OCinBuffalo

Hey Chickenshit: Define your standard for a Senator who sits on the the Armed Services comittee, yet, is not a complete tool of the military industrial complex. You've had 3 damn months.

Perhaps, but, I see psychosis here too. You have to start out with a warped perception, so that when it is extended, the warp continues and it comes full circle and bites you. In this case, the same professional malcontent's views are so obtuse/incongruent with reality, that he is arguing against racism by taking a position against feminism, based on a quote from a real feminist who actually had both a legitimate grievance and real live oppressors. This guy doesn't rate to carry "...better a rebel than a slave" lady's panties, never mind purport to be be standing on her shoulders[insert "fighting for ____" cliches here] After all, isn't the cornerstone of feminism quite literally: self-determination? If so, then how dare anyone condemn any major life choices, lifestyles, or "balances" thereof, made by any female, or t-shirts worn: free speech...while also maintaining their status as pro-feminism? It's the Mike Vick thing all over again: we are supposed to be tolerant of everyone's culture...except when that culture offends us/we think we know better/somebody does something, rooted in that culture, that we don't like. Meanwhile, rational thinkers like me simply say "Don't be an unmitigated moron, period. I don't give a F about your culture, and if it is causing you to be an unmitigated moron, get a new one". It's the same thing with gay marriage: very little to do with whether people care about gays, and a lot to do with supporters LAMPing themselves as morally superior-->political power. It's becoming clear that almost all of this new "grievance" regime, just like with the Church of Environtology, is merely interested in $/power, that they can never earn using just their own skills and abilities. But, you can't join any of these cults without the necessary programming. The problem: when these cults are exposed to the real world, or bump into each other, it all FAILs. That is how we end up with articles in the OP.

Do you see what happens? This is what happens when the design of your ideology is so bent, than any logical extension of it bends it far enough around to bite you in the ass. The fool is talking about slavery, in the same piece, where he denies the right to free speech to others, and then attributes tyranny...to them. I found this article to be hilariously confused. The fact that this who thing perplexes this guy, to this degree? Says all we need to know about the intellectual rigor behind whatevertheF premises he lives by.,

Great! But, uh, I've only been saying this for what? 4 years now? And, it's dopey to apply an inheritance tax. Rather, the deceased should be able to pass it on to whomever they choose. This is how real wealth is created. More often than not, poor people get and stay that way because they piss their $ away. Rich people tend to be cheap/savers. This is life. But, if both the poor and the rich all get to pass on their HSAs, because they can't use it for anything else? A couple of decades of that, and we've got a very large pool of cash that can be applied. Over time this pool of cash competes with catastrophic insurance, which prevents a collusion/price fixing by the major insurers(assuming they can operate across state lines, finally, idiots)in your national pool. Essentially you are forcing wealth on people who would otherwise piss it away. Yes, tyranny. Please stop forcing poor people to save their $ for the first time in their lives. In fact, we should allow anyone to pre-tax contribute to anyone else's HSA. Governments, Employers, Family, Friends, everybody. The reason? Human nature. Nobody gives a crap about the deductions for insurance on their current paycheck. All they see is the $ they put in the bank. And, nobody cares about 2k in a HSA account, especially if they know that the government is ready to step in when they blow through it. But, if that account has 200k in it? Suddenly people get awfully careful about how/where/why they spend. It's counterintuitive, but, that's human nature for you. EDIT: Doubt me? Take $50 to the casino one night. You lose/blow it, so what? The next night, take $2k. You'll see for yourself. EDIT: The only problem with this is: end of life health care. Expensive as hell and likely to drain an account dry. That's why our system is so important. REAL cost monitoring, controls, and accountability, the kind you and I are familiar with, are the answer here. This includes documenting care so granularly, especially when mistakes are made and immediately corrected in real time, that it eliminates "negligence" from the argument, and thus, eliminates lawyers sucking $ out of the system as well. We don't need laws to deal with tort reform, we simply need indisputable data, processed into information so solid, that the lawyer/auditor runs from the field.

