OCinBuffalo

"You've heard of rewriting history, but that's passe. Introducing "new and improved" rewriting Biology, and Psychology." Brought to you by the Corporation for Far-Left Retarded Broadcasting. Yes, I am "biased". I believe in genetics, hormones, and the psychological effects they have. Quick, Call Oprah!

Can't help but notice that your not taking issue with/denying any of the specifics of what I wrote. Rather you are just lamely, and wrongly, making assumptions about my origins. Hmmm.

I have yet to meet somebody in my business that went to Harvard who is actually really good at our job. I have never worked for someone who went there, or Stanford for that matter, but plenty have worked for me. Suffice it to say Harvard does not impress me. Maybe they are good elsewhere, but they suck in general at what we do. So invoking "Harvard" isn't a good way to make your point, especially to guy who was accepted at Harvard, but instead went to a school that is 20 times harder to get into. What do I win if I think they are both idiots compared to many of the people on this board? The better question is: how many of Fanken's arguments in those books can pass the common sense test? how many take all facts into account, proportionately, and still pass the smell test? I surmise that you/50% of us could write a book, given time, does that mean it would be any good? And how impressive is it if half of us can do it too? That's the point there, genius, of course she was edited to look bad. According to her, that's precisely what they did. SO who am I supposed to believe? A case can be made for both. Now, understand that I'm not saying Palin is smart. I am saying that Katie Couric and her show have been proven beyond all doubt to be completely in the tank for "your team". The most likely explanation is Couric set her up, Palin screwed up, and then Couric chopped up the tape to make it look even worse. Yeah, that's coherent. Been taking writing lessons from Franken? Learn how to write at Harvard maybe? How about we make it simple for you: stop trying to excuse bad behavior, period, regardless of who does it. Six year olds know better.

No, and no, and women don't lie in general, but they will about this specific issue. To not lie is to admit the truth. The truth = biologically women aren't as likely to succeed on the whole as men, due to kids, hormones, you name it. There are individual exceptions as there is with most everything. But generally women are at a serious biological, and therefore psychological disadvantage, when it comes to success outside the home. It's not an indictment of their character, it's just the way it is. This truth however, is something that that cannot be accepted, or admitted to, because it is tantamount to surrendering to nature/god/whoever decided to make women be the ones who carry the babies. The real "lie", that women are actually "equal" to men, must be supported at all cost, however nuts. So, yeah, there's every reason to assume that they lied, and, the election results, not the polls, prove that. The actual results were a lot closer than the polls I saw on RCP right before the election = lies, lies, lies.

And you can back that up...how? Is she less intelligent than Al Franken? You do understand that if I interviewed you, that interview was taped, and I had access to and editing machine, I could make you appear to like men/sheep, right? Ah yes, before it was amplification problems and distortion problems. Now it's the famous, liberal favorite: Anything that somebody on my team does that is bad is always excused by anything that somebody else did that was bad, regardless of degree, and especially if it has NOTHING to do with the friggin' subject at hand. You were looking for rationalization examples? That is the WHOPPER of rationalization examples. Your mom should have told you: "If little Johnny jumps off a bridge, it doesn't make it OK for little Steely to do it". You mom must have missed that one, huh?

What friends? I don't care about Palin one way or the other....but that doesn't mean I stop seeing liberals heading for another train wreck of Medicare proportions, in attacking her. I certainly don't spend any time talking to anybody, friend or no, about Palin. All I am saying is: given the fact that liberals in general are batting about .950 on unintended consequences(i.e. forcing banks to let sub-prime mortgages) for the last 50 years, I'd be careful on this one. Answers: 1. Yeah, why not? A significant portion of our current culture has a predisposition to reward: weakness, dishonor(why is the media giving a platform to Blago?), cheating = belicheat, cowardice, and obfuscation. But the BIG STORY is: rewarding phony "victimhood". Especially phony victims like Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, or Duke Rape case girl. You would probably say that Palin is a classic non-victim, victim, and I would agree. Why then wouldn't the same people do the very thing they seem to always do? Palin and Hillary are exact opposites? How do you know, for sure? Hillary is conniving B word that has clearly traded every shred of her honor and dignity for any chance at political power. I recognize, but don't admire, her commitment to her goals. How do we know Palin isn't just as nasty and jaded? Conversely, how do we know that both of them aren't simply mid-west women who are trying to get into and stay in the East coast game? 2. Simple, because they didn't need to, so why bother? Again, the Oprah standing order is to complement women doing anything, whether they deserve it or not. The bottom line is: they have been Oprah-trained to nod their head whenever the subject of any woman comes up no matter what they do. That training isn't broken because of party affiliation. The legions of bobbleheads by and large most likely aren't going to change their minds. The real drop in opinion of Palin more likely comes from: MEN. The minute she went from Hot-ass Governor to Hot-ass Hooter Girl who doesn't know the game, men stopped taking her seriously. And, women aren't going to start telling their husbands, or anyone, that they should take a Hooter Girl seriously...hence the lie.

