OCinBuffalo

Is it really necessary for me to explain that the people who died in those buildings lived all over the place? Are you telling us that unless you are d-bag limousine liberal from the upper west side, your opinion is less important? What the hell is your point? The opinion of a widow who lives in Queens whose fireman husband died is not as important as some Manhattan dilettante who has never worked a day in his life thanks to daddy? Yeah, liberals aren't completely f'ing out of touch, and yeah, they don't think that "know better" than the rest of us...PastaJoe's post proves it!

Yes, they are divided...and 2/3 of NYC people don't want it built in that location. So, because 100% don't want it...only 66%, that means that the opposition increases as you get farther away? The last national poll I saw said 70%...so yes, that is correct...by 4% more... From your article: “Freedom of religion is one of the guarantees we give in this country, so they are free to worship where they chose,” Mr. Merton said. “I just think it’s very bad manners on their part to be so insensitive as to put a mosque in that area.” Again, this is about decency, not rights. The decent thing to do is find a compromise. They are well withing their rights to be D-bags. And, nobody is disputing their rights to be D-bags. But, being a D-bag usually means that other people get to be D-bags too. We'll see how much they enjoy 66% of NYC being D-bags. We'll see what happens when you give NYC people a free license to have "very bad manners". The 71 year old man is right: everything is not black and white and it's hysterical that the same people who are always demanding relativism on every single other issue are suddenly being extremely rigid on this. I wonder where that rigidity is, for example, when we talk about the rest of the Constitution.

And I am sure that many people from a Jewish family might SAY the same thing. But, when it actually comes to DOING it, the results speak for themselves = Jews don't live in Germany. And again, I don't blame them.

Yeah that's exactly what I am doing, moron. Let's do this again for the moron: Jews are not currently living in Germany for the very same reason, being uncomfortable, that people in NYC don't want this Mosque built so close to Ground 0. So, no, nothing in that statement talks about the 2 events in general, the statement is specific and limited in its scope. Nothing it that statement allows for morons to come along and extrapolate the hell of out it...in essence, a statement like this is not for you booster. So you would be willing to move to Germany if it came up? Or not? And, Germans didn't pick on you personally, D-bag Christians did, so, you won't stereotype all Germans, but you will stereotype all Christians? Time for a re-think Adam....

:rolleyes: Most intelligent members of our society? Conner, are you calling yourself intelligent? You do understand we have a mountain of empirical evidence that disproves this, right? Rajendra Pachauri the author of this novel that can't get published due to its vapidity, is the current head of the IPCC. This guy is nowhere near highly intelligent. Not on my scale anyway. Perhaps on conner's? I imagine Keith Olbermann, or a well-trained seal, rates high on conner's scale.

If you were Jewish, would you move there? And that's the larger point here in a nutshell. Since Jews aren't willing to move back to Germany, does that make them racist against Germans? No. Does that mean that Jews hold all Germans responsible for what happened? No. Does that mean that Germans shouldn't be sensitive to what happened? No. In fact the Germans have shown almost too much sensitivity, IMHO, to the point of restricting free speech and the right to assemble. But, they took it upon themselves to make sure that the world sees their resolve. It does mean that a terrible atrocity was perpetrated by a set of people against another set, and the people who got attacked don't feel very comfortable with their attackers. I don't blame Jews for not moving back to Germany, and I don't blame the people of NYC for not being very comfortable with this, whatever it is building either.

