OCinBuffalo

Wrong. The Republicans, and anyone who votes for them, believe(and they are right about this in terms of accepted, multiple-country, never fails, proven economic principles), that if you strip/limit an economy of its ability to invest in itself, and for individuals to profit by taking the risk of investing, that economy will never grow, will never stabilize and will never gain consumer confidence because there are no "latest and greatest" products coming out that inspire consumption = no increasing demand. No increased demand w/ set supply = no higher price = no profit = no new money for investing in the next new product = no next new product = same crap as last year = nobody wants to buy = no increasing demand. Those are the laws of economics, and you can talk for the next week straight, when you are done, they will still be true. This is why all socialist economies are eventually doomed to fail their people. And by fail I mean, at best things never get better, at worst it's major depression time = Soviet Union circa 1986. So, while socialists can talk all they like, the historical facts, economic truths and the #s are not on their side. Especially when you compare results. Why? Because investment is never made by socialists, by definition, they take the excess and redistribute it to everyone. So, the reason the middle class votes Republican is largely due to the fact that they understand basic economics(and hopefully now so do you). Their chief interest lies in making sure corporate investment happens = taxes aren't raised too high, because that's how they get/keep their jobs. Voting for someone who is going to increase taxes in an economic slowdown is suicide if you are in the middle class, because you are the first to be let go due to the higher taxes your company now has to pay, which restricts investment. Company execs don't care, they have to show a profit or they lose their jobs. So they downsize, and Bob Middle Class gets to trade giving free health care away to others(some deserving others not), who now have no economic responsibility for how well/poorly they take care of themselves, for his job. Perfect! Yeah, that's in the middle class's interest alright. Unfortunately, this whole thing is dependent on one thing: strong value of the $. When the government over-spends and then over-borrows to cover, that lowers the value. Worse, the government becomes Bob Middle Class's chief competitor for a loan, then Bob doesn't get the loan, or, if he does, he has to pay higher interest rates on it or he has to borrow more $$$. Neither things are in Bob's interests at all. This is how we have the trouble we have, the Compassionate Conservative crap is crazy. You can't expect to go into a war, cut taxes and over spend/borrow without consequences. You either have to cut spending or raise taxes to meet the need for new $$$. McCain was right in pointing that out in 2002, but now that we're where we are, we have to deal with the reality of today. So Bob, being a lot smarter than most liberals give him credit for, takes a look at all this and says: "Well, I hate all the Religious Right crap, but at least I won't lose my job and I can get the car loan I need" and votes Republican, which is usually far and away in his best interest economically. Why? Because Democrats have never been about the middle class, they are about giving away free shitt to the poor in exchange for votes. They talk about the middle class, but they have no problem dropping tax bombs on them to pay for their grossly overblown, ridiculously poorly managed spending projects that accomplish little in terms of solving the problems they were intended to fix. Your analysis of the flat tax is simply awfully bad math, at the very least misleading, and doesn't take into account corporate taxes. Nor does it take into account the billions that would be saved for the economy as a whole if the flat tax was implemented, as it has in the 12 countries where that has been done. Do yourself a favor and lgoogle Milton Friedman and the country of Chile. Then come back and talk to me.

So I guess it's safe to assume that you won't like the question "Does Obama need to get somebody who actually knows foreign policy on his team immediately?" when you find out about it 2 weeks from now, right? But, when they go with "Is McCain too old?" you'll be pleasantly surprised in two weeks, so I guess it's not that bad....

This has been my little secret thought(who am I kidding, wish) for the last couple of weeks. Every so often I keep thinking that we have a decent chance to put up 56 on them on our field this year, just like they did to us last year. It's not about wanting them to, I just keep thinking they have chance to. I have no idea why. It defies all logic, and even seems ridiculous from an emotional perspective, but it has been popping up here and there in my mind fairly consistently. I'm just glad there are others who see this, so I know that at least I will have company in the loony bin. I have no idea where this thought came from, and I certainly haven't gone to the trouble of formally analyzing it like Tipster, but it has been there for the last two weeks. I suppose I wouldn't mind if it was against their backups, but somehow I see the game being meaningful for both teams. No how many times I tell myself to cut it out, I keep hearing/seeing Ian Eagle(or some other 2nd team announcer) talking about how "ironic" the whole blowout thing is during the game. OTOH, perhaps I need a vacation....or perhaps this is just wishful thinking taking over my sensibility.

