OCinBuffalo

If you think I care about what someone who lives in New Jersey thinks? You are very lucky that I have been soo busy lately. Having lived in Center CIty and Manhattan, and played D1 Lacrosse? I have a very low opinion of Jersey D-bags. But your comment is exactly in line with what we already know about NJ. You have to be kidding us. ISIS, Obamacare, Global Warming nonsense, and Dodd-Frank et al...and you are warning us of a Schit Storm? Get some self awareness. Look up the word: introspection. Then? Work on your critical thinking skills. When you've done these things? You'll understand how silly telling us to prepare for a Schit Storm, when we've been in one for the last 8 years, actually is.

Not sure what the F.... but... It's widely accepted that Ted Cruz saw the same thing that Donald Trump did...and that Marco Rubio saw it wrong(See: Rubio's FL concession speech) The difference is: Ted Cruz couldn't close the deal, and of course, he was up against the ultimate closer(See: today's election results). Any NFL-level sales guy in the world knew that Trump was gonna win the primary, and the general. But here's what those same guys know: Trump has been running both a hard and a soft sale this entire time = he has positioned us, the USA, BEFORE he sits down at the table. Consider: what is our position, relative to Mexico's(China's, Russia's, etc.)...before the negotiation even starts? In Trump, we have perhaps one of the best salesman of all time. But, remember, the biggest trouble with salespeople is a refusal to acknowledge key details, and demanding that things move forward regardless. However, the best thing about salespeople, is the talent for acknowledging key details. Often a key detail they seize upon closes the deal. Having worked with some of the best salespeople in the country personally? I never know what I'm gonna get. But, Trump seized on trade, inner cities, and literally took the "infrastructure argument" away from the Ds for the first time in my lifetime. So far? He's showing the talented sales guy, not the moron sales guy. We'll see.

I can teach you not to feel so much pain. It started back in 2006, on this board, and elsewhere. New rule #1 for you guys: don't think being a D makes you smart. Being smart makes you smart. (See: Ezra Klein) Don't think that doing the opposite of what somebody else tried = solution...because ???. (See: Iraq War, then, Escape From Iraq, then...ISIS). Understand that the wold functions on solutions, not methodology. I deal with this every day. Methodology '= silver bullet. More often than not methodology means: lazy thinking, or lack of thinking. Really? Methodology often leads to cliche, and cliche is the opposite of thought. Translated to poltiics: Your ideology should never restrict you from judging a proposed solution objectively, because "trickle down" this or "social justice" that. Next, start with a viable solution, then figure out who benefits, not the other way around. You guys wouldn't have lost today without Obamacare. Now, consider: what if Ds in general had collectively spent just 1 day thinking critically about Obamacare? Each person, 24 hours. You wouldn't be where you are. Failure to think critically is how you got here. Failure to think critically is how you will stay here. My bet: I don't think critical thinking will replace your lazy thinking = name calling racist, sexist, homo/cis/zir----whatever, rather than actually having a better plan. ______ Also....some guy named Crapo won in Idaho. That's when Ds know they are having a had night.

Finally. Let's go back to this board circa 2005-6...and laugh our collective asses off at it. I know I am.

Oh boy do I have a meme ready....that's just like this.

Yep. If anything, like Tapper? said tonight: it's the Ds who are going to have the bloodletting, and the backstabbing. But, I said this a long time ago: the R civil war was a good thing, because it forced them to be introspective, and to really think about what they were for, besides, gaining control of the House/Senate as a check on Obama. Cruz(or Christie, or somebody else) could have won tonight, if they had the same message/policy as Trump. That's what the Ds will refuse to learn: nobody likes what they are selling, because it's the same old stale schit they've been selling for 60+ years. Hell you could even say 100, with Wilson's world-government views. I honestly do not expect them to learn a damn thing from tonight. If anything, I expect them to learn what they know, that isn't so, even better. Also, I expect them to be uber-ironic: attack Wall Street...after Wall Street just paid millions to elect their candidate.

