OCinBuffalo

Why? Because you: a.) found somebody to give a schit about the poorly constructed wedge issue you are trying to push? b.) think that your attempt at a wedge issue is actually working? c.) found somebody who disagrees with you? d.) are finally getting the attention you think you deserve, and single-handedly improving PPP by bringing "rational" discussion to it? e.) are getting all of the above? Your attempt at trying to make conservatives look bad with this is only backfiring. Perhaps you should move off of stem cells and onto a good wedge issue that will really be effective at making you look smart, conservatives look bad, and will actually help the people involved, like gay marriage! Yeah, that's a good one! Uhhh....wait a sec....you already tried this, you ended up looking stupid, conservatives looked principled, and 35 anti-gay marriage sate laws later, gay people got f'ed over and were sacrificed on your Altar of Hubris. Perhaps you should just stop trying to create lame wedge issues? I am sure gay people don't want any more "help" from the left. And, if I had Parkinson's Disease, I would be doing all I could to reject "help" from the Democratic Party, and especially the far-left. The best way to make stem cell research illegal for the next 50 years is to let the far-left be in charge of it.

No. Again, you are talking about 2 different groups of people...uh that's why the word "demographic" is being used here. The average Rush listener is older and more likely to have a job that allows them to listen to radio in the first place. Therefore, Limbaugh's demographics are determined a lot by default, rather than by design, before you we even get into content. It's only after we apply the defaults that, if you are honest, you realize that the people you are left with are likely to be: business owners, higher level white collar employees, truck drivers(business owners), etc. THEN we can say, "well, they sure as hell don't want to listen to whiny, liberal platitudes, now do they?" Hence, Rush = Epic Win, Air America = Epic Fail. Limbaugh is most guilty of knowing his audience better than anyone. Then, remember that we are talking about "entertainment" here, not "news". The fact that Limbaugh has an incredible talent to educate his audience on things like "how the Federal reserve works", or some other piece of government bureaucracy, in 5 minutes or less, doesn't mean that he's stops being an "entertainer" and starts being a serious news outlet. Seriously, Limbaugh could have been a great college professor if he had wanted. That's why he has the audience he does, and that's why they have stayed. If he was only a hack, and not also willing to fully explain, not only his positions, but their context and their relevance, his show would only be an hour, and would have died long ago. In contrast, I never learned a thing from watching Olbermann. In fact, there were many occasions when watching him where, given the same material, I could have done a better job attacking Republicans. My "FUTILITY" accusations are more about how bad they are at their jobs, not the quality of their ideas. It became a sort of game for me, which is the only thing that made it "entertaining". I think I may start doing the same thing with posts here. Should be good for a few lulz.

First of all, pissant, O'Reilly gave Obama credit from jump street for not overreacting and/or contravening the will of the people in Egypt. The fact that Obama is a dead stick, empty suit, and that this approach just happened to work out notwithstanding, O'Reilly still gave him credit. 1. O'Reilly not only admitted he was wrong about Iraq WMDs on air, multiple times, he also went after the people he had gotten the info from = CIA, Bush officials, etc. That's honorable, to say the least. 2. O'Reilly has consistently been indignant about every issue related to 9/11 to the point of annoyance, for me. He has been consistent on getting after OBL as he has been tough on the 9/11 charity money being mishandled. Your criticism here is inaccurate to the point of absurdity. 3-4. O'Reilly has always been a supporter of sending more troops to Afghanistan, and winning that war, whatever it takes, no matter what. He doesn't want that country to turn into another place where terrorists can find training grounds and support, and sees that happening as a huge threat to us. He is right. Again, your charges aren't even close to accurate and are absurd. 5. O'Reilly SPECIFICALLY did not support Mubarak at any point, ever. He specifically argued against Beck, and others, on this point. What you are saying here is the polar opposite of reality. Feel free to contradict me, but in the immortal words of Monty Python: "An argument isn't just contradiction". You won't convince anyone that you are right. Instead, you are convincing me that you should be banned as a wingnut. None of what you have posted here can be classified as an "opinion". These are outright lies, and you are the only outright liar here.

