OCinBuffalo

You don't have the first friggin clue that this is true. No one does. Obama's spending plan is exactly equivalent to a venture capital approach to investment in the economy. I doubt you know that model so here it is: I take a pool of money from investors(in this case the taxpayers) and I invest it in 20 companies(government programs) in the hope that, while 18 of them will fail, the 2 that don't hit it big, huge in fact, enough to cover my losses in the 18 and also pay off a significant profit commensurate with the risk the investors took. To wit: 1. neither you or Obama have any idea if spending cash on sustainable energy start-ups will produce anything but surplus grass, wasted time and money, and more debt. 2. I can guaran-fing-tee you that spending more money on health care IT at this point will be absolutely wasted. I can because I work in it a lot, and one of our main jobs is to look at the design of existing systems. They are schit, by any rational development standard. Giving more money to the idiots that made these things only produces more schit, faster. The new thing is: they want to integrate all these systems. Great. Obama will spend billions shipping the schitty data these systems produce around so that instead of massively screwing up one system at a time, he will ensure that the effect of each screw up is exponential. You don't give more money to incompetents of this caliber, you fire their asses. You might get lucky with 1 in 20 of these groups actually using Obama's money to make things better. Written confirmation of Obama being a "tax and spend" liberal. So much for "new ideas". Retarded. Not only because of what I have already said but because: 1. They don't have a plan 2. They are listening to anyone who will return their call 3. They are allowing consultants to borrow their watch and tell them what time it is, and provide their "plan" for them. 4. Due to #1 and #3, they are going to dump a boatload of $$$ into firms like Accenture, and get 20 3 ring binders in return, but no actual solution, because nobody has that....according to Accenture. 5. Companies like Lockheed, SAIC, Accenture, EY, EDS and the rest of the usual suspect health care consulting outfits have 2-4 Billion dollar monthly payrolls. You honestly think that whatever health care reforms solutions they offer will ultimatley cost the government, and us, LESS? you think these projects will ever end? Like I said, retarded. All of this is in my wheelhouse, so go ahead and argue, I dare you. Words are nice. What actions so far, name one, leads you to believe that anything like the above has happened, is happening, or will happen? How about this math: you need MORE money to spend MORE, right? Taking money from one group and giving it to another does NOTHING to create MORE money, it just moves it from one place to another. If we were to spend the same amount of money, then we could expect to be fine merely changing the % of where it comes from. A "wash" is not what is needed for Obama's spending, he needs to get more money, which is why the middle class will not get a tax cut, but rather a tax increase. Middle class spending is essential, no question. However, the middle class have to have jobs in order to spend. Massive tax increases = no middle class jobs = no middle class spending. As I said, it's a trillion $$$ risk = to a crapshoot. I love it that we can't have 15% of our SSI go into the market, but it's ok for Obama to spend billions of start-up money growing grass.

