OCinBuffalo

Um what? I am not accusing you of anything. You are a leftist because you said you were? WTF? Or, at the very least, you like to yell leftist things at 3am after the bar? I am just going off of what you said, and I will leave that where it is. We got there very simply: you seem to think that making command decisions with not enough good info is an easy thing. I do it every day, take my lumps for the bad ones, and even the good ones , but nobody runs around calling me a liar because I make a bad one. So, we have a new tough decision facing this President. I would like to hear if you think it will be OK to call him a liar if he makes the wrong call. Or, will we all be incapable of perceiving the nuance? Yeah...I think you better stick to sports John, unless you want myself and the rest of the history machine here to crush you. Certainly the tensions in the middle east weren't "raised" by our most recent military presence there. Unless you're definition of raised = on a scale of 1-10 raising from 9.5 to 9.7. And, like I said, we can bring out the whole historical record, right out of our heads, with no google or wiki, of how things got to 9.5. If anything, the recent general success of our military has seen things calm down. But, of course you can only see that if you perceive the real nuances properly. This new Isreal stuff notwithstanding. I am limiting my comments to the effects our military presence has had. Looks like our new Diplomacy For All! plan has pretty much schit the bed, everywhere in the world. But, yeah, keep talking like it's the 2006 Congressional Campaign...yawn. (It's funny, they really don't see the ass whipping coming do they? Well, good, that will make the hysterics in November even more hysterical )

Since when does fun have to have a point or meaning? Besides, I regularly learn things here, and I like seeing issues beaten around until we somewhat distill some common ground. That happens...about 20% of the time anyway. A few, sincere, environmentalists here got me thinking in terms of "why the f not?" regarding doing the the little stuff around the house. I would not have bothered but they confronted me and made me think. ...and I spent a lot of years in a locker room. Where else can I go to get my daily dose of ball busting and intellectual grab ass?

Got it. Ignored it. Made my point instead.

I hate to say it, and believe me I really hate to say it, but, this seems to be where we are headed. The big difference is now the Feds either threaten to cut money or bribe the states, instead of raising armies against them. There was a movie about this on HBO or one of the pay cable channels about this very thing. Started out with a bus of immigrant children being forced on a Midwestern state, it examined how all the current relationships/structure only served to accelerate, not stifle, a civil war. Of course the instigator and catalyst was a liberal wack job. No shocker there. It was an interesting and funny movie. The Second Civil War

Your way of thinking being? Smugly act like other people who don't share your opinions don't "get it"? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that thinking at all. If you, or your fellow journalist guy is unhappy with the fact that nobody agrees with you, or, that you can't seem to win a single debate on a political message board, perhaps its time to stop blaming us, the "rules", cell phones, twitter, Holy God, and start blaming: the crappy ideas you espouse? Ok, Mr. Nuance...and I use that term with extreme irony...Perhaps you would care to explain why well over half the Democrats in office at the time saw the same intelligence, concluded the same thing = we can't let another 9/11 just happen, we have to go get whatever WMD he has BEFORE he gives them away to Hamas, Al Queda, whoever? Did they lie too? Were they manipulating intelligence? Or is it: that you aren't perceiving the nuances properly? Not seeing the gray are we? So why aren't you holding them accountable for not finding the WMDs? Or, is that simply too black and white? How about this: another command decision is rapidly approaching along the same lines. Iran is about to obtain nukes. What should we do there Mr. Nuance? Let them have them? What if we make the wrong decision? What if Obama ends up sending in troops, and God forbid, we find out it was all a hoax? Then what? Do all the people that "disagreed"(with no possible chance of having any real knowledge either way) with "the war" all get to print out Obama Lied bumper stickers and self congratulate themselves for being able to "perceive nuance" better than everyone else? What if Obama does nothing and Iran is allowed to proceed, thus touching off a Middle East arms race? Just what the doctor ordered for a region already in constant tension...what comfort will those who were for action and not appeasement gain? That they "perceived nuance" better? Well, there is that matter of the drunken post you wrote stating things in one absolute after the next, ranging on all manner of topics, and each time, showing clear leftist thinking. But I suppose the rest of us "people" weren't able to perceive the nuances properly and therefore we misinterpreted it, huh? EDIT: Perhaps we shouldn't be complaining about others painting us into corners when we are the ones holding the paint can and the brush?

But did he single-handedly save the NBA? And, did Reagan win the Cold War?

