OCinBuffalo

Ouch! I bet that stung. This is a great point. Very interesting. Given both arguments, it's going to be fun to see them try to have it both ways, again. I was just talking about selective relativism in Bill's illegals thread. This has the potential to be another example of "all or nothing" = child is an adult when it comes to abortion, followed up by "relative judgment" = child is a child in some cases when it comes to strip searching. In my view, child is ALWAYS a child in all cases...because, um, a child is a child. Idiots.

Typical far-left(not Democrat) "All or nothing" reasoning. So: If stripping illegals of ALL civil rights of US citizens is bad then granting illegals ALL civil rights of US Citizens is good. Or: We cannot give illegals NO civil rights, so, we must give them ALL civil rights. Funny how they choose to apply relativism whenever it's convenient, and not consistently. Choosing to see illegals as humans, therefore entitled to human rights, but not citizens, therefore not entitled to US citizen rights, I believe is the absolutely correct position to take. Far-left fools choose to see them as citizens of our country, with no effort on their part, and put them = to people who have followed the rules. This begs the question: why bother having the rules/laws then? Which begs the question: aren't we allowed to decide how our country works, and who gets to be here? What about our rights? Again, I am not for calling 12 million people I don't know: criminals. I am for acknowledging the simple fact that they don't belong here, because they don't, and for treating them as such = yes, less than citizens, because they are less than citizens; a status they have put upon themselves by their own actions. That's only fair, equitable, and it is also the right thing to do for this country. I am all for giving them a path to rectify their situation based on demonstrable effort on their part in terms of work, education, and proving their loyalty.

What? No Michael Moore movies? No Al Gore movie? Sheesh. Where do you get all your illogical, fact-deficient arguments from?

You really want to fix it? I mean really fix it, once and for all, make it cheap and get it done relatively quickly? Here's what we do in order, and if we got the ideology people out of the way this whole thing could be accomplished in a year: 1. Shut down CMS, Medicare, Medicaid, all of it. Put all funds that was targeted towards those programs in a temporary fund. State/Fed cannot tax health care in any form. The state/fed cannot mandate coverage/treatment, period. 2. We need one single law that says that the only entity that can supply health insurance is a county government. That means the state can't provide it, the Feds can't, no corporate insurance companies. DONE. Every citizen must sign up for some sort of policy(like car insurance) on their 18th birthday. Children receive mandatory baseline coverage, paid for by their parent's premiums. Parents can buy additional coverage if they choose. Elderly works the same = baseline maintenance that can be supplemented based on choice and $$$. 3. Allow former Medicare/Medicaid/Insurance employees to become similar to City managers and consult/advise each county for $$$. You create a competitive advice market and the best win. Clearly some counties will need more help than others, permanent positions vs. consultants, etc. The dead weight employees from those over-bloated programs/companies can seek life elsewhere. 4. With the funds from #1, you create a county commission whose members serve 2 years, elected, and paid. They vote to appoint a 5-7 member Physician/RN advisory group who are appointed for a term of 5 years and are paid by the hour. The docs gets to make all the medical decisions on what to treat/insure/what not to. Docs are like the Supreme Court. However, it takes a majority vote from both groups to create things like insurance policies, co-pay amounts etc. 5. Each county can organize its insurance policies however they choose. If you don't like how your county does it, move, or get rid of the elected people. 6. With the rest of the funds from #1, you set up a government trust. Counties pay a small arbitrary amount(5%) of their premiums into this trust as their own insurance policy against major medical hitting them too hard in any given year. The State and Fed can choose to audit the health of any county and raise this rate up to 10% for the year, or until clear steps are taken to improve quality of care. 7. No matter where you get hurt, your county pays and covers you based on your policy. Feds act as a clearinghouse between counties/states/countries. If your county has crap insurance, and your bills exceed your coverage someplace else, your county still has to pay at least 50% of the difference, Fed/State are the final arbiters of all disputes. 8. You can't go to the doc outside your county, without paying for 50% of the fee, unless it's an emergency, or unless the Doc advisory group refers you. 9. Counties can form purchasing alliances however they want with no hindrance from state/fed. Drugs, pricing, generic or not, is all determined by the commission. Again, you don't like it, get rid of them. 10. All of the rest of HHS becomes a research/grant organization only. Counties can pay for studies themselves, or collectively pay for research. 11. If you have a serious medical condition and you want to move, your new county must take you, but they can charge you up to 50% of the premium you had as a co-pay. All chronic condition folks can apply to the HHS grant people for long-term assistance. This works because it's local people making local decisions about how they want their health care to be. More commission people, making smaller decisions, is always better than a smaller group making massive decisions. Counties that think they need to attract people can improve their health coverage. Inner cities will have to live with whatever they do to themselves. Rich suburbs will be able to pay, yeah, poor, no, but don't forget that if your doc board refers you, you go wherever you need to and the county pays, based 100% on medical decisions It's a basic framework to be sure, and there's lots of details I left out, but this would be infinitely better than everyone's current health care system AND it would cut the cost of all of this at least 50% almost immediately. That's basically cutting the Federal Budget in half.