So it's ok to cast aspersions on Hardy as long as you use the word IF? I wouldn't, because apparently they don't teach you guys the difference between building a logically sound argument(we do in high school) and extrapolation without basis in fact. Don't know about how well they teach objectivity and/or critical thinking, but I doubt, based on your post, that's better than us as well. The balance of your post only speaks to what you conclude should happen(counseling) based on a set of dependent conditionals = first conditional(issues), which is itself based on a conditional(gun) and another conditional(argument worthy of police being called), but nowhere in any of it is there one constant, i.e. Hardy had a gun at the party = true. Objectively, the only conclusion that can be reasonably held as true, based on the facts we have, is that nothing Hardy did merited further action by police, since none was taken. Extrapolating a conclusion based on a set of assumptions whose value you assign as true is simply unreasonable, because if any prove false the whole CHAIN becomes false, i.e if there is no gun, then does he have issues? No, he can't, based on your argument. Pesky dependent variable. Of course we all hope that if he truly has problems he gets help, but the reality is that you are slinging mud at this guy without backing it up with anything other than a set of dependent assumptions and/or perceptions that have an equal chance of being false or true. And all of them have to be true for your conclusion = Hardy needs to get counseling IF..., to be true = extrapolation. Need another example of our education system vs. yours? Or are we done? Dude, now you're just being ignorant. We have 9 times your population, 10 times your GDP, and 29% higher per capita disposable income. Link HereTo make it easier for you: we have 9 times as many people chasing 10 times the wealth with the average mark on the street likely to have $300 bucks in his pocket for every one of yours with $200. But you want to talk about crime? Hint: you don't have enough people and money to make crime feasible and/or worth bothering with. You are essentially comparing the city of Buffalo to the city of Ithaca, NY and then trying to talk about the crime rate? Ridiculous. Is this another example of that fine Canadian education? I wouldn't have bothered with you but I am sick of listening to these bogus Canadian myths every time I go to a Bills/Sabres game or any other time Canadians are around Downtown. Do us all a favor and have you and your friends at least get your facts straight before you come over here. Better yet, simply enjoy yourselves like the rest of us are trying to do and spare us the bluster, BS and myths. All you are doing is confirming your insecurity with regard to us, and it's getting quite pathetic.

I was there for #53. Glory, pure glory.

I was writing another post and I thought about this topic. Warning: I'm being objective here. I wonder if ESPN, etc. and us for that matter, are simply using this story to fill space. So I tried to write these questions objectively as possible and see. Last year they spent May-Mid July on Micheal Vick, and so did we, to a degree. Obviously this story is different because: we were already making fun of Mr. Mexico long before the dog fighting(still makes me mad) story came out, and, the Patriots are in our division and thinking that they have been getting over on us for the last 7 years while we have had some decent leads/games/teams pours gas on the fire. I want to know what everybody else thinks. It's just a question, if I'm way off base, then that's that, but I wonder what the difference would have been if Walsh came forward after our second pre-season game. I wonder what will happen if something/someone else comes out about this around that time. Perhaps nothing, perhaps not. I strongly agree that I am angry about it, I'm not sure if it's the timing, how it would go later, hence this topic. Nod to LSI: Will that dominate the board, or will James Hardy's 2 TDs against Pittsburgh be way more important?

