OCinBuffalo

And once again, I will say the same thing I always say: This will last 3 days until somebody brings in a real consultant who tells them what will really happen if they pursue this..... ....and on the 4th day, they will proclaim that the issue "needs more study".....never to be heard from again.... Elliot Spitzer did the same thing when he first took office, and he wasn't the first dipschit Democrat to try this, and he won't be the last. I am starting to think that this is simply a ploy that liberal politicians use to scare everybody else but internet business.

Now that's how to make that argument. Incompetent vs. competent. I have no problem docking/firing the incompetent. Working vs. what? Not Working? BS. Many of us own companies here and I assure you we work much harder than any "working man" you care to name.

As a guy who helps clients through trouble...I can give you an informed opinion: When managers are stressed, they go to what they know best. If you were trained as a nurse, you start treating the problem like a patient = top down assessment and creating a plan to address each problem you find. If you are trained as an accountant, you start by looking for data, and then trends in that data that may give you a place to start, once started, you begin to break down each piece of information down until you can prove something about the problem. Etc. Etc. We all do it, most won't admit to it. Often times people from only one "school of thought" honestly believe that all the world's problems can be solved using their methodology. Just as often, they are wrong. Almost always, the problems that are conducive to being solved using their methodology, get solved first. This is fine, if you are departmental manager type, because chances are the problems you solve have to do with your department, and the training will apply. So, since Priority #1-4 all can be solved the same way, #1 gets done first, as it should be. However, this is not fine if you are the CEO. CEO's must think broadly, and must not give in to the temptation to only see things from their point of view. They have the power to demand that everyone see it their way, but all that power doesn't change reality, or the nature of the problem at hand. Among the many lessons it provides, leadership training/experience teaches us to see things from other people's perspective, especially when it's wrong, and to do it quickly. Obama is a lawyer, as you say. Therefore: 1. Should we be shocked that the legal ramifications are addressed first? 2. Should we be shocked that the problems that aren't conducive to the legal profession aren't being solved? Obama has no formal leadership training or experience, and especially none in large organizations of non-sycophants. Smarts simply isn't enough. We have seen over and over his refusal, because I believe he is capable, to see things from any other point of view than the twisted socialism he espouses. He is clearly not getting the job done as the CEO, because he is only going to what he knows, and he hasn't been trained on how to avoid doing that. And, I am betting that the worse things get, the more "Philadelphia Lawyer" we will see out of this guy, and that will only make things worse. After all, from personal knowledge, most Philly Lawyers think they are far and away superior to everyone else on the planet....I can't imagine their meltdown if that was proved false, every day, over and over.

Ahh, the root cause of the issue bears its ugly head. See, THIS is why the far-left is only effective when they AREN'T in power. They are masters of making every problem somebody else's fault. Then, when they do get power and the stupid ideas they have been saying are the cure to everything......fail.....they have no place to go. So, they start saying things like "ok, we failed, but now it's on YOU to prove that what you want to do will work, or,..."and we never get to hear the answer to that, because we usually vote their sorry asses out. As I said, this is the root cause: lack of accountability. Show me a liberal who will be accountable, for anything, personally, professionally, financially....and I will call them a moderate, because that's exactly what they are. Good luck getting the far-left to be accountable for anything, much less actually to know what the word means. Real world example #1: Gov. Patterson suddenly realizes that without accountability NYS has a very real chance of failing in months, and acts accordingly. What happened? Obama people suddenly descend upon him, tell him he's not running for re-election, and the liberals in the Legislature go apeschit on him....and he is their own guy. Real world example #2: Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the architects of the bank/housing collapse. By requiring that banks give loans to people who would otherwise not qualify, they created the massive risk that led to the massive failure. Now, they have the gall to talk about banks taking unnecessary risks? They forced them to take those risks. But, instead of being accountable and saying "we learned our lesson, our ideology motivated us, and it clearly was as stupid choice", Chris Dodd quits, and Barney Frank goes right on telling people it's everybody's fault but his. Need more? I have tons.