Right, would you say Hillary Clinton is an idiot as well? That quote that came from her "staff", right here. proves me right, and you silly, again. How's this for yet another example that Obama is The Great Deliberator? “Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.” He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretaries of State — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.” Disclaimers: 1. I bet the "He" in that originates from Bill Clinton. This is par for the Clinton course. Do you think that there's a coincidence with the 5 point drop in Obama's poll #s, and this statement coming out? I don't. Hillary may run again, and this makes a fine test balloon. 2. I acknowledge that, due to #1, and the fact that we are talking about a Clinton here, this is probably about "legacy" and repairing the Clinton "brand". But still, it's pretty accurate if we look at the results of Obama's "leadership". Yes, the world is now being led by the Arab League and France, of all people. The "leader of the free world" title that comes with "President of the United States" has been put in serious doubt by Obama.

I always make sense. The only difference is: you are making, if we take you at your word, an effort at modulating what you are willing to tolerate and/or listen to. It must be liberating for you to leave all that tolerant, yet intolerant, liberal hypocrisy behind. There are plenty of religious people I know and have worked with that are solid. Christ, most of the large consulting firms have a significant Mormon contingent. That's because Mormons are willing to work long hours when we have to without bitching, and you don't have to worry about them getting jammed up with vices. The consulting business doesn't suffer fools, or close-minded idiots, or ignorance for very long. If Mormons can be successful in it, then they can't be as foolish, close-minded and ignorant as the average liberal maintains. Also, most people have the same want to be every bit as compassionate as you. Most of us share your motives. The difference is: the wiser among us know, because we have seen it objectively, that the methods liberals think will be an effective way of translating that compassion into results either fails, or is actually a phony way to pay off their constituents for votes. I am not being cynical, I'm just describing the success record of liberal policy for the last 60 years in an historically accurate manner.

Taxes != solutions. Taxes != less problems. Therefore, more taxes != more solutions less taxes != less solutions more taxes != less problems less taxes != more problems more taxes != more problems less taxes != less problems Taxes have no bearing on the solutions to problems. Taxes may create their own problems, but they don't have any bearing on other problems. Example: Newark NJ spends 20k on each kid in school and has the worst performance, both teachers and kids, in the country. Taking money away from people because they have it does not: make the parents who suck at the job be better parents make the kids who have no examples at home, and no community to speak of, see value in either make the entire system hold kids to account, and enforce discipline when examples, and leadership, doesn't succeed in reaching them make the teachers who may have been good once, but are now just collecting a check, any more inspired to get back to doing their jobs(example: giving the old battle axe English, or whatever, teacher a raise is not going to make her suddenly be able to engross her students in Shakespeare. Dog food has more inspirational possibilities) make the principals have any power to fire the truly bad teacher, especially if they have tenure More tax money has 0 effect on any of the above problems, and these problems are the top root causes of the education problems in this country. So far every attempt at solving the problems above by throwing money at them has failed miserably. So, why is anyone talking about taxes, instead of talking about solutions to the problems above?

I can't believe any of you think the douchebaggery ...lybob listed above is going to have any positive effect for unions. Just the opposite. Every douchy move they make will come back at them, if there is a recall effort, and will be used to paint them as thugs and mercs. This doesn't help the public opinion of unions at all. It hurts it greatly instead = stupidity. Not to mention that they are setting up the rules of the game, which is: there are no rules. Playing a game with no rules, against Republicans, gets you one thing: beaten soundly. Example: Obama is suffering greatly now for the d-bag tactics Democrats chose to employ against Bush. Calls for "civility" from the left have been laughed at or ignored. If things are less civilized Democrats, you have the far-left people you let run wild to blame. And yourselves, of course, for not actually being the intellectual, rational people you keep telling everyone that you are. Even if they can get a recall, they still have to win it, and all this douchebaggery doesn't help them do that. But, if they want to continue to act like petulant children that's fine, I hope they have fun... ...but nobody is going to vote for "petulant children" instead of Gov. Scott Walker.

