OCinBuffalo

Well, that, and, this way, no matter how people see the world, and no matter how right they are about some things, they won't be right about everything, and that leaves the opening for you to come in and say: "see, I told you so". Yes, no matter what, politicians who have actual economic ability and act as such are going to make mistakes, but I still want them to be in charge rather then the politicians who have 0 economic ability. This is why I am for term limits, and also for why I think we should amend the constitution to require 5 year mandatory participation in both the public and private sectors before one can run for office.

Ignorance, or, "I will just parrot what I saw on MSNBC", is much easier than the toil it takes to actually get yourself informed. And, make no mistake, while college means you are likely to be informed, it does NOT guarantee that you will stay informed. Look how many idiots that went to college in 1965-75 we are dealing with now, that for reasons passing sanity, STILL think there's nothing wrong with the FDR/LBJ entitlements, and will fight any reasonable attempt to fix them. The "people in power" are the Baby Boomers/"Me Generation". They have created the culture you have described, and the faster we get them out of power, the better. This is not some ageism thing, this is purely based on poor performance(Clinton, Bush2, Obama). Their parents weren't f ups, and their kids, who have born the brunt of their selfishness(highest divorce rate in history) and will for a long time, basically had to raise themselves, so we aren't f ups either.

See, this way, no matter what happens, Darin always gets to be "right".

Nah, you've got that wrong. How are we supposed to agree with him, when all of his positions are likely to be "walked back" the next day? Nobody, and especially not elected Democrats, want to publicly agree with him on any specific issue, because they know he has no problem hanging them out dry. If there is an opportunity to come in and "provide guidance to all parties" , then you are screwed, because he won't lead, he will wait until a Democrat screws up so he can come "teach". Look at what just happened with the Mosque thing. He says one thing, and suckers a bunch of liberals into praising him, then sells them out the next day. And, inexplicably, the statement he makes on the 2nd day betrays all that praise, and simultaneously raises a whole other question, while invalidating the answer to the first question. It's a political hack's maneuver, and a amateurish one at that, instead of a leader's strong statement. My current problem with Obama has nothing to do with "issues pBills cares about, and how he plans to solve them". That might have been a concern, but that is now way down the list. My current problem with Obama is that he keeps trying to set up situations to feed his own narcissism, rather than to solve problems. This country, it's people, and his office are not mere props for him to create his own "why I am awesome" plays.

As much as we'd all like it, I think it makes no sense for anyone to release the details of their plans until the letter of intent singed. Why compete against themselves? Ralph would have to be serious about sitting down and listening to a deal, if it was my deal, before I released detail 1 to him. The last thing I want is the details of my offer in the press, only to have Ralph deconstruct it in the press. He might be old, but he's clearly still a good businessman, and an excellent marketer. I would be wary of him. And he's not even the largest concern: I would be even more wary of the NFL in general, and specifically the other owners like Jerry Jones, who have 0 interest in my meeting with success in owning the team and keeping it in Buffalo.

Thanks. I have no reason to lie. It's not like I am trying to impress anybody. I couldn't care less what people think of me here, on PPP, or anywhere else. I ran into this guy in a bar, and this was early that night. Not really. This guy is fairly well entrenched in a 20 year relationship with players on both the Sabres and Bills. He basically quoted these things directly to me, and I posted them word for word. To clarify, I used the word "broker" as a quick way to explain a concept in an already "verbose" post : If this is anything like a typical VC/private placement deal, then Kelly is the guy bringing the parties together, and may or not be receiving any $ for his involvement. I am certain he is not structuring it. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he is largely lending his name/credibility to the buy side, so that sell side, Ralph, will be more willing to do the deal. As far as the actual structure of the deal itself, there are a lot of ways it could get done. In all cases, it's a virtual certainty that some investment banker will be engaged to work out the details and handle the structure.

