OCinBuffalo

Somebody needs to gently break it to a whole lot of people, here and elsewhere, that click-whoring is now the default business process for the media. I nominate wawrow, because, with that "Bon Jovi scouted stadium sites in Toronto" story, he can explain the difference between the real journalism that he does, and click-whoring. And, I don't even like wawrow. Well, except when he's unkowningly buying me a beer.

Jumping the Shark is retredded. Or go forward, and start calling things retredded. In all cases, the notion that somehow Schwatz isn't going to recognize what he has in Hughes, or Mario Williams, or Kyle Williams, or Dareus, is retredded as well.

Once again, the biggest reason we lost games early in the year? Well, who was playing CB/S for us early in the year? Justin Rogers...who was only playing due to injury, and eventually had to be cut, because he was so bad. The biggest reason we started winning games later in the year, especially when the offense sputtered/we couldn't score TDs(ahem, Miami game)? Well, who was playing CB/S for us later in the year? Gilmore returned, so did Byrd, McLuvin got healthy, Robey learned on the job, and Aaron Williams was allowed to go back to playing SS instead of CB, and he developed nicely. Thus, we learned the "what happens when you start bad CB/Ss?" lesson the hard way last year. (Some of us didn't need the lesson, some of us did.) Last year should permanently end the debate as to whether DBs are less important than O lineman. I don't expect any Bills fan, on this board or anywhere, to require remedial training on this concept, given last year's object lesson. You can have different levels of O line, and it may or may not matter. But, if you have anything sort of a good secondary, it absolutely will matter, and it will cost you the game. Every. Single. Time. This is the state of NFL football in 2014. Perhaps we should ask Seattle if their O line is more important to them, and more integral to them winning, than their defensive backfield? Perhaps we should ask Peyton Manning if his O line is the reason they got blown out? EJ and the offensive line may/may not be fine. But, if we are playing from behind every game, because we can't cover anyone, like last year, then the O line simply won't matter. Why? If we are pass blocking every single down, because we are throwing to catch up every single down, they will wear down, regardless of who is playing. 5 all pro O lineman can't pass block for an entire game without losing performance. If we are once again passing from behind this year? EJ won't matter. Nothing will matter. In 2014, job #1 is stopping the other team's passing attack. That's where they've invested all their top assets, that's their strength. If you can minimize their strength, and turn those assets into a waste? You will win. Period. Sammy Watkins et al are fine weapons to add to EJ's aresenal, but, I guarantee you the 2 DBs we've added, plus a healthy Gilmore and McLuvin, will help him as least as much, if not more than the play of the O line.

Skeptical? Sure. But, if your skepticism is based solely on a highly unlikely probability? Nobod reserves the right to be obtuse. You can say: the Bills, even with the talent they've collected have a history of under-performing. Ok, so what does that mean? We draft at 12 (downside) instead of 21(upside, we get into playoffs with WC). Is 12, 21, or anything in between going to get us a Franchise QB? Not likely. And, again, which of the college QBs that are going to be available next draft, are sure-thing franchise QBs? Doesn't "franchise QB" by definition mean "#1-3 pick in draft"? Which current college QB can we say is a lock to go #1-3 today? See? Everything has to line up badly for us, for the "WGR phoney argument" to be true. Meanwhile, look at it from Cleveland's perspective. What exactly is stopping: "OMG, we traded away a HOF WR, for the chance to draft the 3rd/4th best DE, DT, CB, LB, OT, WR or best G/C in the next draft!?! " from being true right now? Which way is the observable evidence pointing? Perhaps a visit to their message boards, where they already "know" this to be true, is warranted? Wait, so now hypothetical possibility has replaced realistic probability as the argument? And what's worse? A "packaged" trade-up scenario, for a franchise QB, that assumes the team you are trading up with....doesn't have QB problems of their own, which is why they are picking so high/higher than you...being "probable", never mind possible? Dude. Somebody wanna give me odds on any team, with the chance to take a known commodity, good QB...not taking him, and trading down insead? Who the F would do that? Not even the Redskins. This is precisely why the word "phoney" is properly applied to this entire argument. The notion that the pick we traded away ever had a more likely chance of replacing EJ with a sure-fire QB, than it now does getting the Browns the 3rd best CB next draft, is simply .... retatta. RJ. JP.