This is all fine, but exactly none of it answers why we are doing #4, when #1, #2, #3 aren't finished. Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of "priority"? I can see if we did #2 first, because the opportunity presented itself, etc. But, to ignore the top 3 consistently, and spend any time on #4 is ridiculous, still, and nothing you have said here changes that. You are flat out lying to yourself and the rest of us if you think holding BP accountable took "one day". This is a ludicrous statement, and there is no point in responding to it. Since that is your premise, there is no point in responding to the rest of your argument, since it is based on a lie. Try again, and this time, try to come close to basing your argument on fact.

Yes, because the poor and middle class are the only ones who pay into social security, the upper middle class and rich don't pay anything, and the endless Democrat spending programs are NOT the main reason that Social Security has been raided . Any more pearls of wisdom you would like to share? Are you trolling? I doubt anybody can reach these idiot conclusions and not be trolling.

I grabbed it out of memory, and it looks like I was wrong...by 2 points. What remains to be seen is whether you want to dither around with 2-6 points, or, whether you want to argue that my overall point is inaccurate. Was Carter a good President because inflation was at 13-18% and his policies raised interest rates to 20%? Laughable. Carter failed because he listened to idiots. Obama is failing because he is listening to the same idiots. Clinton was ultimately successful, because he made a conscious decision to kick the same idiots to the curb after 1994. He re-hired Dick friggin Morris for Pete's sake. Please explain why Clinton, "the progressive politician" hired a Republican attack dog and did almost 95% of what that attack dog told him, if "progressive ideas" were working out so well for him. After he hired Dick Morris, Clinton was in constant competition with Republicans to see who could implement their ideas faster. Link Is it your position that, if Clinton had been more like Carter, he would have done better? Is it your position that if Obama is more like Carter, he will win a 2nd term? Is it your position that Clinton did NOT use Reagan's supply side economic tactics, especially when it came to retraining our workers? Come on now, no obfuscation, answer the questions.

First this article: Clinton Teaches Obama how to lead properly But this is not the only piece of evidence I have. Hillary has been saying a lot of stuff, that, if it was any other Secretary of State, the media would be all over. Most of it is way out of her role. Perhaps she is just filling the obvious gaps in saying the things Obama is supposed to be saying? Oh, and I distinctly remember saying this, right here: so Dan, now that Bill Clinton has said the exact same thing, I suppose it's right. But only because he said it. Anyway, in pure Clinton fashion, they are literally killing Obama with innuendo veiled in compliments. I am certain that they still think they have a shot at the Presidency. Otherwise, why are they doing and saying all this stuff? I was looking for an article about Billary endorsing "the other guy", instead of Obama's hand picked candidate, by a leftist, to save on dopey conner objections, and it looks like this guy is already trying to play this off, and was on MSNBC doing that last night. Playing it off, on MSNBC? I don't know about you guys, but that tells me that it's almost definitely on. Why else is this Democrat hack (um, here's the title of one of his books "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception") already smoothing it over, if there's nothing there to be smoothed? We'll see what happens, but at this point, clearly, the Clinton's are at least in "keep our options open" mode.....

But don't you remember? This is why we had to elect Democrats "immediately" in 2006 before any more damage was done. Ironically, that is exactly what we needed to do: they are burying themselves, all by themselves, and hopefully, the last vestiges of the ridiculous 60/70s along with them. I suppose a few years of suffering is worth freeing ourselves from Marx, Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, Keynes and, of course, Che, once and for all.

Do you, in fact, know the way to San Jose? One of the cleanest cities I have ever been. Anyway, I am not sure I like this whole "we better get our way, or we riot" crap. And I am certainly not on board with "let's go steal stuff from people that have nothing to do with it, and call it justice" either. If they start that Rodney King schit, send in everybody and start cracking heads, right away. It's not like people breaking into stores, stealing TVs, and shooting at fireman and medics have some sort of claim to the moral high ground.

