OCinBuffalo

Just sayin' I think I will go with what their own fans say, unless you have a watched a whole lot of scout film. Better plan.

Dude, their own fans will tell you that they don't pass rush well on the road. They say they couldn't even get after the QB against an injury riddled Cards O line. And they say that they are concerned about Dockery vs. their DTs. If the Seattle fans have these concerns about their own team, somehow I don't think their pass rush is as good as you say.

Holmgren runs a west coast offense, but he also likes to throw to the TEs down the field and heavy on the RB screens. See Mark Chmura or Ricky Waters. Clearly, with a lack of talent/experience at WR, Seattle has to go to their TEs/RBs. They don't have the pro-bowl guys they used to, but it seems they are fairly high on the guys they have now. Whitner and the LBs have to take this away and force Hasslebeck to throw to their WRs. If we get this done, we should get at least one INT a half. Greer and McGee have proven they are physical and can win the ball. Youboty has looked good, and while we still need to see...I like the idea of them trying to throw at our defensive backs down the field. Oh, and if they can't get the TE open, it means Whitner/Ko gets to Oucho Downzo their WRs all over the field as well. Plus their O line lacks continuity. It's not like they are missing one guy. Therefore, it's quite possible that they try and rely on the TE/RB safety valves to make up for bad line play. If we take these away it should mean that we get more sacks and/or hurries. We may very well win the game on this alone, if we can do it consistently.

I got up today and I am ready to go. The BS ends now. We are coming for the Shehawks and they don't even know it. They will not know what hit them, and they will have to ask John Clayton "what de hell was dat?" Link just in case... Even their fans admit that they don't start well, play poorly on the road, and can't get a good pass rush on the road. Apparently, they have no idea what's waiting for them at the Ralph. This isn't "the road" they are used to in Arizona, St. Louis, or SF<--weakest fans in the league, or someplace supposedly "tough"(laughable) to play at like Dallas or Chicago. This is the Ralph, containing the largest, loudest, and most hungry # of fans they are likely to see all season. If the Bills make even a semi-big play in the 1st quarter, it will be deafening at the Ralph. Most of us remember what it's like when it really gets going for a whole game. For those of you who don't: there's nothing like it. You can barely hear the person next to you, and your ears ring for a good hour after the game. None of the BS we have endured matters anymore. No more analysis or excuses. This is the where it ends, right here, right now.

I dunno, manipulating the foreign press certainly is in the CIA's bag of tricks. The AIVD? may be in cahoots with this, it wouldn't be the first time. Not sure what the objective would be, but then again, if it is them, we aren't supposed to. One thing I can think of is making the Iranians question the loyalty of the people around their WMD programs(and let's cut the BS, they are trying to develop nuclear weapons). The premise being: if the Dutch have this info, how did they get it? This may create delays in the production schedule while they look for spies, or whatever it is they do. The best thing is if they get the Iranians to go after the wrong people = creates all kinds of havoc. Then again, it could just be as it appears. Who knows? The Dutch are quite capable of running an operation like this. They have had a sound intelligence service and military since WWII. Their SF units are well known and feared/respected with good reason. They work with the British all the time, to the point where it's really kind of hard to tell the difference between the two.

I agree with the bold, isn't that what I said? It sucks having to watch the same news 3 times just so you can figure out what actually happened, but it beats the alternative. O'Reilly has his watchdogs, just as he is the watchdog of others. They rarely find anything that sticks to him, while he finds stuff that sticks to them every week. Now, why is that? Simple, the truth is the truth, and no amount of MSNBC trying to manufacture a phony war against O'Reilly in an effort to increase their crappy ratings is going to change that. I will grant you that there's a lot of crap going on here. But, I will tell you that O'Reilly is far and away held to a higher standard than Moore, and therefore he has to operate at that standard, therefore there's no way they are the same.

