OCinBuffalo

Patient #2, step forward, turn your head to the side, and cough.

Ah, Choice-Supportive Bias Patient #1 shows up. What a surprise.

Obviously depends on time of year. You can cook whatever, however in Sep. and Oct. I do the food planning and cooking in our group. We usually do eggs benedict/McMuffins while the rest of our crew is setting up. This is also to get something in stomachs before the alcohol starts to flow. Eggs Benedict is purely about me being an ostentatious buffoon, though. I like only having to cook one thing for lunch, and merely heating the rest up. I will usually do slow cooker BBQ beef or pulled pork on Saturday(lots of good recipes for this, especially the ones that use soda, I also like to use Arizona Green Tea), then all I have to do start heating it ~9 am. Our top three things to cook are either ribs(which we already partially cooked in the oven on Saturday), speedies, or this grilled sausage/mustard thing my brother in law does that makes a mess but is totally worth it. Usually we do all 3 with the whole crew. Key: all of these can be put into buns in case it gets cold/rainy. We always hang out after the game. What is the point of sitting in traffic when you can be eating dinner, which you have to do anyway? That's why we cook a lot before the game, the leftovers are easy to reheat. When it's cold, it's McMuffins and then Chili, or anything else you can eat with a spoon/without taking off gloves. Also, it helps to have a secret tailgate spot that lets you use a real bathroom(chicks dig it) and real electricity. Hammer's lot is also quite useful. Private lots near the Big Tree = winning.

Yup and yup. Anybody who says they "know" anything about EJ is full of it. All they are doing is invoking their choice-supportive bias. Explained: Either they, immediately, chose to believe Todd McShay's "slow eyes/wasted pick" assessment, or, they chose to believe that EJ's work ethic, character, and "best player we've had in 30 years" stories, from various sources, assessment. In either case, all further info, day in, year out, will be processed in a way that supports the original choice, to the point of absurdity. Symptom: Any poster who remains incapable of processing and accepting that Marrone purposefully screwed up the QB situation for no other reason than covering his own ass. Disease: Choice-Supportive Bias. 3 things are still hilarious: 1. practically every heated exchange on this subject distills directly from choice-supportive bias. It's a F'ing case study that requires no effort. 2. my avatar/quote is still relevant, because EJ still hasn't played enough games to qualify as "not a rookie" 3. almost all of the "analyses" here are either based on the woeful "eye test", or equally woeful use of analytics. It's hard to decide upon a worse fate for the world, one where the "eye test" of rank amateurs is used to run things, or, one where the < 0 analytics knowledge of rank amateurs is used to run things. I want to change my avatar. But, I can't. Not until it's truth is accepted, and choice-supportive bias on EJ is eradicated. We simply do not know. Deal with it.

DC_Tom is not a dumbass. Neither is GreggyT. However, they both have buttons that are easily pushed. The seqeunce is important. It's like an ATM. Knowing the buttons is not enough. Push them in the right sequence and you get the result you want. The worst thing you can do is get angry at DC_Tom. He lives for that. You getting angry merely supports his "See, I DO know it all because instead of coming back with sound arguments, he's getting angry == saying stupid things == "You're an idiot"" trope. The worst thing you can do is feed GreggyT with redneck/religious fanatic/right wing incoherence. He lives for that. These comments merely support his "See, I'm not a political hack, I'm actually quite reasonable, and let me show you to this post/link, where it's the other guy." trope. Ultimately, me hitting Tom back with sound arguments, and calling GreggyT out for things like "Do you actually have a Global Warming BS line?" irks the F out of them. Same story for others. I counter what they want to do here, and better: laugh while I'm doing it, which really pisses them off. DC_Tom doesn't want to argue, he wants to demonstrate his ability. GreggyT wants to be seen as the voice of reason.

You asked the question. Like I've said 1000 times on this board, I tell the truth, tough schit if you don't like it...or...tell me you don't care after you hear it.

It's never too early when, after much trial and tribulation, the week culminates in conquering a real evil in the real world. And, that's all you get.

Feel? No, really, feel? WTF? Feel is what got leftists like you into this mess in the first place. Feel: is precisely why you don't understand that forced wage increases lead to forced price increases. How about you try: think....for a change? Ask me what I think. Hell: “What? What am I ‘bound to be feeling?’ People don’t think anymore. They feel. ‘How are you feeling? No, I don’t feel comfortable. I’m sorry, we as a group we’re feeling….’ One of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas. That interests me. Ask me what I’m thinking.” - Margaret Thatcher in the Iron Lady

Had your number....for...years!