One of the cool things about moving my activities to Buffalo has been the regularity with which I randomly run into players, coaches, inside fans, etc. To be sure, this is not something I seek, it just happens. This is a departure from most of the cities I have lived in, and it really is an asset to Buffalo. Clients usually lose their schit when they realize they are suddenly sitting next to pro athlete/musician, and the scene is telling them, "yeah, so?". Everywhere else it's about some dopey "access" thing. Here, it's no big deal to just sit down with whoever and have a beer in your local bar. Everywhere else its jacked up personal seat licenses and $25 lobster bisque at the stadium, and then maybe, just maybe you get a chance to talk to a player for 5 minutes. The reason for the intro is: we have been exposed to lots of "Ralph's Taurus spotted at airport" posts since I have been here. This is not one of them, and I can prove it. I will drop the info I have, and then add the bonafides after. So, let's get to the point. I have it on excellent authority that as of last night the Bills will not be going anywhere. Yes, Jim Kelly is involved, but is more of a broker than a backer. In fact, over the course of 3 years, most recently in the last 6 months, Kelly has consistently said "Don't worry, the Bills aren't going anywhere, but that's all I can say." This only makes sense since, as a broker Kelly would almost certainly be under a non-disclosure agreement, and, why in the hell would Kelly's group want to be bidding against themselves by prematurely making their intentions, and price, public? Bonafides and interesting tidbits: 1. The person that told me this has been what I will call the "car czar" to the Bills and Sabres over the course of the last 20 years. In fact, he told an interesting story about being originally stiffed by Kelly, at which point Andre Reed, who was also a customer, covered him, and said "hey, I don't like Kelly much, but he is going to put me into the hall". This was Reed's rookie year. Over time, the relationship obviously changed. 2. This guy went on to refuse to do business with Kelly for a number of years, until one day when his buddy told him "STFU, I am on Jim's car phone and we are pulling into the parking lot". Jim did the right thing, and they have been doing business ever since. 3. "Right thing", to the point that when my "source" got cancer, and had $50k in medical bills pile up, Jimbo stepped in and raised $36k in one day, confirmed by this guy's wife. (So yeah, there are waaaay to many details here for this to be BS). 4. I spent what I can only call quality time listening to stories about Razor, Barnaby, Peters and the list goes on. Basically, had I wanted to, I am sure I could have pressed and gotten a story about any player, but I focused on the new owners of the Bills thing. 5. Major TBD Myth Busting: Kent Hull freely admits that on multiple occasions, he had to literally fireman's carry Jimbo into the stadium on game day. However, Hull insists that they never lost a game when he had to do that. Instead, he says that those days produced some of Jim's best games. And for the doubters? These are fighting words for Hull, enjoy. Specifically, they did not follow their usual routines for any of the super bowls. If anything, we should have wished for more partying the night before, not less the week before. Disclaimer: I specifically asked if it was OK if I posted this info in detail. I did pay for this info and the price was one beer

....and no Tom Brady. So much for being as good as/better than Montana. Glad to see people have finally come to their senses.

You keep laughing, slappy. We'll see how hysterical this is on Nov. 10th when the reality of the whipping you just took sets in. Can't wait until you start blaming everybody else but Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Moveon.org retards for the sound defeats in both houses. I'm sure it will all be Rush Limbaugh's, and of course my, fault.

Oh, and as far as the OP goes? You can't get anywhere without respect. If the other guy believes that respect comes from fear, then you must make him fear you. If he believe that it comes from honor, then you must be honorable. The Iranian leadership clearly believes that respect comes from fear. Their entire regime and ideology is based on it. Submission to Allah blah blah, which really means submission to the Ayatollahs, dudes running around in cars beating people? All of it is based on fear. And given this, Obama goes in and plays the candy ass, intellectual, college professor, Woodrow Wilson type? No surprise the Europeans, who are led by candy ass, intellectual, college professor types, all loved Obama and believed in this "engagement" crap. But clearly, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and every other piss ant, tin pot dictatorship, oligarchy and theocracy is not run by candy ass, intellectual, college professors. Instead, they are run by low-life street thugs turned-Tony Mantana. Obama has 0 respect in the international problem child community, and therefore, nobody cares what he says. If I was a soldier in any army, and you told me that I was going to fight against an army with Obama as its leader? My morale just went up 20 points. Hmm...now I know what it must have been like for a rebel infantryman knowing his leader was Lee, and the other guy's was Burnside.

"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction"TM ....so, therefore.... That means that spending astronomical amounts of money we don't have, and having the government take over half the private sector is justified. Let's all vote for a pissant political hack with no qualifications and 0 leadership ability!

Pfhew! And here I had been thinking that they would have to go after me first. Looks like you are much more of a threat to this imbecilic ideology than I am.

Like I said, "Oh boy, here we go..."

Hehe. 1.5 hours ago I said to myself: "Oh God, Tom is going to be all over this."

So are you telling us that you agree that Obama is the reason that the race card doesn't work anymore? Look here everybody: that's a good point! And...followed up by foolishness. What a let down. As evidenced by this thread, you aren't doing so well on proving your non-idiot status. The ACLU position is idiotic, never mind wrong. We are fighting a war against a-holes who hide behind civilians and don't have the balls to wear uniforms and formally declare war. The ACLU seems perfectly willing to hold a double standard, and that's idiotic when it comes to war. Having any standard at all in war is hard enough, expecting one side to hold to a higher one is sheer stupidity. Therefore, we can't rely on helicopter insertions/halo drops and hoping that our guys will sneak in and be able to catch a guy that is moving around all the time, with a guard of 50 armed to the teeth, so that we can arrest him and bring him to trial on lower Manhattan. NO. We have to send in our guys to sneak in and get eyes on, and then waste the guy and all 50 with a Hellfire missile from a Predator. All trying to make arrests will do is get our guys killed. Remember Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to free the hostages from Iran? If we do things the ACLU's way, we can expect one of those every f'ing week. What a great idea! Let's waste our best special operators because it satisfies some dipschit lawyer's delicate sensibilities. If these ACLU lawyers want to risk our troops so badly, and are so certain that their way is the only "right" way to do it, then why don't they sign up to serve on the insertion teams? Oh, that's right, these pussies can't actually do the job, can they? So they prefer hiding behind the safety real men provide, and whimpering and whining as they do.

