OCinBuffalo

Right logic, wrong conclusion. You forgot the other half of the equation. The wealthy do keep more, which they would promptly invest. Why wouldn't the rich ever want to become richer? Investment = capital = R&D, expansion, etc. = new jobs/more jobs/higher salaries. Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unfortunately, we are also in a service economy that hasn't been fully transitioned yet. This is why salaries for low income people haven't gone anywhere. There's simply not enough competition for employees, and of course illegals don't help either. Of course they aren't the only factor, corporate stupidity is another, but the fact that they keep making less than minimum wage drags down the salaries of every other low level worker. And with all these low salaries spending power continues to decline.

And you are flat out kidding yourself if you don't get that in DC "accomplishing something" in order to have a "record" means spending money on something. That's the way they think, both parties. I highly doubt that the current paradigm is going to change unless we go down there together and beat it into their heads. And, we'll have to keep doing it every 5 years or so to prevent slippage. They didn't taper anything. 3 things happened: 1. Reagan cut corporate taxes which were at 60-70% 2. In doing so, he increased the national debt, but he also got American business moving again 3. Clinton benefited from Reagan's tax cuts, and from Reagan winning the cold war = the "peace dividend", and proceeded to further that effort by creating worker education programs(through tax cuts, incentives, grants, etc.). That gave business 2 things = a new, technology-educated labor force and a whole lot of extra money for R&D = economic boom. With the increased profit business made came increased taxes they were paying, plus increased payroll taxes because they were expanding and hiring. All this extra tax revenue = balanced national budget. The problem is that the politicians acted like children = no self-discipline, and thought "hey, with all this extra money we can spend all we like", and that's what killed the balanced budget. It was a political play by the Republicans = keep taxes low, but outspend Democrats so you take all of their issues away = get elected. It was the exact opposite of the Clinton years, where both parties were trying to see who could out-cut, not out-spend, the other. Bull. Like I said, Reagan needed to take drastic measures to fix Carter's mess. The problem was that instead of letting things settle, Clinton and Bush decided to increase spending instead of leaving it where it was. So really, and sadly, it's not a question of who is going to cut spending and who isn't anymore. Rather, it's "who is going to act only kind of like a spoiled brat instead of fully like one?"

Sign me up too. Perhaps we should start it right here and now. I suppose it would better than bitching all the time. We can even let Molson join if he promises to do the reading first. Example of Molson not doing the reading: Dude, if you cut government spending, you can also cut taxes, which means more money available for consumers to spend, save, pay off bills, whatever! All of which eventually lead to more money to spend or invest. Also, the more the government spends, the higher prices go = inflation = less buying power for the consumer's $ = less spending. Why on God's green earth is this so hard to understand? It's a straightforward concept written at the 5th grade English reading level.

I believe the facts, as always: 1. Al Gore lost in Florida by vote, by court, and by public opinion for acting like a baby. The system we have set up, right or wrong, decided the issue. You can say it is terrible, and I will agree, but the rules were the rules and will remain so unless somebody changes them-->I really don't know if they did. 2. The Secretary of State of Florida acted in a completely irresponsible manner. This is due to not insisting that every disputed county do an immediate machine recount, as per the law. They didn't want to, and she should have instructed state troopers to force them to, also as per the law. And, she signed off on chucking 20,000 names off the ballot 6 months before the election based on incredibly shoddy work by a shoddy business intelligence/database outfit. 3. Michael Moore and the rest of the retard crew campaigned extensively for Nader in Florida, and 100,000 people or so voted for Nader. If only 5% of them had voted for Gore, he would have won easily. The final tallies, performed by reasonable people not far-left hacks, I have read about all conclude that Bush won by only 800-2000 votes. 4. All the hate the far-left likes to spew against George Bush re: that election doesn't take facts 1 or 3 into account, ever! If you don't or can't accept facts 1-4 then you simply aren't a serious person and nobody should bother with you. I might as well be talking to a clown.

