OCinBuffalo

I may be wrong about the drink, but not the timestamp of your post...."Posted 05 March 2011 - 04:40 AM". Check it. So there. Are you really on the West Coast, or was I exactly right, and did you blast in from the croc and reply? Btw, I drink it all, love it all. The only thing I don't like is Jaeger...but that doesn't mean I will turn one down if you are buying. Also, please tell birdog that you are a wickedly biased liberal member of the media. He seems to think you don't exist. You, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny...all myths! Also, also, how funny is it that you dredged up this thread a few days ago, and NPR gets seriously punked a few days later? I think that's weird, and hysterical. Hey wawrow: one last thing, "How's that calling the T.E.A. party racist working out for you?" Think you'll make that your central strategy in 2012?

Your neighbhor's kid plays soccer in Wisconsin? But lives in Norfolk? Or, is there a Norfolk, Wisconsin? Also, it would be fair to say, that the middle class, who are mostly conservative/independent, are also "trash"? Fun how liberals claim to love and defend the middle class, yet, whenever the middle class dares to think for itself, instantly they are: trash. The mortgages were FORCED on the mortgage industry by BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERALS WHO WANTED TO PUT PEOPLE IN HOUSES THAT COULDN'T AFFORD THEM. So, while you are hauling people off to jail, make sure you bring Barney Frank, Chris Todd, Jimmy Carter, and Ted Kennedy's corpse as well. Only a fool or a phony would try to pretend that liberals aren't just as responsible for the mortgage mess as bankers. This is a perfect example of the 2 biggest reasons why government regulations, and regulators, fail. 1. When regulations are based on political contrivance, rather than what is best for the industry and the consumers in that industry...EPIC FAIL. Instead of making sure the mortgage industry didn't take advantage of the consumer, which would be a perfectly fine task, the assclown liberal agenda sought to allow the consumer to take advantage of the industry. 2. When regulators are simply completely outclassed, or outstretched, by their corporate counterparts. The SEC has been a running joke on Wall Street forever. Most of the time the people who can't get a job as a trader/investment banker, end up at the SEC. The absolute WORST thing that could happen would be to ask the SEC to try and do more. That's like asking 5 of 5'5", 150 lb. who are supposed to be the offensive line, to do MORE pass blocking, against an NFL front 7. All the talent is on the Wall Street side of the ball, and you can't legislate their brains away. Oh, and by the way, firms routinely plant their people in the SEC, in order to keep track of what they are looking at. The "revolving door" means the SEC has no chance of catching anybody by surprise. Time to end your hubris Dave, and accept that your government "team" will get its ass kicked trying to take on Wall Street head on, every single time. No amount of your pissant indignation is going to make the SEC employees suddenly grow more brains. It ain't happening. Instead, accept that you and your government pals are the "small school" and focus on what you can do.

You don't shed any tears either, so stop lying. Yes, I am so sure that he went the entire campaign, and at no time mentioned that the state was in trouble due to years of undue influence exerted by the state worker unions. You are free to research every public statement/debate, interview, press release and prove me wrong. Otherwise, you don't get to posit a un-proven negative(he never mentioned it once) as an argument.

He got one from Ryan on multiple occasions. Ryan put a serious, reasonable plan in front of him in answer to his request, and surprise, the campaigners, because we can't call them governing-oriented people can we?, completely ignored him. Why? Because Ryan has a better than average chance to be President some day, and the White house political office doesn't want to give him any credibility. So, yeah, it was 100% about politics. That, and, the one time Obama was in the same room publicly with Ryan, Ryan whipped him, soundly. So, spare us the emoting. Obama wants no part of another Ryan beating. He knows that if he is ever on any kind of stage with Ryan again, he loses, hard.... ....and that's why he keeps asking for plans from Republicans, and then ignoring the ones he gets.

The difference is: nobody is questioning Obama's right to act on his electoral mandate. The fact that he massively overestimated that mandate aside, he has had every right to enact a liberal agenda. The fact that the state elected a Republican sweep, massively, means they want an end to the union overbearing interference in the affairs of their state. That's what the people wanted. The difference is: less than 40% of people wanted Obamacare, and that number has fluctuated from 35-38%, and no higher, since before it was passed. It's not going anywhere, and it's an albatross around Obama's neck for 2012. End of story.

