OCinBuffalo

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you yet another example of "If you want something right, put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite". The New York Times has now made themselves the story...nice work morons. The usual attack dogs on the right will pounce, and the not-news that was supposed to sink Christie will be forgotten before the Super Bowl even starts. The only way it lives? IF the talk radio guys want to keep it alive on Monday, just to get their punches in on the NYT. It will die right after that. Once again they've done it to themselves, largely because they don't begin with integrity. They begin with the opposite, hence they get the opposite of what they intend. It's the same pattern over and over, again, ever since the Clinton thing. The left will never reclaim their credibility until they do what TTYT's sig says: go back and fix the original error.

You aren't sure of anything. Your results confirm that. I'm merely making an observation based on the facts. If that deserves credit, so be it. Personally, I don't think it does. I don't want credit for what I am supposed to do, and that's another distinction between you and me. You don't understand the TEA party at all either. And, just like John, you can do whatever you want with that information. Those of us with a grip on reality understand this: the TEA party has already won. Yes, that statement is boggling for you isn't it? I will explain in a single sentence: Consider the national discourse today, as compared to 2008, in terms of which issues we are talking about, which we are not, and the alternatives being discussed for each issue. Stop. Re-read that sentence before you say anything. Think. Ah....do you see it? Well, if you don't, there's not much I can do to help you. However, the only rational conclusion: the TEA party has moved the entire discussion, issue by issue, significantly to the right. Hence, they have won. Want an example? We are now talking about when the Keystone pipeline will be approved, not whether. If this is 2008, that's a DOA topic. No way it even gets evaluated seriously. There are a myriad of issues where the "zero point" has been moved significantly to the right, and, where issues that progressives want to talk about, are dead, while issues that are on the TEA party's list, WILL be spoken to by all. If that's not a win, I don't know what is. The national discourse has been moved vastly to the right, and Obama et al have been rendered powerless to stop it. That's the TEA party...winning. Meanwhile, the unmitigated morons like wawrow and yourself sit here, and haven't even realized what is happening. That's because you don't see things clearly. You'd rather wrap yourself in the MSNBC security blanket, and be Baghdad Bobbed to sleep every night. Well, as I said: that's your choice. But, neither of you understand the impact that the TEA party has ALREADY had, so, there's little chance you'll understand things going forward. EDIT: Here's my prediction for when you will finally understand the TEA party's success: when Hillary comes out with her campaign talking points. That's when you'll suddenly realize just how F'ed you and the progressive(socialist) agenda truly are.

This is infinitely more interesting, if true, than whatever nonsense is coming from environtologists. I say we divert all climate research funds to this project, as this is likely to give us more answers to a slew of questions.

Pfft. I have hair, and thanks to "he who yells at me", no gut. You'd give your left pinky to spend any of your time, in terms of OCinBuffalo time. You know it. You'd probably be drunk, sure, most client-side, picket fencers can't hang, but that's no cause for shame. You also know I'd get you home to your wife, regardless of whatever, and take all the blame for everything that transpires...in as charming a way as possible, so that you can get out again next month. A few months of this, and she'd be calling me to unload you every other weekend, because your scheduled OCinBuffalo time would knock all your usual pissing and moaning right out of you.