1. I don't like the press "annointing" anybody, ever, period. Two wrongs don't make a right. I like the press doing their f'ing jobs, which aren't very hard, compared to mine, to begin with. I certainly could do a better job getting the truth out of people and writing what I find coherently(but obviously not concisely ). I do it in my job every day. 2. Again, you are acting like somehow the vast majority of women, here or anywhere in the world, DON'T have their "empathy meters" set on "ridiculous". I need look no farther than my mom or my sister if I need to find some crazy rationalization for somebody doing something stupid or wrong, regardless of how wrong or stupid it is. 3. Given #2, the more you dolts attack Palin, the more collective empathy you create, crossing over even into sympathy. 4. Keep it up smart guy, and you are going to get her elected President.

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I have read in 2 weeks, and I have mostly been reading Medicare regulations and policies. Apparently you have learned nothing from the Hillary Clinton example. Of course learning nothing from history isn't new for liberals is it now? Hillary Clinton's national approval ratings were in the toilet most of life, yet she gets elected Senator from NY? Her approval ratings here are crap, yet she runs for President and comes damn close to winning? WHY? Because women lie to pollsters. Period. They will say one thing, but vote another. Everyone know that Hillary getting elected Senator was this empathetic, "bottle of wine and cry/sorry your husband dissed you" thing. You think that same thing can't happen for Palin? But on a much larger and more meaningful scale, because Palin isn't a gigantic B word? Like I said, fascinating....

Wrong. First, I am responding to the distortion that: The attacks on Hillary = the attacks on Palin, in terms of their substance, vehemence, and volume, both amount and sound. Now I will respond to your distortion: Nobody, especially not me, said that Palin = Hillary in terms of experince. So, I am not "comparing" them. Moreover, Hillary has some legitimate baggage like Travelgate, Whitewater, etc. that she received legit critical analysis for. Palin had her family attacked, and there was nothing legitimate about that. It just served to underscore the irrational hatred on the left. The hatred created so much noise, that now you are seeing a signal emerge = people are interested in how Palin handles it. She has become, for many, not me, an interesting character whose ongoing activity now has a following. Once again, liberal stupidity has conspired to create the exact opposite outcome that was intended: Palin is now a "rock star" and every woman in America who last name isn't Heinz or Kennedy will claim to identify with her and "what she has been through", and follow her ongoing saga intently. You have created your own worst possible enemy. You guys don't seem capable of thinking anything through, and it's truly fascinating. Hopefully the power that the liberals now have will sober them and get them to start thinking before they talk/do. I don't care if liberals shoot themselves in the foot, as long as they don't get to shoot me. And please, spare us the distortions.

I'd say this is generally true....if I was an idiot. The part that you correctly identified is that no lie is too ridiculous for the Daily Kos, or MoveOn, etc., and that they simply have no way form stopping themselves from this shameful behavior. Glad to see you are still capable of at least some objectivity. The REAL fact is that the Palin pick for VP caught everybody, left and right, with their pants down. So, yeah, initially what could anybody say? The feminists in the media(hell, even the hot chick on FOX and Friends was doing it) said: Execute Oprah Winfrey Standard Order 21: She's a woman, so say good things about her automatically, whether you know anything at all about her or not. And, until they could come up with a new plan and actually do their jobs properly, they had to operate using these contingency plans(see Duke Rape Case). Once they realized the very real damage Palin was and could do to Obama, that's when the entire entertainment/media complex got together and came up with the "all-day, all-the-time, We Hate Palin" campaign, that they are still running when they have nothing else to say. This fact is that Palin and Obama have almost the exact same amount of political experience. It's a fact, so stop spinning. Whenever you get done talking, this fact will remain. Clearly, it's completely hypocritical to play off Obama's lack of experience, and excoriate Palin's. But, I think this all goes back to this irrational hatred issue you all have, nothing more.

