Orlando Buffalo
-
Posts
8,714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Orlando Buffalo
-
-
55 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Ah, well.
Are you disputing my point? I said it needs to be torn down because it was a net negative in regards to recovery from Helene.
-
1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Science. In this case social science.
Within the criminological literature, there has been considerable research devoted to understanding the relationship between homicide and social protection, both within the United States and utilizing cross-national samples. Despite the measure of social welfare or social protection used, the results have shown a consistent significant negative relationship between social welfare and homicide. Within the United States, for example, the significant negative relationship between social protection and homicide has been found across standard metropolitan statistical areas (DeFronzo, 1983; Messner, 1986), cities (Sampson, 1987), and even a specific city over time (Chamlin et al., 2002). Cross-nationally, the research has found significant negative relationships between social protection and homicide utilizing different measures of welfare spending, including a decommodification index (Messner and Rosenfeld, 2006; Savolainen, 2000), percent GDP spent on health care and education (Pratt and Godsey, 2002), welfare spending (Gartner et al., 1990; Pratt and Godsey, 2002), and the amount of social welfare spent in US dollars for each nation (Savage et al., 2008).
Regarding their study, Rogers and Pridemore conclude that:
One key aspect of social protection is that it is meant to act as a safety net for citizens in times of economic downturn or provide a better living standard for citizens who live below or near the poverty line. Ultimately, the aim of social protection is not to reduce inequality but to address absolute deprivation by raising the standard of living of those who live in poverty to a level that provides the minimum necessities to survive day to day. The moderating effect of social protection found within this paper supports this view. We found that nations with higher levels of social protection not only have lower rates of homicide, but also that the strength of the association between poverty and homicide in these nations is weaker. Therefore,while there are many more direct goals of social protection, one important indirect effect of providing greater social protection is a reduction in violent crime.
i can't tell if you are trolling me with this correlation means causation garbage. Countries that have social protections were already low crime before they gave any protections, the low crime came first before anyone discussed helping them unless you are dumb enough to believe people wanted to pay murderers not to murder and thought it would work. As for the last line, violent people are poor because they poor impulse control, not poor people are violent because they don't have money. Give it some thought and it is obvious, the correlation is there for obvious reasons.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Toomstone.Part.Duex said:
I have about 8-9 years till retirement. I'd like to get an RV and travel the US for a while. Does anyone know someone who did this?
I will make a big recommendation if you are going to buy a large RV based on two separate extended family members who did it. They both customized after the factory with multiple companies working on it for different things. When the problems started each company denied it was there problem, and that someone who touched it after was responsible. Try to make sure it is all one company and they have a good warranty.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
We've been over this. Donating to the general fund is a drop in the ocean. Won't make bit of difference especially with this admin. The deficit requires systemic tax and spending reform to make a dent. This admin is taxing less and spending more while worsening the deficit. And no, it's not just "the others" that must pay more. If the recent bill didn't pass, I'd pay more as well. I was firmly against the bill knowing that I'd pay less. That's not totally selfless. I want other Americans to have access too health care and other social programs. That helps me by lowering the crime rate and lessening the risk of communicable diseases, not to mention providing easy access to ERs without waiting hours to be seen.
Cuba was fantastic trip. The Cubans have many serious problems and the gov't is inept partly due to the embargo but also due to their flawed system. It's valuable to me to see a very different culture and the regular people are amazing. Their history is one of massive exploitation which is extremely difficult to emerge from. Many other caribbean islands face the same challenges under democratic govts. Jamaica, for example has massive poverty.. Would you discourage the millions of Americans that go there to abstain? Tourist dollars are a lifeline so tip well if you go.
My golf club is not exclusive. It's accessible financially to a large swath of folks. It costs less than owning and maintaining a pontoon boat. We have members from all walks of life and races unlike the clubs in WNY that had "blackball" policies when I was growing up. I fear we are returning to those bad old days. I still play public courses as I did almost exclusively as a teen. Regular players at those courses can play ours by walking up and paying a greens fee. There are clubs where this isn't so. I'm not a member of those.
So keep believing I'm a limousine liberal. You're incorrect once again. I too want a better America and Im willing to pay what it costs. So is Oprah and she'll pay much more.
meanwhile
I am going to jump on two statements you made that prove you have never had any serious thoughts about the solution- higher taxes mean safer places when all of the high crime areas of the US are high tax places. Secondly the "drop in the ocean" is a start and any idea worth doing needs a starting point, liberalism always seems to have a starting point of everyone having to do it so if it fails they can't be blamed.
-
My neighbor saw this and asked if this kinda crap was normal in Buffalo and I had to explain that the Buffalo News has about 25k subscribers left and they are all left wing wackos, so their user base loves it but not normal Buffalo people.
-
24 minutes ago, Homelander said:
You are picking one event, almost 5 years ago, and you arrested everyone who was violent and everyone who was non violent. What kind of moron falls for that?