I don't think I can cut and paste or quote all these long posts without making a 3 page post or crashing the sever. There is some good info here I wasn't aware of however. If the O'Reilly death threat thing is accurate, then that pisses me off. Here's the problem though: I do believe O'Reilly gets death threats, because, let's face it how could he not? I have no idea where they come from, and probably neither does he. Him saying that he knows for certain that they come from Al Queda, and not some 14 year old, is retarded. I have seen O'Reilly make a much bigger deal out of things than they really are. I attribute this mostly to getting ratings. He knows how the TV game is played and he does quite well with it. While easy targets, wailing away on child molesters has gotten some good legislation passed that keeps them away from kids. The fact is that they are most likely, of all criminals, to repeat their offense. You can say that they can't help it and that it's a mental health issue, but I will say so so f'ing what? There's a time for compassion and there's a time for "F you". O'Reilly understands that common sense rationale, and pounds on anybody who doesn't. Almost every state has Jessica's law now, in no small part due to fear of O'Reilly's audience. What important work has Moore done? And, even if you agree with his nonsense, what, if any, has he accomplished towards those ends? Are guns still legal? Did Bush get impeached? Did anything bad happen to Corporate America? Do we have free health insurance? He has accomplished nothing except take your, not my, money. I did get one of his books for a birthday present from my hippie cousin though, I read it, it was ludicrous, and I started checking out every "source" he listed = pure BS or massive distortion. After the first 100, and since he was batting .050, I decided to stop wasting time. They are both into self-aggrandizement, but Moore doesn't get anything positive accomplished, EVER! If you are a committed Democrat, you must realize that he cost Gore the election. Is that positive? Is that going to get your issues passed, or even spoken about? On the other hand, and while he can can be as crazy as a schit-house rat, O'Reilly has exposed some important, non-easy target things, especially hypocrisy, on both sides of the aisle. The list is way to long to have here. And, he has exposed where the far-left gets its real support. They aren't "mainstream", as in, millions of people send in money, etc.(If they were, they wouldn't have to try to convince people that they were, we'd already know ) They are: supported by one billionaire, George Soros, who is attempting to force his own little will on the rest of us, paying people to help him, and acting like a lot of people agree with him. MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Micheal Moore, etc. aren't legions of community conscious volunteers who have a similar political will to see this country bettered. Instead, they are a few Soros-paid automatons that are mainly in this for the paycheck. Edit: or they are Stalinists/Fascists who are under the impression that if they help bring about a "one-world-government" there will be something in it for them = power. Either way, this whole thing stinks to high heaven, I am a lot smarter and wiser than these people, and therefore I don't need them making decisions for me in any facet of my life. The fundamental difference between O'Reilly and Moore, and I don't get how you guys don't see it, is: O'Reilly has to have a larger scope. He has to. Moore makes his money on telling people in his crowd what they want to hear, largely because he is paid to by Soros. O'Reilly makes his money on getting after everybody, not just Democrats. He picks on the far-left, as he should IMO, because they are such easy targets, but he also hits the far-right-->especially religious fanatics. He has to do an hour every night, where Moore only has to do a 2 hour movie, once every two years. By definition, O'Reilly has to expand his scope and target more people than just the left, or he will run out of new things to talk about = lose ratings. There is also another reason why there's no way he can be as bad as Moore: balance. Watch O'Reilly's show, you will see the entire leadership of the Democratic party, consistently. When has Moore ever given a Republican, Libertarian, or even a Moderate in either party a voice in any of his work? Never.

