OCinBuffalo

You made a sweeping statement about corporate culture, dumbass. Yet, mine debunks that statement, and so does my clients'. It's never too early in any day for anything: we live in a Global economy, or at least the elite amongst us do. I've been working with Ze Germans for 3 weeks...which means it's 9pm right now for me = party time, so you can blow it out your ass.

You're still ducking the issue here, and pretending you don't understand something that's been exhaustively explained to you. Now, either you are an idiot, who got you degrees in some dubious manner, or, you're a liar, or, you're playing games and trying to say you don't understand: The 15 year "pause" in warming, while CO2 emissions have EXCEEDED the predictive modeling expectations, and the hilarious speculations that result. debunk the predictive claims made by the supposedly serious scientists working this issue. What do we normally do with an "event" like this in our raw data? Well, normally, I go back and tell whoever is saying that a "trend" is occurring...that they need to start over again, because that's too much contradictory data. We reject their take on the data, and we sure as hell don't try to generate intelligence based on it. What I don't do? Keep driving the original model, and then run around grasping for every straw to defend the original position. Oh... Wait... Yeah, actually? I have done that. You know when? When it threatens the existence of my project. When there's a good chance we will get the boot if I don't. Then? I would basically say anything I could, provided I could back it up in some way, no matter how lame/tenuous. It's not lying. It's just stretching what you have, because you are desperate, and, because it's your job. Now...having admitted to this behavior...do you now realize that, when I see it in others, I know it? Moreover, since I'm usually on the side of taking over/firing the F ups, I've heard/seen the same story, over and over. Dude, this is about people trying to protect their "project". Nothing more. Sometimes, it works. Most of the time? It doesn't. The reason they are doing it? Because they are desperate, and, because it's their job.

My corporate culture, the one I am literally in charge of creating? Starts first with me paying a lawyer to figure ways how my assets need to be protected from other lawyers, governments, and various other thieves. My #1 concern right now? One of our outcomes: We break government regulations. I don't mean we don't follow them, or cause clients not to follow them. I mean: we break the reasons for their existence. We take the government's ability to harass our clients away. We leave government worse than powerless: we make them irrelevant. Thus, at some point, we are going to be in a huge fight with state and Federal governments, because ultimately, they cannot allow us to exist, and have the same $ and power they have today. We expose them, so they can't ignore us. We've already proven this and have had a few minor skirmishes in this battle, so, we prepare for that bigger fight to come, every single day. I wish it began differently. However, if I don't begin my corporate culture thinking this way, I am being incompetent. Now, you're telling me that no, I'm not playing defense...I'm paying people to guarantee me market share? WTF? My market share is 100% based on the quality of the work we do, thank you. You think we need to have some loser politician "help" me get my products & services sold? Not only is that beneath us, it's insulting. We work way too hard, and are too good at what we do, to entertain your idiotic "opinion". It's offensive. Moreover, you're going to tell me that my clients, many of whom are corporations, begin the creation of their corporate cultures any differently than mine? They would be just as offended, and rightly so. Double Horseschit.

You read this...and it becomes readily apparent why the TEA party isn't dead, and will never die. While some may subscribe to this, most people are quite tired of the nonsense/drama tenuously attached to "Corporate America". "Corporate America"'s involvement in politics is, on the whole, about defense. Defending themselves from the latest, ridiculous, emotional whim from the Democratic party, which some Rs will support because they want to get re-elected...and not about offense. Corporations very existence, from day 1, has been based on the defense of assets from those who would steal them by force...in other words, steal them by government. Democrats want to steal assets, and give them to the people that vote for them, as a payoff. Period. Ds will lie, distort, invent data, or whatever else they need to do, to try to justify their theft. This isn't about helping people. If it was: the liberal policies of the last 60 years would SOLVE PROBLEMS, not merely treat the symptoms/hand out $. No. IF the problems were solved, the NEED for leftist policies dies, and therefore, so does the need for the left to have power. But, this is about power. They don't like the fact that they aren't talented enough to start their own companies and become rich as a result, thus there's no path to power for them the straight up way. Instead, they do things "the government way". It's not a conspiracy. It's right out there in the open. Of course, anything a corporation might do to prevent the theft of their assets...becomes "evil", "corrupt", etc. No. Owners have every right to protect what they own, from people who have 0 right to what they own. Yes, if I use a road, then I should pay tax for that. However, I should not have to pay for someone else's bad choices. I have the right to decide to be charitable to them. No one has a right to compel me to pay for other's bad choices, and they sure as hell don't have the right to do it as a way for them to gain power, without ever solving the problems that result from the bad choices.

