OCinBuffalo

72 dates with virgins...and having to listen to them yammer on about their ex-boyfriend, mother, and the women they hate at work, for a minimum of 3 hours per.... ...but no sex. Seems like a fitting starter punishment for a suicide bomber. Moving on to 1 kick to the nuts per minute, 8 hours per day, seems like the logical next step. Also, if a woman blows her dumb ass up in the name of Allah, does she get 72 virgins too? Hmmm....I wonder if they'd sell tickets to that. I mean, it's heaven, so they'd have to, right?

I always thought it would be hilarious if the 72 virgins were guys, or as was said, chicks with dicks. A cruel joke and one hell of an a-hole trap == that's what you get for killing innocent people. After all Djinni are famous for schit like this, and they are native to Arabia. Why couldn't an all merciful, wise, and knowing Allah have Djinni fun with some clown who actually believes he's going to be rewarded for murder? That's the other thing: doesn't 72 virgins mean that 72 women have to die, as virigins, for them to be available in heaven? Seems unlikely that there's that many virgins running around in heaven. It is heaven, thus it seems highly unlikely that there would be a No Sex policy. But if that's not the case, then I will steal from George Carlin: somebody is printing up virgins, and that lowers their value due to inflation. The real Carlin bit makes fun of reincarnation, because, we can all agree that at one time there were 6 people. You'll go through hell trying to convince everyone that it all started with 1 man or 2 people, but with 6, most people will say "F yeah, at one time there were only 6 people". And, each one of them had a soul. Now, there's 6 billion people, and every one of these Fs has a soul? Somebody must be printing up souls, etc...

Ok, but that still doesn't answer why there are any rules at all in the Koran. That's the crux of the argument: why do we need man's rules, when Allah is perfectly capable of handling the eternal souls of men? The rules themselves reduce Allah's position as God, because man's rules, for reasons passing understanding, need to exist in Islam. No they don't, yet there they are. That's a bug. You won't find Jesus or Buddha giving out specific instructions as to what to do to whom, and how to kill them. Nor do you find stories about the battles Jesus or Buddha lead to conquer and convert by force. And, please, that's perhaps the most charitable interpretation of Islam's position on apostasy I have ever read. People are hunted down and killed/jailed on a regular basis TODAY, for apostasy, in the name of Islam, and you're telling me that the very methods used to do so aren't specifically spelled out in the Koran? Yes they are. And like I said, that's a defect of reason. If God is God, he doesn't require man's puny intellect or utter lack of wisdom, in comparison, to pass judgement in his name on earth. As DC_Tom has said many times: Islam needs a reformation. I agree, if for no other reason than to permanently prevent Islamic men from continuing to get it wrong. Without reform, when can we expect Islamic men to cease getting it wrong? 10 years from now, 20?

Schumer is perhaps the dumbest thing the Ds can do right now. The belief that they can govern has been utterly destroyed. Harry Reid's "protect Obama from vetos and Ds from votes at all costs" strategy has not only cost them the Senate, it's cost them their credibility and almost all of their minor leaguers at the state level. How many Berghdahl stories have we had? Robert F'ing Riech of all people has publicly stated that he fears for the future of "activist government". Susan Rice still has a job, after both Benghazi, AND, Bergdahl. WTF else do you want to know about the state of the D party? Meanwhile, the liberal media has never had it worse in its history. That's right campers, FOX News is now the most trusted news outlet, and most trusted by Is. (Yeah, type Faux News again, cause you're "winning". ) We now have ABC news ragdolling this adminstration like the joke that it has been, finally. "Astounding"? No, ABC, what's astounding is your refusal to vet this president properly, and then be shocked when things like Yemen happen. ABC is doing its best to reclaim its cred, while NBC just put it's #1 guy on leave for lying. Given all this, at a critical time when the Democrats need a Moynihan clone to start making rational, important, clear, and convincing arguments? They put an unserious "soda is bad" Schumer in charge? Think about it: Combine Schumer with the current state of the liberal media. Schumer will be going live every night on networks with hardly any credibility left, and clowning it up over soda, while the Middle East continues to go nuts. Schumer stays away because while he needs the Jews in NYS, he can't contradict Obama. That leaves the clowning, and once he starts doing it, who is going to stop him? Media Matters? This...is your plan. By all means, don't let me stop you. But seriously, this is your plan? /facepalm