Same old story. Can't win at the ballot box, so you take it to the courts. Broken record for liberals. This is not like Obamacare, which is stricken with Constitutionality issues and was going to court the second it was committed to paper. No. This is "I lost an election, and now I am going to get lawyers to try to get me out of the consequences". There is nothing legally wrong with a state government putting limits on the powers of its employees. The "massive conflict of interest" argument alone sinks any lawsuit. It's simple: I'd walk into the court and say "Your honor, if this was a hearing about how much you got paid, and your benefits, you'd have to recuse yourself. Why in God's name then, should other state employees get to decide what they get paid, but not you? Do you have less rights than they do? Are they "more equal" under the law than you are?" Case dismissed. I love it when Democrats like Hedd talk about wanting "Democracy", but, only when it suits them and/or their agenda. The recall thing is a pipe dream. First of all, it's not going to happen this year. And between now and 10 months from now, if the economy picks up even a little bit, or it can be reasonably argued that Wisconsin is better off, you can forget about it. Like I said, time for the unions to stop denying reality, to start the damage control, and to start getting serious about making a national deal with all the states.If not, this is going to turn into whack-a-mole as more and more governors realize that they can beat the unions at their own demagoguery game.

Oh, look, somebody calling ...lybob stupid, again.

Edit: There's 0 doubt that religion has been used by leaders to control people. There is also no doubt that religion itself has sought to control leaders, and people. What's interesting is: it is possible to use anti-religion to control people, leaders, etc? Are the anti-religious just as likely to use their dogma for the purposes of control and abuse? I actually had the unfortunate experience of being stuck in a car for 2 hours with a guy who thinks that the reason for the 1st Amendment was to keep government out of religion. Seriously. I quoted English history, and everything else that are in fact the reasons why the intention was to keep the church out of the affairs of government. To no effect. Here I was, with an extensive knowledge of the entire history evolution of this concept, dealing with someone who had gotten the entire thing backward. It was like riding in a car with a space marine from Warhammer 40,000. The funny part is: you are expecting me to say that this guy was religious. He wasn't. In fact he was racist, classless, and an "English people are the best ever" guy, but he certainly wasn't religious. So, keep in mind that religion is not the only source of unfettered ignorance. Belief in what your father taught you, or didn't teach you, can be just as bad as religion. For that matter, unquestioning belief in what your college professor taught you, or didn't teach you, can be worse than religion, because s/he's supposed to know better.

Let me ask this obvious question. What the f does everybody think happened to Western New York, and everywhere else in New York that isn't NYC, other than public-sector unions, entitlement leeches and their corrupted politician enablers? Upstate New York has been in "recession" mode for 10 years. Do any of you realize how this state got so many Medicaid people over the last 30 years? They moved here. From all over. Why? Because Federal law says Medicaid = Mac and Cheese. But, New York, in the infinite wisdom of it's mostly liberal leaders, decided to serve filet mingon. So, poor people form everywhere slowly started moving here. Over the last 30 years we have taxed away all of our job creators and brought in legions of entitlement mouths to feed, based on hubris and sheer stupidity. Now, we have all these non-functional people, out of control unions, 0 accountability for bad parenting, and some want to know why Medicaid is bankrupting the state, and we can't get our solid kids, or new businesses to stay here? Are you dense?