1 obvious caveat you are missing: Trump isn't trying to sell a bunch of blue dog Democrats on a bill/concept that didn't pass the smell test. Thanks to Obama, what the Blue Dog Democrats did agree to...is why they are all "spending more time with their family" today, and have been replaced by Rs who have promised to repeal Obamacare. These Rs made no specific promises about replacing it, so they are free to do anything. The special session of Congress Trump promised is going to happen very quickly. IMHO, too quickly. In fact, I think they really need to work out a good replacement, and put fixing the problem first. IF they do that, they should get some Ds to vote for it, which significantly reduces the replacement plan's political football status. No Rs ever voted for Obamacare, which made it a total albatross.

Get over it. But! But! On behalf of actually funny women, who don't need to say vagina? I submit the following(EDIT: you might want to turn your volume down): https://youtu.be/oUkq-_x0QE4?t=5590 Now, wait for it...at 1:34:00. Look at the guy in the top right. He gets it. See? (Hint for the un-funny: she get's up and says "It's OK"...because...coughing.) If you wanna see Seizure Hillary, wait until ~ 1:36:30 Also, here's a pic of her before the thing:

Pence won. Walk it off. Also, the notion that Trump would be upset, by his first hire as president, doing a good job, is F'ing absurd. WTF is that even about? Yeah, I hate it when I hire people that are better than me at something. Reality: I F'ing spend hours making sure they are better than me, or at the very least have the potential to be, BEFORE I hire them. Then, I constantly try to challenge them at whatever they do better than me...by doing it with them when I can. This is leadership, and no, it's not 101. Knowing to do this is innate for real leaders, but must be taught to wanna-bes.

Turns out the only reductions accomplished so far have come from buying more power from out of state, and the “offsets” consist mostly of planting trees in other states. So, great—California not only exporting middle class people; it’s just shipping money to other states, gratis. Two things: 1. Many people, including me, have arrived at the same conclusion in various ways, but they all sum up as: Justice needs no modifier. Something is just, or it is not. If one adds a modifier to justice, that instantly transforms the meaning of justice into injustice...and they demand that we not only accept injustice, but also demand that we pretend that their newly defined justice == actual justice. Justice is justice. Period. Think about it. Consider the word love. Then consider adding any modifier to it that doesn't merely define it's scale(Great love, big love, huge love, deep love). For example: conditional love. Platonic love. Do either of these last two = love's actual definition? No they do not. (And don't start with the 7 types of love crap...the word love has it's own definition, just like justice. Nobody means or says "I love you, the 6th way, but less so the 1st way." ) Thus, Environmental Justice : Justice :: Half-pregnant : pregnant. Any soft of "modified justice" is, by definition, injustice, just like half-pregnant means not pregnant. 2. I love it when one liberal virtue-goal gets so over-blown that it starts to eat another, or even, in this case, expose itself as destroying another virtue-goal. How about this headline "Global Warming efforts are racist!" There's a concept in psychology that I've often seen in real life. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and we've witnessed it here on this board many times(Member Berry Asks: "Member 'talking to janitors at Dennys?'"). If we take this basic theory, and not only expand it to groups, but also add the constant appeal to emotion over reason? It's not hard to figure out how millions of people were caught up in Global Warming. "Scientists say, therefore..." does not equal "I understand what Scientists say, therefore..." What I often find myself doing here? Well, the 4th step in Dunning-Kruger is: recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skillThus, I find myself doing a hell of a lot of training for skills.

Re-read my post, or my post before that. Math is math. And I can't help but notice that neither ...lybob, or you with your sanitation engineering skills, have seen fit to discuss the math on obvious display in the paper I posted. All you have done is yap. So, I went with yap, and made a point with it: it's been 10 years since the Global Warming political canard was given legs, and today, not only has it accomplished nothing electorally, you are now worse off than where you started in 2006. And here is where the yap ends: this was your last chance to implement socialism. Globalism is in full decline. Bond Villian George Soros' money? It just doesn't matter anymore. Media Matters? The media now has a 32-35% approval rating, and that's within 1 standard deviation based on many polls. The media's behavior on Global Warming and Obamacare are definitive causes of that rating, as evidenced by the internal questions of those polls. Face it: Global Warming was your last chance to avoid taking unpopular leftist positions, and losing elections as a result, on a host of major, very real, political issues such as Entitlement Reform, Tax Reform, Inner City Warfare, Education Reform, and our overall strategic position in the world. Your college professors want us to do all sorts of stupid things. Your useful idiots want to follow. But, they only represent 25-30% of the American people. Without a major, life-changing fear, like Global Warming, you now have to deal with these losing issues, with no defenses, distractions, etc. You're going to lose, but not just because the demographics argument is BS, also because your "ideas" are old and schitty, because they have now been tried over the last 10 years, and they have all failed. Global Warming was your silver bullet. It was how you were going to prevent the math from catching up everywhere else. Unfortunately, for you, it is isn't even a bullet, never mind silver.

