OCinBuffalo

I believe there is an election in 2010.... And seriously, the contrapositive of my should/how argument, no "should not without a why" is also true, which is how you know both are true! Specifically people can't run around saying "should not" without giving a viable "why". For example, you can't tell me we should not spend some cash on fixing health care informatics, unless you can give me a viable why that addresses all the facts/concerns. We have 60,000 people dying a year from medication errors directly due to bad paper(literally)work, never mind the massive amount of cost that is generated by highly inefficient use of resources. It is the ultimate defense of the insurance company = "This stuff is so unmanageable, you NEED us to deal with it". No, it's unmanageable because you make it that way, jerky, and I have seen that with my own two eyes, in the design of your data models and business processes/rules. Suffice it to say, you can't reject a progressive idea just because it's a progressive idea, as many Conservatives are fond of doing, without speaking to its merits. Disclaimer: um, it is important to note that I am only referring to progressive ideas that actually possess some merits here.

The bailout without regulation, huh? I will do you one better, the bail out, without regulation, and no f'ing clue as to how to perform that regulation properly even if there was some, is bad. You can't use the word "Should", as in: "There should be some regulation here!" unless you also provide a viable "How". Otherwise people can run wild saying things like: "There should not be any poverty in this country", or "Health care should be free" and never actually have to be accountable for ideas, and worse, get to pretend that anybody that doesn't agree with their "How", actually disagrees with their "Should". Oh, wait, kinda like what it going on right now, huh? I have new bumper sticker: No "Shoulds" without "Hows"! Idiots going against this concept is precisely where the dreaded "Unfunded Mandate" comes from. It is the ultimate "because I said so". Unfunded Mandates are the opposite extreme of Unregulated Handouts. Clearly both are equally bad, and both are spawned directly from people using the word SHOULD without providing a viable HOW.

I assure you it is. However your reading comprehension is at issue here, let's try this again. From my post: "There is abundant evidence of a lack of a "consensus" all over the damn internet. I hardly think calling people names changes that fact. We know that a significant # of scientists, and not just ones looking to get grant money to "study global warming" rolleyes.gif now say that the whole theory/cause and or outcomes are either complete BS, or, aren't going to have a real, noticeable effect." Clue 1: Clearly I don't care one way or the other about this, or any, single scientist. That what the "abundant evidence of a lack of consensus" and "a significant # of scientists" mean. Reading comprehension is important and you should work on yours before you question others. Your entire argument: single scientist who supports this farce, for money, is f'ing irrelevant when we consider the fact that literally 10's of 1,000s of scientist have thrown a BS flag on this. Clue 2: This is hysterical, because instead of attempting to deal with what I am saying, you are trying to deflect this into pretending that I agree that using a single scientist, whether he is one of your religious zealots or not, is a good idea, and then acting like you are simply arguing against that. Again, I don't care about a single scientist either way. That's NOT what I am saying. Again, reading comprehension is important and you need to try arguing against points people are actually making instead of these lame attempts to set up straw arguments and then argue against them. I am saying that your dopey little religion is going bye-bye, deal with that, and stop trying to avoid the point I am making.

There is abundant evidence of a lack of a "consensus" all over the damn internet. I hardly think calling people names changes that fact. We know that a significant # of scientists, and not just ones looking to get grant money to "study global warming" now say that the whole theory/cause and or outcomes are either complete BS, or, aren't going to have a real, noticeable effect. Again, I will remind you that calling people names doesn't make those scientists go away, and neither does avoiding any attempt to refute the direct contradictory evidence by saying the same thing over and over again. Apparently you can't deal with the fact that somebody is questioning what has clearly taken on the form of a religion to you. Sorry, but your little hippie religion is about to go away for a very long time: nobody gives a flying f about the environment when they don't have a job, can't feed their kids, or pay for their school. Pack up your schit, the irrelevant train is leaving the station and you and the rest of your little phony religion all have mandatory, first class seats.