Frankly I don't know much about the guy, which is why I was reading the site. Along with this, there was one other thing he said that I thought was kinda cool, something along the lines of "I didn't realize how difficult this job is, when I was in the legislature I would frequently complain to the gov. when programs I wanted were cut. Now, I see that this is a lot harder than I knew" or something like that. A modicum of humility and introspection in a politician. Not a bad thing. OTOH, the stuff he has been accused of looks bad. Real bad. I wonder though: how much of it would we have ever known about if he didn't stand up to Obama? Worse, what is the next guy going to get away with if he doesn't stand up to Obama? And, I still don't know how this office can cut waste without being overridden.

Pot meet kettle. Or do we need to endure another drunken screed from you repeating the bumper sitckers? Bush Lied, WMD weren't found, etc. I suppose there isn't any nuance in the intelligence business now is there? Make sure your buddy sees this. It will make for a good laugh, although I suppose not the kind you are after. Sheesh, as if everything you have have ever posted here regarding the Iraq War isn't a sweeping generalization....nah your political opinions have never imposed on your objectivity. It's the rest of us "people" that have the problem

So according to you, and I don't agree btw, Jordan did not save the NBA, Bird/Magic did. Again, where's the gray? Especially when you throw out the word "absolute". Just saying. EDIT: or, for John, Where is the Nuance? The premise was: we make bad arguments like "Reagan single handedly won the cold war" because we don't see the gray. My contention is: we make bad arguments because we make mistakes, are ignorant of the facts, but most likely, we are ideologically driven, and as such, start with conclusions like "We can't let Reagan take most of the credit for winning the Cold War, because that would make us all WRONG about him", and then we run around trying to find facts that say other people helped out, and ignore all the ones that say Reagan was the man. Then, people like me catch the turds doing this, and they cry when I call them out on it. Re: the NBA, I was 10 living in Chicago at the time when Jordan was drafted, so clearly I am biased But, Bird/Magic was something fun to watch, when it was going on, but it's not like I watched the NBA any other time. And, Bird/Magic was about 2 guys, each was good on their own, but I didn't really pay attention to that, when they were together was the only time the NBA was interesting. Then, Jordan came along, and everything changed. Suddenly you wanted to see every game, because, you never knew what he was going to do next. And, he had a supporting cast, in Ewing, Barkley, etc. But, like I said, it was a supporting cast. With every game becoming relevant, suddenly every team became more relevant as well. Maybe for you, Bird/Magic saved the league, but, for me, Jordan was the main guy...he was cast as Luke Skywalker and the reason I bring up Ewing is that he was supposed to be Darth Vader. Reality worked out differently. Jordan was such a star, it wasn't until we moved back to NY that I even thought about Ewing.

No problem, so if he does like it when individual greatness is recognized, again I ask: where is the gray? Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas also won the MVP 3 times. Nothing relative about that. The AP did poor research. (I mean seriously, by now, you guys don't have a data warehouse for this stuff and every other stat? I could build the data model for it in a week.) I don't see how this mistake was caused by "not seeing the gray". Is there some sort of relativism that biases us against the old school football players, and we need to recognize it when it happens, so that we don't make flawed arguments? Or, is it the most simple explanation: somebody screwed up?

Well then you missed my point, and the lame attempt at a setup. I didn't. IMO. This is about trying pretend that winners didn't win, and that losers didn't do as bad as they did, because there were other people on the court. And, it's the same tired crap that pretends people are equal, or should be, AFTER they are created. In reality, this is about a guy who in all likelihood has been getting whipped for promoting this flawed thinking on political boards just like this one, and now, rather than dealing with that, is telling us: 1. something is wrong with the game, not the way he plays it. 2. he doesn't like it when individual greatness is recognized, and that somehow Patrick Ewing is just as important as Jordan, in terms of "saving the NBA", and we would know that, if we saw "the gray".