Not for nothing but I'm a bundle of nerves, I am tying to ignore it so that I can get my work done. Logically we should smoke the Seahawks: 1. They won 2 more games than we did last year and they play in the NFC...West! and the NFC South. They did have to play the AFC North, which they went 2-2 against, same as us. 2. They have no WRs that we should be afraid of, and they have an unproven running game, and a patchwork O line who largely hasn't played together much. Our D line, and therefore our LBs, should have a field day. I think Hasslebeck should be genuinely worried about his health(when is the last time we said that?)especially when Poz, Mitchell, Crowell and Whitner start blitzing<--now that I think about it, that's friggin nasty, and unfair. Meanwhile our D has looked quite good against much better teams than the Seahawks. Julius Jones doesn't scare me. If he was so great why isn't he still on the Cowboys? 3. I honestly don't think they have anyone on their D that is somebody we have to game plan for, and they are missing their starting DT and nickel back. Not that it mattered, because I don't see that DT or any of their line getting a good pass rush anyway, nobody else has(well, one time that wasn't a mental mistake). I don't see any nickle back in the league being able to cover Roscoe. In fact, when we go 3 or 4 WRs, or move Lynch out wide, I really don't see how they can stop us. Their ML is pretty good, but not as good as Lynch, and he won't be able to stop him all by himself. Therefore, I see instant mismatches all over the field. Oh, and who's going to cover Evans and Hardy? Nobody has been able to so far. How about their SS against Royal? That's not looking good for them either, especially when you consider all the other skill players we have = too many assignments and no chance to double team anyone. They will be sorry if they try. 4. Special teams. Is this even a question? In the pre-season, ST is the one phase of the game where the "starters" play almost the whole game. There's have been terrible and ours have been mostly elite, now on the way to approaching all-time status, especially with the addition of McKelvin. George Wilson has turned himself into a better version of Sam Aiken, if he's 100% DiGi will be on fire, and Moorman and Lindell are the best kickers in the league. Punting: The only thing Seattle can hope for is to get enough first downs to kick touchbacks/coffin corners. Same thing on kick-offs(which I don't think they will get very many). On the flip side, we will crush them in coverage, and their return men aren't that great either. If you go position by position, the only advantages I see for them are QB(barely), and coaching staff(Holmgren has been good, but I also think he's "retiring" because he knows they aren't that great anymore and it's time to move on) But, all of that is what I think. It isn't how I feel, yet. We found a way to lose, especially Dallas and Denver, so many times last year it's not funny. Perhaps as the game draws closer I will feel more confident, but I don't want to build myself up for a loss, again. The Patriots game last year was the first game I attended in my life that we lost. So much for my luck. I wonder how many people feel this way? I(we) need to shake it off though, because we need to be loud on Sunday and let this team know we are behind them. This young team needs to know that we have confidence in them. Anybody sitting in the club seats need to get those people to cheer, and stop talking about work when we are on D. The last time I sat there you would think that we were at a PGA event, instead of a Bills game. I can't wait for this game, because I can't wait to shake off this terrible lack of confidence I have had for the last 5 years.

Section 139 Row 17 I might try to make it to the tailgate, depends on a few things.

I think it makes sense, and not because Greer is bad. Rather, Youboty is starting to show why he was considered a late 2nd/early 3rd round pick. He just has more talent than Greer. I think he has already shown he is more physical. However, that may also keep him at nickel. This is why I set it until after the bye week, because I think the coaches will come to the decision that Youboty has to be on the field all the time, not just in packages.

It is funny, to certain degree. The "draft O line/D line even if they are the 10th best guy at their position" crowd isn't happy. Also, I'm setting the over/under on Youboty starting at CB(taking over for Greer) at 5.5 games, right after the bye week. His talent is really starting to show, and pure talent always overcomes, eventually. It's been a strange trip: it started with letting Nate Clements go, and it has been rocky all the way here, and we certainly aren't out of the woods yet, but Youboty being Clements replacement is starting to look more and more viable each passing day.

At the time? VT was nowhere near the program it is today. I distinctly remember hearing/reading that back in the day. And, I didn't really get that right: I meant he was controversial because we were "supposed" to draft a QB. If Ralph had his way, we would have drafted Flutie, , instead of Smith. What about DiGiorgio, Fred Jackson, etc.? I'm not just talking about the draft. We didn't get Tasker from the draft, and not only was he at the bottom, he got cut. I'm talking about using every avenue to get players, and not just starters, but guys who can contribute and can even help win a game. Marv/Polian/Butler used every opportunity to get players on their team, from FA = Lofton, draft, whatever it takes. I also distinctly remember Mr. Kiper, and the rest, saying that the Bills "gave up way to much" to get Bennett.