One wonders what we did to deserve this thread being started once a year/six months, and how long our penance will last. There is the point/problem about apostasy to consider, intellectually, however. It cannot simply be overlooked with the tired, old "misinterpretation" excuse: If a religion is truly borne of a communion with God, those that turn away from it are God's problem, not man's. What need does God have for apostasy/non-believer "rules"? If He is God, and we are truly talking about eternal life/damnation, it's obtuse to have rules about apostasy on earth. Why does Muhammed's version of God needs man to do his judging/executing work for him? Everybody else's version of God can handle it. Why does Allah require man's "help"? Doesn't that move God's judgement closer to human's? That reeks of convenience, expediency, and the same excuses every totalitarian in history has made: "I have to kill some of the people to "protect" all of the people." Otherwise known as "I will kill some of the people as a warning to the others that deviation from my word is death". IF any philosophy is worth a damn, it stands on its own, and every individual is free to choose it, or not. It doesn't require punishment for non-believers or apostates, because, by definition, it is bigger than us all. It can't be that, and also require it's adherents to go on petty quests to hunt down apostates and non-believers, at the same time. In a more modern version: Tony Robbins has made 50x the $ Scientology has. Robbins, if he even has apostates, ignores them. Scientology behaves like Islam. So, as I said, there's an intellectual, logical, sticking point here, that cannot be brushed off with PC(otherwise known as anti-intellectual) excuses. We have empirical evidence to prove that a sound philosophy, in its non-bastardized form, requires no punishment for those that don't adhere/turn away, and gains followers on its merits. However, even with Allah's noblest of men of today, the apostasy rules remain literal. That is both a distinction and a real difference that is unavoidable and requires the honest to recognize it as the defect in reason that it is. Therefore, every truly thinking person is, by definition, forced to be more skeptical of Islam, than of the other great faiths. Christianity bids its followers to go out and convince, Islam largely bids its followers to go out and conquer, another defect in reason, if we are to consider Islam as "the same" as any other religion. And please understand, defect in reason does not mean mass executions, so you PC idiots: don't even start. Defect in reason means Islam has a Lvl 1 bug that needs fixing.

Tell him to go to Japan, come back, and then STFU. Next tell him to go to England, and ask anyone there about the Black Prince, and if he is a "good guy" for them. The people who got thrown out of their educational system at 15 for being C students....even they know the Black Prince. Tell him to come back, and then, once again tell him to STFU. Next, tell him that history, and familiarity with the world's cultures, are not his enemies. His enemy is his own ignorance. Then, tell him I've used the Black Prince, and the rest of what is below, in many similar discussions with the same idiotic premise, on many a black person, they've always learned something they didn't know, and they usually thank me. (I love using the Black Prince for this. It's so perfect!) Next, tell him anthropology is not his enemy, so he should go to Africa/Asia, and ask all these dark skinned people the following: do they paint themselves white because their society has sensitized them to black == bad? Or, do they do it for another reason, and will he have to get his anthropologist on, to determine why? When he returns from that trip, tell him to take a damn bath, and then STFU. Tell him that cultural psychology is not his enemy, and 2.8 million years of human existence of living with the notion that darkness/blackness, being associated with night, and all the bad it brings(like being most vulnerable to attack from beast and man, since forever), and that white, light, the sun, and all the good it does(like grow food, and keep you from tripping on stuff) being associated with good...shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Especially not with 2.8 million years of this schit. 2.8? Yeah...right here, with a climate change kicker! Then ask, in our current age of the "Meanwhile, in Japan..." meme(and I'm telling you now: NSFW), everywhere, is it any surprise that the Japanese have it backwards? Finally tell him that logic/reason/history/facts/true intellectual rigor are worthy pursuits. While listening to the idiocy and lack of rigor inherent to the "identity studies" majors, which are the source of his idioitc premise, and Al Sharpton, will simply make him stupid.

