OCinBuffalo

Yeah, as if you could do the work required yourself. Keep going there, phone-jockey. Either you don't know the book, in which case: you're an unmitigated moron. Or, you do know the book, and this is an unmitigated moron's attempt to troll. Take your pick.

Oh, you'll read it. And I type fast. So, no sweat. In fact, not only are you going to read it, I guarantee you're going to post most of 1-16...unintentionally...over the next 4 years. I know that because you already have, in other threads, quite recently. Go ahead and skim your own content. It's right there. (EDIT: ) Hmmm. Perhaps every time you post, I will paste in one of the 16 above, and then you can explain why it's not one of the 16 above. That would be even more fun than posting them after leftist comments.

As a libertarian, we hold equity above all else. This concept has been bastardized by the left as follows: This is blatant bastardization. Here is the actual libertarian view: IF the short dude did something legal to earn his 2 boxes, or the middle guy his one, Then, the government has no right to withhold them, using equality or fairness as an excuse. Also, the tall dude doesn't have to pay for any boxes, just because he is tall. The lie here is that boxes just materialize out of thin air. No. Somebody has to manufacture them, somebody has to transport them, and somebody has to store and sell them. This costs $. Somebody has to part with their $ for somebody to get boxes from the government, for free. Forcing the tall dude to pay for any box in this scenario? That is by definition inequitable. Also, the law is based on equity, not on morality. Above is a bastardization of that concept as well. Has the tall guy done anything to deserve having to pay for the boxes? Is he responsible for the shortness of the other 2. No? Then he is not liable to pay for boxes. It may be moral for him to bring boxes along to help out his friends, but he is not required to do it. Conversely, it may be immoral for him to pay for boxes, because that makes the short guys dependent on him, rather than finding a way to get boxes. Now consider: the Tall guy in this case is Carrier/US technologies corporate. The ballgame is the American marketplace. What are they doing? The Carrier workers pay for their boxes via their labor, but, they also have a need to see the ballgame(maintain an American standard of living). Carrier thinks it would be cheaper for them to move to a place where people don't need/care to see ballgame, or don't need boxes to see them. They are wrong. They are wrong because: Carrier doesn't want the ballgames to cease. They still want to go see them. The ballgame is going to be there whether the workers are or not right? Wrong. When you remove workers from the market, you hurt the market. Do it enough and there is no ballgame, because nobody can afford to go. Short term layoff gains are exactly that. If every company moves offshore, there is no ballgame. Besides, have the workers done anything to the tall guy that justifies his removing the way that the workers pay for their boxes? No. Removing the boxes is therefore, inequitable. Ultimately, the deal that was struck said: we will keep the middle guy's way to pay for his boxes, but, we can't keep the short guys way, because his way of paying for boxes costs us too much. That is a compromise. Libertarians are fine with compromise, provided it is equitable. Carrier has no liability to maintain the short guy's way of paying for boxes, largely because he needs two of them. Meanwhile the guy that only gets one box shouldn't be screwed by the guy that needs two. If one box is the market price for gaining access to the market, but, the short guy needs two? Then it's on the short guy, and nobody else, to provide the extra box. There are lots of way to find that extra box. The government is merely the easiest. Life is about equity. Not morality. When we pretend that false "morality" justifies inequity, we get into all sorts of problems. Charity is about grace, not about retribution or compulsion. Charity is morality. IF one wants to be moral, they should be charitable. Charity means giving of oneself. Charity does not mean not taking from others, then deciding whom to give the spoils, demanding their loyalty for the gifts, and calling oneself "morally superior" for doing so.