Rush Limbaugh's "Project Chaos" has been in place for years. Same thing. Hmm. Getting to work? Hell no, I've been at work. I want a check from Medicare, or the American Cancer Society, for preventing so much cancer all these years. I've done my share of cancer curing, and I want my cut. When I first read this, it processed as "Somebody tell the fat lady she's on fire". And I didn't mean the Alicia Keys connotation. No. The connotation I'm thinking of is like when Godzilla lights up "monster of the month" and as the thing is on fire and dying it keeps letting out these screeching noises.

Sorry if this was already posted, but, I loved hearing Scott Walker, during his formal candidacy announcement, specifically say "Radical Islamic Terrorism", is our #1 threat, not climate change. I loved that. All I could think of is the pants pissing going on in Democratic circles.

Whatever, you're just pissed that I called out overestimation of CO2 sensitivity 30 pages ago, and you're just catching on now. EDIT: The fun part is, now Tom is searching the thread, desperately trying to prove me wrong. Which...is why I said this in the first place.

I edited. And, do I need to spell that post out for you? The winner of the cookie is going to find more than 2 sentences, I assure you.

Funny...I bet somewhere in this thread a post can be found that specifically states that overestimated CO2 sensitivity is the culprit, because not only is it set too high, it's treated like a constant and not a variable. Which...is the obvious cause of all the models being off, since it's one of the few "variables" that all of them have in common. Whoever finds that post(s) first gets a cookie!

Um...sorry about the repeats.

Speaking of things "coming out"? What if the three kids were engaged in drinking, drugs, and gay sex? Oh how the worm would turn!

There can be consequences. We provide them here on a relatively routine basis.

Which is why Obama is trying to get this centralization "rule" by everyone. The last thing they want is decentralization of anything. When your neighbors move to the suburbs/rural areas, they are no longer under the thumb of government, and aren't subject to city's taxes. But, if Obama et al can up and decide to zone an entire suburb as commerical, then you can't reside there. You're forced back into the city, where you can be controlled, and forced to pay the taxes they want you to pay. This is perhaps the dumbest thing Obama has done so far. And just consider that for a minute. He has declared open war on every state, city, small town, suburb and rural area in the country, with the primary goal of obliterating local government. Since we now have a record for number of state houses controlled by Rs, he wants to destroy their power, and give it to HUD. This is an attack on fundamental liberty, and is wholly unconstitutional. But put aside the abstract: Obama just took on every elected D in Niagara Falls, and he's telling them he and his surrogates are going to be calling the shots in that town? Not only that, but Steve and Bob who are R and D, but serve on the Smalls Town board together, and always have a beer after the meeting? You're now irrelevant. This is like Cuomo's gun law: all you are going to see is open defiance of this. Cuomo is a laughing stock here in NY, and even his own party has turned on him, because nobody in upstate will obey his gun law, and no upstate police, not even the troopers, will enforce it. Cuomo has lost all his power because of the gun law defiance. Nobody fears or respects him. Therefore, Cuomo is being threatened by the far-left that he either does their bidding, or he gets primaried. They are after his nuts. That's a far cry from "possible presidential candidate" 12 months ago. Obama's is going to go out as a laughing stock too, except he's going to do it nationally.