Medicaid is welfare, not insurance. Medicaid is an entitlement, not insurance. Medicaid was created as part of LBJ's...wait for it..."Great Society". Yeah Baby Boomers! 1965! Woo! Undeniable fact: Medicaid was proposed by LBJ as a way to pay for the health care of young workers who get permanently injured on the job, become unable to work, and require ongoing/lifetime treatment for their injuries. LBJ said Medicaid would encourage work, and encourage young people to take the higher paying, although more dangerous jobs. Said jobs would be offered, due to the rest of his "Great Society" plan, including the War on Poverty, working(yeah...and then the 1970s happened). This meant a need for more infrastructure( there's that word again!) jobs which meant more dangerous jobs. So, the youth filling those roles could take comfort in Medicaid: If something went wrong, they'd be covered. The intended "by the way" was that Medicaid would also cover poor people temporarily until they could find work, and perhaps a few poor elderly the last couple of months before they died. Does that...in any way...resemble what Medicaid is/does today? Only if you are a completely uninformed, totallly unmitigated, moron. Today, 90% of ALL Medicaid is consumed by the elderly, for their long term care "costs". Why? Because the elderly have either become poor, by spending/never saving/outliving their money, or, have given all their money away to their kids, screwing the taxpayer(which is why NYS, with its Rollys Royce Medicaid, literally imports poor people from all over the country). Meanwhile, the average LTC facility recieves a whoppin $20/day, total, to care for an elderly person on Medicaid. And, yet, we have assclown lawyers suing LTCs....for negligence. I couldn't take care of any of you on this board for $20 a day. No matter how much "spreading of costs"(known by people who actually know business, as economies of scale) we did. And as far as I know: none of you literally schit yourselves on a regular basis. So what happens? Everybody else has to compensate the LTC, via their Medicare, or Private Pay, but, they don't get better care than a Medicaid patient, nor can you kick one out, once they are forced upon you. A fat-ass diabetic, whose disease is 100% their fault, and now has amputations due to it, can live 20 years in your LTC, costing you more and more as they hack off more and more, and $20/day is all you get. And now, what is happening? We are adding Medicaid consumers....and not adding any Medicaid cash! I wonder what is going to happen? It's a mystery! Thus, the notion that Medicaid is "good government'? It's curently doing <1% of its intended purpose, <10% of its "by the way" purpose, and 90% of a totally unintended purpose, or a purpose that was, at most, supposed to account for 5% of its budget . It's hilarious that anyone would call something that is so obviously failing to perform as designed: good. It's also hilarious that putting additional pressure on a system that broke 20 years ago is also described as: good. How much longer do nurse aids(indentured Union servants) have to live on a life-long wage of $8/hr, because their facilities are only getting paid $20/day per patient, and work 10 patients by themselves...all so they can get the privilege of being vilified and harassed by lawyers, regulators and the media and taken advantage of by everyone, especially the Democratic party and their unions? See, that is the "good government" here: slave wages and forced contribution to political masters...who have 0 intent on "change" or "hope" because the real $ in Medicaid? That's reserved for the government employee/regulators/Union Bosses/hallowed Ph. D nurses who create the "reimbursement instruments"....as consultants for the government. 20-25% of most county budgets in the entire country go do Medicaid. Ah, but, first that money goes to DC, THEN, and only then does it come back in reimbursement. That's a hell of a lot of money going one way, and again, $20/day coming back. Think damn you. Only a total idiot, or somebody who makes the corrupt $ off it, would call Medicaid: "good government"

My friend: But you not having Polish response. Why they give it to you? Your president can not trust. When Poland had missile defense to Russia, he take them away. Now see what happens to them? Then he said take away nuke bombs from Ukrane. Then Russia come to Ukrane country. No, no, my friend. Polish do not trust. That is why giving response to us. But Nigeria bank is having problems. But if you can give me account number and routing number and name of bank, I can transfer the Polish response, then you and I split 50/50 and forget about this DC_Tom. He angry all the time. Probably has Tze Tze fly stuck in ass. I would rather work in good faith with you my USA friend. Please give the information I need to have great time for you and me. I thank you my friend, Nigeria.

Welcome from you: I am writing this to say you I have Polish response. They give it to us here Nigeria so keep safe after Russian crisis over. No one would find for it here. Unfortunately, some trouble in my country, and I cannot get it or the bank where is it. I am sure you would agree that this response is worth many, many Euro. I need a safe place to transfer Polish response in USA. I have safe place, I can get a lot of money from it from UN. I need you to give me your bank account number and routing number, so that I can transfer response to you in good faith. I have a way to get to USA. When I get there as representative of Nigerian Embassy, I can take response to UN, and we will split payment 50/50. Also, Nigeria is on UN Security Counsel, so another way to trust me. I hope hear from you in good faith. Your true friend, Nigeria.

Ahh the wonderous transitive property. Is there anything it can't do? Well, apparently it is limited, but only by the ability of its user. Anyhow, anyone else see this little pissing contest spout up? Pissant 2's response to Pissant A&B And Pissant A&B's response back Further proof of the transitive property's user limitation. New Rule: apparently, you can get in trouble for agreeing, but not agreeing vehemently enough, with The Tech? (By the way, since Scientology and its tactics are the model by which the environmentalist cult is now 100% based upon: I will from here refer to AGW/"settled science"/Climate Change etc. as "The Tech". It is wholly appropriate, as Scientology's eternal excuse for their lack of reproducable experimental results is "They[we never find out who "they" are] Were Doing it Wrong"...which is oddly familiar to Communism's excuse. Therefore, the eternal rallying cry for Scientology, new and improved is: "The Tech is Standardized!".) You see, the nature of Scientology's failure is NEVER in its design. After all, it was designed by L. Ron Hubbard, and he's ridden trains on Venus, so... Rather, it's always a pesky quality control issue. Somebody is always doing Scientology wrong, so it's illogical for us to expect it to produce stable, repeatable outcomes. It's always a problem of execution/quality, and therefore, constant effort is required(which of course costs constant $), to refine and standardize it. Similarly with Global Warming, Pissant's A&B are "doing it wrong". The Tech is being standardized, and we don't need these guys coming along and talking about past temperature data in any other context than: it 100% proves AGW. And of course, since AGW is also being standardized, that requires constant effort, which also requires constant $. Thank God, or L. Ron, for these scientists. We're lucky to have them, should pay them like CEOs, and go after anyone who denies their vaunted place in society. If they continue, we're going to look into their backgrounds and find out what their crimes are, and what they are trying to hide.