Again, me saying you aren't seeing something cleary, is a recognition of your free will. If I didn't, then I would say you are merely an idiot and/or incapable of thinking for yourself. I am not saying that. I am saying: you aren't seeing something clearly, and, it's on you to exercise your free will to either fix it, or do nothing. The only thing I won't do: fix it for you. That is the height of recongnizing your free will. Ok now you're being absurd. Not only is it remarkably consistent(which is the opposite of hypocritical...hence my wondering if you know what the word means) to say that I do not want to see anything imposed on anyone, by definition, the act of imposition itself is unfair. So, WTF? I am consistently against all forms of unfairness. Now, the burden of proof is always on the allegedly aggrieved...and...this descends into 11th grade history, so again, I ask: WTF are you talking about? Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. Constitutional fundamentalist.....is not necessarily = TEA party. The TEA party is about removing what is FAILING, and either replacing it with what works, or, with nothing. If we need to adjust the Constitution, we will do it: by the book, with Amendments, not making up the law as we go along(see: Obama). The TEA party is practical, and practicality says: you and your dopey environtologist/Obamcare/foreign policy = war through weakness: are FAIL. The TEA party is about results before it is about anything. Your ideas don't get results, so they have to go. You can stay. But, we aren't going to sit by and watch you impose further FAIL on anyone, including you. Again, consistent and fair. Practical decisions based on empirical truth. John, you don't undersand the TEA party. Period. You can do whatever you want with that information. But, if you expect anybody here to take you seriously, you might want to consider that: you don't understand the TEA party, and there's a good chance that's because you'd rather believe in fairy tales/boogeymen. Until I see a better explanation, that's what I'm left with. Again, it's up to you to fix your perception. I'm just the guy telling you what's broken.

See? You are incapable of perceiving this properly. I have 0 intention of imposing anything on anyone, and would fight very hard, in every sense of that word, to ensure that no one else does either. But, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand: specifically, your inability to perceive the TEA party correctly. The simple fact is: me being able to see something clearly, and you being unable, doesn't make me a hypocrite. It merely makes you someone whose beliefs have clouded their judgement. This is called: cognitive dissonance. The Wawrow narrative: The TEA party is dead, Sarah Palin leads the TEA party! The empirical: neither of these things is true, as evidenced by the many and various TEA party activities where Sarah Palin isn't even mentioned, and, the existence of these activities themselves When empirical destroys narrative? Dissonance = Wawrow comes here looking to accuse people of hypocrisy...when none exists, and in a topic specifically devoted to: perception of the TEA party. Again, the only hypocrisy here: Democrats who will be running away from Obamacare for the next 10 months. EDIT: Edit all you want. Nothing will change the fact that you "think" Sarah Palin is a TEA party leader, and that you've believed it every time MSNBC/CBS/some clown at AP has told you the TEA party is dead. Again, I say: me seeing something clearly, because I have 0 psychological commitment to it, has nothing to do with hypocrisy Your perception is broke. What are you gonna do to fix it?

I'm not sure you understand what the word hypocrisy means. I don't suffer from any delusions, like you, and I don't project a flawed perception of the world onto others, like you. Therefore, I am capable of seeing your TEA party derangement clearly, and you are not. In this, think of me this way: I'm merely a mechanic telling you where the problem in your car is. I have no reason to lie, and the problem is the problem. It will exist and persist, unless you take action to fix it. After all, this is your car, not mine. I can give you the big long technical answer as to what is wrong, as I sorta did above, or, I can just say: your TEA party perception is broke, and you are the one that keeps it broken. I'm not the one saying "the TEA party is dead" or "Sarah Palin is the leader of the TEA party". Nope. That's you and and yours. I don't have any hypocrisy at all. We aren't the ones who are running from our supposed "principles" via running away from Obamacare. There's your hypocrisy.

Once again: you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the TEA party. "We all thought"...Yes, I'm fully aware of what you "thought" , and, as I described above: that's your problem. Now, you can go on telling yourself that your "thinking" is correct, and then howling in shame/shock every time the TEA party lays another "surprise" whipping on you. Or, you can understand that it is as I said: "your thinking" is your problem.

