birdog1960

and there's the problem for the right. everything has shifted on notch over: moderates in the party are now liberal, conservatives= moderates and nut jobs = conservatives. and the reason you can't name the leaders is that nobody knows which faction is goiung to come out of this in front. and every candidate has to placate the nut jobs in the primaries. i can tell you this; if the nut jobs win control you will have a smaller party.

there can be value in being contrarian but only if you really are smarter than everyone else. ted cruz???

so i took b's advice. and i found this; http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2013/09/29/exclusive-rep-kevin-mccarthy-talks-roadmap-budget-showdown-key-senators-debate-defunding. i only read the transcript as the actual talking heads disturb me (even on meet the press in it's latest iteration). anyway, the ones at fox seem none to happy with the brash new party self appointed leaders. read the panel discussion. seems they don't find the strategy very smart nor well thought through for "endgame" or outcomes as i would say. unfortunately, i think we've reached a point in history where chris wallace represents the repunb traditionalists. i know many traditionilists that would deny that, but it appears to be true.

pleasantly shocked by secondary play. still wondering about the chandler catch review and rule. one foot on top of the other inbounds - shouldn't the bottom foot be considered an extension of the field? overall too conservative offensive play calling in the second half especially the run on 3rd down in the 2nd to last series. a guy in the stands shown on tv mouthed the exact words i said at the time. the bomb try to woods was the exception but was pretty badly under thrown unfortunately. still, a good call still, bills beat a talented team today.

i'm in a big minority among my peers and friends as a liberal. i've heard similar sentiments from traditionalists on many occasions. the gov't shutdown tuesday will add fuel to a raging fire.

didn't say it was authoritative. i think it verbalizes what many traditionalists in both parties actually think .

yup, the new kind of republican: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbErkUE3Az0

wanna enlighten me as to how you interpreted that cartoon? it's fair to assume you agreed with that interpretation since you posted it.

the fact that you find this profound or humorous or both is telling. you think people are content working minimum wage jobs? you think they don't want more? you think they're of less inherent worth? you think they shouldn't have an equal vote in our democracy? this is a shameful thing. but history has proven it an effective political tack. 47% anyone?

millions of working poor are going to love being able to get subsidized insurance. i know many already waiting for it. those newly enrolled in medicaid are going to be happy. early retirees or those who find themselves unemployed past middle age who will now be able to find an affordable policy will be happy (know many already waiting for this as well and some who are waiting for it to retire). those with preexisting conditions will be very happy. that's millions of folks. but again, what's the worry if opponents are so sure it will fail? should be easy to remove and will be a big pr and poltical win for the right. this should be viewed as opportunity in that case, right?

there goes your black/white thinking again. i don't agree with all consensus decisions although there is some pretty compelling evidence for herd behavior being effective. i can disagree with some ideas/policies (and usually do, loudly) and yet still like the system. similarly, i can enjoy and feel fulfilled by my work while making comparatively much less than my specialist colleagues yet still want to do well in the stock market so that i feel secure in my future and enjoy more freedom in personal decisions (ie, you don't have to vow poverty to support universal health care). i can also advocate for lessening of the differential in reimbursement both because it will make the system work better and more efficiently and because i will also benefit directly. these are not mutually exclusive goals. and i have no plan for early retirement. i like my job. alot. now, a 3 day week in a few years... there is very little truth to this. medicare has been covering preventive services almost from day one after the aca was passed. many private policies still don't (but soon will). i have an hsa. it covers very little except catastrophic care. medicare hasn't influenced it very much, if at all. but the truth in your statement is in the fact that the hybrid private/public model is inherently inefficient.

you seemingly ignore the fact that very little of the bill has been implemented yet. people believe what they're told and they're told it won't work. the parts that have been implemented are very popular. and if you're actually right and it's a train wreck, why will it be impossible to remove? it should then be easy. $20,000? wow. and folks are worried that the aca will cause well people to subsidize sick ones?(assuming you are well). mostly this begs the question: why doesn't the federal gov't self insure for it's employees. a medicare type product has to come in cheaper than this?

yes, but that's a different argument than the one i was presenting. do you concede that the urgency is based on this concern?

http://americablog.com/2013/09/ted-cruz-afraid-americans-will-like-obamacare.html. well, hannity and cruz agree so how could i possibly be wrong?

well, no. the urgency to stop it comes much from the belief that once people actually see the benefits, they will be generally happy with the aca despite the fear mongering. cruz himself has stated that once it's implemented it will be very hard to turn back. this is what he likely means. but if i'm wrong then this failed attempt won't matter. it can be reversed after it fails.

cruz is losing all credibility with any but extremists. divided his party and will still ultimately lose this battle. and it wasn't even good drama. nice work teddy boy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFz22x-WvrE

agreed as to the timetable. i was going to bring that up when a 20 year drought was talked about but even the mention of the mortality of the hall of fame owner draws anger here. i don't know though, green bay does pretty well with their "owner" in a small market. i know that such an arrangement can't happen again but maybe we luck into an owner with very deep pockets that really wants to win. maybe the league does a cushy financing deal for the sale in the interest of a better product.

discussing the manning documentary with some friends and this came up: archie dissuaded eli from playing for the 4-12 chargers (1st pick) in 2004 draft likely cuz he didn't want to see him waste his talent in a bad orgination like he had to. this brought about his trade for the 4th overall pick (philip rivers) and 2 draft picks. the bills connection? we picked losman in the 1st round in that draft and we later picked up one of the draft picks twice (merriman). if eli wouldn't sign with the chargers, do you think he would have signed with the bills? maybe we haven't had a top qb for years because of this potential scenario which is in turn due of the organizations bad reputation.

no, i surely get it. just kinda puts a tear in the mainsail, doesn't it?

why are a swiss watch and a german sneaker company sponsoring an american catamaran ?

no i don't think you correlate time of sucktitude to time of turnaround. that is much more dependent on the quality of the organization. i'd say that's why we hope for a turn around in 3 years rather than 1 (as some good orgs have accomplished) and are repeatedly disappointed.

watched the archie manning documentary last night. when his wife was talking about his nfl years and particularly his years with the saints, she lamented him having to work for such a bad organization. not a bad team, but a bad organization. and the pain was clearly visible in archies eyes as she talked. this is what bad organizations do to teams and even great players. and sadly, this is what i feel the bills will continue to do as long as current ownership remains. that's how the nil works, at least at the bottom.

if we go 20 years? if we go 20 years? (cue snide remarks and insults). if we go 20 years, then the team should be banned from the league by the competition committee. or perhaps a lower league can be set up with oakland, jax, cleveland, washington, st louis, jets, detroit etc and then we could watch close but horribly played games like last weeks, every week. seriously, even contemplating 20 years is pathologic but unfortunately realistic. but to contemplate it and remain somehow optimistic is bat schiet crazy.

this is how the nfl works: there are some perennially bad teams with long standing bad owners. there are some perennially good teams with good owners. there are some bad teams with newer good owners that get better. there are some bad teams with bad new owners. the good teams and good owners win convincingly and regularly over the bad teams and bad owners.