1. We are dealing with people that are psychologically committed to the idea that man is the only cause of global warming. Some of them are at the UN, some are at Universities, the IPCC is chock full of them, and some are even on this friggin' board. 2. How does one become psychologically committed to a position? Easy. In essence, the effect replaces the cause. The effect is so desirable to them that the cause must be supported at all costs. In fact, they don't even want to discuss the cause, or allow it to be held to reasonable scrutiny, because that endangers the effect. 3. Example #1: The Boston.com article says that "Several outside reports -- including those by the British, Dutch and American governments -- have upheld the chief scientific finding of the climate panel: that global warming is man-made and incontrovertible." Where are these reports linked in this article? Where's the context in that statement? How much credibility does our current government have? On anything? This is the most far-left administration we have had since LBJ, and we are supposed to believe that they have objectively reviewed this report? Forget the Dutch and British, of all people, their university is where the scandal comes from. Are we supposed to believe this has nothing to do with political CYA? The simple fact is that all 3 governments have a LOT to lose from the IPCC scandal. All 3 have been carrying water for man-made global warming for years, both in power and out, and we simply cannot take their word at face value. But, this article removes all context, and is an example of the altered perception of the psychologically committed. 4. Example #2: The Boston.com article contradicts itself: "On top of that, the winter seemed unusually cold in many places, undercutting belief in global warming.", and in the very next paragraph says: "This year, so far, is on target to be the hottest on record worldwide with a number of extreme weather events." So which is it, there d-bag? The winter "seemed" unusually cold? How does either of these prove anything? But more importantly, how does the record-setting winter, only "seem" cold, while the summer, of course , set records? Again, this is clear evidence of the altered perception that I am talking about. There are more examples, but the point has been made. Clearly we are dealing with people that don't "seem" able to help themselves. Apparently making predictions that glaciers will melt in 35 years, which would cause catastrophe, and that being exposed as pure speculation and wrong, and not science, is not a "major" problem. Why in the hell are scientists sounding more and more like White House Press Secretaries, and less and less like scientists? Answer: because unfortunately, they are just as psychologically committed as the far-left politicians.

This is a fine example to illustrate not only Demand side vs. Supply Side, but also, the difference between valid liberal motives, and retarded liberal methods. The motive is clear and convincing: let's invest in our infrastructure, as that will pay dividends if the private sector can leverage these improvements into business opportunities. The method is retarded because its about paying off political interests rather than creating growth: let's permanently hire, or send money to state governments so they can permanently hire, and therefore never fire, more government employees, or to keep the ones we can't afford, creating even more drag on growth, in terms of taxes on the private sector. Sure, this may create/keep demand. But, for how long? You will run out or artificial money to keep paying for this artificial demand, and you will drive up interest rates = Jimmy Carter Stagflation. And, even in a perfect Keynesian wet dream, how in the hell is the private sector supposed to respond to this new demand, when all their capital is being taxed away? Specific example: if you build wonderful new highways, but my trucking company can't afford to hire new drivers and buy new trucks, because you hired away all the labor I might have hired, making it cost more for me to get new drivers, and, you taxed away most of my profits so I can't afford new trucks...I can't leverage your new highway and grow my company. Now, your new highway has cost every trucking company big time, all you have really accomplished is moving the bottle neck from one place to another, and this sector of the economy stagnates while also indirectly stagnating all its suppliers and vendors. Again, there's nothing wrong with the motive, but the method is retarded. How about this as an alternative: instead of building the highway with government workers, you invest in trucker training programs, giving tax breaks and low interest loans. Instead of increasing capital taxes, you cut them. And, instead of hiring government workers to placate your union masters, you give a contract to the lowest bidder to build the highway. The private sector benefits from all of these methods, growth is created, and the increase in taxes pays for the highway contract. This is therefore...not retarded.

Ahh, arguing with idiots, my favorite thing. Do yourself a favor and find out the terms of the aid we, and the rest of the world, gave Europe and Japan, and then, find out how they used our money. You will find that supply side economics were employed in on both cases. All the "socialization" of their economies did not occur until after these economies had stabilized and then grew rapidly due to pent up demand. In all cases, those that did chose Keynesian models AFTER they had recovered, or, they chose socialist models from the get-go, and most haven't created serious competition for the US since. And of course, you are creating another cherry-picked, historically ignorant argument: the effect was not Europe/Japan's economies and making them go, that was the cause. The effect we required was to build a bulwark against the Soviets, which was the true goal. We couldn't take chances, so we dumped a whole bunch of money on these countries..none of which has to do with the value of Keynesian policy.