Net Neutrality is bought and paid for by software company masters via the left coast politicians who serve them. That is all there is. There is no more. Anything else is utter BS. The REAL IT reason for all of this: big software companies don't want to test their code properly, because that takes too long, and thus Fs up their marketing people's over-promising. So, they don't test code for basic functionality (does anyone actually think all those Microsoft updates are making things better? No, they fix bad.). Worse, they don't test for optimization(ahem, MS Vista, anyone? How about Android's first version? How about Apple's new OS? Yeah...don't worry, it'll get better...it's just "indexing" ) So, when this schit code hits the net, it chugs bandwidth, and these companies get their bank accounts raped. Net Neutrality says: "It's OK if your 15 million instances of a schitty architecture is chugging all the bandwidth in the country, you don't have to pay for that." Meanwhile, our code is fully optimized, but, if Amazon/Netflix/Google's crap code is eating all the bandwidth, we slow down through no fault of our own. That is literally what Google et al is after. They want to write schitty code with slave laborers, who by definition don't give a F, and not have to face the consequences of that, or of 0 optimization testing. Now enough of this schit. I am tired of the clowns here treating this political hack issue like its some sort of civil rights imperative. RE ICANN: ICANN needs to be left the F alone, and no government should be involved in it on any level. ICANN is already perfectly incapable of doing much more than it does today. ICANN is not an "international agency". It is a non-profit incorporated in California made up of all sorts of hardware companies, associations. It's also made up of college professor hangers-on who keep showing up to the meetings, and other very boring people. Their main focus has always been struggling with hardware compatibility, and trying to get their new thinger's approach to "blah blahing" to be approved by the rest of them. The last thing they care about is whose web page says what. Thus, the only problem is accountability, right? Anyone who knows the material on this should be satisfied with the options available to us if ICANN ever does anything stupid. Besides, internal checks and balances, ICANN isn't a holistic entity. They are loosely organized, and almost everybody has their own agenda. But, the one agenda item they all have in common is: building trust and value into the internet. They aren't going to hurt their own businesses by pulling a Lois Lerner. We do not want any government being able to tax domain names, IP addresses, email, regulate content, or anything else. Moving control to ICANN means we take away ALL government, including the UN, capability to do that.(The UN is currently trying to create its own organization. F that.) Fnally, ICANN has no vehicle by which it can regulate content/block IPs/domains. Therefore, the "free speech" argument is irrelevant. ...unless at some future point ICANN develops such a thing(which we will know about because no secret like that can be kept by so many disparate people), implements it(same), and behaves badly with it(same). That would bring all the software guys, good and bad, down on these hardware dweebs like a 100 million hammers. It would be over very quickly, and so would the careers of those involved. I'd be writing the thread here RE what we did to crush them 2 months before the lawyers/politicians were able to comprehend it. Next question.

