OCinBuffalo

Oh, now that is funny on so many levels....say what you will about hazing, it's always funny, and stays funny, if done properly. The pink uniforms are hysterical as well. Also, weren't the usual tools trying to go after this guy last year? Oh, that's right they were: Link I found some more articles about this in January...and since....nothing. Looks like more tax dollars wasted on going after a guy who is actually doing his government job properly. If only Holder, etc. would apply themselves to the rest of the government, starting in their own town first, with similar vigor.

Which? A donkey or a sheep?

Well, in one sense, I am thoroughly enjoying this because they are getting over on the principal, and in my experience, that's always a good thing. And, where the hell is John Adams and the rest of the ACLU lawyers? This is free speech dammit! These kid have a God-given, not government-given, right to....get over on the principal and be wiseasses.

How about this? Why don't we create incentives for retired math/science people to act as tutors? I am not saying force them into the classroom, but, I have seen some interesting public access TV call in shows where people, sometimes teachers, sometimes not, offer to help with homework. Seems like that might improve things.

12) Some of us take the time, and the space, to fully explain why you are an idiot. Others will simply save time by calling you an idiot directly. However, others will call you an idiot because they can't argue with what you are saying, or, they are too lazy to read what you wrote. It's important to learn the difference.

1. There is nothing sad about breaking up government worker's/union control of a country. Clearly, these government workers are part of the problem, if not the central problem itself. Why it's such a surprise to some that creating make-work jobs that promise a free ride for life is a bad idea? Who knows? You would think the idiots would have learned from history by now. 2. Problems with tax collection is the effect, not the cause. Out of control government spending on make-work, or, "shovel-ready"(remember that?) jobs that create a drain on society is the cause of their troubles. 3. Think about it: if you have a bunch of people that refuse to work more than 4 hours a day, and can't be fired because of their unions/government employee laws....and those people happen to be....tax collectors.....you are going to have a hard time...collecting taxes. 4. And the Germans and French, not us, are going to be stuck with this one. EDIT: I guess I am wrong re: the IMF thing.

So, given the fact that you, once again, have lost the argument, you try to talk about "the broader topic"? Dude, it was retarded to say "There is no terrorist threat" in any and all contexts. You know it, now deal with it. There was nothing "courageous" about it, nothing admirable, just a f'ing coward running his mouth. You want to talk to me about our response? That's one thing. Telling people that a problem either doesn't exist, or propagating the lie that "It's all being manufactured by the government" in the hope that you will gain something politically, is a-hole behavior and there is no excuse for it. Now that you have conceded, I'd be more than willing to talk about our response to the clearly existing and ongoing terrorist threat. The fact is that there has been a terrorist threat against this country from 1996 until right this second. Now, given your concession of that fact, feel free to proceed within, and only within, THAT context....

Liberals: See how rational he sounds? That is because he started with: the whole truth, and then made his point from there. Watch and learn . This is the exact opposite of saying idiot things like "There is no terrorist threat", and therefore it is: effective. I know real effectiveness is a new and difficult concept for most liberals, but you can see the results above. Well then you are going to have a difficult time here, pal. 3.5 anyone? Hehe, right, so, I guess everything from the cotton gin to the iPhone, pretty much everything we use today, wasn't invented here? Look, I get the sentiment, and, as an open source guy clearly I am willing to work with good ideas regardless of their origin, but, you have to be kidding me with this. Again: learn from Marauder's post above and start with the truth = we pretty much can do whatever we put our minds to, and, we have a long track record to back that statement up. Personally, I have never felt, or allowed the sentiment around me, that there is something we cannot do if we work hard enough....except for gay sex of course

