OCinBuffalo

Oh this is just great. You can't leave the religious people alone, can you Gene? Who the F is talking religion at this point in the thread? Yet, who decides to bring it up? Man, you have to get over this, you are being exactly as intolerant as you claim the people you are clearly bigoted against of being. That's right, I'm calling you out as a bigot, because you are. I am also calling you a hypocrite, as you have demonstrated that clearly in this post. While we are on the topic of "feeling" things and not backing them up with a single shred of evidence, let's apply Frenklespeak to Frenkle: [Frenklespeak] I feel that Gene Frenkle likes to put his thing into little boys - he may deny it until he's blue in the face, but, it's my "feeling", and my affected brain tells me I am allowed to cast ridiculous aspersions on total strangers. So therefore, you can't argue with me, because not only have I not constructed an argument, I haven't bothered to present any facts to support it. It's just my "feeling". [/Frenklespeak] So, Gene, please stop having sex with boys, because we all know that your demographics means you like to put your thing in them.

Gene = Serial Hypocrite...but not now, since Gene has suddenly become a moderate.

And here's another example of you spamming unoriginal, pointless and vapid content on this board, while at the same time being totally incapable of refuting a single point that I made. You really can't hang with me, can you? You're not just an idiot, you're pathetic.

As a recruited athlete, I can certainly attest to the fact that these stories are hardly news. Take every story you hear about this, double it in scope and scale, and you begin to approach my experience. I was recruited in 2 sports, and I got away with murder precisely because I wasn't recruited for football. I went on 11 D1 recruiting trips, and 5 D3, without so much as a whimper.(the rule was 5, total) These trips were everything you read about and in many cases much worse. I stayed for 3 days more often than not. I got all kinds of free stuff. The only place where I didn't get over was Army, and that is due to Jack Emmer being Jack Emmer,much more than anything else. The fact is that winning = $$$. When everybody get's done babbling out their phony moral outrage based on their phony moral superiority, the fact remains that investing in proven winners is good business for universities, regardless of the sport. IF that wasn't the case, you would see more than one(1) college professor at Indiana making this a real issue. And, if you were a 17 year old high school senior, and some coach says "do you want to spend the weekend with mom, or with your new team?", you choose team, every time. The best part is: given Title 9, you never hear about what the girls get. Now, that's a story worth writing, and reading. In terms of cash brought in vs. cash going out, never mind pure contempt for the NCAA rules. Any comparison of female athletes to male football players is ludicrous, even if you only base it on sheer #s of violations.

You aren't dealing with a person, you are dealing with a web service that delivers spam content to message boards, via cut and paste. Kinda similar to ,,,lybob --- ...lybob, the quotes you posted made me howl laughing at your ineptitude. Again, you prove you can't hang with this board. Cutting and pasting? Please. I suppose the context of America, both as a country and an idea, hasn't changed one bit since Jefferson? Ok, then if that's the case, ALL income tax should be repealed immediately, and 5 departments of the government should be immediately shut down, with 4 others being gutted severely. Oh? You don't like that do you? Why not? In fact, 100% of public employee unions would need to be eradicated...if we simply apply the Jefferson quotes you posted(and more noticeably, the ones you FAILED to post). The "Corporations" that challenge the sovereign power of the US government should be contained and not subsidized, that's what I support. Why don't you ask your boy Obama why he keeps funding corporate welfare? I don't support it, because I am a classic liberal like(which doesn't mean "the exact same") Jefferson, or libertarian. Apparently, you do support corporate handouts. GM should have failed, and the government should have had nothing to do with it. How about this: Your boy Obama is out desperately trying to form alliances right now. Not very Jeffersonian huh? But wait a minute, not everything we say early in life, remains something we agree and/or act upon later. IF you actually knew an real history on Jefferson, and didn't just copy/paste some spam from a Democratic hack site or a wiki, you'd know how stupid posting his quotes from the time he spent in France during their revolution without the context of his actions as President was. The fact is that you have no idea if Jefferson made alliances or not, and that's hysterical. But, because once again you demonstrate the standard ignorance of a typical liberal: you don't actually know anything yourself, you only know where the propaganda trough is, and you go lap it up and then post it here. You don't seem to understand what I wrote, and I'm not going to write it again, so, feel free to re-read it, and try actually comprehending it this time.