But, that's the point of the above. Oversimplification. WGR's oversimplification of this situation....is precisely how you end up with "we traded away our chance to pick a QB" being even remotely considered as a 50/50 chance thing in the first place. A simpleton, like those on WGR, will ignore the data, and more importantly, the dependencies, in favor of constructing a possible, but highly improbable, scenario, and then proceed to act as if it has as much chance of happening as anything else. In my analysis, based on schedule, based on talent, etc? The worst we were ever going to pick next draft is 12. I say 12, because that's ~where 7-9 gets you. Again, that's based on reasonable assumptions. Any # of low % chance things can occur that skew the outcome more than they should. Hell we could win the SB. That's as likely as us going 2-12. What % chance does picking @12, historicallly, all time, have of netting you a true franchise QB? Not much. So, acting like this is some highly likely scenario, we've "gambled", or we've just flipped a coin? Patently Retarded. My cursory review above proves that.

That's precisely what this is about: odds. Also, it's about the retarded notion that all of these "odds" each exist in a vacuum, and aren't dependent upon one another. Let's lay out some basic odds, shall we? 1. Given the talent on this team, such that a "the Bills are more talented than the Patriots" argument has already been seriously entertained, made, and considered, what is the % chance that we end up next year picking in the top 10? (My answer: 20%, just like every other team with comparable talent to ours, perhaps 30% at most for this team) 2. What is the % chance that, regardless of how EJ does, this running game, defense, and special teams, along with this coaching staff, completely schits the bed, and we lose 12-14 games next year, thus pick in the top 3 next draft? (10%) 3. Given the large amount of analysis that's been done here and elswhere regarding drafting a "franchise" QB, and the low odds of doing that outside of the top 10, never mind the top 3, what are the chances that the 1(one) pick we "gave up" next year was going to net us a sure-thing QB? (same as anyone who isn't drafting #1-3 overall, 10%) 4. 3 years ago, at this time, we were talking about Andrew Luck/RG3 being #1/#2 in the next draft. Why? Because BEFORE the season even started, we KNEW who they would be. Who exactly is the Andrew Luck of this upcoming draft? What is % chance that anybody in the upcoming draft has Andrew Luck/RG3 upside, right now? (No one, therefore 0%) 5. What draft pick is required to be able to draft next year's Andrew Luck(if he exists)? (My answer: Um, if it's not #1, then isn't it #2?) 6. What is the % chance that the Bills pick next year was going to be #1, or #2? (1%) See? Odds. Hilarious. More like: unmitigated idiocy. Suddenly, the "odds" aren't looking so hot for Jeremy White or Mike Schopp or Bulldope, are they? Now, let's move on to some more "advanced stats" type thinking. In other words: let's apply my favorite idiocy salve, logic. What are the conditions that must exist for: "The Bills have traded away their chance to pick a "franchise QB" to Cleveland" to be true? The team has to peform completely below all expectation. In fact it has to be historically below all expectation of all teams with similar talent/skill sets. All players must play below their ability. (10% chance, and not 1%, because there is such a thing as "morale". Bad morale can ruin a star's performance same as everybody else. Team morale exists, just like "momentum" exists, despite Mike Schopp's refusal to believe in these words, that are in the dictionary, for a reason.), AND a new QB suddenly had to emerge that is worth taking with that high #1/#2, that we now have, because we sucked beyond all rational expectation (right now, 1% chance) AND EJ will have to completely FAIL(here's your sole bright spot clowns: 40%, and only because if he gets injured...) AND Sammy Watkins will have to be mediocre, with no perceptible upside, and fail to prevent EJ from failing ALL of these conditions will have to be true, in order for the "gave up a pick that could have been used on a QB" to be true. If ANY one of these conditions is false, then the entire argument FAILs, or is rendered irrelevant(EJ does well). This is the result of dependency. All of the conditions have to be true: for us to be bad enough to get a high pick, worse than other teams who are also bad, have our QB do bad enough to warrant another pick, and have QB X, be worth taking that high, and actually be there for us to pick, such that we can draft him. You can take each point and try to argue its % higher. That is a pointless exercise, because even if you adjust each one as high as you can reasonably get it? You still have to aggregate them to be in range to draft QB X. And, in the end, at the very best: this argument has at best a 15-25% chance of being right. Which means it has a 75-85% chance of being wrong. It's been presented by WGR as being practically 50/50 or even more likely than not to occur. That is precisely why we can attach the word "phony" to it. Thus. 7. What is the % chance that talking about "drafting a QB" with a pick that was never going to get you that QB, is a giant waste of Bills fan's time? (100%)

The above is required reading for all further participation in this thread. With merely mucking around with 2 guys, you can create all sorts of havoc on run plays. If that's the Wide 9? Then stressing over it is silly. It's just an alignment tweak, and in the above, a stunt off that tweak. The "trick" is to have the 2 guys, and, can they be coached? We have the 2 guys, on both sides of the D, who can be coached. All we need is execution, from both players and coaches. Remember: it's not like we are the Redskins, hiring incompatible players and coaches, every year/other year.

