OCinBuffalo

Oh, the same Mark Cuban who spent the lion's share of the $5 mil on Redacted, so that it could gross a whopping $65k? And that's only because it made more money in Spain than it did in the USA, that Mark Cuban? The man is literally the exception to the rule in IT. And we are supposed to listen to him talking about net worth, in general, or specifically as it relates to anything involving politics? Redacted is his personal venture in combining his money with his politics. Great Job! But, we are supposed to listen to him talking about what Trump has done combining his money with his politics? Results. I mean if there ever was an example of confusing effort, or cash, with results? Donald Trump spent less $ winning the first 15 states than Cuban spent on Redacted. Again, Read those Hollywood numbers, Hollywood. Tell us what happened to Brian DePalma's career after all this. No, go ahead and look it up on IMDB. 5 years before he gets a chance to direct again, and, that one flops even worse. This is the guy who directed Scarface, and the first Mission:Impossible...but now he can't get a job as a director. Yeah. Mark Cuban, the great builder of teams. Yeah, Mark Cuban, the arbiter of wisdom. No. The retard who happened to be in the right place at the right time, now running around pretending like he actually planned everything.

This is ripping off Chris Rock. He said that the solution is not banning guns, and instead, raising the price of ammunition to obscene levels. To wit(NSFW): Oh, and the next one is strikingly both prophetic and hilarious("She put the entire free world at risk! ): https://youtu.be/QKi1ePbpi4c?t=179 Oh, I see, so rather than being able to live in peace, no matter where one lives...the only alternative is to move. Great. And what happens when one can't afford to move? Or, is barely hanging on at the job they have, and can't get one in the mystical "other city"...where they supposedly won't be troubled by the same problem? But no! Your "solution" is everybody GTFO now? Yeah, um that's pretty much what has turned rust belt cities into ghost towns. Your solution is literally what was "white flight". Now? "Flight" has become diverse! Black people now splitting from the same, failed, decades-of-Democratic-rule cities as whites already have Great Plan! You're so good at this, you should tell us all about your plans for Global Warming, and Obamacare! WTF are you thinking? A P90 looks like some futuristic welding tool from Star Trek, so its not dangerous at all! I mean, the fact that it is way more accurate than an AK, easier to use, definitely easier to maintain than an AR, shoots 30% more rounds per minute than an AK, and leaves the AR-15, at 180 RPM vs 900, in the dust? Nah, nothing wrong here. Oh, and did I mention it has a 50 round clip? So, you know: reloading. Oh, wait, you don't know about reloading? Yeah, try firing an AR-15 for an extended period, say, long enough to wipe out an entire school. You're almost certainly going to encounter a jam. Every single person who has ever dealt with the AR model knows about jamming, and also, the firing pin retaining pin with is a tiny little thing, which if lost, turns the weapon into an expensive club. We are talking about banning weapons/designs that NATO has either never adopted, because they are inferior(AK-47), or has moved on from, because they are annoying(AR-15). Yet, nothing about the new weapons? Why? Because, once again: most people know NOTHING about guns. The chicken is the best. Oh and so that some of you might get a clue? The P-90 is the first weapon in the 2nd row. See? It doesn't look dangerous at all!

I never understood why you only get to be one or the other, so I've never accepted it. I've lived my life in contradiction of that notion. It's going just fine.

That might have mattered...but the Boltons are no more. Their words will disappear, their house will disappear, their names will disappear. Perhaps the all-time greatest "F you(then she slowly turns and walks away)" in the history of script-writing. I'm going to enjoy saying this to Pats* fans right after Brady, and you know right after that, Belechick are gone. Or, I'm really going to enjoy Belechick's feeble attempt, if he dares, at staying on and coaching with no Brady. It will be Cleveland all over again. And watching the Pats* fans getting literally eaten by their own delusions of greatness by proxy? Buffalo is coming. EDIT: In hockey too.