I have Rodgers in fantasy. In PFF's defense(slight defense), I was laughing because Rodgers got 30+ "passing" yards...for throwing a shovel pass. This happened over and over. On one, the ball was receieved 2 yards past the LOS, and then run for 25. That's a point right there. But, yeah, from an analytics standpoint, they have to correct for effectiveness. I agree that one shovel pass, that gains 30 yards, shouldn't be treated the same as a perfect 30 yard out that is dropped into the bucket between the CB and S. Their "context" argument is accurate, however, it's accuracy also means they need to put their own scoring system in context as well. One shovel/short pass isn't a big deal, but, 15 of them, executed perfectly, requires the QB to not only be effective, BUT, also requires him to be smart enough to take what the D keeps giving them, and, also be feared for what he can do on long passes. That is also context.

Miami is a top 10 TV market. Nobody ever lost $ telling a lot of people what they want to hear. Objectively: The Dolphins have the worst QB in the AFCE, and I've been saying that for at least 2 years now. I've posted screen shots. I've talked about situations and schemes. I've shown that the guy is worse than EJ in practically every aspect of the QB position. Yet, for reasons passing all understanding, we are STILL told that Tannehill is "trending towards being a top 5 QB". Besides the overuse of the word trending, again, this is simply not true, by any generally accepted measure. There's 0 empirical evidence that puts Tannehill above ANY QB currently playing in the league. No trend exists toward anything other than "continues to remain in the back half of NFL QBs". The data on this guy is actually pretty flat over the last 3 years: he gets a lot of garbage time stats, which distort the big picture, and get him higher QBR #s(one of the main problems with QBR). When the game is on the line/close? Not so much. "Trending" requires, you know, trending. /facepalm This is like Sanchez all over again. It's like what has been going on with Romo, forever. The mediots won't let it go, because doing so goes against their business model.

It won't be, if we continue on our current path, and are left unhindered by the government, or worse, dumbass Ph.D. RNs and "health care workflow experts" who know less than nothing == they know things that aren't true. My newest favorite idiotic statement from heatlh care "expert": "workflow only works in health care if you limit its scope". I explain why that is galactically stupid below. IF we proceed: It will literally be fee for specific, granular service and granular material consumption. It will be literally: variable cost(time + materials) + admin overhead + profit = fee, and everyone will be able to see both the components and the result of that equation in real time. Once we've saturated the maket with the expectation of seeing that equation in detail, every time, all the time? What happens to hedgefund boy's plans? He doesn't even dare. Q.E.D. Problem solved. -------- If you want to know how, read on. The important thing to understand: variable MEANS variable. If Mrs. Jones schits herself while Suzy the LPN is taking vitals? That's more variable cost, and therefore, higher fee. But....NOT fee for the vitals! (which is how healthcare routiunely Fs this up). The cost of the TASK of taking the vitals must be separate and distinct from the cost of check/changing Mrs. Jones. They are 2 different tasks, and therefore should be costed-->"fee'd" separately. Healthcare keeps trying to do this in terms of standardized, end to end processes(various idiotic constructs like: protocols, interventions, care plans, etc.). But there is no such thing as a standard, end to end process in an enviroment where 60% of the work, at minimum, is UNPLANNED. (Once TTYT reads this, he will instantly understand) In the above: checking is planned work. Changing is unplanned, because you only do it if you find the poo poo. Thus, MOST health care work cannot be planned ahead, despite how many dopey instruments, generated by government grants, are created. We can try to predict the poo. But what is the point? You still have to clean it up, and that costs what it costs. Now do you see why "limiting workflow's scope" is galactically idiotic? How do I even know I have unplanned work to do, if I don't communicate that fact to the enterpise, and then assign and account for it, until completed? Thus, our focus MUST be on granular(lowest reasonable leve) task and material consumption, and not on pretending hospitals/LTC/offices == factory production lines, or on the next set of retarded paper pretending to be electronic-based buffoonery. Until health care people get that fact through their thick heads, and realize that it is on THEM, and nobody else, to record exactly what they do, each time, because it IS different, both qaulitatively and quantitively, and therefore costs different? Commoditization will always be a "solution" that is advanced by both the LEFT AND THE RIGHT. Different reasons: same solution. Look: the pressure from the non-health care people to commoditize health care will ALWAYS be there. THE ONLY way health care defends itself from being commiditized is proving that each patient's care IS highly specialized and specific. You do that by proving that what you do for one patient IS NOT the same as what you do for the next. Thus, the very next time you hear any RN/LPN/MD say "We are patient-centered" or "I know all my patients" or "We give great care to every patient here" or "We do the same thing every time" or "Medicine/Nursing is medicine/nursing, we all learned and do the same thing" B word slap them. None of that is true.