Read/watch this. (Sorry) This is literally enemy propaganda, which gives aid and comfort to the enemy, in a time of war. That is the definition of traitor, as per our laws and Constitution. That Air Force commander is therefore within his rights to call the FBI, and have these people arrested for treason. His oath clearly states "enemies foreign and domestic". These people, by their obvious act of sedition, by attempting to influence him not to follow his lawful orders, in war-time, have defined themselves as domestic enemies. Thus, he is honor-bound, and has a duty to respond. And, these people are only entitled to a trial, and not summary judgement = hanging/firing squad, if a court finds extenuating circumstances. But....nobody will do anything, and CNN and MSNBC won't be scorned for running this propaganda. Nothing will happen. The worst part: these Fs are completely clueless as to what war means/is. War is, by definition, IS domination of others. That is the task of every officer: to see to it that the enemy is dominated. Hell, the F'ing mission statement of the entire US Army is this: The mission of the Infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his assault with fire, close combat, and counterattack. The Infantry will engage the enemy with combined arms in all operational environments to bring about his defeat. The close combat fight is not unique to the Infantry. And if that wasn't enough to define exactly WTF the military is about how about we get even more specific? Section 1-1 of the "Fundamentals of Infantry Platoon and Squad Operations", from the same link: 1-1. The Infantry's primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final. Close combat stresses every aspect of the physical, mental, and spiritual features of the human dimension. To this end, Infantrymen are specially selected, trained, and led. This is right out of damn book, on the first damn page. If these or any other morons bothered to know anything about war, or the military, whatsoever, they'd see how preposterous this letter is. Officers are literally following "the employee handbook" no different than any other job, and the employee handbook itself literally speaks to the "human dimension". So, it's not like any military officer needs to be reminded by a bunch of ingrates about his humanity, or the human dimension. He's already been trained, thank you. And finally this should be addressed to the policy makers like Obama, not the implementors, which is WHY it can ONLY be defined and as enemy propoganda. It's intent is to undermine our military, and attempt to get them to refuse to follow their lawful orders. That? That is unmitigated treason.

Ask and ye shall recieve! Here, despite the usual douchebags talking yet again about process, because they cannot argue against my content, is the very thing I am talking about. I like this world, since it so often gifts me with the very events I need to crush fools, and it does it so rapidly. The above, of course, is also "not Islamic". Is the way these guys died == "many with their throats slit", referred to directly by the Koran? Yes. However, that reference means nothing, and there is no connection, because.... ...demented group #2 says so. No other reason. They say it "is not Islamic", therefore it is not, and anyone who says otherwise is automatically a racist, bigot, whatever. Demented group #1 does horrific thing after horrific thing in the name of Islam, and 90% of the time uses methods specifically described in the Koran. Then, demented group #2 follows behind them claiming it is "not Islamic"....and uses words like "militant". For the rational, this pattern is easy to see, the problems, and the dementia, of both groups are also easily identifiable. Their behavior makes it so. 2 questions that confront us all: 1. Is there anything that can be done for demented group #1, besides putting them down like rabid dogs? 2. Is there anything that can be done for demented group #2, besides either removing them completely from authority, then ignoring them, or, getting them on a medical treatment plan? Being on the side of logic doesn't mean I am without compassion. It's simple really, define the problem properly using logic, first, THEN, seek solutions that are as compassionate as logic will allow. I've correctly identified these 2 groups as having a problem, and neither of them seem able to help themselves out of their suffering, or the suffering they cause the rest of us. So, what is the most compassionate thing to do with these people?

The flyng car was presented to me as a sure thing. It was settled. So too damn bad if I'm long winded in voicing my disdain. I want my F'ing flying car, not a jet(Fleer Jet, you mean like a baseball card?), not some dumbass thing where I have to spend $400k just to get the opportunity to pay to fly on somebody else's empty jet, when they aren't using it. I want my flying car, which was just as "settled" as AGW "science" is now. I don't want to hear any more excuses, like, "we don't understand gravity". It's almost like I want to take a leave of absence, and work on gravity for a while, if for no other reason than to find out who is in charge of understanding gravity, what their problems are, and what they are doing to solve them. Gravity is one of the weakest forces there is, and yet we can't figure out how to overcome it? I want my damn landspeeder. And, like I said, I'm this close to saying F it, I'll build the damn thing myself.