Moeaki is a sleeper for WGR, never mind Greenville, NC radio.

Lottery, don't forget the lottery.

I'm in

I dunno. The TEA party has certainly shifted things. What I am afraid of under those circumstances(R government)? A repeat of Obama's mistake: interpreting their win as 100% acceptance of their values. I'd be worried that instead of fixing the economy, which starts with overhauling and firing many at the IRS and EPA, implementing a Fair Tax, getting a reasonable energy policy in place, de-funding anything that isn't essential, reforming entitlements, repealing Obamacare and deploying a true system, not a political contrivance.... ....which is plenty of work to do in 4 years, and if successfully done, would guarantee another 4, if not 12.... ....we're going to waste time hearing about gay marriage, and all the other miniscule, bordering on irrelevant social issues. WTF is gay marriage compared to entitlement reform in terms of "importance to country"? It's ridiculous to even put them on the same list of "issues".

Yeah, it's fine for the Republicans to talk about Reagan. But, it's much harder to actually be Reagan, and make the tough choices. But perhaps more importantly, it's hard to go out and explain the tough choices. However, as you say, if you are truly principled and tough, it's doable. Unfortunately, we have an unprincipled and weak turd occupying the office right now. If you look at every place where Republicans have success against formidable odds/predictions, like in Indiana, Wisconsin, New Jersey, NYC and Reagan's presidency, they all have some commonality. And, it's not "what was his score on the conservative test", or any "pledge" thing or whatever. In each case, the individual person's quality, and good decisions, and the fundamental soundness of their policies are the largest reasons for success.

No it isn't. As I've said: Obamacare was going away regardless of this decision, regardless of who gets elected POTUS in 2016, regardless of your personal, wonderful experiences. You're assertion is predicated on the notion that Obamacare will be allowed to proceed unreformed. This isn't going to happen. Even if the Republicans don't win the Senate, even if Hillary wins, even if Democrats take the House? Obamacare is going to be massively overhauled. No Democrat is going to allow a 60/40 political liability issue to hang around his and his party's neck once Obama is gone, and now? They'll do something before he leaves, to include popular, veto overidding legislation. Obama may ultimately be a "post-partisan" President: uniting everyone against....him, and his obsruction of Obamacare reform! Moreover, there are other design flaws in Obamacare, that I've specifically defined in this thread, that were going to kill it anyway. This decision, if it changes anything, merely assists/hastens the inevitable. The ONLY reason this decision is significant? It shows you just how F'ing power drunk the Democrats were in 2009. The reason for the language of the law? Political consequnces. They tried to set up a trap for Republican governors = "How dare you deny people affordable health care, by not setting up an exchange in your state!?!" Then, they would either force their agenda on red states, without having to win a single election in them, or, give themselves a way to win elections in red states. The trouble? The trap was poorly constructed, because it couldn't just be a political trap, it also had the annoying requirement of being how the system actually worked! So, the left failed on both counts. It's not a good trap, because it was easily eluded, AND, we end up with this decision. The simple fact is: the dissenting judge is a buffoon. Commenting on this, as though the language WASN'T 100% designed to be a political trap, is hilariously childish. The other simple fact is: the power drunk designers of Obamacare are buffoons. They never thought anyone would call their bluff. They actually believed that they could make this work. Hubris.