That's right keep convincing me that all the far left does it attack the messenger instead of the message, never mind even bothering to understand the message. Did you even try here? Somehow I doubt it. Another example of why the far-left should never be allowed to be in charge of anything, ever. Weak-minded, silly and lazy is no way to go through life, pal.

Don't forget the built-in excuse if Obama loses! And the bonus: the ability to stir up the rest of the mindless proles, who have bought into letting others do the reading/thinking for them because they were told to by their "leaders", against anything and everything McCain might do, even if it is a good idea.

Are you telling me you are incapable of reading posts 3 spots above your own? That middle "wheel" thingy on your mouse? Move it away from you a little...see how the screen scrolls up? There. Read. Done. Oh, and here's your "urban legend" defined beyond all doubt. I am sure a Princeton/Temple Math professor is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to misinform the masses and/or demonstrate your ignorance. The end of your silly argument. Once again, stupidity is a choice. Face the facts or face the ridicule, your choice.

OK, looks like we have another student. Do yourself a favor and do Lurker's homework for him. I doubt he can do it by himself, and denial of truth/history is the first step on the path towards totalitarianism, or fascism, or communism, take your pick. Step 2 is enforcing ignorance of everything that isn't "ideologically correct"(um, politically correct anyone?) But I'm sure that none of that makes you uncomfortable in the slightest does it there, prole? It's right out of the playbook. Extra credit for you if you can tell me who wrote the playbook.

Sure, but the thing is: I don't need my daddy to whip you or your daddy or both at the same time.

You don't get a response from me on this until you do your Richard Daley homework. Once you do, you will be able to respond to this for yourself as to why it happened, how it happened, and the ramifications of it both locally and nationally, and that will be much better than making excuses/blaming others for calling you out on not knowing something.

So you're choosing not to read up on the history of Democratic machine politics that have plagued major cities, especially on the East Coast, subverted the electoral process and spread corruption over the last 150 years? Well, perhaps you need a kick start. And, since apparently you've have chosen me to provide your education, instead taking responsibility for it yourself, apparently I'm the teacher you're the student, I know how to kick start people, so let class begin: For your first assignment, let's start with the easy stuff and at the beginning, and with something immediately interesting/relevant to today in terms of: the partisan attacks we see today are nothing compared to the old days First Assignment: Look up Thomas Nast. 1. Tell me: besides being a "staunch Democrat" and supporter of the CSA, what other major political issue did Nast concern himself with? 2. Who was Nast's main focus in his work? To which party did he belong? Where did the subject of Nast's work live? Second Assignment: Look up Anton Cermak 1. Tell me: besides being a "staunch Democrat" and supporter of the mob, what was Cermak's major achievement? 2. How did he accomplish this achievement? Third Assignment: Look up Richard Daley 1. Tell me: besides being a "staunch Democrat" and another supporter of the mob, why is Daley so often connected with JFK? 2. Daley was connected with two major events in JFK's life. What were they and how did they affect the rest of the country? 3. What was the single greatest self-inflicted blow that almost caused Daley to lose power/get whacked? See, the thing is, I just wrote this out, with no looking things up, wiki, etc. I doubt you can say the same. And yeah, if you don't have the sack to back up your mouth and actually do these assignments then, yeah, you are choosing stupidity. You can B word at me all you like, but your ignorance will remain, until you choose to do something about it.

Ha! Buddy it's hardly my job to educate you. That's your job. Although given the state of education principles today, I can see where you might be confused. Ignorance is not your fault. However, stupidity is a choice. I have made you aware of your ignorance, now let's see what you choose to do about it. Hint: there's 2 choices here, and one of them = stupidity.