You know, I am gonna pee laughing at all the howling Democrats will be doing later, when the Republicans control Congress and start passing bills with 1 vote majorities in the Senate. They are burying themselves for all time with this behavior. This remains a center-right country, and doing this opens the door to the right to use the very same tactics, forever. They are looking at crushing themselves permanently with this approach. And once again, Democrats seem incapable of realizing that they are their own worst enemies politically. Example: they pushed gay marriage in everybody's face, and now, 45 state laws banning the performing of gay marriages later(including friggin NYS, for Pete's sake), things are patently worse for gay people than they were before the Democrats decided to "help out". The 60 vote Senate thing used to be what protected Democrats, and they are pissing it away. Amazing stupidity from people who like to think of themselves as smart.

Oh and for the board idiot, and any others who might be so inclined, let's play a little game: 1. Which ideologies believe in the good of many/the state over the rights of the individual? Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right(EDIT: in this country) believes the exact opposite. 2. Which ideologies believe it is the responsibility of the state to provide work for it's people? Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite. 3. Which ideologies believe that it is ok to take someone's, life, property, freedoms if they don't submit to the will of the party leadership? Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite. 4. Which ideologies only believe in one party? Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite. 5. Which ideologies believe in strict central planning of a nation's economy? Answer: Communism and Fascism, or, the left. The right believes the exact opposite. Need I go on? Enough of the stupidity. Perhaps a Fascist is slightly "to the right" of a Communist, but they are both way, way, WAY left of the average American.

Ha! Hey boys and girls...this is what rewriting history is all about. So, I suppose it was Volcker's face on those inflatable "supply side economics" punching toys, and not Reagan's? I suppose it was Volcker who took his case directly to the American people and bypassed a intransigent, 40-year Democratically controlled Congress, who would not support any of his reforms and policies? And of course, it was Volcker who was constantly made fun of in the press as being a complete idiot for rejecting assinine Keynesian Economic principles. This is the height of absurdity. I am sure if we listen to you long enough, you will tell us Charlie Wilson won the Cold War too.

It was a war, spare us your spinning of war. Everybody just ate lunch, and nobody wants to hear your personal, sure to be addled, point of view on any war. Things happen in war that don't happen otherwise. Spinning them as though they are the direct results of party affiliation is retarded. It's war. And in every war, cold or hot, we are going to find things we wish didn't happen. Was FDR a bad President because he approved internment camps? No spinning war please. How do we know that? Not even close. I saw Nixon open China, not Kissenger. Please, this is a foolish point. Everything you are talking about is either: a moderate Republican response, and more importantly to Republicans, a RATIONAL response, or, again, spinning a war. Exactly none of it would get Nixon in hot water with Republicans. Especially since he got results.

Perhaps....but you only win the first time. Not everybody is addicted to dopey network television and celebrity-addled. All it usually takes is for us to call them idiots enough times and that's the end of the stupid trend/fad/annoyance.... ....so Barry better get long on substance, and quick, or the idiot calling will begin.

2000 years of Bushido tradition? Uh, yeah, we needed total surrender. It was the only way to they could have permanently removed the imperialist types from power. Imperialists based their entire ethos on Bushido, which begets unquestioning loyalty to the Emperor, which really means loyalty the Imperialists. No, the only way was for every warrior, including the Emperor, to surrender. Then, the code is broken. And, if it can be broken, it is no longer sacred or divine, and therefore the only way to be. Once it was broken, room was made for other ideas for the average Japanese to consider.

