OCinBuffalo

"Win the Internet" nominee.

Reading through this thread, it's hilarious how many of the hard line Stewart fanbois chickened out once this thread got moved to PPP. Apparently they can't hack it here. Same old story: they pirate a thread with leftist idiocy, then run to the mods when somebody comes back at them. The "everything is a nail" solution == thread goes to PPP, and you never hear from them again. Chickenshits. Isn't this the 2nd time in as many weeks this has happened? Hey mods, perhaps it's time to let us settle things when somebody crosses the line in a non-PPP thread. I assure you: we'd save you time and trouble.

If McCain has a militia that we are supposed to care about, what does Obama have? Who exactly were the idiots, both in the Senate and here on this board, that told us "The Surge" in Iraq was never going to work? Hint: Obama is on the list. Who is the idiot that then chose to retreat from the ground gained by "The Surge", that did work, after running around and telling everybody the war was won because it was over, as if those 2 are the same things. I'll answer the question: if McCain has a militia, then, Obama has 4 Army Groups, one each in Lybia, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. And coming soon: a nuclear-capable Iran. Yeah, McCain is the FAIL focal point here, not Obama.

And once again, anybody who is compelled to say this same thing, this many times? Well, the rest of us know why. If there was any force to the argument once, perhaps 2 times, since you are replying to gator, is enough. But it isn't, is it? Your number, years, I've had.

Talk about garbage math. I imagine that since there were more Rs in 1928, more of them died off then as well. Let's let the objective political scientists, and not the wishful "political writers" have a go, shall we? The GOP Is the Strongest It's Been in Decades And of course there's the "demographic argument" which, once again has been debunked by the link above: Add that to this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-2016s-millennial-whisperer-predictions-presidential-race/story?id=30963287(video plays so turn volume down if at work) And you not only have the dubunking of the demographic myth, but also of the millenial myth. Gen Y and Millenials are not as liberal as is needed. What do I mean by "is needed"? Simple: they are not liberal enough and won't swing things enough to turn around the massive losses liberals have taken in the white vote, which btw still represented 72% of the electorate in 2012. And, with no "Hey! Vote for the black guy candidate, then self-congratulate for personally ending racism!" D candidate running in 2016, that 72 is probably gonna be more like 75%. Both the OP and the writer of his link are delusional. Hell, it's been suggested by many pollsters that given the polling right now? Hillary has no chance of winning the general. Not with her fundamentals, not with her negatives, not with the low turnout, and not with the shifts in attitudes. And, for historical perspective: look at the overall trend in the graph since 1964(extra credit if you know what else happened that year). There's an undeniable upward mean. Yes, there are low points, but, each is higher than the last, and each is followed by skyrocketing R strength index gains. Hmm. What do 1976, 1992 and 2008 have in common? Answer for unmitigated morons: the nation was subjected to the first 2 years of a D president's wingnut agenda. Nothing like a first term of a D to turn people into Rs, generationally, such that one generation dying off is made irrelevant by the next that's been created. The awfulness of 1964-->today is the best creator of Rs known to man.

It is real. It just happened. Sounds like I need to take you to the firing range and show you what a full auto AK(what those 2 guys had in TX) can do. Then, you can run around on the range, and I will shoot near you, but miss on purpose...you know, because only the irrational would fear that. Don't dodge: you said "irrational". Irrational implies that there is a mental illness or defect in a person who fears a terrorist attack. Hence: Dog Whistle, and again, GTFO of here with that. That's flat wrong. Unlike claustrophobia, where the walls seem to be closing in. Terrorism is. It does not seem to be. I fear insetting into a car accident, because the type and timing of the driving I do + the fact that its always in a rental says, the math is not in my favor. That hasn't stopped me from becoming a super duper member at most rental places...but it also means I tune up my awareness in rental cars. Am I being irrational? No. Car accidents are real. So is the math against me. I simply have respect for the albeit small added danger, and I act accordingly. IF you want to say "overly fearful" or overcompensating, or overreacting or over whatever....that's fine. But you cannot have an irrational fear of the empirical. And, if it was you expressing your 1st amendment rights at the cartoon rally, and you consider how close you came to becoming Swiss cheese a few days later? I assure you that's very real, and so are the nightmares. It's the same old story: A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged...yet. You want to talk about chances? My chances of getting mugged in NYC plummeted when Guliani took over. But does that mean I can now flash a lot of cash in a bar there, especially late night, without a care, and anyone telling me not to is irrational?