You mean those people who elected a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican governor? Those people? Or, some other people? To which people do you refer? Based on what history? Sorry, casting a vote and debating is a lot more in line with doing what the Founding fathers wanted...than hiding out in another state. (The only hiding they did was from British soldiers, go ahead and compare that to this... ) Also, how is hiding out not an example of "doing anything to get your way". Only an unmitigated moron draws your conclusions. But, we already established that in the other thread, didn't we? Why is it Walker's fault for acting on the agenda he was elected to implement? Elections have consequences, and so does the abusing and corruption of the political process. You are pissed that finally, somebody punched back, and we all know the pain from this has just begun. Be honest: that's what this is about. You couldn't care less about those teachers. Somebody finally punched the bully in the mouth, and now you are telling us we should feel sorry for the bully? Spare us. Also, I shed no tears for those 1,500 sets of union dues that will no longer be piped to politicians who will gladly trade it for votes. The abuse of power was exactly = the abuse of the office by the Democrats who are hiding. Something had to give. You lost. Deal with it.

This is friggin sweet. I have been a fan of this guy since we drafted him, as my posts indicate. Especially to put it out there, never mind to actually have personal goals well defined. Anybody could have said "improve my game" or "work on my route running"(um, Hardy, who I am ashamed to say I also touted) These goals show he has put some actual thought into them, and, they are aggressive. I also think they are realistic, given the fact that we can expect a full Edwards-less off-season, and whoever(leaving the door open for Newton, but please, do not highjack this thread) at QB. Now for the personal goals of the other 50-60 guys....

First of all: all of you saying money isn't important, is the cause of all of this(laughable)...never had any...or, have had so much since birth, that you have no respect for it. You, personally, have no idea how you, personally, would react if suddenly you, personally, were in suddenly in position to make you "rich", or very rich, and your every little step could have massive swings, with $10s of million proportions, on the rest of your life. For all you know, you could wind up acting the same as these players/owners are. You don't really know, and can never really know, until these decisions are yours alone to make. 1. Not greed so much as "I don't want to played, or worse, appear to have been played", in a league, and the periphery of the league, full of mostly men, for whom their current image is just as important as everything else, that runs mostly on balls rather than brains. 2. The NFL appears to able to consistently hand out exponentially larger golden eggs. The guy who gets an egg from the goose before you is going to be pissed, because his egg is going to be smaller than yours. On the flip side, this also means that the cost of getting into the NFL owners club is approaching Sultan of Brunei levels. Few of us can even conceive of billionaire level money and certainly not when it is risked on a business model like NFL. You can tell me you will throw around $100s of dollars, but not $1ks. Try throwing around $100s of millions.... 3. Due to the seeming permanence of premises 1 and 2 above, the conditions you describe will not change, until either premise 1 or 2 changes. 4. The NFL wants to appeal to the mass market, not just the average fan. Therefore, it needs LESS "average fans" and more people who would otherwise be a The Masters, or Wimbledon. Therefore, if they can push the high end customers in the front door, and that costs them some average fans out the back, so be it. Each high end customer, or their firm, probably drops $2k on the game. You are probably spending $400, at the most, including all the people you are going with, all their beer, food, etc. So, for every 1 high end, they can afford to drop 20 "average fans". That is the cold, hard, but also...real...math of this. IF they can get 4 high end fans, and it costs them 10 average ones? Well, don't let the door hit you.... Unfortunately, as Bills fans, and because our state has seen fit to tax/harass away business after business, and overpay the entitlement/government parasites, we are stuck on the ass end of this model. Ralph can't get the high end people, because WNY doesn't have that many anymore, so he needs the average fan a lot more than Jerry Jones. The entire move to Toronto is about getting their high end people, not their average fans. 5. 1-4 can be invalidated, because the NFL appears to have forgotten a cardinal rule of sales/marketing: ANYTHING can be oversold. The .com bubble, the "flip this house" bubble, etc. are all examples. I have been saying this for a year. This is only a solid "maybe" at this point. So far, every economic and market indicator indicates that no, in fact, it doesn't. However, anything can be oversold, so we'll see. The difference between making $2 million as a player and $120 million as an owner this year, and making $10 million and $250 million respectively next year, can make anyone forget an awful lot. Money, just like guns, is merely a tool. It is what people do with each, and their motives, that make the difference. The fact that I have a lot of money, or a lot of guns, means nothing, without also knowing my motives. I can have a lot of either or both and be much better personally, and have a much better effect on society in general, than someone who has neither, with ease. Equally as much as you blamed Bush?

