OCinBuffalo

What about him? Other than "fills a need for DC_Tom, just like conner, blzurl, and Molson_Golden before him" I don't see why he's relevant to what I am saying above. There's a difference between stupid and insane. Stupidity is a choice. Insane, not so much. For example: reddogblitz can choose to not conceive of PPP properly, which would be stupid, or, he can choose to get his act together and come back at me with something other that "microaggression/trigger/safe place" PC horseshit. Who knows, that might even be funny. But, it's not like reddogblitz is ignorant, I have told him that "this is PPP" 2 times now. gatorman is stupid, largely because he continues to post here in almost every thread, when we all know going in that there's a 5% chance he knows the material being discussed. gatorman supports Keynesian economics, but he can't tell you what that is, and probably never even heard the term before he got here. Thus, he's not insane, nor is he entirely stupid: he gets a free education here, from albeit harsh schoolmasters that beat him regularly, but still....he does always end up with some pudding, and he rarely eats his meat.

Yeah, yeah...and you don't read my PMs, clown. I don't think anything. I know, because I've gotten plenty of lurker mail over the years. The only problem is, I don't post PMs unless somebody else posts mine. So, no, I'm not going to share them with you. Besides, most of it is stupid cheerleading for me to go after DC_Tom anyway. And PPP is not me, and it never will be. I specifically referred to PPP, not myself. I also specifically said "we" and "we" is on display in your own bolded above, nitwit. Thanks for saving me the trouble. Sorry, not only don't you have the answer, you don't even know the question. Like I care....here. Strike 2 on "This is PPP, you unmitigated moron".

Normally I would agree with you. However, the word "uranium" has entered the discussion. Even the low information, benighted hags, that hang out in casinos at 3 am instead of being home with their kids from 3 fathers, know what uranium is, and know that giving it to Russia is a stupid idea. You know, because uranium....might set off a bomb in DC, and then, where would they get their welfare/unemployment/disability from? (Hey, that's their thought process, not mine) Where would the get the free birth control...that they don't use..hence the 3 kids? Yep. And, if Hillary is elected? If selling Obamacare down the river, accepting Fair Tax reform, and everything else on the menu, buys Hillary a second term: she'll make that deal. Her husband made the deals he needed to make...and got to run against Bob Dole in return. (Yeah, like Gingrich didn't have a hand in that) I imagine if she wins, it will be very close, so she'll be selling off whole sections of The ObamaFAIL to try and keep the Rs at bay for the first 4 years. EPA, IRS, HHS, DoEd(because of Common Core) will all end in bloodbaths. The DoD takes some hits just to make it look good, but the The ObamaFAIL will be largely destroyed. This is why the far-left is right not to trust her. She cares about them and their issues exactly as much as she cared about the people of NYS.

Still waiting for any evidence supporting the speculations that: 1. The 18 years of missing warming is hiding at the bottom of the ocean 2. Chinese pollution is both causing and preventing warming at the same time 3. Don Paul's anally extracted notion that we are undergoing a "cooling period", and the warming will come back as soon as the cooling stops. (How sudden, convenient, and childish, and again I ask: show your work) thus saving the entire, "settled", AGW theory. It's been a year now, and still nothing. Once again I emphasize that without one of the speculations being proven, the current AGW IS DEBUNKED. Period. You can't call an 18 year empirical deviation from expected results an error in the math. Being saved by speculations == we remove the "settled" tag permanently. None of this is settled. In fact it's time to go back to the hypothesis and start all over again. But, if the left insists on wasting more time/$, I ask 2 things: 1. What is the timetable for when we might hear back on Speculations 1-3? 2. When are you going to admit that value that resides in the "CO2 sensitivity" variable in these equations...is set too high? Every single one of the models follows the same deviations...which literally means all of the models share the same errors. (Coincidence, I'm sure ) Bottom Line: If and when the proper value for CO2 sensitivity is set, there's damn good chance this becomes no big deal. And that's when all hell breaks loose for the left. That's why they continue to refuse to adjust it, and rather, F around with the raw data to try and make it "fit".