Interesting....so while I think we can both agree that neither Reagan or Jordan did what they did in a vacuum, that means that they weren't the single largest contributor? WTF? Yes, Spud Webb, Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley were just as important as Jordan once the Byrd/Magic thing wore off and the NBA was floundering. Everybody is equal! This guy is exposing his own flawed world view, and underscoring his own point, by accident, that starting out with flawed premises is a bad idea, and he doesn't even know it! Thanks for the laughs. Let me get this straight: we shouldn't call Jordan a winner(6 rings) and Patrick Ewing a loser? We shouldn't say that Reagan was a winner? He set a small group of people, on multiple tracks = war, economics, culture, media, with the expressed purpose of defeating the USSR, and against massive odds, they won, over and over again, but we shouldn't call Reagan a winner? If not, then I guess we can't call Phil Jackson a winner either. Since, of course, Larry Brown did a lot of good things too? Sorry dude, but the simple fact is that there ARE winners and losers in this world, there are starters and scrubs, and no amount of handing out participation trophies changes that. Denying that once again simply exhibits a flawed premise, based on a flawed world view. Blaming the new media, and that a lot more of us have access to, and in fact can now be, the media(like when I report training camp stuff on my cell phone here), seems to me to have a lot more to do with whining that the average media person doesn't enjoy the status they once did than any thing else. That of: nobody can argue with me because I "know" more, and, I am the only one who's opinion matters, since it is the only one that you will read in the paper tomorrow. So, now, you guys face real competition, and just like I saw in public utilities, you aren't even close to being ready. Instead, we get this here: a hit on everybody who doesn't agree, or, based on what you just wrote, doesn't see the "relativism"?, framed in pseudo-philosophical complaining that the new rules of the game aren't right.... ...and that's the reason that nobody wants the health care bill. Hint: that bill is a loser, and most that vote for it will be as well. Where is the gray that I am missing? Do tell.

Ho hum, victory has 1000 fathers, defeat has only one. I suppose you were totally behind Reagan when he walked out of the peace talks with Gorbachev, wouldn't relinquish SDI(which was one of the best bluffs in history, btw), and basically outplayed the Soviets single-handed, and against the advice of the State Departmet and of course the media...Nah, you stood strong behind Reagan while the Democrat-Controlled Congress, State Department, and Dan Rather, etc. were in hysterics claiming that he was going to get us all killed. or... were you laughing at the Reagan puppet show, loving the Gensis "Land of Confusion" video, clinging to your Sting "Hope the Russians love their children too" tape while you were running around screaming that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war, and get us all killed? I find it hysterical that, confronted with the fact that Reagan was clearly the lead role in defeating Communism, the only thing that you can say is "yeah but, there were other characters on the stage as well". There were, but Reagan was the star, by a lot. Now deal with it. It's the truth. You can't stand that can you? So, instead of gaining wisdom from this reality, you start straw grasping on the periphery and saying "yeah, but" a lot? Like I said: hysterical. Buddy, you can't let being wrong about something own you. Especially not things that happened over 20 years ago. That's no way to live.

We'll see. I would hate to have to call you Brian Moorman The truth is easy. BS political spin takes a while. Then why, oh, why were Dems running around in 2006 saying we had to elect them to Congress immediately? Because there was an immediate set of things that needed to be accomplished, and, if we elected them they would immediately set about doing them? It's been 4 years and I am still waiting for that immediate energy policy. What's going to happen when the Saudis raise their prices again? Yeah, let's hear about that new-fangled Veto thing again....that apparently didn't exist until 2006. Oh wait, does that Veto thing matter for the last year and a half? Funny also that all we have heard from Dems is how they are going to work with Republicans. How? Attempting and failing to pass their "handouts for people that give us money" agenda? By doing everything from as far to left as it gets, short of Communism? Quite the opposite. This is 1994, all over again. And, this time, the Republicans have learned their lesson. A ton of positive things were accomplished from 94-2000. I am looking forward to that. I honestly believe that the best situation for our country is a Republican Congress and a Democrat President, not the other way around, and not one party controlling everything. This way, the Congress and the President compete with one another to lower taxes and spending, the private sector thrives. The Democrat President doesn't allow things to get out of hand, and keeps regulations that work. But, the Republican Congress instantly removes all nonsense spending and doesn't allow growth of government to get out of hand....a perfect check and balance system...exactly as it was intended.

