OCinBuffalo

The same windbag who when he was reacting to Obama's speech? I see this as Matthews simply trying to regain some self-respect as a journalist and try to at least bring some objectivity to his, and MSNBC's, election coverage. The funny part is I agree with you and the article that his attempt is lame and completely without substance, which just proves that he will say anything to try to cover his Obama man-crush. When Saturday Night Live is doing better election coverage than MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC, something is desperately wrong. And yes, I left Fox News out of that because their coverage has been surprising good, informative and objective this time, even if it is accomplished by mostly talking heads yelling at each other. At least both sides of each issue is being addressed, and you don't have idiots like Matthews rooting for candidates as part of their "analysis".

But at the same time has the unmitigated gall to ask us all to continue to operate under the assumption that Republicans are the "real" racists/sexists. I suppose the one thing we can all look forward to is somewhere between: people taking a second to question that assumption and the final, long overdue end to the "Democrat Racists are less Racist than Republican Racists" argument being accepted by anybody anymore.

I swear it's like Pavlov's dog. Every time somebody rings the "left is doing something wrong bell" you start salivating, hoping for your "yeah but, the right/moderate/independent/corporate - essentially anyone who's not a socialist - is doing something bad too" food to be substantive, even when the bowl is empty. Fascinating. Retarded, but fascinating. Every time somebody brings up something, you always have an immediate, dopey response that has the slimmest possible relevance to the point they are making. I would say start a new thread about the above articles but I'm afraid to up your quota of 20 nonsense threads a week. Do you understand that when someone on the left is being criticized for doing something stupid, a proper defense of that person is not "yeah but somebody else is doing..." Somebody else has nothing to do with the original person doing something stupid.

Is that like the sorta hot chick hanging out with the fat/ugly chicks so she looks better?

Yeah - last time KC did some "analysis" he completely f'ed it up. He compared "good" throws, but didn't take into account that some QBs threw 2-3 times the number of of passes as others - which is how Kelly Holcomb ended up 5th on his good list. It wasn't a consistent model that can be used as a standard for comparison - like a batting average. If this "model" is based KC's poor understanding of stats, ignore this completely.

Yeah because he's better than Montana :thumbsup: just ask anybody!

Mark this day down. And admittedly "left-leaning" poster who focuses on the actual facts(not the politicized spin/manufactured facts) of the case first, then on their conclusion about said facts. There are a lot of people on this board who could learn a lot from Buftex (ehem, MG). Start with the truth and go from there, I like it.

You forgot: "WE SHOULD HAVE JUST TRADED DOWN(groundless assumptions notwithstanding) - EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE GONE AS WE PLANNED - NO MATTER WHAT!" Or, "WE DON'T WANT TO DRAFT THE BEST GUY ON OUR BOARD - TRADE DOWN AND DRAFT THE #4 or #5 GUY AT THAT POSITION. WHY? BECAUSE I SAID SO!" Or, "WE DON'T WANT THE BEST PLAYERS ON THIS TEAM - THEN WE HAVE TO PAY THEM MORE - DRAFT THE 4TH or 5th BEST AT EACH POSITION = PLAYOFFS!" Ridiculous EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot: "SEE - I TOLD YOU WE SHOULD HAVE PAID $80 MIL FOR CLEMENTS - NOW WE HAVE WASTED A PICK ON A CB"

Yep to the AMEN. Nope to them saying they "knew". They won't say that. What they will say is that the Bills are: "The Biggest Surprise Team" this year. Just like the Saints last year - notice how they all did the CYA two step and changed that story into "Isn't it great to see the Saints doing so well in light of Katrina, etc." after they picked them to go(on average) 6-10? This way no one can argue with them without looking/sounding strange. See, instead of admitting they were wrong, or, lying later on, they will get to use the S word for us and put a positive spin on the whole thing. Who doesn't like a good surprise? My question is: Are the Dolphins and the Redskins(both projected big time playoff teams) "surprises" too?