Stay focused on the other thread. You are trying to explain how trust fund babies and people who work themselves "rich" are the same.

Translation: You still don't get it do you, you unmitigated moron. Why should I, somebody who has built a business from scratch, and is slowly, painfully slowly considering the hell I have been through, approaching your fabled 2%..... ....have to pay the same taxes as a pissant, "got my major in women's studies from Brown", then spent the next five years "traveling"(read: doing coke and acid in Europe), now is 30-something and nobody takes them seriously so they'll get involved in politics and PETA-like causes...the entire time living on family money that was made 4 generations ago? Pissant and I have nothing in common. Nothing at all. I add exponential value every time I pick up a phone or write something. The pissant's only value has been added when they are eating something. You want to treat us like we are the same. That makes no sense. Explain.

Ok, let's try this again: this time, go back and re-read the question you asked me. In it, you refer to the top 2%, yes? Now, imagine that I am not you, and that I know how to respond to a condition question per the one you asked, the condition being that my response is limited to the top 2% and discusses the groups within that percentage. Prove Tom wrong if you can.

Bah! And here we were, so close to having this silliness die the death it should have on this board, years ago. Good lord. Look: it's not that we don't want to do it. Of course we would. The problem is: nobody is going to offer us that. Short of the Raiders and Redskins, it ain't happening. And, it's not happening with them either, after so much recent foolishness with the draft. And, going around criticizing the FO for "not taking a deal" or "making a deal" that nobody is offering or willing to consider is ludicrous. There are plenty of things to be accurately critical about the FO that reasonable people can discuss. This is not one of them.

Oh, dude, come on. There's no way that basic piece of logic is going to compete the vast menagerie of BS emoti-tales this guy has created for himself. I would have posted that, but I decided to play on his "class warfare" battlefield, and hit him with the specifics that blow up his generalities because I thought I might get somewhere with it. Edit: Reading his post now, looks like I got nowhere with it. He didn't even get the context. Cripes. I'm giving you the opportunity to re-read what I wrote. Before I call you an unmitigated moron. If you do, then you will realize the folly of your post above. Let's start with the easiest hint: The "check-collectors" I am referring to are NOT the middle class, or union employees. Consider: your brain is so addled you can't even comprehend the written word of someone who partially, if not wholly, agrees with you properly.

Which kills your trade down idea. Thank you. Now, can we move on to something realistic? Nobody is trading #1, #2, #3 or #4 for our #1 unless it's the Redskins or the Raiders. And even they are long shots with the CBA issues.

I don't care if it is offensive to you, as I said, "way too many people thinking they get to be offended by way too many things". IF I called your mother a whore, that would be offensive, get it? And, "the rest of us don't spend our entire lives tiptoeing around your precious sensibilities". I've covered that ground. The fact that you have to list the "things I don't do" isn't helping your case. If we are talking polls, what % of the American public knows that Vick missed an appearance on Oprah? In all cases, when you get done talking, the fact that nobody cares about your judgment of Vick, or any other celebrity, remains. I didn't imply anything about you. I simply said that knowing a picayune detail about Vick and Oprah isn't indicative of "not caring/knowing". That's it. And, it was humor. I mean, why do you care if I red flag you? Do you think there's actually a site somewhere where we keep "San Jose's Red Flag" stats? "If he gets enough of them, well, we might be able to question his manhood on a message board!" Buddy, honestly.... Oh, and here this whole time I have been calling DMZ. Shows you what I know. More importantly, shows you what I don't know.