Right, they're just at the mercy of that other soulless, mindless organization: the Federal Government. So I guess we're safe now, huh? More Taxes = More Money = More Funding for NPR. But I'm sure they're objective...of course they aren't in the tank for anybody who favors big government. Just sayin'...you can't trust any of them, so let's save the pretending for Shay's theater, ok? OTOH, the line blurring between the media, the NFL, and the media expanding into other industries using that relationship as a spring board, is cause for real concern. I mean seriously, WTF is CBS doing slinging over-priced burgers at Patriotland* and trying to talk objectively about the NFL at the same time? The blurrier that line gets, the closer the NFL comes to being just one more TV show. And that means it stops being about the game, and starts being about who is "supposed" to win. I just gotta laugh at all the planned "Pats*: Best Team Eva" shows/promotions that got canceled. Not to mention all of the endorsements that centered around the "perfect" concept = "Just like the perfect Patriots*, Summer's Eve Douches will get you perfectly Patriot* clean. Right, Tom?" The thing is: a whole lot of money/time probably got wasted on all of that shitt, and I bet those people would give anything to not bet wrong again. Even the guys who made 2 commercials, one for each outcome, would much rather only have to make one. So the real danger is letting them get what they want. And while this is a significant danger, it's not that difficult to mitigate. We're doing it right now, right here, and so are millions of other football fans. This is why the internet should never be taxed, regulated or allowed to become dominated by any organization, government, or company. It needs to stay free and kept free by those who truly understand freedom. We should never allow it to be controlled in any way by socialist individuals or countries, or one/a few corporations, or religious extremists, or anybody else who says/thinks they speak for the "collective good". Just like on this board, the true "collective good" reveals itself to us through the voices of all(and occasionally some facts ) and needs no one to interpret it for us. We are all becoming aware of the real truth about this football team, over time, because of all of our posts/links combined, data point by data point. NPR is not the savior, obviously neither is ESPN, etc. We are. This phenomenon = we, the average joe, having the power for once = is why the Pats* cheating story isn't going away, despite the best, well-paid efforts of the best marketing/PR people in the business. The sheer volume of different stories/links/blogs/posts from millions of sources represent an unstoppable flow of information that cannot be silenced by the old PR tactics, a bunch of whining Pats* fans, or anything else. The best part: since ESPN, WGR and the rest have now clearly started using sites like this one to do their jobs with, they HAVE to pay attention to us. As long as we are talking about the Cheatriettes, they will be too.

I won't either, we had the most people we had ever had at our Backers bar(75). When the play happened the entire management of the bar and the owner ran upstairs to us thinking that a riot had broken out. I couldn't hear what they were saying, I just waved my arm towards our crowd and simply said: "Bills fans!" They aren't used to that kind joy in Philly. They just stood there dumbfounded, the GM ran behind the bar to talk to me but I couldn't hear a word, the view was looking very similar to the end of the "Smells like Teen Spirit" video from Nirvana, and the Shout song was already in full swing. The rest of the game, Oh well, but that 90 seconds will always be one of my fondest Bills memories. As far as this the topic goes: everything seems to fit, but it doubt we can say for sure that A = B = C without knowing for sure if A is true. Specifically A = given that facts that: 1. the Pats* were bumbling in the first half, 2. we were beating them at halftime, = and so presumably they went and got out their tape.... OTOH, while it's all conjecture until somebody can prove that last part, there are too many coincidences here for us to believe that NO significant advantage was gained by the Pats* cheating. I don't believe in coincidence in general, and certainly not in as many as you have laid out here in a row.

First of all I voted other because this is a Crayonz post. Second, my other vote has something to do with Edwards wearing gloves, again, because this is a Crayonz post. Third, when the last 4 options are basically the same thing-->assume Edwards is a candy-ass, then reply, I hardly see the point in talking about play calling or injuries in an thread that sooner or later is going to end up discussing Edwards wearing gloves, or not hanging around WNY in fuggin' January. I moved to Buffalo last fall, and, just having gone through a real Buffalo winter for the first time in a long while, I cannot blame anyone for wanting to get the F out of here for any reason at all. But, I'm sure you will find a way to circle around to gloves anyway. Isotoner? Marino?