Found it.<-- This is what I mean, and it's a hell of lot more accurate than the traditional way of looking at team defense stats, because it takes much more into account. We are ranked 18th overall not 31st, by Football Outsiders, and they have clearly proven their ability. The only reason more "experts" don't use this superior system for ranking teams? I doubt they could understand it. Seriously, I look at it and think: how in the heck is KC Joyner/Dan Marino/(insert your favorite dumbass, but NFL "expert" here) even going to understand this? Never mind use it correctly. I also thought this was interesting, but I have no intention of starting another "draft D line, because you are smart" or whatever that was, debate. Based on this, our D line was ranked 2nd in terms of stopping short yardage runs-->cool. But we also ranked 25th in terms of giving up long runs-->not cool. And, we also stink up the joint on defeating pass protection(sacks)-->not very cool at all, and this is the only thing we were ranked 31st at. The other thing? We were worst in the league on runs to the "left side" of our defense. But, we were 1st in the league on runs to the "right end". Interesting indeed. Edit: Looks I had this backwards. Apparently runs to Kelsay's side were pretty bad. He had better pick up his run assignments better this year. Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot, the difference between us and Pittsburgh(the statistically best d in the league last year)? Running backs carried the ball 87 more times against our defense. This is what I am talking about. That's basically like playing 2-3 extra games on defense more than Pittsburgh, and you can't blame all of that on "not getting off the field". I'd say 50% of it at least was: "offense putting our D back on the field".

This is what makes me think our D last year, and now, is better than the #s suggest. Let's face it, with the way the O played last year...(IMO this is starting to look more and more like Fairchild's fault-->Hamdan? driving the ball down the field all game with second teamers and a LT who has barely been in pads for 2 years?)...the D was on the field way more often than they should have been, thus giving opponents more time to rack up stats against them. But, when you look at the amount of points allowed, they move up significantly, and this is the most important team D stat anyway. I'll look for some sort of yards/# of times defense on the field stat....

True, which kinda reinforces my point, right? We have always been successful when we take the best players we can find, regardless of pedigree. This started with Bill Polian taking Bruce Smith and Andre Reed. Don't forget, the majority of experts said we were nuts for taking Smith, and they had no idea who Reed was. We picked up Tasker off of the waiver wire and we traded a lot for Bennett. These weren't the most popular moves, in fact they were ridiculed, but oh how the "mighty" fell once they hit the field. I see similar thinking being reintroduced the last 3 years, and it's working, again. The biggest thing you get when you take a player from a not-so-big school? Great attitude and lots of hustle right off the bat. Steve Johnson is setting himself up to be a steal, so is Fine, Corner, Bell, Ellis...the list goes on.

What a great story. I look at this way: how many players do we have that aren't from big time schools? Omon, Bell, Corto, etc. and Corner. There was link to Peter King somewhere here that said "if you are a great division 1-AA or 2 player, there are 4 teams to go to" the Bills being one of them. And, I look at DJ, who short of Marv Levy is probably the fairest and most "confident in his decisions" coach we've ever had. For all the reasons above, I say: absolutely. If Corner earns the right play over McKelvin, you will see him on the field.

First of all, none of this matters when we are talking about beating cancer. Congrats on beating this indiscriminate killer, and please, if you can, find a way to inspire others to do the same. I have been in plenty of oncology wards/treatment centers, and all work aside, I have nothing but the highest respect for those of you who end up winning and the people that treat you, especially when they know its a losing battle. This is all very hard, and people need to know how to do what you did, regardless of how uncomfortable the whole thing is for everyone involved. Now, on to business: the good news is you are around to have me abuse you intellectually....what a reason to live! Aren't you glad you survived, only to be tormented by me? Let's be clear: It wasn't "out of context", and I have gone nowhere but there. I will remain, where I have been, so there's no "going from to going" whatever. You don't get 2-3 sentences fully quoted and claim a context problem. He said what he said, and then tried to make up for it later. The only problem with what I am saying will come from the reporter misquoting him, if they did. Since I highly doubt that, then every Moore supporter has to stop blaming me, and start blaming Mr. "I'm still pissed because a CNN doc, of all people, went on national TV and told people that my 'Sicko' movie was complete crap".<--which is why nobody went = no money for Moore = blame everybody else = no shocker there. Moore gets to make up nonsense when it comes to the military, FBI, CIA, because he won't be challenged, because of their policy not to respond to civilians, and especially not to wingnuts. How do I know? I was in the training that told us precisely that. Let the idiots be idiots = we are defending their right to be retarded, but, if one of them happens to touch you, beat the piss out of him because it ain't you that needs defending, it's your rank and your uniform. However, health care people have no such instructions. And, when he decided to attack them, they fought back and got medieval on his sorry ass. Boo f'ing Hoo. Poor Moore was actually confronted this time and was found sorely lacking in every regard. If you want to start a thread about all the things that Republicans do wrong, go right ahead. This thread isn't about that, and you of all people should know that you don't get to trade one bad thing for another. Good is good, bad is bad, and there ain't no pretending like both don't exist. Bad behavior = bad behavior. And I don't care for rationalization that attempts to justify one set of bad behavior based on, or implied, by another.