Ah yes, as designed, and expected, I can feel the butthurt flowing. Yet again, I write a targeted post that is designed to expose. Yet again, the exposed do my work for me. And of course, yet again, they are too dumb to realize they are doing my work for me. It's so bad/good this time, and the exposed are so butthurt that they even started a lame mock thread...but notice...never actually answered my question, or even dared approach the content of this issue. To the exposed: it's far past time for you to regain your self-respect. You're not going to get it back by talking about me. You're also not getting it back by ducking the issue. All you have accomplished is to prove one, some, or all of the following: 1. Your sense of morality and justice is entirely relative, which means you have no sense of either. 2. You can't be honest about this issue, least of all with yourself. 3. You will do anything you can to talk about process(my long posts), in order to avoid dealing with the content(what we must now do). I've given ample time for posters to post/reconsider/etc. I haven't egged anybody on. I've left this thread to its own devices. And what do we see? Dissembling. Delusion. Demands on others to reject what their own eyes see, and ears hear, in favor of what, exactly? That's the best part. Those of you who continue to have no line, NOW, also have nowhere to go! We've tried "smart" diplomacy. We've tried all your "plans". They have all failed. So, what do you have left? Well, I assure you, complaining about my long posts? That doesn't stop anything. All that does is...what I intended it to do: expose you as the cowards, hypocrites, and unserious, pseudo-intellectuals that you are.

My mom, the teacher, wants a .38 special, and, she wants to carry this gun on her in the classroom. First: Her reasoning is simple "I am responsible for my students, and if some psycho comes in here, I have nothing to protect them. I'm going to have to find something in my classroom and try to take them on and probably get killed. But, I can't just sit there and do nothing, waiting for him to kill me and my kids. I also work late a lot, and I have to walk to my car and pray nobody is waiting. And what's worse? We put up signs telling people we don't have any guns. So, the safest place for them to attack is a school. Tell me how that makes sense!" Now, for those of you who are: 1. awash in suburban glee 2. living in the "good parts" of cities 3. idiots, etc. you might say she's nuts. However, it's you who are delusional. Her school has a very high propensity for attracting violence, gun or otherwise. There already have been many incidents and it's a minor miracle that guns haven't been involved. Knives have been pulled, staff have been assaulted. We are talking both kids and parents here. These are real things that have happened to real people, and there is no end to it. So, the threat is real. But, unfortunately, we can't outlaw or punish idiots for being idiots, BEFORE, they do something idiotic. So, what's left? Answer: be prepared. My mom isn't wrong about the threat, but, just like 65% of this country: she is wrong about the weapon. That's because, like 65% of this country, she doesn't know anything about guns. Guns are not a commodity. There are a wide variety of requirements for guns, and therefore a wide variety of gun designs. Often guns are made to look intimidating, on purpose, so you don't have to use it. Also, they reuse certain parts because it costs less and they know they are reliable. An intimidating Colt rifle...may look like an M16, but that doesn't make it an M16, not even if you click your heels 3 times and say "assault rifle" on CNN. A real assualt rifle is already near impossible to obtain legally. You have to show a judge cause. You have to pay a huge fee. You have to register with all local law enforcement, It's a process a tiny number of people complete themselves. The other fact here is: there are already 500 MILLION guns out there. Banning them does nothing. There is no "common sense gun control law" when we are talking about protection. Whatever law you make, the criminal adjusts accordingly. This is like taxing the internet. There's always a workaround. If I know that you only have 5 rounds in your legal gun clip? I bring an illegal gun that has 9-10 rounds in its illegal gun clip. What did your "common sense" cap on clip size accomplish? Nothing. If anything you are pushing people to find illegal clips so that they can have parity. Great. So now you're forcing people to break a stupid law that accomplishes nothing. Great Plan! Yeah: I love when I hear "common sense" from the left, as if they even know where to begin.

