or believes that a score is being kept...that this indicates a serious set of cultural problems. This set of problems is precisely the reason the NFL will not work in LA. If no one wants to take the chance that they might lose "image points" by going to the game...then no one will go to the game.

If I was an elected official, negotiating in good faith with my city's NFL owner, and either he or some NFL lawyer decided to pull a stunt like that on me? The press would find out 5 minutes later. Even if I lose the team, I still win the next 2 elections(thanks guys!), because I stuck up for my city and I get to contrast my city against the low-life NFL, owner, and LA politicians trying to extort "us". If I keep the team, the next time we have to negotiate, I guarantee you their asses will still be stinging from this time. It would be a major miscalculation on the NFL's part, and I would welcome it as a politician, because either way: I win. So, no, unless you are talking about weak/feeble minded politicians, I don't see how LA gives the NFL much leverage at all. Sure. But the difference is: my position has time on it's side. It's been nearly 16 years at least, we have gone through 3 Presidents, 4 Speakers of the House, 9/11, 2, soon to be 3 wars, and 2 recessions....and nobody has gotten past the feasibility stage of moving/creating a new team in LA. How much more potential for political/financial/socioeconomic climates to change do you require? Isn't it time to conclude: LA is simply a sucky football town where loons and dirtbags outnumber rational people 4 to 1? This isn't like the Cleveland Browns thing. It's just been too long. Baseball is not football. Nor is hockey or basketball. Football meets 8 times a year, and that's 40% of a team's revenue. It's all or nothing, especially when one considers the cost of doing business in LA vs. Buffalo, or Pittsburgh, etc. Football has a less tolerant business model. You can save a hockey/baseball season attendance-wise, because you have more time and games = margin for error. You miss 2 sell outs in a row in football and you are in big trouble. Nobody cares about 20k people going to-from an indoor stadium/baseball game. OTOH, 50k-80k people getting on the highway, especially in LA, is a major friggin problem. NIMBY is a concern yes, but that's only dealing the the rational people. The loons are going to be finding hoops for the team/city/stadium developer to jump through ad infinitum, and they will get help, not restraint, from the local politicians and judges. Which LA judge is going to rule AGAINST the mandatory interpretive dance alternative for those people that demand the "equality" of being able to attend the football game, but don't want to watch football? Which LA county/city legislator is going to vote AGAINST the law that says the stadium has to incur 5x the operating cost of other stadiums so that it can be "green", or vote AGAINST the law that says the concession stands cannot serve processed meat and/or fried foods? Which LA mayor/county executive is going to lock up the legions of protesters disrupting every game for one inane reason or another? The NFL is the NFL, which also means it's the NFL for every LA loon looking to attract attention for their retarded cause and/or force their totalitarian agenda on others and do so on a national scale. There were 15 years ago, and every 2 or so years we keep hearing rumors. You would have a point if we were only talking about 7 years, or even 10. We are not, so you don't. There have been serious efforts by people with serious money in the past, yet nothing. These guys don't just wake up one day and decide to drop $1.5 billion on a football team. No. Way before that, they drop $300k on a marketing study, $200k on political policy research and lobbyists, and on and on. There have been people who have spent that money, and they keep walking away before they start dropping the $1 million on architects or land/environmental studies. Nobody has gotten into anything that gets the idea out of the "paper phase". There has to be a reason for that, and the simplest explanation is: these potential owners don't like what the paper they pay for ends up telling them, so there's no point in dropping the bigger cash. As we have seen with the Toronto series, profit only takes a back seat to one thing in the NFL: brand. The second they think that a net negative effect will result from the series, they will turn on us like a mother in law, because we made the NFL look silly. Same thing is true for the England team. They almost have to make the playoff every year, and will have to win a SB at least once in the first 10 years, for that franchise to have any chance. In order to meet those requirements: they MUST sign FAs. That's how this league works now, like it or not. Wrong. I specifically said 3am because I was specifically referring to Monday and Sunday night games which tend to start around 8:30 EST, and 3 am body clock time would be around the start of the second half. The only way the England team becomes relevant, and therefore work, is if it is good. The good teams play those night games, they aren't going to screw up the rest of the league and their TV money, just for one team. Period. I understand your conditions, but, I don't think they will get past the competition committee, never mind the rest of the NFL. Why should one team get special consideration in a league that is supposed to be about parity? Again, LA fans are like Dolphin fans x2. Nothing sums it up better than that. In contrast to the rest of the country, WNY is also very laid back. Disposable sports income is a wash. These aren't valid comparisons. You cannot develop the same intensity for your team as NY people have for theirs if you have already left the stadium by the 2nd quarter. If you have a schitty culture where that's acceptable, then you have larger problems than no NFL team. This is what sticks it in Cowherd, etc. The reason they don't have a football team is: their culture sucks, and they know it. They will never admit it, but their culture is inferior to the rest of the country, and we are provided with examples every other day. The only reason that the Rams are gone, and the Dolphins aren't, is that the Dolphins have never been really bad for more than 2-3 years. IF Miami had ended up with Jim "Chris" Everett instead of Dan Marino, they would have been the Carolina Dolphins....decades ago.