Wow, what a great article. It saves me the trouble of doing what I intended. Here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442989/trumps-america-george-orwells-animal-farm-new-commandments It's hilarious how when Romney said Russia was our greatest threat to national security, Obama mocked him, and the left agreed. Now, according to the media, Russia is once again our greatest threat, and no surprise: the left agrees! From the article(I had to copypasta this myself, and re-do the strikeouts, but it was worth it): 1. The Senate filibuster is an archaic and disruptive obstacle to government an essential tool of legislative democracy. 2. The Senate’s “nuclear option” of approving nominees by majority votes is a legitimate tool to restore legislative balance crackpot idea to erode Senate traditions. 3. Pen-and-phone executive orders are critical presidential prerogatives when Congress won’t act undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers. 4. Past Supreme Court decisions are always fluid rulings and hold no real sway over present court prerogatives established judicial precedents that should not be tampered with by current politicized justices. 5. Pressuring private companies like Boeing or Chrysler for political purposes like Carrier to keep jobs in the U.S. is unwise presidential intrusion into the marketplace. 6. Edgy, out-of-the-box foreign-policy outreach to democracies like Taiwan dictatorships like Cuba and Iran is proof of presidential leadership and imagination. 7. Presidential informality like inviting rappers with rap sheets to the White House or doing interviews with GloZell like tweeting and videos are ominous signs of presidential frivolity and immaturity. 8. States-rights nullification of federal law has been traditionally racist, and subversive to the idea of the United States, leading to crisis or war is a legitimate expression of progressive cultural exceptionalism. 9. Running up huge deficits in Keynesian fashion primes the economy is a dangerous sign of presidential laxity. 10. Regular press conferences with vigorous cross-examinations of the president are noisy anachronisms from the bygone age of print journalism a must for a functioning democracy. 11. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio voting twice for Barack Obama over John McCain and Mitt Romney was at last proof that the white working class was tolerant and enlightened for Trump shows that these deplorable voters are still irredeemable white clingers and supremacists. 12. Worries that registration and voting can be rigged Rioting, demanding superfluous recounts, damning the legitimacy of the Electoral College, and threatening Electors are efforts to subvert American democracy. 13. Criticizing a former president allots proper blame where it belongs for current messes is bad sportsmanship, cheap, and unbecoming. 14. Former presidents making business deals and earning exorbitant speaking and consulting fees as they cash in and globe-trot demeans the office is an acceptable right and welcome duty of an ex-president. 15. Weighing in on contemporary news stories such as the Skip Gates psychodrama or the Trayvon Martin murder case a flag-burning incident is symptomatic of presidential puerility. 16. Vladimir Putin was unfairly alienated by George W. Bush, sophomorically hyped into an existential threat by Mitt Romney, and deserving of reset is dangerous, a Trump fan, and an inveterate enemy of the U.S. I defy anyone here to disprove any of the above. There is documented evidence, often direct quotes, for every single strikeout. What is now struck out was the left's Commandment, and what remains is the their new Commandment. Most of the stricken out has been posted on this very board in the past. Especially: #s 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(OMG 13) and 15. I can remember the threads/posts. Copypasta: I imagine that this list is going to be hugely useful going forward. When somebody posts any of the above, one must simply copy/paste one of these as a response. Who could imagine, even with Animal Farm and 1984, written specifically by a leftist, as a warning to other leftists, that we would still see it anyway? Mind boggling. The good news is: Orwell did write his books, and the rest of us can use them, against those delusional leftists who refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy.

Wholly agree. It would turn C-Span into must see TV @ 3pm EST. I also think it would attract a large college audience. I am jealous. All we got to watch was The Price is Right, which was funny, when we had a rotating crew, depending on class, sports etc., of 30 alpha male guys trying to guess the price of a vacuum. But that pales in comparison to Laura giving the daily beat-down. I mean: she currently does a 3 hour radio show every day, she is more than up to the task of doing a 1 hour summary of that show, with ample help in the form of biased and/or idiotic questions from leftist reporters.