Hey now, don't pick on this kid, please. We were having a perfectly rational discussion until I had to go actually do my job-->interestingly enough, it was regarding this very issue = trusting/not trusting technology based on incomplete facts bad perceptions = handheld devices are better for this client, but their perception is that wall mounted are better because they don't trust the handheld technology(breaks, gets stolen, etc). Their people need their own gear because of the heavy individual data transactions of their business process and wall units will have their people standing in lines-->which costs 5x per minute what another $200 device does, but they don't know that...yet, and, they have to dump about $200k into this equipment plus maintain it...etc. I concede that the kid here doesn't know much about how technology is perceived by users, regardless of age(wait until we get to women, that will be fun, I can't wait for somebody to call me a misogynist for simply telling the truth, again), but that's no reason to wail on him. Ok, back on track: Read the above again. I didn't say nobody trusts technology, I said if nobody trusts whatever specific technology we are talking about....in this case personal email in England...then all you have done is a kill usage of perfectly good system by spreading F.U.D.(Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and gained nothing in return. The bad guys are as equally unlikely to trust it as the good guys. My personal experience has everything to do with this, as evidenced above. And yes, you will find 90 yr old people in nursing homes who know how to use a computer better than your friend who isn't that into it. You will find 55 year old Division Presidents who create their own universes in Cognos(because she is either a secret nerd or a power freak) sitting a few doors down from the 35 year old Director of Blah, who barely knows how to use his email. This isn't uncommon, in fact it's typical, because the 55 year old was at one point threatened by the technology, adapted, and now owns it, while the 35 year old takes it for granted and nonchalantly expects to make service calls to the corporate IT "janitors" whenever he makes a mess. The only relevant, and CONCLUSIVE, work that I know of wrt age is brain reaction time in 24-29 year-olds is almost 5.5 seconds faster when they are writing code than people "my age" And that I lose more reaction time every damn year. Hope you are happy. Something tells me that all I need is a simple web page with instructions, and those that can read English will now know what to do, step by step. Unless you are hoping for security by obscurity...on the...um...Internet...this point is a non-starter for you. First of all: I was going to refer you to my response to the Elliot Spitzer "I just got elected and now I'm going to tax the Internet" thread, in which I called that he would say that today, and then two days later have some staffer come out and say that "it requires more study", but I can't find it. Politicians would love to f with us in terms of taxes and regulation, but some are too stupid to mess with anyone, some know better, some have to learn the hard way. I think that my job is to create schit from scratch, so until the cops can read my mind ahead of time, and prepare for all the eventualities of whatever crazy nonsense I think up next, they will always be behind. I think that I am certainly not alone in the come up with new crazy schit department, and I think that there's kids doing stuff that I won't get right away, and that I am doing stuff that they won't get right away. In all cases, it will require all of us, 3 years, 30 million dollars, and a bunch of press releases in CIO Magazine for government employees to get any of it, and even then it will have to be spoon fed to them by SAIC and/or Lockheed Martin. And that's the truth, period. 1. I think that in all cases any law that successfully grabs a piece of the internet and taxes it drives business immediately overseas that same day, which is stupid. 2. This would cause us to attack it, circumvent it, whatever, which means we are breaking/avoiding laws we wouldn't otherwise need to deal with, thereby perpetuating disrespect for the law for no good reason other than getting a lame-ass politician some headlines, which is stupid. 3. I think the the law will eventually become unenforceable/irrelevant, which is stupid. 4. I think that no matter how they might try to change the law 1-3 will occur, again, which is stupid. 5. I think that anybody who can't understand that 1-4 are absolute, and will still remain so whenever they get done talking, no matter if they like it or not, is stupid.

There's not much progress if nobody trusts the technology that you are introducing, again, I know that from personal experience. There's not much progress if the bad guys use another form of communication because they know full well that the one used to use is rigged all day. It's not "surveillance" if the bad guy knows he is being surveilled. So invading people's privacy ultimately gains you nothing if they know you are doing it. Worse, they could use it to send disinformation to waste time/money distract from their real target. There's not much progress if not only the bad guys, but the regular guys, your next door neighbor, etc., can take the same easy steps the government can to intercept email content based on headers. Like I said, your average 16 year old hacker can do this with ease. Hell it's really only a spyware thing = not even considered a virus = not even illegal. Ultimately, what risk is worth taking away a fundamental human right? I hate to invoke this, but if we let our privacy be fully taken away, then "the terrorists win". (hmmm not I have that icky, not-so-fresh, Micheal Moore feeling)

Yeah, and if you believe that, I have this cool thing called the Skyway to sell you. They're taking it down soon and looking for a buyer. Honestly, what would be the point of simply establishing one email going from one account to another? It's not like it establishes where you are. Moreover, if I have the emails' headers(which could easily be spun as sender/receiver) I can very easily get the content of the message from any number of places that do not include your, or the other person'(s) computer. All this pretend restriction does is add one step that is easily taken by any number of people, legal or otherwise. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot, in my doctor example above: the fact that the government finds out that I am talking to you, my doctor, that, in and of itself, is a HIPPA violation, because I didn't release that I am your patient. This makes the least case: literally only the send and receive, still against the law. Same thing with lawyers, unless you are going to imminently commit a crime. Same thing for pharma online purchases confirmation emails, the list goes on.