This really is becoming a sort of an unintentional experiment that demonstrates the power preconceived notions have over perception. Most of the left has never understood the TEA party intellectually. EDIT: See wawrow's post above. Answer to Wawrow: Stopping a POTUS with a 70% approval rating dead in his tracks the first chance they got = 2010, and keeping him that way. The liberal agenda has been dead since 2010. That's a hell of an accomplishment for a bunch of political novices. Wawrows have spent all their time attempting to attach faulty assertions to the TEA party, or what they wish it was. They've spent none of their time understanding what it truly is/how it operates. Thus, they constantly are confounded, when their own false assertions fail to bear out. The only thing they've exposed, in trying to expose the TEA party: their own flawed belief system and/or their own cognitive dissonance. The TEA party remains beyond the comprehension of the left. Nothing else explains this...phenomenon. They literally can't conceive of a group of people that doesn't require a "strongman" to lead it, and isn't comprised of servile pukes who require constant supervision(or community organizing), and an ever-present squirrel/boogeyman to hold it's attention. That's who the left is, so they assume everyone else is as well. How can I prove this? As always: behavior. The left shows it's own conception of what the TEA party...must be, by attacking whoever they perceive it's "leaders" to be. They've leveled vicious attacks on every "leader", and always concluded that, due to the depth and breadth of their character assassination, they cannot survive politically, and therefore: the TEA party is dead. But, a few weeks later, they are confounded to realize that yet another TEA party rally occurs. They can't understand how this can happen. After all, if one of their leaders was ever attacked as viciously by them and their media surrogates(John Edwards) they would be "dead", and so would anybody associated. Yet, once again, Palin, the Kock Brothers, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, you name it, all of the people they've "killed" show back up and get the crowd going, and cheering. It's as if the left has no power at all, and that's something they really can't comprehend. I've seen more of Ted Cruz in the last few weeks on TV...than I saw during the shutdown. Cruz is a leader(so is Chris Christie), and real leaders don't cringe and run when things don't go their way(ahem, Hillary). EDIT: What no leftist seems to get: when the names above are seen at a TEA party, they are merely attending it, just like everybody else. That's what this is really about: the TEA party are leaders. Most of its members lead every day, in many different ways. Why does a group of leaders need a leader? Every real member of the TEA party I've met: could lead the TEA party. Thus, unless the left destroys every single TEA party member, they will never destroy the TEA party. In contrast, the left's servile nature, as we are seeing with Obamacare, means the second the "strongman" is no longer strong, it will splinter and flee at the first sign of trouble. Just wondering, you aren't going to start telling us about how you've eaten dinner at Denny's with janitors are you? Or, talked to poor people as part of your class? Nothing about volunteer firemen, right?

I quite literally spell it out...and you still don't get it? Yet another confirmation of the 7 different levels of intelligence theory. I say again, the threat of cost accounting soliloquy, is the argument, you putz. Or, put another way, behavioral conditioning can be quite useful when properly applied. Moving on: the fact is that the entire health care system, both status quo and Obamacare, is not only inefficient, but largely exists as a way for government, and frankly, everyone else(greedy providers, lawyers, insurance companies, pharma companies, etc.), to perpetuate themselves by adding empty costs to the business processes of health care. Government, and insurance companies equally represent the largest obstacles to delivering quality health care to the most people in the most efficient manner possible. In response to this documented reality, what do the dims devise? Something that not only increases the involvement of both, but guarantees the perpetual overriding control of both? Yes, Obamacare: the exact opposite of what we needed. Only a fool argues otherwise, as doing so stands in direct contradiction of the facts.

This might be fun. DC_Tom said something about doctrinaire, which got me thinking: what if PPP were to come up with it's own ideology and/or policy directives? For the idiots: ideology is not necessarily support for a single issue, and a blind eye to all else. Policy directives are: we solve things this way, most of the time. The challenge here is to do the OPPOSITE of what we see being played out in the media(because doing the opposite is as likely to be funny as it is, effective). Repeating the same dogmatic crap is not PPP, or, it's not supposed be, and is regularly punished. Can we come up with an ideal(s), or sort of a guiding thing(s), that we can all agree with? If we can't, then it's not in. The next challenge is: can we come up with policy directives(how we do stuff) based on the ideal(s)? Can we even include an...outlier(nice as I can say it), like gator's views, and resolve them within this ideology/set of policy directives? Come on, this is designed to be an interesting activity after all. That's a challenge, so, it's interesting. I suggest that requires proper problem definition, and find out what each poster really is concerned about, before we start solving it? (And, yes, I'm aware of what can be turned on me, for humor potential, and I say: go ahead, that's part of this too. If it wasn't, what would be the point of doing a thread like this? Just be prepared, this thread is like a city with nothing but 2 way streets) I think this would be interesting as a way to find out what we really think is wrong, and what to do about it...complete with standard PPP behavior.