I'm not sure if this belongs on the football board, but, it's about Bills fans, so...mods...do with it what you will. I always get roped into helping my mom with her yearly school carnival. It's a day of disorganization, stupidity, and sloth...because of the adults. But, the kids have a ball, which is why I do it. It's a poor school in a poor neighborhood in a prison town. In short: it's a place where the 2nd amendment is exercized as a means of daily survival; thus a reality, not an abstraction, or a political talking point. In this setting, I show up to begin work. I picked a bad time(by minutes) as it was time for the kids to leave for the day. When I showed up, with my Bills hat on, I caused chaos. The kids wanted to know who I was/what I was doing there, and 2 interesting things happened: 1. One kid asked me if I knew Sammy Watkins. I said of course. He beamed: "He's my cousin." "Wow! You're so lucky to have a cousin like that." I said, giving the approval he wanted. He then told me about all the times he's met him and what they've done. It was nice. 2. Next a girl marched up and said "You're a Bills fan? Ok, then high-five", and put up her hand. Of course I responded, and of course we both said "Go Bills". We all know that there is practically no situtation in which a Bills fan doesn't reciprocate a high five request from a fellow Bills fan, regadless of age, race, gender, whatever. They funny part? Not everybody does. Later I was working a booth, and not only the same girl from before, but other fans came up and demanded high fives. I thought this was great. The art teacher working the booth with me? She couldn't comprehend it. The kids weren't goofing around. They were being serious. "High five! We're gonna win the division this year because Brady can't play 4 games" says one. "Tyrod is our QB, and he's good, high-five" says the next. And on it went. The art teacher was a bit shocked. First of all I'm an adult, and in school-world this doesn't happen. I explained to her that I've been a fan of other teams, and of bands, but that nothing on this planet is like being a Bills fan. I described our culture: all differences are cast aside, in favor of a single, overwhelming, unifying force. Thus, I told her that not only was this the the way Bills fans are...that it's taught from a very young age, and expected. It was fun to see the art teacher's reaction. I told her: "Hey you can be part of this too. There is no barrier to entry. You just have to learn football a little and cheer for the Bills. I can show you." She agreed. (I am thinking of showing her some other things too, like what she'd look like in a Sammy Watkins jersey...only. Yes, I know, a nice post ruined...but this is me after all, isn't it?)

By that I mean: what do they have to do for you to personally declare war on them? More specifically what data do you require, whether observed, as in the images tonight, or, their rhetoric, or whatever, to conclude that war, total war, on them, and more importantly: their ideology, is the only feasible/rational solution? See, like with Global Warming, I believe that there is a distinct lack of intellectual honesty at work when it comes to this issue. In fact, I believe that for some, no such line exists for either issue. For some, there is no data set, no empirical evidence, no proof beyond all doubt...that will convince them. This is because they were never honest about being convinced of anything in the first place. There are many reasons why they lie, to themselves and others, about being intellectually honest, some righteous, most nefarious. But, the reasons don't matter. Their dishonesty causes failure. If one can claim "thinking person" status, then there has to be a decision point for them on every issue. Or in "Ben Franklin close" terms, a point where one side of the decision has so many pros that it completely outweighs the other side. While I'm sure some of you crossed your line a long time ago, I am just as certain that others either keep moving theirs, or, simply do not have one. I am as sure that the latter two sets of people have all sorts of reasons why, as I am that those reasons are complete and utter BS. Consider: 1. One cannot have a truly "open" mind if there is no closing mechanism, otherwise how can we know the difference? 2. One cannot have a "tolerant" mind if tolerances are not set, thus differentiating from what is within tolerance and what is not. If one violates these simple, as they are truthful, tenets, they are simply a F'ing dumbass. Thus we must free ourselves of them, as they are intellectually useless. So, I ask again: what is your line on this? What else do you need to see? Or, is your line ever moving/nonexistant? Perhaps its time to be honest with us, and more importantly: yourself.