Well Democrats? Now you're F'ed: http://www.bloomberg...nt-website.html Should have gone with one of the Bigs from the beginning. $45 million on day 1. Get used to it. Accenture will rob you blind, and, the Rs will be killing you for it. There's practically nothing that will change this dynamic. Bringing them in now? Oh man...I'm just shaking my head here. Accenture: "hey, we're coming into a mess, that we didn't create, therefore...this thing over here is necessary to the success/presents a threat to success...blah, blah = pay us more money/we need another 50 people!" That's the theme of every single document from now until forever...or...when this terrible law goes away. However, there's one upside for Ds: now that Accenture is involved, they will protect this endless fountain of billable hours. That means whatever lie, cheat, or steal has to occur? Will occur. Ds can benefit from real consultants in those Committee meetings. But, remember: what seems like an upside, can turn into a downside very quickly. Reality: Accenture will turn on anyone, especially the people that hired them. I've seen this 3 times out of 3. Every single damning email, every single status report, will be forwarded to the media. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that had already started. That's merely the competent approach, especially for this kind of project. Accenture's managers aren't going be left holding the bag here. No chance. It's going to be interesting. What exactly happens when a large, unaccountable, because they believe they are above it all, organization in Accenture, meets another large, unaccountable, because they believe they are above it all, organization in the Obama Administration? ---------------------------------------- Hmmm I wonder: whatever happened to Google, Apple and the rest of the Valley people? Somebody seemed to think they were the answer.... Never. They've been moved aside: because the NFL in IT has now been engaged...as I said would happen. Valley people do a fine job making consumer stuff. They are good blacksmiths. But, when it comest to full-scale corporate? You need the best = the people with factories, who know how to run them.

First, we have already had our existing Bills O line evaluation thread: http://forums.twobil...luation-thread/ This thread is about taking other guys from other people's lines. That means: it's not about the draft. Refrain from evaluating our existing line here, as well. (There's little point in writing everything, everywhere.) Go do it at the link, if you want, but understand: we've already come to some fairly well backed-up conclusions there. So far: The thinking appears to be Glenn/Wood Solid. Everybody else is negotiable, and, our backups aren't starters. We don't know about Hairston, and whether he, or anyone else already on the roster, will develop into anything, ever. Therefore, we appear to be in the market for both Gs and a RT. That's 3 spots, and I believe we have cap money for all 3, regardless of what's coming in 2015.(Anybody who tries to make this into a Spiller/Dareus thread will wish they...were smarter ). However, Cap discussion vs. FA O Lineman this year IS relevant to this thread. It's a FA thread. Cap guys are free to have at it, provided it stays in context of what we can spend THIS year on O LINE. So...... If you know about a FA, and have some info on him, please let us know. Please refrain from "I have got a name, and I got a number" posts. If you haven't see the guy play, or don't have a pile of PFF-like stats to back it up...you're not signed up. Frankly, there may not be a single post here. Good: at least we will know where we stand. I don't know anything about FA O line(that we can actually get. BTW, let's keep the "unrealistic trade for such and so" to a minimum as well). Wouldn't surprise me if nobody else did either. Actually, that would surprise me. With the reach of this board, I'm sure there's somebody who knows something.

No they all ran away. In bit and pieces at first....but....right about the time when Obamacare was getting passed, and Scott Brown got elected to "Teddy Kennedy's seat" = mass exodus. One week we had lots of Dems...the next? This place turned into New Hampshire. (Safe to say we have more libertarians than social conservatives here, by a lot). Yes, and yes. See the thing for me is? I don't necessarily see this as bad for Christie at all, in the long term. Sure it sucks now, but, it might be quite useful later. Here's why: 1. His leadership is being tested in public, big time. Odds are he wouldn't have been so definitive about his non-involvement if he was. IF he was, and it comes out, then GOOD. I don't want another lying phony as POTUS, do you? If he's telling the truth...then he will come out of this stronger, not weaker, because he will be able to point to his response to crisis... ...and contrast it: with Hillary's 2. The larger point here is: how does one handle error? If you are Democrat these days: it seems you don't handle it at all. So, it's not just about criticism of a candidate, you can throw the entire D party into this, especially when it comes to Obamacare. 3. And, to ...lybob's point(which all of you should remember because he's right), sure I can see how they would do it, especially in a debate. However, they had better watch their step in doing so: given 1+2, Christie might be able to turn the tables on a dime, and sweep the moderate R vote, by bringing up The Shutdown, and how they managed that, in comparison. That one gives you a boatload of leadership points to hit them with: setting goals(Paul/Cruz set unrealistic ones, Christie sets and hits sound ones), planning(same), proper management of employees(Christie fired the bad actors as soon as he knew, Paul/Cruz didn't fire anybody...and Paul took forever to fire the dumbass he had working for him who got himself involved in something that could be seen as racist). There's more, but that the gist of it: Democrats, once again bereft of long-term thinking, may actually be helping Christie a lot more than they are hurting him.

