OCinBuffalo

I bash liberals here when they insist on using the word "should" and ignore the words "is" and "how" and tell us that we are racists when we point out that "should" simply isn't good enough. Any # of a-holes can run around telling us how things "should" be. Few of us, including myself, actually go around analyzing the "is" and then providing the "how". The high opinion you are referring to is certainly not shared by me. Personally, I think that I am a goofball. However, that has no effect on the high opinion of others, to the tune of my billable rate, and those who seek my opinion, especially on this matter. You may not like those facts, but they are the facts. The politicians I spoke to last week about this didn't seek my knowledge on this matter by accident, I was summoned. They were certainly pleased with our meeting. Hmm. Why would I include my own personal work.....OH, I know! Because one of our primary lines of business is 100% focused on cost reduction, workflow and integration, and business intelligence in Health Care? Nah, that's not relevant to this discussion at all. No way I should be talking about it. I should defer to people like you who know next to nothing about this material, and don't like it when, once again, I point out that your "how" is either stupid or non-existent.

I am saying that fundamentally, taking away accountability for your own health care, namely, the hit in the wallet you take if you act like an idiot, is a bad idea. For rich people, poor people, all people. It already is a bad idea for those people who have gold plated insurance, and adding more people, regardless of status, just makes more "bad idea". Think about it this way: you pay for your own car insurance. Therefore you take care on the road, because if you f up, you pay for it in terms of premium increase. There is no such mechanism for health insurance by and large, with the exception of SOME HMOs. Health Insurance should be = car insurance, and there's no good reason why it isn't. Do people who have car insurance say !@#$ it I have insurance I can go nuts and do whatever I want? Other drivers and driving drunk won't effect me. You would think that dying in a fiery wreck, or the prospect of killing other people, would be enough to be careful on the road, or keep us from driving drunk, but it doesn't. Those who do and don't die pay heavy in terms of their insurance premiums, in addition to fines from the state. We will go to a society of fat ass smokers if there are no consequences for bad health behavior like there are for drunk driving. Yeah, yeah, let's see what they do when people realize that a minority group or women represent a higher risk group for a particular disease. Standard insurance practice would mean that they would raise the rate on that group. Are you trying to tell me that there won't be massive lawsuits, and phony "civil rights violation" complaints, because it's the government doing the raising of the rates? How likely is it that instead: the government ignores standard insurance practice and keeps the rates the same, to avoid the BS and because of some misguided racial agenda(see Barney Frank and the mortgage industry), and the government now needs MORE money to cover the cost of care for people who weren't paying the right amount of premiums? Take a wild guess where that more money comes from. Hint: people that make less than $250k a year...yeah, the very same people who Obama said would not be taxed.

