OCinBuffalo

Nope. You forgot: you told us your % of Medicare/Medicaid patients you see. You also forgot what I do. As such, you forgot how easy it is for me to take that % and calculate pretty darn close to what you make a year, provided you aren't being lazy. And, you told us that Obamacare means more patients for you, which it does. Based on that, I can easily claim: you are in fact a "low-end reimbursement" doc, and that yes, Obamacare would in fact mean you get more, low-end money for the type of patients you see. These are the facts as you have described them. Feel free to change your tune. The fact is: you won't be making $250k, or even $172k a year, ever. The specialist clinic guys I just got off the phone with? Those guys make $500k a year. So, what is inaccurate about saying: you are fine with hosing my specialist clients, because it doesn't effect you personally, nor will it ever effect you personally? Answer: nothing. (What birddog says next:) "Yeah, so what you bastard, it's not all about $$$!" (My reply will be funny, and devastating)

FACT: You live in fantasyland, where teams are willing to give up all of this year's draft, and all but #1 of next year's, to trade up from 15-17 to #3. FACT: You are the very type of poster this thread was designed to expose. Since you live in fantasyland, you believe that trading down to 15-17 is not only possible, but likely! And you will start moronic threads claiming that you "know" it could have been done. This is the false premise the "trade down" tweet/story is based on: the assertion that another team would have overpaid for us to trade down, and that we didn't take the deal. How can you say that? What proof do you have? The problem is: we never hear what the deal actually was. Or, we never hear both sides confirm what the deal actually was. Instead we are left with moronic: "The Skins were willing to trade up to Buffalo's #3, and give away their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, next year's 3rd, and Albert Haynesworth...really!" stories that have no possible way of being accurate, never mind no way to confirm. Then, some dolt links the story and much time is wasting debating a useless assertion based on a false premise.

I'm saying that way, because that's what they are giving us(and helping those people along who actually want to use the chart, that every NFL GM uses ). I am fully aware that they are trading picks with us. Thanks for the help though. Re-read what I said: "trading their entire draft this year doesn't even add up" and have a re-think. Does any of this make the the Reskins trading up to #3 make any sense, on any level, without including players?

You know that chart, or something similar, has been used by GMs to determine trade value for at least the last 15 years, right?

Redskins are at 10. As I said above, they don't have the value even if they traded us their entire draft this year. The only way it works is something like their 1,2,3 and 3 next, or 1,2 and 2 next, etc. = insane. Short of that, they have to start handing over players. What's Haynesworth's value at this point? a 3? maybe a low 2? I'm not saying that he won't be back to all-pro level wherever he ends up....I am talking about value on draft day. Who else do they have? It's just not feasible short of a mega-trade that includes us getting Haynesworth and/or McNabb.

Based on what, exactly? Show your work using my value chart, or any other, please. In all cases, thank you for confirming the necessity of this thread.

Every year since 2005, for reasons passing understanding, we have to endure misguided posts telling us that we could have traded down. Perhaps this thread will put an end to that. "But...but...but why didn't we trade down?" The answer is: it takes 2 sides to make a trade. Don't be suckered by the usual suspects with their usual, impossible-to-confirm, "stories". Consider: (using this draft chart) Assume the Cardinals are batshit crazy about Peterson, CB, LSU or Newton, QB, Auburn, etc. and they want him at #3, because they don't think he will make it to 5. That alone costs them this year's 1st and 2nd(and maybe we give them our 5th). 2 Spots? Expensive, huh? One hopes expensive enough even for the "trade down"/"Buddy Nix(or insert GM here) sucks no matter what" bots to see reason. Speaking of morons, how about a more likely candidate for this lunacy: Redskins @ 10. The Skins could want to move up for the QB, DT, DE, CB, and even LB positions. But what will it cost them? This year's 1st, 2nd, 3rd and next year's 3rd(trading their entire draft this year doesn't even add up). If there is a team dumb enough for this, it certainly is the Skins. Don't forget: they will be trying to unload Haynesworth . That, plus a 4-3 Wannstedt coaching, who knows? Conclusions: Whoever we don't want at #3 had better be a certain game changer for the team that wants to trade with us to get him. Otherwise, the risk is simply not worth it for them. And, whose to say that they can't get a similar player at their spot? -or- The only teams that have enough value to move up are #s 4-10. I only have 9 and 10 in there because that's the Cowboys and Redskins, and both owners are fond of being "aggressive"(read: stupid). #9 and #10 require Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams buffoonery. There's no feasible trading partner beyond these...unless we are getting a good, proven veteran player as well. -or- This "Blaine Gabbert/Cam Newton is a top 10 pick" thing gets legs and causes massive stupidity. In all cases, the other thing this analysis proves is: Buddy Nix has every reason to be purposely obtuse when speaking, to anyone. Win = an excellent misinformation campaign. Dangle Fairley/Peterson, but then say how you might take either. Talk about AJ Green and then talk about Lee Evans. Talk about trading Roscoe, then talk about trading Evans. Rinse. Repeat.