Thread ender...because even if he knows what these things are, and of course it's not like he will learn them if he doesn't, there's no way he will expend the effort to complete them. Even if he does know, and does put out the effort, the results makes him wrong. Now, if you add the logistical support provided by a supply line from the sea, to Iran's border, provided by bases in Iraq and Kuwait, and couple that with the flyover rights we have in Pakistan...suddenly a lot more becomes feasible..... I think it's hysterical that people keep trying to separate Afghanistan and Iraq as though they are different wars.

Hi, my name is Occam, and here is my razor! --- The notion that I support anything other than a Jeffersonian approach to all political, and potentially political, issues, is retarded and therefore, laughable. I am a classic liberal in the true definition of the word. I know better than to give government, of any stripe, the benefit of the doubt, and, I distrust any government agency whose primary job is to dole out assistance to individuals, rather than having it's scope limited to the country as a whole. Notice the simplicity, yet consistency, of the above. That's why I support the Coast Guard but detest Medicare. However, I am also an adult. My adulthood means that I understand that sometimes you have to do things that you don't want to do, and/or that go against what you believe, because, there is some other, more serious and immediate thing that requires atypical thought and action. Dexter's childish approach, or, that of the person impersonating conservatives using Dexter's handle, requires that there are never any exceptions to any rules, and that we should put our faith in ideology rather than the people, as individuals or on the whole. Both Jefferson, and I, have a serious problem with that.

I suppose none of you have considered the fact that regardless of whether these planned protests are real, or contrived(<--um, reality), the Republicans have exactly 0 motivation to respond to them. In fact, the Republicans have every reason to welcome them because regardless of whether they are real or contrived, they can negotiate based on "the will of the people...look at them in the streets"! Democrats don't seem to realize that: dissension on the right is a good thing for the right, because it energizes the TEA party, and they scare the crap out of the moderates, which in turns makes them less likely to sign up for a weak deal. however, dissension on the left is a terrible thing, because, it demoralizes both the moderates and the far-left, because a Democrat is in the WH. Obama was set up as a Messiah, and he isn't. "Green Jobs" and "Shovel-Ready Jobs" and Obamacare were sold as "not the same old theoretical liberal intellectual, wishful thinking, but practical solutions to problems", and they aren't. There are still the socialist-type Dems who won't admit they were wrong, and, the moderate-type Dems that are pissed at them for that, and for being duped into buying the stupid far-left ideas of professors from Berkley, again. The little, "turtle-without-a-shell" types like Kucinich only serve to exacerbate these divisions, so if he or another easily squishable candidate like Feingold runs, Obama is done. Hillary is the only real chance the Dems have of keeping the Whitehouse. Otherwise, "not Obama" will get elected, just like "not Bush" did. No. Hillary Clinton/Bill Richardson was the much better choice, and a choice that would have guaranteed a second term. Unfortunately, Democrats decided to let the far-left be in charge of picking their nominee, and you know what happens Gene, when you let the far left be in charge, right?

IF that was all the unions wanted: stability and maintenance of the status quo, then fine. But, they have yet to prove this to anyone. And, the Federal Government has taken over almost all of the union's job: OSHA, FDA, DoD, FTC, NLRB, etc. We have institutionalized the jobs unions used to do, so why are they necessary? IMHO, you need to make a choice: either get rid of these Federal institutions, or, get rid of the unions. I am for getting rid of the institutions, because I want unions to have the flexibility of working to reward people in good times, and tighten up in bad, and to be able to negotiate things specific to the businesses with whom they are dealing. It does neither labor, or management, any good to have a third class of people, i.e. "government OSHA employee" who can cost both money and time, without adding anything to the equation for anybody. You will find this same issue in many forms, in many different industries. I am pro-"old school" union. Where you had to earn your card, and not everybody was allowed to join. I am also for "right to work". IF the union isn't doing the job, then the best workers should have the right to leave the union, and make their own separate deal with management, without fear of reprisal.

GG says we haven't made fun of Canadians yet...and you open the door? See Marauder? You may be a lot of things: idiotic, unoriginal, naive, incapable of defending your position on anything... but badass? No. Uh, OK, as long as you realize that, to be historically accurate, you two will have to have a TON of gay sex. Estimates vary, but you may end up having to have gay sex about 70% of the time at your meetings. Who knows? Perhaps that's what Dexter is after? If he's being honest, and he really is what he posts, then totalitarianism, wearing a brown shirt, and getting sweaty with a bunch of other guys, is probably right up his alley. If he's fake, and he really is a progressive trying to make conservatives look bad, then totalitarianism, wearing a brown shirt, and getting sweaty with a bunch of other guys, is probably right up his alley.