Lady, there is enough blame to go around here. Stop running your mouth about who should be ridden out on rails, because the first person on that list is Barney Frank. But, then again, he might like riding that rail too much. Others who need to be riding rails: Jimmy Carter, The Democratic Congress from 1960-1994, Bill Clinton, anybody who has ever supported CRA beyond it's original intention. It's not that I don't trust the government. There are plenty of good people there, I know, I have worked with them. It's just that I don't trust YOU, or people like you, to run the government effectively(notice I didn't say efficiently). When are you gonna learn blzurl? It's not that we don't like your social consciousness or God forbid, agree with it! It's that we simply can never trust you to keep things reasonable. I know, I know, words like reason and reasonable are not part of your understanding or your existence. You simply replace them with the words "emoting" and "politically correct". But, reason is how we run our lives, all the time, and that's why you have so much "trouble" with us "stupid" independents. If only you far-left retards could prove that you wouldn't take every existing/new social program, bloat it and bastardize it to FUBAR levels and/or try and turn it into an obvious vote-getting/bribery, corruption of itself and it's initial high minded principles, we might be inclined to believe you, and in you. Bill Clinton was not a leftist(after the first 2 years)-->welfare reform?, which is why he was successful, and also why he was so popular. Get the hint? But, leftists like yourself have never, ever, not once, shown the ability to be reasonable, the self-discipline to think in terms of what's best for the entire country, or the ability to prove that you can implement a policy/program whose intention is to solve a problem permanently, not simply treat a symptom. In this you are exactly like the Pharma companies you supposedly hate. You only wanna treat the symptoms because that = $$$, and never want to provide the cure. This way you keep people dependent on you, exactly like HIV patients. I have never heard a leftist say that a policy they support will solve the problem it's intended to fix in five years, and then will be terminated because it has fulfilled it's purpose. Why is that? How in the hell can you claim to be a "progressive" without demanding that every single thing the government does either: 1. shows consistent, measurable "progress" against the problem it was created to fix or guard against 2. or is gotten rid of in favor of more noble ideas that are more deserving of spending ?????? Explain. Try giving your reason a chance....We can't keep making stuff up, or printing new money to spend, as we go along. We have to get serious about cutting spending. Of course! And why? Because, like every election since 1994, the Democrats, like 6-year-olds, have not taken any responsibility when they lose. It's always somebody else's fault. If Obama loses, why would this year be any different? Especially this year, if Obama loses, it will be worse than ever. I bet you guys will probably start trying to find a way to blame me, because you can't blame Bush anymore. Apparently you have never been to Chicago. Nothing. And if you only knew how bad Diebold was at writing software....well now you do... Another guy that apparently has never been to Chicago. Hint: Ever hear of "vote early and vote often" Ever heard of how JFK beat Nixon? Jesus, this is common knowledge people.....perhaps it's time for drastic measures = fire 1 of every 10 Regents history teachers in NYS. I am sick to death of the rampant ignorance of history out there. Don't wanna use Chicago? OK. Every single senior staffer, and many of the junior ones, of Philly's past mayor has either served time, is still serving, is in court, or is indicted, and all of them are guilty of some form of corruption. But, they are also guilty of multiple counts of voter fraud. But yeah, I am sure all of these people suddenly forgot how to stuff ballot boxes when the Presidential election came around. It is amazing. And the reason is: there are two companies that dominate ATMs and Voting machines, Diebold is one of them I forget the other, both have lobbyists/government connections, and unfortunately both write the worst software I have ever seen in my life(and I have worked for the Feds, the Navy, Utilities, Health Insurance companies and providers, so that is saying a hell of a lot ). Back when I worked for others, I was assigned to try and get the stuff we had to work with these systems. The intent was to serve ads on ATMs and voting machines. I killed the initiative immediately once I got into their architecture/code and saw just how bad things really were = we would have spent 2 years just getting their stuff up to standard, never mind integrating our stuff, never mind marketing, sales, etc.

What's a matter you? Somebody tell you they can roll 3.5 on a die again? At least he didn't pull a Molson_Retard and call it a halfback option or...well that's not Molson enough...at least he didn't call it a roll-out to the TE, and then circular reason his way to blaming Bush for why the Dolphins forgot to cover the middle of the field. I would think that would rate a ", dumbass." from you, not merely a sneak instead of a draw. Heh! Look! Tom's getting bashed by rookies and the practice squad. (In other news, a low howl steadily progressing into an otherworldly scream was heard on 495 during rush hour today...) Teehee! Lighten up Francis!