We'll see Wrong. Apparently you don't do what I do, because anybody in my job will tell you just how important the minimum wage is to businesses, in multiple industries and the military. Wait: minimum wage was created so that right wing pols can complain? Wtf? No it wasn't. Minimum wage was created so that the left wing can complain? Wrong again. It was created based on expositions of abuse of workers by poorly run corporations. It was a populist creation representative of the large, pro-union movement of the 30s-60s. Surprisingly wiki actually has a great article on it: here I expect better from you than subscribing to simplistic views. Who is getting caught up in the talking points? Me or You? Quoting the Heritage Foundation? Yeah, if we limit our view to only the minimum wage itself, and if we pretend that it's effect lives in a vacuum, then this simplistic view holds. However, we don't live in simpleton land, and, economies are by definition, interwoven. This is why it's so important: Unions/Government/Military use it as one of the centerpieces to base their entire wage structure. They start with the minimum wage and work up. Surely you didn't think that they care about teenagers that work part time. Did you? So, the reason they are always pushing for it to go up is that they can then demand raises in their scale, across the board, across entire industries that compete for similar workers. You are right to say that, on it's own, its a relatively irrelevant measure, especially for the people that make it, who are also largely irrelevant to the overall economy. But since there are soooo many dependencies on it, it is absolutely wrong to say that it is irrelevant in general. How about a Nobel Laureate? From the wiki article: Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan responded to the Card and Krueger study in the Wall Street Journal, arguing:[53] ...no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores. So I think it's safe to say that if increases in the minimum wage decrease employment, the contrapositive, decreases cause increased employment, is also true. Unless, of course, you want to be called a camp-following whore. And what a shocker in that article: d-bag Krugman supports the nonsense. The point is that the downward pressure you are referring to is artificial: paying illegals less because of their status, not based on the true price of their labor. You cannot remove the downward pressure as long as illegals are illegals, AND, people are willing to take advantage of them. The only thing you can do is remove the other wage control = minimum wage. Without the wage controls, IF there was any REAL downward pressure, it would be temporary at best, as the market drove itself to to equilibrium. If we could hire all people for less than the minimum wage, and then give them market-driven raises as demand is inevitably spooled up, the market works as expected. But, if the minimum wage stays in place, that is only going to happen for one segment of the labor force, and it will happen much more slowly, because there is no motivation to pay illegals market price for their labor. In effect, these two phony wage controls represent an anchor around the economy's neck. WRT deflation: um people working rather than doing nothing is hardly an example of deflation. Hint: the deflation has already occurred. If you get the bottom of the economy going, it can only help the middle and the top. If middle class workers work lesser jobs to get things going, and then move back up to their expected level of jobs once they become available, thus creating more jobs, that too is hardly an example of deflation. Rather, its an example of how to get rid of it. I am supposed to believe that every single illegal working here today has a fake SSN, and that employers actually go to all this trouble? Or, am I supposed to believe that regardless of what the paperwork says, the employer, or the foreman, is NOT actually only handing out $4/hr, because he can get away with it? Hint: the paperwork is fake to begin with, why in the hell would they actually follow it? Again, you are looking at individual wages and missing the point: wages are dependent on each other, if one goes up/down, others that are based on it will go up/down as well. Why? Because, again, there are two artificially separate labor forces, and, by definition, those labor forces get paid different rates, from the minimum level to the $20/hr level. The real problem is supply, not demand. If there is a unlimited supply of workers that are willing to work for less than minimum wage, AND, for $8/hr when the job is "supposed" to pay $10, then the price for labor can never reach its real value. I am arguing that as long as there are 2 types of supply, one whose wage scale is set by the minimum and one whose wage scale is purposely depressed due to illegal status, employers will go with the cheaper guy, across all wages and for all jobs. You are ignoring the cost accounting side of this: not a good plan for a smart guy like you. What is stopping me from laying off/firing my existing work force, and replacing them with people who will work for $2-3/hr less? It cuts my cost of operation. I am not hiring MORE people, I am hiring the same amount of people I had before. Cutting cost in a recession is not only a good idea, its what we do. In fact, we cut cost ALL THE TIME. So again, when there are 2 distinct, artificially created unskilled labor forces, the cheaper one will prevail. You don't have to have a new need for labor for these artificial wage controls to have a serious effect on the economy. Namely, keeping disposable income down, or non-existent, and keeping the income you do create largely untaxed, and keeping legal workers unemployed, or costing them their jobs. So the current minimum wage, along with unlimited supply of workers willing to/forced to work for less than the actual price for each job, erodes disposable income and increases unemployment of legal workers, not because of the wage itself, but because of the dependencies placed upon it by employers and unions.

1. What makes you think that demand for agriculture, construction & hospitality will ever be significantly diminished, never mind eliminated? Of all the demand in this country those are typically the last ones to be touched. You sure you want to talk about making sense? Since when will 300 million people not want food? housing? or Mexican cleaning ladies? I understand the point you are trying to make = cyclical unemployment gets the unskilled first. But, I don't think that it applies very well when we are talking about food, housing and service industry people, especially when you can pay them $3 an hour. If anything the cheaper labor cost means MORE illegals get hired in a recession rather than less. I think you should be talking about factory workers, delivery and truck drivers, etc., basically line of business and supply chain people, when you talk about the initial casualties of an economic downturn. 2. I don't buy into the myth that there are jobs "nobody wants". I believe that as long as you can get away with paying people $3 an hour, due to their illegal status, you will. Hence you artificially devalue that job below the price that the free market would otherwise set. If you do it long enough....you then start telling people that the free market, and not you, is responsible. Hence, nobody who is artificially "entitled", via the minimum wage, to a higher paying job, will "want to do" the lower paying job. There's no way in hell that a highway department laborer is any more skilled than a hotel housekeeper, in terms of the free market. But, since the former's value has been artificially raised(union BS), and the latter's artificially devalued, due to nothing more than: they can get away with it, the highway dude who sits on his ass most of the day gets $10 and the housekeeper who busts her ass gets $3. Neither price for labor has been set by the free market. You cannot remove the "take advantage of people's illegal status" wage control, because people will do it regardless of what you do. The only thing you can do is remove the other wage control, minimum wage, and allow all the workers to compete equally for the jobs. As we know unhindered competition will always bring the price to the proper market value. EDIT: And keep in mind I am only suggesting this as a "break only in event of recession" option. Only a minimum wage suspension, if you will, that could very easily kickstart the economy, because it would allow hiring of people that would otherwise not be hired.