Short Post: However, you do realize that there's a faction of the Republican party, and I don't know if Bush is a member or not yet, that wants to do nothing to Obamacare whatsoever? This faction is reveling in the SCOTUS decisions, because, Obamacare remains a 100% legislative and executive D problem. Long Post: Why? There's no cover from Obamacare. (Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts belongs to this faction, and has played his hand quite well?) Are Roberts and Bush secret liberals? No. Then why would they want to leave Obamacare untouched? Simple: They are very good politicians, and they know Obamacare hasn't even begun to cause its inevitable suffering, especially this year and next, when all of the "delayed until after 2014 elections" effects come to pass. To me this is cynical. However, it's also reasonable: they think that Obamacare will destroy the Democratic party, permanently. Why win a battle when you can win a war? Left unreformed, Obamacare can destroy the Ds with ease. The only thing that binds the factions of the Democratic party is the need to stand against "big"...something. They will help each other out, to fight against each faction's "Big" enemy. However, since the Ds are and have been solely responsible for Big Health Care, and did nothing to fix it since 2009? That inevitably breaks their alliance. Consider: in reality, unions have nothing in common with, and very few shared political interests with, the techno left, or college professors, or Hollywood, or identity hustlers, or NARAL, or environtologists, and certainly gays. Obamacare's sustained destruction of the public's trust WILL eventually lead to some of these groups cutting side deals with the Rs, and leaving their once-allies to hold the bag. I see unions and NARAL turning on the rest of the Ds first. Obamacare hurts them most. Once this starts, it will be every faction for itself. Betrayal after betrayal makes the Ds, not the Rs, into the regional party, at best. Napolean: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". That seems like exactly what this "scorcred earth" faction of Rs subscribes to, and the best/worst is: you can't pin them down on it. They can simply say/do nothing, and let the other R factions fight it out publicly with the Ds. They will gladly vote another 47 times to repeal it, safe in the knowledge that nothing will change, and that the political radiation of Obamacare is killing the Ds every day, all the time. The irony: the best case for Ds is to eventually come begging, on their knees, to the Rs for Obamacare reform. Why? Because the Rs taking ownership of anything health care will require a heavy price. They can just do nothing, and let the country continue to suffer from Obamacare, and blame the Ds for it. The worst case is the Ds lose 2016 and don't get the Senate, in which case the Rs can claim 3/4 elections as a mandate on Obamacare, destroy it/reform it however they see fit, and gain 100% of the credit. In all cases, I told D clowns on this board in 2009 that this would be the result...and here we are. Nice work, morons! A permanent end to this "minimum wage" nonsense is merely one small item on the list the Rs will demand for their involvement in bailing the Ds out of Obamacare. In fact I see the Ds losing ground on everything, everywhere.

Then you assume wrong. Let's review: I specifically took the option you offered, "cut a BIGGER check". That is not the same as "cut the same subsistence check that keeps the single mother and her boys in the liberal utopia housing project that was created in 1965...and is doing such a fine job of winning the war on poverty " Observe: I'm about to offer what's known in the dictionary as a "progressive" solution. Not the bastardized meaning, the actual meaning. You've missed the point. Another housing project is the opposite of right here. I would much rather fire everyone at HUD tomorrow, sell off its assets completely, and file eviction notices when the sales are complete. Take all the $ accrued/saved, and cut each and every now-evicted HUD beneficiary a one-time, $50k check(if we need to add extra cash to get to $50k, so be it, if it needs to be more than 50, or child dependent, whatever, so be it), and tell them: choose wisely, because we will be watching, and, that's all you are going to get. If the heroine in your story is as concerned about her kids as you say? That's either a decent mortgage downpayment or rent for a very long time, either of which gets them out of the terrible neighborhood. EDIT: And I'll even be generous to the useless HUD people. They can compete for a few advisor jobs that help the heroine choose wisely, or they can go get a real job. We run the 50k through financial advisors who are certified, in a trust, and all 3 people, the gov. rep, the business rep and the beneficiary have to sign off for $ to move(or something). OTOH, if heroin is the hero of this story...we take the kids and we move mom to the work farm...in Nowhere, Nebraska. She's not going to cost us another dime, because until she straightens out, she's going to work to feed herself. Some people just can't cut it as parents. So, their parenting needs to end. NOW! Why should we condemn those kids to the hell of the projects with awful parents? What the F do we think is going to happen? Thus, we get rid of yet another failed, 1965, regressive program that is literally responsible for creating your revolving door. We break that door completely by creating a disruptive life event: $50k right now. This is the Land of Opportunity, and $50k is opportunity. Psychology is a powerful thing, and if I make you live in "bad place" from childhood, there's a very good chance your life expectations are going to be set to "bad guy". Thus, the housing project itself is the problem. Over time it has become the cause, not the effect. Thus, the other disruptive event? Level every HUD project and start over. You want to fight a REAL War on Poverty? What do we do in a war? We destroy the enemy's factories. HUD projects are poverty and crime factories. We must destroy each and every one of them. We must create real weatlh for your single mother by putting the $ directly in her hands, and, we must take away the wealth of the criminals: these crime factories are their base of operations. Knock them down and you knock the criminal down.

