OCinBuffalo

Once again, one-button, you don't understand. There's a reason you don't work in actual business, isn't there? Nah, you just tell us what we did wrong, and/or try to keep score. IF you were actually responsible for a company you'd know that positioning is half the battle whenever you're making a deal. The best people make the best deals LONG before they sit down at the conference table. The very few execs who have actually read Sun Tzu, and don't merely put his book in a prominent place behind their desk, know that that battle is won before the fight. You really think hanging on Trump's every word is indicative...of anything? He's positioning...not posturing...and there's a huge difference. Any discussion of illegal immigration with Mexico BEGINS with a wall. They can't have a negotiation without the wall, now. Right? Wrong! Taking the wall off the table, would require a HUGE concession from the Mexican government, who are all scared to death of the drug cartels. The only question is, are they more scared of losing to Trump, and not only the wall, but them actually paying for it? I know Trump understands all of this, and the answer is: no, they are more scared of the drug cartels. Building a wall hurts the cartels, big time. So...Trump is actually giving the Mexican government a way out == blame him for "forcing" them, AND, doing something to help them with their problem. The cartels only win if the money keeps flowing. Stop their $, stop them. This is ostensibly why we've been fighting a "War on Drugs" in South America, that clowns like you have been supporting since the 80s, is it not? Rather than running around in the jungle, we create a defense in depth and focus our energy where it costs us the least, and the drug cartels the most: losing finished product that has already been shipped, at the border, is 10x more expensive than losing in the jungle. OTOH, if Trump concedes the wall, the Mexicans are going to have a pony up a ton of draft picks in return, or, pay tariffs. Nobody wants this option, because it essentially means us colonizing Mexico, in all but name. Either way, the Mexican government is now in a publicly weak position, thanks to the "build the wall" positioning, and Trump's position is now strong, REGARDLESS of where it goes from there. But, Trump can give them the thing they need the most: relief from the cartels IN PRIVATE. How it happens is secondary. See? It's not that hard for those of us who actually do real deals, not electronic transactions, for a living. I'm merely seeing the inevitable conclusion before you are. Nothing odd about that. You and others keep trying to attach ideology to Trump. Now that is odd. Trump is about winning. Libertarianism is about preventing the government from punishing winners, on the false pretense that the winners must have done something bad to win. I don't see the conflict. Neither would you...if you were more concerned with results, and less concerned with this name or that title. You think Trump is a proto-fascist? Well, contrast that with the actual fascist, Hillary Clinton. What's odd is: here we have a guy who is scaring the hell out of then entire establishment/and more importantly the 4th branch of government(EPA, IRS, etc). He's telling everyone that nobody's job is safe, not even the Queen of England, because he will toss her out of NATO without a second thought if she doesn't pay up. This is the epitome of libertarian, equity first, merit-only thinking...and you can't stomach it? Your position that Trump is poisonous is BASED ON the ridiculous 95% stat and all the rest like it!

Then you remember wrong. I have been citing massive errors in polling. And psuedo-scientific analytics. Most recent example: Nate Silver's squad had Trump getting 71 delagates in New York....then, magically, the "science" told them to revise that number to 85, then 91, in the days just before. Now, tell me: what scientific statistical modeling method allows you to be >2 std devations off, yet, at the same time, tells you to correct that just in time? Yeah, I'm sure that there was some variable in their model, whose range is broad, and its value exponential enough to produce those incredibly disparate, yet incredibly accurate results, such that it confirms not only those results, but the model itself? Are you an idiot, or do you actually believe all of this to be "scientific"? I'll tell you what the variable is: it's called the "I don't want to look an idiot" delta. People: just like with Charlie Joyner's "Football Scientist" crap from 8 years ago(which I also bashed), most polls today are bunk. Yeah, chicken little, I read it. And I responded accordingly. Now answer my question: do you honestly believe that 95% of the black community is anti-Trump? If so, where does that data come from, and who is responsible for it? Come on: oh keeper of the conservative flame. It's not a hard question, so what's so scary about giving a straight answer? Unless of course...you're a tiny bit skeptical of that number...which would not be new for you, since you are by nature, a skeptic.