The problem with this is neither happened in a vacuum, and, Rubinomics simply would not have been possible had Reaganomics not come before it. The simple fact was that most of Reagan's Presidency was spent un-Cartering, and laying the groundwork for un-LBJing, which is to say, un-!@#$ing, this country. When he took over, interest rates were at 20+%, and so was inflation. By the time Bush 1 left office, they were down to their lowest point in the preceding 20 years. You can't hold down long term interest rates....if they are at 20+%. You need to do something else, immediately, to get them down to a manageable level. That opens the door to a lot of other options....and along comes Clinton.... Clinton took over at a great time. There was new tech all over ready to launch, and Clinton did the smart thing: got out of the way, cut capital gains taxes, invest in beating structural unemployment with training....ALL supply side policies. Hence the famous Dick Morris "triangulation" political strategy = take Republican ideas, call them yours, and then implement, support, call for legislation on them before they do. I love it when people call the Clinton's "progressives". It may be what they WANTED to be, but it flies in the face how they acted. Especially when one considers their triangulation strategy. Clinton was a far better Republican President, economically, then either of the Bush boys.

The fact that Nixon was as good as he was, as a politician, campaigner, AND governing executive(something Barry needs to learn, quick), is what makes Watergate so mind numbing. He didn't need it. He won in a blowout. Watergate info had no bearing on that. It is perhaps the biggest unnecessary f up of all time. Yes, that was a great day. I very young, but all the kids on my block were going nuts when they were released.

Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn't go calling people on this board out in terms of accomplishment. You will most certainly end up adding to your already sizable inferiority complex, and, if people drop their modesty and actually answer your question, you're going to feel pretty foolish....if that's possible. I highly doubt you want to be comparing this board to college professors when it comes to, you know, actually doing things....in the real world. And I can guarantee you don't want us asking you that question, and comparing your accomplishments to anyone's. Anybody who rates Obama higher than Reagan, especially given the amount of data we have, is f'ing retarded, and they deserve to have quotes around their title as "scholar". At this point, Obama shouldn't even be in that poll, since history requires proper perspective, and there's no way in hell they have that at this point in his Presidency. "Scholars" should know better.

Is WisconsinBillz fan giving conner a run for "most annoying poster on this board"? But, seriously. What is it with you and race relations? Isn't there anything else you care about? Do you think that antagonizing minorities is going to get you what you want...whatever that is? Do you think posting antagonizing stories is going to convince us of something? What, exactly? I am certain that you are convincing people of plenty, but none of it is what you intend. Did you/family/friend get Affirmative Actioned out of a job or something? I am the first person to say Affirmative Action has to go, because I have heard this directly from minorities who don't want to be seen as not having earned their spot. I see it as only logical that I should derive my opinion from theirs, as they are immediately involved, and have been directly affected. I am not antagonizing anybody by saying that. I am relating a POV that has the benefit of being logically sound. That's not how I would characterize your posts about race.

I notice you left out the rest of the paragraph....I will correct that oversight. Link So, once again, now we see this in it's true context. It is as I have been saying it is. The plan was to end the war, period. If that meant killing every last Japanese, so be it. If they wouldn't surrender, then they are still enemies, and if they are still enemies, then the war goes on, and it's still the military's job to kill as many enemy as possible, while taking as little loss as possible. And once again, to hopefully put a final end to the "USA can't talk about nukes cause they are immoral cause they used them" crap, these are Hirohito's own words, conveniently listed right below in the same wiki. 1. Take away the enemy's ability to make war? Check. He acknowledges that we can take it away 2. Take away the enemy's will to fight? Check. If the Emperor says it ain't worth continuing, it's done. 3. And here is Hirohito himself talking about SAVING LIVES, and saying that if he continues the war, HE will have to atone to his ancestors for doing so. There's nothing in here about how immoral Americans are for dropping the bomb, there is only: we better quit, because they aren't going to allow us to use our suicide tactics any more, and we have nothing else. Get it, dolts? I think we can trust the words of the Japanese Emperor himself. He realized that no matter what: his people were going to die en masse, and, they weren't going to be able to take a million Americans with them when they died, because of the atomic bomb. Given the fact that his people were going to die no matter what he did, he realized that we had given him only one out: quit the damn war. The last time I checked, ending wars, not prolonging them, is the clearly superior moral position. Now can we dispense with the babbling idiocy? The simple fact is that, according the enemy themselves, dropping the bombs created the desired effect: ending the war immediately. This is a matter of fact. Debating this fact is an attempt to rewrite history. Enough already.

