OCinBuffalo

You're likely going to regret these comments once the truth of this matter emerges. I'm just saying. A lot of this doesn't wash. I have a ton of questions, and no answers, but I think I've made some useful observations: You made one of the same ones I did: why isn't talk radio wall-to-wall on this? For now, the "wingnuts" appear to be a lot smarter than you think. They seem to be biding their time, for when that truth does emerge. They've heard that there's more to it, and, once that more comes out? Well, do you really want to be sharing a PPP cell with gatorman? When this story first began, I noticed something odd about Hannity's behavior: he is one of the very few on the right talking about it, but, he's being very, very careful with this. Why? If he is the dullard that you and many on the left claim, then why has he gone out of his way to parse his words so surgically? And, it's only with this story. The rest of his show he is the hack we all know and love/hate/coudln't care less about. He is acting like he knows something else, and is being very careful to avoid whatever it is, or take any chance that he might say something now, that gives the the left a chance to make him the story, later. I think the left is aware of the "whatever" too, because, almost on cue, they have tried to make Hannity the story. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hannity+rancher Notice what comes up first, and who those people are = usual suspects. Consider: Why now? Why this? Why does any government agency suddenly go to the extremes of stealing cattle? You can call it what you want, but stealing cattle is over 2500 years old, and no matter what names and circumstances have been applied to it, it's still stealing cattle. Every person in the world knows what stealing cattle is, even aboriginal tribes. Why would anyone then, purposely, risk being seen as a cattle "rustler"? Why would any government agency manager take such a risk, especially in this info-environment, given even the slightest chance that the story gets away from them? Government people spend huge amounts of their time protecting their turf and discussing its protection. Normally, they spend 0 time risking it. Thus, something not-normal must be occurring. There must be something serious, like $, or power, and a great deal of it embodied in the person(s) behind this, that can threaten the government people to lose their turf if they didn't comply initially. But...not so much power that, once "the story" could no longer be controlled, the person(s) behind this couldn't suddenly be ignored, and the BLM people could be moved out. Nothing else makes sense. Ask yourself: why the sudden urgency? What's with the geography of this land? What the hell is going to be done with this land, such that cattle grazing is no longer tolerable? I mean, we are talking about shithole land in a shithole, arid region. What difference does it make if cattle graze there? What difference would it make if all of us kept our crap in trash bags, and sent weekly shipments to this land? Normally? Not a damn bit. Suddenly, it does? The turtle? The turtle is a weak-ass cover story that has totally degraded, now that the Feds have admitted to killing the damn things themselves, on purpose. Because, yet again, another of their "great plans for the environment" failed miserably, and instead of protecting the turtle, they created legions of them, thereby threatening the environment. Why does a government "decider" decide to send in armed troops with snipers etc....so casually....and...just as casually and quickly....call them back? I've never heard of a police chief/military commander that is so casual with their leadership, and therefore with morale. I've never heard of a police captain/military officer who, once given an objective, would act in such a cowardly way once engaged with the enemy. I've never seen American police/soldiers so easily run off from their objective. It appears to me that their entire chain of command wanted wanted no part in this engagement, and were merely following orders. As soon as the orders were lifted, so was their personal commitment in this. Think anybody at BLM is going to re-up for another year...so they can go back and settle the score with this cattle rancher? The pattern that fits: some weak-ass top-level bureaucrat was told to do this, all of a sudden, by someone. He was told to do this now, because later is unacceptable. But, as soon as weak-ass saw the risk to himself, he turned tail and ran, and ordered his men to do the same. Finally you've stated it: If it was the right thing to back down, because of the "gov't hate climate", doesn't it follow that it was the dumb thing to begin this, because of the "gov't hate climate"? So why did it have to be now? Why not later/never? Hmmm...is there an election coming up in November? What do we think is going to happen in that election?

No more so than I, I assure you. No more so than I. It's been like that since I can remember and it's always been quite unsettling. I'm not good with it. In 2nd grade this girl snuck into where I was changing so she could see me naked, then she got naked, then her mom came in an blamed me, and I took a beating for that. Then this girl in 4th grade grabbed my ass/junk at the pool for two weeks until her mom saw. One baby-sitter in particular would be arrested today. So, now I'm a scaredy cat most of the time, because I think they might want to Teabag me, figuratively, literally, something. I was forced to attend my first homecoming with 4 girls. They couldn't decide who would get me, and, they said I had to pick one of them by the end of the night. No schit. True story. The worst is: I went along with it, including the picking part. I didn't know what else to do. Who do you see about that problem? So then I had a girlfriend, through no fault of my own. Set a precedent: dopey girls forcing their problems on me. But, I ended up seeing them all naked. That's what they get. College/work is a loooong post. So forget it. It's the same damn thing to this very day. I assure you, I have nothing to do with it. I have no "game" at all. It's always been very bizarre.