Don't flatter yourself. Everyone here knows that I am an equal opportunity illogical/uneducated opinion basher.

Wrong. Eight ways till Sunday wrong. Please explain why insurance rates for non-smokers are less then. Apparently the insurance companies use the same specious logic to determine premium rates...but they are all idiots right? Yeah, they don't reward the individuals who take care of themselves, they simply give out the same insurance rates to everyone. You don't want to talk about poor people? Ok, how about rich ones? Apparently you haven't seen just how poorly most corporate execs take care of themselves, knowing fully that not only do they have gold plated insurance, but that they can get themselves on the short list for organ transplants as well. I have seen this right in front of me, on multiple occasions. Most memorably the liver transplant guys continuing to belly up to the bar. Look this was a bad LONG TERM idea when Kaiser, the WWII boat builder, first hooked up Dr. Permanente, and has been a bad idea ever since. During WWII you had literally 10s of thousands of workers descending on shipyards practically overnight. Something had to be done to care for these workers, because, they had to keep building ships so we could win the war. All other things became secondary concerns, especially whether this new "health insurance" plan was actually saving money. At that time of crisis, it made sense to centralize the health care of those workers because the care could be organized and distributed better, and because we were going from nothing to 50k people showing up. There was no way they would think of doing deductibles, because you would have to hire 1k accountants and clerks just to figure that out a that time. Also, due to FDR's wage controls, Kaiser thought that "free health care" would get him more and better workers, because he could only pay them the fixed wage. So, it made sense as a SHORT TERM solution. 3 things about that group of insured people that simply cannot be said about insuring everyone today: they did manual labor 8 hours minimum a day = exercise, and, they all had a job = each worker brought in income to the company, and, each worker was relatively young and healthy = see manual labor. It doesn't take an actuary to figure out that covering that risk group is going to be a hell of lot cheaper than covering the entire population of the US. But I am sure there's something specious here...

I have and I am, in fact it's part of my job to do it. This plan is blatantly stupid, both in general and in detail. It ignores the major problems, creates new ones we don't need, and fails to attack most of the Obama talking points properly or at all. I can do this in one sentence: This plan is based on the false premise that people shouldn't need to pay more, if they use more, health care, or be accountable for their own behavior, both financially and physically/how they treat their bodies. Assume your body = your house. If you throw knock down, drag out parties at your house every day, and stuff gets broken and the place gets dirty, is it my job to pay for your repairs and cleaning? No, it's your job. Another sentence: This plan does not go after each problem area and in fact ignores a lot of the most egregious issues that cost the MOST money = no viable plan for sustained benefits, no tort reform, no regulation reform, no REAL cost reform, and the creation of another massive government agency. Medicaid spent $400 million on "anti-fraud activity" last year. They did such a good job that there was $38 BILLION in fraud. The size of Obamacare will dwarf Medicaid, but I am sure there won't be any fraud, and I'm sure they won't spend another 2 billion on trying to stop it. Yeah, so we spend huge money on a losing play....it's the "war on drugs" all over again. How in the hell is the "pass healthcare immediately" directive from Obama an example of discussion, or analysis? What holes do you see getting poked in something that, once again, Obama is urging Congress to pass without reading it first? Perhaps you are the one who is watching too much American Idol? Perhaps it's best if you continue doing that instead of voting next time, because clearly you aren't putting very much effort into that, or your posts here either Bingo. What this boils down to is: where are the consequences for bad behavior? Answer: there aren't any. When a hardworking single mother who works 3 jobs for minimum wage gets the same health care that a selfish, crack whore mother does, something is clearly wrong with the plan. But none of this is the real issue! Everything you are hearing from both sides is nonsense. Utter nonsense. The fact is: you cannot control costs....which is Obama's supposed premise for this whole thing....unless you: CONTROL COSTS! I can go into extreme detail in each "circle and box and arrow" where costs are created and not controlled. Ask me anything.