This attitude has a distinctly USA-centric bias. In many parts of the world today, many of the societal realities you've defined, still exist. Therefore, the attitudes still exist. And, there's a certain amount of cultural, what "mothers tell their daughters" to this as well. My understanding is: You go to Eastern Europe, and it's quite shocking. You feel like a dirty old man, because so many of the young women there are looking for older, established men. Much older in most cases. And, no, it's not just the "rich American" thing. One of my buddies spent a lot of time there recently, and he's sorta torn. On one hand, he doesn't want to say he turns down good looking young women, because he fears having his "man card" revoked. On the other hand is the creepy part. He seems truly bothered by it. I don't have any advice other than do whatever you think is cool, and you never know: maybe you meet somebody that makes you happy. If so, then that's all that matters. Perhaps somebody else knows better?

It figures that Tasker would be the one to finally undestand the method. Tasker = enlightened. The rest? Hilarious.

Oh I see....so all of the stated objectives that Obamacare is supposed to permanently solve....don't matter/were always going to happen/too bad for the people who don't throw you money? And, not only doesn't Obamacare solve the problem, when it makes it worse? You tell use that this was part of the plan all along? This is starting to get exactly like Global Warming: all evidence, even contradictory, is proof that Obamacare is working, and Obamacare can never be falsified. Look: again, like Global Warming, you never supported this because you think it will work. You BELIEVED it was going to work, largely because it had things in it that health care providers such as yourself have been bothered by for years. But, you didn't actually try to understand the thing. All you saw is "I get my stuff". Or, more likely, the Colorado Hospital State Association(whatever it's called) lawyers/lobbyists had a special seminar at their last trade show and told you: "look at what we got you!" The problem: you aren't going to get your stuff. They aren't actually going to deliver what you really want. Never. You want the problems to go away so badly you'll put anything on them, never mind that it doesn't cure/solve anything. Obamacare: your version of Robitusson. "Just throw some Tussin on it".