I forgot about that part... Guess who would suddenly have a new found love for hockey...couched in some dopey story about ponds and kids and whatever.... ...if ESPN, and not NBC, had signed that big deal with the NHL. Until then the NBA will be "the superior league, in just about every way you can measure it".

This is like the infamous "we should have traded down" logic, as it suffers from the same inherent flaw: you have to have somewhere to trade down with/move the team to, that is actually a viable option. Otherwise, this discussion is pointless. We have been overtly, and covertly, threatened by the "move to LA" story since 1999, after it became clear that nobody was moving to LA, after the debacle that was the Raiders and Rams leaving within 2 years of each other. Consider: if we are to believe in the awesome economic potential of the LA market, and 2 NFL teams left it, then aren't we compelled to also believe that there must be some larger economic, and/or non-economic problems with LA that made St. Louis, and Oakland(of all places) more attractive? I ask all of you: what has changed since these teams left? My answer: absolutely nothing has made LA a better town for the NFL. Much has made it worse. LA is still an openly "hostile to the NFL" market politically, which is why both teams moved in the first place. LA fans are still the least likely to support a NFL franchise. Think Dolphin fan, then multiply by 2. LA is a place where people like Colin Cowherd and Ted Turner are considered "intellectuals". As long as that farce remains in place, no NFL owner will consider moving there. Think about it: These people are willing to treat George Clooney and Sean Penn as serious people when it comes to world events. What does that portend for the local NFL franchise? LA is a place that will create 1000 distractions re the team, the stadium, how the team is run, pay for low level employees, green initiatives and all the rest of the nonsense. It will take 3 years, and half a billion, just to get people to stop protesting the concession stand, for Pete's sake. What owner wants the 1000s of headaches LA is guaranteed to have: like meeting with the loons and promptly being forced to fund women's interpretive dance as "an alternative cultural choice for those people who deserve to be included in the fun of attending an NFL game, but are uncomfortable with the violence of football". <---you can laugh, but you know that the last one will happen. And here's what it will look like: at 6:18 LA is the only place in the country where football will probably be the 4th or 5th priority of the LA NFL team. Since LA, is well, LA, and Anaheim isn't an NFL town either....and since everywhere else already has an NFL team... there's really no place to go. England is a pipe dream. As in, whoever thinks that's viable is smoking crack. How many FA signings will the England team get? Yeah! I want to go to a country that makes me leave home and have to fly back on 6-10 hour flights for half the season and play football games at what my body is telling me is 3 am. Seattle already has this problem. What would a London team have? Get a grip! So, all of this amounts to nothing. The simple fact is that LA not having a team sticks in the craw of LA worshipers like Cowherd, which is why they will keep raising it as an issue. They can't stand that their city is considered, rightly, as being less than other cities. Cowherd, Rome, etc: Like it or not, there are too many loons in your town to make the NFL viable. Deal with it, or, clean up the political mess, and get control of the loons. Your choice. Any potential NFL owner didn't get all that money by being a fool, and LA being LA, moving there is foolish.