Losing my 2nd rounder(Jordy Nelson) 2 days after the damn draft(can we draft after the last preseason game next year, like everybody else in the F'ing world?), means once again I have to scrap all season to get points. If I get 6 wins again this year, it will be a miracle. As such, my entire team is on the block, including Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton(I don't care what Yahoo says, they are all on the block. All serious offers will be considered.) WTF else can I do?

Um, so essentially, sea ice decreasing in the Arctic has been marginalized as a "Look! Global Warming!" argument then. You don't get to dismiss one without dismissing the other, according to this guy's own logic. If we extend it: then, Arctic ice increasing in the winter doesn't mean anything, just as much as Antarctic ice decreasing in the summer doesn't mean anything.....this is because the northern and southern hemispheres have opposite seasons. But, utlimately, if Global Warming was really happening, to the degree(important), they claim, ALL ice should be melting or at best holding its position/marginal increases in winter, at ALL times in ALL hemispheres. There is no apple pie here: ice, or the delta in ice, or the delta in ice from last year compared to this year, shouldn't be increasing anywhere, over any timeframe, or during any season. Yet it is.

Great! The next time wawrow comes here and calls us deniers? We get to tell on him to his bosses. We should insist on a paddling. In public. I know just the bar to do that.

For those of you still struggling with the concept that the Global Warming models, upon which all of the "science" is based, are complete bunk? Here's an article that will "settle" that issue for you: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/ The comments section is really good as well. Figures, it takes an IT guy with a mathematics masters to take a shot at the definitive work on why the models are obvious BS. My only criticism in any work of this kind, was, is, and will continue to be: CO2 sensitivity is not addressed here. Any discussion of the models, that does not account for the over-estimation of CO2 sensitivity in the models, now that this has been proven, is problematic. But, even if we put the over-estimation of a single parameter aside, the rest of this work is damning enough for any reasonable person to understand: the models are bunk. I wonder if this is qualifies as GreggyT's BS line? If not, and if GreggyT wants to continue to claim "reasonable person" status? Then this article at the very least moves him closer to his BS line, doesn't it? EDIT: Still struggling? Look at the damn graph! It literally shows how they tweaked things to follow the pattern through the 90s! Then, as soon as the models took on their "predicitive" role, they fly off into Idiotland. It's right there in front of your nose.

Yep. The cool part is, unlike other teams, I think Rex has set the "team" tone from day 1. In the postgame: Rex said he talked to Sammy and asked him about his lack of targets, and Sammy said something to the effect of "I don't care coach, we won".

It's 12:55. I haven't slept. Haven't had a drink. Barely ate. I am in no way prepared for this game.

Fine. I was drunk anyway. But, do you deny that if Tyrod comes out and does anything of note it will be referrred to as a...surprise...by the national media?

