OCinBuffalo

What? Seriously. What the hell is this? Because it certainly isn't a response to my argument. The point being made by Sam is: No atheists believe that life has no meaning. And my point is, that means that all atheists can adjust the value of individual life up and down relative to whatever they want based on their perception or whatever becomes convenient for them = the exact opposite of morality. As long as they place even a tiny bit of meaning on one life, then they can get off the hook. Of course, if we are suddenly talking about their kids, I am certain the value of one life goes through the roof. This is the very definition of relativity. For example, how many atheists are for abortion, but against the death penalty? The reasons they are for and against have nothing to do with morality, and, instead they are based on relative arguments of convenience, often based on political expediency, and not some consistent set of principles. I am not going to bother addressing whatever you said because it's simply babble. Yes, the message Jesus espoused was "might is right". And, because that's what he said, you are now right for arguing against it. Retarded.

Let me start by saying it's unwise to attempt to monkey with Tom's quotes...if it was unintentional, so be it. and I will get out my spoon and feed you one argument at a time. How about we start with my first blatantly obvious argument that you say doesn't exist, or, is a "right wing attack" : "if you say it the way "Sam" did, then this means that an atheist placing any meaning, even a sliver, on life....gets to to say that at least s/he doesn't believe life is meaningless." You tell me how the above statement is NOT an perfect example of looking at morality as relative, instead of looking at it properly = based on set principles(don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc.) Take all night if you have to....given what I have seen so far from you...we can expect something REASONABLE, by next week

Hehehe Just further evidence that the atheist is more often the dumbest guy in the room, not the smartest. Or, at the very least, there is no correlation between atheism and intelligence. You might as well be asking Pelosi for sanity. Clearly the OP is one of these "my team is writing things I like to hear" dopes.

Anyway, IF they really pass this into law...and that's a big if because I can't imagine anybody being that stupid. Really. Talk about giving the "young people" a reason to get into politics...on the other side. Anyway, if they do it, I highly doubt it will pass the smell test in the courts. Clearly having a car is a choice. Having a body is not, unless you are a Scientologist of course. The Constitution specifically forbids this = 5th amendment = "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It's really as simple as that. If you are going to forcibly take my money(my private property), by forcibly making me get insurance(public use), and then not cover me/not pay for whatever I/my doctor decides I need, because by definition, you are running an insurance program, that by definition, routinely decides what to cover and what not to(see the VA thread), then you aren't giving me "just compensation", and my lawyer will sue your ass....so prepare for legions of lawyers with millions of lawsuits. Great. More work for the trial lawyers...and absolutely 0 improvement in health care. Yep, sounds like another partisan plan to me...how do we know that this isn't the intention of this to begin with?

Honestly: I think many thought they were electing a President, but all they have accomplished is putting a Congressman in the President's job. Right down the line on every issue Obama has been acting like a Congressman and not a President. All the partisan and direct attacks on Fox, Limbaugh, etc.? That's what Congressmen do, not Presidents. It seems like he is expecting others to do all the work, and then convince him to get his "vote". He is supposed to be setting the agenda, and, god forbid, leading the country. Even Bush got that part right. Obama seems to not understand that it is his job to do the the work, and then the convincing, not the other way around. I honestly don't know why in the world he is doing this, perhaps he is simply going back to what he knows? One thing is sure, actively spending time trying to get the Olympics for Chicago is NOT HIS JOB. It's the Senators/Reps from Illinois job. He is the President of the country, not the President of Chicago. I said before that he would have a tough time rising above the corruption/foolishness/practices of the Southside. It appears that while surely others haven't helped him, he hasn't done much to help himself rise above the patronage game either.