What's wrong conner? Starting to like the feeling of actually knowing something about economics a little too much? Of course we can't hang everything on Obama. Personally, I feel that when it comes to things like health care, he honestly had no idea that Pelosi, and the tools at HHS, were waiting in the tall grass for him. I think he expected them to create what he laid out in the campaign, word for word, and when they didn't, he was shocked. Now, I can blame Obama for leaving health care to that nitwit in the first place. And, I can blame him for breaking his own campaign promise, and what he ran against Hillary on, by forcing everyone to buy health care. But, ultimately, I blame all of them for the fact that the policy does not cut cost and in many areas raises it exponentially. Now I know this is going to be difficult but, Obama = Democrat Pelosi = Democrat Reid = Democrat The Democrats are in charge, and have been in charge of Congress for 4 years. Before you say anything, look at that list again. I have no problem blaming Bush's 2nd term on him and the Republican congress, as well as Pelosi and her crowd, for creating this mess. Just the same as I have no problem blaming that list for failing so miserably the last 2 years. See, Scott Brown taking Teddy Kennedy's seat? That's not the Republicans fault...there's no way that should have possible. That's the list above's fault, especially when voters in their own party made it happen.

Ah yes, the cherry picked argument, we are all quite familiar with it. How about the fact that Bush, and I know it's difficult for you to get this because you are a prole at heart, wasn't the only factor in government during his time as President? You'd like to blame Bush solely, because that's what the party tells you to think, but Congress is also to blame. We aren't a dictatorship, and the fact that taxes got cut, and a few regulations modified doesn't offset the ridiculous spending that went on, by both Democrats and Republicans. I am talking massive spending in addition to the wars. There's nothing "supply side" about that. Spending on earmarks, or prescription drug plans, does not retrain the workforce nor does it cause more goods/services to be produced. If you knew economics you would know that. For example, Reagan massive increase in defense spending not only targeted the building of weapons, but it also targeted the training of soldiers, etc. Those soldiers got out of the army with instantly transferable skills that were in demand. So, increasing the skill set of the labor force is a supply side, not Keynesian, policy. In contrast, rather than increasing the skill set of a worker, Keynesian policy hires that worker to work for the government, or a contractor of the government, without doing anything to improve the skill of the worker. The labor pool doesn't get better, thus creating more economic opportunity that can be leveraged. Instead, the labor pool only gets smaller, thereby forcing business to pay more for skill sets they need. I will stop there, and let's see if you can comprehend any of this. See, I don't need wiki to do my thinking for me. I will continue if you show any signs of understanding. How many auto workers that get laid off tomorrow...can go make $70k a year at another job? I did my additional thinking, time for you to do yours.

Not to mention the historical fact that every industrialized country's factories were bombed to hell and gone at the end of WWII but ours. I am convinced that while this created the boom in the 50s and early 60s, it also created the LBJ/Jimmy Hoffa sensibility that taxing the hell out of corporations and individuals is OK. After all we are America, and we can "afford" the taxes, since "we make so much money". It also created the notion that paying uneducated, low-skilled people, whose skills are not transferable to another job and who therefore can't get a similar job if they are laid off, $70k+ a year for life, because they are "entitled", is a good idea. They got away with it when we were the only game in town. Now, it simply doesn't make sense.

See, I was gonna do this...but I figured why bother? Especially when Magox is around. Edit: I think it's also important to note that only half the country pays any taxes to begin with. I would like to see us modify that. Everybody should be required to pay something, however small. We can't all be = under the law, if we don't all pay at least something in. Moreover, why do we want to create yet another division and source of resentment and feelings of inferiority? Every citizen should be able to feel that they are contributing to society. Creating special statuses is a stupid choice.

Because these idiots think that messing up the used car/mortgage market, and competing with business/picking winners and losers is a good idea. Government competing with any business is always a bad idea. Since the government can always print money/tax it's way out of losing the competition to business, which is always does, it "loses" but it won't die. Eventually the business loses, or it can't afford to re-invest and improve, or moves its concerns elsewhere, which ALWAYS costs, rather than creates, jobs. Government hiring takes away from the labor pool, which means employees cost more, which means employers can't afford to hire as many people as they need, which reduces their plans and slows growth, or forces the employer to re-consider taking the risk of hiring new people in the first place. Sound familiar? It should, because making employees cost more, and, employers re-considering the risk is exactly what is happening right now. This is the fundamental flaw in Keynesian economics, and no serious economist will deny it, because it is undeniable.

What exactly is "fun" about spreading ignorance? Wait, this is like saying a trap that I am going to fall into is both big and little at the same time, isn't it.