Those idiots go so far out of their way to sound "informed" on the most trivial, banal non-issue, that the don't realize that they have over-compensated to the point of sounding ridiculous instead, especially when it comes the big important stuff. My last trip out there, this fool of a woman was trying to tell me why corporations are bad, and that all that was needed was "educating yourself". I refused to break the "never argue with fools or drunks rule"(that I do all the time here is beside the point, this was real life), so I merely asked: "what exactly should I be educating myself with, specifically?" Her response? Deer caught in headlights, followed by immediate, unintelligible words, basically a meltdown. It's funny, because I have been hearing the "educating yourself" line since my first trip out there in 97. I actually think they have been saying it so long, that they don't even know what it means anymore. Kind of like an Uber-Cliche. So if you want to have fun with them, I highly suggest simply asking them "with what" ever time that say it, and enjoy the nervous breakdown that will almost definitely ensue. On the flip side, if they do have an answer, you can really torture them by telling them that their material is out of date. That blows the whole damn, smug, "I know better than you" thing right out of the water, and makes them crazy. Careful, that one is for outdoor use only though.

HA! Que in "There's no reply at all, there's no reply at all". Always got to love it when the "smart, liberal reasoning" (translation: smug, fascist propaganda) forms a perfect circle of hypocrisy. So Clinton's Bubble burst was actually Bush's bubble burst, but Bush's bursting bubble is not Obama's bursting bubble? Please. "So in all cases, when it's convenient, it's whoever's fault we decide, provided it's a Republican?" Friggin' childish.

Confirmed with personal experience in multiple industries. Not only that, but we tried to bring in analytic applications/BI stuff to deal with rogue trading, and that was hysterical. Half the bosses had found some business rule that, sometimes cleverly, mostly stupidly, exempted some or all of their trades from being studied inside of 2 weeks. Bottom line: you are NEVER going to regulate anything properly from the top down. Unfortunately, socialist concepts rely on Top-Down thinking, so yeah, most regulation that comes from the left is, by definition, doomed to fail. I will line up all the idiots at HHS, or the SEC, and not one of them gets that simple fact. DOD is the only government department that understands that regulations must be enforced at the lowest level first, and that they, just like quality standards flow uphill, not down. Schit may flow downhill, but proper enforcement of regulations/quality standards does not. Anybody who has ever been through a Saturday inspection know this. Generals don't check what's in your footlocker, your squad leader does. His boss makes sure he is doing his job, his boss, his, and on up. What is needed is a single, local, long-term assigned regulator who is on the job 24/7 at each company, and who has 1-5 'clients' to keep tabs on. His/her boss only has 15 other people like him/her to worry about, and on up. We do not need what we currently have at SEC, CMS, VA, and all the rest: 1. a keystone cops operation that shows up once a year for four days 2. asking for whatever pops into their head, 3. who won't even understand if the answer makes sense, because they have no idea what they are being told, 4. or, who is even answering the question, 5. because they don't know the company they are "regulating" other than what they found out yesterday or the day before.

Nah. Plumbing, and...well...disturbed people. Link

Uncle Freddy's dead? You bastards you killed Uncle Freddy! Link

(Sorry if you all know what his happening with Crow, I looked around and didn't see much of anything, anywhere.) I voted for 3. The guy is only 27, he is way, way better than Ellison, and he can be a good leader on this team. BUT, I highly doubt that people are beating down his door, since we haven't heard anything about him visiting anywhere....probably due to the knee thing. I think the Bills should sight tight and make him(his agent) realize that last year's lame-ass move with the knee surgery was not only seen as a red flag by the Bills, but by the rest of the league as well. I have yet to find any mention of any interest in Crowell. The longer this persists, the less money you have to pay. Hopefully Crowell's agent comes back with his tail between his legs and gives us an incentive-laden steal deal. He bluffed, Brandon called it, and now it's time to face the music.