Nope, let the questioning begin. I bet my questions will do a lot more damage to your position than any lame RI Bills fan-type name calling and personal attacks. Wait, but, this wasn't passed. So, why are you getting worked up about something that didn't pass? An amendment was "induced" that made specific mention of Tejanos at the Alamo. With the assumption that "induced" = passed, the civil rights thing is out, Tejanos at the Alamo are in. WTF are you crying about? The net result it: accurate history, which is what we all should want. Right? Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here? This article, once again, is poorly done because we can't figure out the context in which this statement belongs. Is it: that we are trying to remove the concept that white men led the revolution in Texas? Or is it: that we are trying to give MORE credit to minorities? Or is it: that we don't want to acknowledge white men, because if we did, we'd have to teach history as it actually is? The bottom line is: how the f are we supposed to study history if we can't talk about the background of historically significant people? Where they came from/what their values were/their status in society most certainly had an affect on their thinking and therefore their actions. What defines a "group", and why they made the contributions they did, more than race, sex, and religion? Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here? Also, it is possible that, just like we so often do with Black History Month, there is an attempt to elevate Hispanic historical status, based SOLELY on race, and not on historical import? Far too many people operate on the assumption that the reason we didn't learn about minority history is due to some racist conspiracy. The simplest explanation is the correct one: there were a lot more white people in this country than anybody else for a long time. Therefore, it simply makes sense that a lot more white people would be doing historically significant things. Never mind the fact that, given the clear limitation, and even oppression of minorities, the opportunities simply weren't there for a real long time. You can't have it both ways. So which do you choose? Do you agree that there were significant limitations on opportunities for non-whites? Or, do you agree that those opportunities did exist, that non-whites took them and made much larger contributions than we know? You can't tell both stories at the same time, so pick one. Disclaimer: I will give you the Teddy Roosevelt getting credit for something almost 100% accomplished by black soldiers, that not only bailed out his sorry ass, but won the battle as well. But that's a progressive with political ambitions, so, it's OK, right? Hell, the National Parks are an end that justify his means, right? He couldn't have been "The Hero of San Jaun Hill", and he didn't do anything to help those that were, but, since he was a progressive, none of that matters. Or, are you simply pissed because history isn't being rewritten here? I have news for you: we have seen this same story play out on Gay Marriage, Welfare, you name it. Once again, LIBERALS started out doing something ridiculous, get away with some change, push that change to ridiculous levels, get called on it, have no basis in reality for their actions, and proceed to provoke a response that not only removes all their efforts, but, pushes things further to the right than when they started. Who started the politicization of textbooks? Liberals, starting about 8-10 years ago. What happened? Initially? They corrected real historical inaccuracies. They should have stopped there. But no, once they realized they had some power, they decided to push it with ridiculous re-writing of history trying to de-emphasize the role of our founders, trying to make the Civil War solely about the fight against slavery, etc. Whether they thought they were smart, or, the rest of us were stupid, ultimately, they got caught. And now, given the amount on angst that has been building up for years against this folly, the Liberals have provoked a backlash, that yes, in some cases, pushes the interpretation of history farther to the right. Now, whose fault is this? Liberals are exactly like the 150 lb. schit talker in the bar...they keep pushing you, and despite your significant attempts to not engage and rely on your patience, eventually push too far, and then you have to respond. Then, after you have given them a sound beating, physical or verbal, they dare to complain about that, and try to make it about your response and not about their provocations. What do you think is going to happen in November? Is "the story" going to be about what the Dems did to lose Congress? Or, is it going to be about how dumb the American people are for voting their asses out?

1. Still waiting PTR....been an hour. If you actually had something specific, I am guessing we would surely have heard it by now. 2. Reread the thread. For all the rational discussion RI Bills fan demands from others, he sure doesn't offer any himself. In fact, I can't remember the last time he wrote anything other than a personal attack, name calling, or pointless verbal sparring. Maybe we can expect him to pick up his game and do something useful like explain, never mind defend, the health care bill Or, even better, tell us why we shouldn't be extremely skeptical of Global Goring. 3. Reread the article. Check out this line: "Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie." Now do it again. The first time, didn't you get the impression that the net result was that the Board wanted to deny that Tejanos were at the Alamo? How about the second time? Inducing? It says an amendment was "induced". WTF does that mean? Was it added or not? Why not tell us one way or the other? This is supposedly a news article. What kind of reporter doesn't tell you what happened? Where is Lori? Can we call this report either incompetent or biased?

Everybody eventually does.

Seems like you have an unhealthy obsession with race buddy. And, this guy complains about data bungling and poor conclusions drawn from it...then proceeds to conclude that spending less money on education per black student will have a causal effect on IQ decrease in black students? Based on what? For all we know, these variances could have any number of causes -> food, family, and a bunch of other stuff, and nothing to do with $$$ spent per kid. In fact, if I bet they spend the least on white kids down South, you know, the Land of Geniuses? If spending lots of $$$ on black kids makes them dumb/doesn't increase their IQ, does spending little money on them increase their IQ? WTF? Clearly $$$ has nothing to do with this. So, we have to look elsewhere. This is hypocritical at best, and race baiting at worst, and in all cases, you are a tool for deeming this worthy of our time. Next. But thanks though, I got to get in my far-right bashing for the month. Too bad you don't post more often, I could get all the far-left idiots off my back.