If only the Jets had found a way to lose to the Bungles. Not that Favre didn't try: 2 picks and a 74 passer rating. The other good thing? Pennington didn't get hurt. If only he can stay healthy until we play the Dolfags. I love it when all the pundits talk him up before we play against him, only to have him show his practice hero, game loser, true colors, and then end up staring off into space on the sideline in the 4th quarter. Nobody has Pennington's # like Aaron Schobel.

3 key stats: They are 21st against the run. This is a team whose supposed strength is the 3-4, run stopping defense, with a supposedly "awesome" defensive line-->who aren't "old", even though the LBs are. Opposing QBs are averaging a 96.2 rating against them, which tells me they are 25th in the league against the pass. All this while playing a schedule whose teams combine for a whopping 11-16 record. These teams have QBs like Thigpen(or whoever the Cheifs are playing this week), the SF kid?, Pennington, and Farve(Mr. 74 rating against the Bungles this week)? Rivers smoking them hardly makes up for playing so poorly against the rest of these has beens and wanna bes. Which team have they played that has a top 15 WR? SD, and he only got there because of playing them. In fact so far they have only faced 3 guys that are in the top 30. Cotchery and Coles are in the high 20's. So, they've played crappy passing games, and they are ranked 25th against them. Perhaps "mediocre" is being a little too kind?

Link here

I think we should go after this guy. He's got speed, agility and can deal with a double team.

Dude, I am not going to complete this circle of stupidity and go out and buy 1950's technology-->what if they settle this "dispute" on Saturday? This whole things smells to high heaven, btw = like two monopolies, Bills games vs. Cable company, fighting it out to see who gets to rip us off first? How much do you wanna bet that the "solution" means everybody's bill goes up, and Time Warner cries crocodile tears while telling us it's not their fault that they have to charge us more. I don't pay anything now. Cable is free in my building(we used to get HBO free as well). I can't switch to DTV because they won't let me, though it's not like I couldn't find a way to do it anyway. I sure as hell ain't moving to the dopey suburbs, ever, and I'm not sure I want to buy a house just yet with all the chaos going on, never mind the large potential for taxes going up with the state spending cuts. (Btw, when is Upstate ever going to learn and stop voting for people who raise taxes and overspend? High taxes is our #1 problem in every county there is, it drives business away. Yet the fools here keep electing these idiots. Yeah, maybe more manufacturing companies will move in , their sure to do it with top 3 in the country taxes. Like I said: Fools. ) So, unfortunately, none of your solutions apply, and yes, I will be seeking a DTV bar this Sunday, in Buffalo, of all places.

Yay! and we get HBO Family and CBS college sports channel in return. At least give us regular HBO, or Encore or something. And, THIS SUCKS! I move all the way to Buffalo so I can watch the games without a hassle...and they take the channel away? WTF? Now it's back to the same thing it's been since I got out of college = find a damn Direct TV bar. Irony seems to follow me wherever I go....