If the states, and you know there will be at least 20, have the right to not recognize a gay civil union, doesn't that invalidate the whole thing? What is the point of California recognizing gay marriages, if none of the states around it do, and if the Federal government doesn't? Isn't it reasonable to assume that, given the 45 current state laws against, only a very few states will recognize another state's gay marriage? Isn't that also an equal protection violation? Doesn't that lead to "gay reservations" or something similar? Moreover, what about the Federal income tax, business taxes, inheritance, all the stuff GG and Chef talked about(3-4? threads ago)regarding financial issues, etc.? These are not state issues.

So you agree that people who have been running around calling people racist and bigots are idiots? Are you an idiot, or do you see them relating this individual bad behavior, to something completely irrelevant = a black president? The fact that the "race card" is being used, or that it even exists, is...Obama's fault? So what, now we have Democrats with Obama derangement syndrome replacing their Bush derangement syndrome? I have more, but before I go on, are you sure that you want Jon Stewart doing your talking for you? Are you sure that using a comedian is the best approach for proving you aren't an idiot? 1. How many card carrying ACLU members are also card carrying Republicans? How many are Democrats? You can't be serious. The ACLU spends 95% of its resources supporting leftist nonsense, and 5% on token cases protecting Christians....and I am supposed to believe that makes them "objective"? 2. How many of the lawyers suing the Obama administration over predator attacks vote Republican? 0 People that vote Democrat are doing this, you can try to re-classify them all you want, but they are still Democrats, period. Not a convincing argument against your idiot status...but, at least its a rational attempt at an argument. If you are aware of it, then STOP F'ING DOING IT! NOW! The ACLU has stopped doing their age-old mission, and started being a political tool for the left. This is a problem for us as a whole. Instead of sticking to their annoying, but necessary, tenets, they are actively supporting candidates, and going after others, and picking and choosing their issues instead of being consistent. That is the sign of a political organization, not a civil libertarian organization. I have seen to much evidence for me to believe that this is the same old ACLU that showed up in my high school and prevented our principal from banning us from wearing t-shirts that supported our teachers in their contract negotiations. No, something has clearly changed when they set out to go after a political candidate and/or people and not specific issues.

Because SDS, Darin and Tom got together and decided it was your turn. They told us all about it last week. Feeling less paranoid now?

Ahh, conner. Not only can't you argue with me, but you "know" that I listen to Limbaugh? How exactly? The truth is: I don't listen to Limbaugh much, and haven't really ever. I have to be in a car, on a long trip, with nothing else going on to listen to Limbaugh. And besides, I know what he is going to say before he says it, so what is the point? I don't learn anything, so I usually don't waste my time. I usually listen to sports radio, and yes, WGR. If you want to get on me for that, fine. Some days I feel like I should get on myself for listening to it. Similar to your posts: I don't learn anything, because I already know what you are going to say before you say it. All I have to do is turn on MSNBC for 15 minutes. There is a 90% chance that your posts, because they come from MSNBC, will ignore real priorities for minutia, be irrational, be fact deficient, and logic deficient. Let's have some fun. Pick either question, and let's see if you can prove you're NOT an idiot: 1. Please explain how over-using the terms "racist" and "bigot" will NOT create a dangerous indifference to them. or 2. Please explain how suing Obama over predator attacks is in line with current Democratic political goals. Take all the time you need, and put in the work that provides us evidence that you are not just one more in a long line of far-left idiots, contrary to my, and everyone's, conclusions.

I honestly believe that while you are probably right, another 5-4 indecisive "decision" is another of the "worst things that can happen". We already had the idiots force the 45 state laws that now have to be dealt with. This is the very next thing that will make this issue even more divisive, and prevent a solution most of us can embrace. Instead, I would like to see what Adam proposed: a Republican led Congress take on this issue and provide a fair solution that does not re-define marriage, but ensures that gay couples get the same rights as straight ones. Short circuit the whole court battle nonsense and simply put forward a set of laws that a large majority of us can gladly accept.