The only place I hear the word "progressive" now is those awful car insurance commercials, the ones with that benighted K-mart hag. It's so bad, that they actually tell you to not bother with turning your radio dial, because they are on all channels. Yeah. Interesting. Progessive: you've overspent on bad, and in so doing, you think you've limited my choices? Perhaps you should look to your own? Seriously. I believe that my prediction has come to pass. "Progressives" have killed off their own word, via their own bad results/behavior. In my standard perusal of political boards, RCP, talk radio, cable news, I haven't heard anybody use the term "progressive" for a solid 6 weeks. It wasn't that I began this looking for it's absence. It's not some sort of running count thing for me. It's just that I began noticing its absence, and, it's been quite some time now. So, what shall the new name for people who subscribe to the following ethos, "we have no experience/knowledge with the material being discussed, but we shall form a policy about it anyway, call it "new"(even though its largely from last century), say it's great beacuse it's "new", and demand its immediate implementation" be? It's clear that most of the content generators out there have gone back to "liberal". I think that's a mistake....because then you are pitching right into Rush Limbaugh(the man who killed liberal last time around) et al's wheelhouse. And, that's interesting all by itself. Last time, Rush killed "liberal" This time? They did it to themselves. And, back to the unserious: Progressive Insurance was named politically, by its leftist founder. Perhaps they will have to throw out their name, along with the hag? EDIT: Well I did see it in the Palestine thread....but the leftist, Harvard, D-Bag, college Professor? He himself put "progressive" in quotes! So, once again, the behavior tells....

This is a myth. Demographics is simply a myth, and it seems no amount of white papers detailing it as a myth will ever be enough for some people. A poll that just came out clearly shows that the current 18-34 group is much more conservative in their values, by far, than expected. This is an analysis of that, from a leftist point of view: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/upshot/why-teenagers-may-be-getting-more-conservative.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 It's hilarious that this moron conveniently leaves out, from the same sources he cited, that the same people who support the list he created, also support School Choice, low taxes, and basically the entire Republican Fiscal agenda. From the right side of things: http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/07/ken_braun_poll_says_young_vote.html (And you'll noticed a considerable improvement in intellectual honesty in this link) You are losing whites a record pace, and, as the above shows, you don't have anywhere near the lock on "minorities" that you think you do. This is why Chris Christie can whip Hillary so easily. This is why Ds have to destroy him, because they know the #s much better than I do, and the numbers show that if he runs, he has Reagan-like landslide potential. Perhaps in 2017, when you stop howling that the Rs stole the election....you'll actually realize the massive damage that Obama has done to activist government/progressive politics. Maybe you'll realize it next year, maybe in 20 years, but in all cases, whether you like it or not, Obama has poisoned an entire generation against, at the very least, what government is capable of doing.. In fact, I've noticed that nobody has used the word "progressive" in quite some time. As I predicted: your bad results/behavior have killed off yet another word.

What does the the word "must" usually mean? What does a developer do for a job? Answer: Develop. And, if he wants to keep his job, he looks to develop larger properties, small properties, all properties, any properties. The small stuff covers the overhead his business incurs, the big stuff is how he pays himself/his best people. So, in order to his job, yes, a developer MUST build affordable housing. The only alternative? A developer doesn't do his job. He goes out of business. That is known as: logic. The bolded above is another example of leftist anti-logic. Anti-logic: the exact opposite of logic, substituted for logic by those whose emotional deficiencies/hangups make dealing with actual logic untenable. Fox Butterfield is the example I use all the time. I truly believe anti-logic is the root cause of most the failure of leftist thought-->policy. The worst/best? I honestly don't believe that this commenter realizes he's just tried to sell anti-logic. I'd like to believe that most of left is simply confused, because they don't have the experience/didactic preparation to deal with problems logically-->properly, and simply arrive at anti-logic, like the above, by accident. Example: the commenter above doesn't have any experience with development, so, he doesn't realize that a developer MUST develop larger properties, smaller properties, any and all properties, to survive. I'd like to believe that they don't resort to anti-logic intentionally. But, I don't believe that. I believe that anti-logic has become so pervasive for the left, that at least some of its propagation had to be intentional. And, anti-logic is much easier to deal with than logic. It's convenient as hell, and best of all, it doesn't require thought, or familiarity with the dictionary.

Yes, and now you know how I feel, every time someone says "the science is settled". Bemused.