And of course...nothing was Bush's fault

Given that we know that atheists here consistently demonstrate the least intelligence and/or the incapacity to develop and defend a reasoned argument... All kidding aside...where in the hell does that first part of the sentence come from? "The average atheist is smarter than you"? WTF? Q: Based on what? A: Conjecture and wishful thinking...once again. Anybody else see the pattern? Oh, and yeah...all those college professors and ACLU lawyers have really been disenfranchised and don't play a large role in government? Right. Oh, my mistake....they want a LAAAAARGER role in government. How large? Stalin-size perhaps? 1) One word. Abortion. Two words. Moral relativism. And finally,(once again doing my job at exposing the phony) if you say it the way "Sam" did, then this means that an atheist placing any meaning, even a sliver, on life....gets to to say that at least s/he doesn't believe life is meaningless. Hence, another example of moral relativism. Notice also that instead of talking about each individual's worth, which is is the definition of life, duh!, this tool is talking about things you do and/or people you do them with. Living life fully, and having relationships has nothing to do with placing value on individual life. The argument against atheists is: that they do not value individual life...enough(see I can do it too). Go back and read what this guy wrote again...looks like he did a fine job of affirming, rather than dispelling, that argument. This is absolute folly. Communists the world over have justified their murders, rapes, theft and lies, precisely because their world view was based on "reason". Therefore they were justified in these acts, because THEY individually, and not moral principles, became the arbiters of right and wrong. Dogma has nothing to do with it. These individuals have largely been tried and held accountable as individuals. The "dogma" has never been put on trial, because you can't hold an idea accountable. However, you can hold the douchebag leftist who kills children accountable, because his mother taught him better than that, period. It is in fact the absence, or rejection, of moral principle that Communists and Fascists require form those they govern. All religion is based on almost the exact same principles(Don't lie, cheat, kill, steal, etc.). So, QED, you reject the religion, and you can reject the principles it is based on as well. Next thing you know, Stalin kills 6 times as many people as Hitler, and, "it's ok...because at least we aren't being controlled by religion"? Like I said...folly. Right. And the ACLU wasting millions of $$$, theirs, the government's, and the people they sue, for the most inoffensive things like singing Christmas carols, is a fine example of being "non-dogmatic". Is this guy serious? Yeah...nothing dogmatic about suing people because they set up pieces of wood and plastic in the park for 3 weeks out of the year. Perhaps they are "threatening" pieces of wood and plastic? Read: "Sam" has no REAL counter to the charge that, due to a lack of anything else to talk about, yeah, it must all be due to dumb luck. Or...."we know this and we know that, and, we have written an entire paragraph with out defining what exactly we believe the 'thinger' that makes natural selection go is...but remember that we are denying that it all comes down to luck" Who says this? Really? I think this one is simply made up. "Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society" Where oh where would we ever get the idea that atheists are arrogant? I wonder. And, perhaps somebody needs to explain what ironic means to "Sam" the same way Tom explained a priori. Ironic is this sentence: "One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility" By definition, you cannot praise yourself, for humility or anything else, and be humble at the same time. So what is "Sam" doing here other than projecting? And then trying to use that projection as a replacement for, and basis of, actual argument? Sam: because I decided that's what religious people do...then it is ironic when they do something else? Retarded. Religious people praise the act of being humble...not themselves, in every faith I am aware of. The "mysteries of the faith". Hmm. Apparently the word "mystery" is lost on good ole Sam. Clearly if we say something is a mystery...then we are admitting that we don't know wtf happened...only God does...which is the exact opposite of "claiming to know". This one is simply retarded. More contradictory evidence for atheists being smarter than others. Yes....so Jesus wearing a beard or not has something to do with, or even crosses your mind, while praying for help when you are being shot at. Right. Each person encounters the spiritual in their own way = the way that is right for them. Attempting to tell others that they aren't allowed to feel what they feel, because you haven't, is again, retarded. We are talking about feelings here right? How the hell are we supposed to quantify...feelings? More importantly, I thought atheists were saying, as was said above, that ALL religion was wrong. Why the sudden change here to only go after Christianity? Apparently there is evidence of spiritual, and therefore, behavioral improvement from all faiths by Sam's own admission. This commonality is an argument FOR religious belief ...and not against it. And tell me please about the last atheist spiritual experience....you can't, because by definition that is a contradiction in terms. So....Sam's speculation about aliens is supposed to serve as better explanation than the Bible or the Koran because...Sam said so? It's just as likely that said aliens have their own version of the Bible or Koran. Hell, since we are speculating, it's just as likely that these Aliens have their own football team whose offense decides to play terribly for no apparent reason. The point is that Sam has no point here, just conjecture. The Pope has openly stated that there may in fact be other life on other planets...but that nobody knows for certain. Therefore, the religious, even the Catholics, ARE in fact able to freely entertain such possibilities as well. In all cases, life on other planets '= God doesn't exist. And of course, Sam can't help himself = the aliens are brilliant too! Hysterical. What if the aliens are idiots? Does that mean God doesn't exist too? And, how does religion trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe again? Oh, that's right, because Sam said so... HAHA! Reading this article defines "wishful thinking" and "self-deception" to a tee. It also defines "speculation passing for reason" and "hypocrisy" as well. So instead of addressing the point: overall faith-based religion has produced better behavior, he dances around it and then talks about why good deeds are done, instead of focusing on the only thing that matters = the good deeds being done. And nothing about the fact that COMMUNISM, an atheist ethos, not religion, has killed far and away more people than any other ethos in history combined. Hmmm. Oh that's right, because nobody is fool enough to argue for how much benefit we have gained from Marx's retarded theory. Yes....we got to the store, but let's not give credit to the car that got us there. The car is just a car after all and even though that is the tool that has been used to accomplish the goal, now that we are at the store, let's just forget about the car. What an idiot. I am so sure that the moral progress that has been made would have happened on its own without the spiritual texts that have been the basis for all of it. Yes...if only we had stuck with Aesop's fables or the Grimm brothers. Hell even social scientists use the concept of a "case study" to illustrate larger points. If we look at the Bible as a series of case studies, then you will find no better document to use as a moral instruction manual. Its a simple concept: the Bible is largely there to say "don't learn this the hard way. Take this story and learn from it". Now...having said all of that, please understand I couldn't care less about religion, or religious activity I just hate it when a phony a-hole makes a series of terrible arguments, and then gets praised for it by other phony a-holes. This screed above has no place in any debate, because as I have clearly demonstrated, it is nothing if not a poorly veiled attempt to "explain atheism" by taking shots at religion. In fact, I learned NOTHING about atheists due to this article. IF this was an attempt at promoting understanding of atheism, then the atheists have been severely under-served.