Hehe....the best is: they actually believe this. The believe that there's nothing wrong with what they've done to get where they are. And, you guys wonder why I call them Scientologists? Consider: every time a Scientologists claims are empirically denied, what do they do? They claim that the "tech was not standardized". See here: http://www.xenu.net/archive/free_speech/2006-faggot.html and http://the-scientologist.com/whatisstandardtech.shtml. But of course, they must always be forward-looking: NOW "The Tech is Standardized", NOW, we are going to "save mankind". IF you can read these links in the context of AGW, and, you can do your best not to laugh at their absurdity(or consider the striking similarity between them and some posts here), you might begin to see the same thing I do: Hey! A cult is at work here. If not a cult, then certainly a group of people using the same playbook as a cult. The "tech", as it were, being now-standardized, is a perfect excuse: we never call the entire thing into question, and we never question the premise(s) of the argument. No. By describing the "tech's" misalignment with reality as merely not standardized, all we are really saying is that it needs to be "tweaked". Standardized implies that it was merely not standardized...before, not that the whole thing is bunk. It takes away, at least in their minds, any possibility to question the entire thing. It also focuses us at the end, not the beginning, of the argument. Notice: we aren't talking about AGW as a theory overall...now we are talking about this pause? Most importantly, this description allows "most supporters" to indemnify themselves from the "non-standard" work of others. How convenient! Same thing occurs for the people above! Thus, credibility, and the confidence of those they are speaking with, is never truly threatened. (Confidence...you know, where the "con" in "con-man" comes from?) One of these days I'm going to match up the quotes from the Scientologists with the quotes from environtologists and show you all how consistently they match....but not now. I want to watch football.

6 Moar Pages!?! Let me spell it out even further. Step 1: Some clown starts an obviously biased thread about Muslims Step 2: The morality police step in to not only correct clown, but, to also once again reassure the rest of us of their moral standing(as if this needs to be done....on a message board, where none of us know each other, and have no real affect on each other's lives other than ball busting) Step 3: (My favorite part) I post something that reassures clown....emboldens...or even: invigorates clown....largely because clown doesn't possess the necessary reading comprehension skills or intelligence to see that's what I am doing, and certainly the moralizers don't. Step 4: Hilarity ensues. Step 5: Just for good measure, I make fun of the "holier than tho" again, and throw one more wink at clown. One would think that they would see what's happening, but the actual result is counter-intuitive, they get even more self-righteous. This formula should be known. But it isn't. Watch: The reason Muslims are bad fighters is: They know deep down they are serving evil, and evil never truly unites anyone. They know deep down that they are denying real faith in God, that is based on grace and compassion, and not conquest and conformity.

HA! ...lybob with a shot. I was just thinking the same thing = "what the hell are all these old threads doing up here, and why do they all have wawrow, either posting or being referenced in them?" I was about to start a thread, but, I see ...lybob, of all people, has beaten me to it. And, WTF? I don't use the search function on this board at all. On the football board? That is a different story. Why...should be obvious.

How predictable. I mean, it's almost like I said "4merdipshit is going to put me in thread about a website, and then make sure I don't win...buy 'judging' it that way." word for word. Hence: the rhyming. Which, I think all will agree, was not only funny, but a fine response to your transparent set-up. As I also said: "Hey, I enjoy watching children get a new toy". Or, if I didn't, I should have. So, by all means: run along and play with yours. But...never forget who quite willingly, and knowingly, went out and bought you your new toy. I just...didn't want to disappoint you on something you clearly had worked so hard at. Oh? Where? Specifically when and where do I contradict myself? This will be the 3rd?...well, I've been away a while, it could be the 5th...time I've asked you the same question: Why do you need 2 separate and distinct speculations..."bottom of the ocean", and "pollution stops pollution" to be true, in order for the AGW theory to be true? If this is all "settled"...then the speculations shouldn't be necessary, yet, here they are. What does your "science mind" tell you about that? Or, how about we speak, again, to your brilliant...ly obvious speculation: Shouldn't "water holds more energy than air" have been factored in? Nice short questions, and a nice small post that the ADHD kids can't complain about. Now, who wants to bet on whether this turd(still a turd, as defined) will answer the questions? ============================= Now, for some fun with MBAs: 3 MBAs work for me, but they are middle of the pack, and nowhere near my best. I've fired more MBAs than I've hired. This is largely due to the fact that most of my career has been about taking over and turning around failing IT projects (and you guys wonder why I am bitter some days), most often planned/managed/sponsored by idiots....with MBAs. Interestingly enough: if you have an MBA, I've found that you are 2x more likely to suck balls at NFL-level IT...than not. I have the #s to back this up, and we are talking the thousands of people I've worked with here, all for extended period of time...my entire career. It's just a personal theory but, I think I've found out why these trends occur: the most important skill in consulting is being able to have client people identify with you enough, or just enough, to tell you the "truth". (no such thing, I know, but what's true for them, is the truth) A consultant with expert skill in this means they will also tell who is lying and why. People love to tell their side of the story. Too often, MBAs won't/don't let them, when it's our job to get that, but also what they don't want to tell, out of them. I've found too many MBAs...use that as a wall, or worse, as a reason for why they DON'T need to bother with/strive for expertise in this most important skill. This is patently retarded of them, as a business analyst, who can't get requirements, is as about as useful as a bull with no balls. Thus, more often than not MBAs are useless, empty suits in what I do. The best requirement-getter I know, and have tried to hire for years, is an ex-um, "waitress", now MILFy business analyst. She doesn't have an MBA. But, if she asked you for yours, you'd give it to her, I guarantee it.