You know it's always funny to prove Pavlov right amongst human subjects, without having to pay for the research. O'Reilly is the best possible counter to Moore, Rosie, Franken, basically every idiot who puts ideology above truth. Why? Because O'Reilly hits them all with undeniable truth. This is without question, because he fails if it isn't. So, instead of being intellectually honest and conceding the points where he is undeniably right, or better, pointing out the truth that he intentionally? leaves out, they act the same as you are here. As Pavlov's dog: and instantly yell out profanity and/or nonsense and/or "I know you are but what am I?" crap, that makes them look silly, because they still haven't dealt with O'Reilly's simple-ass truth trap. I use O'Reilly every time Moore comes up not only because he is so good at antagonizing the truth out of people, and not only because he uses emotion to blow by people's prepared PR BS, an not only because he is able to piss people like you off such that you subjugate yourselves far and away to the altar of far-left hypocrisy. I use it because it works, it's as simple as that. O'Reilly is the ultimate BS litmus test. He is exactly the same in that regard as Howard Stern, just from opposite sides. Isn't it interesting that they grew up in the same town, are almost the same age, and went to the same university? If you don't see both of them in that same light, well, you need to do some more traveling or you simply aren't paying very good attention to either. The fact is that both of them use the exact same cultural assessments about good vs. suck. I.E you will hear them call the same things "dopey" if you pay attention to both long enough and at the same time. The simple fact is: if one vows to listen/watch Stern and O'Reilly for 6 months regularly, one will almost certainly be a fan of both, or a hater of both, at the end of it. So, which jersey do I wear? Well, if you haven't noticed, I use the word "dopey" a lot. Especially when replying to posts like yours. I will leave it to you to figure out if I'm an O'Reilly AND Stern fan, at the same time.

I highly doubt my horse is anywhere near as high as yours is, especially reading this thread. You are riding a Clydesdale and I'm riding a damn donkey here buddy. The difference is: my donkey works 7 days a week and sees the world as it is, because that's how he gets paid. Your Clydesdale lives in the pampered barn all the time and only comes out when its time to do a commercial. The point is: you either choose not to, or aren't capable of, watching all the different analysis shows, on every channel, and separating them objectively into what's what. So, by definition, apparently you can't discern between a simple factual account of reality, and a perceived and assumed statement of partisan loyalty. Look, Moore said what he said, then and now, and I am merely saying that of all the D-bags we have to deal with he is at 80, and O'Reilly is somewhere around 5. I dare you to go to factcheck.org and prove that O'Reilly is anywhere near Moore's league in terms of flat out BS. Or, are you one more practitioner of this nonsense relativity that says because one person is on one side of the screen, they = the retard that's on the other? Fair and balanced indeed. The fact that I watch O'Reilly, Hannity, and whatever else doesn't define my thinking....only tools like you think it does. Buddy, I am trained to gather info from every source I can get my hands on, figure out the BS, use the good stuff, and frankly that's what gets me paid, one way or the other. It's not my job to say who is sane or not, that's for the client to say. It is my job to determine which data is accurate, turn it into information, and then create actionable intelligence. It just so happens that I do it for myself now instead of somebody else. Tens of millions in billable hours later?...Well, I guess the people who have paid me or the companies I work for agree with my assessment and my ability to be objective. Or, there are 50 Fortune 500 companies which I've worked for that are all part of a massive conspiracy. Which one do you think is more accurate?