This is participatory, living thread based on decision support principles. As such, it will probably be fairly interesting, or will fall flat on it's face. In any event, I will modify any of the components of it per your suggestions, if you can make a convincing case to those who choose to participate in it...usefully. The premises: Every draft pick carries with it a certain amount of risk. Some positional picks are more risky than others. Using a #3 pick on a QB is more risky than on an interior DL. Reason: Interior DL is more about measureables than "intangibles", and, there are less things to measure. Using a #3 pick on a QB is more unsettling to the team as a whole, than using it on an interior DL. It's more difficult for a #3 draft pick QB, who is expected to compete for, and win, the starting job right away, to make the transition in less than a year, than it is for them to come on the team as a rookie, learn and grow with the rest of the rookies, develop relationships with the other players an coaches, and then start later. On the other hand, a DL doesn't have the same pressure as it relates to how he gets along with the rest of the entire team. To be a playoff-caliber team, you have to get solid hits on your #1 and #2 draft picks at least 80% of the time. To be a playoff-caliber team, you want to get a starter out of your #3 picks as often as possible. So, a #3 is supposed to be a good pick, but not a great one. We already have a solid QB starter. He may not be the franchise, win the SB QB, but Fitz doesn't lack talent, heart, or balls to throw the ball into tough spots, or stand in and take a hit. Therefore, right now the QB job is Fitz's to lose, not an open competition. (The stuff in parentheses is only here for explanation purposes, and isn't part of the "idea". In this case, if you don't agree with any of the above premises, then tell us why. Modifying the premises means modifying the rest of it, which I am willing to do if you can make a reasonable case to everybody else.) The method: 1. Publicly state that you are going to draft 3 #3 QBs over the course of the next 3 drafts, and only these 3, and draft accordingly. 2. Sign Fitz to a long term(5 years?) contract for reasonable terms asap. 3. Hold an open competition each training camp for the backup positions, while always maintaining that it is Fitz's job to lose. 4. At the end of training camp in year 4, either select one of the draftees to replace Fitz as the starter and trade him, or release/trade one of the draftees. Hopefully there is enough value in the QBs, or Fitz, to trade one of them. (The method is based on the premises. This way, the draftees know the score, the fans, media, other teams, everybody knows exactly what to expect going in. We are using picks that are supposed to represent good, not great players, but, we are using 3 of them in a row. It also means that you are mitigating your risk by using high picks on less risky positions. If you think the method should be changed, make sure you based your changes on the premises, or modified premises so we can avoid chaos.) I conclude that this is a good way to mitigate risk, improve the team as a whole, while not putting everything on the shoulders of a 22 year old kid, diversifying our assets(draft picks) in a way that is likely to protect us from a single, all or nothing pick, and bring in a largely solid return on all the picks in total. Or, I could be completely full of crap.

Nothing, for us. But, it does support the conclusion that Dexter lives in Florida and is some low level employee who gets ordered about and abused by elderly Jews all day long. Hope that helps. ( I have this client who loves to end emails this way, and it's irksome, so now I'm doing it to you. )

Sometimes. But, then again, crayonz is often a parody of the entire board itself. For example, crayonz doesn't explain how he knew the guy was Mormon. So, why throw that in there? Now, go looking for threads where anybody mentions Mormons recently...or sending employees to the store, or having employees in general, or organic food, or pretentious people, etc., and Viola! Now you may have some of the salient details that will be in the next crayonz thread. Not saying crayonz is without talent....

Sure. Right. You are all about arbitrarily invading people's privacy and persecuting them for their religious beliefs... ...but don't want to hold other people to the same standards for their non-religious beliefs(i.e. having 4 bastard kids from different fathers being OK is surely not a religious belief), and/or, you don't want to come up with realistic solutions about what to do with the 4 bastards. That's why I want a "on your ass every day for the next 18 years" approach, because that is a serious consequence. The reason the foster system is the mess it is: no REAL accountability for people who like to F around and do drugs. We have not only tolerated this behavior, we have encouraged it, by paying for the consequences. Thank you, LBJ. That's why the Founding Fathers were smart to talk in terms of what government isn't allowed to do, rather than what it is allowed. We have gotten into trouble by listening to people who talk in terms of what "your country can do for you".

