OCinBuffalo

Retarded. 1. When unintended consequences kick in that were caused by big government....how much do you want to believe Gene's solution is....even more big government? Boy at this rate, we will have soooo much "good" big government, all our problems will be solved....just like the USSR! 2. The REAL problem is: a. there ARE problems only government can solve b. big government does not provide specific solutions to specific problems, because by definition it is...big c. massive, permanent, and mostly useless agencies(um, TSA?) are created who sole purpose in life is their own continuance, with actually solving the problems they were intended to solve as a distant 2nd priority. d. in this way, government is exactly like the pharma companies, they never cure the problem, they just keep taxing us for "treatment" of the symptoms e. every time I argue b-d, some fool comes along and tells me either I don't understand a., or, that I don't agree with a., or, would prefer to ignore the problems only government can solve, and therefore I am an idiot/evil f. Reality: there ARE problems only government can solve, but, government is not the best solution to most problems Kinda like Gene here...he is trying to tell us that the reason we don't like b-d is because we want to ignore a., or, that we are "evil" because we don't agree with a. The existence of a. doesn't negate b-d. In most cases, abuse of a. causes b-d. Gene: People(Tea Party, etc.) aren't pissed because we can't ignore a. People are pissed because you won't deal with the reality that is b-d, and that you keep trying to tell us that b-d doesn't exist. Or, that we should gleefully accept b-d, for no other reason than: because you/Hollywood idiots/people that have never run a business in their life say so.

...when TARP passes... ...when Stimulus passes... ...when Health Care passes... Coming soon: ...when Cap & Tax passes...because...of course it will create more shovel ready jobs...Remember those? Anybody been using a shovel lately? Anyone?....Bueller? ...when Card Check passes....because....more unionized government employees is a great idea...since...they have nothing to do with the current economic crisis...both here and in Greece...nothing at all And, the star of the show: ...when the VAT passes...

Sorry my last one wasn't low level enough. How about: "Whaaa, OC is saying things I can't reasonably argue with, again Whaaa!" or: You can't argue with me, so, instead you play the victim card. I'm not being fair? Well, listen pal, I will keep telling the truth, and you go right ahead and keep calling me a bully for doing it. You have yet to argue effectively against the content of what I am saying, in this or any other thread. Instead all you keep doing is attacking the messenger. The difference between us is: all I care about is the content, all you care about is the process.

Hey, no reply. No reply at all. There's no reply at all, no reply at all. Oooooh! Ooooh! No reply at all.

Hey, that is encouraging I especially like the "passed over" part. We can trot out the cliches, "chip on his shoulder", "something to prove", but I will settle for "forces Keith Ellison off the team". Body type seems to be the easy way out for most scouts. And, it's probably a good way to keep your job as a scout. But, if "everybody else is doing it", then everybody else misses the same opportunity.

What I said above notwithstanding, I couldn't agree less with this thinking. I think Poz has been a victim of a bad scheme and bad/rookie players around him at LB(after Mitchell got hurt). I think he will thrive in the 3-4 because it essentially splits all the stuff he had to be worried about before in half. And, he doesn't have to try and read 30 different things before he can go make a play. IMO, that is the great weakness of the Tampa 2. IF your DL isn't all out awesome, your MLB get hung out to dry. Look at the Bears recently. When they had elite lineman, they had an elite, go to the SB even though the offense sucks defense. Brian Urlacher is supposedly the same guy, right? Take away those two D tackles and now he is just a guy. I honestly feel that this defense will benefit Poz. Perhaps not as much as a zone/blitz scheme, but still. In fact, I am going out on a limb and saying: you will see Poz owning RBs at the LOS this year consistently....provided he is the same player, and the DL is at least adequate.

Yes, Jason Peters does happen every so often. It's all a crap shoot. Ultimately, we seem to get lucky with UDFA and late round picks more often than not. But, that may be by desperation and default rather than by design.