Magox: Read Tom's post above 2 times a day, for the next 2 weeks, and your idiocy will be cured. Then, go find whoever took the Nagasaki/Hiroshima out of historical and factual context when they taught it to you and ask them for a refund. I am not trying to get you to agree that killing civilians on purpose is OK. I am going to tell you that your position = nuking civilians is bad, while fireboming them, or killing them with a bayonet, is no big deal, simply doesn't make sense. You are confusing tactics with strategy. Strategically? Those civilians were gonna die, period. Why? Because the Japanese order of battle included those civilians! So again, they were gonna die, period. The tactic chosen was atomic weapons. We could have chosen another tactic, and they would still be: dead. You are stating that we should not have killed civilians in those 2 cities. You are treating this like it was a choice, and it simply was not. The military objective was, as it always is: take away the enemy's will to fight, and, take away his ability make war. That means we would have attacked these 2 cities, one way or the other, using one weapon or another, no matter what. The facts say that had we conducted a land war in Japan, we would have been fighting suicidal attacks from man, woman and child, and these civilians would have ended up just as dead, except that there would have been a hell of a lot more suffering first. I don't think you are immoral, but supporting suffering over a quick death, can hardly be called a moral position. Again, you have taken Truman's decision completely out of the context in which it was made, treating it like it can be made in a vacuum, and not attributing anything to the state of mind of the enemy. There's nothing "moral" about that either. This is simply a crap argument, usually made by people who are either ignorant of the facts, or are purposely ignoring them.

No way on McGahee, no way. We all liked the idea, let's be honest. We especially liked it because we were giving an underdog a chance. But, we found out that this guy wasn't an underdog, he was just a dog. I couldn't care less about babies/not liking Buffalo. If I have to signal in plays from the sideline because you are either too dumb to remember them, or, to cool to come to practice and learn them, you aren't on my team. And, given what we got for him, and what we did with it? That is one of the biggest steals the Bills have ever had. So, no way. I agree on Pat Williams, I do not agree on Bledsoe = prolonging the inevitable with that guy. The DB thing is like Lord of the Rings, it spans a decade, and has lots and lots of characters: I think that while Winfield wasn't the best, we expended an awful lot of draft value trying to replace him. Which lead to Nate Clements, and clearly, letting him go was a good move. Is there a better example of OVERPAID in the NFL right now? Yeah, yeah we drafted a lot of DBs.....which means....we now have one of the best secondaries in the league....in a passing league, btw. So, whether drafting DBs is good or bad, remains to be seen. What I like about our current Defensive backfield unit is, it is that: a unit. We don't rely on a big star, shut down CB, and pray that the other guys can cover their assignments. We are still looking to replace Henry Jones at safety, especially since Henry Jones couldn't replace Henry Jones from the season before. If only he had been able to replace himself, but he didn't, and moving him out was ultimately a good move. Ko Simpson was a bust. Coy Wire was a bust. Jim Leonhard was an incredibly knowledgeable, and smart football player, who is pretty good, but I want a Gary Fencik type hitter that makes the QB think when he comes up to the line, and makes WRs think before they go over the middle. Henry Jones, when we was Henry Jones, did all of those things. So, the DB saga goes on.....