Right, and the guy I have gotten to know over the course of the last 4 years since moving to Buffalo is an out an out liar. He has every reason to craft this lie to fool me, since I am so important. In fact, the lie that he has been telling me is purposely designed to make me come to a message board and tell re-tell the lie, since all of you are so important. Yeah, all of that is a much more simple, and therefore, likely explanation than: there is a group of investors who have a plan to buy the Bills and keep them in Buffalo. Why bother lying to me? What possible purpose does it serve?

I would love to see that too, but, in order for the outcome of 80% of the those 3rd and 8s to NOT be "Wes Welker, 9 yard reception, 1st Down Patriots": 1. of course we need to have stopped the run on 1st and 2nd 2. we also needed to stop the "(insert Patriots TE), 12 yard reception, 1st Down Patriots" on 1st and 2nd, which means we have to have Safeties/nickel corners that can, and are allowed scheme-wise, to recognize and cover the damn TE seam routs that we haven't been able to cover, intentionally, for 10 years. 3. but most of all we need a slot corner who can cover Wes Welker, etc. long enough, especially on crossing routs, for Dareus, etc. to get on Brady, probably miss him the first time he steps to the right or left, but get him the on the second attempt. If we can't cover Patriot receivers and, now, running backs, giving Brady outs, then the "super improved" pass rush only means getting beat by 9-10 yard chunks instead of 30 yard chunks. Great, we only lose by 10 points instead of 30, but we still lose.

Yes, and while I appreciate the trolling potential of your down home country cookin' motif ... ...it doesn't make the application of "my college football conference is the best" to the Bills any less annoying. However, making fun of the transplanted foghorn leghorns we currently have running the Bills is funny, and I don't mind it, as long as it stays funny...meaning we start winning games. If we have to put up with the dropping of 'r's and 'g's while losing, then this goes from endearing to annoying "faster than a striped ass ape." Link here. I have no idea what that means, but I think it's hysterical.

When did you, cowherd, and the other retail assistant managers, become "intellectuals"? Yes, when I think cowherd...the word "intellectual" comes to mind. Not even close. Instead, cowherd is the wanna be intellectual. Cowherd is the guy who makes sure you notice he listens to classical music...but can't tell you the difference between measure and tempo and dynamics and/or how they are related, or practically, what makes a good allegro good. Or, he goes out of his way to make sure you know he knows what the words mean, but in doing so, talks through the entire piece. Cowherd is the guy that secretly uses all sorts of tactics to find any new/edgy word or concept that will soon be en vogue, and works hard to make sure that he too will be able to use it. Guys like this eavesdrop on the self-recognizing motley crew of otherwise strangers that you will find randomly "meeting" in most airport bars. They will never know us, because they aren't us. However, they do want to hear what we are talking about...so that they go can back to whatever wanna be group, at their wanna be company, and be the first to use "configuration vs. convention"(and that's an old one, for you wannabes) properly in a sentence....and sound smart. However, thank God for the cowherd intellectuals. Otherwise, I'd have a lot less people to make fun of here and elsewhere.

Pretty much what happens to me as well. Real work takes over, and you pay less and less attention to the radio.... ...until a pause occurs and is filled with Cowherd saying something like "USA WC soccer winning yesterday-->validates guys named Zack and their life choices".... and that's when it gets turned off. I have yet to hear anything insightful, or original, from cowherd. All he does is rile up the easily riled college football crowd. If they are dumb enough to fall for it, then more power to cowherd. After all, it is the duty of all trolls to troll the easily trolled. So, for me, cowherd is a mixed bag, that I mostly listen to unintentionally....