No. You've completely missed the point, and the joke, because you didn't read, comprehend, or both. I know who Sean Hannity is. Of course it matters who he is, nitwit. The point is: the leftist nitwits know who he is. The irony is that they know more about what he says every day than all of us here do. The fun is in lying, or, feigning ignorance, whenever they bring up some person on the right side of things, like Hannity.... ....who is on this week's Media Matters 10 most wanted list. They get all sweaty, and red-face, ready to force you to defend said person. But, when you deny even knowing them, they have no place to go. Watching them have a near-coniption is worth a pint or 2, before moving on. Real life trolling is awesome. Whatever, I'm done explaining this, especially since B-Man posted an object lesson for you above. You're being lazy and stupid here, and blaming me for your own idiocy. That's all there is to it.

If McKelvin is middle class, then Corey Graham, who PFF had rated the 5th best CB last year, is what? IT startup guy who gets venture capital investment payday? Dude who decided to start charging $4.00 for coffee? How about: Terry Pegula? Dude who ignores assclowns, does his job extremely well, and is now recognized as one of the best businessmen in the country?

Last year we were the only team to sweep the NFC North. This year, it's a distinct possibility that we sweep the NFC East, and it's for the same reason: our D vs. theirs. Same story on O: everybody in the NFC North could score/play O. But, when we played them, we shut down their O(none of them scored 21+ points), and our O, even with all its problems, did just enough to win(we scored 21+ 2X, total scoring: 78-63 over 4 games, 3.75 differential per game). The NFC East is the same exact story, lots of O, crappy D. I expect the Bills to sweep them as well given how bad they are, how good we are, and how little they've done to improve thus far. Evidence: 1. Here's an article from August last year, and surprise surprise: NFC East 8th, NFC North 7th predicted in total team defense. We saw this ranking play out exactly. The NFC East couldn't play defense against anybody last year, especially themselves. 2. The NFC East's ESPN beat reporters think Terrance Knighton was the best FA signing of this offseason, for the entire division. The Redskins signed another DT in Paea, and the Giants got a so-so NT. Greg Hardy comes back after sitting 10 games to play us. But, really? Sitting out all that time? Redskins Eagles signed Byron Maxwell at CB, but it will be interesting to see how he does without Sherman. Redskins got Chris Culliver, who's good, but injury-prone. Eagles got Kiko. Frankly, we've done more on O this offseason than their entire division has on D, and, I'd take Jerry Hughes playing all 16 games over all of these guys combined... minus Hardy of course, but, he's only playing 6 games. Thus, it appears we can't expect much improvement from last year to this one. Perhaps a little, but not much. 3. These guys have them in 2014, based on points allowed as: 15th Cowboys 22nd Giants 23rd Eagles 30th Redskins so, this isn't just "trending bad". No, in my expert analytics opinion? This just plain F'ing bad. 4. NFL has them, based on yards per game as: 19th Cowboys 20th Redskins 28th Eagles 29th Giants and the "trend" continues. Do I really need to average this out? 5. Even though the advanced stats guys at Football Outsiders move Philly out of the gutter to #10, the rest of the division: 10th Eagles 22nd Cowboys 24th Giants 27th Redskins still sucks ass, and, remember these stats are weighted and adjusted for garbage time, strenght of opponent, etc...so don't even start. This math knows better than you. The preponderance of the evidence: The NFC East sucks at defense, and hasn't done much to improve. Meanwhile, we've added 2 Pro-Bowlers to our already stacked offense. Looking at this, you have to ask: who the F cares who we have at QB? Thus, predicting us as a sub-.500 team approaches sheer idiocy, the farther away you get from .500. Not when, on paper, you have 4 games that are easily wins against a weak NFC East. 5-11 is patently retarded. Unless of course the only teams we beat ARE these guys, and the Dolphins @ home.