First thing: make sure when you quote somebody that you add the ( ), minus the parens, at the end, because this is how we do it... Second thing: we are way far away from the PPP board, but I suppose my original "tee hee" comments have hooked so many 'tards that now I have to deal with it right here, right now. Right, but how can you be good at telling lies and fooling people, if you are supposedly an idiot, at the same time? Or, what does it say about your opponents, that you beat every time you have run, if you are a blatant idiot? And, how can you bee a good liar and an idiot, at the same time? I guess I don't see it, unless your opponents are bigger liars, or bigger idiots, or both, than you are. Right? Or is it, once again, everybody else's fault(the old Jimmy Carter chestnut)? And, are you calling the vast majority of people who didn't vote for Bush, Gore or Kerry idiots? Or, are they just not as smart as you? The last time somebody was worth my vote was our prom queen(plus I have had state residency issues) = PofA. And then I saw her at my ten year reunion and she looked like a refrigerator. But still, at least she fulfilled her responsibilities at the time Um, unless you get all your news from MoveOn.org, or you were home-schooled, the Democrats have been labeling themselves as elitists(except Clintons = why they won) since 1972. Here, read the latest iteration: apparently anybody that owns a gun or believes in God is a retard. What a fine example of "bringing people together" and "unifying the country". Um, this is from CBS, so don't bother with the whole media, blah, blah, blah. Given this, I hardly think you should be worried about my "labeling" when the Dems are doing a fine job of it themselves. If you really think that far-left liberals don't identify themselves as "smarter" and "morally superior" to the rest of us, I have a dare/bet for you. PM me if you want the details, but understand that the results will be published, nobody has ever gotten away with ducking me, and you will be doing a lot of push-ups on youtube if you lose. Bottom line: there is a giant difference between being elite, and being an "elitist". The former requires, as Churchill said, "Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence = the key to unlocking our potential", the latter requires next to nothing. As an elite guy in what I do, it's actually quite simple: Elite = verb, elitist = noun. It shouldn't be too hard for you, or anyone else, to determine the difference. How many people do you know, never mind politicians, that are elite? Please detail all of the serving elite Democrats or Republicans for us, and remember that Moynihan and Reagan don't count. B.I.N.G.O and Bingo was his name-o. Somehow lies have turned into "opinions" = up can actually = down, and hate speech is only hate speech if a white person does it. I agree with everything, except the "hopelessly" part. If MoveOn.org can spew BS, bereft of fact, innuendo, and get(Soros)/make money doing it, imagine what the actual, objective, truth can do...perhaps we should start something, just for fun at first, that defines and demands factual argument WRT politics. Or, I can jump on this call and be done.....

So you must have the double curse of common sense and the ability to create an honest, logical, intellectual argument as well, huh? Welcome to the real minority. Those of us who actually think/get paid to to provide real solutions for a living...and have to put up with retard ideology or political stupidity while trying to get our jobs done. Btw, my boss is an ahole too. Ask me about Pyrite.... Or, are you one more mindless slug? It's OK if you are. Lord knows they have been showing up in this thread like the mindless, intellectual candy-asses they are. The good new is: perhaps we are going to get to toy with them some more...If Ricky Williams can still play in the NFL, I am immune to all stupid crap for the next 2 years at least. Ignorant retards will continue to take my bait for the next 6.5 months until they learn what "McGoverned" means. Fun, fun, fun till their daddy takes their schit bird away.... Between the Pats* fans and the retards mentioned above, at least we will have free entertainment for a while. No f'ng mimes or clowns though.... and yes, I used the word "mindless" twice in this post, as well as other repetitive punctuation. Might as well cue up the tools....

Well, aside from the fact that I am still laughing at the absurdity of your last post, and the responses to it, I will say this: my little brother did end up at the Sundowner last year one night and spotted Lee Evans and another player, sorry I forgot who. I'll guess I'll have to ask him if Lee gave him a lap dance. Oh and apparently one of his drunk/idiot friends tried to get Lee to help him find his coat. Does that count? Also, I still don't know why Lee would go to the Sundowner given the other places around there. Christ, is GTR still open? I can't get the image of a fat chick at that place...well there are probably kids about so I'll just say it involved a shag rug. It's been fun but it's Miller Time. I'll be sure to check this tomorrow for some more stripper wedding stories from you.

(Ha, hooked another one, good fishing today) I do agree absolutely that Bush has been terrible. Although I still wonder how he could be such a good liar, and such an idiot, at the same time, and be able to beat the Democrats every time he has run against them, while being an idiot and good liar, at the same time. It must be that he's lied so well about being an idiot and a good liar, at the same time, that he's confused everyone, right? Or is it that the Democrats couldn't beat an idiot and a great liar, at the same time? But of course, it wasn't their fault, that an idiot and a great liar, at the same time, beat them twice in a row. The difference is: I don't hear Republicans blaming anyone else for Bush's failings. They have their own stupid flaws(Gay Marriage), but not holding themselves accountable/introspection is not one of them(see the bagging of Newt Gingrich when he failed to get Clinton). Or, if it is one of their flaws, you can take it, multiply it by 3 orders of magnitude, and you might approach the level of flaw that Democrats have with accountability and introspection. However, nothing approaches the stack of BS that is the Pats* fans denial of reality that their "good guy" team that does everything "the right way" are a bunch of cheaters who then lied about it. Or, does it depend on the definition of the word "misinterpretation"? (bait placed, casting....)