All you turds have me to thank for these...pages of hilarity. First, Security: talk in terms of behavior and specifics. If you don't you allow the John Adams and bridogs of PPP to begin their standard "Look how moral I am and you aren't" posts. And, I work in IT as well. Why do you think Indians, who have been at war with Muslims for their entire lives, and by definition have both a selfish, personal interest, as well as a completely rational strategic and survival interest, in spreading their POV....would not present themselves as reasonable, and Muslims as unhinged loons that could go crazy at any time? Also, I work in IT, as well( ). If you think your average Indian wouldn't present Russians, Chinese, Irish, or any other non-citizen that isn't a Desi, as an unhinged loon that could go crazy at any time...just to get a promotion/obtain leadership of a programming effort/secure their spot on the team, then...you haven't really worked in IT. For the rest of you... phony....phony, false little turditzes..... I specifically tipped you off, and made fun of you at the same time, when I said: Yeah, this means you. That's what more than a little bit of this thread is: phony turds saying all sorts of stuff to make them feel morally superior. But remember, I also said this, so you can blow all of that, right out your ass. The reality is: Islam the specific religion with the unique scripture, does in fact present a problem you will not find elsewhere. Attempting to draw parallels is ignorance. Yeah, yeah: "Well, the KKK = Radical Islam." Yes....and For that analogy to be accurate? 30 million Christians here must be in the KKK. So, like I said: Last I checked, KKK/wingnut violent Christians made up less than 50k of the people here. So, no, of course it isn't accurate. ( I actually have to write out the above, so that clowns like BigFatBills fan don't actually come away from this thinking there are actually 30 million guys running around in sheets.) Any of you you want to talk in terms of "fact"? Deal with that reality first. Then, come talk to me.

Hmmm.... At this point, would it be safe to say: Wood and Glenn are fine. Everyone else is negotiable? By negotiable I mean: their positions can and should be targeted in FA and the draft. So, that means we need at least 3 new players, LG, RG, RT, who can start at those positions. Meaning, they are viable replacements for the guys we have. I'm not including the "depth" guys here, because, if you think about it, there's really no difference between them, and the guys that are brought in to compete for a starting spot: in the end, if the new guys don't win the spot, either they, or the existing depth guys, make the team. Who doesn't agree with that? If we agree with the above...then, is it right to say "2 is 1, and 1 is none?" Meaning, unless we get one guy who we KNOW is going to come in and own their spot day 1....we need 2 each of LG, RG, RT to maximize our chances of getting a real starter. So, really, we need 6 new O line guys. Agree? If that is true, then, 3 of those guys should come from the draft, and 3 from FA. That's just smart use of resources. Given Dibs(Edit: see now why I called him an expert? I admit that I confused what he was good at, but, he is good at something. ), and the rest of the work done here, it's seems logical to conclude: we need to spend 3 out of our first 5 picks on O line in the draft, AND, go get at least one 1st tier FA, and 2 2nd tier FA O lineman. This would seem to be the only way maximize our chances of ending up with a good O line. Now, if that's too many resources spent? My 2nd to last question: how do you modify 3/1-5 O line in the draft, and 3 FAs to fit cap/other positional needs? My last question: how does this fit into BPA? Should we be reaching for O lineman? Or, again given Dibs, should the "reach number"(meaning, the amount of slots at the point the player was drafted, ahead of where he should have been) be modulated, due to the propensity of guards to over-perform their draft position?