Well, so much for that idea. Not that I am sorry, I'm happy, let's these idiot know that crews can defend themselves = deterrent. But this would have been good for Obama to get this done and send a message that he's not going to put up with any BS. Still waiting for the test that Biden was talking about.... ....then again, whose to say that these guys did this themselves rather than some ready force we had spooled up, but that we want to keep quiet? I can't imagine that with all this piracy stuff, the Atlantic Navy guy didn't have at least some plans in the works.

Ok, then I will now call you Ruprict. I am happy that you are at least willing to pay more serious attention to the issue at hand. In this case, age has nothing to do with it and I am speaking from personal experience. People's level of insecurity with the government, or with security, or monitoring, is more culturally defined, rather than defined by age. But even that isn't very cut and dried, really it appears to be an individual thing more than anything. And, believe me there's a whole segment of people your age that have "proof" that they are being monitored daily by the government. How else could all of the "outrage" over Ashcroft be manufactured? I can understand why you might think that people closer to your age(and I'm not so sure about the 10 years thing, I have been doing this work since I was 19) would accept monitoring, especially since they are now telling people where they are every minute of the day using social networking. 1. Like we care that you are at the (insert d-bag band here) concert. 2. I am sure that no small # of idiots will convict themselves by twittering their way into removing their own alibis for crimes, etc. However, none, 0 of this excuses the government grabbing my private emails and recording them. In fact, doing so here would violate existing law. For example, if you are my doctor and I was talking to you about a medical condition I had via email, and the government swiped that email, they would be in violation of their own HIPPA law, not because of the email, but because I didn't consent to release that medical information to them.

Nah, you'll just do your usual write one or two sentences/posts at the beginning of a thread, and, once somebody starts challenging your position with rational objection, you will punt, and we will see: "No reply, no reply at all"

I'm just tired of these wanna-be Dennis Kuciniches or wanna be Michael Moores or wanna be political operatives or wanna be Daily Kos bloggers attempting to use this board to further their own fantasies and/or attacking posters here personally, or worse, their grammar , because they can't win an argument. You act like a biatch, I will slap you like one(let's see if I can illicit predictable response #23.4 from idiot-boy here)

Yeah, if you're from Europe. These pirates could have been taking Europeans(-Brits) for the next 10 years for ransom and turning a nice little business before they actually did anything about it. Now that they decided to hit us they are screwed. We can't just get our people, now we have to get after all of the pirates, every day, all the time. Obama can't let this stand or he literally becomes the weak-kneed Democrat stereotype. Do you honestly think people like Hannity are going to let him off the hook on this? For these idiot pirates: This = bombing London instead of continuing to attack the RAF(thought you'd like that one ) I don't expect them to figure out all the politics, but I do expect them know the difference between us/Brits and Europe. Didn't they see the flag?

"No reply. There's no reply at all. There's no reply at all".

Buddy this debate was over when you re-posted my quote from 10(at least) days ago. You can't get over it, just as I intended. I wrote that specifically to have it bounce around in your skull and challenge your thinking. I also wrote it because I knew it would stick in your craw(and Big Cat is welcome to join you) as it so obviously has. The only obvious question left is why does it bother you so? I think I have already answered that in my post above. But yeah, I'm not a principal consultant to the Fortune 500 and I can't think/type fast enough to create 500 word posts, because I am posting on a Bills message board, just like you said. LOL! Like I said, idiots. If you spent more time here reading, instead of correcting grammar, you would quickly learn that I am not alone on this board in terms of personal success, not by a long shot, that many of us here are far and away smarter than you are, and that we have been subtly making fun of you for some time, as I did with the post you can't get over. And finally, you know damn well that I wasn't referring to Democrats or Obama, don't be lame. I am referring to far-left, so-called intellectual(but can't actually live up to that description and have no published material to back up that claim) socialists who hide behind the very economic/political power that capitalism provides them, but attack it because they lack the talent and/or motivation to be successful in the very system that supports and protects their weak asses. In a word, I am referring to: you.