Ahh...but unfortunately, it appears that this administration thinks they do...based on the sheer "power" of Obama's words. In fact, it's as though they truly believe that simply by saying it, "so shall it be". This is a disturbing trend and I have settled upon a new word to define these "super-words" that apparently only Obama can use a replacement for substantive actions: Wactions. Wactions work just like magic spells, you simply need to recite the incantation(in some cases, 50 times a day), and the intended result is supposed to magically appear. In this case, Obama, and more importantly his syncophants actually believe he can Waction his way into getting Europe(-England), etc. to action do something, instead of rolling over, ass in the air as usual. Love to see these Wactions actually deliver on their magic potential...or...are we old enough yet to know that magic doesn't exist?

No...I clearly disclaimed what I wrote twice = "you still have to score the TD when the opposition gives you a gift" and, "I will credit them for 5 long drives". Nobody said anything about the Saints offense being bad. Quite the opposite. Let me spell it out for you: if you give a good offense a lot of opportunity, they will execute....because they are um...good. I can be found here in case you need any other profound insights, such as "water is wet, and, Obama is having a hard time with the difference between actions and words." However, none of that is my point, so any time you want to stop arguing apples and start addressing my oranges is fine. The fact is the offenses of the teams the Saints have played so far have done absolutely nothing, or, have hindered the overall game for the ENTIRE team due to their own terrible play, and not due to anything the Saints have done. The fact is that these teams have also done next to nothing with the field position they have gained, or kept the Saints from gaining, on special teams. The fact is that having two games given away to the Saints offense does nothing to resolve the fact that their defense is patently weak. The reason that the Bills have been passed on so much is that we have in fact been up 2 scores for 100 of a possible 120 minutes in games so far. We have been trying to kill clock and play prevent, a mistake which has hopefully been addressed. We finally got away from that only at the end of last game and learned from our mistakes. Talking about a pass defense that is purposely trying to give away passing yards in trade for time, and saying "see they are a bad pass defense"...is specious at best. However I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN we will hear that dopey analysis from the usual retards.... ...meanwhile we have a varsity QB and three pro-bowl caliber players on offense in Owens, Evans, and Freddie Jackson...(I guarantee you will remember his name after Sunday) and that has nothing to do with our pass defense. Tell me what Brees, et al is going to do to stop those 4 guys while sitting on the bench? ...which brings me back to the reason I wrote this and the OP: this game is being framed a certain way based on poor understanding of data, statistics based on that data, and apparent ignorance of the situational factors that created those stats. A reality check was necessary, not to remove facts like "the Saints offense is playing well", but to make sure we are looking at ALL the facts, like "The Bills running game >>>>>> the Saints run defense". Oh and for those playing along at home: this one took me 5 minutes

Different coach...saying different things apparently.

I humbly submit that this took me 15 friggin minutes to write. About a half hour to watch the highlights and research, etc. Anyway, while we haven't been razor sharp on STs this year, we still have a significant edge on a team who ST are on the verge of being terrible. It's early, sure, but from what I saw we can expect some big returns, and more importantly, we should be able to pin them back on kicks and punts. Basically I am saying that this has the potential to be Seattle last year in terms of a ST mismatch.