:w00t: :w00t: So we are supposed to be afraid of a "Quarterback to be Named Later"? Um, we ain't On top of that, we are supposed to be afraid of a secondary that: (by touchdowns last game) 1. Can't cover a tight end = 7-0 2. Can't tackle a slot receiver/keep him out of the endzone - with a 20 yard cushion = 14-0 3. Can't cover our #1 wide receiver at all - didn't even try at the end = 21-0 ??? Um, no. According to the "experts" Losman wasn't supposed to know what hit him last year. I'd say 50/50 in the first game. But, there is no doubt that in the second game it was the so-called "loaded" Miami Defense that found itself not knowing what hit it = Losman, instead. Watch the second game again. They had no clue what he was gonna do next/he looked them off/froze your safeties = owned. Btw, when is it ever ok for our QB to block your "vaunted" MLB and take out your CB at the same time? As far as Ricky goes, ok - I can see him getting it together and having a decent at best year. However, that is the BEST CASE SCENARIO. Do I need to remind you what the worst case scenario is? Final thought: Your new head coach cannot show his face in the state of Indiana. In fact, he had to bastardize one of his best WR(Randle El) into a QB because he couldn't recruit a quality QB(I know this first hand). He is the worst football coach IU has ever had. Enjoy! :devil: Maybe you guys can get Mularkey to fill in when Cam(proud holder of a 18-37 record as a head coach at IU) gets fired after 5 games. Can't wait to see those double reverse trick plays on 3rd and 3.

This is great - but it would have been better to get Dallas later in the season - make em freeze. Happy anyway And, yeah Schumer must have scared them - he can be a real prick when he wants to.

Yep, I saw that. I guess this finally puts the "we should have traded down and got him anyway" argument to bed, permanently, finally, forever.

Bingo! Gotta keep those shake-down, um I mean, "donation" dollars hard at work defending the world from a 60-something shock jock, who wasn't even relevant himself until this incident...... Wait a second! Is this the Al Gore - "Make Yourself Appear Relevant Again in 30 Days Plan"? It's 100% guaranteed to work or your money back. Apparently Al has been selling this to lots of people: John Kerry John McCain John Edwards William Shatner Katie Couric Mike Tyson The GM for the Devils (feel free to add your own) and many many others! How much you wanna bet Al and Don went halfsies on Al's plan?

Right but don't you see the logic? We have to spend more money on "technology in education". More money is always the answer - regardless how stupid the application of that money is. Now, here't what they are gonna do: 1. Tell each child that their new Ipod is not for personal use and that they have to keep it relavtively clear = no music on there (I know - hold on a sec) 2. Make each teacher record their instruction = make a podcast. 3. Make additional instruction available = extra help podcasts available for download on the school's website 4. Somehow make this plan = but we needed it???? 5. ???? 6. When it's time to standardize or hold accountable = no plan 7. When the teachers union votes this down because they don't want their good/bad lessons (two sides to each one) made part of the public domain = no plan 8. ??? 9. Profit How they plan to enforce #1 when the average teacher will barely know how to do 2 and 3 is beyond any rational being - and certainly beyond those of us who do this for a living The argument they will make(training/lesson plans on home computers) is a direct contradiction to the argument they made for buying the students the Ipods in the first place - not enough quality computers at home. The worst part is: there is a better way to do all of this but they haven't even bothered to try. SO, now we have a serious overpurchase of harware when a quality software solution coupled with 1/10th the hardware budget, and a slight bit of managerial competence would have done the trick. But the Liberal ideologue is happy: at all costs, we spent more money on education - cause that's the solution to everything. Thank God methodology and not ideology prevails in most technology projects.