Explain how, when we just had a terrorist attack on US soil, it's irrational to fear them. Fear of heights is irrational. Anxiety is irrational. Fear of a very real, and very irrational enemy who just tried and failed to attack us, and who has sometimes succeeded, cannot be defined as irrational. Or, do you really think that Ft. Hood was merely "workplace violence"? No. There is no "irrational fear of terrorist attacks on US soil". That's a F'ing dog whistle. Get it the F out of here.

Total Jackass. There is no "or what"...for the intellectually honest. Ds should be saying this more than anyone, because his "strategy" of protecting Obama at all costs, by not voting on anything...cost them their majorities in Congress, and left Obamacare as an unmitigated political disaster that will take a decade to live down. His strategy also cost the Ds their bench. They have no depth going forward. All the electable Ds at both the Federal and state levels, are out of job today(edit: except for VAs gov), leaving only the wingnuts from the wingnut precincts to advance by default. That means that 5 years from now "crazier than Howard Dean, and 3x as likely to scream incoherently" is going to be the candidate. And finally, Reid has done more damage to leftist ideology than Reagan. By not voting to fix anything, and leaving one abject failure after the next(anybody remember "Cash for Clunkers" that FAIL seems like ages ago, since we've had so many) to fester and rot, the entire leftist ethos has been exposed to voters as a failure, BS, or both. I doubt "activist government" and "progressive policies" will ever truly recover from Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. They have gone from, in 2006, leading on every issue and controlling the national conversation, to laughing stocks that are inseparable from D politics. If I was a D, I'd be wishing Reid had been voted out in 2010, as was predicted. That's why the hero of this story is Sharon Angle. If it wasn't for that wing nut co-opting the TEA party in NV, Harry Reid would have lost in 2010 to any reasonable R candidate with a pulse. He never would have been able to implement his "strategy". Instead, she got the early TEA party to support her, and then proceeded to sell crazy, including Scientology, all over the state. It's literally one idiot, leading to another idiot, leading to awesome for the rest of us. Harry Reid has done more long term, structural damage to his far left wing of the D party than anyone ever has.

No. I said it above, and apparently I need to reiterate it for a consultant, of all people. You have not hit the wall, never mind the target, never mind the mark. If you are a consultant your listening/reading skills should be impeccable. And, you've had plenty of time to use those skills to properly discern what PPP actually is. So either you're lying, or, your skills suck, or, they actually exist and are fine, but only suck when you come here, which means they still suck, because a rich consultant shouldn't be thrown off his game by message board marauders, no matter their quality. A rich engineering consultant should be doing the marauding, if anything. I'm not about to tell a supposed consultant the answer. Answers are what my profession gets paid to provide. Those of us who are elite get paid for providing questions as well. I will tell you why you are wrong. I've been here for 10 years now, and there's no way in hell PPP is about not wanting people to join conversations. That is the opposite of right. How the F would we make fun of gatorman...or whoever the next village idiot turns out to be, if they didn't join the conversation? Yeah, dumbass. Didn't think that one through, did you? Most of us have been luring posters here, for us to poop on, for years. It's also not about...literally...saying you do want a conversation and then saying you don't, or whatever nonsense is coming from your addled brain. Saying that is actually about something else, that you don't know, because you suck at this. (You want to tell people you're an engineer, fine, but don't tell them you're a consultant. I don't want you sullying my profession with your poor skills.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5YIJ1pZEBc We always thought Hillary was Bill's Yoko Ono. Now it seems Hillary was also Yoko Ono's Yoko Ono.

Oh man so am I. The only weak debater amongst the GOP field is: I don't know. It doesn't matter who wins, all of them will tear her up. The real danger is not Hillary, it's the R political consultants who tell the R nominee to nerf his/her remarks for the "optics", i.e. "don't want to be seen as verbally berating a woman". F that. You now how no matter what the 1st question in a debate is, they never answer it without doing their own thing first? I advise the R candidate to start with: "I'm gonig to warn all of you right now that I am going to be very tough on my opponent. I am not a sexist, and therefore it would be wrong of me to take it easy on her because she is a woman. Since she hasn't done any explaining to the press, she's going to have to do some here, and that is going to be the theme tonight". Wham, and go right into attack mode. It's the Reagan age/experince thing, just inverted. I'd go right after it in debate 1, sentence 2, right after the usual "I want to thank everyone" crap.