Same old problem: 1. Liberals want a small military...but they want to send all over the world to solve all sorts of problems, without the men/equipment to do so(See: Somalia). The worst case of this was Viet Nam, when we started losing people, and decided that adding more guys, slowly, was the way to solve it...and doing nothing about the corrupt regime in charge of the South, because.....I don't know why. 2. Conservatives(Rand Paul types now) want a huge military, that we never send anywhere. They think this causes "deterrence". Whom exactly is deterred by something you never use? Thus, we ignore all of the problems, until they get really big, and then we prepare to send in everybody, but, whatever the problem was, it's over now, and not usually to our benefit. There is no case for this, as we never send anybody anywhere, unless you count Grenada. In both cases, you have irrationality, and a terrible misuse of our people and treasure. We need to come to our senses as a nation, and, either start charging the rest of the world for the peace WE provide, or, simply protect our stuff, and let everybody else deal with their own problems. I am quite tired of being lectured to by ingrates, whose very freedom of speech that allows them to lecture us, is paid for by my tax dollars. Yes, yes, I know all about markets, and whether markets will be protected. Ok, then, let's have the people whose markets we protect...kick in for the security guards who protect them. You pay a mall cop, don't you? Why is this any different? The simple fact is: we are getting ripped off, all over the world, by people who aren't paying their fair share for their security, AND, we are then criticized for being a "militarist" state? WTF? F all of them.

Yes, but, how do we know that Joseph Smith is literate, or isn't? And, we'd have to know that, otherwise how could he have looked at the gold thing in the box, and translate stuff to the other guy? I mean...if he wasn't literate, then he could have just made everything up! As far as Richard Dawson goes: I never dreamed I would have a job in which so many people could touch me and I could touch them. Richard Dawson So....there you go. Also, It's important to me that on 'Family Feud' I could kiss all the people. It sounds crazy but when I first came here Petula Clark was on a show with Nat King Cole and he kissed her on the cheek and eighty-one stations in the South canceled him. I kissed black women daily and nightly on 'Family Feud' and the world didn't come to an end, did it? Richard Dawson I just added that because it will make the OP crazy. But, in penance for that, here's the problem with Islam: you can't find scripture elsewhere that literally prescribes conquest, but you can in Islam. And, the proof is in the pudding. The various Islamic wackos out there don't need to "misinterpret" things out of the Koran to justify their disgusting behavior, or justify their war on nonbelievers. They read them: word for word. Now, you can all say whatever you need to say to make yourselves feel however you need to feel, for as long as it takes for your sensibilities to be sated. When you get done with all of your...whatever? The fact remains: Islam is unique in this way. I think the best thing that's been said here about this comes from DC_Tom: Islam never had a Reformation. I will merely add: And why? Because Islam says it's necessary to kill whomever would dare begin that Reformation.

HA! 2 things are hilariously true here: 1. Yes Baskin did read it, given his response. Read his response again, and think. Yep...there it is isn't it? The damn Princess Bride thing seals it! Oh hilarious irony! Moreover: he can't respond to it. IF he is an engineer, as he says, then he knows why. The best: crying about name calling, and then calling names, right after? Well, at least one thing is true, he will fit in at PPP. Baskin: Come on, man! The models, if we take them at face value, predicted that we should be encountering massive consequences that we simply...aren't. Especially since the models are based on LESS CO2 than we've actually had dumped into the atmosphere(via China and India) than they anticipated. As a result, the models' creators have come up with hilariously lame contingencies in an effort to explain away their failure. Now, either you explain why this has happened, or understand: you're going to be my new PPP plaything. Ask ...lybob how that works. 2. Of course DC_Tom read it. DC_Tom reads everything I write, hoping for an error. As evidence, he busted on B-Man for posting what I already had: Hehehehehehe :lol: :lol: Once again, I've had DC_Tom's #, for years, and there it is again. That's WHY he reads everything I write. He's hoping someday to break free... NEVER!