No. FDR was forced to get rid of his favorite government worker programs, which never created economic growth, to free up workers for businesses, which did create massive growth. In it's effect, WWII forced the ultimate supply side economic policies. You had the government acting as a customer, and not a competitor, of business. So, no, it never worked. Anybody who says different is not a historian. Instead, they are probably a hack, or a Paul Krugman type who will cherry pick a few facts and leave out most of the actual history in a lame attempt to make an economically sound, but historically ignorant, point. Every time government competes with business it weakens the economy and destroys both economic growth and technological progress. You would think that people who like to call themselves "progressives" wouldn't be for things that kill progress.

No he wasn't. As we have heard a thousand million times, he was a Neo-con. The Republican Congress stopped being supply siders around 1998, and Pelosi's Congress did nothing for the first 2 years, and has made things worse the last 2. We have already established that you don't know economics on any level. I am willing to teach if you are willing to learn. Sound, actual supply side policy implemented in 2007-8 would have averted much of this. Unfortunately we had a government that was overwhelmed with the wars, and losing the ability to govern. More evidence that you simply aren't familiar with Keynesian economics. "Degree of loyalty"? That is what somebody who has no concept of the subject matter being discussed says in a meeting so as not to look completely clueless. Conner, you appear to be that dopey, foppish middle manager we all know... Since we are talking in terms of "degrees of loyalty", please define which macroeconomic policies represent a high, medium and low degree of loyalty in terms of Keynesian economics.

Hehe.....right, so one European means the data wasn't tampered with/doesn't exist? The ICA's findings, which this guy has nothing to do with, didn't happen? The head of the IPCC is not a sycophant, he didn't write this book and he should remain in charge...because this one guy, who makes $$$ off of being in the headlines, says so. This guy made a whole lot of $$$ being a "denier". Now, that the wind has shifted, and the royalty checks are running low, you think it's a coincidence that he's going to jump to the other side? I bet you have all Michael Moore's books too. The ridiculous premise that prompted this is: how do we spend $50 billion? And my question is: whose $50 billion? What are the chances that 80% of that comes from the USA? More importantly, why the F are we sitting around thinking up ways to spend $50 billion? Why aren't we coming up with ways to save $50 billion? The concept of dreaming up ways to spend $50 billion of somebody's money...yeah, that is not an example of jackass, redistribution of wealth economic policy at all. All this does is confirm what I wrote above, and prove that the Micheal Moore's(read: fantastic liars) of the world are good at getting dupes to buy their books. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

What this is really about? 1. Liberals, who had no hope of getting their redistributive economic agenda legislated, especially with the object lesson in the failure of that agenda provided by the collapse of Communism, and the success of Reagan's supply side policies, need an external influence on the system that cannot be argued against = Global Warming. Isn't it amazing how the rise of Global Warming "concerns" directly followed the collapse of the Soviet Union? Why is it that we never hear about the Communist countries, who are the worst abusers of the environment by far? 2. Scientists, who as DC Tom has described are always looking for $$$, are subject to the whims of politicians, and = Fannie Mae Executives in the morals department, will study whatever the politicians will pay them to study. Monkey see, monkey do, especially when the first monkey gets ever increasing grant money to study cow farts. 3. Politicians, who now see an opportunity to latch on to this "movement". Even if this was a virtuous attempt to get the truth and save lives, that is over now. The politicians see a way to accomplish #1, and, make money for themselves and their cronies, and, pay off #2 if they keep feeding them "settled science" and votes. 4. Media people, whose asses are still stinging from the being wrong about every major political story for the last 20 years(Reagan was right about the economy and how to beat the Soviets, Clinton had NOT "passed his character test", Dan Rather's phony "evidence", etc.) see an opportunity to be right, and undeniably right.(How funny is it that they are wrong, again? ) 5. Your average conner-like d-bag, who saw this as fitting in with their "Americabad, Corporationbad, all day, all the time" dogma, and treated it as a new book of their retard religion. It had the added benefit of making them feel "superior" because they "knew" something, and anybody who didn't was a "denier". These people are accurately portrayed in The Smug Alert! episode of South Park 6. Leaders of every pissant country in the world, who saw this as a way to extract massive welfare checks from the USA. 7. Leaders of China and India, who could not believe their dumb luck, that not only will the USA outsource way to many jobs to them, but, we will also make it even tougher to keep future jobs here...because we won't hold them to the same standards, and because we will basically destroy our economy in favor of theirs. So between scumbags and "useful idiots", the real person who has real scientific and security concerns about the environment now has 0 chance of addressing them, and is awash in a sea of BS. That's what this WAS about....given that, I don't really want to hear what it's about now. But, I am sure that right after Obama is defeated in 2012, we will start hearing about a new "catastrophe" around 6 months into the new President's term.