I will say that this team clearly has something, not sure what to call it, so I will call it "inner core" that is different, and, I think better already than the 90's teams. It's difficult to explain, but I will try. What I mean is: the 90's teams would beat the Dolphins at home by two touchdowns, and then come home and lose to the 2-14 or 3-13 Jets/Pats*. It's like they didn't care, and they figured it wasn't worth playing them, because they knew they were going to the playoffs anyway. I don't see this new team taking anyone for granted, or being allowed to by this coaching staff. The key is Jauron already getting beat, at home, with a 13-3 team in the playoffs. DJ appears to be a guy that only has to learn things once, so I don't anticipate a repeat performance-->why do you think he's got his own QB playing this time around, instead of the GM's QB? And, the 90's team had already been to the playoffs in 1988 and 1989. They knew they were good, and what's more, Kelly had thrown BIG INTs to keep them from advancing to in both those years. Also, the Defense didn't show up in 88 or 89 in the playoffs. Hmmm. Two recurring themes...Defense not showing up or coming up anything other than mediocre, and Kelly throwing game ending/changing picks in the playoffs. Isn't this exactly what happened in the SBs? Hey you can B word at me all you want, but you can't objectively deny either of these things. The difference: I don't see INTs/fumbles phasing this team anywhere near as badly as the did(some of the time) with the 90's teams. This team doesn't play 100% on emotion, thanks to their coach, so they aren't as vulnerable to the swings(bad ref calls, mistakes = focusing on 5 minutes ago instead of focusing on NOW). Moreover, this defense isn't going anywhere, for the same reason. Overall, given where we were in 1988, compared to where we are now, I'd say this team is slightly better, more focused, and more talented across the board. This teams gives up a whole lot of talent in a few positions(DE, QB-->so far), but it more than makes up for it at many, many others. And that's the point. The Bills of the 90's relied on 5-7 players on each side of the ball to get them through. These Bills rely on all 11. I think that's a huge advantage for them going forward, because nobody will get a chance to "coast" and let the other guys carry them.

Too early to make that final of a judgment I think. Let's give this O a little time to develop, say, 8 GAMES?, and see where we are then. Hopefully the other guys on the team have responded to the point that they cannot double cover, or play 2 deep zone on Lee's side. Also, hopefully Shonert continues to move him around. Hopefully the running game improves and loosens up the pass more. Finally, hopefully Trent Edwards starts playing better than he has(not that it's terrible, he, in his own words, is not playing as well as he can yet), or, hopefully Shonert stops calling such a conservative game/the guys execute better on O. If any one or more of these "hopefully"'s comes to pass, you will start to see much better production out of the O as a whole, but, you will see a spike in Lee Evans' #s as well.

Great! Now it's: 1. Greer 2. Jackson 10. Peters...unless he gets his act together, he's lucky to be this high on the list.

Time to pay the piper: And deprive me of all this fun? No friggin' way! Yep. But, the point is that this coaching staff is better at making adjustments between periods. Ha Ha! Eat schit, you should be sorry for posting this in the 2nd quarter. Same as above. Sames as above. Deserve? WTF? Ah, something intelligent, spoken in real time. Everybody where I was was saying the same thing. Fear our Adjustments! Finally, somebody cool and reasonable. You called it. Greer pick 6 right after this. HA! You are 1 of around 23 people in this thread who actually admitted that the emperor was running around in a thong. Still waiting on the rest of the nancy drew's to show up. What else is there to say? How many more times are we going to go through this? Who cares? 4-0 means what it says. It means we can play .500 football the rest of the way due to (insert reason here) and still make the playoffs. It means that this is a good football team, regardless of any lame-ass fantasy football "analysis" some of the feather merchants are peddling around here. Most importantly, pull your heads out people! Being down by a TD at halftime means exactly dick. I know this feeling might be new for some of the younger people, or worse, the bandwagoners, but we are a good team, and good teams have little to fear from being down by a TD at halftime. Btw, this is only going to get worse, so pull it together. If you honestly think we won't be down by 2 scores to at least one division opponent in the 3rd/4th quarter this year.....well, if you don't remember this, you are going to have to learn it the hard way I guess. There was a time when we didn't care about losing an entire game, not just a quarter or two, and that's exactly where we are headed once again. So learn, dammit, and cut the crap already. Marshawn Lynch rushing for 57 yards is hardly the end of the world. As if teams don't start their entire defensive game plan with "we have to stop Lynch". Learn from this, and remember that we haven't even come close to a reason to be seriously upset yet, not by a long shot. Some of you sound like friggin Pats* fans, and there is absolutely no excuse for that behavior.

Bumpsiedoo. Then again, say one thing? You've posted "4-0" in every thread. All I have to say is: Hell, Yeah! This is so great, all the negative nancies have to eat sh--, every week, all the time. Teee F'ing Heee. And I haven't even read the game thread yet. I'm sure that will be fun...