Um, apparently you aren't familiar with the concept of exaggeration. Or, is it that you basically have no ability to defend Moore, or his retarded principals, and you want to try and make this about me instead of the topic at hand?(how annoyingly predictable) Spare me the passive-aggressive BS. Nobody bothers to write a post like yours at 10:30pm on a Sunday unless they are bothered to begin with. If YOU didn't care so much, why are YOU bothering to respond? Nothing better to do? Whatever. If you are going to bring it, bring it, and stop acting like an 8th grade girl. A little strange? Buddy, we are living in a country where 20-30% of people actually BELIEVE what this retard has to say. Sorry if you don't see that as a fundamental educational and cultural nightmare. The absence of knowledge, reason, and real accountability is how every major important culture/nation has failed in the past. Please excuse my worry that unless people dismiss this new incarnation of PT Barnum immediately, and on principle, we might have a whole hell of a lot to consider far beyond who we are taking to the prom. Bottom Line: PT Barnum was never taken seriously. This thread proves that our modern-day suckers not only take their owner seriously, they are perfectly capable and willing to defend his BS to the last. Perhaps it's time for some lesser intellects here to watch "Downfall" and see the full measure of how propagandists act when all the chips are down = less than men. And yeah, that is something we should be worried about, because sooner or later, one of these tards might actually end up being in charge of something important, F it up, and blame everybody else, just like Moore does. Why in the heck should we encourage this terrible behavior, especially amongst kids who don't know any better?

Hahahahaa! It's so fun to catch the tards. I did. I read the whole thing. And, I was sure that someone was going to come along and fall into this, I didn't expect it to be you. Buddy, the fact is the man said what he said. You can yell at me all you want, but the words are clear as a bell. You and Moore can try and obfuscate all you want. But the truth is: his words and meaning will still be clear as a bell. As evidenced by YOUR OWN POST , it wasn't until after he realized he might create an image problem for himself by displaying just how much of tool he is, that he decided to temper his remarks. This is an object lesson in what a pure, hateful, far-left tool is and does. And then: how they try to get out of it. Are you sure you really want to get into a "defend Michael Moore" debate with me? Think first, I'm just sayin'. It's not a good plan. Do yourself a favor and stay away from that, unless you want to spend the next 50 pages of this thread trying to defend every hateful, stupid, and ridiculous lie or massive distortion that has ever come out of that guys' mouth. Remember that old chestnut... O'Reilly: Well then what should the tax rate be for people who make around $150-200k and above a year? Moore: 60, 70, 75%. Whatever it will take to fund these programs. and then he tried to say that his words were "misinterpreted" for the next week and that O'Reilly was a liar. I'm gong out for a beer. Please, go ahead and spaz out all you want, I want to have something funny to read when I get back. [/sarcasm] Seriously, do you really like Micheal Moore that much? Why? Are you pissed that we don't or something? Maybe? Edit: Here's some unsolicited advice, if you agree with Moore in terms of issues, then you should be pissed at him(not us) for being such a crappy representative of those issues. We're not your problem, he is. [sarcasm] Are you pissed that you wasted your money on his dopey movie/book, only to realize you got suckered(Especially FarenBS 9/11) once the rest of your friends laughed and you didn't get the joke, and you're taking it out on me?

It depends on how you define it. Is it: the funds themselves only specific to the act of recognition of revenue? = 42% Or is it: All entitlement programs and the cost of their administration? = 75%. Just like "it depends on the definition of the word 'is'". Also, it depends on whether you are fond of financial accounting or cost accounting. Hint: financial allows you to swag everything, which is why you won't see a cost accountant within 50 miles of DC unless s/he is working for Lockheed Martin or some other corporate entity that lives off the government. Activity Based Costing(part of what I do) is so far removed from anything that goes down in DC, it's like pork chops in Mecca. Whenever I have been involved in meeting with any part of the government, they are shocked and amazed, or totally baffled, by ABC as a concept, never mind it's practical application. Look at the GAO site. See the "all other entities"? And "Other HHS"(complete crap that number is definitely higher)? How about the fine print at the bottom? "Medicare Cost is net of related premium revenue". Now go and read here: GAAP Accounting principles Back to the GAO. See how they are amortizing the cost = pretending like only some of it happens now and the rest later, over time, when in fact all of the cost is happening NOW? So in this fanciful display, the cost of gaining revenues(um, the entire REAL administrative costs that support these programs-->it's not like they have to pay sales guys or sell anything, hence no real cost bringing in revenue, hence no reason in hell for this treatment approach) isn't really happening now, it's happening later. Which is like saying that we aren't really paying the utility costs, paychecks, and benefits of the 10s of thousands of employees of these over-bloated systems now, we are paying them later. No, we are paying them now. They are breaking with GAAP wrt to "how to run and insurance system properly", because they aren't doing what is stated in the link in terms of revenue recognition, but THEY ARE doing what is stated in terms of cost, even though the argument for handling cost in this manner doesn't apply here. Since there is no risk for these programs(until we come to our senses and either get rid of them, or fix them permanently=better choice) and they amortize the cost instead of looking at it correctly = cost of operations, the cost appears to be less than it is. So, by playing games with accounting they get to post that the cost of entitlements is only 42%, when, in terms of operations, it's actually around 75%. The fact is that you can play games with accounting all day in general, and doubly so if you are the Federal Government. Who's going to catch you? Congress? Most of those tards are how we got here in the first place, Republican and Democrat. To be fair: under Clinton, Bill, we had 30,000 less FDA employees than we do now. What, was there some kind of massive food problem I wasn't aware of? In fact we have more government employees now than we ever have, yet we couldn't get Katrina right? Medicare is the mother of all F-ups as evidenced by their failure regulate, prevent fraud, and pay benefits properly, yet they have more employees than 98% of the companies in this country, most of whom have a bigger job. They can't get anything right, and more money for more employees only means more "managers" to "supervise" them, not more results. In all cases, your wiki link is misleading at best, scurrilous at worst. My question for you is: why in the hell is any entitlement program larger than Education spending? Science/Grant spending? Business/R&D spending? Even if you want to play accounting games, why in the hell are we spending 42% on entitlements?