1. Calm down. There will be no going to prison. There will be fire Obama and his commerce secretary, or whatever other politician tries to continue this buffoonery, looooong before anybody goes to prison. 2. The stated vehicle for this working is: the private sector. If nobody shows up, there is no solution. No solution, and this whole thing is a waste of tax payer money and commerce department resources. Therefore, it must be made attractive to private sector software/infrastructure companies. This is where you should focus your attention. If something sketchy happens, this is where it will be. 3. Ask yourself: who are you more afraid of? Microsoft storing these IDs, or, the government storing them? I am certain there will be some protocol for creating them that will be a government thing, but, storing them and whatever other data goes with them, like passwords, and processing them in relation to accessing some online entity, I am betting that is going to be the private sector. Provided this works at all, of course. A long time ago, there was this company that produced this thing called Gator. Gator stored all your passwords and it was free to use. What the Gator company didn't tell anyone was that along with the free password software, spyware was installed. I wonder. Does the government think that we are dumb enough to forget Gator? If these IDs can be accessed, what else about them can be accessed. What peripheral data will be accessed also under the guise of "protecting the ID". Hell, technically you could justify scanning my entire machine for viruses, in an effort to "protect the ID". In just this little bit of time I have raised enough issues, and cast enough aspersions, , all designed to tweak the sensibilities of both the left and the right, that killing this thing should be easy. All that needs to be done is follow this post and it will die.

Perhaps, but by far the LARGEST part of that job is finding EVIDENCE to prove what you are saying is true, about anyone. Q. What do you call a sheriff with no evidence? A. A political buffoon that is demagoguing, and complaining about demagoguing, at the same time. If you want your sheriff to sheriff, tell him to focus on job #1: get some evidence before he runs his mouth. Speaking of rambling: Buftex decided to post. The kid was called "liberal" by someone who knew him, but she also says she hasn't seen him since 2007. That's why the liberal thing came up. But at least you aren't stereotyping. You are just combining your poor reading comprehension and standard idiocy here, as per normal. This is definitely a question for Buftex, as this is by far the most likely poster to accurately describe the Olbermann effect.

No. You are projecting your own "I don't make crap, and Obamacare means I will make more, so I support it" low-end doctor viewpoint on others. And you have it wrong, again, doctor, "limousine liberals" rely on their wealth, NOT INCOME. Their wealth is applied in investments. They lose/gain and are able to write off all sorts of expenses in the effort. And ultimately, anything they do gain they merely pay capital gains tax, which has been at least 15 points lower than income tax...while paying nothing state or local, except property tax. We keep hearing about taxing $250k of income, but nothing about taxing $250k of capital gain. Why? Because the Democratic Party is made up of the very wealthy, and mostly people who make less than $250k. Neither of these groups will be personally effected by any increase/decrease in the income tax. "compassion and sense of fairness"? Horseshit. The wealthy and the low income are supporting what is best for them = screw the middle. No different than your support for Obamacare, it's all about what is best for them personally, and they don't care if it screws other people. "compassion and a sense of fairness" is the lie that the wealthy like telling the useful idiots like yourself.

Certainly wouldn't be the first time we've done WGR's work for them. And, it wouldn't be the first time Schopp demonstrated his utter lack of football knowledge. But wait, the last time I busted their balls, one of them tried to flame me, 26-pages and 4 PMs later(of course I still have all of them) = hysterical! :lol: Too funny if they come back here again, and Epic Fail again!

Full Disclosure: I don't have to worry about feigned amnesia because I have never seen the man play one down, ever. My only exposure to Cam Newton is what I have read on the internet in the last week. And, that sounded a hell of a lot like Vince Young hype. That's all I know about him. I get to be completely objective going into this game. I couldn't care less about college football in general, so I will only know what I see tonight.

If they are right, then they need to prove my reporting wrong. They need to prove that the Bills weren't looking for a 5th and next year's 6-7th for Lynch, and jumped at the chance to get a 4th and next year's 4-5th. It's a perfectly reasonable assertion that is impossible to prove one way or the other as well. I do have a very reliable inside source and have posted material from him on this board in the past. So, my story is just as credible as Glazer's. IIRC correctly, you're a science guy, so, Occam's razor. What is more likely? Glazer "knows" that the Bills foolishly passed on a 3 that they knew was there for the taking -or- grief-stricken Saints front office looking to deflect utter failure of defense to tackle -or- butt-hurt media looking to deflect their complete failure to properly analyze a football game, and their insistence on running with the made-for-tv Katrina Saints Movie?

The hysterical part is that the headline isn't "over-hyped Saints Defense exposed severely causing many an NFL expert to look foolish", or, "hey, isn't that Saints Defensive Coordinator the same coach who couldn't find a way to beat Pittsburgh's 2nd and 3rd String", or, "Isn't that the Offensive Coordinator who is famous for having one good year, and then being awful for the next 3?". Instead, due to some quick work by the Saints management and coaches, and skillful manipulation of the media, instead of talking about the team that lost the game, everyone is talking about the team that wasn't even there.

So, is his game closer to Vince Young, or Warren Moon? The former had the exact same stats/one liners/hype before he was drafted. The latter was willing to go to Canada, play and persevere, and made the most of his opportunity. The former is done, the latter is a Hall of Famer.

I agree, if the #3 O lineman still grades out higher than the #1 whatever is there, you take him. But, if a HOF potential LB is there, for example, no way I take an #3 left tackle that isn't instant starting material. We are drafting very high, our #2 might as well be a #1. We had better draft instant starters, not projects, regardless of position.

I'm with you...but I am also smelling Vince Young, etc. I don't want "charisma" that is actually "immaturity". I don't want "vocal leader" that is actually "whines/blames others when things don't go his way". I don't want "can throw a ball 60 yards on his knees" that is actually "can't even read man or zone, never mind coverages, therefore can't even complete 10 yard passes in real game". I don't want "running threat" that is actually "undisciplined, play-book averse fool that will run for 120 yards a game...and throw for 30, and then do shoe commericals". (Especially in Gailey's quick read/throw offense) I am looking forward to tonight, honestly. But, I want to see some adversity for Newton, and, I want to see him make some NFL-level throws and perhaps even read some defenses. He's a big risk to take and he scares the crap out of me.

Some of you have argued in a circle: For example, you can't say the team mostly drafts poorly, and, mostly let's good drafted talent get away, at the same time. Pick one or the other. There has to be good drafted talent for it to get away. There can't be, if we mostly draft poorly. Even if we could do both at the same time, the constant turnover in coaches/scheme means that the people we have are almost certainly going to get their value reduced. Anybody remember Spikes/Fletcher/Posey and one of the best D's in the league? What happened? Scheme change, end of story. And, I still have no problem with the Spiller pick. The fact is that when you are drafting that high, you have to swing for the fences, and try to draft a HOF-type player. WTF is the point of drafting the 3rd best offensive lineman on the board, when the #1 at whatever position is there? Isn't this about talent? If it is, then why do we want #3s on this team instead of #1s?

Oh great! An impossible to prove/disprove assertion based on a subjective assessment 6 months after the fact? WTF? While we are at it: Seahawks Suckered By OCinBuffalo 1/10/2011 "My inside sources, which include the frumpy bartender at the Big Tree, all say The Buffalo Bills would have traded Lynch for a 5th round pick and a conditional 6th-7th next year. However, when the Seahawks(those suckers) came along with a 4th and a higher conditional pick next year, and given their record at the time, Buddy Nix jumped at it before they could change their mind...." Mr. Glazer, or any of you, are free to prove me wrong....good luck. People, feel the PR... Do you guys all have shake weights? Snuggies? Did you cry when Billy Mays died? Did you think he was a good friend for selling you all that crap? Do you hate Obama(PR Fail) but, think Lady Gaga is talented(PR Win)?

How about this instead: we reject this attempt at personalizing a political point. You cannot treat the guy who risked everything, worked for 10 years, and finally succeeded in building a business from scratch the same as some "idle rich" limousine liberal. You are punishing the first guy with massive income tax, and rewarding the idle rich guy with lowered capital gains tax. Democrats have fooled themselves into going after the wrong people, or, they are doing it at the behest of their limousine liberal masters. The first guy creates jobs. The second guy does nothing until the first guy does. Then, the second guy throws money at the first guy, and then whines if he doesn't get a 15% return on his money in year 1...while doing nothing to help the first guy. This is why we need to move to the flat/fair tax immediately. This "attack the people who create jobs and not the idle rich" mentality has kept the economy in the gutter for the last 2 years. WTF else do you people need to see? The stimulus failed. Keynes was wrong. Are you all morons? We are currently living Keynesian outcomes, and you think MORE Keynes will solve the problem? Stop taxing income, and start taxing wealth. If we created this: either start investing your wealth, or, we will tax the hell out of it, the economy would be out of trouble in 3 months.

Excellent. The very next time conner starts demanding that we believe in his religion, I expect you to bring the same exact bile you bring to every other religious discussion. The funny part is: there used to be a lot more global warming acolytes around here. Looks like they all ran and hid, just like most of the Obama supporters that don't dare show up here anymore. (Bah! Looks like Tom beat me to it again. ) The answer Tom: you are attacking his religious beliefs. conner demands that you take what he says on faith. The fact that the economy destroying changes that the environtologist faith demands we immediately implement, will have a negligible effect on global warming, does nothing to modulate the demand that you submit to the one and only true faith.

The chicks weren't hot enough? No private tables? E.D?

1. Every union's existence is based on public perception, not reality. Reality: All workers are not the same. All managers are not the same. Therefore, all workers should not be treated the same, and, all management is not bad. However, the basic premise of a union is that all workers are equal, and should be treated equally, and all management is bad. This is not reality. But, if there are easily framed stories that can be lined up to form a pattern, the union's intended perception is propagated. 2. Unions can only exist if they are winning the PR battle that propagates their perception. Stories like this make unions lose the PR battle. 3. Trying to deflect the judgment that unions are part of the problem...by talking about Wall Street, is both childish and ineffective. 4. Anybody who thinks the public employee unions, and unions in general, don't have a giant target on their backs, is fooling themselves. 5. Due to #3-4, anybody who thinks attacking Wall Street, who largely gave to Obama, will somehow save the unions, is going to kill the unions instead. 6. The only way through for the unions is: refocus people on their perception. DO NOT talk about other people. Talk about the positive things that the public workers do. Talk about the difficulties/dangers of their jobs. Talk about how they provide the things business needs to succeed. 8. Taking a position of negativity, in a sea of negativity, simply gets you ignored. Being ignored is also a Fail for unions, because it does nothing to further the perception that the union must have to exist. 9. IF there are fools here and elsewhere that want to keep talking about Wall Street, instead of talking about how the unions will make positive changes, and even more importantly, stay relevant, they must accept the blame when the unions are ultimately destroyed. 10. Once again, we will see how "smart" the left really is. If I had to bet, given their performance on every other issue, I would lay money on them f'ing this one up as well. This Godwin thing is patently ridiculous, and merely a non-argument that is used when a real argument that is based on that history cannot be refuted.

That's because Deepak Chopra is perhaps the greatest scam artist of all time. By the time you understand WTF he he is saying and you understand "him as a person", you realize that whoever the f paid for the conference and the lunch you are eating at it, has probably had their money taken not by a person, but by a process....and has now financially committed to "Chopra takes my money" process. They can't stop it now, because admitting that Chopra is a clown, after sinking 10s of thousands of personal, and 100s of thousands of the firm's money, would literally cause them a conniption. Luckily for you, you get a free lunch, and you got to fly home a day early, and you will be hitting the bar before rush hour even starts...so Chopra isn't completely worthless.

Taking down a government site....to prove what exactly? That's not in line with their anti-censorship/anti-government control position. The government is a user of the internet, and their use shouldn't be censored or limited any more than anyone's. If Anon holds to it's principles, then you won't see this. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the position? Anon doesn't care about Assange, or his assclown quest. The only time Anon will care is if somebody restricts or limits another user's access to knowledge. Anon: Knowledge is free. Therefore, the "line was crossed" when people "attacked" wikileaks for posting knowledge. Anon simply returned fire. The task force....So basically they are going to lie/change things to minimize the damage. An intelligence agency telling lies? That's their job, so, so what? Let's call this what it is: Assange isn't a hacker. He's a publicity whore. He didn't use his "skillz" to get the data. He was handed it by a disgruntled employee. From a technical perspective, he's no better than a lawyer, or a reporter. He got the Citigroup stuff the same way. Are we supposed to give him skills cred because he knows how to post on the internet? Calling Assange a hacker is like calling Michael Moore a historian.