What part of "There is no terrorist threat" is right? Answer: none of it. As I said above, the first step is always defining the problem. Saying "There is no terrorist" threat doesn't define the problem, it attempts to deny it exists. Isn't flat out denial of reality far and away more nefarious than anything else? This is pure logic dude: you can't solve a problem until you define it, and you can't define it if you won't admit it exists. Anything else is 100% wrong, leaving no room for Moore's, etc. mewling. ahh, finally, now we can get somewhere. See, that wasn't so bad now was it? Not sure about this: I can think of many things that Bush, etc. could have done that they didn't...and I am certain those steps are much are more Anti-American that what we have now. Please understand it could be a lot worse, and that is what I am worried about. I am worried that not doing enough, leading to us getting hit, will cause a massive overreaction that will make what have now seem like nothing. There is risk in invading privacy to stop terrorists, but, there is just as much risk in not doing so. When has the Federal government/media NOT overreacted? Or, how the hell did we end up with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House?->How the hell did we end up in Iraq?->How the hell did 9/11 happen?->We did NOTHING when these a-holes declared war on us in 1996, and I see the rest as a series of overreactions. Therefore, the root cause of this is doing nothing in 1996. At least doing something can be scrutinized. Doing nothing, and pretending the problem doesn't exist, or, pretending this is a legal matter, instead of a war, is far more dangerous. Interesting. The only problem with that is: what happens when there is a misunderstanding, and a supermarket turns into a fire fight? It only takes one for the idiots to say "see what happens". Look at how they are trying to attack the tea party for being violent using nothing other than supposition. I am all for less government because I am all for less power for politicians and their bureaucratic slaves. The country was designed for political service, not political careers, and was never intended to allow people to "vote themselves money". But, I am for the Feds focusing on what they are Constitutionally supposed to be doing = national defense, and not focusing on things they aren't = nationalized health care. Fundamentally: I am far less concerned with doing things in this country. I would much rather be focused on doing thing in other countries. Taking the battle to the enemy's doorstep is a time tested winning strategy. I would much rather see us focus on limiting the enemy's freedom, invading his privacy, invading his center mass with 5.56 rounds, invading his vehicles with Hellfire missiles, and doing "Un-American" things in places that aren't America, than worry about what we are doing here.

Flat out wrong/inside out. Your "simplification" doesn't answer the fundamental question. So I will make it even more simple for you: IS THERE A TERRORIST THREAT OR NOT? Simple enough? "Size of Government" has always been defined as # of people in it, first, or at least since FDR. See, the whole retarded Obama/Jimmy Carter plan is: give people government jobs first, making them beholden and buying their vote. The solution those added jobs provide is a secondary concern. This exact same mentality is driving all of this government expansion across the board. And, as more people are added to the payroll, suddenly, we have to find something for them to do ....and that's how government power gets expanded. You simply have it backasswards. No surprise that a lawyer would mess this up. And again, none of this has anything to do with whether or not there is a terrorist threat. You still haven't acknowledged the truth: there is one and we have to go do something about it. What we do is another matter. 1. Where did I say any of that? Answer: noplace. 2. My issue is with Moore, and you apparently, either being crazy, dishonest or choosing stupidity regarding this issue. Is there a terrorist threat or not? Answer the question and stop obfuscating. 3. I haven't said a thing about our response to this threat, whether I like it, support it, etc. As was said above, you have made a giant leap here, and, with nothing under your feet, get ready for the fall You could ask me if I support the response to the threat. You could ask me what I would be doing differently. However, that would be talking about the solution. We are still stuck on defining the problem, because apparently you haven't admitted the problem exists yet. For the last time: is there a terrorist threat, or not?

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? What kind of "argument" is this counselor? You: "Yes I will gladly compare these apples to coconuts, since after all they are both fruit..." Size of government, or in this case coconuts, has nothing to do with this. It comes down to rules of engagement, not size of anything. You can give the exact same # of FBI/CIA people different rules and get vastly different outcomes. And, as Obama, etc. have now proven: arguing against "Bush's Policies" was stupid since no reasonable alternative exists(see: GITMO is STILL OPEN, idiots). So...by definition, size has nothing to do with this. Piss poor thinking = Micheal Moore telling us "There is no terrorist threat", has nothing to do with how large or small the government is, it's just piss poor thinking. You seem to want to have a discussion predicated on this piss poor thinking/assertion. My question is: why waste our time? As I said above, at this point, anybody attempting to tell us that a credible terrorist threat doesn't exist, is either lying, crazy, or an idiot.