Look, I go to those places all the time. I told you guys about the purple haired girl who said she wanted to tea-bag me a while ago. Punchline: I didn't know what that was, I thought she meant to kick me in my big brave balls. That's why the "Teabagger" thing was funny here for a while. Now, if she had talked about pulling the trigger of my love gun.... then I might have had a fighting chance of knowing WTF was happening.

No no no....they are "on to us" See? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountable_care_organization (You specifically may want to read this stuff, because it's exploitable, I think, by you. But, once again, I should be the biggest fan of Obamacare there is, because they are just handing us this stuff. Just handing it to us.) They actually believe that by using the word accountability....that makes it so. Hence: Question: what makes this a distinction....from WTF every health care organization is supposed to be/be doing? No, only ACO's are accountable to patients. Everbody else? F em! Oh...fee for service? Only "fee for service" means that we actually have to track our real costs properly? Since when does a revenue model control our internal costing model...completely? Since when can an organization not operate with many revenuce models, and a single, independent cost structure? Doesn't an independent cost structure allow us to save $? Why/how does forcing revenue to be solely a function of itemized cost....mean we auto-save $? What's to stop me from inflating costs on a micro scale, such that my itemization is clean as a whistle, but you still owe me a bigger check each month? How the F would you ever, ever be able to track that, when all you want me to do is send you reports...in the format you've enforced, that can never, ever tell you anything about that? See? They defy even basic management/operations/accounting/BPM concepts, because they are completely oblivious to them. Their "they don't know what they don't know", obtuseness, required to come up with an idea like this, and call it innovative, , is what we are dealing with when we talk about CMS. Yes, the same people who brought you the design/requirements for Healthcare.gov. What I don't get? Why does anyone think that if CMS are capable of F'ing up that project so badly, why the hell ANYTHING they do doesn't deserve immediate performance auditing, and oversight. The funny part? My original white paper in 1999 on the stuff I do? "Accountable Care". I should have thrown a Copyright/TradeMark on that, but I didn't think it would be a very marketing friendly. Oh well. They still have to come to us to have a semblence of a chance of meeting all the "dots" in the link.

You know I called that # once. I was looking for a good time, so I called. But, this lady named Sharona answered and said she wouldn't be mine, because she was somebody else's Sharona. This was all very confusing for a 4 year old.

Wait a second! What's wrong with using women? I use women all the time. Sometimes I use them over and over. Most of the time it's one and done. I use 3 different women almost every day. To do recruiting, to do my finance stuff, to help me get designs out of my twisted brain and sorted out properly, You thought this was going the other way, didn't you!

Oh look: the other member of the 8th grade girls club just happens to show up? The funny part, for me, JA is: I don't need your number. Narcissist? Hell. What does an empiricist believe...about the last few posts? I can keep doing this all day. But, I do have something at 4. So....

Now come on. You, know your number. THE number is 3.5. But, of course you are at least 10 pts better/smarter than the rest of the board. So, your number is 13.5. Isn't it?

I wonder what is happening on MSNBC today? I'm not going to look...but...what are the chances that they do 30 seconds on Christie every hour? It's like methadone. Not enough to get the progressives high, but, enough to allow them to cope/make it through the night. I mean, Christie was like 3 free rails, ever time they wanted them. Twas a great escape from reality for progressivess. Now? Things look pretty shaky, don't they?

I especially love my big brave balls. And, I laugh at your mincy little ones.

# I have it.

Quality Care. The government has literally no clue about this. None at all. They think they do, and they've spent billions on it. But, many people, including me, can prove that they have no idea WTF they are doing. That's because they have no clue about Quality Assurance. They don't know quality, they don't know assurance, and therefore, they don't know how those 2 concepts need to interact, and what underlying systems are required, in order to produce the desired outcome.

Or we can just look at the Pew Poll....which essentially says: "No, 2014 is ONLY about Obamacare(50% say candidate's Obamacare position is very important, 34% important, and of the 50%, 2-1 say Obamacare sucks. Thus, Rs are significantly more energized than Ds, and thus: all these political ploys and machinations(Koch Brothers ) the Ds have been running? Giant, D-bag, waste of time/$. It's far past time for Democrats to realize that they are playing with fire here. As their own columnists rightly predicted last year: the stakes are now being raised beyond Obamacare. People's views on Obamacare haven't changed on bit in a year. They hate it. This is set in stone, as the same poll found the same results a year ago. Now? The stakes are whether Democrats are going to be trusted...on anything. They keep running this BS, they are going to destroy their positions on a host of issues. At some point, the reasonable Ds have to ask themselves: do they really want to set activist government back 80 years, never mind 20? That's what they are gambling with now, and if they lose the trust of most people to implement big bills/programs? The Democratic party won't be destroyed. (I won't enagage in leftist-like wishful thinking/hyperbole) It's worse: There will be no point in having a Democratic party.