Agreed. That is why individual stats on defense in football are always dubious, team outcomes are not always indicative of the quality of each individual, and both are often attributed more definitive meaning than they deserve. Not to say that the above isn't a good attempt, but, we have to recognize the flaws in the system. Also, the good news is POZ is at the top of a list, any list . It means there is at least a correlation between Poz and "good player". Perhaps with some real help he has a chance to be a great player. I keep saying one of these days I will put together a real BI system for this that will actually analyze this data properly, but I never do it . Perhaps when I retire.

Wrong. As I said above, I extend the same question to everybody. And, as I said in another thread, I have no idea who the Democrats are anymore. Therefore when given a choice between (supposed) hateful and bat schit crazy? Sorry, but hateful wins. Hey I don't like either choice, and I may not vote, again, in protest of the choice I am being given. But if I have to vote, I have to choose the lesser of two idiots, and right now, clearly that is the Republicans. How the Democrats have gone from looking smart to utter fools in 4 years? Easy. They stopped being Democrats, and are being something else now.

My level? After your performance the other day, clearly you are operating at the lowest level we apparently allow on this board. I agree, right now, I say a hell of a lot of Democrat BAD!. But that is because, a lot of what Democrats have been doing for the last 10 years is terrible. Stop the bad behavior and I will stop complaining. It's really as simple as that. My main issues with Democrats: 1. The entire anti-war thing is phony as hell, and there is no excuse for using wartime for political gain. This has never been done to this extreme before by a political party(maybe the Civil War), and now it is available to both parties. Great. I will be just as pissed at Republicans if and when they do the same thing. 2. Global Warming BS. It is beyond obvious what has been tried, what has failed, and why at this point. Democrats love to talk about conspiracies, except of course, when 30% of their party is caught being in one. It was such an attractive story: "Big Business Bad, and is killing the planet", that they couldn't resist doing anything to propagate this myth. Of course, the inevitable impact on the economy is "irrelevant". This is the first time in my life that Democrats care less about the economy than Republicans do. WTF is that? What does Democrat even mean anymore? 3. What happened to the Democrats looking out for the American worker? Supporting illegal immigrants, and massive deficit spending is not looking out for the American worker. It is the exact opposite of looking out for the American worker. Oh, wait, I remember now, just like in 1-2, Democrats will forget about their principles if it means more votes. So again, I ask, what does Democrat even mean? My grandfather was an elected Democrat for 30 years. I learned what it meant to be a Democrat from him. If he was alive today, at the very least he would not be happy. In fact, the stories I heard while standing around the fire barrel at election time make me think many a Democrat head would be getting cracked, both figuratively and literally, if he was to come back.

If the Bills hadn't fired Jauron, would you continue to root for him to stay just because he was the coach of our team? There comes a time when history, education, experience, knowledge, and dare I say, wisdom, tells you that you have to call BS when you see BS. Pursuing a socialist agenda when there is on object lesson in the stupidity of that going in Europe, right now, is just plain dumb. I am all for giving people a chance, a second and even a third chance. I am not for giving dumb ideas a 2nd chance. It's time to put the state-owned/bailed out shovel down. There is no digging yourself out of a socialist hole. It's long past time for these bad old ideas to die. The problem is: we keep getting told that the reason these ideas fail is not the ideas themselves, its just that lesser people have tried them, and if only the "good people" tried them everything would be great. Is there a better example of arrogant racism?

Clearly, no, he is not. Especially not if this is gonna be a Barney Frank/Chris Dodd show all over again. Where, the truth is less important than the word "should", and financial decisions are made on wishful thinking. What's to stop Frank/(Insert Dodd Replacement here) from deciding to downgrade a bond because the issuer: 1. Doesn't believe in global warming 2. Didn't give them campaign money 3. Doesn't believe in social justice People that will put their political agenda, like um, politicians?, ahead of the truth, in this case a securities rating, can not be allowed to regulate these things.

Nah, the fact that you have trouble breaking free of preconceived notions means you have trouble breaking free of preconceived notions.