Because that is the price for Joe's Garage to not hire a FTE benefits person, AND, that's the price for the underwriter to not have to hire yet another claims processor. It's as if you think TPA just sprung out of the ground as some evil plan. TPA exists because it fills a market need nobody else is willing to fill. It's a solution to a problem. Want it to go away? Solve the problem better. Government single payer doesn't solve this problem, because Joe's Garage STILL won't hire an FTE benefit person. Period! I bet you 100 naked youtube pushups that, even with the exchanges, sooner or later TPA, or some mutated form of it, will appear yet again. I can tell you, as I have told every other nonsense broker, that 4% is a nonsense, apples and oranges comparison. How many kids are covered by parent's Medicare? 0 How many kids covered by parent's group/ind./work insurance? Millions. That single example CLEARLY shows the added layer of complexity that the 2nd group of plans has. That added complexity costs more, at every step in the chain, and therefore? Apples to oranges comparison. This is 1 of 100s of examples, so enough with this, Jimmy Smits. Once again: this is a lie spawned by the West Wing TV show. What the hell are you talking about? Premiums/deductibles are what people will care about, and only about that, because we are talking catastrophic = something there's a very good chance they will never actually use. You are expecting catastrophic policy holders to make economic choices based on the loyalty they have for a product that as a group, 5% of them use/actually experience? As I said: WTF are you talkng about? I shouldn't have to explain the concept of economies of scale to someone who calls themselves a manager. Aetna cannot sell policies in any state. They can sell State-flavored X policy, subject to state crappy Y regulation...because the insurance board has to have it's reason for existence. Look: once again, we see the effects of propping up 20th century ideas, causing us to be unable to truly fix our TODAY problems. Catastrophic insurance is the IDEAL candidate for the "one-size-fits-all" approach. This is the ONLY approach that D.C. can manage. This is the correct approach for this situation. Catastrophic insurance, by definition, means: "you are completely screwed, and this is your bankruptcy protection". Everyone needs the same exact thing: to not be screwed. We don't need a butload of regulations. We need a simple set = whatever it takes for person X, provided they weren't about to go bankrupt anyway, to not go bankrupt. There is no need to define that differently per state, because IT MEANS THE SAME THING, EVERYWHERE. Meanwhile the day to day, HSA stuff, should be handled at the county level, with a state appeals board to back that up. Thus, under this plan: the need for a State insurance board for "consumer protection" is now gone. Since it is gone, we need the Feds to regulate catastrophic. This is fine, since big and monolithic is the perfect and only job for the average DC idiot. When we remove the state anarchonism, which is there to stop the door to door salesman(holy 1980s, batman!) from scamming people, we replace it with something that works, and isn't grounded.....like everything else you hold dear: in 1965. Rocky Mountain Health will be accquired. Period. They, and everybody like them, will be accquired like every little phone company was accquired in the 90s. We will end up with 2-4 major catastrophic companies, all regulated by the Feds, just like the phone situation...which has been the MODEL for competition causing lowered prices/better quality. This is possible, provided that we can move past the 1965 thinking, and let the industy run it's course. The ONLY reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines as a function of Obamacare: protecting the inefficient union health insurance companies from competition that would put them out of business. Now, I've explained it in a basic format. You want more detail, fine, but don't come crying to me, and take responsibilty for the crying of other poster's, when I drop a book on your ass.

jairus byrd ‏@jairusbyrd 1h I'm ok, thanks everyone https://twitter.com/jairusbyrd

Here's what I got: OT JAKE MATTHEWS TEXAS A&M DT AARON DONALD PITTSBURGH ILB CHRISTIAN JONES FLORIDA STATE TE ARTHUR LYNCH GEORGIA TE C.J. FIEDOROWICZ IOWA WR MIKE DAVIS TEXAS QB KEITH WENNING BALL STATE Now what do I win? I hit some needs, and I figure guards are gettable in FA, and for me, they were always way too much of a reach. Donald came up 7 down from the top, so I took him at 2. I also reached for the first TE. I figure the 2nd one and the WR for teams. QB because he was the top of the list. But really, other than the #1 pick and Donald, I don't know crap about these guys, I just sorta followed their list. How'd I do?

To many posters here: Ossie Newsome says "right money for the right player". Now, is anyone going to question Ossie Newsome's GM abilities? No? Why not? OK, then when Whaley says something equivalent(and he basically already has in the quotes above), we can't attack the philosophy, just because it's not coming from Ossie Nesome. The problem for the Bills has ALWAYS been: right money for the WRONG player + bad draft choices. From Rob Johnson, through Mike Williams, through Langston Walker, to Ryan Fitzpatrick. The first big FA signing this team has done since "the change"? Mario. Right $ for the right player? Obviously. The first draft for Whaley/last for Buddy puts a solid rookie QB with high upside and the DROY of the year on the team, never mind 2 stud WRs, and 2 good DBs? That's one hell of a draft. When was the last time we had a draft like that? EVER? The first big trade for this team puts Jerry Hughes on the team for a backup LB. Raped the Colts. Given that, I think Whaley et al have earned the right to avoid having any old cherry-picked failure of the past, some from 5 years ago, auto-atrributed to them, or, used as an indicator of how they will behave today. Some posters are looking at the upcoming FA period all wrong. Given what we've seen so far, you should not be thinking: "I wonder if we will spend our cap $ and/or spend an extra 1-2 mil on Byrd" Not even close. Given what we've seen so far? You should be thinking: "I hope we'll have enough money left over for Spiller/Dareus/Hughes, when we go out and sign T.J. Ward" See? T.J. Ward wasn't even in your brain, was it? Don't lie.... However, it should be. Is Mario Williams on this team? If Mario Williams can be on this team, why can't T.J. Ward be on this team? That's the problem: your brain. Your brain is the real "same old same old" problem here, and it's time for change.