Again, Tom beats me to it. The frist reason The Big Lebowski hasn't reached the Airplane or Cadddyshack or Animal House level is: all those other movies are 20-30 years older. Spot Lebowski those 20 years and we'll see... The second reason is: Ted Turner's networks haven't gotten the hang of airing it yet. The downside for Lebowski is the the pervasive swearing. It's going to be difficult for them to show it 5x a summer on TBS/TNT, as was done with the other movies listed here. Ted Turner owes his career to these movies...and Conan, Red Dawn, the Rambo series, and any movie involving Lee Marvin, Chuck Norris, Stephen Segal or Jean Claude Van Damme.

Again, I agree. Somebody still has to make the call, and has to take the hit if it fails. This goes doubly so for an overly political entity like Obama. He had to know that if we failed, he had just Jimmy Cartered himself, and yet he did it anyway. Either that, or, he had a very good damage control plan waiting in the wings, or, the military/intel community did a hell of sales job starting last August. Most likely all those things and more. But, somebody has to make the call. Same was true for Bush. Same will be true for the next person.

Exactly. As I said in another thread, we will all be amazed at how many "life-long" pacifists will suddenly turn into war hawks over the next 1.5 years. These people couldn't be more phony. Perhaps they end up being made to look phony because they don't have any real guiding principles to begin with, other than a set of economic ones that have never worked long-term, and a psychological commitment to appearing "alternative" and therefore, "cool"? Where the hell is John Stewart/Michale Moore talking about killing an unarmed guy so sick that he's on medical marijuana? Where's the smug smiles while saying: "well, at least he did that right, but let's face it, Snookie could have got that one right too"? What? Are we supposed to the believe that the same jokes and comments they have been putting out for the last 10 years got unfunny now? And not 8 years ago?(When they actually did stop being funny)

Sure there is, because: 1. who gives a f? he did become a terrorist leader 2. other than an exercise in moral relativism, what possible value does pondering this add to anyone's life? Possible evidence that Adam is now attending Western Civ class in college now...and has some professor who favors theory/wishful thinking over reality? This is why I have reserved judgment on whether releasing the "we got a treasure trove of intelligence" thing was political hackery at its worst, or, whether it's a well-executed tactic. Is he also entitled to draw conclusions based on the facts we know? As in: we know that waterboarding had at least an indirect effect on this, if not a direct one? More evidence that Adam is now in college. He's learning that taking the phony moral superiority high ground in conversations makes you look cool. And, there is that "socially conscious" chick 2 rows down in Western Civ class he is trying to impress....so leave him alone DC Tom. Oh, look, the guy with a Marx photo is talking about war-mongering. Does it even matter that people like you have supported more war/killing of millions of innocents in history than anyone else? You can blow that "warmonger" appellation right out your totalitarian ass... We have more to fear from people like you, and every other National Socialist, or Marxist, etc., than we will ever have to fear from corporations. History, not social science wishful thinking, makes this clear. See? Here he goes again: supporting war, while claiming others are warmongers, one post later.Hysterical how many leftists are suddenly all bad-ass now that their President's campaign platform is going to be predicated on his use of military force. The same idiots who were all pacifists in 2003-7 and were isolationists as soon as the economy went south, are going to be war hawks from now until the election. Now that the #s have come back, and they realize that winning depends on it, and of course, their leaders have told them what to think/say, again . Corporate GreedTM is nothing compared to Leftist Power Hunger. Ask yourself: why have leftists been against every war we have ever fought except one(WWII)? And then ask: why were they against getting into that war until Germany attacked the USSR? And then ask: why are these same people suddenly open to war in general now? See? That's the difference between knowing your history...and knowing...what, exactly? Of course he does Tom: it's the cool thing now, everybody's doing it! Who cares about the disproportionate #s of inner city youth that will be sent to their deaths in a new war? (or the rest of the phony "moral" arguments they have been making since 2001) Obama's Presidency and the entire leftist agenda is on the line! They are are ready to throw off their "deep, moral commitment to pacifism" faster than a prom dress now that they think they can use military exigency as a political tool. I don't have a problem with President Obama on this one...I have a problem with the usual tactics from the usual suspects.