yap. That's all you have. Yap. Not science, certainly not physics, and absolutely not: math. Math. The single greatest threat to leftists everywhere. For all the emoting, and blustering, and virtue signaling....the math always catches up with you in the end. You don't want actually try and argue the math/science? Fine, I'll do yap with you instead: Here's some math yap. Try to follow along: what is 202 + 31? 233. The # of House seats the Ds won in 2006, marking the beginning of the "Global Warming as major Political Issue" era. What is 236 + 21? 257. The # of Hosue seats the Ds won in 2008, which is the pinnacle of the "Global Warming" era...but...anybody remember Cap & Trade? Sure you do. Wait: does anybody remember that it couldn't get passed by an 100% D-controlled government, to include a hugely popular president, 60 Senate seats and a 79 seat majority in the House? So...why didn't it get passed, ...lybob? Answer: Math. Like I said, the math always catches up. When all those Ds saw their political lives in enough trouble due to Obamacare...they didn't want to go full retard on Cap & Trade. They did the math. Well, actually somebody did it for them: The way down deep, policy wonks in the basement dwellings of power told them: "Global Warming's math doesn't add up. Say whatever you want, but don't vote for it." {Pause} So, who are the true "deniers" of Global Warming? Answer: The 2009-10 Democratic House and Senate. They denied it. They denied it because they knew it was garbage, and their denial? The only denial that matters. {/Pause} Turns out they were dead right. They were right about not moving on Cap and Trade, because Obamacare had hurt their credibility. They were dead, because Obamacare had actually destroyed it. I think you know how the rest of this turns out. Just in case you don't: here we are, with the Rs controlling the Senate, and 247 seats in the House. Only 10 behind the D majority, when Obama began his epic quest to stop the water from rising in 2009 , and, finally, more math: (247-232=)15 more R House seats now than the Rs had when this entire Global Warming mess began back in 2006. There's no end in sight for an R majority, for at least the next 4 years, perhaps as many as 14. Unless you take back the 30+ state houses you lost because of all this nonsense, get ready to get Gerrymandered in 2020 as well. Math. Catching. Up. What an appalling waste. All that time and energy, and not only are you wrong: you're worse off than when you started.

From your article: In Week 3, the Patriots’ Ryan Allen controlled a 27–0 shutout of the Texans by pinning Houston inside its own 20 on all of his seven punts. Thus, I'd say that Allen is top of the league, and therefore, punting in general doesn't detract from my 2nd point: the Pats* punter kicked for more yards than their offense gained. If anything, you are reinforcing my main point, we didn't get a blowout, that many posters and callers expected, given how the game was going, because: punting. To combine it all: Punting is way better than expected recently, so, we should all take that into account going forward. If punting continues to have this big of an effect on the game...perhaps it should be added to fantasy.

I haven't seen this discussed nor have I heard anybody talk about it. Consider: New England Punting NO YDS AVG TB IN 20 LONG Ryan Allen 6 313 52.2 0 2 58 That's 313 yards of field position...which is more yards than their entire offense had: 277 Add that to the fact that we: 1. Were obviously in a run-first game-plan 2. Never trailed And, it's pretty easy to see why we didn't blow them out. 40 is a good average. 52.2 is ridiculous. Especially when you consider the # of 3 and outs they had. Our average drive start for the game was our own 23! That doesn't sound right, but it is. In fact, we had the same average drive start as the Pats. When you include everything else: their punter made a huge difference. EDIT: 2 inside our 20 as well. Thus, we had to drive the ball 75+ yards on average per drive, and we only had 9 drives all game. Lots of running(for the right reasons) + a punter w/ 52.2 average = no blow out.

No, you weren't. You were shown exactly who did a study, who reviewed it, and who concurred with it. Nobody said anything about not needing peer review.

How has Facebook's actions wrt unfairness to the right...been any different than the IRS's actions? Who is imitating whom? How has Twitter not acted, in every way, exactly like the Department of Education? Or vice versa? That's sorta part of the joke here...it's getting very hard to tell the difference between facebook, and a government bureaucracy. I have an idea for creating Splitter....which is essentially an integration to Twitter using its API, that wraps it, then supersedes its moderation, such that all Splitter users can see Twitter data and events, but also those generated by users on Splitter, who were banned by Twitter, as a way to massively troll...just about everybody. Logging into Splitter gets you both, but, just like with ignoring people here, Twitter-only people couldn't see what the Splitter people are saying about them, and therefore could be mocked incessantly...with no hope of repercussion. We could change our interfacing by the second, so Twitter would have to chose: either shut down their API completely(and lose much of their attempts at monetization), or redesign it(spare me, we would adapt), or, just have to take the pounding from Splitter. I have a feeling we could own a majority of Twitter in 12-18 months by doing this. Then we'd just fire the "advisory council", the CEO, the mods, and anybody else I felt was a bad egg, and put Twitter back to the way it was supposed to be: free speech period, and leave the policing to the police. Somebody makes a death threat, the police want to know who: we tell them. We don't give them access to anything. Simple. Short of that, we don't know nothing, man. But, I am too busy.