Yes, if you live in absolute value world. Apparently it's not possible for the same analyst to say something stupid one day, and something reasonable the next? This aren't huge sweeping plans, where someone's entire philosophy and thought process are fully deployed. These are specific, one-off comments. So, no. There's nothing wrong with us deriding a guy who said we would lose 2 times to the Jets. We knew that was a stupid prediction when we heard it. We didn't know it was a combined 81-26 over 2 games stupid, , but we knew it was stupid. And there's nothing wrong with us agreeing with the same analyst that 12-4 is probabale. If anything TBD is the needle of the compass. Heath said something stupid, and we treated it as such. Now he says something reasonable, and we are treating it as such.

You're right, and for 20 years, they chose not to move to LA, or stayed in other cities, partially because they got financial help with stadiums, but mostly because LA is a ripoff waiting to happen. Apparently nobody knows what a financial statement is. Again, all we hear about is revenue...nobody wants to talk about cost. I wonder why. Couldn't have anything to do with bias...nah. If you open a business tomorrow, do you expect to have to fix the potholes in front of your office/store yourself, or pay for someone to do it, because, and only because, you opened that business? Or, do you expect them to be fixed on account of the taxes you are paying, already? These teams are going to be paying a butload in taxes....but that's not good enough. They have to pay even more? When does it end? Answer: never. Which, is why: only a fool does business in that type of environment. This is not a "buisness plan" this is a business hope/wish. They wish that their revenue outpaces the cost of the extortions/demands for handouts. But, they are fools: lets say one of these teams does, my some miracle, actually make a profit? Guess who will come knocking to demand that said profit be redistrubuted? Yeah, you literally lose for winning. Except I work nationally, in consulting, and I've seen the numbers our CA clients are showing us for 10 years and 20. Using 1 year, during a downturn in oil prices....is supposed to refute a decade of data that clearly shows a trend? Come on. Don't be silly. Irony is you using that handle, and expecting to get this nonsense argument by me.

Nonsense. The Bills D dominated Brady, and chased him from that game. Period. The Pats saw Brady get hit hard one time, and almost get hit clean by Bradham....and they pulled him. Let's skip the revisionist history. We took it to the Pats in that game, straight up. Consider: if they were winning, and Brady wasn't getting hit, would they have pulled him? Did they pull him when they were up by 4 TDs in the 3rd quarter the last Monday night game at the Ralph? Um, no. You can't have it both ways. The Pats have proven year after year that they will keep their starting O, inlcuding Brady, in the game, regardless of score, as long as they are winning and Brady is untouched. This past game, when they were getting rocked, and Brady took one hard shot and a near miss that would have ended his season: they pulled him. QED The Bills were 9-7 last year. What's next?

Transition teams like the Bills are impossible to predict. You're right, we could go 5-3, or 8-0. However to be 5-11? Mathematically, the best we could do was 2-6 or 3-5 in the first half, to get us to 5-11 for the season. That's why this "analysis" is absurd. What we have here is homerism combined with the systemic Bills-hate that is pervasive to ESPN. For 8 years, the Bills were the best ATS team in the league. I didn't check it last year, but, this has been a trend for quite some time, and we've always been top 5. That statistic proves that irrational Bills-hate exists. My prediction: The bookies lose their shirts on the Bills in the first 4 games, and then they learn their lesson. That's why I don't expect to see large spreads one way or the other after the first 4 games, regardless of the bets taken.

Link saved. Page saved. Even if they delete it, I have it. It's on my special partion, which gets backed up hourly online, and also gets a cd burned monthly. It's the place where I keep all the mutterings of the unmitigated morons, both from work and not. You say something stupid, and if I have time/care, it's coming back to you. I haze the hell out of people with my partition, and have been for decades. Anyone that wants this article in December, PM me.