Which would make sense, but of course doesn't. Partially because this analysis is coming from you, and, partially because it is people like you who have been blocking every single nuclear facility project for the last 30 years. How exactly are we supposed to improve technology that doesn't exist, because you won't let us build it anywhere? 1. Then apply that thinking to Obamacare, and tell me how in the hell you support it. It is something we are supposed to take fully on faith, with 0 supporting evidence, and is the most egregious violation of "have responsibility for yourself" by the government, ever. 2. I don't like people who try to force their arbitrary morals, or anything, on people either: this is why I reject this misguided "progressive" horsechit equally as much as I reject any bible thumper's delusions of grandeur, and you should too. Yes, if Dexter is involved, somehow we have to make environtology just one more front for the Jews trying to take over the world. Like when you realize that there are Lyndon LaRoche people in between you and the rental car booths, and there's no way around them, and they purposely obstruct you? That's Dexter's new name: Dexter LaRoche.

Ain't this the truth. I have to endure 3-4 "But..but..but..Glenn Beck said this!" idiotic arguments a month. I believe we can put this to bed finally. Simply ask: "why the f do people who supposedly hate a network know way more about it than it's supposed audience, and why do these same people keep propagating something they are supposed to hate? Are you all stupid, or insane? You are the ones complaining about Fox's existence, yet you are the ones directly contributing to that existence by never shutting up about it, everywhere. And you dare come talk to me, who only watches Brett Baier, and O'Reilly on occasion, and want me to defend things/people I don't care about? This is retarded, and besides, the Sabres game is back on." It's as though they think people have FOX running in the background 24/7, and, as though it's not possible to like O'Reilly and Baier but hate Hannity or Beck, and, as though we all have the time to watch these shows every day, for 8 hours a day. Don't forget about the hail...that turned my rental car into a golfball 3 or 4 times. Always get the insurance on rental cars, period, but especially get it in Dallas and San Antonio in the fall and spring. Personally, I think the amount of homegrown female talent in the Dallas/Ft Worth area, and that the area seems to draw all the talent from neighboring states...has no bearing on the success of Texas on the whole at all. Nah, nobody likes being completely distracted by an entire lunch filled with hotties. It's bad for business!

You can call me names and cast aspersions all day: it doesn't make me any less right. You can wish that more people agreed with you as well. But, understand, that you belong to a group whose % of the American people(liberals) = the % of people who believe in alien abduction. Therefore, I'd be careful who I called crackpot.

Does it matter to anyone here that this entire story was a complete sham? The man's name was on anti-terror legislation for Pete's sake. Nobody accused this man of anything other than being the hero he was. Christ, it's like the historical facts don't matter at all. Well, sort of. Leave it to Gene to miss the point, and get the history wrong. There's nothing wrong with ideology, and thinking whatever you want, as a private citizen. However, everything is wrong with acting on that thinking when acting means subverting the USA in order to further Communism, or any ideology that is contrary to the US Constitution. The State Department and other departments employees take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The USSR's files prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that many of these people actively and consistently broke that oath. And, yes, they should be tried as traitors, and punished accordingly. They made choices, and those choices have consequences. The McCarthy thing was perhaps the poorest method of acting on good motives in the history of the country. He was an idiot, period. So was Roy Cohn. In the end, both got what they deserved, especially Cohn. However, according to Gene, we are supposed to tolerate spies in this country, for no other reason than: they have a different ideology.

I said: we'll see....if I am right, are you going to admit it? No. So, why should we care what you say, now, about something you will never admit to, then?

Let's attempt to put a nice cap on this thread. 1. The unions lost here, and all BS aside, this one is over. Recalling the governor can't start until next year. No way. No chance. This is over, now. The worst thing the unions can do is allow this to continue, on any level, because it only erodes the public's opinion of these unions, and either helps or has no effect on their opposition. The only people who will continue this = wingnuts = will make fine poster children for the anti-union crowd. The unions need to either reign in the remaining protesters, or disavow them totally. 2. The unions need to acknowledge just how fast this can turn into a un-winnable game of "whack-a-mole" for them. If 3, and then 6, then 12 states are all doing Wisconsin-like legislation all at once, then the unions will be faced with impossible choices, and will lose severely. 3. So, do unions want to lose big later, or lose medium now? There is no win, and there is no lose little for these unions. As I have said before, public opinion is the only thing that makes toleration of unions, in their current form, possible. Public opinion is rapidly moving from "don't agree, but willing to work something out with you" to "don't care what happens to you, now go home". The new report that says 82% of public schools get "failing" grades does not help at all. The public worker unions need to make a deal now, nationally, before the public completely stops caring what happens to them, shortly followed by every governor in the country, especially the Democratic ones, publicly opening a can of whoopass. My prediction: the egomaniacs who run the unions (see: "It's not about the kids, it's about our power") will fight, and lose. We'll see....