Let me Kelly the Dog that for you....from this thread http://forums.twobil...80#entry3044574: Might want to re-read the above again, before you reply.

I wish there was a way to nominate a post to be considered required reading. If there was? I would nominate this post. Imagine all of the nonsense, spawned by ignorance of the facts, that we will have to endure about 3-4 4-3, for literally months ...the draft .... that could be avoided right here and now, if we had that feature? EDIT: Now since it's me? I also wish there was a way that, if people persisted in their nonsense, you could push a button and nominate them for the "remedial reading class", whose syllabus is the required reading. But, I imagine that would make too much sense, and hurt to many delicate feelings. EDIT 2: See? Here is exactly what you are talking about: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/165468-3-4-hybrid-to-a-4-3and-keeping-danny-crossman/

Hmm. Seems like some low level analytics are in order, huh? I'm going to bold the 2013 numbers, because they are interesting, and they show what the Jets D did without Pettine, and with Rex "taking a larger role in the D". For the same time period that the OP showed the Jets standing in run stopping, here is their standing overall in terms of passing: 2013-31 2012-30 2011-21 2010-22 2009-31 That's an average of 27th over the 5 years. Want to throw out 2013 because Pettine wasn't there? Ok average of 26th So, it seems your premise holds so far: if you suck at passing, chances are you are going to be bad at stopping the run. Why? Because teams don't have to come back on you very often, so they can afford to run the ball. And, if you can't throw it very well, chances are your offense isn't staying on the field, thus giving the other offense more opportunities to run the ball. How about we look at a opponent rushes against the Jets defense over the same time? 2013-26.3(9th fewest) 2012-30.9(29th fewest) 2011-28.2(22nd fewest) 2010-26.6(16th fewest) 2009-25.5(8th fewest) Avg of 16.8. Throwing out 2013? 18.75 fewest rushes against. So, it also seems to hold that if your passing game sucks, chances are people are going to run on you more, because they can. I'd say the outliers in both sets are: outliers. There's a lot of things that can go into why a team passes, or gets run on. (Remember, this is "low level analytics". ) So yeah, I'd say the Jets sucked at passing. They also got run on more than half the league. Now, how about stopping the pass? Opponent passing attempts over time: 2013-36.6(22nd fewest) 2012-30.9(3rd fewest) 2011-31.7(8th fewest) 2010-32.7(12th fewest) 2009-32.4(12th fewest) Avg: 11.4. Throw out 2013? Avg. 8.75 Hmm. The Jets were in/near the top 10 of "least throws against". Passing yards against? 2013-246.7(22nd fewest) 2012-189.8(2nd fewest) 2011-201.0(5th fewest) 2010-200.4(6th fewest) 2009-169.1(1st fewest) Avg: 7.2 Throw out 2013? Avg: 3.5 Whoa! Now that's telling, isn't it? Yeah, the Jets sure could "stop the pass" when Pettine was there. In fact, if this was a real thing I was doing, this result would cause me to immediately look at all teams that have averaged being in the top 10 over the last 5 years, and see what their run ranking was...to see if it mirrored the Jets. So, yeah, your premise about stopping the pass seems to be accurate as well. Now if we look at 2013, we see some sharp contrasts: yeah, the Jets got better at the run in 2013 = 9th, but, they also got awful at defending the pass in the same year = 22nd. This follows the logic: teams that win by passing on you, don't need to run. The OP only showed us Pettine's 2013 run defense rank, not the Jets 2013 pass defense ranking . I will leave the rest of the analysis to the posters here.