I am always equally skeptical of stories like this about "anti-gay rights activists", and, the "anti-gay rights activists" themselves, and, whoever broke/wrote the story. I don't spend any time, ever, thinking about "how can I oppress the gay today?", because I don't spend any time, ever, thinking about gay people, unless somebody else brings it up. So, I am skeptical of what is going through the mind of anybody who sets out to be an "anti-gay activist", because, why are they thinking about gay people to begin with? But, to be fair, that means that we also have to be skeptical of the "pro-gay rights activist", now don't we. In fact, don't we also have to be skeptical of the "start a thread about gay people" guy too?. And now, I will go right back to not caring about gay people one way or the other....

That "safety" thing is such a crock. These school officials should be fired. As if we don't have enough problems facing our youth, when they actually work together to do something positive, this is what they get for it? What kind of message are they sending? "What you did and your success doesn't matter, because our political agenda rules all things, even when it couldn't be more irrelevant? Better learn that lesson now kids, there is no low that we liberals won't stoop to when we don't get our way." "Hebson didn't explain how the enforcement of the law, which mimics federal law, will affect a group of high school students." This tells you all you need to know. On second thought, who is the child here, and who is the adult? Seems like the kids are exhibiting adult behavior, and, no surprise, the liberal Assistant Superintendent is acting like a child. And, does the word "leadership" mean anything to the Superintendent? It's your district pal, step up, do the right thing and tell your assistant, and everyone else, that you are the boss, not her. While it may be your prerogative to support her, when she screws up, it's your duty to make it right. If she can't deal with the simple reality she is your subordinate, then you have bigger problems with her than this. You are the boss, and that means you, not your people, are ultimately responsible. Yeah, it sucks when stuff like this happens and you feel terrible, but if you can't deal with it, don't be the boss. Managers manage. Candy asses walk. I suppose real leadership is a foreign concept to these people though.

Depends on how you define that. If well-intentioned means: 1. he believes in his intentions to redistribute wealth, or, as he has been quoted, push for redistributive mechanisms in everything he does, is good for the country 2. it actually is good for the country 3. it isn't just paying off his constituency for voting for him 4. his constituency is actually worth a damn, and is where we should be putting our money, because they will provide the best return on the investment Then, yeah he is well-intentioned. Frankly, I think we have way too much history that proves that 1-4 is laughable. Yeah, giving money to government/union employees is a much better way to get a return on it than giving it to entrepreneurs. Sure it is.

1. Ignoring the idiots, yes, the D was on the field way more than the average. And, yes, that will have a negative effect on a defense. Neither of those are excuses, they are simply facts. 2. However, being on the field more....means more stats...tackles at the very least. It can also mean more of all of the other stats...as in, giving up a 26 yard run for a first down, even though you got a 12 yard sack the play before(sound familiar?). The opportunity to get the sack would not have been there, if we had stopped them 20 yards ago when it was 3rd and 8, etc. 3. This rating system, unlike Charlie Joyner's ridiculous flailing, attempts to properly create a consistent measure of success and then compare results against it. In a sentence, it gives each down and distance situation rating points, and then, based on what actually happens, rewards or removes additions points. This system makes all the sense in the world if we are talking about an accepted and consistent range of opportunities for success. For example, for a batting average to be "statistically significant", you have to have a minimum # of at bats. A pinch hitter who is hitting .500 but only has 20 at bats on the year isn't going in the record book. This system looks at the 1st and 3rd quarter only(in an effort to remove "garbage time" bias). If you aren't on the field, you don't get a chance to get bonus points, and, your individual success/failure is treated as though it is team's and vice versa. Therefore the weakness of this system is that Poz playing more downs of football than others causes an inherent bias. Good defenders on bad teams that give up a lot of first downs(yards is less significant) will be distorted to look like great players, because they have more opportunity to make big plays on 1st and 10, as opposed to big plays on 3rd and 15, which is rated lower. Example: an INT on 1st and 10 get you more points than an INT on 3rd and 15, and even more if you are in your own red zone. Presumably a "good" team isn't going to let people march 60 yards down the field, and then be bailed out at their own 15 yard line by Poz making an interception....and if Poz was "good" they probably wouldn't have gotten 60 yards to begin with. Or, maybe he is good, but his teammates are so horrible, that he has to do more than other MLBs, so he has more stats.... Rather than looking at this as describing "who is the best LB in the league", it's more accurate to conclude "Poz is second only to Vilma, who is on another shoddy/streaky defense, in terms of cleaning up the mess that the other guys on his team consistently make".