Weak: as in mincy little balls. The kind of mincy little balls, that are too afraid to call somebody a racist, unless Al Sharpton is standing next to them, and where the audience is nothing but people who derive their living from race hustling. Mincy little balls, that are too afraid to make that charge in an interview, because the supposed highly-qualified lawyer attached to those mincy little balls, can't win the damn case. I've never heard of a lawyer, who is good enough to be the AG, yet is too scared to make his argument where it might(only might) be challenged. I wouldn't hire Eric Holder. He has mincy little balls. I only hire lawyers with big brave balls.

What in the sam hell makes you think that would be true? I have already delivered to this thread multiple examples of how this is utter BS in every way. I know Medicare cold. It's a lie. They cook the books, and then make the bolded claims about administrative costs. It's utter crap that comes from The West Wing. Either you are obtuse...or...what I suspect is more likely, you want Single Payer because that way, you don't ever have to worry about competition, or REAL cost cutting, or being held accountable for bad management decisions ever again. Yes, if everything was Medicare, all you have to do is go to your hospital association, who goes to their lobbyists(and with the magic word "consolidation", now you have the biggest lobbyist firms in DC working for you) and demand 10% " payment adjustments" from Congress. Otherwise known as arbitrarily jacking up your rates every year. All you want to do is run the game you say the insurance companies run. Pathetic. This solves all sorts of problems for you, doesn't it? Now, you've got your nurses' demands for raises covered. Now? You don't have to compete for doctors, since they have no place else to go, because they are going to get the same thing down the street, and now, you don't actually have to manage anything. You don't have to manage, because, whether you make good management calls or bad ones, you always have Mommy Hospital Welfare to come give you your 10+% increase every year, and that means: there are never consequences for your bad decisions. Why don't you just come right out and admit this is about self-interest for you, and drop the pretense that you are being objective/a real problem solver? Do you really think you are fooling anyone here with this? How long have you been here? It's not like the BB.com politics board got shut down yesterday. Yeah right, and said budget hacker isn't going to want to face you, and the rest of the budget panderer candidate's cronies, in elections, when they run "budget hacker wants to throw cancer patients into the street" commericals 10x a day. Using the milions of $ that you give panderer's campaign, which you can easily afford, because the rest of the panderers you give some of your yearly windfall to, always vote to give you that windfall...every year. Again I ask: do you really think you are fooling anyone with this BS? Perhaps you are simply an umitigated moron, and don't realize that your argument simply boils down to setting up the biggest crony/cyclical scam in history?

Inspired by shameful weakness. Yep, I don't doubt it. Too bad for you: shameful weakness gets you whipped in elections. November is coming.

Yeah, this sounds more right to me. I believe at my school there would be a lot more instances of the assclowns stealing/robbing people's phones, rather than bothering with texting with them.

And you do realize that as this post demonstrates, yet again: I've had your # for years.

Let's start with this: somebody should tell Eric Holder "Your job is to protect victims of real crime, not play the victim of phony crime on TV". /facepalm I mean, holy hell. How embarrassed are you, if you are a reasonable, male Democrat, and you have Eric Holder representing how liberals enforce the law? Eric Holder is supposed to be the guy that you can point to, and defiantly say to Republicans: "No! This is what a liberal crime fighter looks like, and he is every bit as tough and effective as (insert R person here)." Eric Holder only plays a tough guy on TV. Oh he was all badass ("You don't wanna go there, buddy!") in the Congressional hearing, when he thought he was winning. Too bad for him, the story didn't go the way phony badass thought it would. The media didn't bail him out, because they simply can't afford to lose any more credibility. Instead, later on, it was Holder, the "I'm gonna run and tell", weak-ass, race card player. Here's a hint: real badasses don't play the race card, and they certainly don't do it in front of Al Sharpton's F'ing echo chamber. (So hilarious) That's the best part: this nutless wonder didn't even have the balls to make this charge in an interview. And do you know why? Because nutless wonder is no longer certain exactly how that interview would go. Imagine it: the Attorney General of the USA...so scared that he might lose the argument...to a reporter that he goes to Sharpton? Yeah, what a lawyer. How embarrassing for any man on the left. The supposedly toughest guy you have is a giant p_ssy. Every time I think the leaders of the left, especially the men, can't be any weaker, they prove me wrong. And here I thought John Kerry was going to win this week's award for the minciest balls. This is the hardest thing the Attorney General of the USA can do? Summon up the "courage" to say "racist" in front of Al Sharpton? Well, as I said: That's how you know, that they know: They. Are. Losing. :lol: :lol: (Where is Fred Durst's "you ain't schit, HAHAHAHHAHAA!" when you need it?)