Heh....3 pages of reasoned debate...or...perhaps well meaning distraction/distortion and missing the point? All of you: how does anything in these 3 pages = There is no terrorist threat? In other words, you guys have spent 3 pages talking about what is acceptable/not acceptable as a response to.....a terrorist threat.....that doesn't exist? Either you are all: 1. idiots 2. paranoid conspiracy turds.....or 3. .....there is a terrorist threat, and as reasonable people you are talking about how best to respond to it. Let's assume it's #3, leaving anybody who says there isn't a terrorist threat as either #1, #2, or flat out lying. There are no other logical conclusions.

This is the whole point in and of itself. Who the !@#$ cares? The enemy is shooting at us, and instead of focusing on shooting back, you want us to focus on whether our boots are shined and if there are any loose threads on our BDUs? Get a clue, or get out of the AO. We need ammo, water, MREs, somebody to run and get the tanks, and somebody to get the arty on the horn, we don't need the JAG corp or some d-bag staff officer running around inspecting everybody's footlocker. Instead of dealing with this truthfully: 1. To turn some PC phrasing around on the idiots: there are a disproportionate number of radical Islamic people who participate in, support and/or condone terrorism. 2. These people aren't doing this because they are being oppressed/poor/the rest of the BS. They are doing it because they want power. 3. This is simple: this has nothing to do with anything other than a-hole behavior on the part of these people. Nobody is forcing or coercing them into this a-hole behavior. They own it, and there is no PC rationalization for it. We get to hear Moore et al tell us: 1. We should be focused on the government...instead of the terrorists. 2. We should feel sorry for terrorists because they are oppressed. And, if they weren't oppressed there's no way they would be doing this, because they would be able to compete economically and culturally with the US if they weren't. Nah, this has nothing to do with a bunch of a-holes desperately trying to control the rest of the world, or at least gain some relevance, by attempting to preserve/impose a near-dead culture. 3. We should blame everybody under the sun for this bad behavior, expect of course the a-holes themselves. Blaming everybody but those responsible is par for the course for people like Moore, because, Bush "stole the election" in Florida and the 100k people that voted for Nader had nothing to do with it. Sorry, idiots, but the terrorist is the guy who is going to kill me next time I get on a plane/train/go to a ballgame. The government guy who checks up on me and even invades my privacy is a minor annoyance by comparison. That should be easy enough for even the most addled here and elsewhere to understand.

"There is no terrorist threat." Thank you. -Michale Moore(and the rest of the leftist d-bags around here and elsewhere).

LOL! I don't know which is funnier. Love "The Confusion Offense". Perfect. So is the Tampon-2

Added another one: Joique Bell, RB, Wayne State Link: Wayne State's website

That, and I have to think that most of the calls regarding trades are happening 10+ picks before the team has to declare their pick. Hard for me to believe that it's all happening in 15 or 10 or 7 or 3 minutes. Anybody else get the feeling that this year, and last year, was the kind of draft that Modrak has been wanting to do all along? I get this impression from the videos etc. on bb.com. Maybe he has been getting a bad rap? I have little doubt that the Spiller pick was a "Ralph" pick. Especially given what he said to the media. Between last year and this, year, I think we need one more draft to get fully out from behind the 8 ball.

Spiller has the potential to make everyone not care about anything else in this draft. Possibly makes it an A+ all by himself.

How about "The Penetrators"?

....and there you go. EDIT: Bah! The Dean beat me to it.

Apparently because Joseph hit all three flags: 1. Injury issues, 2. Laziness off/on field 3. Weight issues...see #2 Sorry, but I am not big on only looking at measurables, especially when it comes to the wide bodies. Something has to haul their giant asses out of bed each day, and it has to be love of football, not of twinkies. Same argument goes for Cody. This guy has been called a "leader" more than enough times, where the others haven't been called that once. This is a good pick. Period. Now as to whether we could have traded down: it's the same thing every year, there has to be a partner, and, they can't be so low that we risk losing the guy we want. If you don't get both, you don't do the deal.....you stay and take your 1st choice, not somebody else's 2nd choice.