Then you've missed the point of what I wrote above. All Americans can possibly make time for right now vis a vis Israel/Palestine, is what we see on TV. That's not our fault. We have lives. You can be critical of us for not having an in-depth understanding. But, so what? You can't be critical of us for choosing to spend our time on something else that's important to us. Sorry, but, given the choice between watching our kid's soccer game, and reading up on this? You lose. Thus, you have to live within the constraint that what we see on TV is true, for us. That's the amount of time/effort we are willing to spend on this. Therefore, you need to start controlling what we see on TV, by controlling yourselves. That is the point I'm making. Hire a new marketing VP. If all we see is violence and cheering for 9/11....that is your fault, not ours. The rules of this game have been set. You need to get good at the game, and stop complaining about the rules. But, that's the problem! WTF is wrong with you? Don't you see it? What exactly does the "end of Israel" look like, in reality(where I live)? Mass muder. Mass suffering/rape/torture/beheadings. Children being sold into slavery(don't bother to deny it, as that is precisely what would happen. The crazies would make sure it did). We've seen plenty of what Islamic combatants(because they don't deserve the honor of being called soldier) do with their enemy dead/prisoners lately, haven't we? And now you're telling me: "of course Palestinians would like to see it"? I'll ask again: WTF is wrong with you? That analogy is false and you know it. The Israelis have been living in what we now call Israel for as long as the Palestinians have. They didn't "invade" and "take over" anything. They simply liberated part of the British Empire for themselves, put lines on a map, and called the place where they were already living: Israel. Stop trying pushing the false narrative that you've been invaded by a foreign power. We know that's a lie. Again, bad messaging. You need to remove the lies, like that one, from your message. Good messaging instead: When the Israelis drew that new map, they also drew it around a bunch of other people who've also been living there since forever, and didn't bother asking these other people if it was OK with them, and didn't bother to guarantee them anything, other than a fight, if they said anything about it. That's a legitimate complaint. That's a legititmate message. Wishing for "The end of Israel" makes you nothing more than a sociopath. We routinely put sociopaths out of our misery, or, we just put them away forever. In all cases, "the end of Israel" message is eventually going to get you all killed. It's going to prevent us, the ONLY people willing to help you, from helping you. Yeah, and when the Israelis decide enough is enough and start rolling their tanks through your houses, how many of those clowns are going to show up and do something to help you? None. No. The ONLY people who Israel will listen to is us. Again, if we talking in terms of reality...and not college professor fantasy world. Therefore, you shouldn't waste your time/marketing budget on anybody else but us. The rest of the world is utterly useless to you. You think Europeans are going to do anything to help you? We can barely get them to half-pay for their own damn defense budgets. Look: the only reason ANYBODY says ANYTHING in your defense? It's a political tool for their anti-USA agenda. They are using you to get what they want. They don't care about what happens to you at all. We are the only people who actually have a half-ass chance of caring what happens to you. That's because many of us are actually moral. We won't stand for genocide or mass injustice...and we have a 200 year track record of doing something about it, that matters, unlike every other country in the world, who has to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. Well then get used to being tired, because you lost your land in a war, and, that original war that made Israel possible, ended long before 1967. So um, wtf? Israel didn't have a choice. And, that's what the Arabs keep having difficulty understanding. It's fascinating really, how something so obvious to us, pretty much defines your blind spot. You put a tiny country, surrounded by enemies on a map, and then? You antagonize that country every single day....and then wonder why they attack you? Are you a moron? Or, are you simply incapable of empathy? Put yourself in their shoes. Aren't you going to spend every minute of life shifting from different levels of paranoia, sometimes low, but never "safe"? And, you wonder why these guys would tend to see everything as a threat, and find it necessary to attack? Then...instead of giving them reason to feel safer...what do you do? Everything you can to make them feel more paranoid. Then, cry when they attack? Jesus. Take 5 damn minutes and think this through. You'll be the first Palestinian to do so in 50 years. Reading through your posts, it's not hard for me to believe that every Palestinian suffers from the same inability to see the obvious that you do. And, given the historic stupidity of the Arabs in general, throughout this entire ordeal, I don't think it's hard at all to see that a couple of clowns, motivated by Hamas propaganda could very easily fire off a rocket or 2. But again...none of this conspiracy theory crap matters. You are avoiding the central argument. If 2 Israelis, dressed up as Palestinians(which is funny, because, exactly what would they have to change?), and fired rockets at Israel...what should you be doing? Cheering in the street, or condemning it? What is going to be on TV? Have your learned anything?