I wonder if any of the idiots realize that: 1. "Neo-cons" used to be liberals(and, yes, some of them are Jewish, and now Dexter will run his mouth ). They realized that other liberals were too limp in the wrist, and other places, to deal effectively with the USSR and Islamic terror. So, they left the Democratic party and joined the Republicans. Hence the word "neo-con" or, NEW Conservative. You have to have been something else, if you are NEWLY a Conservative. This is why politically astute liberals are so pissed at them. And, they were able to whip up the dumbasses to rile against a word few of them even understand: Neo-con. Dexter is a fine example of one of these dumbasses. Unfortunately, Neo-cons didn't lose any of their big-spending progressive views in their transition. So, since the Bush Administration was largely supported by Neo-cons and the religious people, while the libertarians were more in support of McCain, why is anyone shocked that Bush: a. attacked countries, and sent tons of aid to anti-Communists in South America. b. spent a lot of money in the process, and spent lots of money on other things as well ????? WTF? Neo-cons acting exactly as Neo-cons believe. Where's the big f'ing revelation here? Dexter: do you think you are Jesus, revealing to all us lesser mortals, fundamental truths we don't already know? 2. Libertarian Conservative types have little if anything to do with Neo-cons. The Milton Freidman people and the Buckley types want to spend money on the military to use it as a deterrent, but they don't want to actually use it. It's simple math, hopefully spending $5 on the military now, means not having to spend $20 on a war later. The only reason we did Desert Storm under an old school Republican was: the Saudis said they would pay for it. 3. Conversely, liberals want to spend little on the military, but want to send it all over the world, as a peacekeeping force and/or an armed Peace Corps. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to buck this trend, WRT the Balkans, in 50 years. We tried this during those 50 years, and failed miserably. Some liberals came to the conclusion that it was time to move on and became: Neo-Cons. It's important to have opinions, but it's also important to know what the words you are using actually mean.

I see my post had the desired effect. You argue for choice, but then argue against the consequences of giving people choice. At the same time, you argue against people using some arbitrary, external, sweeping force, like religion, to make their choices for them...but, then you argue that the consequences of making religion-based choices, should be enforced by some arbitrary, external, sweeping force? I am highly entertained by this.

Regarding the video, I am happy it was posted, because it does 2 things: 1. It exposes every progressive who isn't in lock step with this guy as a hypocrite. "Libya has oil, therefore, this war is only about oil, and NATO is attacking innocent civilians over oil." IF you don't 100% agree with that statement, then you are a hypocrite, because that is the exact argument that was used by you, and all progressives, with Iraq. Any potential gain we might make from a free Libya, is exactly as likely and beneficial, as any we might make from a free Iraq. Khadafi is killing his own people, so what? So was Saddam. Khadafi supports terrorism, so what? So did Saddam. You are the ones who started the absolutist thinking on this: now sleep in your own absolutist, "no blood for oil" bed. 2. It exposes this guy, and the far-left, as the nuts they are. "Bombing doesn't save civilian lives". :lol: Yes, we won WWII, thereby liberating millions of innocent civilians, but we didn't use one single bomb. Nope. Or, bombing civilians is ok if they are Germans or Japanese, or have a political agenda that isn't Communist, but if you bomb anybody else, you are evil. You have to love it when these idiots open their mouths. One thing I will say: at least this guy isn't a phony. He is surely out of his mind: I went to his website. I am not going to link it because he's bragging about his traffic(which is a spurious claim), and I don't want to give him any. But, he is not phony. This is what the far-left actually believes, and you wonder why I say they shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of anything? Or, after countless examples, do you finally get it?