Opportunist is exactly right: every far-left sacred cow will be on the table, with Hillary more than pleased to hack them up for a price. It remains astounding to me, that the Democratic Party as a whole and as individuals have been so willing to fall on so many swords, all to protet an obvious incompetent. Obama, but more importantly, saving Obama's ass, has done more political damage to the Ds than the Rs ever could. They have no bench now, they will have no bench going forward, because every level of their entire minor league system has been nearly wiped out. It remains hysterical to me, that just a few short years ago, Democrats were claiming ideological hegemony, and asking why those silly Republicans were resisting inevitable acceptance of the "social democracy", Global Warming, blah, blah, to come. Now? The party most like to become "regional" are the Ds, not the Rs, if they aren't already. Here's where we disagree: every presidential candidate needs a strong organization in every state, not just in the close ones. Due to the D party devastation, those organizations are going to be very difficult to build with so few elected Ds. You can have all the D money in the world, but, who gets it? Who leads the effort? Which horse do you bet on? Meanwhile in state X, with at least one R Seantor, a majority of R Reps, all their staff, as well as the state's house, senate and Governor and all their people? They make up one hell of an existing organization, who are already paid, and in place, and are a sure bet, as incumbents, for lots of $. That existing organization will be able to call Hillary out on whatever, whenever and as often as it wants. The Ds are going to have to spend 3-4 times the $ to counter each call out, because they are going to have to build organizations with cash. Those organizations still won't have the elected clout. So even when their expensive message gets delivered, who does the delivery? Perhaps that's why Hillary is hitting up foreign governments for $? In a lot of states, she's going to have to outraise by at least 2-1 to have a chance. There are lots of angle of attack, and "don't attack the woman" isn't going to work the same as "don't attack the black person". The Ds have practically desensitized the entire country to race, women, and gays, as viable political tools. They've gone to the well too many times.

Well then, I don't recall biker gangs being entitled to any sort of combatant protections, so, my postulate remains unscathed. But, you know what I am perhaps more sick of than the term "indie pop", and the absolutely illogical, never mind pure sucky, pairing of those two words? The entire time between 9/11 and now, when what "is Islamic" and what is not: has become 100% an argument of convenience for innumerable assclowns. "Islamic" has no real meaning anymore, because the word has been so bastardized, so twisted, by the demented, but, also so twisted the other way, by the differently demented, such that for them, nothing at all is ever Islamic, even when Islam itself is directly referenced, by the first set of demented people via direct quotes from the damn book itself, which guide their atrocities. Due to all this twisting, how can Islam have a real definition for either set of assclowns? But despite the assclowns, the truth remains: Islam is not only a religion, it is also law, and a political ethos, and it has been since its founding. The book itself, its prophet and it's followers have been defined, and have defined themselves, in these terms, also since its founding. Why anyone is willing to contort themselves to avoid using the word truthfully and honestly...is an utter mystery to me. However, it is a mystery of I am tired of thinking about, because it's become clear that this stopped being about philosophy, and started being about douchebaggery ~2005. Look: Physicist means physicist. We don't change it's definition because some of them F up, or a lot of them F up. We don't even change it's definition when it is proved beyond all doubt that all of them were totally wrong, like when Einstein showed up. That is because words mean things, and physicist means physicist. They study what they study, and believe what they believe. In 1000s of Mosques and Madrassas, they study what they study(nothing but utter garbage, the antithesis of education), and believe what they believe. But, when they act on those beliefs, we are told "That is not Islam"? It's amazing to me that all this time, effort, resources, and $ is spent, by parents, and students, who self-identify as Muslims...all so they can study, believe and act on...what: "is not Islam". I look at the University of Notre Dame, which "is Catholic". Then, I look for the Islamic equivalent...and I ask: IF there was one, would it truly be "Islamic"?