Margins is the problem. Health care doesn't have any. They can't afford to take risks, and God forbid they make a profit...which would give them the capital to take risks. Look at all the that has come from hospital mergers. Yeah, so if anybody actually makes enough $ to actually benefit from technology...they get excoriated...for making the money they need to do so. I've had to contort myself in all sorts of ways to try to fit what we do into this space. In other industries? No problem. The upside? We've made some kickass stuff over the years as a result, and other industries can't believe we can charge so little for what we do. We've even not closed deals...because they thought we were lying. Health care too: A large Mid-Western State's VA system CIO told me "we just don't think you can do the job for as little as you quoted". But, lack of money = health care has routinely attracted sub-standard IT people, and those sub-standard IT people have burned their clients more than a few times. I've heard lots of stories. It's very hard to get people to trust you in health care. Very hard. Then? You have the big guys, like Cerner, GE, McKesson, who are essentially too big to care about making better things, and they themselves either don't have the margins, or, see the risk of real innovation as too great for the return. They'd rather put their $ into big ticket hardware stuff, and forget about doing software/process work. Some of these clowns are still running DBs from the 70s. Dumb, fat, and happy to collect their maintenance fees. That's about it. Thus: little changes. It's become a vicious cycle. We break it, with a jackhammer. But, we are just a small firm in a sea of incompetence. And, there's only so much we can do. I've looked into VC funding and the like, but, most of those guys want us to become GE v2.0. They don't yet understand my approach. Although, there is a group, supported by the big guys, that does get it. We're working with them...but I believe it's going to be a long haul to get the kind of funding I need to make a huge difference. I may be wrong. We'll see.

Once again we see the same pattern: The far-left doesn't produce leaders. The only thing it produces is people who are good at complaining. Every so often, events, not their skills, allow them to take over, and every time: the same awful results. Leadership requires character, and not just "I don't cheat on my wife" character, but the kind that has dealt with massive adversity and....tied. Yes, that's right. Tied. Real massive adversity means you aren't going to win, and everybody, those on your team, and those that aren't, know it. Leadership, the kind that comes from inherent ability, and experiences, not what is taught in "leadership class" exposes itself here. Can you motivate the team, can you come up with a plan, can you execute...when everyone knows the best thing you can hope for is a tie? Leadership's existence is proven in results, period. For example: What does Gates want out of this conversation? Why would he bother exposing himself to the endless personal attacks that are sure to come from the professional progressive character assassins? He must really think he has something to say on the matter, that matters, for him to go this far. He must think it's important that we know. Spare me the "selling books" routine. The people who were going to buy the Secretary of Defense's book...were going to buy it one way or the other. It's not like the dumb demographic is going to suddenly buy this kind of book, no matter what it says. Even if the "selling books" point is accurate...how many more books does he sell? 5%? No. "Selling books" doesn't work in this situation. We aren't talking about salacious "celebrity" crap. We are talking about the real issues of the day vs. this presidency, which the dumb demographic has no interest in, by definition. These real issues, are where Obama's lack of leadership shows. If Obama was a real leader, Gates has no real reason to expose himself to Media Matters. But, Obama is so bad, that Gates feels a literal "Duty" to say what he has to say, hence the name of the book. Once again the answer is in the results: if Obama did possess real leadership...Gates doesn't make his choice. It's a hell of thing for a lifetime "chain of command" guy to come out and say something like this....and it doesn't happen, unless you feel a duty to do so.

I think there's 1 draft, 2 FA periods, and 1 full season between then and now, which absolutely will change the thinking. So, it's pointless to speculate. At the very least, we should wait until this FA and Draft are over, before we start signing anybody up for long-term anything. Once again, I don't see how any player, on a losing team, can say he deserves more than the league average at his position. You want the money? Show me the wins. Dareus had better learn, and learn quick: Marrone will get rid of his ass, and he is the one that will suffer the most from that eventuality, not Marrone, or Whaley. Precisely because: Yes, Albert Haynesworth is fresh in EVERBODY's mind. Nobody wants a guy who gets labeled as uncommitted. Or, if they do, they will only pay half or less what Dareus is worth. And, that's everybody, because everybody has fans, who will all say the same thing = "don't want to overpay for a turd". Dareus will trap himself with his own bad behavior. Whether any of this is true...doesn't matter! Not at all. EVERY team will use it, regardless, to underpay Dareus. Period. Whaley has proven he can draft. Ever since he's been here the drafts have been quite good. If Carrington had played this year, you'd all be saying the same. So, Dareus better watch his step. It's not like we don't have serviceable DTs already on this team, and, it's not like we can't go get more. Ask Jason Peters and Demetress Bell, and then ask Cordy Glenn, if they think the Bills can't replace them. This isn't the old days. This is now, and the people we have drafting, and certainly doing the FA thing(see Branch), now can replace: anybody. Trying to compare this group of managers/coaches, with the past is just flat out silly. Nothing is the same. Nothing will be the same. You might as well abandon all hope of using that lazy approach to thinking about the Bills. My favorite part of "now until march 2015"? All that cap space we have. We have a ton, and a cap floor, to insure we spend it. I have a feeling it's going to be like Christmas morning for the O line guys here during FA.