the other problem with trying to trade down is: NFL teams are starting to have an aversion to 1st round picks. Too much risk/too much money bottled up in one player.

Mark this day down. This is the first time that I 100% agree with BillinNYC wrt the draft. For years we have bickered back and forth regarding skill players vs. o line. My contention has always been that the lines simply do not win the football game w/ 2:00 left on the clock and 80 yards to go, whether you are on D or O. And since that scenario happens more often than not in today's game, our skill players have to beat their skill players or we will get beat by a lot of last second field goals, etc., regardless of whatever the lines did all game. The best, most recent example is the Giants beating the Pats* in the SB. The Giants D/Pats* O line was a non-factor in Brady/Moss scoring a TD with 3:00 to play, as was the Pats* D line/Giant's O line(um, helmet play) in the same exact thing happening with Manning/Burress. Ok, disclaimer over. We have the skill players to stay with anybody. We need to draft lineman this year, to include getting a good TE(any way we can get one, draft day trade, etc.) We need to draft 3 lineman the first 4 rounds or this will be a questionable draft for me. I like the trade down idea a whole lot because it will probably allow us to pick up a decent OLB as well. The bottom line is we don't want to get caught in no-man's land of reaching for a guy at 11 who should be drafted at 20. But, "should's" are BS. We need a "how", as in how do we trade down? If there isn't a partner, nothing happens.

The new thing is: Labor Specialist. So it works like this: you show up at the hospital in labor? Some doctor you've never met and has never seen you is suddenly in charge of your labor. They deal with your labor, however it goes, and that's it. This way you can't sue them if something goes wrong, because they didn't prepare any orders, care plans in preparation for the birth, they just happened to be standing there when your kid pops out. They can't have done anything wrong, because they are completely oblivious to you until you show up. It's modeled after the liability of emergency room doc. Yeah, rolling the dice with an ad-hoc doctor is a much better idea than having a doc who knows your history, allergies, etc., and is able to plan out what needs to happen. The reality is: there are sick babies and sometimes they die at birth, there are sick mothers and sometimes they die too, no amount of emoting changes either statement, and rational thought needs to be applied here instead of avoiding liability by making the doctor be ignorant of patient, and therefore not liable. The first thing we need to do to fix health care is get the lawyers out of it. There will be no peace amongst the providers, patients, government, insurance companies to fix the big problems like waste, IT, cost, etc., if you can't get them to stop suing each other.

McShay(I did have Mayock here, oops) just said on ESPN that he thinks Maybin definitely moved up into the top half of the 1st round due to his pro day workout. FWIW.

Yes, but we also send their sorry asses back to whereverland if they suck. I have seen it right in front of me. The US is the NFL of health care because we pay the best their market value.... ...except for OB/GYNs we regularly screw them over with malpractice insurance. Now there's a shortage of them. Great plan. Thanks a lot douche bag lawyers. But yeah, we should probably move away from having the best doctors in the world in our hospitals. Lesser docs will be much better because schitty docs need to work too.