Ok so do we have enough fingers(doubt we need the toes) to count the number of lefties that have praised Palin? Conversely, you'd need a calculator to count the number of righties that have praised Hillary. Crap, when she first joined the Senate, Republicans were signing her praises. (I was going to say falling all over her, but then I thought about that for a sec)

Good. But it's a credit to THEM when they succeed, if you are doing your mentoring right...right? Just saying, interesting choice of words...whether the horse drinks or not is not our problem, unless we haven't led them to the water. The action itself must be theirs, same with the credit for taking the action. That is, unless you are some sort of controlling beyatch that thinks that every one of her underlings needs to be personally ordered or instructed step by step on everything, all the time. The cause for that behavior is usually...seeing everyone/thing as a threat. And in that case, yes, everything they did would, by definition, have to be a credit to you. But I am fully prepared to give you more credit than that, since I have no idea how you do anything.

There are tons of examples of right-leaning women, Peggy Noonan comes to mind, so does my own mother, applauding Hillary Clinton. Show me one left-leaning women who has praised Palin, other than Greta Van Sustren. As usual, you can't seem to get your amplification right. If 1000 media/political women crush Palin, and 1 women says something good, it is not "the same" as 100 women crushing Hillary and 200 saying something good, just because there are women on both sides of the issue.

My lawyer just got tickets for April...I guess here. He reminded me that we hadn't gone to a Dead show together in 10 friggin years. Man I feel old. I have always loved the music with great passion, but I developed over a time a great hatred for the politics. It was while on one of my many mini-tours that I first developed a real understanding of why hippie politics/socialism is BS. In fact "The Dead" as a concept, is the perfect analogy for exactly why these ideas suck, and that fact that they are utterly hypocritical. Going to a single show is great, you feel connected with the audience, you are going out of your way to do things to help others have a good time, and they are doing the same, it can be a real eye-opening experience of what is possible if everyone really works for "the collective". But then reality sets in. Everybody wants to get to the next show so they can feel that again, just like a drug. But, everybody doesn't want to contribute equally, or can't contribute equally, to get there. Same is true for food, "treats", all the rest. Worse, the longer you are on tour, and especially if you planned properly, the more you find yourself doing most of the contributing, and the more you find out that what's really going on is perhaps the most damning example of pure selfishness you have ever seen. Even in your own "family", and that's the part that really sucks. Not to mention that the minute people need money for the next ticket, hit, etc., the parking lot turns into the most acute display of tax-free, unregulated capitalism you have ever seen. It would make a pharmaceutical executive blush. (i.e. selling beer to 16 year olds for $5 a bottle, t-shirts for $30, and veggie-burritos that cost 30 cents to make for $4...talk about exploitation!) After my 30th Dead/Phish show, I started thinking how funny it would be if somebody was to go around charging the same taxes and enforcing the same regulations that are applied to legit businesses. Talk about an eye-opening experience!!! You'd have open rebellion...burritos and didgeridoos flying everywhere. Suffice it to say: the average hippie's entire ethos is based on convenience...meaning they will say whatever is convenient for them at the time, as long as they get what they want next. You will not find a purer form selfish behavior anywhere.

So...is this thread an example of you obsessing, or not obsessing, about Palin? I gotta be honest, when I signed on here just now Palin was the furthest thing from my mind...until you brought it up...again. Are are you contributing to the "successful women either can't stand other successful women or always see them as a threat" thinking? Anymore it's really getting difficult to say that thinking doesn't exist. I just observed it in my work, again, last week, and that makes the 5th time in the last 2 months. Regardless, I think it's safe to say that the main threat to success for women is now far and away: other women. Which is nice because I'm tired of being told I am responsible for things I don't even think/care about, much less do.

This has been bothering me for a long time but I kept forgetting to post it. Sorry if this was already discussed at the time. Anyway, I don't remember which week Edwards said this, but he definitely said something to this effect: "I'm happy because this week the game plan is so simple." We won that game(I'm pretty sure) and there were hardly any mistakes on Offense. So what's bothering me about that is: Is it that the O game plans on this team are overly complex as a rule? or.. Is it that Edwards can't handle the complexity of the NFL? My guess is the first one, and here's why: it seems that there is a common theme in theme in the NFL that says that O coordinators are out to prove how smart they are first, win games second. I have read/heard/seen this stated, and seen players reacting to it, both on and off the field, all over the league, fairly consistently this year. Somehow I don't think the second alternative is very likely, or, I'm hoping like hell that it isn't. What do you guys think? It's not like Edwards doesn't have the skills to make the tight throws. Perhaps we should be hoping for Schonert to trade some complexity of the scheme for letting the players play.

One on hand: Dan Reeves has a long history of putting together winning teams and creating great offenses, even with less than great players. One the other hand: You have to wonder if football has passed by the guy. Kinda like Mike Ditka w/ New Orleans.