Looks like I hooked another one. This is fun. Sowwy did I damage your fragile sensibilities too? To the point that you have to go after my use of the word "infinite", instead of addressing the content? Hint: hey liberal dbag, being snarky doesn't make you smart, it just makes you snarky. Why don't you do something useful and tell me why these Mass-holes seem to be unable to accept reality: Pats*, Clinton, Kennedy? Or did I use too many question marks this time??????????????????

At least I tried to...whatever, yours are funnier. The image of Hardy giving my brother a lap dance will cause me to start intermittently laughing at the wrong times (guys bathroom at the bar, boring conference calls) for the next week. Thanks.

Ahhh, too bad I'm a wiseass independent who thinks South Park, Family Guy, and The Simpsons are funny, and they take infinitely more shots at Massachusetts, Bill Clinton, and Kennedy than I do. What, did I hurwt wittle baby's feewings? Sorry about the facts, dude. I take infinitely more pride in setting up and making fun of people like you than I do worrying about/caring whose political party is "right". Go on over to PPP and learn. I hate both parties, and I hate reality denial and blatantly stupid ideas being put forward in the name of ideology more than anything. It's highly amusing to me that I can still get a rise out of you even though the Clinton thing was 10 years ago, and I wasn't even alive for the Kennedy thing. Perhaps it's time for you to let it go....or not, I suppose it never gets old poking phony ass liberals with the Clinton thing.

EDIT: Oops! You could simply ignore me and look at Dibs' post above. That is a fine example of what I am talking about below. However, s/he doesn't resolve the Texans suckiness either, friggin' bastard. I suppose I wasn't asking for a summary of your troubles with Ramius and I fail to see how anything in this paragraph resolves the issue I presented. I do appreciate the work you put in because it shows us that if nothing else you care enough to take the effort to try and back up what you are saying. I haven't been following much of the Ramius vs. AKC war, but I will tell you that if you think it's a good idea to compare us only against the "best" teams, without establishing a control(isolate the variables we are talking about here), or better, proving the inverse(contrapositive), then this is simply bad math. The reason is simple: if your findings are supposed to prove a causation then the inverse of the causal relationship you have defined should, by definition, be true as well. Consider: if you were saying that the lower a person's IQ, the more likely they are to believe in Global Warming, the inverse of that = the higher a person's IQ the less likely they are to believe in Global Warming, should be true as well, which would clearly demonstrate IQ as a causal factor on belief in Global Warming. You have to study the whole data set, and if you cannot establish the inverse of your causal relationship between variables, as well as your premise, then there must be some other mitigating factors(in this case political ideology), or limiting factors(mean, median and mode IQs of the sample set), that have to be run down and accounted for, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time. So, if you are trying to prove that "the best teams have a higher propensity to draft O or D line earlier and/or more often" it simply stands to reason that you must also prove that "the worst teams have a higher propensity to not draft O or D line earlier and/or more often". Telling us that you "don't care about what mistakes" the bad teams make doesn't suffice, and changes your efforts from a "study" to mere "conjecture" in a heartbeat = you are simply pissing into the wind, and it's landing on the rest of us... And none of this resolves the Texans either. Since I handled the trouble your "study" is in above, and I was in favor of drafting, in order: 1. somebody that fell to us who we weren't supposed to get(McKelvin, Ellis, Harvey, Rivers I would have been fine with any of them, I did not want Gholston), 2. trading down, 3. a CB, 4. reaching for a O lineman like Brandon, I don't see how any of your WR argument applies to me. I have excellent judgment, and I'm going to demonstrate that right now: Nothing in your post resolves why the Texans(or as Ramius suggested, Chiefs = 3 get slaughtered playoff appearances as the lowest common denominator? please or Rams) have sucked for as long as they have while drafting O and D line exclusively. Worse, they have all been drafting in the top 15 consistently for the last 5 or so years, so it's not like they are getting crap players, yet they can't do anything on the field. My excellent judgment also tells me that I apparently I will be waiting for you to prove the inverse of what you are saying, perhaps forever, while I am still waiting for you to answer my original f'ing question.