Yeah, yeah, yeah we have all heard the big numbers....but unlike the dopes at ESPN etc., I prefer to actually watch and understand the game...essentially the "how" they have done what they have. Also, I know all you KC Joyner fans are sure to be upset about my proper use of statistical analysis here, but you will have to get over it After watching the game films and looking at the play by play info, and then the stats, a few glaring points appear to have been overlooked: 1. The Saints have averaged 12 drives a game, and they have started them from their own 40 yard line on average. * It's important to note that, while the Bills opponents have also gotten a lot of drives, that has been largely due to positive things like: pick 6s, and us scoring...and not due to give aways, 3 and outs, or #2 below. 2. Opposing QBs have thrown 5 meaningful(6 total), give-away picks. None of the interceptions were due to excellent play from the Saints D. Rather, they were the other team's QB hitting them in the #s. All of them have given away huge field position. 3 of them have resulted in TDs. Essentially, the Saints have yet to face a NFL "varsity" QB. 3. The Saints are vulnerable to big plays, as well as the running game. They are especially vulnerable in the kicking game. They have yet to play a good special teams opponent, and, have gotten extremely short fields due to #2, hence #1. Detroit Game: 1. Um...it's Detroit? You are playing them at home? Rookie QB's first game? 2. The Saints average drive start, of which they had 13, was their 39 yard line. You give any top 15 offense 13 drives from their 40 yard line and and yeah, we can expect them to score a lot of points. I don't care how good a defense is, you can't expect them to not give up at least 28 points given these circumstances. After all, the Saints only needed to score 4/13 times. We are talking about friggin' Detroit here...so we can replace "good" with "terrible" and therefore replace 28 points with 45. 3. Somebody remind me why I am analyzing an NFL football game involving the Lions again please...rookie QB throws 3 picks...blah, blah, blah. Why are we even considering the stats from this game as statistically significant? Eagles Game: 1. Once again, the Saints average drive start, of which they had 11( ) was their 40 yard line. Same thing all over again as in the Detroit game. 2. The score at half time was 17-13. Hardly an example of overwhelming potency on offense, or of dominating a game. And this time, they were playing a respectable team. What happened? A. The Iggles fumbled the kick off to start the 3rd quarter, giving the Saints the ball on their 22 yard line. Now, understanding that "yeah, it's a lucky break, but you still have to score the TD", a huge turnover like that, and capitalizing on it, put the Iggles down 2 scores immediately, and, for the rest of the game. B. As if that wasn't bad enough, back up QB Kolb comes out 3 plays later and throw an AWFUL pick giving the Saints the ball on their 24 yard line. Saints score a TD and now it's 31-13 at 11:39 in the 3rd. The game is now completely changed, and the Eagles, just like their fans, aren't historically known for their mental strength/intestinal fortitude. 3. Meanwhile... Near-Rookie Kolb threw for almost 400 yards on this D...and 196 of that was in the first half, when the game was close or tied. So there goes the "yeah, but, they were throwing because they were behind argument"...right out the window. In fact Kolb had a 107.4 passer rating in the first half. It wasn't until the second half, when Kolb threw his 2 meaningful(3rd didn't matter) picks, that the Saints scored 31 points. Sorry but these three are game-killers, I don't care who you are. Looks a hell of a lot more like the Eagles lost...rather than the Saints won, and Detroit played like...Detriot. I will give the Saints credit for putting together a total of 5 long drives. However by and large the Eagles offense gave away that game...and Detroit... So what does this all mean? 1. I think we can all agree that the Bills are going to put up more than 231 yards of total offense, so you can forget about Brees getting 13 drives from his 40. 2. The Eagles WERE running and west coasting their way just fine on the Saints in the first half of their game. In fact, in the first half both Eagle RBs were running for 5 yards a carry. If it wasn't for the 3 minute melt down at the beginning of the second half, it's fair to assume that they would have ended up with 120 yards total rushing(EDIT: they had 60 at half time...so 120 is a conservative estimate). That's crazy #s for a West Coast offense...uh..that relies on short passing to supposedly replace the run game. Remember? No way the Saints score 48 points if that happens. In fact, if that happens the Saints probably lose this game. 3. Clearly the Saints can be run on by our offense. But even more importantly, they can be run on in special teams. Therefore....if the Bills can use their superior special teams to reverse this trend I have found, and instead, start 10 drives from THEIR 40 yard line on average, then this game becomes a relatively easy win for the Bills. Yeah, I said it. I could be wrong, but based on what I have seen so far, I highly doubt it.

= stand up guy

With all the things I was literally panicking about before this game: 1. O line....in general and in detail, and we all know the story 2. D line...same 3. TE position and if we would finally use it 4. Moss, Welker, How good is Reggie Corner? How good is Jairus Byrd? Is Whitner for real? 5. Can we really stop the run? 6. Is this going to be the "hurry out" offense instead of the "hurry up" offense? and on and on.... I have to say...this is going to be a fun year...because...we have a real deal football team, that is a year wiser than last year. CLEARLY we have the talent on this team, finally, to stay with the other teams. There's nothing left to talk about on that front. Now it comes down to gameplan and execution....we may lose...but it won't be because our guys don't belong in the same league as our opponents anymore.