Two words: Navy Seals They train for this kinda stuff. The only real question: will Obama have the sack to take the leash off of our junkyard dogs? On the other hand, will he pull a Carter-type fouled-up, poorly planned rescue? These are the days that Clinton, and now Obama, gets to thank Regan and both Bushes for us having well-trained SF operators. It will be interesting to see how he handles "his" first "war". I am optimistic that he will do the right thing. He's not an idiot, and we aren't talking about going up against the Spetznaz here. Not to say that the bullets don't kill just as dead, but they do have to be aimed. The good news is this is a relatively small deal. I would be more worried if this was larger. Hopefully he cuts his teeth on this and doesn't screw up. No doubt that this is the real thing though... And, RUFKMe? Pirates? Don't they know what is going to happen to them?

"LOUD NOISES!" That's the fist thing I thought of when this thread was just a baby.

Dude, only an idiot can't see that the reason "Be more like Europe" exists is because idiots keep telling us that very thing, over and over. If they were saying "be more like South Africa" we would be reacting to that the very same way. Why? Because we lead, everyone else follows. I don't care what it is, culture, business, sports, whatever, we expect to be the best because we are willing to look at being the best as a verb, not a noun. We don't expect to be entitled to respect just because we have 1000s of years of history, we expect to earn respect through hard work and what we are doing today. This does not make us arrogant. It simply means that many, not all, of us are willing to put in the consistent effort necessary to be better than them at life in general. It also says that we resent the hell out of the weak-asses out there who, due to nothing less than their own insecurities, tell us that we shouldn't try to be the best at what we do, because it's "not fair" when we kick their asses. On my other post you quoted: You can't deal with reality because you don't live in the real world-->that much is patently obvious. Have you: 1. Started a company from scratch? 2. Led people? Led 10 people? Led 50 people? How about 100? 3. Had an original thought, and carried it through to reality? 4. Had somebody put their career in your hands? 5. Had somebody trust you with an effort that, if it were to fail, would cause them to say "I will be fired and my kids don't go to college"? See, I can answer yes to all 5 questions. I bet you can't answer yes to one of them. Timothy McVeigh? Seriously? I bet you have a hell of a lot more in common with that loser than I do. In fact, it's an even bet that you are very like him: loser white kid, blames everybody else but himself for the fact that works at the convenient store, thinks he "knows" more than he actually does, fancy's himself some sort of "hero", etc. I have seen plenty of you "4-star" corporals in my lifetime. I lead in the real world, you don't. As I said, I am the very first person people like you have to attack. You can't tolerate me, because I invalidate your lame arguments, and your little menagerie of BS you wrap yourself in. Everything I have, I created myself. Nobody handed me a thing, and therefore your whole little hick-ass world of "rich people didn't earn it" gets blown up every day just by me getting up in the morning.