Sometimes? I just have to laugh...at liberals. First of all, here's the news: (no way was I gonna put this in crayonz's thread, so don't bother with the lecture) ALGORE, inc. Peepee Touch Requisition The Birkenstock Tribe? That's my new name for "the conner club". So, where to begin? This hits on so many issues I have been crushing liberals on for the last 5 years.....it's hard to pick: Women's issues(OMG, where are the "Women's Studies" identity police on this?) 1. So, brutal sexual harassment at the work place is OK, as long as we can continue our delusions about Global Warming? 2. Brutal sexual harassment in and of itself, is negotiable? As in: it's not something that should have a 0 tolerance policy? 3. Sexual harassment can be overlooked, provided it is politically expedient? 4. How f'ing serious should any rational person take a liberal who cares to lecture any of us about sexual harassment, when apparently the answer to questions 1-3 is yes? Phony Moral Superiority 1. Liberals have been telling us for the last 6 years how much more moral they are, and then this happens, which is a better example than I could ever have hoped for, better than all the others I have used to prove them to be full of schit. 2. The best part is: I don't even have to talk about ALGORE, inc. He's not the most immoral person in the story! 3. So what's the bumper sticker liberals? Lady Should Lie, so Global Warming Don't Die? This lady clearly withheld information from police. Is that "lying"? Or is it OK, because, like Clinton, she was "only lying about sex". (hehe, this gets better as I think about it) 4. Liberals love telling us how it's the Republicans that are the "bad guys", the ones that will lie about anything, the ones that will use any tactic to get what they want. Well, I have yet to hear an example that beats this, short of Dan Rather's Big Lie, especially when you consider what they are telling her to lie about, and why. Global Horseschit 1. Once again, liberals will literally believe/do/say anything, however ridiculous, provided it's congruent with man-made Global Warming. This is just one more of millions of examples of this. 2. Liberals are psychologically invested in Global Warming. Which means, that they will NEVER admit they are wrong, no matter how much hard science is put in front of them, no matter how much hard science they can't produce. They demand we look at this scientifically, and when we scientifically, and rationally, conclude that there's just too many discrepancies, obvious data massaging, and 0 real proof....then away goes the scientific approach and here comes the religious zeal. 3. I say religious zeal, because how else do you explain rejecting women's issues dogma, and giving up their supposed moral superiority, other than due to religious belief? 4. Because of their psychological investment, we aren't dealing with people here. We are dealing with crazy. You can trust people, you can't trust crazy. In this case, crazy is telling this lady to "suck it up". What would have happened if crazy found out that this lady was going to talk, before she did? Ok, there's certainly more, but, I feel better dropping a nice, steaming pie of verbosity on our liberal friends.

The problem here, ONCE AGAIN, is the logic of this argument. I have to keep slapping this dopey thing down every 6 months. I want to know who keeps recycling it. Look, the choice was not kill 250,000, or, don't kill 250,000. That was never the choice, nor was it even close to realistic. This argument is based on historical cherry picking. And making this argument work is only possible if you take the entire situation out of the historical context in which it belongs. Air Force General Curtis LeMay easily killed 250,000 civilians, probably more, and possibly 2x as many, with his fire bombing of 60+ Japanese cities PRIOR to us dropping the atomic bombs. His rationale was simple: end the war as fast as he could. But, in all honesty, the man was as close to a raving lunatic we have ever had as a general officer. He treated the bombing as his personal punishment of the Japanese for daring to attack America. How come we never hear anything about this firebombing from the dopes that make the Hiroshima/Nagaski argument? The firebombing certainly killed more people, and was certainly the cause of 10x the suffering. And for Pete's sake, if there ever was a Evil Villain-type to go after, and hold up as the face of it all, it is LeMay. Answer: because whoever is spreading this crap has an agenda, and has no interest in teaching history properly. And what is the agenda? The objective is to create an unbeatable argument = "yeah, but, the USA is the only country to use nuclear weapons(= jackass justification), so,(insert somebody else)'s (insert bad behavior) is OK". This way, no matter what we do militarily, NONE of it is ever justified. We can have the largest military in the world, but, if we use it for anything, we are immoral, because we dropped the bomb. So now our military doesn't matter. :lol: Like I said, this is a jackass argument. Anybody else smell Europeans on this?