It doesn't matter what I find unreasonable. What matters is what the NFL owners find unreasonable. The results speak for themselves: 20 years of no NFL in LA. Thus, NFL owners find LA: unreasonable. We all "know" LA is a great NFL market. No, we don't. We hear it is, from the media. We hear that from the media, for a simple reason. The 20 years of no NFL in LA proves that it is the fuedal city state that is it. It proves that it is corrupt, and nobody in their right business mind wants anything to do with it. The media hates that, because it exposes their and LA's shared ideology as the failure that it is. And, the NFL has no motivation to correct the media: because LA has been a wonderful stalking horse this entire time. Every time the NFL decides a new stadium is in order? They trot out "move to LA". The facts are as I stated above: only a fool would do business with LA...which is why CA has been losing jobs to TX for a decade now...and the NFL owners, also by definition, aren't fools when it comes to business. Daniel Synder is a buffoon as an NFL owner. But, he is an ace when it comes to business. I feel bad for the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams because they are literally forced to choose between cities that are ALL corrupt to the bone, and are going to screw them over regardless. Christ, every time I've been to St. Louis, I ask myself "Where the F does anyone get off talking smack about Buffalo, when this pile of ***** is here." Edit: Now that I think about it, I asked the same question about Oakland.

Ah, so because you don't agree with him reading my posts(the better phrase is "don't understand why he reads my posts")...that makes him insane? Come now. You and the other "people" have spent pages talking with justice. I highly doubt you'd do that if you actually thought he was insane. It's as I said: you're out of your depth here Tom. Why he reads my long posts(intentionally long, you moron) is a question you are incapable of answering. Period. I don't care if that bothers you. I tell the truth, tough schit if you don't like it. Now, I imagine one of these threads could use another reference to the Abbaside Caliphate...so why don't you run along and post something you know about?

For the purpose of dunking on liberals who are obsessed with character assassinating every single voice on the right? It doesn't matter. That's, um, the point of the story there Tom. Media Matters, generates bald--faced lies/nonsensical talking points, but, that sound plausible, and disseminates them. Think of Media Matters as wholesale. Then the retailers, like MSNBC, CNN, etc., take the talking points, add something to make it seem like their own work, and it goes out for consumption. Then leftist clown in bar consumes leftist clown media, and of course he doesn't do his own work either: he parrots. So in actuality, Media Matters is like parent objects: you understand how they work, you know 95% of the rest. The fact is that if, before I even walk into the bar, I know that Media Matters has been obsessing over Sean Hannity lately? I know what leftist clowns are going to say before they do. Thus, I already know that claiming ignorance of Hannity breaks their whole idiot construct, with very little effort, and leaves them sputtering and mad as hell.

Yes, it would. "People" is not everyone, and you don't speak for the board(again, who is the narcissist?). And, if you'll notice...with Justice and the whole terrorist threads...yeah, he reads all of that. Ask yourself why. IF things were as you say, he wouldn't....but he does. You know a lot, but with human behavior and its psychology, you might as well be a child.

In other words, Interpipe should have been slapped with penalties and sanctions for its operations with Iran. Pinchuk’s company has a US subsidiary, which means that US sanctions apply across the entire organization. The agency for imposing penalties for sanctions violations in these cases, Ross notes, is the State Department. Who was in charge at the State Department during this period? None other than Hillary Clinton. Pinchuk was among an elite few dumping tons of money into the Clinton Foundation, some of whom have interesting connections for a former Secretary of State: Even as far back as 2008, prior to Hillary Clinton becoming SecState, Pinchuk was one of the larger donors to the foundation — between $1 million and $5 million, according to the disclosure. While serving in that role for four years, Pinchuk coughed up at least $8.6 million, but that was just a down payment for what was planned to be a much bigger donation for the Clinton Global Initiative, supposedly a separate operation during her tenure at State The timing of this release is curious. This is a bona-fide scoop, and yet Newsweek published it on a Saturday morning — perhaps the lowest-attention spots in the news cycle. Ross frames this oddly, too, in the lead: Where to start with this paragraph? First of all, “enemies” should be opponents, unless one is so invested in Hillary 2.0 as to mistake the latter for the former. Mostly, though, is the big story here that Hillary’s opponents are “likely to seize” on evidence of corruption — or the evidence of corruption itself? Would Newsweek have covered Watergate with the lead, “Enemies of Richard Nixon are likely to seize on the Oval Office tapes in an attempt to discredit him”? I rather think not. . So...leak it to Newsweek(which is totally compromised by leftist hacks) before anybody else gets it, and they promptly nerf the story? Hilarious. 1. That they think this was going to work. 2. That they think they are going to avoid scrutiny by FOX news and the WSJ, the most trusted media outlets in the country( like it or not, leftists)