In case you don't know, any time you hear the word "aggressive" in regard to Dan Synder...think stupid. There is a very long list of patently stupid moves, that started out being called "aggressive", by Snyder's asshat bootlickers in the DC media. And, usually these very same media types are involved, willingly or as patsies, in tampering with players on other teams. They do this by "reporting" = creating speculation that a player is unhappy, and then saying that, of course, Snyder will be willing to come in and "help". Synder, etc. has been caught and convicted by the league multiple times. The fun part is, for all of this douchebaggery, the Redskins are still perennial losers/1st round playoff losers, losers in general. We all remember what we said and how we felt about the Albert Hanyesworth deal last year. Approximately one hour ago, the Redskins just traded for a DT from the Rams(which on its face, looks like a good deal for the Skins). Meanwhile Haynesworth has been complaining about his role in the new defense they are running(4-3). Meanwhile, Synder is well, Snyder. Meanwhile, we need a NT, and this guy is a 28 year old, 350 lb monster. Add it all up? What if Snyder decides to "aggressively" let Haynesworth go? Or, what if he thinks he has to trade him? (Even better , there is nobody in the league I would rather trade with than Snyder). Can we get our media types to start talking up a certain Redskins DT feels for his new role, competition, etc.? Can we turn this around on them? I know he makes 100 million/6 years, blah, blah, blah. None of that changes the fact that we need an elite NT.

This act is getting old...quick. You miss the point so often that instead of accomplishing your intention, mocking the right, you only succeed in proving that leftists like you simply don't understand issues, and react with ideology, instead of reason. But go ahead and keep proving my point for me....as in this case. I brought up a rapper cashing a welfare check....because he was "rich", not because he was black. Any system that intends to reward the poor, for being poor, is clearly befuddled when the "poor" suddenly become "rich". The system had no rules for such things....which is why it was allowed to occur. By classifying someone as "poor", for life, and therefore, entitled to free $$$, for life, the system exposed it's inherent retardation. I am certain I wouldn't have to look very far to find examples of white welfare recipients who continued to cash their checks after winning the lottery or something similar. My problem, idiot, is therefore with the welfare system itself, and, with the idiots, like you, who created it, not with the people that took benefits from it. My problem is: clearly you idiots didn't learn anything the last time around, and now, you idiots are right back at it again with health care reform. My problem is: we will be seeing the same abuses and ridiculous outcomes of the health care system....because rather than being based on reason and known economic realities...it will be based on emotion and wishful thinking...just like welfare was.

And...the above represents the fundamental misunderstanding of medicare/medicaid. Medicare was never intended to "take care of the poor". Medicaid was intended to take care of young workers who were hurt, or, the severely disabled. Both programs were based on the premise "we need to something for life-long working people, who either get too old, or get hurt, and can't work anymore". Medicare isn't a all-year long thing. Practically everything in it has limitations. Both programs were also based on the premise that "nobody else in the world can compete with the US economically, because it's 1965, and everybody else's country is still f'ed up from WWII". Neither program was about giving away free health care to healthy people that simply don't work...and are therefore "poor". Neither program was about taking care of the elderly exclusively. However, in complete disregard of the intentions of these programs, 90% of both gets spent on caring for the elderly. Who ostensibly have become "poor" because they didn't save for their retirement....because they were told that "social security will take care of them". As I said above, we have solutions that don't fit today's problems, we have problems that have been CAUSED by these solutions, and clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of all of these programs. Welfare was a retarded program, and it's a good thing its mostly gone...unless you like seeing Ludicris cashing welfare checks.

Yes, we are know how badass Count Chocula, Tony the Tiger, and of course, the Alphabets Killer are.