Because 100% of his business model is to accurately predict things happening based on his polls? Contrast that with CBS business model and they aren't even close = CBS wants to cozy up to Obama, because he sells tickets = commercials. I knew you were going to say this. I should have disclaimed it last post. Oh well. And, I am not clinging to anything. Like I said, this particular poll gets run the same way every time, and it accurately predicted results of Congressional elections supposedly since he's been doing it. And, you still haven't addressed my point: this poll is not about how people feel=the polls you linked, it's about what they are going to do about how they feel.

Neither of these address my Rasmussen poll in that they don't address "how are you going to vote?" And, I am highly suspect of anything from Dan Rather CBS or USA Today given their actions over the last 4 years. I'd rather get my data from RCP or Rasmussen. The particular poll I linked has a track record of being fairly accurate in predicting outcomes of elections, and it's done by a guy whose only agenda is getting the poll right.

Read this and tell me exactly what I am lying about

Apparently not much wrt Mussolini. I too have studied it for the same amount of time...it helps me in my eternal study of organizational theory. I'm just stating the facts. You are free to bring other facts in, but let's avoid the "interpretation/theory" because that's like talking about the Bills offense. Not as a...manifesto. Look you could argue that the Iroquois defined Communism, or the Navajos. But nobody put forward a unified, global, macro and micro economic platform, as well as a political one, until Marx and Engels.

Agreed. And, this is also why we should resist, violently if necessary, all attempts to impose said cadre upon us, this right being specifically guaranteed to us by the founding principles/documents of our country. Look I am in the first group of people they have to kill in order gain/keep their power: people that can build things from scratch without any help from the government or inheritance. My very existence proves their ideology to be the BS that it is, because, according to them, I don't exist. I do, so they have to get rid of me. I look at resisting them as self-defense, and so should every other small business owner, or independent contractor, or VC company founder, or inventor that wants to benefit from his/her own work.

Nowhere near as funny as the fact that for all of this phony moral indignation, and phony arguments, and phony accusations, character assassination, and all the rest of the last 8 years of nonsense, one thing has remained true: Democrats suck at being in charge of Congress. The serve a much better role as the minority. In fact, Democrats make much better Presidents than Congresspeople in general. If only we could get back to Republican Congress, Democrat President = both compete to see who can cut spending better. For all of their bitching the last 8 years, they have failed at every single thing they've set out to do, except get elected, and the new #s say that are probably going to fail at that too in 2010. Still waiting for that energy policy that we "had to have" in 2006 because of gas prices.

Dude, Mussolini is credited generally as the the first fascist. Um, a fasces is the Roman sticks bundled together, right? Hence the term, right? Mussolini was a socialist and drew most of his ideology from the socialist ethos. It is not only accurate to say that fascism is predicated on socialism, it's 100% correct = "Regarding Mussolini Professor Benito Mussolini,...38,revolutionary socialist, has a police record; elementary school teacher qualified to teach in secondary schools;"<--primary source info The father of Fascism was a friggin' socialist first, for years. He blended in his father's and others nationalist views into his socialist views...which were there first...thus creating fascism. I think you can do the math on the rest right? Well, I find I am again talking about how the guy who wrote the damn play book defined the terms = primary source, not some lame dick college professor's interpretation of "theory". Marx wrote what he wrote, socialism is the term he used to define the transition to Communism. That's all there is, there ain't no more.

Don't fool yourself, the Obama-hate hasn't even scratched the surface of Bush-hate in terms of quantity or quality...yet. I find both distasteful, especially since we are in the middle of 2 wars, and its never Ok to give our enemies hope by appearing to be divided. After 9/11 we didn't need the Dem BS with Bush, and now we don't need the Repub. BS with Obama. Legitimate issues need to be debated. Getting on Bush for his accent, or Obama for his hair, is stupid. However, I find it highly entertaining when any Democrat would dare complain about how low the bar has gotten in terms of cheap shots, or how hateful the attacks are on Obama, or any other whining they do. After the last 8 years? You have to be f'ing kidding me if you expect people not to treat Obama exactly the same way you treated Bush. I also find it highly entertaining that these same idiots who believed that Obama would "speech" his way into getting tangible results are now most likely going to feel the sting on their asses in 2010 = The #s just turned Republican yesterday in terms of both houses of Congress. "Chickens coming home to roost", indeed.