I said all quibbling aside. I know how it works, and you are quibbling. You know damn well that these guys are illegal combatants. And whatever, because its not like the holes aren't there to poke, blah, blah...enough with that. The Abbasids aren't here to say anything, so who the F cares what they would say? ISIS is here, now, and are you really going to try and parse word from deed...with these clowns? You are arguing that we shouldn't take them at their word, because they are ignorant of their own history, and therefore don't know what their own word means. or its ramifications, or they aren't "doing it right"? What the F is this? Some sort Islamo-affirmative action? We should lower the bar for these idiots, because what, they are Muslim/Arabs/from the ME? Now who is being a racist/religious zealot, etc.? Cramming all ISIS into the same box and labeling it "ignorant, therefore not worthy of using the word Caliphate, as defined by DC_Tom"? This is retarded. You're telling me that no one in ISIS is aware of the history/laws/abuses/realities of the old Caliphate? Or, you are telling me that there is no way they aren't doing exactly what they are saying, because ALL of them, especially their leaders, don't know what they are saying? No one, in all of ISIS knows what they are actually trying to accomplish, or how to get there, because none of them know what a successful Caliphate looks like? Well, either you're an unmitigated moron for arguing against my postulate, because it would absolutely separate those who know, from the truly ignorant, or, you're guessing, and this entire thing is going to turn into the madness of Pol Pot's Cambodia in about 6 months, and flame out in 3 years, when there's no one left to kill, or, you're finally going to have to admit that total chaos, which starts another world war, is what far too many Muslims(in the millions), and certainly the Iranian regime, believe has been pre-ordained, and, that this ISIS douchebaggery is simply an opening move in that game. If it's the latter? Then by all means, please tell us when/wher to expect the Mahdi...since you are the arbiter "doing it right" when it comes to all thing Islam. This way we can drone strike him immediately, and get his whole Islamo-Vaudevillian Cluster!@#$ cancelled.

Oh man, I hope you nominate Warren. I've always wanted to see a 50-state win. Warren would be absolutely destroyed in the debates...because she has rarely been publicly challenged on any of her positions. Scott Brown beat her hands down/did everything right, but the people of Mass couldn't stomach an R holding on to Kennedy's seat, and the only reason they put Brown there was to stop Obamacare. IF that election happened in any other state, she loses. And, that's what we are talking about here: Warren going up for election in every other state. Fauxchohantus and her fake heritage? With her far-left idiocy on business? It's going to be a pubic ass-raping...they may have to put "not suitable for some viewers" warnings on it. I laugh just thinking about it. Hell, many of us here could destroy her in a debate, and all we'd have to do is stick to simple ecomics, and ask her things about the military: Like, what is the difference between a captain and a commander?(ah ah ah....think first...) And, please, as per your normal complete lack of understanding of how this world works: it will NOT be the Rs who take out Hillary. It will be the Ds. Especially the Obama Ds, who are, rightly, looking at: R Congress + another Clinton opportunist = 1994-2000 all over again...when Bill said "the era of big government is over"...and schitting their pants. Hillary, and her own self-interest, puts every single one of their wingnut laws/regulation/executive orders/spending programs, and even entire agencies....on the table to be destroyed. Hillary would kill Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, Global Warming policy, dead, and sign off on tax, entitlement, and executive power reform, and she would do it all for a guaranteed 2nd term, just like her husband. The Rs would make that deal in a heartbeat, and run Rick Perry against her, just like they ran Bob Dole. So there you go. It is the far-left Ds, not the Rs, that will go after Hillary, since far-left Ds are the nearly the only elected people left in the D party. Basically, this is their only choice. And all this time: you've never been aware of the damage that blind support of Obama/calling people racists for pointing out his failures, has been doing to you and yours. Well, here it is. Which then leads us to the question: will they also be tripped up by the document's timestamp? Hey, the Chairman of the Ethics in Science Board was tripped up by a timestamp when he was forging phony documents. He's a global warming scientist, which means he's practically omniscient. I expect a lot less from the dunderheads at the State Dept.

No. -20 As in: 20 years with no football. Be coy all you want, talk/don't talk all you want, when you get done? 20 years of No NFL, and the simple and straightforward reasons why, remains reality. As per normal, you can't argue with the facts/reality, otherwise known as the content....so you attack the process. Old trick, new thread. Just as ineffective.

This is IT support, not programming. A "I went to college in India" support guy? That's on the list of the worst things I can imagine. Not only do you get the superiority complex(college is 12 hours a day in India), but you also get the fury that he's doing that, and not something more worthy, in his estimation, of his skills and effort. The only upside: a guy like that is imminently fun to screw with, so you and your office cohorts could have a blast...for a while...until he quits, goes postal, or destroys the firm's entire architecture.