Yeah? And Lindsey F'ing Graham endorsed Cruz. Now, for you, and TTYT, and everybody else that is supposedly about "the conservative ideal" or "small government"...defend Lindsey Graham. He is literally the RINO that every single person in the TEA party hates. I know. You think the TEA party isn't behind Trump's success? You think that Lindsey Graham's endorsement of Cruz didn't close the deal for a ton of TEA partiers support for Trump? You think making fun of McCain didn't have TEA partiers laughing? You think Mitt Romney attacking Trump didn't galvanize the TEA party behind Trump? I getting the exact opposite of what you intend was the province of progressives...but Romney proved that a supposedly "principled conservative" can bake himself a stupid cake as well. Cognitive Dissonance. You're telling me about small government and at the same time, lining up onside with Lindsey Graham. I/Trump are not your problem. You are your problem.

I don't know what "set destroying" is...but whatever. You really don't understand either. This "unfavorables" rant is as tired as it is stupid. Do you really believe that the black community is 95% against Trump? Really? NONE of the primary VOTING has shown that. But, of course the polls do. 95%? How? To borrow DC_Tom's standard Global Warming objection, that is "false precision". Why 95%? Why not 93, 90, or better: 89? Why do things cost $19.95 on TV? What can you point to in terms of word/deed that created that supposedly inviolate "statistic"? Saving time: nothing. There has never been an unfavorables stat like that that didn't come with some preceeding act, not words, to create it. Yet, Trump has done nothing. He hasn't even said anything about race relations. You are a child if you can't see what's going on here: disinformation created by the establishment, of BOTH parties. But, please, go ahead and tell me that all of these rants are happening ONLY because people care about the conservative ideal, and are all being totally selfless in their crusade to "stop Trump". Yeah, all their care about is the country, and the party, and keeping the liberals from...enough! It's a bald-faced lie! I am infinitely more concerned with the behavior of supposedly "principled conservatives"...who see an end to their status/jobs/power...than I am with Donald Trump's behavior. If anything, Trump has exposed these people for exactly who/what they are: even-year conservative heroes, but odd-year craven scumbags.

Why are you here? Shouldn't you be in your safe space? Or, are you actually going to try and make an argument...of any sort? See? In other words: you don't get it. One thing I can always rely on you for: predictability. You are so wrapped up in your archaic sensibilities that one can set their watch to them. But, I became tired of pushing your button(you only really have 1) a long time ago. It's easy, and we always know the outcome, so, what is the point? All you've done here is once again demonstrate your single button functionality.

That word collage is a hilarous. I have this funky reporting tool, and if I have time today, I'm gonna try to make a piece of art/kistch out your collage. Also, your sig is great. That's back when Vonnegut was at his best. His later work should have been self-instructive, but it wasn't: In Timequake he complains that when he did a a lecture and said "To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability", people thought he was joking, and laughed. He was being serious. Or he's a hell of a troll in that book. He learned nothing from that experience...which is basically par for the course for every liberal: FAIL, learn nothing, repeat. Either way, is only 2016, and we are well on our way to having a Handicapper General. Look at "safe-spaces". You go to a safe space so that your brain can be protected from speech it can't counter. Instead of exposing it to that speech, and requiring that, it if still disagrees(ahem, not a given), that it work to create a counter-argument, we send brains to the handicapping box. These brains then serve a penalty that lasts until either, the challenging speech ends, or, somebody uses force to remove that speech, whichever comes fist. We are literally creating handicapped brains. When these brains go out into the world, and have to defend a position, they can't. This is of course what Hillary and the liberal fascists require: you can to just about anything you want if nobody is capable of forming cogent arguments against it.

What? I see you are one of those people who are incapable of understanding the reality here. It's no surprise really, given that your brand of conservatism is: keeping things the same no matter how awful they are and/or "everybody should have to wear a suit and tie, because that's what I have to do. People that wear suits are serious people, and everybody who works buck naked from home is unserious". Don't bother to deny it. You're not that far off from Brooks in many ways: you care infinitely more about the process, than the content. Let's test this. I will put forward a simple premise, and then we will all watch you fail to conceive it properly, which will verify the above: P1: How much more can Trump aggrandize himself beyond what he already has over the last 30 years? He cannot. He became a household name in the 80s. Thus, when you are at 100 on the famous/infamous scale, there's nowhere else to go. Contrast this with pissants on the left. They have no accomplishments. They have no real way to aggrandize themselves through personal achievement. So what do they do? They go for the anti-win, the humblebrag. The left tells us that they are more moral than the winners, and proceed to villify the winners for winning, because while the winners win, they care about children/gays/minorities instead, etc, complete with the 2 ton implication that anyone who doesn't agree with their idiot plans to solve problems, using their ill-defined problemn definitions, does not. I mean: it's right there. It's obvious what levers are being pulled here and why. One could say that Trump represents the perfect anti-anti-win, which counters these phonies with an attack that they cannot defend. One could say that this is the only thing at work here, that supporting Trump is about supporting the anti-anti-win weapon's results, and that Trump is merely the delivery vehicle: Trump is only relevant in that the weapon needs someone who knows how to use it. But, that one would be me: and you? You don't understand it. You're not a total idiot, so perhaps you'll understand it at some point. Probably not without consistent help from me. But, after all this is one of my functions here: Helping posters get past their psychological committments, and see truth. Now, I am sure there's some indolent nonsense you have to say about me or Trump or bad language...but it all boils down to the same old thing: you want everybody to wear a suit, and be like you. Well, Mr. Romney, that doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for quite some time.

A very PPP-like post from Charles Hurt: David Brooks should stay in his little bourgeois strataA few highlights that are As I have said 100 times at least on this board: most of what the left argues begins with designs on self-aggrandizement, and ends with self-congratulation. Gay people, illegals, women, children(of course ), college students, (insert newly formed victim class here), none of them actually matter to these people. All are merely just the vehicle. They aren't the noun in the sentence, they are only the object. The position of noun is always reserved for the leftist, and why shouldn't it be, after all s/he is the smarterst person in the room because they are on the left, and therefore, they should make all decisions about all things.

Compare our WRs today...to Lee Evans and...?(otherwise known for 4 years as: Josh Reed/Roscoe Parrish.) Then tell me that we have an actual NEED at WR. Please. It's not even close. You always want quality players, espeically in today's game, on the outside positions. But, by that definition, we might as well put CB, WR, TE, and DE as "needs" for every draft, forever.

Yeah, great comeback. We ended up taking a WR...just now. And they are talking about us taking him as a great BPA pick...noplace did they say we had a Need. If anything, they said we had great talent at WR...and that this guy was going to get a chance to develop/situation guy/special teams guy. Compare that with Shaq is a "first day starter". Then, tell me more about "need".

Why do I get the feeling that this thread is essentially a conversation with one actual poster and his 2 sock puppets...interspersed with a few other genuine posters?

No, I mean I've seen people point out that we could use one...but not as a "need". Need isn't "nice to have". I can't stand these analyses that list positions: C, WR, DT....as if merely listing the position means the need is the same. When we had Lee Evans, and nobody, we had a need at WR. I fail to see how WR on this team even compares/comes close to that need. By definition, these two situations are NOT the same. Therefore, slapping WR onto our "draft needs" and pretending it's the same is patently retarded.

I haven't seen anybody but you say WR is a need. Moreover, you said what you said: "lack of talent at WR". That is no different than saying: "Please use the word obtuse in a sentence".

I'm just gonna bold that...for hilarity's sake. With Sammy Watkins and Robert Woods BOTH on this team already, this is perhaps the most obtuse statement I've ever seen at Two Bills Drive, including PPP.

Given tonight's results? At this entire thread, and almost everybody in it. As I write Trump is wiping the floor 89-0 against Cruz in NY. Oh yeah, Kasich gets 5 at most...which gets him closer to beating Rubio. NY, a state that matters. Moving on, all indications say he's gonna run the table next Tuesday. R turnout was a record today, and now there's a chance that Hillary will end up having to spend to defend NY....which takes $ away from places like OH, FL, etc. I don't think he wins NY in a general. Draining the $ is a huge win regardless. But please, tell me more about F'ing Wyoming. The reason Trump "slowed down" is because of the schedule. Does anybody think Wyoming goes Blue, or supports a 3rd party or....no. This is idiocy. And, before you say Colorado(which is a swing state), understand that Colorado provided the opportunity for Trump to begin his "election rigged" charge...and in doing so, take out the trash stories that were around him. Colorado was the best thing that could have happened to Trump. Ted Cruz just lost the entire race tonight. Few understand what is happening with Trump, because most people's partisanship, or their flat-out delusions prevents it. That, or they didn't know very much about politics to begin with. I've seen him in person 3 times in NY now, but more importantly, I've seen the crowds. The crowds DO NOT represent the demographics the media and the leftists wish they did. There's all sorts of people. All walks of life. It's like the TEA party all over again. The media/left wish these people were all white, dumb and poor. But, the truth is the opposite. The media wish the protesters were the good guys, representing the truth and righteousness. The opposite is true: the protesters are obviously paid, obviously trained, obviously tiny in number and hilariously stupid. Looks like Dilbert guy was right: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143006237056/the-trump-chess-board

Hmm. I don't know about that...how many times did the media declare Trump dead? In fact, they are doing it again, and will continue...right up until the NY primary results come in. If they truly controlled the narrative, Trump would be dead and buried, and Macro Rubio the presumptive nominee. Also, Bernie would be dead and buried. None of these things are true. I would say that they have full control how a news cycle starts, and how it ends, most of the time. But, they've certainly lost full control of the narrative in between. The illegal immingrants flooding the borders and South American countries colluding to send children...displayed as mass chaos on TV...certainly walloped the media's illegal immigration narrative upside the head. They never saw it coming, and found themselves chasing after a story that they had 0 control over. Same thing is true with the Clinton Email server. They've never had control of that narrative. Sure they've tried to play whackamole with it, but the moles, literally, are winning. Every day/week new info is leaked, and "the media" is forced to report it, regardless of the narrative. After NY, it will back to how "irregular this whole Trump thing is". Thus far I have seen 1(one) media talking head fully recant on their assessment of Trump. The rest have dissembled. Also, I don't think "the media" is monolithic anymore. Often it much depends on which media we are talking about, and which story we are talking about.

The Crimson Tide...no...wait...yeah...wait...no.

GreggyT needs to get on the phone with those 7 states and remind them that Hillary is the POTUS because its all been rigged to go that way.

How can the government always have access to the private key, as you suggested, if no key exists? You want to make something illegal, that I don't have? Fine! You want to tell me end to end crypto is illegal, I'll see your ass in court, for about a half an hour. You want to tell me keyless encryption is illegal, I'll just laugh and say "prove it". Look, I'm just telling you what I would tell them, if they ever dared to audit us. Which they haven't, and they won't. Not ever. That's why this "law" is hilarious. They are demanding that we not do something a certain way: and all that does is make us come up with 5 other approaches to do the same thing a different way. And, like with mylar, different ways that are beyond the ken of these lawyer idiots, have already been deployed into production, never mind designed.

Which point? The one that says that the opposite of bulk collection...is targeted collection...which is also known as: profiling? Or, the one that says if you want no collection, you're an unmitigated moron, like Snowden? Dance all you want. You know that what I am saying is...how it is.

Sorry dude, keyless encryption is already here. The inventors applied for a patent here, in 1999. IF I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times, lawyers and government don't even know what they don't know. We've had mylar in place for quite some time now. I can't wait for the day some HIPAA auditor comes along and asks to see my dual authentication approach and she is confronted with trying to comprehend mylar instead.