Whaaat?...um...yeah there's nothing "ignorant" or "myopic" or hysterical(the mental illness def.) about this at all. No, this is all carefully considered. What should we do to posters who link to the Guardian going forward? Can we get a ban on it, like we have on Bleacher Report? I mean, at least Bleacher Report is honest idiocy. The Guardian, as is once again demonstrated above, is dishonest idiocy. Then again, perhaps we shouldn't ban it? Perhaps it still can inform PPP: "the leftist idiot sounds like...", when we push the button? I mean, I realize we already have a gatorman button, but perhaps more than one note is required? I never considered a 3rd option for the AGW credibility suicide pact. Let's reveiw the first 2: "there is no 18 pause in GW"(data kills this) vs. "there is a pause, but it's coming from the Indian Ocean"(grandiose speculation that saves something supposedly "settled", and therefore, supposedly doesn't need saving?). Yikes. Yes, now they have a glorious new 3rd option which is: "I'm taking my toys and going home to my safe zone, where my sweeping conclusions aren't subject to scrutiny. Oh, and F all of you. You're all going to die for daring to ask me questions I should never have to answer because I'm smarter than all of you. Because I'm on the side of science, dammit! Stop making fun of me. Look, I told you your children are going to die! Don't you care about them? I know that because I'm smart. Not like everybody says, like dumb. I'm smart, and I want respect!". Yes, let's call this 3rd option the "Fredo Option". These clowns know that they will only be taken seriously until Obama's presidency dies, so they are lashing out at us, rather than begging our forgiveness for their bad behavior. Skipping to the end: at the Obama administration funeral, their credibility will be taken "fishing" as well.

I'd rather cut a bigger check. Harvard did a study a few years back in Africa. Rather than giving money to the US non-profit, who buys food, and ships it over there, and sets up, and hands it out...which means about $.35 of the dollar actually being direct aid? They sent one guy who wrote checks for $500. $500 goes a very long way in Africa, and rather than blowing it, all sorts of businesses were started, homes built, etc. If you want to play the single mother with 2 young boys emoting game? IF she's the same person as in your example, what's to say she doesn't use the bigger check herself to get her and her boys the hell out of that neighborhood? Meanwhile, we take away the make work jobs of "overseeing" the ongoing transfer of funds for the housing project, the local pols/buddies who get paid off, and whatever other considerations for useless government employees/pols. Instead, we give her the cash directly and tell her to make a good choice, because this is a one-time deal. You don't need anybody else. But, of course, that would kill the left's "jobs" program.

Not reading this thread, because I already know I know more than gatorman about econ and history. Has anyone bothered to explain that if you artificially increase wage, you automatically increase price? Thus, the best case scenario: you accomplish nothing. Let me say that again: NOTHING, gator, you unmitigated moron! How, why? Here's yet another free lesson: because the "new Obama money I got " will be instantly eaten up by the increase in prices, of everything, which is how the various evil retail/fast food chains will offset the cost of your forced increase in wages. Never mind the surety that many people will go from $7.00 to $15.00 to $0/hr because they get laid off. How do I know that? Simple: because the officers of these various companies WILL come to me, and anyone else with a solution, and ask for a way to get rid of as many $15/hr jobs as possible. See GGs first post in this thread? That is precisely how. How about history? Has anybody bothered to explain Nixon/Ford/Carter listening to a Harvard professor dbag and his wage/price control nonsense, and how badly it/he failed? Do we not remember Reagan getting rid of all that crap, and the economy booming as a result? Why are we proceeding with anything that defies both fundamental economics, and historical evidence?

birdog's answer is lame as hell, so I'm going to have to repost on Sunday unless I hear a real answer. In the meantime, I want to know how I am being myopic, by looking directly at empirical raw data from the very same sattelites used to create the catastrophic predictions in the first place, and finding no increase in observed temps globally. Science: when the data doesn't match your thinking, it's time to change your thinking. Yet, we have this insistence on grasping every straw, and blatant fudging of historical data(which ostensibly was, once upon a time, good enough to "proove" AGW, and now...isn't), on the way down. Who is really being myopic here? Once again, I will ask birdog and GreggT the same question: where is your BS line? What would you have to see in order to say "these AGW people are full of schit, and I am done with them"? You both claim to be following the science, and also to be flying high above the "petty politics". If that is so, then there must be somewhere specific, a fault tolerance, where you say "I've seen/heard enough, this is BS". It's obvious that you have, and thought you were already at, the other line, the "Absolutely true, now do something". But, then comes the raw data which...unsettles this issue...and drags your asses back. We know one line exists for you, but what about the other? See, I don't think there ever was, or will ever be an AGW BS Mendoza line for either of you, precisely because you ARE being partisan, don't care to deal with ALL the data, scientifically/objectively, and will cling to this issue no matter what you are told. (Told, because let's face it, it's not like either of you have done your own work on any of this. Posting F'ing Guardian articles? )

Yes, nothing says accessible and genuine like "rope line", and media sycophants going along with it.