This is an experiment: I dare you to get through this video. IF you've completed the challenge move on to step 3. If not, step 1 for you. Step 1 Ah, you couldn't do it. Too bad. You probably missed the point. Or, you just couldn't stomach it. But really, you're weak. If you had stuck around, you'd actually know that for all of her inanity, she actually got to, and made, valid political points. You may not agree with those points, but that ain't the point: she made them, and you gave up too quickly. Look, I know this is a haze. Why the F do you think I wrote this thread? Why do I do anything here? Largely to troll and haze. However, in this particular instance, it's instructive. Step 2 Go back and try to watch it again. Seriously. I know that I'm asking you to do the thing you probably hate most right now. I also know that if you know this handle, you're thinking "of course OCinBuffalo is going to tell me to watch it again, right after he got me to watch the first time, I'm not stupid, he wants to get me twice and then at me". You're wrong on both counts. No, I do want you to watch it, because there's a larger point you can't see if you don't, and, come on: you are stupid. I give you eyecandy(albeit with alligator arms) to look at, and you can't get through it? Yeah, looking at hot chicks is such a chore. No, you are stupid. Now reload the link, stupid/weak, and tell yourself you're just like the guys at Valley Forge...or something. Step 3 Ah, so this is where both the weak and the strong meet. Those of you who went straight here: man, isn't it mindboggling? She does idiot, yet at the same time, shows a remarkable undertstanding of the issues. It's enough to make you a step 1-2 person, but you're not. No, unlike those posters, you bore the annoyance, because every time you were about to kill the video...she said something that at least souded right. For all of you: that was maddening wasn't it? Well, there must be some hazing otherwise I wouldn't bother. However, it's such a strange thing...to swatch her flail, yet repeatedly stick the landing. Consider: If this woman(ex-stripper, model, and damn good internet troll) can get it together on a youtube, and actually present Trump's case as she...astoundingly...does(every time she's headed for the weeds, she turns the wheel), if she can grasp the basic premises....WTF is wrong with the rest of you? More importantly, if this is the bimbo's take on Trump, what is the community college woman's? How about the tech school woman? How about the BA women? How about the BS women? Grad school/Ph. D? If bimbo can dance right on the edge of annoying bimbo...but also, be affirmative and accurate? Which other women can? Is ithis that tough for any other woman to grasp? I don't think so. I'll say it agin: Trump has no women problem, because Trump has already poured the concrete on the 2 issues women care about most: economy and security. It doesn't matter who/what runs against him....he put himself in the strongest position possible on these 2 from day 1, and he has 0 reason to give ground on either. And, if Bimbo girl can get it, so can every other reasonable woman in America. So can literally everyone else.

Liberal Protests. What a great topic title...so exploitable. Liberal Protests: 1. Are great if you're in Philly, the communists/liberals/whatever start damaging property up your street, and you get to see both...your 6'6"/300 lb, but quick as a cat, roomate, and, the guy across the way who has blackbelts in 3 disciplines...fight like XMen. That day we were all XMen. Seeing the Philly cops cheer you on while you, and eventually almost all of your neighbors, form an ad-hoc army that, outnumbered 5-1, crushes 100s of weak, skinny, smelly, turds, eventually forcing them to march like POWs down the middle of the block...all of whom began the day thinking they were going to do the intimidating? Hilarious. Singing...um, victory songs(from Wham, Erasure, Queen, etc. Must have played "We are the Champions" 10 times before I blacked out) afterwards at the bar(gayish bar) 37 steps from your front door with your "army"? Doing your Freddy Mercury impersonation? Righteous. 2. Will be awesome this year, because it's Philly, again, but also, do not forget Cleveland. See, it's been a while, so I am sure that the lessons learned in 2000 have been forgotten. Every asshat who decides to "punish Philadelphia/Cleveland" for something its residents have no control over? That's giving a bunch of people who would just as soon kick your ass anyway, free license to do so. Wisdom: Get the popcorn ready. Hell, take the day/week off and fire up the grill. This is one set of "Fox News Alerts" that are going to be epic. Philly might be more battle royale than Cleveland, but, it's really hard to say. Cleveland doesn't have the population density of Philly, but, because most of the people that still live downtown aren't rich, they have less to lose, and more to protect. 3. Cause Democrats to lose. Just like in 1968, and 2000: every time there are out-of-town turds looking to start trouble/break stuff in the streets, that goes on TV, and people watch. The reason OWS fizzled? Victims of their own, bad, PR(schitting on cop cars, anyone?). People in Iowa, who think Des Moines is a "big city", even Democrats...will watch what is almost certainly going to happen in Philly, and Cleveland, and are going to vote for Trump the Strong, vs. Hillary the Weak. 4. Scare the hell out of white people. Not amazingly, nobody is talking about Hillary's white people, never mind white women, problem. Reason: because that would prove that the "demographics" argument is the nonsense that it is. What we all, and especially I, learned the hard way in 2012: the lack of white turnout, not the increase in non-white turnout, created the errors in the polls, and gave us all a false sense of what the demos of the electorate were. This year will be more in line with every year except 2012. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the white vote cancels out between 8-12% of the Hispanic vote, or, now, 12-14% of the black vote. If Trump gets 64% of the white vote, this election is a landslide. If liberal protests scare the suburban D-bags around Philly? PA goes to Trump. Western PA, amazingly, including Pittsburgh, is already Trump territory. If Trump wins PA, that means he won OH, NH, and CO. Possibly FL, VA and MI as well. Hence: game over. It's complex, but also, very simple: asshats in the street will cause both a physical and voting response that liberals don't want. I can literally send the above to the DNC. They can know all of this ahead of time. It won't change anything. They are too delusional to understand people hate chaos above all things, especially women.