You didn't answer my question: Why should we start f'ing with the, as defined by you, "best government(and economy) in the history of the world"? No! Really? I am shocked. You can't get past 4 sentences without directly contradicting yourself and ending up supporting Obama IN SPITE of saying that you favor cutting the government by at least 33%. (Pavlov who?) And you wonder why people keep telling you that you have gone around the bend regarding Obama. Excerpts from the "what kelly is going to say" post I wrote: 1. You are going to say that we needed all this spending anyway, so it makes no difference if they spend the money, it will all work out in the end, because we needed all this spending anyway. 2. You are going to try to say that based on #1, and raising taxes on "the rich"(but you will conveniently leave out the middle class tax hike that this spending will soon make mandatory), that eventually the economy will come around and boom, because all of the stimulus spending, coupled with the health care money and the cash for renewable energy start ups. 4. You will also ignore the inflation that spending is certain to create, and the necessary growth to counteract it = due to the taxes in #2, which will create Jimmy Carter Stagflation. The very same set of stupid, avoidable conditions that necessitated Reagan having to jack up the deficit to being with, creating the very military spending apparatus you are complaining about. It's Carter's fault that we spend as much on the military as we do, and it will be Obama's fault for creating a new "Reagan" and stupidly repeating Carter's mistakes. Do you, me, everyone, a favor and look at Federal Budget pie chart. Here's a nice, non-partisan link for you. Notice that ~45% of the budget is entitlements? And that's not even accurate, because "other" is approximately 50% additional entitlement programs, so it's more like 58% of the Federal budget is spent on FDR/LBJ entitlement programs. Talking about toying around with Military spending, which does create jobs and off-shoot technologies, and ignoring entitlement spending, which doesn't on anywhere near the same scale, is patently retarded. Fine. Cut...entitlements...now...by at least 20% across the board and you have your play money for ALGORE, Inc. You simply need to raise the SS retirement age by 10 years, close 80% of the 120,000 nursing homes and tell the families of the elderly that they need to start taking care of their parents themselves, and, that we aren't paying for drugs that keep them alive, and, that we aren't going to drop the 70% of the lifetime health care cost a person incurs... in the last six months of their lives anymore, we are just going to let them die from now on. You should call up Oblahblah and sign up for that job, since this is all so "simple" to you. Enjoy. Meanwhile, the ALGORE, Inc. start-ups that have 0% guarantee to return "green energy", and a 80% risk that they will FAIL, just like most of the bio-fuel ones already have, just like most start-ups do...because they are start-ups...will be spending billions growing grass for the next 4 years. Just wondering, what exactly is the exit strategy for the government regarding a failed ALGORE start up? Specifically, to whom will the government sell off the assets of these companies when they die? Home Depot? That's a hell of a lot of grass. Somehow I doubt it's liquidity. Moreover, we STILL don't even know if humans are actually having a significant effect on Global WarmingTM, yet you want to drop billions on dubious data that has largely been produced by subjective studies conducted by subjective at best, partisan at worst, people? So then he, and you, need to act like grown-ups and chuck the nice-to-haves, not whine like a little girl who wants her parents to buy her BOTH dolls she likes instead of only the one they can afford. FDR himself acknowledged the "capital strike" that occurred directly due to his New Deal policies. The government should NEVER compete with business, or investors, beyond a single year, because it eventually destroys growth. People see no reason to invest their money when the government is likely to come in and either tax it away, or worse, compete the company they invested in out of business. Look at it this way: if he does a good job righting the ship, then his reward is getting a second term, and then he can start giving away our money to the grass growers/landscapers and tired, old, bad, health care software companies.

They may remember the "fix this" part, but face facts: nobody remembers saying that we should drop 10 trillion on the nutjob, far-left inflation machine. This spending is not stimulus, nor does it do anything to fix Wall Street, nor does it do anything to prevent meddling with markets, both from the greedy a-hole, roguish behavior in the private sector, or, more importantly, keeping the Barney Franks and Chris Dodds from meddling with markets from the public sector. "Fixing" the engine of capitalism means what it says and needs to be confined to that engine itself. The rest of this is nonsense and you know it. Cut the crap already and just say: we wanted to spend a ton of money on programs we think will make things better. Own up to what is really happening here and stop this lame attempt at pretending otherwise. If it's very likely the best government in the world, then why should we tolerate any attempt at f'ing with it? Reducing it, or increasing it, by your own admission, is a bad idea, since it's current form = the best. Well, then you simply cannot be an Obama supporter, in this universe, or in any other. This view DIRECTLY contradicts Obama's MAIN agenda for government. By definition, you should have supported McCain, who wanted to cut spending across the board, thereby reducing the inflationary effect of it. He was the only guy who could cut government 33-66% across the board, or at least even approach those #s. Sooo...who's left? Are you and Alaska D gonna hang out now? Ready to join the rest of the "cool" kids in the Ron Paul A/V club? (Just pickin' Darin )

Ah yes, hiding behind the lame refuge of grammar mistakes when somebody brings up a rational concern regarding privacy. This is bullschit in every way possible, but because it's happening in Europe, that of course means its a good idea, since everything Europe does is good. Once again, in an all out effort to defend your eternal "be more like Europe" ethos, no straw is unworthy of your grasp. How absurd you are, far past the point of ridiculous.