The question NoJustice, or, any leftist, auto-Israel-wrong, person should ask themselves: What would be different for Israel, in terms of their treatment by their neighbors, or, in terms of, anything, if they did drive the Palestinians into the sea? My answer: exactly nothing would change. Arabs want Israel gone, right now. They want the Jews exterminated, right now. Spare me the lies. That's exactly "what the Arabs want", and, we(Americans in general) "know" this, because THEY keep saying it on TV. Therefore, how does it get worse, if the Jews really did unleash the helicopters and tanks? This is the great stupidity of the Arabs/Palesitinians. I will explain in what I am sure will be subsequent posts. Palestinians are never going to convince reasonable, intelligent Americans( most of whom have no friggin clue what is actually happening) of their case, as long as the vast majority of them support the extermination of Israel. This is confirmed by polls taken, but more importantly, this is the message they CHOOSE to send us. This is the ONLY message they choose to send us. They could choose a different message. Hint 1: The first thing Palestinians need to do is fire their marketing VP, and his/her entire staff.

I watched it when it first came out, cause it was freebie week/month/whatever on the cable where I was. I did the On Demand thing, IIRC. It's crap. Utter crap. I literally had to force myself to sit through it, in the name of objectivity/open mind/whatever. (I torture myself all the time, listening to complete buffoons, so I can maintain my "open mind" credentials. My time here is proof.) Some of the jokes in that show were 4 time losers = heard it on Red Eye, then heard it from a comedian who stole it from the leftist guest who said it on Red Eye, then heard it from SNL/Daily Show, now hearing it from this guy, and still isn't funny.

Funny...but... no. This is not that. The answer is ~1.5-2 years.

Don't be a unmitigated moron. YOU do hyperbole, not me. I do: laughing at you, once I have the quantitative data/information in front of me that justifies it. Quantifiable answer: The timeline is about 1.5-2 years. Straightforward enough for you? If you want to know why, read on. Otherwise, I have broken the supposed pattern that tires you. Carry on. 1.5-2 years depending on how many more "delays" occur. Basically, right around October 2016. Perfect, idiot timing. This is because the insurance enrollment period will be running, and the 2nd iteration of "kick in the nuts" rate increases will be deployed. Basically, everybody will be paying 120-400% of what they were originally quoted for their monthly premium. Those that don't pay anything/very little, will find that suddenly(actually, not suddenly at all, as this was planned from the beginning), their state exchange subsidy is gone, and they have to make up the difference = 200-600% increase in premium. Or, their state taxes will double. We can move the shells around, but in all cases, the ass falls out of this thing. This is directly due to lack of revenue intake, since mandatory Medicare expansion was blocked. In fact, the Obamacare delays have already maximized the effect of the SCOTUS decision to strike down the Medicare extension mandate, in that they have also kept necessary revenue out. How? Obamacare depends upon overcharging for things you don't need....so that sick people can afford health care/be subsidized. They delays have therefore prevented the necessary, increased revenue from being collected that would have been, had, for example, all the employers been forced to start overpaying for insurance via the new and "approved" Obamacare plans. So, not only do you not get the needed revenue from Medicare expansion, you also don't get the revenue that has been delayed. November is coming. Therefore, Obama can expect NO help from Congress to provide revenue to shore up Obamacare. Therefore, the revenue required has to come from someplace. The only place left? Massive premium increases. Or, the insurance company goes out of business, and thus, policy cancelled. Mandatory Medicaid expansion could have at least allowed the Federal government to force the states to pay the difference, or, at least have provided 3 years of 5-7x the revenue, compared with individual policies, into the pot. That might have been enough to turn the tide. Not now. In all cases, and, as I have explained to you in simple terms: the ban on mandatory Medicaid expansion, coupled with the self-inflicted wounds of Obamacare delay(that even a dope like Ezra Klein recognizes as a problem now), is the death of Obamacare. And, Obamacare is the death of liberals. This is why Obamacare shall forever be known as "The Liberal Cleaver". So....the SCOTUS you love so much today? Not your friend. Never was. You are quite welcome. I've done it again above. I look at it this way: at least my effort isn't being wasted on gatorman.