Heh. Asking Steven Hawking to explain Trump's "phenomena" :: asking Steven Spielberg to explain Keynesian economics, and when and where to use it properly. No one would deny that both men are experts in their field, and certainly entitled to have the word "genius" applied to them. But, lets face it: neither are renaissance men. Hawking is no student, or teacher, of human factors engineering/psychology of perception. And that's the discipline that is most instructive wrt Trump. It's not like Hawking is in a position, never mind being willing, to understand human interaction on such a granular level. The guy thinks in terms of light years, not the individual voter, and since these two graduations of measurement have almost nothing in common, of course he's going to give us a simplistic answer like LCD. Hell, you can't even get most physicists to agree that medicine is science. Now you expect one to apply himself to political science and human factors engineering? As for you, ALF: the nly interesting thing here is that you decided to post an example of some idiot trying to make Trump look bad, by asking the opinion of somebody who is functionally incapable of rendering an educated, objective, or even rational one. Is this going to change...anything? No. Rather, this a fresh new take on the argument to authority logical fallacy. That's what makes it interesting. Truly, if you shot Steven Spielberg up with sodium pentathol, thus forcing him to be objective, and generally honest, then asked him to explain Trump's rise, THEN, and only then, would you get an opinion that was worth consideration. Speilberg knows how to create cultural icons. He knows damn well what Trump has done, and why, and how, but he'll never be honest about it. His leftist derangement syndrome means he will even lie about it to himself.

Yeah..but besides the obvious...that tells me that 70% of Republicans are idiots, or this poll, like so many before it, is utter garbage. Which morons in the R party don't want to run against an indicted candidate? The smartass factor alone means that number should be like 45%. I mean, if they polled some witless, humorless place like Kansas, or Indiana, then yeah, I can see 30%. But, if they ran the same poll of Rs in New York? That number is more like 80%...with a symphonic giggle accompaniment. If we polled this board, wouldn't the registered Rs here want an indicted Hillary...rather than something harder, and, to have an instant shut down argument to use against all the leftists they encounter? Who wouldn't want an instant leftist kill switch? Be awfully handy at the bar. This is like asking me if I want the Dolphins to keep Tannehill, or the Jets to keep G 3 Picko.

Well, lucky for me, I already went and got my new botlle of saphire...before, you know, I did any more potential damange to my brain. I shall now use alcohol, in large quantities. Prepare. There may be a joke or two about New Gingrich saying weird things about "taking it" on Hannity tonight.