Let me answer this: they have either earned it, through the course of their own actions, or, they were handed it, through the course of their relative's actions, or, they were handed something, and made it a lot better, or, they were handed something and made it a lot worse. So it's simple really: the people who have done something useful with their lives have earned a special status. The people who have done nothing but collect checks, no. What pisses people like me off is: I am most assuredly the first guy, yet you, for reasons passing understanding, want to lump me in with some pissant trust fund baby, and his sycophantic investment banker lackeys. They put me through hell to get the investment I need to create the very taxes you think you are entitled to, while you want to put me through hell paying for people who add 0 value to the economy, but who you have to pay off for electing you. All of you want crazy returns/taxes on an idea none of you in a million years could have developed. F all of you. Without me, none of you have jobs. It proves only that unions know that their entire existence is dependent on one thing: public opinion. A union is not a natural state of existence. One worker is NOT THE SAME as the next worker. Most workers are mediocre. The unions, talking AFL here, used to be about an earned status for only the elite workers so that they could personally benefit from their ability. Treating every worker the same, when they aren't. Expecting the entire wage structure to be based on time in the union, not performance. Telling everybody that everybody on the job is entitle to the same results, when they clearly do not put out the same effort. These are blatant fallacies. However, if public opinion is on your side, people are willing to TOLERATE them. Nobody believes that any of the above is true, but, we are willing to tolerate it as long as you provide results. Bankrupting the state with overblown pensions and salaries != results, and hence that marks the end of our tolerance of your BS. Let's get this straight: I kick you in the nuts, then offer to help you out, then you refuse my help, then I say you're bad for refusing my help, and finally you say, "I need to stop you from being able to kick me in the nuts whenever you want", and I then I go out and protest for my right to kick you in the nuts? This is what you are selling?

Yes, amazing, isn't it. It's hysterical that somewhere, in some office, some tools have actually deluded themselves into thinking: "Yeah, we fooled em, they actually think there's 100k people in the street, and Glenn Beck only had 87k". I wonder when they are going to realize that no number of biased polls and BS is going to change the fact that the majority of people have had it with their nonsense? Not biased you say? I can word a poll a number of ways to make you think that taking away collective bargaining = Return to the Grapes of Wrath, and, that's precisely how these "60% of people support collective bargaining polls are worded". They are general, not specific, they are broad, and not targeted. It's pretty bad when even the Democrat pollsters come out and say the polls are biased.

So f'ing what? Of course his agenda is clear. I am sorry but government employees don't deserve special status. And they sure as hell don't deserve to create a situation that amounts to blatant bribery and/or coercion and/or corruption of our political system. Giving up money doesn't address the root cause of the problem. The question is: how did things get so bad, that the entire state is about to go bankrupt? The root cause of this is the shameful contracts that the politicians were coerced into signing. Or, face "100k people in the street". Year after year of that is the root cause of this, period. The collective bargaining changes are how we stop this same problem from happening every time the economy isn't booming. Giving back money doesn't solve that problem, it only exacerbates it, because it puts the unions in control of a process they should be nowhere near: politicians making budget decisions that are the best for ALL people in the state, not just the union people. After all, they are elected to represent EVERYONE. This isn't the USSR, where only members of the party get special treatment. Corporate tax breaks didn't bankrupt the state. The state was already bankrupt, BEFORE the tax breaks. The tax breaks are part of a solution to the problem. The problem that was created specifically by these unions. If you are going to argue cause and effect, it's helpful to actually get the order down properly.

Garrotes aren't only used for killing, they can be very effective at simply getting somebody to the ground, or distracting them for the second you need to hit them with real weapon you have in mind. Same thing with the the trip line. It's about creating a moment's distraction, not actually tripping someone, or having a claymore go off, or whatever wild thoughts you are trying, and failing, to portray as mine. In the closed in space, you don't need an elaborate ambush, just something that gets the job done. Who cares if the tape breaks, if I have put the enemy in the position I want him in? It's fine that you are a rear-echelon guy Tom, content to talk about battles and weapons and strategy, etc. But, it's also best that you stay there.

Thanks for the useful info on the salary. So I guess it boils down to: Vick was neither stupid or smart. He took was was proscribed by the existing CBA, with very little to think about at all. However, nobody cares if you are sold on Vick. Seriously. The fact that you even know about canceled appearances on Oprah is a red flag for what I am talking about.