How in the hell is the current "speed un-read legislation through Congress spending 2 trillion dollars" an example of the free market rectifying itself? How does the free market rectify itself in the face of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's racially motivated tinkering with the mortgage market? Or, a better question: how is the de facto wage controls that are put upon illegal workers compared to legal workers an example of the free market rectifying itself? As long as these wage controls are in place, there's no hope of the free market rectifying itself: the cheaper worker will always be hired. The only rational ways to have the market work is to remove the wage control = stop the flow of illegal workers/remove the illegal workers, or, stop the hiring/start the firing of illegals, or go at it from the other side: remove the minimum wage. You can't force companies to pay illegals the minimum wage, payroll taxes, etc., because doing so makes them incriminate themselves. So what else is left? One of these things is not like the other: everything but removing the minimum wage has been been tried and has failed, miserably. Removing the minimum wage is a radical step to be sure, but that is the only VIABLE way of removing the illegals wage control, because it removes the motivation to hire the illegal worker, and it, unlike the giant waste of money at the borders, actually has a chance of working. The race thing: I will never forget the 4 times I have discussed Affirmative Action with formerly under-privileged minority people. In each case, to my continued surprise, they were against it. Specifically because they believed that it created doubts about their abilities in my mind. In each case, I told them that they don't get to decide what goes on in my mind, I do...right or wrong In each case, they responded that while I may control my own thoughts, and, that my words and actions gave them no cause to support their fears, it didn't mean that I still didn't think it. While these were all very strong people both in skill and character, they still felt insecure. Ultimately, they all said that removing Affirmative entirely was the only way to remove the problem. I am more inclined to listen to people who have actually experienced the policy for themselves, lived it, dealt with the consequences, and then made themselves into something good, than I am to listen to people who are still trying to play the "victim" or their white enablers. These same white enablers who are clearly just using minorities for votes, blaming everyone else but themselves when their policies cause far more problems than they solve, and then trying to call me a racist for pointing out their utter failures, are lower than whale schit in the ocean.

Does it matter to anyone that there are a number of false comparisons/ignored major changes here? Last year's apples aren't this year's oranges: Apple: C Fowler/Preston vs. Orange: Hangartner There's no way to tell whether Hangartner will be great. But we KNOW that Fowler was horrible and that Preston is a backup at best. In all cases, Hangartner will stop the C position from being the absolute liability that it was last year = there's no place to go but up. With the removal of the massive need for help going inside, that leaves more help going outside, by definition. Apple: TE Royal vs. Orange: Fine/Schouman/Nelson Royal is gone because Royal is a "show up every 4th game" player. I don't think anyone here would dispute that fact. In fact, we still don't have a confirmed TE threat. But, I almost guarantee one of the 3 replacements will fill that role. As such, the pressure on the LT and RT to contain an end rusher for the full time it takes for WR routs to develop will almost certainly diminish somewhat. Certainly it won't be every play, but they won't be able to ignore the TE like they have. And, more importantly Trent won't have a need to ignore the TE either. You can also make the same argument for the RBs catching the ball....screen plays, and HB draw plays, etc. Apple: Opposing D vs Orange: Opposing D I welcome opposing defenses trying to attack our offense from the edges = less people up the middle and we have Lynch/Jackson, TO/Evans, TEs that can play, and Josh F'ing Reed( and Steve "Steal" Johnson). None of those players are afraid to make catches in the middle of the field. Last year, they could stack the box, AND, were able to single cover the non-Lee Evans WR. This year, Trent steps up in the pocket and TO catches 3 TDs a game if they do that. More importantly rushing from the edges and leaving the middle of the field open, especially if there a LBs in there = 5-7 yard pass plays in the middle of the field. If we are in the hurry up, that, also by definition, reduces the effectiveness of a speed rusher after the 4th or 5th play. Finally, we are certain to do a lot more 3 WR sets, which in turn means a lot more rushing 4 and dropping back into coverage. When you consider the fact that every opponent knows that our RBs and TEs can catch the ball, that means 5 receivers on the field, I doubt they will just leave a guy open. That means 5-6 blockers against 4 DL. The only way they can blitz is if they drop DL into coverage, and I will take a DL or OLB trying to cover our skill positions players every day of the week. There are other aspects, but I think the general point has been made. There's no way you can compare last year's line to this year's in what amounts to a vacuum, although I am sure there are always those that will try.