Legalize everything, then tax(reasonably, not 200%/pack of cigarettes, um, New York) and regulate. Sure, you put some bad guys in business, in the pharma companies, but, you put the psychotic guys currently running things, out of business. That's not a choice, that's a moral obligation. Overtaxing is the only way the psychos stay in business. No. You have to price them out of the market. Why we prolong this idiocy, in the name of, I don't even know/some baby boomers who don't want to admit their failure to win the 40 year drug war, even 1 more day is a travesty. We could move, in weeks, not months, and thereby reduce gun violence by significant amounts almost immediately. This alone solves or contributes to the solution of 15+ major problems we have. Do I really have to detail them all, or can we use our heads on this issue(for once)? Before anyone starts with the standard emoting, anecdotes to nowhere, or telling me I'm evil because their daughter died from an overdose? First of all STFU, she had a much better chance of not dying if drugs are legal, and, I have my own emo story to counter yours! Every single person who is against legalization has the blood of children on their hands! (Hey leftists, how am I doing so far? Am I doing it right?) Most kids are killed by stray bullets. Those strays are fired by poorly trained drug people who use weapons like uzis, Tech 9s, and mac 10s...because they can't shoot for schit. If there was no way to make money on illegal drugs, there would be no money to spend on these "spray and pray" weapons. Thus, keeping these guys in business, every single day: constitutes a direct threat to the life of every child in a city, and many outside as well. You want to moralize? Tell us all how insisting that drugs stay illegal, and thus creating the exponentially increased conditions for children to be gunned down, every day, is the moral choice.

Dude, I'm still trying to figure out the affectation required, first for birdog to make that Shah of Iran argument on the football board, then, to keep digging with it page after page.

You know for half a second this was funny. For that faction of a time, I remembered all the "greatest Presidential orator of all time" awards Obama would "win", and of course, I remember "Chris Tingle". To see the man fail so badly, at the only thing he is good at, now that its time to actually think on the spot, sans prompter, was the definition of schadenfreude. But, then, I thought: "This is our F'ing president, who sounds like a scared schitless, congressman's son plebe on the first day of beast(basic)." Yeah, its not funny. It's not funny at all, when we have a president running around campaigning, when there is real work to do, and, compounding that mistake by sounding like an unmitigated moron. 90% chance nobody is going to remember anything about this. 95% that if they do remeber anything , it will be Obama's stuttering.

There was a time when a crayonz post was effective, largely because it was engaging to other posters. But, given these? Clearly the only thing you've engaged is a misfire. Every poster expects to have something good to work with when they see a crayonz post. Instead, here they have to contort your lame post into yet another gatorman attack. That's the sum of your effort...clearly not-crayonz: The best that could be done with your post is attack gatorman. I mean, somebody could post 2 words, "Hillary Clinton", and that could be turned into an attack on gatorman. You linked a video, and everything. All that "effort", but no joke, and lame d!ck. Yet again, we see that you aren't equal to the task. Perhaps you should just start a new handle, and stop trying to live up to expectations you are never, ever, going to meet. It's either that or get the original crayonz to give you some lessons/a sense of humor that is based on intellect. You are literally the Lt. Steve of this board. Oh, Frenchie!

This is how we bring it down. When one minority group becomes collaterally damaged by the crusades of another's, the whole "protected class" agenda crashes and burns. IF we can set feminists against environmentalists, or, militant gays against the illegal immigration activists, then their awful agendas and Saul Alinsky tactics will be exposed. Ask yourself: do you start your day thinking of ways to oppress any of these people? Do you make jokes about them? Do you even consider them at any point, during any of your daily decisions, or long term ones? No. Not unless there's some angle that they can play, which has nothing to do with you getting your job done, but is some way for them to get attention. So, unless you have to play defense, all of these groups and their agendas are: irrelevant. That's what I'd like to see, replace affirmative with: irrelevant action. Remove everything that isn't relevant to the task at hand. We do that by getting rid of database fields. It's simple really. No age, no sex, no name, no credit history, no address, no phone number...nothing that can be used for demographics whatsoever. Candidates are evaluated based solely on relevant data. Ht/Wt can be relevant, if we are interviewing for a dog walker or a fireman...but only if it ties directly to the job. IT has been doing this for years, because we neither care, but more importantly have the time, to be bothered with anything other than: do you know SQL or not? If so, show/tell me, and then you do or you don't. You're nuts if you think I wouldn't hire a black, scientologist, daily pot-smoking, flamboyant female transvestite...for a technical job that I know they can do, and wouldn't keep them if they did the job, and left the rest outside, just like I require from everybody, especially myself. Yet, I'm constantly being told that due to my class, skin, and whatever, that I don't think...what I think. Who the F are these people that presume to know what I think? That I am guilty of thinking what they think I think, and not what I actually think? Seriously...WTF?