Let's go Buffalo! (just bumping this above that schitbird other thread)

Let me ask these simple questions: 1. who is going to cover TO? 2. and then who is going to cover Lee? All this talk about defensive lineman means nothing if Edwards is getting the ball in the shotgun and throwing out to an open receiver in 2-3 seconds. For a second....if we are to believe that the playbook is simplified down to 6-8 plays....that means it all comes down to player vs. player performance. This isn't about fooling the defense, it becomes all about doing something well, and forcing the defense to stop you from doing it. Based on that, I am sorry but who on the Patriots* secondary can stop our WRs? Who can stop Edwards from simply hitting the open guy all night? Maybe there is one guy....but then who covers the other WR? My answer right now? Nobody. All the defensive scheming in the world will not take away both receivers, unless they want to leave a giant hole in the middle of the field, and/or play nickel the entire game. If that happens, it's very possible that Freddy has a field day....or, dare I say, our Tight Ends finally get utilized? Look, it's not like the Pats* have a lot of tape on our O, and lord knows they have been changing it up all week. It seems like everyone has forgotten about TO, including the media...well...good There's a great setup here: keep it simple and allow pure talent to soundly beat defensive scheme. Hopefully our coaches take advantage...

First of all most of you don't seem to know the difference between Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, or how any of them were designed and/or work. I will do this as 3 separate posts, so let's start with Medicaid: Medicaid: Intention: Originally an FDR idea, and he would have done it, but he couldn't fit it in with the other 20 "stimulus" programs he started. He literally died before he got his chance, Truman(blue dog) took over, Kennedy wanted nothing to do with this, and it wasn't until LBJ got in that this idea got implemented Intended to pay for YOUNG: worker's health care who get disabled permanently while on the job, people with a disability, people who are destitute(remember this one for later) or, in JBJackass fashion, young, unmarried mothers. In this way...glorious LBJ would ensure that families, and especially kids(LBJ's favorite), would not grow up going without health care, or going without in general due to parent's health care bills, thus, a more level playing level playing field(we all know this one), because health care costs would not kill the "afflicted", thus we would end up with less broken families, less crime, and healthier bodies all around. As always with liberal ideas: great, high-minded motives, that hardly anyone who possesses an interest in looking out for other Americans can find fault with. Unintended Consequences: 1. taking away the consequences for, and therefore encouraging irresponsible behavior of young adults, whose direct result is 18 years of additional costs to many if not all other government budgets = additional unwanted kids...who grow up in the exact opposite situation that was intended. Hence, medicaid is partially responsible for creating "motherment", welfare moms, etc. Oh and there WAS a racial component to this = LBJ reasoned that more minority babies = more blacks = less of a minority = less racial strife. So, he told unwed black women to have as many babies as they wanted, and he, meaning we, would care for them all. 2. remember that "destitute" thing? Well, when grandma runs out of money, or loses her husband's pension when he dies, or her son comes along and demands all her money now, before she dies, and before her care provider can "steal it" by taking care of her ...grandma now becomes...destitute... and qualifies for Medicaid. Why? Because LBJ in his infinite wisdom thought grandma would be long dead before any of that ever happened, and, he thought that the USA's economic power would never ever again be seriously challenged because at the time, everybody else in the world still had bomb craters in their front yard. Reality = people are living longer, and we don't have spare cash we had in the 60s, both combine to mean: 75% of Medicaid is going to people who are "supposed" to be dead, leaving only 25% for the young injured workers/mothers/disabled it was originally INTENDED to help. And, 50% of that is going for kids who aren't supposed to be alive, since the intention was "covering a single mistake" of one unintended child, not enabling 4-5 "revenue streams" per unwed mother. As such...it has no possible chance of paying for itself as it was designed. Too much going out...not enough coming in. It's really as simple as that. Modern Democrat policy wonks know this, hence the "end of life counseling" aspect of the proposed legislation of today. In essence, "end of life" is there to try to repair this giant F up in the Medicaid laws, and of course, to try to pretend like this giant F up doesn't exist, thus protecting LBJ's legacy. IF they can get more grandma's to choose death, they can make the original Medicaid plan work again = keep their precious, flawed program, instead of REALLY reforming it. If they can't then yes, blzurl is correct: since there is only about 18% of what is supposed to be available for the intended recipients, you have to be EXTREMELY destitute to qualify for something that was intended to get you back on your feet. But she, in her usual fashion, ignores the "how we got here", treats it as meaningless and call us idiots? because her party's program is f'ing broken? WTF? As always with liberal ideas: horrific, child-like/incompetent methods, that hardly anyone who possesses common sense can't find fault with.