Some time, when I get time, I am going to complete a full statistical criticism of KC Joyner's work. I have had it up to here with people taking his so-called "analysis" seriously. Specific to the POA nonsense: he treats all blocks the same regardless of which side the ball the running back attacks. As if D lineman, LBs, and Safeties are these automatons, that, once realizing the ball isn't headed towards them, will continue to engage the guy in front of them, video game style. Really? According to dipshizz, they will not run away from their blocker and run to where the ball is actually going. Thus that blocker gets an easy "+1" in this POA nonsense as his guy runs away from him and towards the ball. This "+1" now counts the same as the guy's who successfully blocked his guy on the side where the ball actually went. Stupidity. There are significant errors in everything that guy does. He completely ignores critical factors, or, doesn't weigh them properly, or, pretends that variables are constants and vice versa. He creates relationships in data that are either flawed, or, based on skewed data, or, his method for collecting his raw data is flawed to begin with. He rarely standardizes his data or his comparisons and he sure as hell doesn't take into account deviation. An outlier is a foreign concept to this guy. Just as foreign as his work is to anyone who has passed a basic college stats course. Argue with me about anything and I will listen: except when you start using KC Joyner's work as a premise, or try to tell me that socialism is a feasible economic policy for this country. Both are equally ludicrous.

Because.

I agree with the "not show the replay" thing. I hate it when they do "gamebreaks" on important plays and don't show replays. Or, when the do some dopey, sanctimonious BS instead of talking football. We want to watch the game, not some "feel good story". I will watch Lifetime if I want to see syrupy crap. And yeah, you have an hour of commercials minimum each game, there CBS, I think you can tell me about another crappy reality show in that time, and not during the game.

Hey Tim: What guarantees can you make on behalf of your company the we won't see a reprise of Joe Theisman's god-awful "Bruschi" love fest, only this time it's Brady's name that is said over 350 times, during the broadcast of Bills v Pats? I suppose I wouldn't write with such contempt, if I, and the rest of the country, weren't treated to an equal amount of it from your network the last time around. Unlike most, I don't really blame Theisman for having oral Brushci diarrhea. Theisman isn't that smart, and he certainly wasn't behind the "we've got to sell the Bruchi story" lame marketing play. No. Clearly Thiesman was given orders by the producers to play up the "Return of Bruschi". This smacks of some tool overproducing and reaching for ratings: trying to make a guy who simply comes back from injury into a "hero" by exaggerating his every act, to include how he stands, the expressions on his face, etc. into game changing and winning "achievements". To be fair, clearly Theisman, in his dopey fashion, overdid it on his execution of the plan. But that doesn't change the fact that the plan came from some ESPN producer. What else explains Joe's sudden love for a LB? Especially after some 50 straight SNF games when he clearly only wanted to talk about the QBs? Hint: if something is truly significant, it only needs to be said once. Repeating yourself = sales tactic. Why do I need to be sold on Tom Brady coming back form injury? I think I got it: it's important to the league this year. Besides, during the game, I am already watching the game = the deal is closed. Annoy me, and if I am a Steelers fan, I find something else to do. So again, I ask you: what is ESPN corporate doing to make sure we don't end up with yet another idiot producer for the Bills vs. Pats game who is more interested in "the story" than the game? And don't tell me Tom Brady is a big story. So is TO(or have you missed the last 3 years of SportsCenter?) So is TO being on the Bills. Or, are we doomed to be spammed with the "gerbil on treadmill" machinations of the marketing "brains" at ESPN yet again? Said machinations being predicated on the fact that we are all idiots and that we will lap up their lame nonsense. Newsflash: we, and the rest of the country, just want to see the game. I was in Philly for the last time around. And let me tell you, Bruschi-festTM was treated with as much contempt there as I have used in this post. The entire country was laughing at your company the next day, on every blog, radio show, and column. Thanks for your answer, and this is not directed at you, just your company.

Not anymore. I am in.

These Jauron-speak parodies are hysterical. Great work fellas Further suggestions: Dick Jaruon discussing Obama. Dick Jauron on picking a toothbrush. Dick Jauron explaining why he decided to hand carry his groceries to the car instead of choosing paper or plastic.

Here, watch this: (not a rick roll)

See what happens when there aren't any terrible Football365 articles to piss and moan about? Hate to say I told you so, but...