Similar story to Tom's, but COBOL is at least a programming language with a compiler...of sorts. And an IBM mainframe has working parts, not working...people. On one of my first projects I actually walked into a punch card computing system. Here it was in the 90s, and they actually had "operators" in this big room whose job it was to create cards and run them through the system. It was fascinating. The project I was on was due to fail because, as you say, 2 things: government, and bad management. The PM was clueless, and had essentially turned over her duties to a micromanaging clown, who couldn't understand a single line of code, but "knew" IT better than everyone else...which until I showed up, was actually true at that office. He "knew" things like what a server was. So, naturally, it made sense to put him in charge of techincal decisions( ), hell, all decisions, leaving nothing for the rest of us to do. Thus, I had lots of extra time to spend in the punch card room. I tried to do stuff, but after getting told my good work wasn't needed, and threatened with being kicked off the project and fired for...unmitigated competence, I guess...I and another guy who was dealing with the same thing, basically shut down. Thus, we would hang out at the punch card room and marvel. Initially the operators "hated" us, because we represented an end to their jobs. However, once we explained just how miserably our project would fail, we were all buds. They'd even let us do things. It was sorta fun..better than being bored off your ass for 9 hours a day. This was the seminal project for me where the daily act of wearing a suit and tie...was more important than actually doing my F'ing job. I never again suffered attire to be more important than work product. It was the end of me freeing myself from the Big 6, and sending me into the exact opposite, but just as idiotic, land of Silicon Valley. In the end, at least I got to see a punch card machine in action, and I did get to run a program. That is something most IT nerds envy today. And, like Tom said, it's an even bet that this client is still running their punch card system.

Don't confuse me dealing with a major new international partner who wants to deploy our stuff to every client they have.... ...with not being around here because of Trump speaking/thinking/etc. I am working on a few posts I think will be helpful to you. We'll see.

The only dumbass here is the person who doesn't realize that this was Trump's goal all along, and that he never had any intention of actually debating Sanders. Why would you give Sanders the legitmacy of standing on the stage with you? You wouldn't. Legitimizing Sanders is a bridge too far. No. The right thing to do is get Bernie's name in the paper, re-energize Berners, and keep the establishment Ds, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton campaign in hell(right were they belong, btw) for at least another month. For all we know, this, + Nevada, could keep them in hell right through the convention and beyond. The best part is: the scapegoats are, once again, the media, who are now "too stingy to put up enough money for charity", out of an event that everybody knows would have had SB-like ratings, would have scored them many times the $10 million Trump required. Thus, Trump's story was always as plausible as it was planned. Trump gets what he wants, and on top of that, he's maniupulated the professional whiners in the media and on the left...into whining, AGAIN. Yet another cry of wolf. I'd say the question of whether this is checkers or chess depends on the IQ of the observer, first, and then their affectation and/or perspective. But that is trivialized when we consider the results. This is masterful politics. This is far beyond beating the Ds at their own Saul Alinsky game. This is something as different as it is better...because of the simplicity of its design. Meanwhile, the NYT is trying to tell us chaos is running amok in Trump's HQ? Is that what we see here? Chaos? Or do we see desgin? Once again, much depends on the IQ of the observer.