Ok pissant. You refer to FOX as though it's a single uniformly thinking entity. This is not the case. O'Reilly was in direct contradiction to everything you have attributed to "Fox" here, for the entire time. So were many of the news contributors, pundits, etc. In fact, of the news outlets, FOX was the ONLY one that offered a consistent debate on these issues, and recognized that it was a difficult situation for all involved. Everybody else was contradicting themselves, sometimes 2 times in the same day, doing their best to report the Obama message. This was exceedingly difficult, hence the contradictions, as Obama's message was never clear or consistent. This is currently happening, all over again, with Libya. Nobody has any idea WTF Obama is saying, or what he stands for, because at any given time that could change. This is what happens when you put a deliberator, instead of "decider", or leader, in office. I can back up everything I am saying. You can't.

No, quite the opposite. OC's existence on the plains of PPP is to hunt buftexes. In fact, if he doesn't hunt buftexes then he loses his essence(interest) and drifts towards the annoying abyss(go back to debugging this new thing I am working on).

Yes, we have mythology. The first myth is: buftex is not a PPPer. In fact the mythical buftex beast spent plenty of its time here, long ago, before the days of Obamafail. There were lots of buftex roaming the open plains of PPP, copulating, and breeding stupid assertions like: "of course Obama will close GITMO" "Obama will be great because of his executive experience running the campaign" But then, the skies grew dark, and the Obamafail began. Suddenly many of the buftex died out, or were seen running away with their asses on fire. You saw a buftex type something in a thread...then, in a vain attempt to halt the Obamafail, somebody from the Obamastration would proclaim something from Mt. Hubris...and you'd never see that buftex again. Over and over, the buftex died off, such that there are very few buftex left on PPP. Until the days of Obamafail are over(or, the Republican nominee is announced) there will be no buftex for the PPP hunters to slay.

Oh christ, here we go... convene the Jedi council! amazingly, there will be 3 page posts in this thread, and nobody will compare about length! somebody go get GG! Just brushing aside all benefit of the doubt in absolute terms. Nice.

Unfortunately our penchant for taking easy shots at the buffoon, I mean buftex, washed out this question, which has much more potential for humorous exploitation: [You said people weren't forced to buy houses] Hmm. I wonder who Dave would blame if there is ever a health care bubble, and Obamacare is allowed to stand as is? I have the feeling that Dave's head will fly off his body, like in that bad Mars move, trying to spin these divergent story arcs.

so...how does demonstrating that Bill Maher called it in 2005...prove that Tom didn't say the same thing(to the month, don't forget he has claimed "to the month!")? Is this sorta like running back the kickoff after the other team scores a touchdown? I have bad news. Tom appears to be on his own team, and therefore Tom scoring doesn't mean you are losing. Conversely, Maher scoring has nothing to do with Tom, me, or anything that could be considered a rational response. Wait a minute...you're still stuck on "NFL is like the real world, because....uh" Aren't you.

I can vouch for some of, not all, the posts that indicated that there would be trouble. I remember thinking: how the f does he know this stuff, and why the f does he bother? I think it had to do with him buying a house recently or whatever.

Hmm. I wonder who Dave would blame if there is ever a health care bubble, and Obamacare is allowed to stand as is?