Just dropped by to say: November is Coming. And, when we take this: http://www.realclear..._06_123153.html Combine it with this: http://www.realclear...the_senate.html Then, assume the basic undestanding of statistics that is required to understand how those 2 links interact with each other, we get this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULXvuuy7W8 as a fairly reasonable prediction of what is going to happen in November. Again, this is about math, not candidates shooting off their mouths and causing themselves to lose(um Romney), in spite and contradiction of the math. For those who can't be bothered to do the reading: take the current RCP average from here: http://www.realclear...roval-1044.html, otherwise known as 42(rounded up), and find it on the chart below. Then, insert the corresponding "Lo" and "High" numbers into the sentence at the top. For gatorman, who will find this exercie too challenging, the final product, for today, is: "Using the model, we're 95% confident that the Democratic losses will be between 8 and 12 Senate seats". Now, the mode is a fancy statistical term that gatorman should stay away from. However, for the rest of you, the mode means that we will most likely end up with a 55 Seat Republican Senate(Rs currently have 45). Not necessarily enough to override a veto(but...you never know, and it depends on the issue, like...given the # of moderate Ds who are currently running against Obamacare, and who will owe their seats to that? An override on Obamacare "reform" suddenly becomes possible). But, more than enough to significantly bolster the Rs chances of retaining the Senate in the 2016 elections. (This is a big deal, because, until now, the math said that they would likely win in 2014, but, then lose the majority again in 2016) ALL of this is based on today. Obviously, if the approval rating(AR) increases, the outcome of the chart changes. It is reasonable to say that the AR could easily go up, after all, a lot can happen in a few months. However, it's also reasonable to recognize that currently, we are only 2 AR points away from all-out disaster for Democrats. If they lose 12 seats in 2014, as a 40% AR suggests, then all the bulit-in, Senate race advantages for the Democrats in 2016...get significantly marginalized. There simply won't be enough $ to around when they have to try and take back that # of seats, never mind that a presidential campaign will be sucking up all the $. And, the current situation probably means that extra $ has to be spent just to get to "even", by both the presidential and Senate candidates, because of all the ObamaFAIL stories that have to be overcome.

Yeah....like when mandatory Medicaid expansion was struck down? When and if you ever develop a working understanding of Obamacare, you'll understand how important that piece of the decision was. However, as long as you get your understanding from liberal bloggers, and Ezra Klein "explainers", you're going to revel in ignorance. Ignorance: that the SCOTUS contorting itself to protect Congress's right to tax, and define taxes...is somehow more important...than essentially destroying a critical revenue stream for Obamacare. Medicare expansion was where a significant portion of the $ that makes Obamacare "work" was going to come from. Now, it's not coming. It's going to be hilarious...in a few years...to watch you suddenly hurl your bile and wild-eyed invective...at the branch of government you had been saying did you a favor, when it finally dawns on you, or, more likley Ezra Klien et al, just how much damage the SCOTUS did to Obamacare. Yet another argument from you that is based on a ridiculous premise. No one is being penalized. Every employee is free to enter into any employment contract they wish. However, every owner enjoys the same freedom. If you don't like Hobby Lobby's birth control policy, or their parking policy, or their career development policy, you are free to work elsewhere. The simple fact is: we make choices about where we work, and we negotiate the terms of our employment. No one is being penalized, when the choice to work at Hobby Lobby was theirs. Moving on, anyone can buy birth control, and the price is not even close to being a "burden". There is no "economic hardship" created by something that costs $10 a month. And, under this decision, employees can avail themselves of 30 different birth control options that, in fact, Hobby Lobby DOES pay for as part of its health care plan. All that is being denied here: Hobby Lobby paying for 4, of 34, birth control options. No one is saying that the employees aren't free to buy those other 4 options on their own, so the notion that they are somehow being restricted, or being denied anything other than the 4 options, when the other 30 exist? Patently ridiculous. Here's where you would have a point: An economic hardship WOULD be created, in the form of an unwanted child, if Hobby Lobby was empowered to DENY ALL employees, ALL birth control, as a condition of continued employment, and it could be shown that these employees had very little other choices other than to work at Hobby Lobby. But, that isn't the decision, Hobby Lobby is not empowered to stop anyone from buying anything. They simply don't have to pay for 4 of 34 options. Hobby Lobby employees are free to work at the next "useless crap" store in the stripmall, rather than Hobby Lobby. No. For your argument to succeed, we have to live an in alternate universe. We do not.

Joey Bag a Doughnuts Baby! Got Rocky on his miiiinnnnd! And so it goes. Where would we be, as a nation, without short Italian guys? No. Seriously? Well then, it's only fair I ID the voice here. I am responible == the one who says "sweating pipe is old school, learn PVC, unless your trade package is as big as your intellect package! Or some such Blue Collar Hero douchebaggery. That's the best part: it willl tak them years to figure it out. EDIT: well, of coure if they were to acquore EII's decoder ring ? All bets are off.