Oh yeah all this "crazy stuff"/you don't have time... Spare me. That bug that's up your ass about JFK...it's there because Trump put it there. Now, you have a choice: you can keep crying about it, which is what Trump wants, or, you can take it out, and move on. But you're going to choose the former, every time, aren't you? Yeah, and I am the one being conned? No. You. Are. Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies. 5 more times, because this helps with cross-brain cognition: Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies. Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies. Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies. Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies. Every time somebody says "Trump is not a conservative" a flying Hillary turd dies. How can Hillary paint Trump as a conservative, which means "hates children", when all you clowns keep screaming that he isn't? You are ruining ALL HER PLANS! Why did Trump intentionally pick a fight with Fox News, and especially a woman anchor(who has ties to Cruz btw), immediately out of the gate? Who is going to say that Fox News is the Trump Communications staff now? But, that charge can be leveled at MSNBC, especially when they literally hired a Hillary communcations staffer(but then got caught, so she only lasted 2 weeks). Hmmmm. Starting to get it now? Or, are you still short on bandwidth? You keep fighting the good fight....(for Trump).

The only jack ass here is you, because you know damn well you are basing your "poision" position on the "unfavorables" numbers, etc. You aren't fooling anyone, so put the F'ing shovel down. All you are doing is spreading FUD. You, and the rest like you, haven't been right about Trump 1 time this election season. Not once. Yet, now you claim to know exactly what he's going to do, what he thinks, what his values are, and therefore, how he's going to act, in all cases, and about all things? Yeah, and I'm the Jack Ass? You know nothing. Nothing at all, which is exactly how Trump wants it.

So predictable you can't find any fault with it. Which inference is wrong? Why? Show your work. I'd hardly call me swooning. I'm pissed. I'm pissed about the IRS. I'm pissed about Benghazi. I want the 4th branch of government destroyed, and then rebuilt properly. I'm pissed about the entire education system, but doubly pissed off at colleges, both with the safe space thing and collecting $100k/yr in tuition while reducing the academic rigor, handing out nothing less than a 3.5 to anyone who is willing to pay the $100k, and requiring coursework that has no value to me as an employer whatsoever. All, while giving themselves a 400% raise over the last 10 years, and, having the temerity and arrogance to talk about the sins 1% at the same time. I'm pissed that we are too PC to be effective...at anything. Like teaching reading: I'm pissed when I find out this past weekend that a kid that got drafted couldn't read when he got to college. Thus, it's time for some good old fashioned punishment. We need a person who only gets stronger, the more they scream. So far, that is exactly what Trump is. The more the guilty scream, the stronger he gets. I think you're going to find that this cuts across all demographics. In fact, this election is going to prove once and for all that demographics '= monolithic voting blocks.

There is nothing new about me complaining about the inaccuracy of polls, and the rampant misuses of scientific data modeling/analytics in general. Have you ever seen my posts about Global Warming? Have you seen me on the football board either explaining analytics(now that was a long post) in sports, or debunking nonsense "analysis"? That said, I try to use RELIABLE data as often as I can. If I don't, then I write posts so you can tell I'm just running my mouth, and not speaking from authority/fact. Then you missed the F'ing point. You invoked the TEA party. I reminded you that Cruz comes with the Lindsey Graham attachment. Graham has spoken out against the TEA party more than MSNBC. This has nothing to do with Cruz or Trump. This has to do with recognizing that the instant Graham did what he did...told us what this was all about. Forget this guy or that. Think about what's happening here. Why on God's green earth would Lindsey Graham come out for Ted Cruz, a TEA party candidate? Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? Was it because of your concerns that the "conservative ideal" needs protecting, from Donald Trump? By Lindsey Graham? Of course it wasn't. Spare me this BS. All these people are doing is spreading FUD about Trump because now their power/assess are on the line, and they are trying to line up as many stooges as they can to help them spread. Now do you see how ridiculous telling us that Donald Trump...threatens the TEA party/libertarianism sounds?