No way that's fully accurate. I will give you Bob Dole being...Bob Dole, and to a lesser extent, the bombing. But still, it's widely accepted that Clinton's hiring of Dick Morris and his policy of "triangulation" got Clinton re-elected. Basically, Clinton stole a Republican idea and then said "What? You can't be against me on this" about 20 times. Amazingly, those policies did well, the country did well, and whamo, re-election. Funny what happens when you do things that work, and remove things that don't....hopefully Obama learns his lesson. If not, the country is going to go through hell until 2012 and then, the inevitable Republican overreaction right after.

The real problem is: the Presidency is about the policies, not the man. Just because Obama hasn't been President before, does not mean we haven't seen these policies before. One has little to do with the other. We have seen these policies before(Jimmy Carter), and therefore we DO know how they are they are going to turn out. And not just here, we are seeing how these policies play out in Greece, right friggin now. I have no problem with giving Obama, the man, a chance. Specifically, a chance to learn from his obvious mistakes and pull a Bill Clinton in 1994. I do have a problem with giving Obama's current policies a chance, ever, and under all circumstances. Any rational, honest person who has been educated properly in economics and history has the same problem = these policies have been proven to be, to quote Rahm Emmanuel, "f@cking retarded", and we don't need to repeat the mistakes we should have already learned from the first time around.

Right, so now, not only are we supposed to be happy with the non-results we have gotten from these people, we are supposed to revel in our second-class citizenship? I sick to death of hearing the phrases "at least (Insert Upstate City) is" and "pretty good for (Insert Upstate City)". If Obama came to your house and punched you in the mouth, I suppose you'd rationalize it by saying at least he didn't kick you in the sack, and that's pretty good for a guy from Buffalo.

I was goofing...lighten up Francis.

Idiot assumptions are great. I have carried both guys and weapons. Next. This mindset implies training. All of us who have weapons training are careful. You are not special in this regard. My concern centers on those who have not been properly trained. "More guns" implies more people who haven't been trained on carrying weapons properly, never mind how to use them. That's not a good plan. Then...why bother with any of this? Perhaps but again, without mandatory training, "More guns" could also mean more holes in airplane cabins due to nothing more sinister than accidents. I would have no problem with your plan if REAL training, not a 2 hour course, and repetitive certification(like CPR) was required in order to carry a weapon on a plane. But, even with training, there are 2 types of people in this world: those that will pull the trigger and those that won't. The ones that won't become a cone, and make their weapon available to baddies that will take it from them. I would rather rely on trained people than untrained, and I certainly don't support arming cowards.

This is not news really, just another application of the same template: (Insert National Democrat here) coming to Buffalo to talk jobs, tell us how much they are going to do for Buffalo and all of Upstate, ignore the 400 lb elephant in the room = the corrupt politicians and labor unions, and 2 years later....nothing, still. Hillary, Schumer, Spitzer, the list goes on and on...and what exactly have they done? News would be: Obama coming to Buffalo to announce massive Federal breakup of the alliance of corrupt NYS politicians and government employee unions that have caused the steady decline of NYS competitiveness. Or, Obama coming to Buffalo to announce to idiots that manufacturing is not going to come back to NYS despite wishful thinking of labor unions and the 80-year old men in charge of Empire Zones. Obama to demand massive cuts in taxes and spending, wants to give businesses and people a reason to stay in NYS. Yeah, that would be news.

Hey, you were the one who bad grammered your way into asking for one or the other. Don't blame me for being a wiseass, it's all I know.

Well done, you will fit right in here