The worst is: in the accompanying video, he qualfies his predictions by saying it's "all about QB play". EDIT: So we're going to split with the Jets because of Ryan FItzpatrick? Well, Pete, nobody knows how Tyrod is going to play. It's literally 33% good/33% average/33% bad, because we have NO information that says otherwise right now. If Tyrod is good: you look like a total jackass. Same thing, as you noted above, if all we get is average QB out of Tyrod, because of the other factors. He's basically betting his whole stack on a 33% chance, before the flop, with non-suited 5 and 7 in his hand, while he knows we have at least pocket Jacks(defense, Shady, WR weapons) in our hand. Guys like this are why I never had to pay for my hotel room in AC. They can only see their hand, and they can't conceive of mine. EDIT: How the F do we lose to the Titans? QB play?

He had us going 6-10 last year...http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pete-prisco/24683167/predicting-every-nfl-game-heres-how-the-season-plays-out 1. Against a tougher schedule 2. With our old coaches 3. Without all our new players and...we're supposed to be 1 game worse this year, with an easier schedule, clearly superior players and a "surprisingly(mark my word, that word will be used)" improved/good O line? At the very least, he's got a 3 game handicap, so, we should go 8-8. Last time: He predicted us to split with the Jets, including us getting blown out one game....and then we proceed to beat them over 2 games by a combined 60+ points. This year? Same thing, we spilt with the Jets, except both are close games, and we end up only +4 pts. Pete: how do you erase the other 56 points, moron? Ryan Fitzpatrick and Chan Gailey, who, when they were Bills, you constantly pissed on? This year, he's got us starting 0-3 and then losing to the Titans(2-14) to make us 1-4. The only teams we beat in the first 8 are the Giants and Jags. Um...sounds like Prisco is a butthurt Jets fan. The only serious team we can beat over 8 games is the Giants? After crushing the Jets last year? Yeah. Butthurt Jets fan all day. Wishful thinking/irrational Giant hatred == Jet Fan symptoms.

There's a full report that states that exactly 0 intelligence was monkeyed around with by Bush, Cheney or anyone else. Google is your friend. Funny, a reporter just asked about this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/10/james_rosen_to_earnest_how_can_obama_say_bush_altered_iraq_intel_while_reports_say_defense_distorted_isis_intel.html So much for "then-Senator Obama's", and your, nonsense talking point. And, there's a flip side to that statement. Currently, Obama is not leading any charges, anywhere, which is likely to get at least 4,500+ Americans killed in a single attack. And 10x that many if the entire Middle East melts down. If we continue to do nothing/negotiate with Iran/fail to crush ISIS now? We will be losing 4500 Americans every month, later, when we are FORCED into war. This is literally history repeating itself. But, since you obviously know jack schit about history, and even less about war, the military or anything related, I don't expect you to be capable of understanding this. One thing you might understand: You and your pals were howling against The Surge in Iraq, and Harry Reid said "the war is lost". How'd The Surge turn out? All of you Democratic party military experts. How could you have been so wrong?

Shouldn't the WH be going to war, in one form or another, against: 1. ISIS(shooting war overt) 2. Iran(shooting war covert) 3. China(hacking, financial, internet, start rebuilding the Navy and get it over there) 4. Russia(hacking, finanical, internet, support Ukraine militarily) 5. North Korea(drop whoopee cushions and stink bombs on them, just for the hell of it...oh, and covertly attack their nuclear program) 6. Syria. Obama said he was going to go if NBCs were used. They were. Why aren't the Marines on the beach? 7. Lybia. Obama created that conflict, and then did nothing. Instead of having no terrorist bases and no NBC in Libya, now we're looking at a place which had the first, and will begin on the 2nd soon. instead of going to war against Dick Cheney?