To me, these are far and away the most important words in the whole article(thanks by the way): "Excellent on hot reads. Knows how to get open in a hurry in those situations." This is what Edwards needs. Troy Aikman(who Edwards sorta reminds me of style-wise) once said: "I would quit this game tomorrow if Jay Novacek isn't my tight end." He meant: I will get killed if I didn't have Novacek. Edwards needs an outlet guy, but also somebody who consistently makes you pay if you ignore him, similar to Josh Reed, but somebody closer to the line/on the other side. Pettigrew might be a better talent, but if Coffman is smarter and runs better routes as stated, we should take Coffman. "The Derek's" have proven they can block, and even catch a little, so it's not like we need a lot of blocking help there. I want a real weapon at TE. That helps both Edwards and ultimately, Lynch/Jackson and Evans.

Massive Dittos...on the girls. The fact that it looks like it started as some guy's house, added on to with a trailer, added on to with half a building, added on to with another trailer??? That was simply hysterical.

That's the funny part...actually I do. I think the guy would be a great on our team. Kinda like the Roscoe Parrish idea, except that it actually works this time??? I like offenses with more options than the D can counter, and I like making them second guess the look they are seeing. Pat White helps with all of that. But don't like manipulation, especially poorly done manipulation. IF they trying to manipulate us, they should at least put a little effort in. Y'know, they could start talking about having a funny feeling go up their leg when Pat White drops back in the pocket...that seemed to work last time around.

First: I can't vote in a poll that doesn't include my choice = a whole lot of people have a whole lot of work to do before we "know" anything. Wait, are you arguing for the fact that Global Warming exists, or, for the de facto rationalizations and "by the ways" that have been spun up by Global Warming supporters and are prefabricated to be attractive to those of us in the center? This post is the intellectual equivalent of a Hot Pocket(yes I said Hot Pocket) or the McRib = let's see if they will eat schit on bread.... Quoted for truth. However forget the "contest". Keep it simple: Teabag Al Gore supporter. Repeat. Yes, I agree. Why are they overreaching? Start simple: correctly predict the weather tomorrow within 10 damn degrees, then do it for a week within 5 and I might be inclined to listen to the "scientists". Perhaps we haven't put enough stress on the situation, or, we have set our expectations too low. Solution: Increase the consequences for failure. Teabagging seemed to be the answer above, why not here? Ah, and the real evil behind Global Warming rears its ugly head! "You've heard of re-writing history, well, this is that, plus more! Not only do you get our 3, count em, 3 famous false premises: 1. More taxes are always good 2. More government jobs/spending are always good 3. More government jobs/spending are always good, except when a Republican does it but you also get a completely irrelevant, and false to boot, corollary that somehow activity at the USDA will have something to do with Global Warming. But only if you call in the next 5 minutes" The Truth: 1. Capitalism and the free market, if regulated properly, but mostly left unhindered by government has proven to be a much better economic system than socialism. This has been proven over and over, in many countries for centuries. 2. Socialists cannot accept that their ideas are simply bad, because they are supposed "intellectuals". 3. Instead of facing reality, or winning the game, they need to invent some strange outside influence, a game-changer. Since they lost the original game, they have no choice but to create a new game with different rules. The new game means they automagically win, and that forces the failed economic policies they insist on supporting onto us, whether they make sense or not, due to the new rules of the game. 4. Ask yourself: defense, fear of uncertainty, expecting the worst things to happen...since when is that the fundamental view of liberals? Never. They are always telling conservatives to lighten up, to see the relativity in things, to look at multiple points of view, to allow compassion to largely govern thought, to assume that everyone is always "trying their best", and it's OK when they fail, etc. Kum-ba-ya.... 5. But when it comes to Global Warming, suddenly everything turns black and white, the culprits are guilty without trial and should be executed, with no allowance for any point of view that detracts from their absolute and righteous judgment, Therefore, there is an immediate need to change any and all economic policy without debate or question based solely on a singular point of view???? Really? Why all the sudden urgency? Where's the reasoned debate? Where's the "considering points of view"? Why the Immediate Declaration of Consensus when I have taken craps longer than the time it took to supposedly reach the "consensus". What was the actual process used to determine the consensus? Why the complete departure from they way they handle every single issue other than this one? What is more likely? That the lefties suddenly and completely change their MO based on one issue? Or, that they believe that Global warming can be used to override economic policy without having to win the game = convince/prove that their policies have merit? They try to use the courts to legislate from the bench, because they can't get people to vote for what they want. How is this any different than that? Simple. They need the game changed immediately, before Marx's nonsense is formally and finally committed to the history books as another failed attempt at inventing a new religion. Global warming is the game-changer. Real or not, it is being used as a manipulative device, and far too many people are apparently too dumb/scared of being called names to question it.