Apparently you, and all the "what about if he gets pissed/is crazy" people here missed the part where they did a "roll call" of all the dudes involved in this. That 1 "wrong guy", and/or his 1-2 buddies, aren't taking 10 guys + the camera guy. Never. Even if you discount a couple of them. That's still 3(at best) vs. 8. Nope. I've been on both sides of that fight. It almost always ends the same way. Yes, clearly the "personal space" and people bringing "liberty" into this people have never been elsewhere. Ask the now-dead guy in Dodger's stadium parking lot about how bad grab-ass dunking is. Ha! Newfriends. That ain't right, but none of them know it. I haven't thought about Jessie Slaughter for a while... But, I use the "Good Luck" thing all the time. The difference is I think the lulz here are the dunks themselves, not the video on Youtube. So, I don't agree that this is LAMP. Funny how we can't even use the words we use anymore....which never meant what they meant anyway. But, this is a good thing: overuse of the word gay, in place of bad, is how one of my employees said the following "I just got Cinemax turned on. So, I've been watching a lot of gay porn lately." You want to talk about a meme? We have been generating content for years now, centered around that single statement. He doesn't even work here anymore(Google now), and we are still hazing him on a weekly basis. Yeah, they'd be all badass...until they were surrounded by 10 dudes. Internet muscles abound in this thread. The only thing to do is laugh.

The trouble here? Just like a lot of people in a lot of areas in life: Cowherd has over-committed to a position(in this case, "Tom Brady is just as good as Montana, if not better"), largely because he was too lazy/ignorant/arrogant to actually do the work that taking that significant of a position required. Ever since, a steady stream of data that contradicts that position directly has been coming from many sources. He is now what we call in poker: "pot committed". What does any poker player love? To force his opponent to become pot-committed to a losing hand. Ask any poker player how often pot-committed hands win. Rather than admit he is wrong, or, that he needs to re-think his position, Cowherd doubles down on his criticism of the..."hate data" or "hate facts"(which is merely: the contradictory data)...as the OP has described above. The bottom line? There will be no end to Cowherd's "belief" in and "support" of Tom Brady any time soon. Not because he chooses to do it, but rather, because he believes he has no choice but to continue doing it. (Not so. He can admit his error any time, and we'd be fine with it. However, his ego won't get out of the way.) We have all sorts of examples of this all around us today. Look around, I'm sure you can find a few. Ask yourself: who else is pot-committed to an overreaching position...and is lying constantly or trying to change the subject/cover their ass? People who have put themselves into this position will never admit they are wrong, because it's just better for them to die as a generally accepted fool, or, perhaps if enough time passes, and they get lucky, they merely become irrelevant, because nobody remembers/cares....than it is for them to have to deal with reality. IF they never admit they were wrong, then there's still something there. But, not if: They went out of their way to be a D-bag, calling people, who merely show the contradictory data, names, for years. In that case? They always get what they deserve in the end.

Well, now that's I'm done with Ze Germans.... Ah...but it is a reasoned opinion. Signed up. Barely signed up. Back it up with more fact. For example, what specifically did you see that tells you the FAs installed at LG were a disaster? Not saying you are wrong. Am saying: we need a more than "because I said so". Well, now we know why San Jose wanted you here. Signed up. As Bills says, excellent work, especially since this post in no way resembles #humblebrag. (I have a feeling you will be joining the Bill side of things when it comes to the draft...well, then be warned: I am Bill's nemesis...or something. ) However.....of course I have high standards, and, of course I want more info than you can possibly have. Too bad. Do whatever it takes to get the job done. What do you think this is? Gangreen dot com? No! This is TSW. That means: put out, and don't whine about it. You've were invited to get the job done, and you took it, so get it done, and don't come crying to me about not having 40 times. I don't wanna hear it, and nobody else does either. Which of our line are capable of getting into position for a screen play, and making that block in space, every time, and which aren't? See? No 40 times required. Christ...it's like herding cats around here some days. And the worst is: without me here organizing this mess, we'd be talking about Peters/Bell, wouldn't we? (Now, that's joking....just imagine what I can do when we are talking DB vs. O line for real. Fair warning ) Signed up. See how Bill is? He knows, because it's me...that he can get away with breaking the rules, so he barks it out like a drunk pirate. I however, will not break my own rules. Bill: Just know that there's a whole bag of response, backed up by stats and fact...with your name on it. Signed up. Signed up. Partially because you brought some good data, and partially because, like me, it appears you've been baited. Far be it from me to stand in the way of that dynamic. Signed up. Good one. Perhaps, but, we are still in the analysis phase. We'll move on to design once we can all agree on the requirements. Signed up, but, let's see what everybody has to say first...there may be something we are missing. Good historical context, good analysis. Signed up. OK then. So far: Cheddar's Dad Jboyst62 Big Blitz BillinNYC bobobonators Lofton80 sjjr FeartheLosing JPS Rob's House Taro T San Jose Bills Fan TakeYouToTasker Noodle RuntheDamnBall have all provided cogent analysis of the existing Bills O line. If I was them? I'd bookmark this thread, so that they can use it later...exactly like San Jose did above. We'll wait for BillsVet, and Jboyst to complete their efforts and/or anybody else to have a say. At some point, I'm gonna summarize this thread, ask if all of you agree with that summary, and our work here will be complete. Then, we can all just link to the summary, and save ourselves time(and hopefully not have to go thread to thread saying the same things over and over) Yes, I fully recognize that this summary may in fact be used to counter my own future posts about drafting DBs high. Like I said: this year is a bizarro draft for me.