Hmmm. So I write a post - clearly over the line in many ways - that was filled with: false assumptions, inane babble, false choices, etc., and draw fire(and warranted fire, imo) BUT...ask yourself this question - how different is it from it what was in this thread early on? I merely responded in the EXACT SAME WAY to the EXACT SAME THINGS that were being said about me earlier in this thread. It is my simple response to ridiculous babble: even more ridiculous babble. Contrast my last with the quotes below and tell me you don't see a pattern. Please understand that my last was created by using the EXACT same logic as the quotes below, I just reversed the position: SO, it's ok for ridiculous assumptions to be made about me(why in the world would I not want our allies troops released - regardless of the conditions?), but, if I make them about you(never been in a bar fight, etc.) it's not OK. Right. Right, so because of your assumption of Rkfast's association/shared position with Neo-Con IDIOTS(love the name calling - it always points out the intellectually challenged) you now think that you can apply an "all or nothing" argument to the British prisoners situation and say that he, or I, support wanton death and destruction - just like I applied the same thinking in my "they haven't grow up in the city" or "they haven't seen dead bodies, etc.". Both are examples of all or nothing thinking - just because I grew up in cities, doesn't mean I enjoy violence - nor does it mean that I want/don't want to use violence. If I had grown up in the suburbs, the same would be true. Each situation is different. Just because RK supports a strong military response when our soverignty is challenged, does not mean he wanted the prisoners used as a military pretext for war. He has every right to be upset by the patent stupidity of these comments, and it appears that you have now earned every right to be toy for this board's amusement No one has any idea if I agree with Krauthammer or not - why? Because you didn't ask me. Just like I didn't ask you about whether you, or the others, had ever been in a bar fight, to war, seen a guy killed, etc. Both posts are equally ridiculous(actually mine is even more ridiculous - as intended). Projecting expectations onto someone is an awful way of trying to prove something about them to others. Why? Because the guy you are projecting them on can behave UNEXPECTEDLY, at least in your mind, making you look like an even bigger fool than you already do. Exactly as I have, in this case. So, using the same logic in the quotes above, and others - I was able to construct a ridiculous post. (Thanks to Chicot for pointing out the obvious) Also, I heard the whole "barfight" argument from a guy - in a bar - the other day, I thought it was just ridiculous enough to be equivalent to the nonsense I have been hearing in this thread. The overall argument is not mine. It's based on the "guy in the bar" and the nonsense posts in this thread. However, all of the things that have "happened" to me are actually true. I simply used these facts in the same way and under the same logical???? rules that were applied, poorly, to me and others by posters in this thread. What's the point? I am trying, desperately, to point out to some posters here that using these kind of arguments will get them nowhere. Moreover, I wanted to see what would happen when the same stupidity that these guys fling at people on this board was flung at them. Finally, my main focus was to get some things across: stop with the namecalling, stop with the horrible attempts at distortion/lies/projections - I will catch you every time, cut the crap with the assumptions - or - at least prove you know how to make one properly - based on facts, not bs, and don't try to smear people on this board unless you like looking stupid. And, before anyone attempts to accuse me of "backtracking" please understand that I have done these types of posts many times before. I am not trying to act superior - I am trying to get others to look at/think about/feel differently about an issue. Essentially I am trying to de-program some folks, amuse other folks, but mostly provoke thought in general, since that is supposedly why we are here. Well, after 5-6 days, it appears that most of you were smart enough to see this one coming from a mile away - which makes me happy. The ones that didn't see it were it's targets anyway. Apologies to anyone that got caught in the middle.

I'm not down with this. However true it may be, and I'm sure you can point out instances of lying and misquoting, there's no point in doing what MG does on a daily basis - talking smack. It doesn't convince anyone of anything. And, I like Darin's idea, simply continue to point out the lies and misquotes - sooner or later something will stick to MG just like the example AD used. Much better to simply contradict MG with the facts. S/He crumples every time(I'm starting to guess MG is a she, btw). I don't have a problem with opinions - I do have a problem with lies, but I have a bigger problem with shrill name calling.

This is hysterical because you are the one who told me last August to use more of them. What, now that I'm using them you don't like it? Bluefire telling me to use emticons, and underlines, and bolds Or, are you simply a Kerry wanna-be flip flop artist? I have been reading your post from then and now today - and laughing. You were just as limited in your ability to add anything useful to the discussion then as now. You were just as likely to crack on, and offer no reasonable contradiction to my points then as now. Good job on the consistency thing - oh wait, I almost forgot, I didn't use any emticons, bolds or underlines this time, is that ok or not? Please be consistent about that too.