Gatorman, gatorman, you know? I actually started writing something, but, then I stopped, because you haven't earned the right to know anything real about me. Perhaps if you start posting better...less cut/paste, more your own thinking? And, you do realize that this OCinBuffalo handle here at PPP is largely about punishing DC_Tom, in lots of ways, for no particular reason, right? LOL No, you do not get an emoticon! You are being punished, remember? Nope. I truly believe that expecting real answers on Benghazi, and getting the people that did it, is not an unreasonable position for anyone to have. I believe that lying about it or laughing about it is at the very best an act of immaturity, and at the very worst, the act of a sociopath.

Bill, I just gotta say, these are the posts that get people crushed....later...when CJ suddenly, albeit randomly, dominates in week 3, or whatever, by ripping off 200 yards...and makes you wish you never posted this. Of course this may never happen, but, the point is that it just as easily could happen, and a 25% chance upside completely destroys a 75% chance downside. You take the 25% all day, because you will be getting 10/1 if you win. The difference between Spiller, the rest of the players you listed....and the players I know you want to draft? The former can win a game, all by themselves. The can take over a game, all of sudden, and with little warning(I wouldn't put Whitner on this list). An Offensive line doesn't do this, and hasn't done this for quite some time because: today, moving the ball forward means moving the ball away from the line ASAP, not through it, or behind it. The game has moved from the inside to the outside, and from power to speed. The last O line I know of that could actually win games by themselves, take them over, and dominate, was the Raiders O line in the late 70s/early 80s. They were masters of protecting and moving the ball. But, that's not today's game. Today's game is going to be won and lost by a series of split seconds, on the outside or at the LOS, by a WR/RB or by a CB/LB/S. If you don't have the people, on both sides of the ball, who win more than they lose in that split second, it really doesn't matter what else is happening. Meanwhile, on D, Marrone himself said the following here: http://www.buffalobi...86-e0f72cd79877 Eat it! That is sound defensive coaching in every sport on the planet. Hockey/Lacrosse/Soccer starts with the goalie. Basketball starts with the C. Rugby starts with the Fullback. Every pro team in every sport builds their defense from the back to the front, because over 100s of years, that is what works. It doesn't matter who is in front, or what else you are trying to do, if your back is weak. Ask anybody who plays any sport, they will tell you the same thing: it always starts with the back end of the D. This is reality, and the myth, is what "people like to say".

Bah! Beat me to it.. was gonna say cat ran across the keyboard....but I hate cats.

Shaddap. This one is already over, and you missed it. This entire point was a means to an end. The end has been achieved, and I still don't care who the Lakers owner is(of course I know, I am not a moron). I'm sure a lot of people in LA know who Jerry Buss is and I'm certain there are some who are a little perturbed with his kids. Thanks Captain O. The interesting thing here is: that point went right by everybody....but you. Indicative? In a flash poll sorta way? Who knows? In all cases, we can do a lot worse than Donald Trump as the owner of this team...and, for the Captain Os here: of course we can do a lot better! Then you should have seen the huge net I threw out. You know, the one that has "hack catcher" written on it? But you didn't.

No. He didn't. But I surely did. What? Did you forget all about my antics? The only tool here is you, as usual Buftard. You are so easily played, and I made my point, specifically by playing you and many others. Spare me the "my opinion isn't based in politics". Do you really think anybody is buying this crap? EDIT: You know what would be even more funny for me? If you actually believe your own BS. You actually believing that your opinion isn't based on politics at all. That would make this whole thing today totally worth the trouble. Btw: I couldn't care less if Trump is the owner, and I would take Pegula over him 100/100 times. But, that's boring. You should be aware: I refuse to allow nonsense brokers to run wild on this board. And you are fooling yourself(wouldn't be the first time, would it?) if you think that at least half the posts in this thread aren't 100% politically motivated, or written by those entirely too dopey to realize that Trump is a better troll than I am....as GreggT pointed out, and I replied in my first post in this thread. It's hilarious that Donald Trump, of all people, apparently lives rent-free in so many heads. It's like the silly Karl Rove thing all over again. I would expect better from posters here. I do expect better. Thus...my antics.

Makes one wonder.... if we ban bleacher report from being linked...why not walter and his silly machinations? I'm no fan of bleacher report, I just don't see much a difference between the two. Deadspin is more likely to be accurate, because otherwise, they aren't funny.