1. Enough with the trade down nonsense. Nobody is going to be willing to give up most of their draft to get into the #3 spot. The few idiot candidates are, as always, Redskins and Raiders. Otherwise, and unless the Bills have a 3-team, Bill Polian gets Cornelius Bennet(and Shane Conlan, Nate Odomes, Leon Seals, Keith McKellar, House Ballard(in the 11th )...now that's a draft in 1987), crazy trade in the making, it's time to put an end to the pie in the sky "trade down because I say so, even though we don't have a realistic trading partner" argument. No. Getting somebody's extra 2nd doesn't even come close to being good trade value. #3 pick should be a potential HOFer who, if the new CBA comes out the way I think it will, will be on your team for at least 5 years. That's not worth a 2nd alone, unless you are a moron. 2. Why do I care about Cam Newton's media "presence"? If anything, the fact that he is making obvious media mistakes, means he doesn't have a LaVarr Arrington type spin doctor telling him what to say. We didn't do so well with his client, Aaron Maybin, now did we? 3. I have managed many a 22-24 year old rookie in my time, and, they have a tendency to say all sorts of stupid things, mostly because they are nervous and don't know any better. So were we all at that age. But, I look past that and focus on their skill set. Is it good? Are they somebody who can take instruction? If they are too polished, there's a good chance that they are already at the highest level possible for them, and therefore, I don't want em. I need them move up 5-6 levels from where they are to be serviceable in what I do. In the same respect, the Bills aren't looking to hire a Heisman trophy winner, we are looking to hire a SB trophy winner. Oh, and welcome . As I said, I am hard on rookies, but only because it makes them better.

A. I have already posted here that nobody gets to be personally offended by Vick, unless they want to walk around with a "I am an Oprah sycophant" on the front, and "DMZ owns this" with an arrow pointing down on the back, t-shirt as well. Say it with me now, in the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel: This "I am victim of somebody I don't know, who doesn't know me, and has done nothing to me personally!", and "I get to pretend to sit in judgment of other people, because I know who they are from TV" is "F'ing Retarded!" Anybody who thinks they get to be offended by this because they live anywhere but in his town in Georgia, and has a dog, and of course, kids , needs to spend more time with the dog and the kids, and less time with this phony and narcissistic assclownery. B. Due to A, nobody cares about your personal assessment as to whether Vick is saying/living properly. I am sorry, it must be horrifying for you , but it's true, nobody gives a flying f whether you think it's Ok to say "mistake" or whatever else. This one is easily proven: IF he isn't acting according to your judgment, what are the exact consequences you plan to visit on him? Tell us all about your "wrath"! What effect will you personally have on this situation? Hints: if you suddenly realized that the answer is: none....then good, we are making progress. if you suddenly realized that the answer is none, and that you are way too easily manipulated by Oprah, Joe Buck, and other media philistines, we are really doing well. if you suddenly realized that the answer is none, and have sworn off all of this DMZ douchebaggery for life, then you are cured. Welcome to the "non-pissant club". You'll find that members of our club tend to be people whose opinion does have an actual effect on others, especially the longer you are a member. So, if he had taken $1 mil, would that make him dumb? I suppose it would. But how are we to really know? There has to be some sort of formula that ends up setting it at $16 mil, rather than $8 mil for example. I understand negotiations are at work here. However, they could have been negotiating on a range from $4-8 mil. Instead, there were probably negotiating on a range from $12-20. There has to be a reason why that is, and his play on the field had to have something to do with it.

Nice post. I am in the "Jury's still out" camp, but if we are going to be critical of anyone, it's useful to be accurate, specific, and to take all the facts, not just the ones that make us "right", into account. Perhaps the reason Green and Scott stood out as soooo poor, is that the other guys we do have are starting to look good? In a sense, we have had non-starters, in every sense of the word, on the O-line for so long, it was hard to tell who was the worst when they all were doing poorly(except Peters, and now, it even looks like that was a good call = Peters is good, but not worth the hyped up elite LT $$$). I am hoping to get 1 or 2 O line out of the draft, or very high on UDFA. It would be nice if Wang could keep progressing. I think he has a chance to be solid. But who knows? In any event, I don't want us reaching for RT. I am fine with reaching for LT. Oh, and an administrative note: Thanks to the OP for spelling re-sign properly. I had almost resigned myself to the belief that re-sign would never be spelled properly on this board.

A pretty decent weapon can be made out of a tape cassette, and a handy garrote, with plenty of tape left over to create a trip line ambush to boot. Basically, a cassette in jail, closed in spaces where nobody looks down, is murder in a box. Flat out deadly weapons can be made with CDs. Never mind, you can pass hidden info with both of these formats. Can't do schit with an MP3 player if you only allow it to d/l music and you control the ISP...so yeah, WTF is this about?

You know in that other thread, where I said Dev/Null is a part of the reason the liberals have run away from this board with their asses on fire? Well, here's a decent example as to why.