That's a plausible way to look at this situation. However, unfortunately for your argument, that is only one of many, many plausible ways to look at this. The problem is your way of looking at this is seriously lacking, just like the other ways, in one key area: factual information. So, in place of factual information you create a perfectly logical scenario, but have to replace the main characters, um Hardy, his dad, the 73 year old lady who think she saw something, and the cops who were there, with "our" Brother, a Stripper and "our" family. Sorry, but this argument is therefore weak at best, and has just as likely a chance of being true as anything else. I look at it this way: IF the Bills did their own investigation properly and IF the authorities did theirs, and nobody found anything worth bothering with, then the mostly likely scenario is that nothing really happened, or, the whole thing did happen but the family is sweeping it under the rug. If the latter is true, it still doesn't matter that much, because if it were that serious I doubt the outcome would have been = Hardy leaves, cops don't arrest anybody. Is is that hard to believe that a 73 year old lady might, misinterpret/over-amplify what she saw? My Grandmothers were famous for that. How about this: She probably has a bone to pick with their family especially since there was a party and she wasn't invited<-- see that's idle and irresponsible speculation, the same thing that your argument is primarily based on.

tee hee

Just saw that: That's pretty much the best capstone I have heard for this whole issue = You cheated, you knew it was wrong, you did it anyway, and now you have nobody to blame but yourself. Your history is permanently tainted and if you want to get angry about that, start with your coach and your team. I don't understand Pats* fans blaming everybody else but themselves and their leaders for their team's poor choices and bad behavior. I suppose they probably think Bill Clinton's Blowgate Special wasn't his fault either. Certainly they seem to think Teddy Kennedy's vehicular manslaughter fun wasn't his fault, they keep voting for him... Perhaps they are just more "forgiving" than the rest of us

I was waiting for that, my boss is an ahole too!

You know what I want? I want to see Tom Brady consistently put into a situation all season similar to Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, or Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and, of course, John Elway(the guys I have seen play), where he actually has to win games for his team, week in and week out. I don't want to see him get to rely on his kicker or his defense to do all the real winning, while he throws short passes to his TEs and RBs. I honestly don't think we have seen him have to take that team on his back yet(for real, not ESPN hyped up ballwashing), on the level of the guys I have mentioned, especially in the Big Game. We had a preview of it though: last year's SB, two years ago AFC championship game(3 picks en route to the allowing the biggest Championship Game Comeback of all time). IF he shows me Elway, etc.'s level under those REAL conditions this season, or any season, then I will finally be able to include him with the rest of those guys. I honestly have no idea if he is at that level or not, we've never seen him do what those guys did, because he basically hasn't had to do what they did. Not saying he can't, just that he hasn't had to. And, before you argue, consider the records/stats any of the QBs I mentioned would have if they had a defense on the level of the Pats the last 7 years. If Marino was getting the ball 10 drives a game at their 30 yard line in 1985, what would have happened? They were the only ones to beat the best D of all time, btw. Somehow I don't see Brady setting the TD record last year, because Marino's would have been 70 TDs in a season. This is an argument that is separate from the cheating thing, btw. Lord knows what effect that has had, but to say it had no/little effect is ridiculous.

Yeah, like the Junior Seau or Roosevelt Colvin(I thought he was the reason you said your LBs aren't old, what happened? )or Adailius Thomas plan? You need to do a lot better than talking down an All-Pro who isn't even 30 yet, when all your starting LBs, especially the ones you got in FA, are all older than he is.

I knew that cheap shot was going to come from somebody....I just thought it was going to involve a nightstick, blah, blah....too bad NYC is now an example of how you do things right = reduce crime/get results, and Philly and DC are the exact opposite. So there, sticking up for my man Bill. I am going to argue with him about drafting O line no matter what till I die, but I am not gonna let anybody give him crap for being part of a major change/doing a job that everyone thought was impossible.

I'm waiting for you to resolve your "edicts" against the performance of the Texans on the field and in the win column. Don't like that? Go ahead and use Ramius's examples: Chiefs and Rams. Or, are you gonna keep ducking me? (just playin')