I don't know you, and for all I know you are smart about other things, but on this topic, you're an idiot. Do us all a favor and explain: 1. Where the Bills will be moved to(NO LA, NO Vegas, NO Mexico, NO Toronto)? 2. Where in any business plan does it makes sense to put yourself $2-4 Billion in debt before you take in one cent........ (My math: $700-$1Billion to pay for the team, $1 Billion in "burn-rate" money to cover the inevitable 4-5 years of losses you WILL take, $1 Billion team re-location fee paid to NFL due immediately when you say you are moving it, $1 Billion for an NFL-regulation stadium(possibly less if you can get some gov't money) in "NoTown". Yeah, I am sure that "Notown" wants to shell out $1B to build a stadium for you. ..........in a market that is untested for NFL? You can conduct all the research you want, but who's to say that it isn't another LA all over again? I will remind you that the NFL has been around for longer than most of us have been alive, and acting like Ralph and other owners, "way back when" didn't do their homework on which towns were good NFL towns and which weren't is arrogant to say the least. Believe it or not, marketing research was not invented in 1990. 3. Given #2, who in the world has $4 Billion they can just throw around on a massively risky investment, when there are already 32 other established franchises that they will have to carve out market share from and compete with? Hint: maybe 10 people? Let me know when you get the crown prince of Saudi Arabia on the phone, will ya? Other than people, corporations are the only other entities that can take that kind of risk on that kind of money, and the NFL won't allow corps to buy teams. You can't, so don't bother. I can go on, but I think it's best if you re-think who is being stupid here.

FORGET MOVING THE TEAM! For the last time, idiots who think the team can be easily moved = idiots who think we can easily trade down in the draft. You have to have a place to move the team, just like you have to have a trading partner, or there is no moving of anything. It's too expensive = you need about $4 Billion to do the whole thing, $2 Billion if you plan to have your kids pay off the loan you take out, possibly grandkids. Nobody in their right mind is going to take on $2-4 Billion in debt just to move the team to...where?...exactly. And "Notown" is going to help repay that debt better exactly how? Done. It's a patently stupid idea, when they can leave the Bills where they are and only have to come up with part/all of the sale price $700 MM - $1B. We have been over and over this. The best possible market left on this continent is Toronto, and we are already grabbing that with the one game a year thing. The next best market is Mexico City and with the violence/corruption=gambling there, there's no way the NFL will touch that town with a 10 ft. pole. LA IS NOT AN NFL MARKET. Deal with this fact and abandon all hope of it changing until Hollywood/PC/liberalistas stop living there. VEGAS will NEVER BE an NFL city, period = gambling. Portland = LA. What's left? Nothing. There is no other area in this country that can support an NFL franchise better than we can, and we aren't really even a problem team: Jacksonville(of all places), St. Louis, Cincy, etc., have much bigger problems than us. Before you start talking about moving the team, realize that they are going to move far before we are. And, wherever they move just crosses more places off the list where this team could be moved, not that there were some anyway. So what's left? The Columbus Bills? How about the Oklahoma City Bills? You are fooling yourselves. The Calgary Bills? This is a ridiculous line of so-called reasoning and it needs to stop, permanently. The Bills aren't going anywhere because: 1. There's nowhere for them to go 2. Even if there were, other teams who are seriously struggling, unlike the Bills, will move there first, leaving again, nowhere to go

SC is saying TO averaged 4.3 catches a game last year.... ....I dunno, he's a darn good player. The funny thing is of all the places he could end up, Buffalo would be the one place that I think might be best for him in terms of the team, the media environment, the fan base, the coach, hell even the owner. Think about it for a sec before you react: Buffalo is the anti-Dallas/SF/NYC. And, Buffalo fans have a completely different attitude than Philly fans. I highly doubt we are going to feed into his thing like they did. And, before anyone brings up Flutie/Johnson, remember that our issue wrt was the coaching staff, not the players. We couldn't care less what either player had to say/think. There really isn't any attention his acting out is going to get him in Buffalo.... so is it possible he realizes that the only way he gets any attention from anyone: play well on the field? Of course, to make this work, the entire city and all our fans around the country would need to refer to him as "the player" until he does something to earn our attention.