Yahtzee! I have a better one: wait until the "abortionists", or whatever they are called, and their patients find out that their good buddy Obama thinks "fixing heath care" = making sure that every health care provider in the country needs to share every piece of data about them, including if they had an abortion and how many. I'm sure that is going to go over great if you are an "abortionist-supporter"(whatever, this is ridiculous term) that gets treated in a clinic in West Texas or in the middle of Alabama. The funny part is that: 1. none of it fixes a damn thing(nurses and docs don't use computers because they hate the software, not because they are missing the data) 2. all of it costs too much with no real ROI. There are much better solutions that achieve the intended results 3. it will end up pissing off Obama's own people, and they will have no one to blame but themselves 4. this is a pandora's box once opened there are 1000's of hair-splitting scenarios and you can't write a law for each, although I am sure the idiots will try = look at HL7 after all The real reason they want it of course is so they government can exert further "control over standards and costs"(read: clueless PhD, government worker/grant types trying to do my job), but without the knowledge or the experience to do either.

On this board, this question is like asking: Are you cool? 1. yes 2. no Of course we see that there's still about 25-30% of people who are willing to say: No, I am Not! And I take comfort in that. Personally, I think all drugs should be legal immediately, regulated and taxed. We'd pay off half the national debt with the tax on coke alone. Or did you think that most of the billions of $$ spent on powder is done by teenagers and college kids who have zero money? Not to mention that we apparently learned nothing, NOTHING from Prohibition and the rise it gave to corruption/murder/the mafia/corrupt labor unions, everything you don't want. It's all bad, and arguing against legalization is tilting against the ultimate windmill. As far as the Bills go, it's risk and reward. I think it's stupid crazy risk for little reward. I think if you are willing to take stupid crazy risk for little reward, you deserve what you get, but that somebody should sit you down and make sure you see the reality of the situation.

Which is all GREAT!....if you aren't a lazy person who really isn't good at much. If you are, then you get to live your life in this town saying things like "well, I did [insert whatever underachievement here], which is pretty good for Buffalo[or Insert any Upstate City/Town Name here]". I have found that many here and elsewhere have embraced the fact that if you can do the bare minimum here it's ok because it's "good enough". Basically the bar is so low that doing anything at all means at least you are doing something, however poorly. It boils down to this: "The Bills suck, everything sucks, (keep it going), that flower sucks." With all this sucking going on how does anyone expect me to do anything more than suck too? At least I did [whatever], which is mediocre...not sucky". This is why they need the negativity to continue. If you are a lame-ass lowlife who would rather have the state provide for his existence rather than do it yourself, you need as much negativity as you can get. This lowers other people's expectations of you as low as they possibly can get, thereby "proving" that other people should do things for you, rather than doing them for yourself. They need as much negativity as they possibly can get, and they dread the day when everything isn't "stacked against them" because that's the day they will have to actually put out and perform. The worst thing that could happen to most of these people is a massive tax and spending cut in this state and a sudden, vibrant economy. They wouldn't be able to compete and all their excuses would be gone. But the Bills might still suck...maybe they can sue for emotional distress.

As if we needed further confirmation that this guy is a troll... HEY D-BAG! Name one Bills player that isn't a recently accquired free agent you saw on ESPN! Name one player that was drafted in 2007! All you seem to know are the recently accquired free agents. Are you telling me that's just a coincidence?

Careful, you are coming dangerously close to exposing the truth about the famous, or infamous, "negativity in Buffalo". Something that is true, but not "the truth": Most people know, deep down, that having a positive view and exerting the energy necessary(although it has been proven that it takes less energy to be nice/positive) to go out of your way to be put the positive/success/nice out to the the universe works for them as well. Fundamentally though, increased success raises the bar....hint....hint....hint....

Conner this is just getting sad my man. Boolean operators? Like in this example? var conner = "douche" if (conner&&conner=="douche") { alert ("Conner is a "+conner); }

No, only servile drones who aren't capable of reason or common sense are allowed to say anything...because we are ruining the planet and we don't know what's best for us. We don't love "the change", we don't know "the change", therefore we aren't allowed to pray to the "the change" without conner drones to intercede on our behalf.

Yeah, up goes the white flag. And look: Name-CallingTM. The mark of the completely defeated dumbass far-lefty. For the last time: I am not holding him to any standard. He said he was going to do that himself. I am simply setting my expectations based on Obama's own words. He is supposed to be changing things, not going out of his way to keep them the same, based on HIS OWN STANDARD which he campaigned on. Go ahead and deny that, contribute to the dumbass trend people have noticed about your posts lately.