There was some discussion on this in another thread a few weeks ago...and I was thinking about this but didn't have time to post it. I am no biology Ph.D., but I do have a basic understanding of genetics. If there is a gay gene and therefore, if you have it, you are born gay, you can't change your genes, right? I can't wake up one day and change my hair color. My DNA says it's the color it is. I am aware of gene therapy...but that's not the point. More importantly, those people who insist that being gay is not a choice, and that it is a scientific certainty that they were born that way....are saying that the opposite must also be true = people are born straight. In fact, this entire argument depends on there being a definitive, causal gene that works like a light switch. Essentially, this argument then leaves only two options: straight or gay. But, reality tells us that "switch hitters" exist. Within the confines of this argument, bisexuals are either gay or straight, but choose to be "deviant" once in a while. Doesn't their ability to choose invalidate the entire "born this way" argument? Unless it's possible to have a % of a gene. I suppose it's possible to look at it like hair color = there are more than 2 answers, and sometimes they blend together....but wouldn't that mean that there's no such thing as being 100% gay or 100% straight? Instead, is there is a sex line...and what you are depends on how close your "gay gene" is to one extreme or the other? Therefore, wouldn't that mean that you can't in fact be born gay or straight, but rather some blend? And therefore, you choose to act on the part you feel more comfortable with? In that case...it could be argued that choosing to be gay is simply acting on your impulses. And, that bisexuality is simply acting on the impulses you feel today. Both of these are clearly choices and not predetermined. Not every person that is born with a predisposition to depression kills themselves. They simply choose to either ignore or get some sort of treatment for their condition. Ultimately, it seems to me that bisexuals throw a serious wrench into the entire "born gay" argument. I'm just not sure what the effects of it are, or whether we are talking wrenches or apple pies, but it seems clear that people who claim to be born gay, can't be claiming civil rights protection, along the same lines as gender or race, as long as there are bisexual people running around mucking up their arguments. Sucks to be them.

Hysterical...once again Gene defers to babble instead of dealing with the point at hand. I told him once that he is intellectually weak. This thread does nothing to disprove that. However, there is room for improvement and all is not lost No we should hold Obama to the exact same standard Bush was held to = he was constantly criticized for staying loyal to people who needed to be removed. Examples: Gonzalez, Rumsfeld. Democrats and many independents, and certainly the media, bitched and whined until they finally got their way and got rid of clearly incompetent, or past their prime, employees. Let's hold the exact same standard. This guy never should have been hired. But, let's give the President the benfit of the doubt on that. The real mistake is holding on to a clear nut-job...whose very douchebaggery will either impede the country's business, or worse, corrupt it. So yeah this is +1 on a list of things that could be used to impeach any President. If you don't know how to hire/fire, you have no business calling yourself a manager. Last I checked President = a fairly important manager. Right. Just curious, what kind of job do you have? Does it allow you to blatantly suck at it...or try to convince people of conspiracy theories...or go out and speak in public representing the company, on the company's dime, and call other people "a-holes", as long as you don't do anything illegal? How many inanimate objects in your boss's office would suddenly gain the ability to fly if you told her/him "well this other guy from another company was being an idiot and didn't agree with me...so, I told the client staff that he was an a-hole. But, I'm sure we're OK, because I didn't break any laws." You can believe whatever you want...but you also have to have class. I am fairly certain the White House has just a slightly higher expectation of professionalism...than say...the highway department. If you are taking money for doing a job, the job and it's standards and expectations, not your jackass beliefs, come first. The best part: the question was "Can you explain how the Republicans were able to get their initiatives passed when they had control, and why the Democrats can't". The real answer: "Because the Republicans weren't trying pass laws that would get half their members auto-defeated in 2010.". That is the real answer, like it or not. This guy went to Yale: he knows damn well that is the real answer....but he's pissed off by it...hence the emotional, "a-holes" comment, instead of facing the reality. Yes! And this is why all Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, "progressive" ideology, and anything derived from it = welfare, medicaid, etc., is ultimately DOOOMED TO FAIL! You have stated it yourself! Therefore, I am now convinced there is hope for you Do yourself and us a favor and for the next month, repeat that sentence 5 times each time you log in here. We will all be amazed as your intellectual ability improves, while your adherence to nonsense ideology, the cause for your current impairment, declines. Ha! You said it yourself! See...even more hope for improvement. Funny how? This guy literally believes in controlling other people through force and coercion, he is a self-admitted Communist. So yeah...not only is it possible to be for freedom and against this guy's beliefs at the same time...it's the only logically correct position to take. Also, if this guy had a magic wand...you can bet you sweet ass he would take away most of our freedoms...since, he is a Communist. And believing is one thing: actively pursuing those beliefs while being employed by the US government is quite something else. WTF? Which burden are you talking about? I make my own living every day by finding work for me and my guys to do. When I do, I create jobs. If I don't, I don't eat. Who shares my burden with me? The government? People on welfare? Government employees? They don't help me find work and they don't share the burden when I don't...why the f should they benefit when I do? I am willing to pay for defense, the EPA, FBI, and anything else I can't do myself. I am not willing to pay for people to leach off me, or to be forced into "investing" in another government-organized Ponzi scheme.