Are you shitting me? Most people have negative knowledge, as in less than 0, about the Civil War, and especially the main characters in it. Remember when people on this board were trying to say that Lincoln would be a Democrat today? Like I said, less than 0. Is their a better example of the victors writing history, and then the liberals turning it into a cartoon, than "we invaded the South so we could liberate the slaves!" [jagoff liberal Civil War "history"] Nah, tariffs on manufactured goods from England and France had no bearing on the South's decision to secede. In fact, what really happened was the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order that freed all the slaves in every state, and was signed in January of 1861, two weeks after Lincoln took office, and the South seceded right after. The North had no choice but to invade, and everybody listened to the intellectual Radical Republicans, because they were the smartest people. Meanwhile, the South seceded because they are racist hicks, just like they are now. [/jagoff liberal Civil War "history"]

Interesting... If we extend this thinking: If you are pro choice for whatever reason, and you have a baby, but it is doubtful you can take care of it = no job, under 21, no husband, etc., you should have to go before a judge every two weeks and file, and then defend, a status report on that baby until it turns 18. If your actions aren't acceptable, the judge can order you to make whatever corrections are appropriate, or lose the baby/go to jail. After all, you made a choice, and you must accept the consequences of that choice. It was your will. You want choices? Deal with the consequences of making them. If you are pro choice due to political beliefs, but don't have a baby, or, can take care of it, you still have to support the above to the letter. You want choices for other people, and therefore, you have to deal with the consequences of those choices on society as a whole. After all, supporting unwed mothers popping out 4 kids from different daddies has a serious effect on society as a whole. Or, we can accept that absolutist thinking on this issue isn't effective, and persecuting people for their political beliefs is retarded. For example, what happens if you are pro-choice, but also religious, and actively participate in abstinence education, do you still get your shots?

This, or something pretty similar, is going to be the takeaway from this for 80% of Americans, unless somebody in the union's political office gets off their ass and rights the ship. They are being politically foolish, and not taking the current political realities into account. ...lybob cannot hang with anyone on this board. While he is a relative rookie, there is little we have seen that is likely to change this status. The difference is: some of us don't know they are misrepresenting things some of us aren't capable of misrepresenting things some of us purposely misrepresent things because they are hacks and, some of us purposely misrepresent things because it's highly entertaining to watch a poster, currently arguing against you struggle, and not realize that you are purposely giving them ways to attack your position, but they can't, because they actually don't know the issue at all and/or they are an unmitigated moron. How is bankrupting a state, by demanding money the state cannot pay unless the economy is booming... ...an example of not F ing over the country? Even if we were to believe all your false assertions about corporations, how does their bad behavior justify the bad behavior of the unions? Moreover, shouldn't we be about making sure NOBODY gets away with bad behavior? Why are you criticizing(dubiously at best) one set of behavior, and rationalizing another? Unless I am mistaken, pBills is lawyer. IIRC, and there's no way I am doing a post search, he does disability/SSI, or something like that, and I seem to recall that he definitely has a horse in this race professionally. So, yeah, your concerns about pBills objectivity, and credibility, are more than likely justified. I'm not saying that pBills isn't allowed to look out for his interests. We all must. I have no problem with it, as long as pBills doesn't pretend that he has no personal stake in the game.

So you admit to everything I posted above, and that you intend to start 48 other threads about this... ...and you are wondering why I am telling you to cut the schit in my sig? You have no talent for this kind of thing, time to move on.

If a attention starved, pseudo-intellectual poster starts 10 posts about the same issue nobody really cares about in a month, can we ban them for spamming the board?

Whatever, the fact is that as time goes on, I will continue to be right, and you continue to be wrong. This will be true over a series of issues going forward. Enjoy!

So I am not equal to Obsessively Crotchety? Because that's what you wrote above, moron. Not only are you unable to argue against anything I post, both because I am right, and you are a moron, but, you can't even get your insults right? Hysterical.

I like this pick, a lot. We need more players that were playing the position we want them to play here in college. I am done with converting players from one position to another(see: Maybin), doubly so with our #1 pick in the draft. This point is made even finer by the fact that we are talking defensive line here. We need run stopping 3-4 ends who can hold the edge of the line and let the LBs make plays, or better, tackle the back themselves. This guy does that. We need a 3-4 end, then let's draft a 3-4 end. Not a 4-3 tackle that doesn't have the feet or the hands to play end, and try to "coach him up in the off-season". I don't care about this kid being suspended for 2 games. You can't expect a 20 year old kid to understand who he can talk to, and who he can't, when nobody seems to be able to define that rule consistently, and, nobody seems willing to follow it, or follow it the same as everybody else. Besides, talking to an agent means this kid wants to play this game, not drink beers, chase tail, etc. I would be very happy with this pick, as it directly addresses problem #1 for the Bills: stopping the run.