Clearwater is across the bay from Tampa on the Courtney Cambpell. If you can get to Tampa, do it, because you will get to go to one of the best Sabres Bars not in Buffalo. It is right across from the Hockey Arena( St. Petersburg Times Arena) and it's called Dave Andreychuck's grille. My Uncle and I have each been there separately and we both highly recommend it. He was there this year and said it is practically 100% Sabres fans on hockey nights. However, it's about 30-45 mins(traffic) away from Clearwater, and a huge area is know as "clearwater". If you go have fun - and good luck you only have to worry about cops halfway on the bridge - one of the coolest drives in the country - you'll see why...

Results after 18 votes: Pats - Home 12.00 66.67% Pats - Away 2.00 11.11% Jets - Home 17.00 94.44% Jets - Away 8.00 44.44% Miami - Home 17.00 94.44% Miami - Away 16.00 88.89% Ravens - Home 7.00 38.89% Bengals - Home 10.00 55.56% Broncos - Home 0.00 0.00% Cowboys - Home 15.00 83.33% Giants - Home 16.00 88.89% Browns - Away 17.00 94.44% Steelers - Away 0.00 0.00% Jags - Away 8.00 44.44% Eagles - Away 4.00 22.22% Redskins - Away 15.00 83.33% Sorry if it looks like crap - I'm gonna figure out some code for the the next one.

That's exactly why I posted this - I wanted to see what people actually thought, even with the things you mentioned.

Yeah but it beats the crap out of one more(insert player here) post. I just wanna see the gross numbers. I can always do my own %s at the end. Edit: On the other hand, if SDS was to let me slip in some javascript....

I picked us to beat the: Pats at home Jets both Miami both Bengals Cowboys Giants Browns Redskins so, 10-6. I know that's very optimistic, but I think many of these teams are beatable by JP, if no one else.

Don't bother trying to explain it to them. It is clear that their mental state is such that they are not capable of understanding. These are the guys that have never been in a bar fight - or, have never held their own in one. Y'know, that point when all the time for talk is over? These are the guys who are still talking when the fight actually starts and they get their azz kicked. Or, these are your "friends" that don't help when you get jumped by three guys. After the fight they always talk about how it could have been avoided/how stupid the fight was/how they would have done something if only...,etc. - great, thanks. God forbid they ever get in a situation where fighting is the last choice left - well, not really. In that case, they get their azz kicked, and then go to the cops, get a lawyer and sue. According to these folks, real men ALWAYS sue to solve their problems. Which is fine, just don't get caught being their girlfriend/boyfriend, unless gang rape appeals to you. Of course, I don't expect them to understand that last sentence, since they have never been in that situation - I have. But I'm sure they will say I'm lying - how can something they don't know about actually exist? Must be a lie. These guys feel safe in their "intellectuals-rule" world, since they have never known anything else. They have never been truly and personally exposed to brutality - but I'm sure they have read about it. They have never been shot at, or seen a friend, or a complete stranger, killed right in front of them. How much you wanna bet they have never even seen a dead body, or worse, a guy with half his body missing and still alive? So, why should we expect them to take our word for it? I am sure that growing up in the suburbs, in the same town, for their whole lives - insulated them nicely from the reality of this world, and has made it nearly impossible for them to understand what we know. It's not their fault, they simply don't know any better. Ignorance is not stupidity, but, acting/speaking based on ignorance is stupidity. The worst part is: in their arrogance, they think we like our experiences! - that we like the fact that bad things have happened to us, that we want more bad things so we can go on fighting/dealing with them = crazy. I wish I could get rid of all of these experiences, but, I'm glad that I acted the way I did in each one, and that I wouldn't take back. The fact is they don't want to make any attempt to truly understand - because it calls huge parts of their own character into question and they don't like the mirror. They are never going to understand that the "only way to win a fight", or a war, depends 100% on the other guy. If he wants to go, and that is all he wants, then the only way to win is to crush him. Conversely, if he just wants to look tough in front of others, you laugh at him but you don't need to fight. But, the last thing you do is back down to a little schit talker(Iran) - then he is getting what he wants, and others begin to think maybe you aren't so tough = invites more fights that you now will have to try to "negotiate" out of. These guys act like those of us who understand that reality, and are willing to step up, are happy about it No, we're just as appalled about the situation and feel just as horrible and have the same fears. The difference is we have the moral courage to do something/support others who are willing to do something about it - they don't, and more importantly they don't know why they don't, and it makes them crazy = they lash out at us and start calling us names/accusing us of wanting military conflict Yes, these are the guys that like to hang out with the tough guys - and get the benefit of their protection - but at the same time like to make fun of the tough guys behind their backs, because they can't handle their own insecurities. I know the type - these people have been around me/gravitated to me my whole life - don't expect anything from them, especially in a storm. These are the first guys that get fired when/if a big storm comes, since no one can count on them to actually understand the realities of conflict - in any form - because they haven't lived it - and it becomes so obvious that they gotta go. You can, of course, expect them to talk schit about you - but then, based on this thread, you already knew that. :lol: :lol:

Whoa - there is a huge difference between a freely elected legislative body voting on and implementing a government program(s) that its has roots in socialist themes, and a small group(4 or 5) of psychopaths and/or sociopaths simply deciding everything every day, all the time.(which by the way - regardless of the country or implementation, ALWAYS ends up being the case when socialist government is imposed). There is no way in hell that we, or any country that matters economically, are a "socialist"country - a little wishful thinking on your part maybe? The simple answer is that in every country, even Sweden, people own businesses not the government, and, we have an actual freely elected government - not Ortega, Castro, or good old Uncle Joe! So no, almost every representative government is not socialist, not even close. You want to know why we, and really no one else, are NOT a socialist country? Small businesses. IF we were a socialist country they simply wouldn't exist. In all the former soviet republics and the USSR, this is what they are focusing on - because it is the diversity of small business that allows for a strong economy, since many small businesses mitigate risk better than one, huge, company/government owned collective. Why? Because if the economy takes a turn some of the small businesses will fail, but will be bought by/replaced by others, but the overall state of a nations ability to produce will stay strong. Whereas if the "collective" is running things, and it fails, everybody is screwed. It works just like your body does - lots and lots of little cells - one cell dies - no big deal. And, each cell has to produce or it stops getting fed. The best part is each cell makes its own decisions, good or bad, and the decisions of one cell, do not automatically affect the others. At the same time, we have large corporations who maximize economies of scale, making it cheap for us to buy the things we have pretty much figured out, like dog food, plates, and lawn mowers. As much as people like to bash Wal-Mart - there are millions of people whose lives are better because of them. This is precisely why all the predictors of our economy taking a huge nose dive after 9/11 were astronomically wrong. It is why we kick the crap out of the rest of the world overall in new technology products(um, before you even start, yeah the ones we invent and they steal, well not much we can do about that). It is why we outproduce the Europeans - to their amazement - every single quarter. Their old systems of "over-tax and overspend" would never in a million years allow small business to flourish. Why? Because why should I take the huge risk in starting a new computer company in Holland, if I know that, no matter what, 70% of what I might make IF I don't fail is going to be taken from me, no matter what. I'm better off just staying at my job, working for the big company. Now, is Holland a socialist country? Well, maybe, but the difference is: they and their elected officials could throw off this "over-tax and overspend" yoke any time - they have that choice. IF they want to stop being stupid and actually try to to give us a run for our money - they could and no one would get killed because of it. And, the EU is desperately trying to emulate our small business model - and cutting spending/nanny state programs - this is the reason why we saw the riots in France. The kids are being told by their parents(government): We are not gonna guarantee you everything such that you are allowed to be a non-productive **** that "lives life to the fullest, unlike those greeedy Americans" anymore. That was a pipe dream and an example of selfishness on a galactic scale. In a truly socialist country none of this is happening unless you kill/imprison the 4 or 5 psychopaths - provided they haven't killed/imprisoned you first.