IF any of you were still wondering who the real fascists are in government. This proposal should remove all doubt. This is literally fascism's business model. Not only do we want a cut, but, we want to direct the company as well. "Oh sure, this is still a "private" firm, but, you will do as we command". It's always hilarious to see the far left eat itself. I wonder: as a board member, and part owner of the firm, when the inevitable lawsuits that come from DWHs, cancer victims, or "I was gonna do X, but then I got high(NSFW, notice the Oakland Raiders T-shirt)" frivolidiots.... ....are they gonna pay their fair share of the settlements, or try to duck out on some bogus immunity defense? I mean, since so many things(like vaping) are "known to the State of California (which says it all) to cause X" , you know its only a matter of time until they throw weed onto that huge pile. Just imagine it: "weed is known to the State of California to cause men to not pay their child support"..... @An entire state of clowns.

Something to consider: Hillary has 100+ people working on her social media campaign. Trump has 3. His son-in-law, a GM of one of his golf courses(and also his former caddie), and himself. How much $ do you have to raise just to pay the 100+? And after all is said and done? Here are the numbers: Trump has almost 8 million more followers if you combine facebook, twitter, and instagram That's just, a flat out whipping. Here's the article this data comes from: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-crashing-internet-with-30-million-followers-billions-of-views/article/2602541 Jesus, if I was a HilLIARy stockholder? I'd be looking to fire the board, never mind the officers. Trump has built this platform in a year, Hillary has had a decade. Those of you who love social media should be shocked by these numbers. Those of you who don't? Aren't shocked at all, are you?

This also boggles me. Why in God's name do you create the opening, through which Jennifer (sic) Flowers can walk through? Or Monica Lewinsky? Or Sandy (Hillary told me to steal classified Bin Laden docs, hide them in my underwear and socks, and try to get away) Berger for that matter? Or, if you really want to troll: a guy in a death shroud with a sign that says "Representing the 50+ that have died around the Clintons" o,r "Representing the DNC guy who was the source of the emails, and/or the Bernie guy who served the DNC with FOIA papers". One reason for why they keep doing stupid things like this: donor pressure. I imagine Cuban is a donor. So, idiot that Cuban is(never has a lottery winner gotten more praise for doing so little), he calls and says he wants to sit in the front row. Campaign staff now have a problem. Do they accede to the "prolific" idiot donor's demands? Or, do they tell him no? Having to hash and rehash these kinds of things? Perhaps that is what prevents them from thinking things like this through. I imagine George Clooney calls every day demanding that they do this, or that, and they have to respond. If you were being pestered every day by unmitigated morons, you might miss the obvious as well.

Did you not get what I said at all? Apple is guilty of much worse than the ISPs. Period. Apple is #1 on the list of "Hardware companies behaving badly", and has been for literally MY ENTIRE CAREER Steve Jobs: the Totalitarian...and you are complaining about the ISPs? They are nothing. Whatever power you say they have is easily overcome. Steve Jobs got fired from his own company: because he was easily overcome. WE DO NOT NEED the government to pre-determine how things are going to go(right, like they did with Obamacare?), and act, because the government, most of all, never knows how things are going to go, and never understands the full the consequences of its actions. How many examples of this do I need to cite? We do not need a sweeping, regulate-everything 2000 page effort on this. We need the government to aim small, and therefore, miss small: which, btw, is exactly what Trump's childcare program does. Every part of it can be tweaked with minimal effort and containable consequence. NONE of Net Neutrality can be changed without major disruption, because it is a top-down, multiple inter-dependency approach. It's yet another house of cards from the Democrats, just like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Global Warming. Your scenario above has < 25% chance of becoming a reality. What you are saying is possible, but you do not know, because: It is predicated on "point in time" thinking. Good IT doesn't do point in time, we do over time, and thus, measure our efforts by their responsiveness to change, NOT current market share(that's for you, Wall Street buffoons). Just because your scenario might exist at 1 point in time, does NOT mean everything will stay that way: frozen in time. In fact, every single working part of your scenario above can be forced/changed/made irrelevant such that a different outcome is not only possible, but likely. Ultimately: you are describing a Hardware Utopia. If it ever exists, it will for 2 months, tops, and then will be invaded and destroyed by Software. Ask IBM about its PC Utopia. EDIT: When you are done asking IBM? Understand, that at one point in time, your entire argument above against the ISPs, WAS the argument against IBM, and its PC.