Oooh, no, here's comes Ron Mexico, go, go, Weedzilla!

You know the funny part? These health care people look familiar to me. Aren't these the same exact people who have regulated, "researched", and "organized" health care, poorly, for the last 30 years? Perhaps we can get some more PhDs, who have may have a clue about how to give care, but absolutely zero understanding of how to manage it, or any other business process for that matter, or people, or their data, or how to take all three and create policy. These people don't even know what they don't know, they can't even define the problems correctly, and they have no idea which tools they need to fix the problems, or that the tools even exist. Why in God's name would you go back to the people who in large part are responsible for current problems, and, who have no hope of providing an objective(read: effective) solution, since they have a personal stake in whatever "solutions" are proposed, and will clearly subvert anything that hurts them, just like they have since day one? They have done nothing but propose clearly ineffective "solutions" this entire time, and Obama says we should give them more money? For what? Health care getting crappier, faster? Look, it's simple, the reason that Obama doesn't have a plan: The people on his little committee don't have the first f'ing clue how to provide him with one. I will bet the house that they end up talking about interoperability though, as if sharing data matters when the data you are sharing sucks/doesn't exist.

I think I can get on board with that. Problem is: will Coffman be around that long?

1. If I'm at the game, looking down at my hat, now shredded, due to me twisting it up all day from nervousness. 2. If I'm at the bar, looking down and my beer and seeing the label gone, or if I am drinking my usual, all the ice gone from my cup, and the straw smashed up in the bottom. 3. Bumming my third smoke, even though I haven't had one in months. 4. The refs hosing us. Seriously. We can sit here right now in March and absolutely KNOW that the refs are going to kill us. What can possibly make anyone think that won't happen? 5. The Bills led by TO, Evans, and a TE to be named later tearing up the weak-ass Patriots secondary! That's right, I said it, I expect us to win that game, based solely on the sheer strangeness of it.

I always wonder if these threads come from interns at the Bills Marketing department, or interns at a player agency, just like I wonder if most of the "outrage" threads come from wanna-be political operatives on the PPP board.

Racist statments at the G20 Where is the outrage? This man is blatantly blaming the financial crisis on people from Sweden, and Poland, and...even Cheektowaga! How dare he say that there are no black bankers? INSENSITIVE! Fire up the machine! Start manufacturing the OUTRAGE! Perhaps somebody with a liberal arts degree can start telling us how to get him to stop saying racist things, because they sure know what they are talking about when it comes to the economy!

You completely missed my point. Rare. Usually some people get at least some of it, but you missed the whole thing. And yes, adults routinely submit to strip searches, every day, all the time in this country, and the majority of them are not performed by people in law enforcement. I will let you think for more than 30 seconds on the multiple examples of this, but everyone else here won't need that long. In your case, why don't we spot you a week? Like I said, idiots. Now I will state my point again, and I will try to serialize the thinking so that it can reach the mental midgets here: 1. Radical pro-life people believe that 13 year old girls should be allowed to have abortions without their parents consent, because they are "old enough"(read: an adult), and can make that choice. 2. But, when it comes to a "law and order" issue, suddenly being a teenager means everything must be parent-approved, and little Suzy is just a child. 3. This is called a double standard. Advocating double standards is also called being a hypocrite. 4. This is not the first time liberals have been caught in a massive contradiction and or logical flaw. This most often happens because liberals do not check their arguments for validity, truth, feasibility, or logic, before they make them. They simply start out with the word "should", as in "Everyone should get free health care", and then call you names/act crazy if you dare require them to prove the validity of their argument/plan. 5. This will not be the last time this happens. Even an idiot should be able to understand the above.

I read it too! :nana: