OCinBuffalo

Perhaps you missed my last sentence where I said it would be ridiculous? However, given the contentious times we live in, do you really think that somehow this crazy-ass line of thinking won't be brought up sooner or later? But seriously, why would she want to sue for ongoing medical care if all she has to do is "queue up" in Canada for it? Look, this started because I thought about a ridiculous tangential line of reasoning at 12:30am, after not sleeping for 40 hours straight, regarding a premise that I didn't even bring up. It was humorous at the time, to me anyway. Go complain to Boondock and Lori for making me laugh about how funny it would be IF, IF, IF somehow health care payment/care/rationing got brought into this. Blue is right. Once again, I am being subjected to scrutiny for my lack of attention to detail regarding the status of my message board activity/account. At least this time it's not based on not using enough emoticons, eh Blue? Or was it too many? I forget. This time BlueFire is covering for me, and that's a start.

That's not what I said I said the ones he missed on where largely 50/50 calls. For example, I think he made great decisions in the Dallas game, but he got screwed by our special teams at the end. Conversely, we had Denver by the short ones, but his clock management got jammed up. It could have gone either way though, and given basically a rookie QB in Cutler, you easily could see the argument that playing it conservative and letting him screw up made sense. It could have gone either way. In general, I think that he looked at his team, and given all the injuries, and therefore lack of experience, he chose to be conservative in a lot of situations. He did this because taking the riskier side of that 50/50 and getting burned would mean a significant shock that veteran players are more likely to deal with than younger ones. It's really that simple. He had a ton of young players last year. He would rather put it on himself than put it one or two young players. Yes I am aware that these are professionals. However, having spent most of my career training and working with 22-25 year olds that have made up a large part of my project teams, they don't really know what that word means just yet. It's not their fault, they have to learn the same as the rest of us when we were that age. It's a human being thing, not a put down. This year, we hope, is different. With a full season of playing, and in many cases starting, very early for most of the players, it's different in that they should be able to handle "it all comes down to them" situations a lot better, and therefore I see him NOT being as conservative as last year. However, if he is, I will be the first to be screaming bloody murder. He's got the people this year to win a lot of games. IMO, he told Fairchild to hit the bricks, and used the nice, easy, media-friendly Colorado St. "transition" as a perfect vehicle. I don't believe in coincidences, and that is surely one. So now he's got the coaches, the players, the $ he needs. It's time to put out or go home.

nah, he made some questionable game decisions but most were 50/50. The real culprit was Fairchild, with the incessant run run pass nonsense, especially early on. Time after time, at multiple points in the game he just wouldn't call anything even remotely dangerous, and teams picked up on that. Or worse, he would call running plays when we needed a pass and bombs when we needed 4 yards. Way, way too predictable and it happened far too consistently to blame it on Jauron either for micromanaging or for calling one or two plays a game. Like I said during the season, what's the point of having a playbook when your coach is calling the same 8 plays every game? TechmoBowl Football doesn't work in the NFL. That is, unless you let your players play and have free reign to improvise off of those 8 basic plays, or you have a QB like Vince Young who isn't going to care anyway.

At the time, I was thinking how funny/ironic it would be if she actually sues Lynch for American care precisely because of what you and Lori were saying. In essence, after all I have heard about the "wonders" of the Canadian health care system(from the clueless), one thing this could boil down to is the fact that a Canadian would rather sue to get better care and/or not have to stand in line, by getting care in the US. I can only imagine the minor meltdown it would cause socialists to go through. That, given a real choice, "free" health care provided by Canada or "free" health care provided by Mr. Lynch or, to be fair, whoever hit her, she would sue to get Mr. Lynch's care, is a direct and poignant shot at them. Especially when you consider that she wouldn't probably see the money for a least a year after all the legal wrangling. This poor girl could end up going from just going out, to poster girl for the health care debate. I laugh at the ridiculous and that would be ridiculous.

This is a good idea. I wonder if there's a way to publicize it besides here. I would say call in to WGR but that's probably not going to work. Somehow Schop will turn it into something about him and/or hid dad.

I been away for a while working on this very topic. I see we are on the same page, just coming at it from different angles. There is absolutely no doubt that there are boatload of faulty assumptions that are made in health care every day, especially by people whose main concern is their personal/political agenda. The difference between "most people"(as if there is such a thing , but I don't want to spend 3 paras on classification) and me is this: while their interest is geared towards solving their little piece of the puzzle first or maintaining their piece of turf, my interest lies in making the whole thing better. Yes, I have a vested personal, intellectual, and financial interest in this, like everybody else, but mine is defined differently. My scope, and my profession, means that I have to make everybody happy and make them think, as well as feel, and therefore know, that they have gotten a much better deal than they had before we showed up. Everybody means everybody. And yes, I am aware of the danger of trying to make everybody happy. But, we are doing it. And, like I said, it appears to be working. Fundamentally we provide fact in place of assumption, it's as simple as that. It's funny because as I write this, a Brown Chiari commercial just came on, again. They have been running "get nursing home" adds here incessantly. Their new one says "when you hold people accountable you get change". They have it backasswards, no surprise for lawyers. It's not them holding "people" accountable that makes real change. All that does is change the scenery/actors, not the plot. Real change comes from an organization holding itself accountable. But, there's no way to do that unless you create a culture where the organization can see the value in and therefore choose to hold itself accountable, and, where it is "safe" to do so. The government sending in surveyors, who get paid by the amount of problems they find real or pretend, contradicts that, and creates an "unsafe" environment for process improvement. As you say, the government ignoring things they should look at individually, and doing the opposite on things that can easily be standardized, is a real problem. The main problem is: we are all concerned about cost. I guarantee you that you will never resolve cost issues using financial allocation thinking = 1 palate of milk/# of people = # of cartons of milk per person. We need real activity based costing instead, that's what works, that's what we do, and the results speak for themselves. ABC allows for 0 assumption, BTW, by definition, as it reveals the real truth about what it actually costs to take care of each patient. It can be done, despite those who say otherwise. If it wasn't possible then how is it that we are doing it? That's an assumption for ya, why don't we start breaking that one? This is the funny part to me: you don't know how I got here and the fact that I have suffered significantly for NOT allowing assumptions makes me laugh at the irony. You don't know how I came to be "saddled" with health care as the first industry to deploy the architecture I have been thinking about/working on for the last 10 years. It's hysterical that you think I would make assumptions, rather than do my job properly, as I was trained, by the best there are. I have suffered greatly for it because I won't accept assumption or anything based on an opinion. Perhaps one of the most important outcomes of what we do is to provide real information/business intellegince to EVERYONE in the organization, not just the Exec suite. That is a story for another time, but please understand that most of this started with solving a problem for a family member, rather than a good business plan, and I have taken a beating for not allowing any assumptions from anybody to exist anywhere near our stack, our company, or our projects. I kinda backed my way into this but once it got real, I started this thing based on doing my job right, no exceptions, for once. No idiot CEO/CIOs, no idiot ex-meat salesman, single programming book reading, VPs of Consulting, no trust fund babies, turned VCs, calling and asking why the client (um, Boeing) is so worried about their AR/AP charges and why can't we just get them to "deemphasize" them. To wit, once it became clear that Health Care was where we had to start, per your rules: 1. I started by reading, everything I could get my hands on that was said to have any value regarding the industry. 2. As I was trained, first by my retired Anderson Consulting partner college professor and every firm since, I observed multiple health care organizations for a year straight before I allowed any kind of conclusion enter my mind. That's right, I gave up multiple Saturdays and many weekdays(I was a field project manager and my schedule has belonged to me only since 99), at all hours, observing health care activity right in front of me. Often times the people working there would forget I was even there. I had enough notebooks filled out to fill my spare room. I even took a turn at candy striping for a hospital in Philly. No, I didn't get to wear the dress. Interestingly: Obama shadowed a health care worker for a day. Who do you think did a better job of "observing"? This is where I get my conclusions, not assumptions, like this one, right out of my notebook: "The cook runs this nursing home because everything, care, meds, activities, therapy, centers around when food is delivered. If it is early or late, or if the resident is delivered to the proscribed eating area late/early, wherever that is, the entire schedule of planned work is now in question. This may continue into subsequent shifts and will therefore cause multiple unplanned work processes to be started that interfere with not only that resident's schedule but other's as well. As such, it's no small wonder that tension between the kitchen staff and the rest of the facility has reached the high level it has. It also is clear that this is the reason residents are made to get ready for meals as far as an hour in advance, and then placed as fighters on a aircraft carrier, waiting in the hallway for as much as 45 minutes. The chef's decision on when/where/how to serve food has absolute power over the rest of the staff. Clearly this is not in the best interest of the organization or it's customers, and is not fixable by any current software and/or improved efficiency on a fundamentally bad set of business processes." See, no assumption there, just sitting there trying to figure out why people are lined up in a hallway for 30-45 minutes staring at the wall, and thinking that "if it was me, I'd be a behavioral problem, why should that change if I was older, if anything I would be worse." I checked, and the people who were made to sit the longest were the most likely to act out. What a shocker. One the things our solutions provide is to identify situations like this, by identifying patterns like sit in hallway = not eat, get pissed, act out, and allowing the organization to fix this problem through removing dependencies thus minimizing unplanned work, as it sees fit, NOT as I see fit. Again, no assumptions are allowed in our efforts, except things like "people have a name" or "people do tasks for other people". 3. Finally, I was already working on a "common sense" platform. Frankly I was tired of arguing with sales people. They aren't going to change, this is common sense. I don't blame them, because clients aren't going to change, which is also common sense. I don't blame clients, I never allow that anyway, because they don't know any better, and they are good at their business not ours, as they are supposed to be, which is also common sense. So, the only common sense thing to do, because I like the handshake I get and the little look of admiration in the eye on my client's faces as I head out to their airport for the last time, was to change how we work...how we manage our projects....but most importantly how our core technology and system design operates. When the only variable you can change is what you do, then common sense dictates that you must change, if you want better results. So no, our system does not allow any business rules to determine our core functionality, therefore no assumptions, therefore we can change on a dime, a little or a lot, which makes us better than everything else, plus we can integrate to everything in days. The difference Tom, is that I started doing this and getting results with it, before I started talking about it. People want to talk to us because of our results, not because of our papers or....our assumptions. The paper is an afterthought and is based on history, not projection, and certainly not my assumptions.

What possible harm can come from bringing him in for training camp at least? Never mind if he can beat out Fowler, not that that wouldn't be great. I'd like to see him here just to give preston, etc. a run for their money. How: I'd sign him for 4 million over 2 years but only give him $500k in guaranteed money/signing bonus and put $2 million up as roster bonus, one mil for each year, and see how it goes. Or something like that. Give him enough so he takes it but make 80% of it based on performance.

This is a good post and probably right. I wonder if the media has also been burned by covering TO/Dallas, the Dolphins, the Pats*, etc. with such glowing praise over the last three years. Perhaps they have become bored with those stories and all the phony PR activity that was being passed off as news = Tony Romo doing/dating anything. Perhaps they are looking, as they always are, for something that's interesting = going to sell? Like it or not, the Bills off-season has been both extremely positive and negative, but above all--> relevant. Nobody wants to hear another story about how good the Pats* are. In fact, that ain't ever gonna happen again until the coach* and most of the players* are gone. But people around the country might want to hear about Poz, Lynch, Edwards, Evans, Whitner and Mitchell/Stroud, because they are interesting stories. That they are all on the same team makes it more interesting. Lord knows they have heard the Pats, Dolphins, Redskins, Cowboys, Texans, 49ers stories enough and none are that interesting anymore. Especially since those teams have all underwhelmed, or got caught cheating, or have been taken over by ego people, and that's boring as hell. Another thought: Surely they want to get ahead of any Bills breakout season so that it doesn't become another "surprise". They don't want to be surprised because they are supposed to know what is happening, not be overcome by it. So, with not much going on in football, and some genuine news stories developing in Buffalo, it's smart to bring our guys in for an interview. At the very least to hedge their bets on us doing well, so they can say "we knew they were going places when we had Whitner in here in May".

I work with Orthodox Jews some days. They have a large presence in health care, especially nursing homes. I have been learning a lot about them and I have been doing it long enough that they don't repress their normal speech as much anymore. I think they might even trust me a little. One of the things I find fascinating is that they they still to this day define themselves by tribe. In fact, one cat said to me last month: "Well I know him, but he's not in my tribe." I wanted to ask him what that meant strategically, but thought better of it. It's amazing how they have been able to keep that history and tradition for as long as they have. What's also clear is that their own laws, courts(yes they have them), and legal system operate mostly separately but within the state's. I don't understand much of their system, but I do know there's no way you could lump them into a group or assume that they would agree by default on much of anything. You'd have to work within their tribal structure to get them to unify on something, and that would mean leader by leader, tribe by tribe.

Absolutely, except the failure part. What? Do you honestly believe I would be this pissed off over a perception? Ma'am, I deal with this BS every day, and have been for a long time. I have had problems in my job specifically with the DOD(not as much), DOE, SEC, HHS, CMS, and the VA. They have never been on the right side of the issue, except on one project(and thank God they got that one right = nukes), and they are always creating more problems than fixing them. This normally happens as a direct result of some politician trying to make a name for themselves while not understanding the issue, thinking the whole thing comes down to slogans, and forcing good government people into the stupid. Or it stems from government employees trying to secure their future existence, however useless it may be. Or worst of all, it comes from the reckless behavior or pols/staffers/employees who simply don't want to understand the issue, but don't want to be perceived as doing nothing, so they will jump at whatever port in the storm comes along. Sadly, my own uncle tends to fall into this last category when it comes to health care, and yes I have no problem verbally wailing on him for it. But the thing that pisses me off the most in what I do right now is that good time/money is being spent on bad: trying to sway DC/regulators one way or the other, or gotcha games, or PACs, and this activity is the direct result of either government sponsorship or political party influence trading. And no, I haven't missed a scope in my life, even when I have taken over projects that were 6 months behind. So I haven't failed, yet. So far, it's looking like I won't this time around either. Unfortunately there's a first time for everything. Well, I've never been one for 20 page white papers and I don't like it when people insist on telling me things I already know so I don't see why I should do that. So yeah, 3 pages right to the point that talk about things we have found that no one else has sounds about right to me. Besides, I'd rather show than tell. With all this attention, perhaps I will have to post our press releases? Perhaps I should give you an open invite to come see for yourself? Ma'am, that's the difference between me and you? or other people? There's no way in hell that I would start with a white paper before I built something and got results with it. Hell that's why most of the .coms failed. And, you don't know me but why in the world would you think that I would let my plan, or anything I do, be somehow effected by politicians? Believe me, we have taken this into account, and our current strategy/pricing/deployment works just fine, no matter what they do, because we can stop on a dime and change direction/be at market in matter of days no matter how large the change. It's been designed from the ground up to do so. I built brand new technology to make it so. The only real question is how much of an annoyance will they be? And please understand that I sure as hell am not the kind of person who leaves execution to other people. You are darn right that none of it will matter unless someone executes, so we do, every day, all the time. I am the first to admit that I have a hard time keeping an open mind when I know I am listening to an uninformed opinion. I truly do not understand what compels people, especially lawyers, to believe that they know about everything, no matter what. How can they presume to know the inner workings of a particular industry, or individual heath insurance company, or hospital, or nursing home, or private clinic for that matter, without having taken the time to study said organizations in detail? So yeah, I get a little snippy when I hear someone who obviously has no clue speak in terms of absolutes, or repeat 15 seconds of what they heard Hillary say on CNN, about this subject. Somehow I don't see my disdain for these phonies changing any time soon. It's my job to get deep within the views of as many informed people as I can, but then I gotta move on and get something out the door that gets results so I don't have time for BS. What I think is funny is that your words here are a perfect example of what I am talking about: you don't have the first f'ing clue whether you will disagree with me or not, but yet you already "know" you will. I got news for you: having read your posts the last 6 months you are definitely going to be surprised. In fact, I would say that your ideology-first sensibility will make you happy with 50-100% of what I have. How's that for a projection? Hey, you started it! Did you ever hear the story about the Frog and the Snake? The quick version: snake asks frog to get him across the river, frog says no you will eat me, snake says no I won't so frog agrees, snake eats frog while crossing a river causing both to drown, on the way down Frog says: "why?" Snake says: "I am a snake". Who is the idiot in the story? The Frog. Why? Because a snake is a snake. Hannity and Rev. Wright are the snakes and dumbass Obama(or his people, to be fair, this could have been "advice") is the frog. First because he should have known better than to get associated in the first place, second because he should have got out once he heard this crap from Wright, third because how in God's name didn't he think that since this was a Presidential election, the snakes weren't going to be the snakes? The only thing that makes sense is he didn't want to to turn his back on the people that made him, and that's why this story won't "go away", because Americans are sick of other Americans who start every sentence with "America wouldn't suck if...". My point isn't about whether it's fair, snakes are f'ing snakes for pete's sake. My point is this is clearly a huge mistake. Pretending like isn't means you are a simple, gullible, POS, and we can't afford that when it's time to be play in the big leagues with China, Iran, Russia, etc. Now I am fully willing to give him/his folks another chance because this is America after all. But any more of this "babe in the woods" crap and I'm done. He almost lost me on the 1v1 talks thing but he has gotten away from that now.<--BTW, yeah, I haven't decided who to vote for yet.

Buddy, that's the precise argument I am making. Perhaps I am not writing it very well?, but that's exactly what I mean. That's the contradiction I am pointing out: How can this guy determine who is going to support what and that they will do it in unity, i.e. the Sunni "community is not likely to support it". What community? In which town? From which tribe? Same questions for the Sunni "leaders", especially since they changed their position already? Well, at least most of them did. And that's the point. His conclusion assumes behavior that has yet to be evidenced. He is stating that they will act in unity, while at the same time he is saying that they have not been historically unified? Edit: they being the leaders and the "community". The fact is that no one has any idea how each individual leader will react as much as they don't know how the "community", as if there was one, will act either. And again, which town/tribe are we talking about? Lucky for you I fully understand the tribal loyalties and dynamics of that region from now back a 1000 years, so I don't need your "help". It's too bad that our war planners didn't, but that's another argument all together. Edit: and you do realize that I just randomly picked you for my bad dancer analogy right?

We'll see. I'd love to know what your qualifications are to make such judgments, because mine are apparently good enough to be invited to write the damn thing in the first place. Please don't misunderstand me, nobody is bigger than the game, so who knows? Perhaps you can challenge my thinking after all. That's the kind of help I need anyway, because I'm not finding any better thinking that what I have already. I sure as hell haven't learned anything new from all the conference calls for the last year = all this extra time to post here and elsewhere. I think I have learned more on what to expect and what will work in terms of people's perceptions here than anywhere else. I would even include Molson in that, because nothing says "idiot proof" like being prepared for him....or "bullet proof" like being prepared for the rest of you.

All that matters now is can he get the 30% of women who say they won't vote for him now, back on his side? I'd say he's got about a 50/50 shot at that, depends on how well his campaign does speaking to women's issues. Or, I suppose he could go on Oprah every week from here on in. Maybe hang around the spas and discuss aroma therapy, or just buy a sh!tload of chocolate and mail/hand it out. Hell, then he can say he is stimulating the economy in PA, especially Hershey.

Don't worry, I am working on a 3 pager(as small as I can make it) that details what is actually wrong with health care and how to fix it. I was recently asked to join a few industry groups directly due to the work, not talk, we do every day, and I figured I'd start off with that. Suffice it to say that I am a little intimidated because I have no idea if I will be laughed out of the room, and I like the immediate yes/no answer I get from clients rather than the "it's all a matter of perspective"(read: I have no idea what you are saying) arguments I normally encounter at these type of trade show "discussions". However, I have seen the looks on our clients' faces when we deliver our goods, so at least I know we are doing something right. We are doing things nobody else is doing, in any industry, never mind health care, and that's not marketing speak, that's at the code/data model level. So perhaps when it's ready I will link it for you. If you have been reading any of my posts, I allude to some of the difference between what is actually wrong and what is being portrayed as wrong, and I'm too lazy to write that all over again.

No, I like reasonable Democrats and I like reasonable Republicans. I hate people who put their, or their party's little pissant agenda before the good of the country. I hate phony intellectuals = people who try to defend their views by claiming to be smarter than everyone else, and seek power over the rest of us because "they know better". I also hate phony religious zealots = people that claim they live in a higher state of grace than everyone else. I hate the phony media who has obviously been flat out rooting for Obama most of the election. But most of all, I hate BullShitt/PR, and people that think they can get away with lying to us. I'd like to see Obama cut the crap with the soaring rhetoric and get down to business in terms of HOW he actually plans to do any of the things he says. This way I can judge for myself whether his plans make any sense. Right now he is benefiting from soaring platitude after soaring platitude and getting a complete pass from the media, who are supposed to be doing their jobs and asking him the tough questions. So, yeah, I'm pissed, but not because Obama is a Democrat. I am pissed because we heard the same lines of BS before the 2006 election. It sounded like it was all phony crap then, especially the pretend moral superiority BS, and looks like I was right. The current Democratic party has yet to put forward one reachable, reasonable goal, never mind accomplished any of them, and have done nothing but B word. Their entire thing has been about getting power for their special interest groups instead of solving problems, and the lack of results speak for themselves. I don't like what the Democrats have been doing since 2000, because as of now it all boils down to sniping. And sniping gets us nowhere. I think it stands to reason that nobody, not even Conservatives, like what the Republicans have been doing, especially spending, since 2000 either.

So apparently the reverse has been true, that the Sunni leaders didn't support the guerrilla war before? Of course they did, till about a year ago. So of course their is a logical contradiction built in, and what's worse? This guy is predicting the future, and he has backed it up with nothing but idle speculation and 0 facts, quotes, or anyone actually going on record saying anything besides one sentence. I am certain that the "politicians" he talked to had more to say than one sentence, or phrase, so why not print what they said as a whole? Maybe he should start predicting the weather, he's probably gonna do better with that.

Yeah, but even JC told us HOW he was going to do all that, still waiting on Oblahblah to give me any kind of HOW, even a little one. Good, because after McCain gets done with Oblahblah in the debates, you won't feel so bad. I'm just kiddin' but tell me that isn't in the back of your mind. Yeah, right. I have the TV on in my office all the time which means I have heard more of Obama's speeches than most. If I had a dollar for every time I hear "when I was a community organizer"(= bagman for the Daley machine) I'd have enough money to go out for a week. Besides, now that he's up against McCain, he has to start talking about his extensive Illinois senate experience to even have a chance, so yeah, we're sure to hear him talking about himself even more. Reagan and King, AUFKM? Here's the big difference: you have to have actually accomplished something to make great speeches mean anything/last through history. Somehow I doubt that old chestnut: "When I was a community organizer" is ever going to be on par with "I have a dream" or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". Could there be a better illustration of the concept of wishful thinking? Anybody care if I use this thread in training classes? Kaa F'ing Boom!!!! Hey the far-left have been forcing affirmative action on us and demanding the over-emphasizing of diversity over performance for so long, it's about time the learned the failure of those policies for themselves. Of all things, they used their stud woman candidate up as a sacrificial lamb to their god of hubris. I gotta agree with this view more than the other. It's as if the entire months of March and April media coverage don't exist now. Well, then again, since apparently Reagan didn't win the Cold War according to phony far left hacks, why shouldn't we expect them to continue their attempts at history revision? So what, now Chris Mathews didn't have funny feelings going up his leg?

Great signature line. I spent about 30 minutes tonight listening to the "enlightened" talk about health care. Normally I would toss a Hysterical. out, but it was so far and away stupid that it really isn't funny. I can honestly say that I haven't heard people spend so much effort on completely missing the point since my .com days. It staggers my imagination how not only could they not know any of the real, factual concerns at hand, but that they could draw such terrible conclusions based on those phony facts that they believe they "know". Of course I asked my standard two questions that blow this BS up every time, and of course there were no answers, just deer caught in headlights, as usual. I left laughing, and one of them chased me down asking me to stay and explain, but honestly, what's the point? So much for their absolute certainty based on their pretend intellectual superiority. If they spent any time on the finding the truth, rather than repeating their ideological mantras, they might actually learn something. And then they might actually be worthy of the term "intellectual". Pathetic at best.

Ya think? I love it near the end where it contradicts itself in 2 sentences. Sunnis have been supporting guerrilla war but would support the accord at the same time? WTF? Worse, I see a whole lot of innuendo. One of about 10 examples = "the US diplomat has been trying to force this through", with absolutely 0 factual reports to back that up. How in the hell does the author know that's the case? Based on what? What facts support him saying that this is the thinking, never mind actions of our diplomat? Can he read minds too? Hell I am sure I could walk back down to Chippewa tonight and get somebody to tell me that aliens abducted them. I probably can get another drunk to corroborate it. Does that make it true? For the record, I am saying that DC Tom is a bad dancer. In fact many "people" agree with that sentiment. One poster/source here has said that his dancing is "just a tactical subterfuge". His dancing risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought by girls who support club music vs. guys who know it sucks. Mr. Tom is determined to force us to celebrate his dancing skills by the end of the month. But they are already being condemned by girls and members of the gay community as a continuing effort to dominate the dance floor. See, I can do it too. :lol:

Right, "people" weren't effected by the wingnuts preachers/priests so much that Obama didn't lose by 30 points in WV. The polling on that was/is clear. He was significantly hurt by those idiots, whether it's fair or not. But please, spare us the BS. He obviously started his political life using that church and all the "people" in it to gain a base. I love the "well, there are much bigger churches in the Southside that I could have gone to" argument. Ok, if that's true Mr. Oblahblah, why didn't you? Why would you spend 20 years listening to that nonsense? Or, why would you think it was a good idea to keep going there, even when you knew that these people are clearly unhinged from reality? Was it easier to get a parking spot at Rev. Wright's church? Or, let's be honest, was it because there were politically active people there that you could use to get a better start on your "community organizing" activities?(read: create a voter base) But most importantly, why would you continue to expose yourself so stupidly during a Presidential race unless either: A. you don't know any better or B. you do know and you think it's ok, or C. you think you can do whatever and not get called on it. In all cases it's a significant mistake that's clear as a bell. Once again, we see a lame attempt to treat us like we are dumber than we really are by the left. But I will give you credit for making a decent attempt at trying to counter that argument by getting ahead of it with lapel pin stories. Learn from Nixon: the double talk BS cover up/PR activity only makes it worse. Stop pretending like this is no big deal, and you will take it away from the Hannitys of the world. Keep trying to play it off and you keep feeding him a new story every time you try to deny it/downplay it. Deal with him like a troll. That is, if you can get your emotions and phony ass, holier than thou liberal sensibilities in check for long enough to actually make that work. You want someplace to start? Try there.

Another classic, tap that a

It's Thursday in the Square time? Headed there now.... :lol: :lol:

I thought the scrub WRs comments were interesting regarding not being able to freelance in the NFL compared to the CFL. More evidence that there are far too many joysticks on helmets in the NFL today, and the players don't like it. Teamwork is not equal to automaton management. We saw the difference in the last SB. What I like about the Bills o this year already is that they are dropping hints at a hurry up offense, at the very least a change of pace offense, and that they are talking about Lee Evans running routes all over the field. Talk '= so let's see..... I don't understand why they are hating on the Bills and not the NFL/Rogers. It's their own people behind this idea, while we are happy to take their money and oblige. This whole time I feel that we are being compelled to play in Canada rather than it being our idea. Whether the reason is the need for more money because of Dallas, etc., the vast market that's just sitting there, NFL marketing people demands, who knows? Brandon appears to be using the "regionalization" concept as an excuse to cover for direction that is coming from the NFL. Then again Ralph could be the one forcing this through as well. Or not, perhaps he is actually being noble and using this as delaying tactic so that the league won't arbitrarily move us to Toronto and is essentially beating them to the punch. This strategy does put the Bills in charge of what happens next rather than the NFL/Rogers. I suppose a little angst from a few CFL fans is worth it.

The big difference between then and now? Those teams were comprised of players who had all played 4 years on college teams. Meaning that they: 1. Knew how to play team defense 2. Knew how to play team offense 3. Knew how to take coaching The "star" players the NBA has now are coming out of high school or spending 1-2 years in college, and the results speak for themselves. The last time I watched our "team" play internationally, I saw Coach K having to teach them as though they were college rookies. The good news is that they appear to be trying their best to take his instructions, and they obviously won the last tournament. But the question that still remains is whether or not they will be playing playground ball or playing as a world-caliber team in the Olympics. That we are even having this discussion is, and should be, a huge embarrassment for the NBA. Of course Olivier's point is well taken, the Europeans/South American TEAMS aren't the push overs they used to be. But they also practice together for much longer than our guys do. So our guys had better learn from Coach K and they better execute, or they will get their playground, shitt-talking, asses kicked again in the Olympics, making me continue my personal ban on the NBA.