Ahh, the ultimate indicator of defeat: Neither of you dares to argue the content, because let's face it: both of you have proven, beyond all doubt, that you don't know much of anything about anything. Instead, you try to play the process game. Then, you will try to pretend that you are making a choice and tell us that you "won't" discuss the content, but the reality is you have no choice, because: you can't. Read the paper: 7 scientists have signed on already, after having reviewed this work. That's peer review. Especially when one of the scientists is the "Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee" and another is "IPCC Expert Reviewer". So much for your process arguments. The simple fact is: this is math, not psychology. The math is telling both of you that it's far past time to recognize the major flaws in AGW's theory, and frankly, that your views are based on beliefs, and not on math. Belief scrutiny: Where is the missing heat? How come the IPCC models only accurately predict temps when you dial down the CO2 sensitively variable in them to the "will have a result, but that result will be negligible, and thus won't affect us in any meaningful way" level? In fact, tell us why ALL of the models suffer from the exact same error in overestimation of CO2 sensitivity...if all these researchers are working "independently"? Tell us why every model is predicated on carbon and the sun...working in way that contradicts physics, and their own observed properties? While you're at it: tell us where the mythical THS can be found. We want to see lat/long coordinates. Show me the damn thing, because ALL 3 of the EPA's "Lines of Evidence" depend 100% on it being there. Again: where is it? Again: this is what real science looks like, especially when one considers the obvious difference in behavior of these scientists ("Questioning everything is fair game"), and the AGW scientists behavior ("Anybody that doesn't accept everything my science says is akin to a holocaust denier") One side says "feel free to show me where I'm wrong". The other side is demanding that anyone who doubts them be sued/thrown in jail. This has now reached the level of farce, and by all means, please continue to be characters in the farce. I love watching you dance.

RE: Net Neutrality Net Neutrality can't get passed by Congress. So, it gets regulated into being by the FCC, and, we're supposed to think that's OK? How in the hell are any of you OK with it? Get a F'ing grip. That is fascism, on its face, and only an unmitigated moron can't see this for what it is. I've already proven, years ago, that Net Neutrality is a farce, and has nothing to do with morality, or safety, or rights, or any of that. It has to do with 1 thing only: software vs hardware, just like practically every other major IT fight does. An instructive example of hardware vs. software? You can't build a native app for an IPhone without literally owning a mac(or, as we do, using a mac hosting service to get around this), only using their programming language, paying a $100 fee, and then? Only they decide what apps go on the store, and their decision process USED to take as much as 1 month(one guy had to wait 4). Denial was common. Competition, outcry from developers, and bad press has forced them end most of this. But then, after approval, you can't charge what you want for your app, no matter what it does, or how much time you put into it. Your price is arbitrarily capped, with nothing other than leftist ideology given as the reason why. Now, tell me: that is what a hardware company is currently doing to individual programmers as well as companies, right now, and that's OK... ...but hardware companies who want to charge major software companies for hogging their resources is bad? Does anyone not see WTF is happening here, and the contradiction, or do I have to go over it again? However, Reality: never think that a hardware company will ultimately win at lock-in, or anything else. They never do. There is now this, and there has been this for quite some time. See? Software will always find a way to perturb, avoid, or destroy any limitation placed upon it: not just by hardware, but by governments and competing software companies as well. Microsoft used to be patent everything and then try to sue other software companies out of existence. Software's response? Open source, which has utterly crushed them. Now, after the whipping they took, they are releasing open source products See here: new Microsoft IDE that would have cost you ~$400 when .net first came into being, now costs you: nothing. The little guys that Net Neutrality claims to defend(Lie. It defends Google and Netflix), defeated Microsoft all by themselves. So, WHY do we need Net Neutrality? We don't. What we need is to recognize that software vs. hardware is an eternal struggle, and that the government getting involved is 10x more likely to F things up worse, rather than fixing anything. But most of all: we need to recognize that this is about $$$$$$$, period. All the "moral" arguments and "freedom" arguments and all of it, from both sides? Utter BS.