The worst is: now they are saying that the Sister's have a "weak case" because they don't have to break their faith to comply...they can hire an insurance company to break their faith for them. And...what's wrong with that? Looks like the government's attorney needs to brush up on his Bible. I believe the Sisters may be concerned...about something involving millstones around their neck, the sea, and being thrown into it....being a "better" option for them than what the government is offering. And, yeah, as far as I can tell( )? They've now changed the word "tells" to "urges". "Tells" was never accurate anyway, as the Administration wasn't telling anybody anything. Their lawyer was making an argument to the SCOTUS.

Frankly, and I have nothing to back this up but, I think what we have here might be a confluence of grief and shyster lawyers. If they can prove even one of the things the mother said, however tenuously, it's just more fodder for the lawsuit that is absolutely coming. The lead-up to this says that a lawsuit was a certainty anyway, but, if they can prove any of these things, that may just add a zero, or more, to the settlement.

Turd: My special PPP name for a poster who refuses, repeatedly, to deal with the reality that's been placed in front of his/her nose. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell Let's see if you've responded, properly, to anything I've put in front of your nose. If not? You remain a: turd. Yeah, now you're getting it: there's no such thing as "independent" on this issue, just as there's no such thing as "scientific". Oh, so he doesn't get his money from the Oil Companies? Just...y'know...was surprised I didn't hear that "stock" answer, or see you parrot any other made up schit from leftist character assassins. In order: 1. If it is warming, I can't trust it yet, because of the flat out lies that have been told in terms of the magnitude of the warming...for purely political and personal gain purposes. I need some physicists, economists, and mathematicians to review whatever data comes in from here on out. 2. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible that it is warming. See...unlike environtologists, I take a: scientific approach to this. But, again, how much/how fast? Those are the questions that matter. IF the planet warms by .1 of a degree over 20 years....we can say that it is warming. However, we can also say: bring back Tar and Feathering for Al Gore. 3. In ALL cases, the $ cycle of Democrat politics and Global Warming Scientists and those with a socialist agenda....is now so obvious that it's not worth talking about. This was finally confirmed by China....making a big show of walking out of the IPCC meetings recently, and taking the little D-bag countries with them....when they found out they weren't going to get their welfare check. You ask a reasonable question...and follow it with this? What then...is the picture evidence of? Proof that Dr. Freeze exists? Perhaps this: is a picture you like better? Yes, Iceman made 553k square miles...of ice...magically appear. How the F do you account for what is so obviously an UTTER REFUTATION OF YOUR PREDICTION...in the simplest form possible = a before and after picture. You are confusing simplicity with veracity, and, the presence of the former doesn't preclude the latter. Interesting. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that "water holds much more energy than air" is the reason why the models have failed. You would think the creators of the models would have factored "water holds much more energy than air" into their models...prior to completing them. You know...because it's not like that's obvious or anything. All these scientists, working for years on their models....and the condition they missed, and you didn't....wasn't included. Truly amazing. Yes, and in this case? "Everyone" is the the climate scientists and Democrat politicians...who have cried "Conform with our wishes or die a watery death". No....this is what we call "anecdotal science" especially when we are talking about the climate of a F'ing planet. I love how "look at dem HURRICANES!"...becomes..."well...this year of course is different" when it's colder than Oprah's snatch out...and, let's not forget the poor English children who will never see the snow. I love how weather is only "extreme" when it fits the Global Warming narrative. Do you even see it? Do you understand why this crap causes an empiricist like me....to howl BS?!?! Again, this IS political, and ALWAYS has been. There's more evidence for this being a leftist political contraption...than there is for the damn warming itself. We can easily say...a bit of warming may be caused by humans, but, trying to isolate that from natural occurrences, like the F'ing Sun....is darn near impossible. And, that should tell us something: if you can't isolate a variable...what does that say about it's range? Or magnitude....in terms of all the other variables? Technical people, like me, know the answer to that. Do you?