And once again, I will take this opportunity to remind you all that: "LA is such a lucrative football market, that it's only been 20 years since a team played there". The one time billion+ the NFL wants in SD? That is nothing compared the every year, hundreds of millions(if not a billion itself) in government/political machine/kook and wingnut extortion $ that whichever team moves there will have to pay. Some of this is already on the books as law. For example: The NFL team will have to provide "alternative" entertainment, so that people who don't enjoy football, and therefore don't want to watch it, aren't excluded from the experience of going to the game/using the stadium, as it is a public resource(provided it is paid for with public money). And of course, that means "jobs"!...for yoga instructors, I guess. Or, the part about the NFL team, not the city, being responsible for dropping near a billion on upgrading the "infrastructure" around the stadium. Political hacks at work. Once and for all: We all know about LA's revenue potential That revenue potential is huge, and literally every team in the league, even people like the Pats and Cowboys, have a super-secret "move to LA plan" tucked away somewhere, solely due to that revenue potential. If this were merely a revenue-side argument, then we wouldn't be looking at 20 years of no NFL in LA. We are though, and the reason we are? People who are familiar with business(ahem, most NFL owners are self-made), are familiar with the word: cost. The costs that LA represents chew up that revenue potential in a hurry. LA is becoming a more terrible place to do business every year....which is exactly HOW you end up with a name like the California Angels of Ananhiem. When one does, what we call, their due dillegence(otherwise known as create a 5 year financial analysis of what moving the team would entail, and actually look like)? EVERY team in the NFL has chosen to stay home, year after year, for 20 years, not because of emotional reasons, but because of the all-powerful: bottom line. LA's environment of kooks, political crooks, and residents who believe they are entitled to take from whoever has more than them because ??? = more than enough cost to mitigate even the most massive revenue potential. And, finally, is the following demand being put to an LA team so hard to imagine? "Either you put Michael Sam on the team, or some other openly gay player on the team, because we know the NFL has them, or, we will boycott the team". LA county has a high concentration of lazy, kooks, and entitled wingnuts, which puts it in the running for highest concetration of lazy, kooks and entitled wingnuts world wide. So, no, the above quote is not only a likely outcome, it's a probable one. The real bottom line: All you ever hear from the media on this is the massive revenue side of the argument. Which is why some of you in this thread don't understand/can't believe a team hasn't moved there/what is SD thinking by not moving there. You never hear the cost side, or the kook side of the argument, because that side? That's not the side the media wants to talk about, because the reality of it exposes their ideology as: exactly what it is.

Bah! Somewhere, on this very machine in fact...or...maybe not...is my full analysis of QBR as a methodology. I can't find it, and I may have deleted it(because who cares? and, it's not like it's the last one I'll ever do), but at one point I did send it in to ESPN. In fact I agree with your point: I believe one of my criticisms came down to "why create a statistical method, and supporting software, and not open source the damn thing? Do you really think I/somebody can't reverse engineer this? Making it proprietary makes no sense at all...unless there's something in there you don't want us to see...because leaving it to the community means a) you don't have to spend $ on it for it to get better and b) you can still gain the benefits from it. All you are achieving by proceeding in this manner is inviting open-source competition: ask Microsoft how IE is doing." Or something like that. Also, one of the other trouble spots IMO, is the ongoing lack of defensive adjustment. Think about it: the NFC East has been trending downward defensively for what, 4 years now? I mean, who in the NFC East could stop the pass last year? Here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef If you read that right, the NFC East is the worst pass defense division in football That's 4 years of historical data that is skewed towards QBs that have played against them. So, inherently, you're going to have the NFC East's QBs look better than they actually are. Ahem, hence Tony Romo Were not talking about a one-off, but a trend of bias. But, QBR is the best tool we currently have, and it beats the pants off passer rating....

Contend all you like, as long as you realize that it's reliant on practically nothing of substance. "What you've seen", given what you've posted, hell, might as well be a box score. Box scores don't tell us anything at all about the potential of a player. Or, why would teams spend so much money flying scouts all over the country, if they could just sit in their offices and read stats/box scores? Statistically, EJ hasn't really played enough games to qualify for most of FO's analyses. However, in terms of what matters, EJ has the potential to be a top 10 QB. That's due to his head, his heart and his undeniable physical tools, which are far and away superior to Tannehill's. NO ONE can say whether EJ will get his schit together or not, but you don't trade that...for somebody you know will NEVER be a top 10 QB. What is the point? Why not just go get Matt Cassel? Oh, wait, we already did that, didn't we? Why would I trade top 10 QB potential, for a guy I can get as a FA/for a 4th rounder? Here's what I have seen: I have seen in Tannehill a guy who wouldn't be a starting QB if this was 1988, or 1998, or 2008. We are just going through a dry spell. It happens. That, and the NFL is currently going through this schizophrenic time right now, because college football is also having a period of schizophrenia, where teams think Tim Tebow football is the way to win. Up is down, reason doesn't matter, burn all the books, etc. How else does one explain Johnny Manziel? Some days, I liken my observation of the current miasma of NFL "thought" to that of a rational, sane, critical thinking German, experiencing the 1930s. Lots of "WTF is he even talking about"? But, sooner or later, a group of Elways, Marinos and Kellys will arrive in college, throw for 6000 yards a season, blow the current nonsense out of the water, and all will be back to normal. Bottom Line: EJ has a lot more in common with Dan Marino right now, than Tannehill ever will.