-
16 minutes ago, Homelander said:
Can you explain how this would end democracy is Texas but is good in NY?
-
On 7/1/2025 at 5:03 PM, nedboy7 said:
Hasn’t it been due to federal relief?
However, this surplus is projected to be short-lived. Without changes to spending or revenue, Florida could face a $2.8 billion deficit in the following fiscal year (2026-27), and a $6.9 billion deficit in 2027-28
the people projecting the surplus turning to deficit are a bunch liberal hacks who are always doom and gloom and rarely get things right. That being said we currently have 15 billion is surplus from the past 4 years so a couple of lean years won't kill us, unlike CA which has a best case scenario of bad time ahead.
-
I am hearing that there is a real push to eliminate the property taxes in FL, which I am surprisingly against since I have not seen the balance of how we pay for everything. If it is simply a raise in sales tax that is fine but I want to see the numbers before going forward.
-
19 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
But the orange authoritarian!!!
This case is definitive proof that the Dems must control the narrative for the stupid, because without it they will lose every election. No one cares that Kimmel made the same joke because everyone knows he is a known liar and no one with any intelligence listens to him at all, but a random tweet caused people not to vote.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, folz said:
Barnwell's article seems like a pointless experiment. It is basically, which teams have the most stud/household name skill players (preferably WRs). It by no means determines how any of these offenses will be in 2025 (with or without their QB). And pretty much any fan could look across the teams and say who has more studs than others with a quick glance. No need to even bring analytics into it, it is a pretty obvious task. But that is fantasy football type of stuff, not team building. And even though he claims to have used metrics/analytics, etc., a lot of his decisions were obviously made on pure opinion (particularly in regards to injuries, rookies and second/third-year players, etc.).
And why weight receivers higher? Yes, it is a passing league (and they get paid more, not sure what that has to do with it), but many teams went back to a heavier/more balanced run game over the last couple of years. And if you look at total yards from scrimmage in 2024, in the top 32, there are 21 RBs, 10 WRs, and 1 TE. There are only two WRs in the top 18 (all the rest are RBs). Eight of the non-QB touchdown leaders in 2024 were RBs, with only 2 WRs. Both receivers and RBs are reliant on the QB and offensive line to get their jobs done. Plus, there are many teams with a better player at RB1 and TE1 than WR2 or WR3, etc.
Weighting WRs higher automatically shoots teams with say two stud WRs up the rankings. But maybe because they are paying those two WRs a lot, their offensive line isn't as good, or their RBs and TEs are a step down, or they're lacking in depth. Or maybe it's because they aren't paying a franchise QB yet, or their defense suffers for it. Plus, he's comparing three players of one group (WRs) vs. only 1 player in the RB and TE groups. So, he's almost adding a double-weight to the receivers. Why not just make the article, who has the most stud receivers, or the best receiving group, instead of making it seem like he is comparing all skill groups evenly.
In 2024, 15 different skill players touched the ball for Buffalo. In 2023, 14 different skill players touched the ball. Our offense spreads the ball around to more than just 5 players. As does every offense to some extent. Most teams run tandems at RB, all teams have two-TE packages, guys get injured, many teams rotate guys based on the game or opponent, etc.
By not including depth, he is definitely skewing the picture. Yes, if you were to rank only TE1s, Kincaid (based on current production, not potential*) would probably be in the 12-15 range. But when you add Knox, Davidson, and a true blocking TE in Hawes, I think our TE group will definitely be top 10, maybe top 5ish. Same goes for the running back room when you add Davis and Johnson to Cook. [Plus a top 5 O-line.] [*Barnwell's opinion also shows through on which "potential" guys he thinks will improve and which won't.]
So, the article basically comes down to who would have the best offense if you remove the OC, QB, all offensive linemen, all RB depth, all TE depth, and WRs 4-6 and then you add extra weight to the top 3 wide receivers. How at that point are you even comparing offenses or being able to assess how much a GM has helped their QB? For the Bills at least, with how we run our offense, that is like saying how would the Bills offense fare if you removed Brady, Josh, the offensive line, and 66.6% of their skill players. Or if you think, QB, 5 OL, 3 RB, 3 TE, 5 WR as your main guys, Barnwell is removing 70% of the offense and comparing the rest to try and determine who would be best if you removed only the quarterback.
Just not understanding the point of the article. [And from a Bills perspective, it just perpetuates the false narrative that Josh is doing it all on his own.] Either rank receiving corps as a whole (where the Bills would currently rank low), or all skill players as a whole, or the total offense without the QB (in both cases, the Bills would rank much higher). Or do a big three skill positions ranking (best WR, RB, TE trio). This in between is just some fantasy land and is misleading (according to his article's title and mission statement).
[P.S. I do expect our WR corps this year to be much better than most outsiders are currently projecting. But, I understand the reason for the current projections as well and would not expect us to be more than average at best in most WR only rankings.]