Ahhh that's where you are WRONG! Again. I allow you to mess with me regarding political issues because its largely based on opinion, but I will not tolerate non-compliance with regard to technology. I have worked with an Israeli company that can literally print, yes print, batteries for active RFIDs. I have worked with retired NSA people whose active tags use those Israeli batteries. At last estimate, these active RFIDs last 2 years their and their range is 3/4 of a mile. All you need is an air asset in place, and it's not like the Israelis don't keep AWACS or whatever on station. But even if that doesn't work, as far as readers go, we picked the NSA guys because they are used to making readers look like something else. Our application of that sneaky-pete is so that we can use them in assisted living/alzhiemer's units, by giving residents a nice little broach or watch or pin or whatever with an tag in it. Then we have them make the readers into clocks, pictures, whatever. All of this in an effort to stop dementia patients from getting out of the house, without making them appear to be under house arrest(it is their home after all), so that the family knows they are safe, but not "kept" with wrist bands(=skin problems=stupid choice) etc. Stuff like 'wander guard' is dehumanizing, and once the resident/patient is on to what the thing around their neck does, they tend to get rid of it. Even a demented brain knows when it's locked down and it doesn't like it. We are looking to deploy our first POC on this soon. These guys can make a reader look like anything. I imagine the Israeli Army can get readers that look like something else, with a solar, printed battery, anyplace they need them. And of course, this is the technology we know about. We are currently waiting for some stuff to come off the black list, and who knows how powerful that stuff is. We probably already have all we ever need for what we do, but I want to see what the have anyway...and the NSA guys keep tweaking me once a month, bastards.

So funny because it's so true. Obama is developing a serious image problem wrt spending and taxes, and now having 50 paid people stand in front of him and cheer at TV appearances, in a lame effort to "re-capture the campaign spirit" is starting to seem like "the applause machine" in a Face in the Crowd.

Limousine Liberal! Not that we didn't know already, but further confirmation is always nice. Bet you got all excited when you heard the quote "I've never been a man of the people, but I have always tried to be FOR the people" in Gladiator. As if that isn't the very definition of smug. Question: Isn't it extremely easier and more effective to ask the "people" what they need when they are sitting next to you in the bar, rather than guessing about it while driving by them with the doors locked, windows up, in your BMW(or is it Merc?, I forgot) Quickest fix available: Obama needs to stop his Carter-like blaming everybody else but himself for his problems/pretending he's not the President, and start taking the responsibility that comes with the authority of the job. We need less Carter/LBJ and more Truman/JFK("the buck stops here"), or this whole Obama thing is going to be over before it really starts. That would be a shame, because then we will take an even bigger hit, and we won't get the social benefit having a black man be a good President. It will give all the haters more ammo. Look, Reagan took over in 1980 with a WORSE situation than Obama, and he overcame it anyway. Pretending that this recession is anywhere near as bad as the one Jimmy Carter's stupidity created simply isn't factual. We have better unemployment #s, and we sure as hell don't have the super-high interest rates that Carter and his Keynesian economic advisers created. I don't want to hear any whining. You Dems have been saying "if only we were in power" for the last 8 years. Well, now you are, and you need to be prepared for the consequences if you f up. I'd be worried, if I were you, because Congress has done nothing but suck ass since 2006. You now have no one to blame but yourselves, and if you think that the Republicans are going to let you off the hook after all of your duplicity over the last 8 years, you're nuts.

Hmm. What if it's all a sham? As in, the CIA and/or Mussad knew damn well that they would be stolen, and tagged them all with NSA-type RFIDs, so that they could track the movements of the bad guys. If you wanted to find out which house/store was being used for terror purposes, the best way would be to track the explosives. And, if you know where they are, you can get to them BEFORE the idiots set them off. And, why wouldn't the idiots use "free" explosives? Better to have them using "your" explosives than their own. Right?

Correct. Which precisely sums up the entire Democratic Party's phony opposition(I voted for it before I voted against it) to the Iraq War. It was always about betting on/hoping for trouble and then gaining power because of it, they just got smoked in 2002, what did they have to lose? Only an idiot can't see that or a PHONY! that tries to pretend like it really is about some abstract moral issue. Moving on...I would love to take a survey of how many self described liberals could accurately define the word: "neoconservative", what caused the movement to occur, and SPECIFICALLY who neoconservatives were BEFORE they were neocons. I almost guarantee that you might find 5% who know the answer to those questions. The reason all the babbling idiots parrot the word Neocon all the time is because knowledgeable Democrats know that Neocons are really old-school Liberal Democrats, who either decided Democrats were candy asses when it came to the USSR, or, since many Neocons are Jews, decided that the Democrats would not support Israel. Bill Clinton, tried and failed to keep these guys in the party(remember the old "I would fight in a trench in Isreal" line? Well they didn't believe it either), and the Dems have been making them into boogey-men ever since they left. But MOST importantly, being a neocon changes none of their LIBERAL views on government spending or domestic policy. NeoCon? Think Joe Lieberman. However, the Reagan Republican has little in common with any Neocon, before or after they flipped parties. Reagan, and Jimmy Carter's utter ineptitude, is what got them to flip in the first place.