This happens for the reason I've stated: bias, and to a lesser degree, laziness and incompetence. These guys are paid to be experts on NFL football. The problem is: the Bills represent a puzzle. They are a very hard team to pin down. How is anyone truly supposed to be an expert on them at this point in time? (A Peter King type should just come out and say: "I have no F'ing idea what the Bills are going to be, and they have a huge floor to ceiling range". Then the herd of sports experts would follow.) You take these 2 things together, and: 1. add in the fact that actually solving the Bills puzzle would require hours and hours of hard work? 2. add in the fact that these guys are constantly being told to push big market teams/ignore small market teams? There's every reason to just say "Cassel" now, do no work/say nothing that might expose them as no better than this board....and then(wait and watch for this), call the Bills a "surprise" later. "Suprise" in sports media means "I was completely wrong about this guy/team, but here's my complimentary way of diverting your attention onto him/them, and away from my stupidity". EDIT: In fact, I've heard people talking about getting Tyrod a new nickname. Instead of T-Mobile? Let's get it over with now: Tyrod Surprise!

Two new D lineman? The grass. Shady is the wind: Wind flows through the grass A giant firefly: That way, this way, that way, this- Tyrod flies on by. For Luck: Looking up from here; I see both sun and stars. How... Wait! Where is the ball?

No look post: Isn't the title of this thread the fundamental premise of this site?

Stop writing posts that attempt to marginalize the obvious bias, by substituting what we aren't saying: conspiracy, for what we are: bias, and you won't even have to make that choice, because I won't have a reason to post about this anymore. Heh, I was gonna get around to this one. Thanks for saving me the trouble. I've been busy marginalizing the marginalizers.

You know when I want to see ground and pound? When we're up by 3 scores against Indy, and it's time to make their D quit on the game. That's when I think the Richie the Bully will really shine. Re-watching the games, he hasn't just been solid, he's been a beast. So many times he's done with his man/has nobody to block, and he's gone over and destroyed the guy that Wood/Glenn was handling just fine, seemingly just out of spite. I ain't saying we won't pound the rock. I am saying: that's not even close to the only thing we'll be doing. Specifically, I believe we will see a slew of trick plays. Reverses, flea flickers, end arounds to Harvin from the slot. IMHO, this team is designed to make other teams quit in the 1st quarter: first series a defensive TD, then 3 and out, O does a big trick play for yds/TD, back to the D for a 3 and out, back to the O for a time-killing drive resulting a TD, next, D causes another turnover/big sack. 1st quarter ends with other team asking "What the hell was that?"

Throughout, I've said over and over that a media conspiracy was ridiculous, and not the cause of this outcome. What wasn't? An inherent bias that was based on constantly supporting the choice, made by the media long ago, that EJ, to quote Mike Schopp "is horrible, horrible, horrible". All contrary info since that choice has been marginalized, or just flat out ignored, while at the same time, anything Cassel did was not only overly praised, but the ensuing "analysis" was also held up as the finest example of being "objective". Many posters here saw it for what it was: bias, not an agenda. The thing about bias: the people who have it usually don't realize it. Some in the media, like Sal Capaccio have done some introspection, realized their bias, and made the correction. Others will never even admit they were wrong, and will cling to Matt Cassel being cut as the wrong move.... ....just like they never let go of the Watkins trade "costing" us a chance to draft a QB this year...at 19. They will just stop talking about it, and will never be accountable for it. This isn't conspiracy. This is either bias, incompetence, petulance, intrasigence, or ingorance of the NFL game. Or, perhaps a combination of all.

Did you miss the Rex interview where he said he has left Darby all alone, intentionally, the entire preseason? No over the top S help. No double teams. Nothing. Hell, I wouldn't put it past Rex to have called the opposing coaches and told them his intentions. I thought this one was already common knowledge here. We might leave Darby all alone against the other team's #1 WR what? 2 times a game, maybe? Certainly not every time, the entire game. And, the NFL called the Bills and said at least 1 of the big PIs on Darby was a bad call. Just trying to put things in proper perspective. I'm not saying Darby did great, but, I also watched the Carolina game live, and he made just as many good plays as bad. Darby is not a problem. Darby being an untested rookie, was tested, and came away with a B-, given the curve.