You wrote much more than me and come to same point, our RB corp is top 8, our TEs are above average, and our WRs I think are better than NE, CLE, CAR, LV, TEN, ranking them 28 overall is crazy.
-
1
-
-
My perspective is that the officials are in general old men who see what they expect to see, they are not corrupt but simply incompetent. None will give up the job though because they love the pay and the spotlight
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:
MAGA thinks DEI is code for unqualified. Lots of people are saying that you’re unqualified to teach children because (and again, this is lots of people) you’re not very smart. All of this things made me think that maybe you’re one of those DEI hires MAGA complains about.
you sound like all the failing students in my class. I don't take offense when lowest quintile speaks up, I simply recognize it is an inability to actually process information in a meaningful way.
-
19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
How about this. Tell me which social programs are bad and should be cut. Apparently, says MAGA, Medicaid has significant bad elements, as does SNAP. So we're booting a both of people off of both programs. Despite the hand-wringing of some populist MAGA. So which other ones are bad, I ask you.
All of the social programs need to be made much more efficient. The amount of waste in the government is appalling. The number of federal grants that accomplish nothing is staggering, and the amount of abuse of SNAP and Medicaid is terrible. We as a society need to stop pushing the current problems cost onto our children financially.
-
8 hours ago, Roundybout said:
He has been a fireman for nearly 40 years and spent a great deal of time as a fire chief in Atlanta. He has a master's degree and a certificate from Harvard. He is an Executive Fire Officer designated by the National Fire Academy.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Fire/Chief_Baker_New_Bio_2022.pdf
So, yes. He's completely qualified.
Why, then, is he automatically assumed to be unqualified? What is the very obvious reason that agitators like Charlie Kirk think he's DEI?
That is good research, his paper trail is very strong, so I agree he is not a DEI. His decisions should get him fired but his hiring was proper.
10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:Serious question - you're not a DEI hire? I always figured that you were.
Hence why you are terrible lawyer,intelligent people would be embarrassed to admit to such assumptions when being conservative would be a detriment to finding a job at a school most places.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, SCBills said:
An AI is claiming sarcasm? That did not even work on my wife and I am always sarcastic.
-
1
-
-
I am really just putting a hope out into the world, not what I expect. Trump has become an absolute vicious political animal and will release the entire Epstein list in August 2026 because it hurts the Dems. I am right now really pissed they are acting like no evidence exists but they jailed his chick buddy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
This is classic deflection. Trump and many Republicans campaigned on not cutting any aspect of the public safety net. They did. They try to coax it with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse with work requirements to keep the base happy. They still cut Medicaid and SNAP benefits no matter how slice it. The way they frame it is insulting to one's intelligence.
I don't think Trump did campaign on that, I will stand corrected if someone shows me. I know my congressman never campaigned on that topic. I am a fan of cutting all fed programs because they are all poorly run.
-
As the parent of a 15 and 20 year old, and teacher of all these years being discussed, I might have a reason. Until 2020 and the lockdown the previous several years of education were focused on social-emotional processing. A lot of these young people were being fed kindness is more important than being correct, which is unethical and bordering on evil. In 2020- my son was 15- all that basically died when the people in school were people who wanted to learn and the social emotional stopped. People that value truth and accuracy reject the Dems, people that value others being "kind" reject Conservatives
-
1 hour ago, Roundybout said:
What does DEI mean in this context?
Come on, just say it. Stop beating around the bush.
DEI means hiring for a reason besides the most qualified. I will ask directly this do you believe he would have been hired for the job if he was a white man?
-
6 hours ago, SectionC3 said:
You mean whitewashed and swept under the rug?
You do know that the list has existed since 2019 if not much earlier? I don't appreciate Trump sucking but getting all high and mighty is absurd.
9 hours ago, SectionC3 said:Still less than a dollar a day per child increase. “Shifting” means cutting. States can pick up slack, but at what expense? And wouldn’t it have been easier to restore 39.6% on the rich than to “shift” and to toss an extra $200 credit to kids? You like kids, you put the tax rate on the rich back where it was under Obama and fund social programs with the money.
Do you believe the government does a good and efficient job in implementing social programs? If so which ones? I am not going to attack but I am actually curious
-
The Epstein list is going to become like January 6th. It is one place where Republicans are worse than Democrats and oh boy are they gonna pound that one. Every other outrage is fake but that is real
-
9 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
I did not know Trafalgar was also so strong, I will have to keep them in mind if looking at polls
-
1
-
-
The Joe McReynolds comments to me are one of the defining elements of liberalism. The primary purpose of special people is to help those less talented, not to be the best version of themselves, but help everyone get an equal outcome. That belief system is how dictators come to power, if someone "owes" you altruism and kindness then you can force anything
-
1
-
Democrats ❤️ Taxes
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
you think simply because it is there job they have thought better about them I have? Understood, which is why you argued that COVID shots for a 5 year old was a good idea.