So when does Al's "fund raiser" to protest this cartoon/demand more minority hiring at newspapers/get out the vote... ...um, pay for another house, car, pay the mortgages on the rest of the houses that are about to be foreclosed on, pay all the "voluteer"/no payroll tax employees.... yeah, when does that start and where do I send my money? Dolts abound. But the Biggest Dolt award goes to the reporter who is either too stupid to realize they are part of Al's "personal fulfillment" marketing campaign, or too corrupt to care and is feeding him the story. Seriously, is anybody as phony as Al Sharpton? Pelosi is turning out to be a huge phony(ask the Pope), but Al has still got her beat. I am racking my brain trying to think of a Republican that is even close. I would say Karl Rove, but he pretty much tells you he is going to screw you = not very phony.

Of course you are right, but this is America after all, and while the word coward might sit well with other people, it sure as hell doesn't with us. It is a little strange that a lawyer, or the Attorney General USA, couldn't figure out the right words to say, or what not to say. But who knows, he may simply be trying to get our attention. If that is the case, he better have a killer 180/follow up if he's gonna start out with the word "coward".

Nah, I checked it out. More confirmation of truth being stranger... I wish I could read Chinese or felt like bothering with a translation to see if there were any "cricket, and cricket accessories" websites. Kinda interesting that a bunch of unemployed, middle-aged Chinese men have nothing better to do than play with crickets. Perhaps the Chinese aren't as powerful as they like to say. Then again, you look at our Congress of the last 4 years...mostly otherwise unemployed, middle-aged men...and you wonder who is being more productive. At least the cricket guys know the importance of enterprise that is actually capable of turning a profit, and probably have more experience in real business.

This thread = So what are we all saying? Really? 1. There's no way that one idiot chopping off heads, anybody's head for any reason = an indictment of their religion any more than it is an indictment of what color shirt they were wearing when they did it. OK. But, I think what everybody's missing here is: degree. Christianity comes nowhere near Islam in terms of DEGREE of violence that is literally proscribed in it's "book". Notice I said Christianity, not Judaism. Hanging the Old Testament around the necks of current, believing, practicing, reasonable Christians is a weak argument at best, completely retarded at worst because the old stuff is largely in the Koran as well, so your argument goes nowhere. You didn't think old Mohammed didn't know how to "borrow" things, did you? I mean come on, the guy started out as a pirate after all. Bottom Line: crazy people chopping off heads is not an indictment of Islam any more than OJ is an indictment of football, but, acting like Christianity = Islam in terms of the degree of violence that is literally proscribed in the instruction manual, and de-valuing violence that is happening RIGHT NOW by raising things that happened 700 years ago, or 5 years ago, is just plain stupid. And thus ends the Christianity All Time = Crazy Islam of Today argument. All I needed to see was a poor little 8 year-old boy getting his arm run over by a car for "stealing"(find the link yourself, it's disgusts me) with plenty of a-hole adults around cheering it on, to know that something is definitely f'ed up in these currently Sharia-run countries. We are talking about real evil here, please refrain from fooling yourself, or worse, attempting to fool others. 2. For the last time: one person's bad behavior is never justified by a different person's bad behavior, unless we are talking about imminent self-defense. Liberals, here's what started you on this track: Bill Clinton getting a bj in the oval office was ridiculously bad behavior. THE END. Stop going around in life excusing bad behavior from "your team" by trying to talk about somebody from "the other team" because you feel the need to extend Clinton's lie/argument. Put the shovel down. It's stupid. Stop treating us like idiots. We know he screwed you over, and we don't hold it against you/your ideas. It's not your fault, it's his. This will never go away as long as you keep propagating it. Accept the reality that Clinton was an idiot for doing it and move on, you'll feel better and so will everyone else. It's literally painful to see this endless extending of the "but...but little Republican Johnny did something bad, too, but completely unrelated to what little Democrat Billy did" excuse, and therefore knowing that every point you will eventually make always has to be in line with that excuse. Again, it's boring and stupid. Recent extension of excuse: The Blago mess. Hey, if Bill Clinton can end up being another "victim" why can't Blago? You can't say he didn't try the "Clinton defense". And all he is doing is unfairly making liberals look bad, once again, feeding Hannity/Limbaugh, etc. But, it worked for old Billy, why not Blago? Hey it was worth a shot, right?