1. I wonder: do the people who got to see their friends and family blown to pieces right in front of them in the 1000s of terror attacks since 9/11 consider terrorism an existential threat to our society? If Snowden got his balls blown off by a radical Islamic terrorist bomb, I bet he'd change his tune. Why? Because he considers himself a PART of society, just as much as he considers his balls a PART of him. Why is it that we keep pretending that the people who die in these attacks aren't part of society? Is it because they are now dead, and, "well it wasn't me, so..."? If they are part of society, and they are killed/maimed then the threat is, by definition, existential to society. Their existence has been terminated. Part of society, part of society's existence, is now dead. So let's go back to parts: I wonder what part of Snowden he'd allow to be cut off, because losing it didn't represent an "existential" threat. An ear? How about a toe? I mean, after all the rest of him can exist and go on with his life. So, by Snowden's definition: cutting of some of his parts is not an existential threat to him. After all, it's not like it would change anything, right? 2. Micheal Moore said "there is no terrorist threat" and there's been 2000+ attacks since. Talking about the existence of terrorist threats doesn't do much for the left. Anybody heard from fatass recently? Perhaps its time for the left to focus its "wisdom" elsewhere? 3. Apparently Snowden doesn't understand anything about infowars, or psyops, or really anything about war. Discrediting the enemy is perhaps the most valueable tool in a war whose enemy's beliefs are predicated mostly on a religion's fundamentalist idealism. Sapping the effect of the enemy's fanaticism, and therefore his ability to recruit dumb and/or impressionable minds, by exposing his hypocrisy/personal violations of that idealism...that's better than an armored brigade. The armored brigade can't be everywhere in the world at once. But, the story about the porn can be. 4. It is my civil liberty not to be killed because of somebody else's dopey values. Dopey values suppressing the ability of law enforcement to go after the most likely bad guys, and instead having to look at everybody "equally", because dopey values says so, violates my rights, and violates my social contract with my government. I don't pay taxes so that the good guys lose. I want to win for my money, and I have every right to tell anybody who is trying to make me lose on my investment to STFU. 5. Once again, if you don't want bulk data collection, which means: you want to do IT the right way? Then, you do want targeted data collection. Not only is this doing it right, it has a much higher chance of providing actionable intelligence...and here is the key...in TIME for somebody to act on it.

Perhaps, but I bet Valerie Jarret did.

Yet another example of what happens when lawyers try to operate on our battlefield. These buffoons don't even realize that encryption does 50x more to prevent crime and terror than it enables. Lawyers: get this through your head, you don't belong here. You don't understand how this environment works, and thus you have no authority here. If you want something from us, normally all you have to do is ask. F with us, and we'll beat you every time. Ask Eliot Spitzer, or today, Andrew Cuomo, how their "tax the internet" plans have worked out. How many more beatings do you need? We'll keep providing them, if you keep stepping. Now, Apple was being silly, but so was the FBI. You can't unring the encryption bell. Nobody can. How do these 2 lawyer clowns plan to prevent people from using private encryption? How do they enforce this law? Try? And I will set up a free crypto server center in the Caymans tomorrow, merely show a few ads in the "Loading.../Splash" page, make ~$500 million in my first year, and even more if I add integration ports to popular software/sites. Yawn. I can write this archictecture right now. Or later, when I take a dump. In any event, a technology problem is never, ever going to get solved by government, lawyers, or law enforcement. A technology problem requires that technology people solve it. And, I'm not at all convinced that encryption represents a problem that must be solved. Moreover, again, I am completely convinced that encryption does a lot more to prevent crime than enable it. What everybody has to come to terms with is: signals intelligence is not the walk in the park it once was for government. It never should have been, but, the internet was like a newborn. It didn't know how to defend itself. Scamming somebody's browser history without a warrant never should have happened in the first place. Now they cry because of losing that, due to proxys and encryption? Hey government? How about we go back to what you are supposed to be doing? Using human intelligence, getting warrants, and doing real investigations, not sitting on your ass in your office collecting data, most of which you can't use? I know it sucks that the easy way is being taken away. But, that's all it ever was. I'll say it again: they are so unwilling to even try profiling...that they'd rather look like idiots, and put forward something like this instead. Stupidity.

Why would we do that? They can afford to pay top $....since they are the brother-in-laws of the Minister of DoucheFWhatever. I don't see why we would stiff our docs out of that $. But...wait...coming soon: the government will find a way to tax the doctors for providing these out of state services. That's the new thing now. They already didn't want insurance to be sold over state lines, because it would destroy all the union health insurance companies instantly. Now, they don't even want out of state care, because it screws up the awful business models of the plans, which the "exchanges" are predicated on.