Not as worthless as Canada's health care system, obvious leeching off of all of our research, our breakthroughs, and our drugs. You might buy drugs from Canada, but they are never invented there. Why don't we stop talking about "people", and we start talking about "you". Are "you" going to get major surgery here, or in Canada? And, hey, in Canada, you get free health care... 1. if somebody arbitrarily decides you do based on actuarial algorithms 2. if your body is "worthy" 3. if you don't mind waiting 2 years for it 4. if you don't die before you get it 5. that treats your symptoms/conditions that could have been preventable 80% of the time, but are now WORSE because you had to wait 2 years 6. that will progressively diminish in quantity and quality over time due to the inevitable reduction of supply that comes with capping doctor's salaries at $50,000 AND has constantly progressively increased cost built in = "use it or lose it" budgeting/accounting 7-150. (I could literally give you one for each if you want to keep going) Hooray for Canada! Edit: don't get me wrong, our system needs change. But we need the right change. Two wrongs, our system, and Canada's, don't make a right. Holding up Canada's system as a viable, successful replacement for ours = holding up Kelly Holcomb as a viable, successful replacement for JP. They both suck, and you need something else.

Perhaps, but since you cannot find a Liberal who is truly elite, without being an elitist, and you don't want elitists anywhere near running the country, it doesn't really matter now does it? Obama trying to make Vets pay their own insurance = best example of elitist thinking. And it was ALL his idea. Also, I wouldn't be referring to Chirs Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and O-teleprompter as "elite", especially this week. Apparently you aren't paying attention...to anything...the last 3 weeks. Can we at least expect you to back this up given the staggering amount of evidence to the contrary? Which is why Marxism and Lenin's interpretations should NEVER be a model for government, since they are based on a very few people being in charge of everything. If you can't trust people in general, at the very least you should have lots of them involved, so that they tend to catch/cancel out each others BS. The last thing you want is a central committee, and therefore the last thing you want is Marxism. Once again something that is common knowledge from any Western Civ class...well, if they are actually teaching facts anymore...is called into question. Dude, Che was a mass murderer, just like every other socialist leader has been. It's hardly our responsibility to educate you, especially on something you can find easily by using google. These attempts to cast doubt on a commonly known fact by asking for a link is pure lame-ass BS. The last time on this, the usual idiots told me I needed a link to prove that Chicago politics was completely corrupt...do you need a link for that now, retards? NO, the ideology is, by definition, evil. Link for Evil(for K-9). Both socialism and evil "describe intentional negative moral acts or thoughts that are cruel, unjust or selfish." The entire history of EVERY SINGLE truly(don't give me that Sweden BS, they are only socialist when they can't compete, but they buy naming rights for football stadiums when then can compete) socialist country is cruel, unjust, and selfish and there are 1000s of examples. Specifically, socialism seeks the coercion of "the masses" by the few "intellectuals", because the masses are supposed to be too dumb to think for themselves. This is both cruel and unjust. Taking something from somebody else, especially when it doesn't belong to you = socialism, and attempting to justify that behavior based on no other reason than "you have it" is the purest form of selfishness there is. Socialism does that on a mass scale with no regard for equitable treatment based on personal achievement. But, according to you, we are supposed to believe that socialism passing God(right around 1984) as the #1 reason for mass murder, is just a coincidence? How come every time socialists gain power, millions of people die? By accident? Word. The "idea" supports forcibly taking people's possessions away from them. That's stealing. And the "idea" says it's OK, because the people that own things probably didn't work to build them from scratch, and inherited them instead. Let me tell you I have built everything I have from scratch, and nobody gave me a damn thing. I paid for most of my own school on scholarships/merit, and I created the company I work for. You come anywhere near me or my schit and tell me that you have an "idea" that it's OK to take from me, you better bring a pallet of body bags as well. Because your "idea", by definition implies doing violence to me, you better be prepared for my reciprocation. Mostly true. But fascism is predicated on socialism = fascists believe that the state is all important, as opposed to the "working class" (as if I don't work twice as hard, and produce 10 times as much, as some union guy every week). But, both share the common view that it is the government's responsibility to provide vocation for it's people, because both advocate governmental control of every aspect of people's lives and/or the government being the central focus of people's lives. Bullschit. Every socialist is, by definition, a "Communist in Progress", meaning that they swear up and down that all their efforts are geared towards trying to get to Communism....so that's why it's "OK" to murder more people than the Nazis. This means whatever retarded thing they do is both above question because "they know better" and is completely justified as long as it's a means leading towards the Communist end. You cannot be a socialist, unless you are an "eventual Communist". Socialism was defined by Marx as the "in-between" stage moving from capitalism to Communism.