No, he should move to lower Manhattan...since it's not covered in 2 feet of water...as was predicted 10 years ago by Grand Inquisitor Al Gore. No, really, tell us why the sea levels have gone down/stayed right the F where they were(statistically insignificant rises at best) for the last 10 years. Hell, Obama claimed that he was was the reason why the seas would stop rising. Perhaps he's the reason Gore was proven completely wrong? Obama the Black: master wizard, casts spell to keep seas from rising on his first day in office? What other explanation do you have for why Manhattan isn't covered in water? In any event: once again, Global Warming is a political issue, not a scientific or intellectual pursuit. Well, unless you count what these guys just did: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf (for free, without any funding source, so don't even start), which is science, and math, all day. Quoting the abstract, for the lazy: Yet another example of the AGW theory being nothing more than a house of cards. Just like with the over-estimation of CO2 sensitivity, here we see the chief premise of the theory, the THS, being invalidated...completely, by 13 distinct data sets. IF you read the actual paper, you can see that these guys went out of their way to ensure that nothing was "cherry picked". They explain exactly what they did, how and why. In fact, they essentially preempted all of the usual attacks on papers like this, by accounting for them in their methodology, and explaining each point fully. Example: And here's where things really stand as far as the actual science goes: Yes, baskin, where is it? Where is the work, not the talk? Where is the methodology, since the AGW people never seem to be willing to produce it, or, as soon as it is identified(and then proven faulty), they change it to something else, but never explain it. The contrast here should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80. On the one side, you have scientists who encourage questions about their work. On the other side, well, we have the word "denier", don't we? Once again, Game. Set. Match. One cannot talk AGW, without explaining where the F the missing heat is/why the climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as was claimed, and now? Where the F the missing THS is...which WAS the premise that practically all AGW theory is predicated upon.

To all: I said this was a hypothesis. I'm not sure about it. I am sure that direct snapping to a FB, having the QB turn his back to the LOS, and faking/making the handoff to the QB...every single play, or 3 plays in a row...would be at the very least, highly entertaining. Yeah its scary for the QB to take his eyes off of the field, but, not as scary as the LB who bites on the fake, and then, leaves the middle of the field wide open, for anybody to run into, then receive the ball on the run. What would Sammy do to people if he is in single coverage with no inside help for 10-15 yards around him? I merely said it was a logical explanation. As far as getting a rookie 6th rounder? They made a waiver claim on Vitale for a roster spot. They didn't just sign him to the PS. This indicates to me that they had their eye on him...for some reason. My reason: this type of formation, or, like I said, something similar has been part of Roman's plans for quite some time. When you see a guy that fits, you go and get him...rather than having to compete to sign him. This thinking, and as I see above, I'm not alone in it, is sorta like what the Sabres did coming out of the lockout: build a team that is the polar opposite of what everybody else has on their roster. Danny Briere was a castoff, before he came to Buffalo, and found a system that played to his strengths. I see this the exact opposite way: you aren't depending on a few elite blockers/skill players. Rather, you are spreading out the responsibilities. So, you don't need to pay your LT what a normal franchise LT makes. Each player doesn't have to be the very best at his position. Obviously you want everybody to be as good as you can make them. But, your entire season doesn't depend on the #1 WR/#1 RB/ #1 QB and a pro-bowl LT. It's really a case of supply and demand. If everybody is looking for elite LTs, then you can get great value for this scheme, by taking merely a good one, in the 3rd round, instead. Few want the best people for your scheme, so you are getting starters in the 5th round, while everybody else is fighting over backups. Same is true in FA. You don't have to pay top $ for the best, you can spread that $ out and get a lot of good players....which is how you get to the 8-9 guys you are talking about. More importantly, it's how you get the next 3-4 guys than can replace them, without a huge drop-off in talent. This does a lot towards injury-proofing your team, as well as minimizing the impact of FA losses. When it comes down to it: having our bigger guys block their smaller guys? They are going to be injured a lot more than we are. And, a good guy, who fits our scheme, is more likely to stick around, because there won't be as much demand for him: he's just a good guy, not a great guy.