Bah. I can't sleep, so I figured I would post something funny I read the other day. Link. My favorite comment: "Lin was Shanghai's number one cricket teaser." Cricket teaser? What does that make people that tease roosters? hmmmmm I have been saying cricket teaser to myself for the last three days and laughing, maybe I just need more sleep... Is a People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects on the horizon? How many more naive, stupid "causes" do "we need to get educated" about?(read: you will accept my delusional propaganda flyer at Thursday at the Square, when I hand it to you, with a smile on your face, or I will call you names like "narrow minded", and question your educational background. Comrade!/Seig Heil!) Anyway, I thought I would start a thread on PETA as well, given that Bill O'Reilly and PETA are now in lock step...really...and you don't get to say that often...over banning all exotic or wild pets, due to the insanity that has been happening lately = last week python almost kills kid, this week Chimp lays permanent beat down on a 55 year old lady. My first question: are they right? Any snake owners here?(yeah, I left that door open... ) Perhaps the most bizarre thing I have seen in a while is the interview with the Chimp's owner. Suffice it to say she didn't do herself any favors at the probable commitment hearing being scheduled. But, that's my 2nd question: what do you think will actually end up happening there? What stuck with me is she kept referring to the chimp as 'her son', 'her baby', etc. And so here is another question: in a land that is populated with more than a few people that feel a need to have a clutch of babies(idiots, let's call them what they are, why pretend?) instead of one or two at a time, why didn't she just adopt/foster a real kid, which we need desperately(mostly due to additional bad behavior), instead of keeping a chimp, and pretending it's a kid?("make believe" isn't supposed to be for adults) I see the same thing with dogs, cats, etc, and it staggers the imagination. (Save it, I have had a dog/cats around me most of my life and they are great, but they are not kids). I don't understand people's willingness to see pets = kids, and I worry that this f'ed up equation is a contributing factor to...well I dunno 100+ social/financial/civic/ciminal problems? I don't want to get into abortion(pro-choice here=I say let women work it out in their restroom, everything else seems to get solved there), but clearly the devaluing of human life, be it that or the re-institution of the death penalty, combined with this hippie/environtologist "logical argument"(which of course ignores about 500 facts) that: 1. Humans are the problem 2. USA is the problem 3. Therefore, USA humans are the biggest problem 4. Therefore, it's OK to do whatever we want to USA Humans, since we are "justified" 5. Animals = humans, and if you are going to kill animals, it's ok if I "kill" humans(USA first), one way or another is combining to create a perfect storm of "we don't need you anyway, and as long as I get to continue my ridiculous, inane, bad behavior, who cares if you die/we take your money?" mentality. Isn't that potentially dangerous? Duh? Thoughts? Again, could just be overtired....

But it would be cool... You have to admit, Dick Cheney with an actual Death Ray would be cool. Besides, it would complete the cartoon character he has allowed the crazy-left people to turn him into.

Doesn't this concept already exist in the form of FUD? Fear Uncertainty Doubt FUD (FUD) 1.Noun. The excretion of individuals who either disagree with, or stand to lose something due to, the current plan or policy. The FUD they excrete can rarely be traced to the actual merits or designs of the plan/policy in question. FUD is almost always the waste product of a person's ulterior motive. Used in a sentence: "The Republicans are currently spreading some FUD with regard to Obama's economic plan." or "The Democrats, instead of getting elected based on their merits or actually doing something useful, have done nothing but spread FUD for the last 8 years. The Republicans were unable or unwilling to clean up all the FUD, and therefore lost elections."