There is such a thing as business rules...or, "things that define the nature of the business you are in". What makes NFL football, NFL football, is the social contract between the American people and the NFL that contains some clear business rules. There are many but one of the most important ones is: The draw of the NFL, on the whole, is that the difference between the losers and the winners is ultimately how they play on the field. Play by play, game by game, those who give the best effort reward themselves and their fans with winning. The consequences of this rule are that the game is literally unpredictable, unlike baseball and basketball, and therefore, much more entertaining. Another rule: In order for play on the field to dictate outcomes...we must hold everything else as equal and constant, as much as possible. Things like the draft and waiver wire order, the salary cap, and revenue sharing are vital to the NFL. They are there to drive the business towards equilbrium, and therefore, back towards play on the field being the sole determining factor of winning. Let's face it. That's why we watch. We want to see who will work harder than the other guy. Also, we want to see/share in the benefit of good teamwork. Truthfully, we are most entertained by players on the field, making incredible plays....much more than the things that come along for the ride = (offense/defense schemes, offensive/defensive lineman, sorry but that is boring..period, the other team/city, what the punter does, what the stadium is like, cheerleaders, owners, GMs, the Draft/FA). All this other crap is what we pay attention to because we only get very limited amount of what we really want. So while infantile owners like Jerry Jones(I mean who designs a field that has more to do with the scoreboard...and less to do with football, other than a baby who wants his toy?) think they are going to get less revenue sharing going forward....they are fooling themselves Why? Because any proposed change that breaks the "it's all about what happens on the field" business rule is going nowhere fast. Jerry Jones says he is a businessman. IF he is, then he should know better than trying to break seminal business rules without the full support/coercion of the entire organization. Running your mouth without that support does nothing other than make you look like an idiot. Franky, he's starting to look more like an idiot(TO, Pac Man, Tank, Scoreboard) a less like a great business man, every day.

The funny part for me is that I think Hannity is missing most of this.... 1. More and more I am starting to become convinced that Obama pulled off one of the greatest magic tricks of all time. Magic is all about misdirection. And Obama misdirected a lot of people, including the press, into supporting him. Hannity was busy yelling about a nut-job, but irrelevant, reverend and a whack-job old terrorist/hippie, also irrelevant, during the campaign. This caused Hannity to ignore the very relevant, patently ridiculous people that would end up getting a job at the White House. Now that's damn good misdirection. A hell of a trick. These are the people either doing or attempting to do real damage to this country(Czars), and Hannity completely missed it. These people are self-admitted Communists and socialists. So while you can complain about Hannity calling Obama a socialist, you CANNOT complain when I point out the people who self-apply those terms. 2. Rather than call Obama a socialist....he's starting to look more and more like a sheer opportunist. We all know the type...the guy that gets by, never taking a position on/doing anything real, and then suddenly seizing on an opportunity and taking it as far as it will go. The problem with these guys is: 90% of the time they can't be effective at the position they have attained, because it was external events, not they themselves, that put them in that position. The best example of Obama being an ineffective opportunist is the healthcare debate. Obama has never been elected due to his ability to put solid policy together, see it through to completion, and manage it going forward. Obama has never managed an organization in his life...and that is becoming blatantly obvious. Every manager knows that when an initiative is put forward, wherever it comes from, and it becomes their responsibility, the very last thing you want to do is allow the agenda to be set by somebody else. This is not about "not working with others", so spare me. Quite the opposite. You want to work with others...but it is your meeting and the questions, and the acceptable answers, are owned by you. Why? Because as the manager...its YOUR responsibility to...manage, and see the damn thing done! What did Obama do? The exact opposite = leaving it to Congress. And I am sorry but there are NO DOUBT that there are blatant socialists in that group, especially the ones that won't agree to anything other than a public option. I will add "fascist" to the name-calling mix...because anybody who values the state over the individual is a fascist...by strict definition. Hannity is attacking Obama...but for the wrong reasons... He should be attacking Congress, or, he should be attacking Obama for ducking his job.

IMHO....If I was DJ...and I saw what I just saw this preseason? You bet I would create a "tense atmosphere" for every single coach and player on the team. There's a time to be a nice guy and develop young players. But, there's also a time to scare the crap out of your people. I don't see this a "panicky" at all. I see it as being decisive. DJ said himself "the minute you start thinking of it...you had better do it." The notion that DJ could/should have fired Schonert at the end of last season is worthless. The fact is at the time progress had been made prior to TE getting hit...and he made some progress again at the end of the season. It wasn't until this preseason that we could see obvious regression in the O...hence the firing.

Let's not forget: Lynch's situation involves a weapon! Oh...noooo.... So you have to add in the idiot-NYC-Madison Avenue-Oprahfied-PC adjustment to the "rules" for suspensions. I love it when this agenda nonsense becomes so convoluted that it trips over it's own vagina, as in, 3 games for a gun in a box vs. 1 game for hitting a woman? Now that makes sense. Where are all the feminists? You get less suspensions for hitting a woman than killing dogs or having a gun....sitting in a glove box? Since this is of course all about "sending messages to the children", what's the message here ladies? Notice...they will say nothing because "gun bad" trumps "hit woman bad" in their sad, screwy little worlds.