Yeah, well, you're refusal to deal with the facts and/or refusal to refute or even address in some cases, a single argument that anyone had made in this thread prior to me posting in it? That is what summoned me here, with my obnoxiousness. (You can always tell when somebody is losing, when they start talking about the process of the conversation, and stop talking about its content). I was asked to post more. Threads like this? Exactly why I was asked to post more. You can count on me, and my "style" every time utter nonsense gets thrown around this board. Doubly so if it is WGR parrotted nonsense. As I posted above, I can, and would be more than happy to take you through every single bit of the physiological differences in the mechanics. However, if you sign up for that, there's no quitting after 5 posts. I'm not going to waste my time explaining everything I know about this, if you don't want to learn, or will just chickenshit out of it once you realize that yeah....I do know about throwing, and yeah, I can prove what I'm saying. Here you go

Do you think Tannehill has better mechanics than EJ? Do you think he has better downfield, midfield, and short range accuracy than EJ? What can you point to, mechanically, that proves your answer? Who has a better/more natural throwing motion? Who finishes their throws where, and why is one better than another? Who has a quicker release? Who has the superior body type for throwing? Who will always make more powerful throws/more accurate throws, directly due to the physiological difference in how they throw? Who, due directly to that difference, is therefore able to combine both their body type and their developed skill(how they throw) for better throwing? Who stays balanced throughout the throw, and therefore transfers their weight smoothly, not wasting motion, and thus putting all their power into the throw? IF you answered Tannehill to any of those? You simply either don't know, or don't understand, what you are looking at. EJ's throwing is better in every measurable way, period. Who has the higher propensity to read the entire field? Who has the higher propensity to look for his 2nd, 3rd and 4th option? So far, it's a toss-up, but only on a technicality. Tannehill has had real trouble with this, and he's had a chance to play a lot more. Unless looking one way, and throwing the other, is the design of the play, with "throwing the other" still being the 1st/only read? Tannehill hasn't shown he can read progessions worth a damn yet. The Dolphins moving in read/option during the season last year merely underlines that point: why do that if Tannehill is improving as a classic pocket passer? Meanwhile, EJ has shown a mixed bag. Therefore, we know where Tannehill is = not good. We don't know where EJ is because he hasn't played enough games. Thus, it's a tie, but only because EJ hasn't played 8 games in a row yet. Tannehill can't use the experience excuse. EJ can. Whose footwork is more sound on non-pressure throws? Whose footwork is more sound on throws under pressure? Who is better at moving in the pocket to avoid pressure, and then throwing accurately(um, actually for this one, it should be who can actually do that, and who can't?) EJ is better, clearly. This is why he can hit downfield so accurately...and why Tannehill rarely, if ever, even attempts them. Why can EJ hit a 50 yard bomb on target, and yet miss a 5 yard out so wildly? That is mystery. But I think that's more mental, Marrone, etc. than anything. Notice: that's the first time I said I think. I know everything above this. Let's assume Tannehill is a better leader....I don't know, just because. Now, you're telling me that you'd rather have Tannehill, whose ceiling is "below-average", over EJ, who has "all-pro" physical ability? All of this is easily seen if you have time to watch the film. NFL rewind will set you back $20. If you do the film study I have, and if you develop the understanding of the physiology of sports as I have, you'd realize how preposterous this entire argument is.

Jesus. I painstakingly went out of my way to say: there's little mathematical chance of EJ remaining statistically exactly the same, especially in QBR.So WTF? He's either going to get worse, or get better, and since he currently resides at the 50th percentile in career QBR play? The only rational expectation is that he has an equal chance of doing either. Assume EJ plays 30 games over the next 3 years, do you have any idea how unlikely it is that he remains exactly where he is in QBR, and not 5 pts up or down? Or, do you know what a standard deviation is? Look: The damn statistical instrument itself it telling us, with precision, that it could go either way. He's literally at a 50/50 chance, in every proper analysis. "Feel"? There is no feel here. There is only proper statistical analysis done by me, that is based on proper statistical methodology done by FO/ESPN. Thus, feel doesn't enter into it. Given 30 years of QB play compiled, the ONLY thing we can say is: EJ is the embodiment of average QB play. The entire point of QBR, and anlytics in general, is to REMOVE arguments like yours: biased, opinion-based, and methodologically ridiculous, from public discourse, and replace them with statistical propensities that are nearly inarguable, and thus can be used for nearly flawless decision-making. Outliers happen. Nothing is perfect, nor should we expect it. But, in EJ's case, it is 50/50, and that's all there is to it.