So, are we supposed to pretend that the race card == the Constitution card? Are we supposed to just ignore it when the Constitution is violated, and we know it is violated, because we all took Regents Social Studies in 11th grade? What is the alternative, and what "people" are getting worn out exactly....besides reasonable Democrats? The far-left loons don't care. 1. They are loons 2. They have been actively pursuing the destruction/replacement/abandoning of the Constutiton for years. But, a reasonable D? Yeah, I can imagine taking a beating from the rest of the political spectrum...because you actually bought Obama...wears you out. Too bad. Every time these a-hole far left loons, that you decided to put into office, ignoring their inexperience and incompetence, and, merely because you wanted to self-congratulate for being part of "the first black president", screw up? It's on you.

Mean what you say. Don't cry about me calling you on it. This is a message board. The words you chose are all we have. And, this is the 5th time you've tried to play off using a political Dog Whistle, to make a political point. I'm betting you go for 6. This is PPP. Deal with it. Posters come here BECAUSE we call each other retarded, short bus riders. And don't fool yourself: there's a buttload of lurkers who come here just to watch. You are in the pits: of either glory, or despair. If I can rattle you with a mere "short bus" reference? I don't need my axe, all I need is my thumb. Silly rabbit. Whatever made you think I can't change writing styles? Whatever made you think any of this...isn't intentional? And, I assure you, this conceptual problem would have been addressed ...if I was allowed to write more than 2 sentences. Instead, what do we have? If you scroll the page? We have more room taken up than a single long post, AND, I'd say we're only about 1/3 of the way through this. 1 long post would have taken care of all the quibbling, and backpedaling, and the "story about the time I lived in Texas". But whatever, I can play this game. I'm just saying. And who knows, perhaps the unnecessary back and forth may generate some humor. But, I guarantee...it's not as efficient.

Legalize everything. Sell it at licensed stores. You screw up, or you go to rehab, or whatever, your name goes on the list, and you can't buy for a set period. We don't record who buys, only stop those on the list from buying, using ID swipes. 3 strikes and you're out permanently. Tax the hell out of it, but, also sell an 8th of weed for $8, because corporate agro can do that, easy. $5 retail, $3 tax. You'll put the illegal guys out of business in a month. You'll also see a change in behavior from users: nobody wants to be on the list, man. Not when it means going back to paying $25-35. Make sure everything is clean...so hospital overdose costs are 95% removed. The state is making/saving money everywhere on this, most of which can be used to fund programs to help the people who have addiction problems. Nobody is getting killed over a street corner. It just became a lot safer to be a cop. Little girls don't get killed in their homes by stray bullets fired by untrained idiots. In all cases, the scumbags lose. This is at worst revenue neutral for the state. Lives are saved. And criminals no longer have massive wealth with which to buy power/corrupt law enforcement. Criminals don't have the power, because they don't have the $$$. There will always be criminals. Don't be an idiot. Legalized drugs simply means: crime goes back to NOT paying. Prison overcrowding goes down...the collateral solutions this approach creates are unending. This is the solution. And, it's like gravity. Both this solution, and gravity, have existed forever. The difference is: gravity has been "discovered". It's just a matter of time before everyone puts aside the emotional arguments and accepts the logical. When they do: this solution will be "discovered" as well.