A historian calling the name callers out. Clearly I am not the only one who sees this as a problem: If everyone is a bigot, then no one is. If we lose sight of the difference between variance of opinion on how to solve a problem, and honest to God racism, then we are in for a host of additional problems and unintended consequences that make today's issues seem small. "Crying racist/homophobe/anti-you-name-it" wolf has reached an all time high. Enough is enough. If we don't put an end to this, then real hatred will be allowed to flourish behind a wall of skepticism that will be created by over-use of these names. People who keep throwing out these names so casually only succeed in convincing us of one thing: the weakness of their arguments. If their arguments could stand on their own 2 feet, there would be no need to start name calling. Many have confused the concept of principles, inherent truths that we all universally and inherently know, with values. If a person doesn't share your values, that does not, in and of itself, make them a bigot. It simply makes them someone you haven't convinced of the accuracy of your world view. Unfortunately, we seem to have a lot more people who are willing to take the easy way out and call names, rather than put the work in and convince. Finally, I name call the far-left. I call them "idiots" all the time, because they have clearly established a pattern of making stupid choices when faced with real problems. For example: the far-left is currently suing Obama because he is using predators to kill terrorists. Is there a better example of a stupid choice? How is this behavior in line with their goals? This is only going to get them the exact opposite of what they intend: demoralizing their own base-->a Republican President. I certainly didn't arrive at the conclusion that the far left are largely idiots without putting the work in. The propensity of the far-left to name call with 0 evidence, and the current intensity of that practice, only serves to reinforce that conclusion. They are once again going to achieve the exact opposite of what they intend if they continue this practice. George Costanza aside, only an idiot sets a goal, and then goes about doing the exact opposite of the things that will achieve it. The far left does this all the time, and therefore, they are idiots. Perhaps they should give the Costanza "do the opposite" method a try.

Ok, anybody who voted for Obama solely because he was black(identity people), or, because voting for a black guy made them feel good/superior/etc.(liberal white guilt people), while spending exactly 0 time examining his qualifications and balancing his lack of executive experience and his lack of tangible success in any field....against his unique charismatic drive and the potential of that....are utter morons. Each deserves a kick in the crotch. There. Oh...wait...that didn't solve anything. He said he could do the job, and clearly, he can't. You can't blame the people who legitimately believed him after careful consideration.

Hehe. This reminds me of what my business law professor said the first class: "the concept of equity doesn't stop a-holes from being a-holes."

Then the question remains: is batting 1-45 an example of using "good political judgment"? Would you hire a lawyer with that record to represent your interests? Or, would you come to the rational conclusion that this lawyer either doesn't know the job, or isn't doing it properly? Perhaps, but it won't change a thing. Saying that a state cannot prevent a church from performing a ritual is not the same thing as saying that ritual must now be recognized both in state and nationally as a legal agreement in civil matters. The question remains: which one of our, stated, in my case, and implied, in yours, extrapolations is more likely to be the case? Mine is based on logic, plain and simple. What's yours based on? I am not a lawyer and am not familiar with this case. So basically I have no idea how to answer this question. What I can say is: the minute you change from marriage being an option, to a right protected by law, then everything changes. If we passed a law that guaranteed the right to interracial marriage, instead of leaving it as it is now, an option, that would clearly change the game and knock over a domino. Wouldn't we then have to pass a law that guaranteed same-race marriages? Again, due to equal protection? And on and on? Nothing, if we took the legal/tax attributes away from marriage and stuck them onto whatever new civil thingy you and your lawyer friends come up with. Everything, if you insist on re-defining marriage for everyone. Look, if you want to fix this, you can't take what was already tried, paint it a new color and add wheels. You have the dolts who caused 45 state laws to be passed to thank for the difficulty that we now face. That is reality. Now, it's time to get serious about making something that will work, or, it's time to accept waiting 10 years. I do, and that's what I mean when I say: universal civil union that replaces marriage as the legal/tax vehicle. Then, let traditional marriages "count" as that legal vehicle. And, let gay marriages performed by religions that allow it also "count" as a civil union. You could define the legal thingy as only between 2 people, but again, I see that as having equal protection problems. It's interesting that you bring up driver's licenses. You may not be aware that many of our state driver's licenses are not accepted in other countries. New York always is, because we actually make it a real process. Other countries know that and act accordingly. I wonder: if we can't get them to recognize all of our driver's licenses uniformly, how in the heck are we supposed to get them to recognize our gay marriages? Which brings up the Federal law thing all over again.

It seems that every time I think they can't do anything worse, they find a way. There are so many things going wrong that would have been month-long issues when Clinton/Bush were in office, due to the 24 hour news cycle. However, with these guys? Massive foolishness only lasts a few days to a week because it gets replaced by the next ideologically-driven cluster F.