And I was merely making a point. If you want to tell us why he has issues, then make your argument. Otherwise, you are no better than the tools who cry racist wolf every time somebody legitimately criticizes Obama.

Hah! Yeah, right. 20% of people now ID as liberals. That's the same amount of people that believe in alien abduction, and all the rest of the "scary" stuff. You do understand that right now, being a liberal puts you on the same credibility scale as people who believe alien's are abducting them and touching their pee pee's, right? Right, liberals only current argument is NOT calling everybody who doesn't agree with them racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. Nah, nothing ugly about that at all. I don't remember you ever winning an argument on this board based on it's merits. It's always platitudes, obfuscation, and name calling....and that's not ugly either. I'll help you: the stupidity of this far-left administration has succeeded in: 1. uniting people who otherwise have nothing in common 2. energizing people who thought there was no hope, and that they were the minority 3. awakening people who would otherwise have no interest in politics 4. driving all of these people, who absent the idiocy of the far-left, would indeed have variance of views and differences that would otherwise be near impossible to reconcile, into a massive, energized, voting block. Great Job! The only people who can fail on this scale, when they have literally everything going for them? The far left, because their BS ideology will always destroy them in the end. It simply doesn't work, and it's far past time to move on. Back this up with 1 poll, study, anything. You can't of course, so how about I just say: don't be an idiot conner. Exactly as many people think that as call themselves "liberal" = 20%. I hope you guys are prepared for the ass reaming that is coming. I REEEEEAAAALY hope you don't start trying to blame everybody else for your abject failure. Clearly, once again, you are making fact-less arguments. I have quoted common knowledge polls and/or things you can find at RCP in 20 seconds. What's the 3nd stage of death? Ah yes, Anger. Clearly you are in denial right now. The Scott Brown thing was your Shock stage. We are seeing the transition from denial to anger is well underway. Call me some more names...prove me right, again.

Wrong forum for this. Should be on PPP. Because he posted an article that is stating the facts as they are, and describes an international academic oversight organization finding that the "science" is mostly crap? Your argument is exactly as convincing as the IPCC's. But, if you call them crazy enough times, I am sure that you will be successful in convincing/bullying people into agreeing with you. How's calling the Tea Party people racist working out for you?

It's possible, hell it's even likely, that David Nelson >>> Hardy, and since has a similar body type, he may be our "go up and get it play" guy. I have seen Nelson catch 2 TDs...with the last one an absolute torching of the guy covering him. He's 2nd on the team in yards(by 1), and while I know that doesn't mean much...he also isn't dropping balls. I have been carrying water for Hardy for the last 2 years on this board...but objectively? I'd say it's a toss up between the two at this point...and, Nelson plays for a lot less than Hardy does. Evans Johnson(at this point looks like he's #2, and while this is another of my favorites, he's got to pick it up) Roscoe(slot is his, no doubt about it) Nelson Jackson(don't know...depends on special teams) Roosevelt(Special teams has been good from what I have seen) ------ Jones(May beat out Jackson because of his special teams ability) Hardy--->odd man out maybe

I immediately thought Cox before I clicked on the link. Edit: Now, after reading the thread, and seeing how many other Cox haters......there are... ...is it any wonder why most of us still hate Miami more than the Patriots? The Patriots and Jets will always be 2nd fiddle in this division, ill-gotten SB rings or not. No amount of phony, ginned up marketing is going to change the fact that the most classic games, and the best games, that have been played in this division are still Buffalo Vs. Miami.

Dick Jauron loved CBs, and now we have the, if not one of, the best secondaries in the league...supposedly. Chan Gailey loves offensive play makers. It seems reasonable to assume, especially given his gadget plays, that he will want to retain as many play makers as he can. That's why not. Consider: our much maligned offensive line has helped produce 1000 yards of total offense and 11( -2 Pick 6s...so 9) touchdowns...against teams that have supposedly good defenses...in three games. The offensive line is starting to look less and less important...and the playmakers more and more important...as time goes on.