Answer to 1) Because you have all the characteristics: 1. starting at least 3 questionable at best, normally nonsense, threads a day 2. can't concede a fact even when you are beaten over the head with it by 5 different posters from all sides of the political spectrum 3. can barely construct a logical argument, and are only batting 1 for 5 on doing that with each new thread that you start 4. blind Republican-Bush Bad opinion on everything 5. no balance to your writings, and no fairness, to the point of stating the ridiculous as fact 6. quoting from propaganda web sites like it's your job to drive traffic to those D-bag sites(which wouldn't be a surprise to me in the slightest, since that is their business model and old George Soros is only going to keep the faucet on for so long, and then they have to start making money-->see "Why Air America died") of Molson_Golden. I can't imagine why I think that... Answer to 2) Because Molson would, and see answer 1 for why I think you are Molson

I was waiting for this to come from you. I heard that the other day and thought "how in the heck are they gonna criticize Obama for wanting to do the same?" with her record in Alaska? As far as it being socialist? Que? What makes it socialist? Ask Alaska_Darin, I guess. From my own limited knowledge, it seems everybody up there is in business for themselves = fishermen, speculators, truck drivers, oil hands, etc. Off-hand I thought it to be the least socialist state there is, second only to New Hampshire and possibly Delaware. Perhaps I have been watching too much Discovery/History Channel?

As if any rational person didn't know this already? They guy is a lying hack, and unfortunately there are people that are either too dumb, too affected, or too mentally challenged to see it, and are willing to fork over their hard earned dollars to him for apparently no reason other than BushBad. Normally I would agree, but not so here. Micheal Moore is way, way, beyond merely being "partisan". He is no different than PT Barnum, and unfortunately, as evidenced by this thread, there is still no shortage of suckers in the USA. Wrong. As evidenced by the following: “I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said. “To just have it planned at the same time, that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day One of the Republican convention, up in the Twin Cities, at the top of the Mississippi River.” There's your context. Therefore, nobody is taking Moore's drivel out of context. Only somebody below the 3rd grade reading level could possibly "misinterpret" what he is saying. Sorry but using the "out of context" defense doesn't work here. I wonder how many people know anymore what the concept of "out of context" actually means... ...because I keep hearing it from every tool there is. I'm sure the Jerry Springer crowd thinks it means "way to get out of saying stupid crap". Is that what you are going for here? They shouldn't. Common sense(rare these days everywhere but especially in California) dictates that you should build your house in a good spot, and that you buy a lot of insurance if you want to risk not putting your house in a good spot. Perhaps the Midwesterners you are talking about aren't God-fearing after all? I'm not much of a Bible guy but isn't this pretty famous? These instructions are pretty clear: "And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 5-7 Of course, then again, most of that has to do with not worrying about stuff like this because God will take care of you anyway. Too bad some people have deemed themselves God, and decided that the instrument of their "power" is the US Government. More government = more "god". How ironic.