My response: Dear Terry and Kim: I would appreciate your consideration for the Director of Marketing position with the Buffalo Bills. I have attached a current resume, and, as you can see... <blah, blah, blah> </blah> Therefore, to get me to start working for you, rather than running my own firm, here are my terms, and I suggest that we both hold me to them: 1. We shall bring back fried bologna sandwiches immediately. Obscene amounts of revenue were lost when they were removed. Bologna, bread and cheese has a unit cost of $.10, less if we buy in bulk. We can sell them for $4.00. It's doesn't take a brilliant marketer to figure out that bologna sandwiches are as much a part of One Buffalo as wings are, especially when it's freezing outside. Or, that losing out on that kind of profit margin is obtuse. Bills fans don't want to be told what to eat by anyone, period. A qualified marketer listens to their customer, and does not presume to play nanny to them instead. 2. We are missing out on a huge opportunity to capitalize on free media for the Bills via fan tailgates, and their antics recorded on websites like Deadspin. Deadspin is getting huge click traffic from these page views, and we are getting nothing. We are the entire premise of that content, and we get nothing? Whoever the idiot was that decided to screw around with who can park where and when doesn't understand that the Bills are missing out on marketing the team to a massive national audience. This audience specifically checks in every week to see the latest antics from our fans. We don't have to pay our fans for this highly sought content. In fact, they are paying us. We could easily monetize this huge, free exposure and content...but that would require my moving about the entire organization extracting heads from rear ends, and taking on all crybullies from the NFL. The good news: I have been very effective at doing precisely that in my career. I specialize in C-level head extraction, and also, protecting my clients from regulatory buffoonery. We have a huge asset that can be turned into a revenue stream which costs us practically nothing to tap. I can and will tap that asset, and whatever else needs tapping. Keep this in mind as we move forward. 3. As the recent election has shown, attacking the media is not only a reasonable idea, but a winning idea. For far too long the Bills have been attacked/negatively portrayed by the media. They ignore which division we play in, do sloppy reporting, and either misreport who is on our team, or don't even pretend to know. This is unacceptable, and no company in the USA would stand for it, so why should the Bills? Besides, fighting a shooting war with the media would absolutely move the Bills numbers nationally, which of course moves our numbers internally. The Bills, for many years now, have been a much more interesting team than many of the so-called "big market" teams. Ask: what have the Bears, Cowboys, Redskins or Rams done...that even approaches trading for Shady McCoy? These teams have been boring at best, yet they get most of the media attention, while we get hardly any. An open war against the media, as we have just seen, uses their biases against them, and would propel our cause forward. Especially because we know the media's bias would, once again, cause them to behave irrationally, thus drawing further attention to our team. We've already seen what can be done when obvious media malpractice occurs. Why not tap that asset as well? I have further suggestions, but, these terms are non-negotiable.... Now, the question for the rest of you is: how much of that is actually a joke?

Yep, as I said above, KC is who scares me.

I said if all goes as expected. Clearly, nobody is expecting the Pats to lose out. I went through each game in the AFC and made a reasonable pick. Sure, there are bound to be exceptions. Actually, from the same site, there are 40 quadrillion outcomes(or...a high number) that are still possible. Except Cleveland. The point is: there's a very good chance that the AFC North Teams will produce only 1 playoff team, and since the AFC West has yet to play itself, there are inevitable losses. Somebody has to lose/tie, which means us being in striking distance is a mathematical certainty, and us being able to pass them is a probability, provided we chop up the teams on our 2nd easiest remaining schedule.

Error.

I just spent 5 minutes with this thing: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/buffalo-bills-nfl-playoff-picture.html IF all goes as expected(meaning the Pats beat everybody but Denver at home, etc.), we could lose 1 game to either the Jets, Browns, or Jags, and still have a 99% chance to make the playoffs. This is because even if you switch it to the Broncos, losing 0, 1 or 2 to the Chiefs, the outcome stays the same. This, again, is because the Raiders have to play them. Go ahead and make your initial picks, then, see how little effect changing them has. The effect of beating the Steelers, Dophins, and Raiders...makes losing one game to the Jets, Jags, or Browns irrelevant. So, correction: 10-6, provided that one loss is the the last three teams, produces a result of 99% to make the playoffs.

There is no argument about 10-6. If we get there we are 95% to make the playoffs. The only argument is 9-7. That is tougher, because perhaps a lot of teams are going to end up there, and since the AFC West got to play the South this year, they are going to have more conference wins. The best we can do today is 3-3 in the division, so, 9-7 is a very tough get. However, 10-6 is a very probable playoff spot this year. I already showed that above.

Again, I wrote a long post to prove my point above. Now, I only have to write sentence: If we go 10-6 we make the playoffs, full stop. That is because other teams, who haven't played each other, do so in a zero-sum fashion. There are no extra-NFL wins to be had. No. ALL of the probable playoff teams in the AFC have mostly other probable playoff teams on their remaining schedule. The currently 7-3 AFC West has to play each other. Each team down from that has at least 3 current playoff contenders on their remaining schedule, if not 4 or 5. So, the real question is: what happens if the Bills go 9-7, because the 10-6 argument is moot, as I have already demonstrated. And yes, winning the division games do matter: look at the AFC West. Their actual season, having already padded their records with NFC and AFC South(crap) wins, hasn't even started yet.