The problem with that is: who exactly get's to say "I told you so"? I haven't seen very many people around here telling us TE was going to be terrible from jump street. In fact, I can't think of one poster that had a SERIOUS objection to TE...other than those few people who couldn't let the JP thing go. But that was far more about keeping JP because "he didn't get a fair shot" than it was about not liking Trent. You could argue WGR people, because let's face it, they have been telling us everyone on the team is either mediocre or terrible since I have been listening again(around 2005). But, I don't see guys whose job it is to fire people up to get ratings as having a SERIOUS objection. Honestly, who get's to say I told you so? IF you are telling us that he is going to be terrible now, this season, then you don't get to say that until the season is over.

Yes, of course, let's turn to fiction writers when we need quantifiable solutions that manage health care cost. While we're at it, let's turn to L. Ron Hubbard for advice on how to raise kids! This is the where the REAL "outrage" comes from. The terrible realization that the real world is....accurate, that your lot in life is what it is, that the market simply isn't willing to pay much for your untalented ass, and that the only way to change that depends on extremely hard work, is simply too much for some people to handle. Some deal with it...some B word about it....and some create an fantasy world, try to live there, and try to convince the rest of us of it's existence = Crazy Pelosi. Ahh yes...once again let's talk about process instead of content. Great way to make a point. Perhaps Obama bashing on Fox News or calling real people who are pissed about health care "plants", while at the same time planting his own people in his town halls, will make people forget about the crappy content of his ideas, and focus on the process instead I honestly didn't think we would be adding "untenably retarded position" to the process vs. content debate...but apparently Exiled has added another option. So besides "both bases", does this cover 5th, 6th and giraffe base? = what they were saying in FDR/LBJ's administration when they were coming up with SSI/Medicare/Medicaid. "Who cares if we pass laws that create programs that will completely fail? We live on the wild side! While we're at it, let's blame everybody else but ourselves and our bad ideas when they fail! It doesn't matter anyway, because we can always cross bridges when we come to them!" Is there a finer example of far-left hubris, anywhere in existence, than the above post? You know, some days I don't even have to try.... Quite the opposite. We need to start "shooting" the people who propagate the sense of entitlement = the trial lawyers. This 'sense' is created in the courtroom where the get to weave their fantastic tales of love and loss....for 30% of the take. Yes...let's look everywhere/do everything but make an earnest effort to find the root cause of the problem. I notice nobody is talking about the "How Jon Edwards became rich by suing doctors and hospitals" story. Perhaps Kelly can write a made for TV movie about it. Where is all your supposed "righteous indignation" about how much trial lawyers make for suing docs? You want to limit how much people can make doing their jobs? Why aren't we starting with lawyers? WTF possible value to they add to the value proposition of health care delivery? But, like the obvious schill you are... you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. The trial lawyers wrote this health care bill...doesn't its blatant stupidity prove that? By now even someone with below average intelligence should be able to comprehend the play here. At this point, you have three choices: continued stupidity...feigning ignorance...or admitting that this entire bill is a sham. God forbid that there are such concepts as "risk", "business models" and "market forces". Yes, the three guys I know who started a business from scratch building ceramic hip replacements...those are the real evil people here. They literally starved to get that company off the ground. But, of course, they are the bad guys. They are the "evil corporate" demons that are simply getting a return on their investment of blood, sweat and tears. More importantly, let's let these liberal dbags...who have nothing whatsoever to do with this business....decide who is allowed to make what money. They obviously know better than my friends how to run their prosthesis business. While we are at it: let's appoint me to decide whether these liberal tools are doing "the right things" at their jobs. I am sure they won't mind...since I am smarter than they are, due to my career I am certainly qualified, and I can claim that I am doing the whole thing because I feel a "moral" need to make decisions for them. Professional problems solvers solve the whole problem...and don't leave new problems in their wake. So far this whole thing looks like amateur hour. Actually, more like idiot amateur hour. The Democrats cannot talk about health care reform...and not talk about malpractice insurance reform. They can't talk about health care insurance reform, and not talk about malpractice insurance reform. They can't talk about "whatever-the-hell they are calling it next week" and not talk about malpractice insurance reform. Until they start talking about solving the WHOLE problem....they can blow whatever they are saying out their ass....because the vast majority of us won't stand for it. If they force it through...they can kiss control of the government goodbye, and this time for keeps. This is the very kind of nonsense that WE DO NOT NEED. NOBODY gets to claim moral superiority over anybody else in this country...unless you are Mother f'ing Teresa. So keep your jackass "moral" claims to yourselves...on both sides. This is the contrapositive of the "throwing the first stone"....instead "be the first to STFU"! Realize that you don't get to decide who is living in grace and who isn't. That's God's job. Come talk to me when you move out of your glass house and you haven't sinned for 10 years. Then, maybe, you get to start passing judgment on others....but, of course God will take you before then....since certainly He will recognize your potential as His Holy Policeman. Play your cards right...you might even make angel in less than 200 years.