I don't know about all of this 4-3 3-4 stuff anymore. I mean, if we are talking George Chan's DC whatever his name is, then yeah, it matters, because that guy is a system coach. However, when you start getting to into elite DCs like Dick Lebeau, I'm pretty sure they could run whatever defense they want to run. Today, we play nickel almost as our base defense, so the whole argument largely goes out the window anyway. Which one is Schwartz? Given Tennessee? I'd say more closer to Lebeau. In all cases, Nickel Robey(since the draft is coming, a subtle reminder: he is a Defensive Back ) becomes more important than whoever plays SLB/34OLB/ILB. Which...is why I keep saying: We always have to be looking to draft DBs. This is not 1985. Jim McMahon isn't cool because he wears headbands, Miami Vice isn't cool because the wear loose fitting pastels, and 4-3 Defenses that are built to stop the I Formation aren't cool either.

Hey, this again? I remember the last time I saw a guy do the handshake/big slap in the back thing: he got an elbow to throat for his trouble. The slapper was a d-bag, large guy(has never been in a real fight), who thought he could always get away with it, because he was a sales guy. He chose: poorly. At least Harbaugh didn't get embarrassed on national TV, dropped to his knees, gasping for air. Schwartz had a lot more control than many people in that situation would. Imagine if any of us were in a bar, and some guy did that to some other guy? What should we expect to happen? Actually it doesn't matter: sooner or later, that expectation is always set properly. I'm not sure failed is the right term. This was a very young team, and we were moving a lot of people around, in/out, early on. Of course we need to see progress, but, I didn't expect a very disciplined team last year. I did like what Marrone did with Dareus. That shows me that Marrone is a character guy. On the other side: I seem to remember a very winning, very undisciplined team called: the 70s, 80s, and 90s Raiders. Seems like they went to/won their share of SBs as well, when they weren't getting screwed out of going by the tuck rule. (Yes, let's not forget who benefited from that embarrassment, and who we play 2 times a year. Just like who we played 2 times a year when Shula was on the officiating committee) Thus, the other other side of things: once you develop a reputation, like the Lions absolutely did, the refs start cheating on their calls. Marrone's job is either: win like the Raiders, or make sure we don't get the reputation. For example: Robert Woods either better start being effectively dirty like Tim Brown, and producing like perennial All-Pro Tim Brown....or....never get another dead ball foul/fighting penalty again. One way or the other. No middle. We all know what happens when you are in the middle, because Mr. Miyagi told us: "Walk left side, safe, walk right side, safe, walk middle? Get squish just like grape"

Forgot all about this. "And my shoe fell off". "Are you Uncle Freddy?"

I'm only gonna say this once! How do you explain illegal side-payments that regularly occur wherever we find socialized anything, never mind health care? You've tried hard to pretend that markets don't work in health care, but, as the side-payments clearly illustrate: it's not a matter of "work". It's merely a matter of the market reacting to however the government Fs things up next. Markets "exist". Period. Even in totalitarian states, markets still exist. Similarly, illegal side payoffs to doctors exist in countries with socialized medicine because? EVERYTHING is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it. http://quotationsbook.com/quote/40426/ Thus, there's a market for the best pediatrician in Japan, and he won't see your kid unless you pay him off. Illegal, but, common and condoned. A guy from 2000 years ago said the bolded above...how many years is it going to take for you to know what he does? You are truly deluding yourself if you think there aren't any/won't be any side payments in Mass. and Vermont. No matter how you try to deny their existence, or delude yourself into believing that you control them, markets will always confound you. In fact, you don't seem to realize that the market is likely to punish Ds and health care administrators brutally, for putting this awful system on us. Ds are going to lose the Senate, perhaps 2016, and, you're going to have 30% of your business be Medicaid, and a whole slew of them in your emergency room. Don't think so? Well, Oregon is closer to you than me: http://www.latimes.c...0,2102014.story How's a 40% increase in people who pay you Medicaid sound? All this so you could stop giving away 10% of your business for free? All this, so your ER can see 40% more people, rather than less? Don't blame me/call me names for telling you this. I'm not the one punishing you. The market reaction, you "wanted", is punishing you.