1. Usually The Dean is a fairly rational guy, and normally he can support his position with a reasoned argument. 2. Not the case here. What's really at the core of this? Clearly, the Dean is suggesting that somehow encountering the kind of trouble that can only be resolved with a gun means that you either: made a series of bad choices and put yourself there, or, you chose a certain profession. Worse, he is saying that if you choose to have a gun, then you probably suffer from some mental defect. None of this is true. First, The Dean's position does not take into account a very simple, yet powerful, force: random chance. If you happen to run into criminal intent on harming you, it's far more likely that you/your house were the first "mark" that came along, rather than based on some specific choice you made. Random chance = the end of The Dean's argument. Second, I find it fascinating that the Dean(and most liberals) believe that somehow the reason they haven't needed a gun, so far, can be attributed to their choices. That, somehow, they are not subject to the same random chance that the supposed mere-mortal victims of criminals are. That's like saying you will never get into a car accident because you are simply too smart. It's fascinating because I try to imagine the massive ego/affected thinking/other pathology that would be necessary for such a statement to be made. How can people who claim to be so smart, and usually are, find themselves, and their worthless argument, totally confounded by something so easy to comprehend as "random chance"? If we choose to live in the suburbs, or rely on our wit, or simply pretend that we live in a world without evil, that it always comes down to "differing points of view", then we are choosing a consistently more dangerous mental defect than paranoia: hubris. And, if we choose to look down on people who feel that a gun is necessary for their protection...well, looking down on people is nothing new for liberals...but it's never OK. Funny how they will look down on a guy who buys a gun to protect his home, but refuse to look down on the a-hole criminal, who is the reason for buying the gun to begin with. They always blame the a-holes upbringing or something else, instead of the damn a-hole himself. Selective compassion? Or, just plain stupidity? Take your pick.

...sinister, as in poorly-informed, affirmative action-type cajoling. In watching the NFL Network's broadcast tonight, there's hardly any doubt that somebody sent out a memo stating that "The Story of the Day = Pat White, 80% him, 20% everybody else"... OR... Mike Mayock has some unnatural attraction to a guy who MIGHT be able to play QB in the NFL. Yeah, I'm so sure he'll be in Tebow's hip pocket the whole game, interviewing him 3(that's right 3) times during the game, like he did with Mr. White. Or, that he was so interested in Hester last year. Somehow the first explanantion seems a LOT more likely. So why are they, and everyone else, taking the spam approach? Do they think that if we hear that "Pat White can do great things in the NFL, and might even play QB" enough times we will start to believe it, or better, start to give a schit one way or the other? I mean does anybody really care about another project QB? Is this some kind of cathartic, Mike Vick hormone-replacement therapy? The whole, stupid, "black QB can't play in the NFL" thing was seriously set back by Vick(more by Warren Moon). Are they trying to get their poster-boy back? And worse, why do they think they need a "black QB" poster-boy anyway? Do they think we won't be able to tell if Vince Young is a headcase, because he is, or that Culpepper was only good when he had a great team around him(Minnesota), because that's true, because we are more inclined to focus on their skin than on how much they suck? I saw Ko Simpson drop a Dolphin QB 2 years ago, and reveled in the Dolphin fan cries of pain, because that's what I enjoy doing. The fact that the QB was black has nothing to do with it. The fact that this Dolphin QB was an over-paid FA that they had told us was going to own us, only served to double the pool of Dolphin fan(and their ESPN ball-washer's) anguish we all got to bathe in. Unintended Consequences that almost always arise from social "engineering": What happens if they over-hype the kid, somebody takes him in the 1st or 2nd, pays him that big money, he ends up playing like a: 6ft QB with questionable arm strength, and then he ends up playing backup/kick returner/Gadget WR? Should he sue NFL Network, etc. for false representation? How does that "advance the cause of Black QB's"? Aside: This is the evil that ensues when the kids own the candy store, and why we need to be intentionally skeptical of all franchise-owned media outlets, or agenda/ideology-driven media outlets like NBC Sports. Edit: The worst is I didn't get to see any of the players I wanted to see, because of the Pat White-a-thon.

Senior Bowl live stream

Are you sure Minnesota would consider this? They seem to be sticking with Jackson, even when they shouldn't. Here's an interesting article: Vikings Starters Rated They give Jackson a C+. (The guy was benched for most of the season, and gets a C+? WTF? They gave a D- to a guy who was benched and them came back due to injury...same thing for Jackson ) IF this is indicative of the thinking in general in Minn., I doubt that your scenario is feasible. It's more likely that they get a FA QB like Jeff Garcia and let him compete for the job, similar to Warner in Arizona, because they probably don't want to admit that Jackson is crap....it's like us with JP.