Ah, so Iraq is the only war of choice then. But, war of choice doesn't have that same ring to it, does it? "Wars of Choice"...now that's the right frequency for a Dog Whistle. It's hilarious that you think "war" and "hanging around" belong in the same sentence. This isn't about disagree. No, this is about why they make short buses, and long ones. I'm guessing you rode the former...in Texas. Yes, well, it's not really for you. I'm merely proving a point: you said "Wars of Choice", plural, because that's the Dog Whistle. You've spent successive posts trying to play that off, but spare me, the Dog Whistle is what you meant, because that's what you said. Due to short responses from me, you were allowed options to play it off. 1 long post from me, and you'd have had all your options removed. All you've done: proven my point to others. So, I thank you. And for the rest of you? Morons.

I only listen to Rush when something happens that I know he will do hilarious bits with. So, not that often. It has to be something like the day Pelosi said "We have to pass it to find out what's in it". And yeah, the other day some leftist clown, because I had already dunked on him a few times in our discussion, started ranting at me about Sean Hannity. This guy has clearly been watching him or listening for quite some time, and had a detailed laundry list of things for me to defend/respond to. I just said "who's Sean Hannity?", which flabbergasted him. 2 handed Irony Dunk.

Then why did your original repsonse say, specifically, "wars of choice"? What other "wars" are there besides Afghanistan and Iraq? No. "Wars of Choice" :: Whistle of Dog. Reasons for Long PostsTM Dodge #2: See? Now we have 3 posts, rather than 1 long one. I wonder what I should set the O/U at? This could already be done. Instead...looks like pages are ahead. Morons.

Do you not know what the term "good faith" means? Reasons for Long Posts DodgeTM #1: See how he avoids me calling him out on "wars of choice"? If this was a longer post, I'd have taken care of that. But...the experiment. Morons.

I've thought and thought about this...and I can't figure it out. I can see both sides of the issue. I've read/listened to people with personal experience or who have done research, and I still can't make an informed decision on this issue. 1: you have the standard school choice/charter school argument, which for those that don't know, can be summed up as: competition creates results. Force schools to compete with each other, and charter schools, for students/money, and you'll see most schools improve, and some die a death they should have died 40 years ago. 2: you have the argument, supported by many teachers, legitimately(not union influenced), that all a charter school does is cherry pick good students, draw redundant $ away that is better off centralized(more in a sec), and leaves the rest of the students/teachers with larger class sizes and less resources to go around. 2 claims that charter schools derail economies of scale. Example: Making lunch in a central location, and shipping it to all schools, is inevitably cheaper than doing it on location, thus leaving more budget $ for other things, like hiring more teachers. 2 says the charter school is an illusion. Of course you're going to get better results with the best behaved and smarter kids in a small class-size school. And, improved behavior isn't limited to the kids: parents had to win a lottery to get their child in there, and, if the kid acts up? It's back to hell, so the parents are on high alert. The improved parent behavior skew the results too. 2 says that the job of a school district is to educate ALL the kids, including the special needs kids, emotionally challenged/traumatized, and the just plain stupid. Charters don't accept these kids. I can't decide. I can see both arguments, and, I certainly can see the logic of 2. Right now, my thoughts are: make every school a charter school, and decentralize the whole thing, because: that's what I always say. No seriously, I'm unconvinced that the economies of scale via centralization....aren't totally consumed by administrative/bureaucratic functionaries. The growth in their numbers has been documented. But, then I think about cost redundancy...and I'm back to square 1. Then I think: maybe charter schools at both ends of the bell curve? But, that seems Orwellian, and "What about the late bloomers?", and, pigeon-holing kids is what the rest of the world does. They ration education by kicking the C and below students out of the system at 15. Japan even has a name for these kids: ronin. (Ah yes Japan...of "lowest cost per capital spent on health care" fame...if you don't count the illegal side-payments) Then: we get to hear about our test scores(the rationale for Common Core) compared to the rest of the world...after they've thrown out half, or more, of their kids? But, like I said: even after all the thought on this, I'm still clueless on this issue. Perhaps you guys can help me get a clue.