Liberal disagreeing = dissent Conservative disagreeing = hateful You guys have spent the last 8 years being hateful bastards on every single issue and now...what? You don't expect people to reciprocate? You lowered the bar across the board starting with "what did he know and when did he know it" wrt to Bush and 9/11. I almost laughed out of my chair yesterday when those exact same words were applied to Obama and the bonus issue. Your "team" are now reaping what you have sown, deal with it and don't you dare whine about having your own low standards applied back to you. Your team are being attacked, and owned, on your own terms, using your own rules, and I think it's hysterical. Go ahead and extend the hypocrisy. I have an hour on this boring call, and I need some entertainment.

Not so sure, with this post you might have just high-jacked your own thread. I will say that Moff Diver is far and away a better nickname than Bildo.

This thread =

We need a good/great TE. If it's Fine, fine. If it's a trade/FA/draft pick, fine. But please understand: there is no higher priority this year than both us, and the rest of the league, KNOWING we have a good/great TE. Not even DE is more important. This offense improves 80-100% with a great TE. I have always looked at Edwards as similar to Troy Aikman in terms of style of play, and potential. Aikman made his living/saved his own life throwing to Jay Novacek, not Michale Irvin. The entire K-Gun was premised on the TE position, and forcing a defense to cover your TE, thereby allowing Thomas and the WRs to get open consistently. The Pats* have been killing us for years throwing late in the play to the TE. The best Os in the league today: Pats*, Colts, Chargers, Steelers, etc. all use the TE extensively. If nothing else a great TE moving down the field creates space behind him for the RB to make nice, easy, 6 yard, catch the ball and hit the ground(or in Lynch's case, drag the first tackler for 4 yards and the 1st) play. That will be open 80% of the time if they are respecting your TE, and it makes for a great outlet if the pocket starts to die.

That fits the way they do things. Certainly plausible....but then again, this is coming from the captain of the "draft the fat guy regardless of everything" crew. Wishful thinking? I honestly hope that we draft a DE or DT, unless we catch a miracle with one of the top O lineman falling in our laps. I want a nutcase, too. Somehow I think being a nice guy isn't the #1 priority for a D lineman. Also, if you take the last three drafts as a whole, there is really no excuse for us not to be drafting O and D line this year. We have needs there, and, we finally have plenty of talent at the skill positions(<--inserted to make BillinNYC crazy). I would be all for trading up to get the best we can, one for each line, provided we don't hinder our ability to get a TE. Seriously. I'd package our 1st and 3rd for the best D lineman we can get and then our 2nd and 5th for a high 2nd O lineman, and hope that there's a TE in the 4th that can be great. Whatever! This is the year to use our top 4 picks on the lines and TE(if you don't count TE as a lineman)...oh, provided we can get an upgrade at OLB somehow. While I'm thinking about it...doesn't your logic apply to the TE position as well? Considering we have drafted 2 in successive years?

We'll see where all these people are in May, June, July when there is just nothing, and I mean nothing, new to talk about. If you got rid of 365, TBD will mostly be blank during those months, with the occasional "Franch Riech drops a deuce" article. Just sayin'. Maybe with TO things will be different, but I doubt it.