The inexorable axis of this discussion is: can we make the playoffs, given how everybody else does? So, rather than talking about us/10-6? First, here's everybody else's remaining schedule, in order of current standing: (If you insist on a Bills-first perspective, our remaining schedule is tied for 2nd easiest in the league, with the Steelers. This is predicated on odds. We play the Steelers, at home. The Pats have the easiest remaining schedule, but remember: odds. Ask Nate Silver how his recent presidential odds worked out. Better: ask the "explanatory/data journalists" at VOX why they got that election so wrong.) RAIDERS Panthers(4-6) Bills(5-5) @Chiefs(7-3) @Chargers(4-6) Colts(5-5) @Broncos Safe to say the Raiders aren't sweeping their way to the 1st seed. In fact, they can just as easily lose out, given their D. But, the important part is: somebody has to lose between the Raiders and the Chiefs/Broncos. This is the pattern for all the remaining games for the AFC West, and the AFC wildcard contenders in general. Somebody always has to lose/tie, which means our chances get better. It's not only possible, but likely, that us defeating the Raiders knocks them not only out of the 1st seed, but out of the playoffs completely. PATRIOTS @Jets(3-7) Rams(4-6) Ravens(5-5) @Broncos(7-3) Jets(3-7) @Dolphins(6-4) I have to disagree with the odds guys saying this is the easiest schedule, or, at the very least, I would be taking the over in every single one of these games, if I still bet on NFL(I didn't quit because I lost. I quit because I was way ahead). Hey, it's the Pats, so, we'll see. TEXANS(AFC South Sucks) Charges(4-6) @Packers(4-6) @Colts(5-5) Jags(2-8) Bengals(3-6-1) @Titans(5-6) Since somebody has to win the AFC South, somebody is going to be ahead of the Bills. But, that works the other way too: it's most likely this division eats its own chance at a wildcard. RAVENS Bengals(3-6-1) Dolphins(6-4) @Patriots(8-2) Eagles(5-5) @Steelers(5-5) @Bengals(3-6-1) Same argument as the AFC South/AFC West: they have to play each other a lot still. They are better teams than the Jets and Dolphins. The Ravens have the Pats and Eagles to contend with, and again, somebody has to win the AFC North, but, they have to do it by beating the Bills' potential wildcard competitors. The Ravens may very well guarantee us a playoff spot. CHIEFS @Broncos(7-3) @Falcons(6-4) Raiders(8-2) Titans(5-6) Broncos(7-3) @Chargers(4-6) The Chiefs are the real wildcard here, much like the Broncos and Raiders. They could all end up sucking wins out of each other, and therefore clearing a path for the Bills to easily overtake them. However, of all the teams, the Chiefs are who scare me the most: because of history. They win games they aren't supposed to win, more than the Bills. But history also says the Chiefs could self-destruct. Thus, the AFC West is wide open, because they played the AFC South(sucks) and the NFC South(Sucks worse), but most of those games are over, and baked into their existing record. For all we know, the real season hasn't started for the AFC West, and the Chiefs, Raiders, and Broncos could all be paper tigers. The Chargers could win that division. BRONCOS Chiefs(7-3) @Jags(2-8) @Titans(5-6) Patriots(8-2) @Chiefs(7-3) Raiders(7-3) Basically the same story as the Chiefs and Raiders above. The AFC West winner has to beat teams that are in direct competition with us for a playoff spot. DOLPHINS, STEELERS, COLTS Well, we get to play 2 of these teams. We also get to play the Browns, Jags, and Jets. Given all of this? Perhaps the better question is: what if the Bills go 9-7? Because, the answer to "What if the Bills go 10-6?" is: The Bills make the playoffs...with a 95% confidence level. While there's a whole lot to be settled in other divisions, the Bills control their own destiny right now. Beating the Raiders/Steelers/Dolphins matters a hell of a lot more than losing to the Jets/Browns/Jags.

Excellent analysis in terms of methodology. So often what we read here lacks any sense of objectivity. And, to be fair, objectivity is difficult, because biases are part of the human condition. What is different here: we can all watch the same animated gif, and, come away with a different interpretation of what happened, but not an entirely different perception.. This methodology forces us, like it or not, to begin with the same baseline: the gifs above. That means that raw data upon which this discussion is based, is normative. (And, yes, unlike in many other areas, my use of normative here is actually: definitive. The word normative, just like the word justice, needs no modifier, and indeed demands none. Once we add a modifier ahead of either word? We change the definition of each word...to its opposite.) I am glad to see this approach. It forces the discussion away from cognition/perception(what one remembers), and towards interpretation...given a baseline set of visual fact. This is much more useful to all. We are constrained from arguing what we "saw" vs. what others "saw". Instead, we must interpret what we can all see. This is a highly useful thread. I hope this becomes the standard approach going forward.

Yeah, I'm the one who "took it seriously". You either literally went out and got inside info from Apple and Google people that was sensitive.... ...or you lied about doing that. Those are the 2 options. What is there to be gullible about? This entire format is predicated on what people post, with no way to confirm what they post. And why? Because your ego couldn't stand the fact that not only was I killing you in the argument, but was also doing it, literally, poetically. But: I'm the egotist, and I'm the one who took things too seriously? I rhymed every one of my posts, and joked the entire time, but...I'm the one who took things seriously? EDIT: I'm still waiting for you to admit you were not only wrong, but dopey as well. Admit it: you're only butthurt about this because I told you the Valley would fail, and they did. No, in this instance, they do not. Read it again. When one is referring to a term at the end of a sentence: Ben Franklin thinks he knows "grammar". The quote goes before the punctuation. But, if somebody was to ask the question: "Why does Ben think he knows grammar?" the quote goes after the punctuation. Thus ends your lesson for today.

Yeah, at one time, actually quite recently, ethincs referred to Jews, Irish, Polish, Italians, etc. Somehow, all of us, even the "papists", got lumped into being "white people". For F's sake, at least the blacks are protestant, or did you miss Hillary doing her Sunday tent revival impressions? Care to explain how everybody that wasn't a WASP 20 years ago...suddenly inherited WASP standing? Or, would you rather tell this board that you have never heard a Polish joke in your life....or have never considered Irish people to be drunks....or have never said the phrase "He's trying to Jew me out of X". Tell us that you've never said the word "Greaseball", or worse, "Guinea". You might be able to lie about one the above, but not all. Not unless you have 0 ties to WNY, and you've never been there. EDIT: After I ate, I thought...isn't Zimmerman a "White Hispanic"? So, yeah, throwing people into the white bucket...I suppose will exist as long as the D party continues to believe that they can win elections by doing it.

This thread sucks exactly as much as Chef's argument that, per NDAs, Apple and Google were going to fix Obamacare. Seriously, you want us to watch a 57 minute video.... ...and then complain that my threads are too verbose? : I will say, watching the "stick up their ass" brigade was entertaining....for the 3 minutes I bothered. I can't help but think George Will....

I wonder now, since it's been 5 months, where you head is at right now. Wikileaks? I mean, what we were talking about when you posted this,,,,seems like the naive ramblings of grad students today, does it not? Also: be honest, what did you feel(EDIT: F feel, what did you think?) when you saw Trump holding the gay flag? Did you say: "That's cool!" or, did you say "That's gay!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpmv_zOa0k If you wanna know what butthurt looks like? Richard Dreyfus'(?) face at the end of the song: that's what butthurt looks like. "And so nevermore shall we see you again". Talk about relevant: you could apply that video to Baskin, Obama, pretty much every Global Warming clown. However: a warning. That guy got eaten alive by Jaws. So, yeah, you need a bigger boat. Kill Obamacare first(because you'll get 75+ senate votes for(um look at 2018 for Senate Democrats....see?)), Then, after you've won, and earned a bigger boat? Then we can kill the EPA, and put in back on its original mandate: clean air, clean water, no disease. (Funny, didn't Trump say that?) Funnier: Didn't Alaska_Darin say that all the way back in 2005?

2 things are true: 1. There is entirely too much butthurt. The good new is: if this was 2005, we'd have a Tsunami of butthurt on this board, that would cause a crash.It's a shame really. Raise your hand if you haven't been relishing this day since then. Today, all we have is imagined butthurt, not only of the posters who ran away from this board in 2009(ahem, Kelly the Dog), but also: we get to revel in Simon, the secret point-adding, sorry-assed, can't win a debate on PPP if his woman's a-hole depended on it, butthurt. I wonder: How many warning points does Simon deserve given the last 10 years? I mean, if we are doing performance measures: full-on suppression of WINNING view points deserves something. I suggest naked youtube pushups. Simon's abuse of power, especially given the repudiation of his ideology? Perhaps: I challenge Simon to a drinking contest of his choosing...at the Christmas vs Miami game? I am all for a test of manhood. You know? There might even be some kitty being grabbed. Experience: when a real Alpha male shows up, in this day and age? Women tend to break out of the literal or figurative houses/hiding places they been locked up in..by the beta males. EDIT: Otherwise known as: Trump won college educated white females(right, as if non-college educated white females are not only more abundant, but somehow....don't matter...hooray feminism!) 2. F the second thing. I've literally got years to prove it. Besides, such an obvious provocation of Simon's weakness...deserves it's own post.

I'm not gonna link it. WTF, You lazy bastards can find plenty of them.. However, if you watch her instagram? (Like I care) Watch it in full. She references the Rolling Stones song that Trump played after he spoke. Say what you want about her, but, she knows her business. Of all the half-wits I have seen trying to attack Trump, and now, Steve Bannon(um, in 5 hours nobody cares...just like...despite my eternal warnings...few cared about Valerie Jarrett...but the D party should have, because Obama's ruination of the D party stems directly from her...), at least Miley spoke from her heart. Heart. That's an unusual thing to see in entertainment these days. Sure, Tom Hanks will do honorific movies about war, but then, IRL, he supports leaving military objectives Americans gained through blood and honor, only to have to re-fight over the same conquered ground years later. Now, let's be fair, or better, let's use our observational/critical thinking skills (those of us lucky enough to have them) properly: Tom Hanks did a hell of a skit recently on SNL. This I will link, because every single one of you sorry assed Fs need to see this. Tom Hanks, acting all PPP and schit.. Anyhow, watch that Cyrus video again, and ask: do we see the makings of a real adult here, after all is said and done? Or better, imagine 10 years from now...when Miley decides to run for a house seat in Tennessee, or wherever, as an R. Yeah, tell me that can't happen. No matter how much you don't like her? She, remarkably,when it comes to this election, acted like a bigger adult than people 2x her age. Just sayin' When Miley gets elected as the Libertarian candidate 10 years from now? Just like 10 years ago: you heard it here, first.

Whitelash, Blacklash? How about just the lash in general? Winston Churchill: The traditions of the British Navy are "Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash". ......about 45 minute pause in this post....because I had to listen to this album(Pogues) again, and why the F not? "So be easy and free, when you're drinking with me, I'm a man you don't meet every day." It is, as always, as I say. Anyhow, as I have been saying for nigh on 10 years now: the lash is coming for the D party. They abandoned my elected grandfather's party. His legacy...which represents significant, real-world results for the working family, from 1952-1988, was destroyed by the Obama tyranny. Obama's legacy cost my grandfather his. If Grandpa was alive today, Donna Brazille would be walking around with a bat up her ass, and he would have handled that job...personally. No "staff". He and his crew kicked the communists out of the D party in the 50s, and now? All of my grandfather's people: voted for Trump. No schit. I was just there. Union people. People I have kicked down Republican signs with, people that I have stood around oil can fires with at 6 am with, people who gave me my first shot of whiskey/cigarette and dared me to raise hell during elections, people that knew me, or who was I was going to be, before I was even born? They voted for Trump.

Hey! Dammit! This is an alt-right meme! Don't you know that you are an antisemite if you post(hilarious) memes from the the various Pepe aficionados? One wonders, but then, one knows: the leftist clowns will learn nothing from this. Or: they will learn exactly as much as they know about the current whereabouts of the forgotten #girls, by which this meme was born.

I gotta say: MSNBC's morning show has a live audience. The entire crowd looks like it has hemorrhoids...bad. To take from the feminists: "I live on your tears".

Jersey proving Jersey. I have been saying that Obamacare was dead, and that it would cost the Ds their majorities in both houses, and the POTUS in 16...since 2009. Ask anyone here. Your entire agenda is now done. There will NEVER be nationalized health care in this country. Nor will there be Cap and Trade. Nor will there be public union balloting. Nor will there be another "Stimulus" package in our lifetime. Nor will there be another "lead from behind" foreign policy. Nor will there be another "More power to the UN" agenda...on anything. You won in 2006...based on your entire agenda. Now, 10 years later, after you have put all of your retarded "solutions" in place....you are reaping what you sowed. For 30 years, you have been saying "if only we had power, we'd solve everything". Well, you did, and solved nothing. So, walk it off Jersey D-bag, if you can. But, understand, the hazing hasn't even started yet. This is merely tapping night. You and the rest of your clown brigade will be pledging the USA for the next 8 years, minimum.