You have been asked 3 times to provide examples of what you mean by hijacked by ideology. Let's make it a 4th. WTF are you talking about? We ARE a Representative Republic. We ARE clearly the greatest country the world has ever known, and that IS largely due to our Constitution, to which every public servant and armed service member must swear an oath. The history of EVERY country is ripe with oppression, slavery in one form or another, war, and other terrible events. The difference is: no other country has ended up on morally right side of history more often than us, by far. No other country has consistently gone to war/spent our treasure on the preservation of freedom, and not gain, of the oppressed both here, and especially abroad, than us. By definition that makes us: exceptional. As in, we are the EXCEPTION to the rule that the rest of the world, especially Europe, has subscribed to for millennia: might makes right. And if that weren't the case, then how come whenever there is a problem, the rest of the world always comes to us? How come they always expect us to do something about it? Answer: because we always do. We WERE founded by religious white men. The Founders WERE primarily concerned with the LIMITATION of government, not it's growth. I have given you some examples of the historically accurate tenets of the curriculum passed. Show me the ones that aren't correct, or, cut the crap with the broad brush. Pick one.

Dammit! I don't like how this post is starting out, you know, providing a proper comparative analysis based on quantifiable data...instead of more lame anecdotes. Ahh, see, there it is I don't know though, not sure if that trumps Jackass Slaughter's Denture Story. Tell me that wasn't a giant embarrassment to us, again. WTF is that lady doing as a Congressman? Especially from Upstate NY? I would expect folksie stories from somewhere down south. Bingo, Bango! Where the f is the media on that? Why isn't that an open standard? Again, spot on. Besides, the AARP departed from its original mission years ago. For all intents and purposes, it is a labor union now, out to get whatever it can, so it can keep getting dues. While we are on it....screw the non-stated rights...the right to bear arms is specifically stated in the Constitution. So, where the f is my government issued MP5(they are fun!)? Also, I have a right to free press, so, since I regularly participate in the New Media, where the f is my new laptop? Hey I have a right to these things, so, that means the government is supposed to provide them, right?

Of course, because Red's, and consequently Red's drinker's, self esteem might be hurt. And, making distinctions based on color, simply isn't inclusive.

Heh, since in the past I worked as a Managment Consultant...yeah, it sounds about right Essentially, that is a significant part of the job, except we use the words "paradigm" and "synergy" a lot, which, after you have heard them for the 1000th time, hurt your head just as bad as a bat. I count the word "paradigm" as one of the biggest reasons I left. And, so...apparently you are testing out that business plan here? Doing some feasibility work in preparation for some seed money?

Seconded.

Try to read this without laughing The current fiscal and economic crisis has made one thing crystal clear: “business as usual” in Albany cannot be tolerated. State government is too big, too costly, and too inefficient. And we owe it to you, the taxpayer, to hold state government more accountable. Now, how the f did we get here? Because people are ripping off the state, and we wouldn't be in this mess if we caught all the "fraud"? Or is it: we have spent years building government to massive size, and now, when the ass falls out of our ridiculous construction, its time to turn the the tax payer? instead of the idiots who created the mess? to fix it? WTF? How about they create an Office of Rejecting Jackass Ideology and Anti-Vote Bribing Enforcement? I'll volunteer to lead it. Each time some folly comes along that creates more government jobs and raises taxes, or, that proposes to compete with business and/or pick winners and losers, I will hit the sponsor of that bill with a tack hammer in the forehead. My budget? I have my own tack hammer, so, all I need is my travel expenses covered. I will do it on Wednesday, so just like on Ash Wednesday, everybody will get to see who the jackasses are, except I imagine my "policy" will leave a more lasting mark. And, I have a question: If this agency, staffed with even more government employees we will never be able to fire/lay off, decides to cut a program, can't our wonderful legislature simply pass a law to override that cut? So again, I ask, WTF?

But just think of what he can do for NYS! He has all those national connections. He is a great politician and his spouse can do so much for us. or...wait...wasn't that the line we got for Hillary? How are you doing Upstate? Still reveling in all the good things she did? Boy our economy has reaped endless benefits from all those national elections/connections since Hillary was elected as our Senator. IF he does run, this is precisely what we will hear. I wonder if, as a state, people are dumb enough to fall for it twice. She used us as a stepping stone to run for President, and only an idiot can't see that now. Feel good getting used people? But go ahead, keep telling yourselves that NY is still better than everywhere else...hehe. It's a shame, because we used to be. But, leading the country in jackass politicians(Spitzer, Paterson, and now Tickle Me Massa), and having idiots want to let our state be a way station for National Democrats, is certainly not a definition of "better".