Hey dude, let me make it as clear as I can for you: that is not the nature of PPP. Not even close. You've been around here long enough to know that, therefore you have no excuse. Again, I will repeat DC_Tom's question: "What kind of engineer are you, sanitation?" gator, you might as well re-sign yourself to the fact that you are never, ever going to understand what I do and why. Whatever. You're a walking contradiction: there's barely a thread where you don't post this same thing. I get doing it for say, what, 10 threads? But we are looking at 50 at least now, and over a period of months. What is this, your "Obama Plan"? == keep saying the same thing over and over, realize its not working, then rinse and repeat? Are you having a "messaging problem"? Yeah, if you were right, and if anybody cared, you wouldn't keep posting this. There would be no need. Yet here we are again. I've had your # for years, and here is more confirmation.

Most of the state exchanges will either fail, or be bailed out by their states. This was inevitable, and I have said so from day 1. We are hitting the point where the Federal "start-up" funding, otherwise known as the "bait and swtich" $, is going to be turned off. Obamcare, in theory, planned for the risk pools in the states being big enough that not only would they be bringing in a huge amount of revenue, they would also be keeping the cost down(this 2nd part, as I have explained exhaustively, never had a chance of being true, and relies on magical thinking). Obamacare, in practice, fails because it is too expensive for everybody, provides and charges for unnecessary services, and looks like a ripoff, because it is...except for the people who are getting it for free, whether that is via Medicaid expansion or not. Because it is a ripoff, the young and healthy aren't signing up, or aren't paying their premiums, at anywhere near the rate required to give away free health care to the older and/or sick. QED the failiure of the state exchanges was inevitable. Hawaii is shutting down now because it's the only thing they can do. They can't continue, they have to transition now, before the Fed $ is gone, and their entire state wakes up the same day with no health insurance. The unrest in Baltimore is nothing compared to an entire state losing medical coverage. All of this is happening because, I remind you, Obama and the Ds allowed lobbyists, lawyers, and a doctor, none of whom have insurance, or enterprise system design experience, design an enterprise system. WTF did you think was going to happen? Not one of these "designers" is familiar with this material. Meanwhile, because I am now an expert in this material, I will contine to say: sell catastrophic nationally, over state lines, and let Wal Mart sell it. Then use HSAs for day to day. This solution is like gravity: eventually it will be "discovered", then, some will wonder why it took so long to figure out, then, it will be take for granted and nobody will care.

First of all, what the hell is going on here?

And whose fault is that? I can't remember the thread, poster, or what the point was: but I do remember a poster saying he attended a lecture where an extreme feminist said that the only "fair" male/female sexual relationship includes "pegging". The extreme response to that is all anybody remembers. 80% of the posters here had never heard of it, and once they did, the rest of her message was DOA. The only rational response to an extreme point of view is either the counter-extreme, or, to attack that person personally for being a wingnut. I mean, where is the compromise/collaborate here? Does this: "OK, to be "fair", I guess I go along with pegging on Fri and Sat. This way I'll be able to sit at my desk on Monday" make any sense? (Btw can I be the one to let your wife know that your back door is open for business?) No. Feminist has been synonymous with extremist for my entire life. If stops it being discussed from the extremes, ever? It starts with the extremists being booted out of feminist movement. However, since these people make a living doing this, and raising a lot of $? And, since they hold political power by scaring the left, and especially left-leaning women, because of the $ they wield? Not gonna happen. The same far-left hags of ambiguous sexuality, because they mostly attract each other, who howl about corporate $, demand and get $ to trade influence no different than the corporations they accuse. Feminist extremism is a business model, no different than Al Sharpton's business model, or more recently the gay business model. Yep. Learned behavior is a very powerful influence. If you see dad get up and go to work every day, that's influence. If you see him sitting on the stoop, already working on his first beer? Or, if you don't see dad at all? Or, worst of all when you finally realize that mom cares more about the high than you, and that's why she wants the child support and the government "free $"? This is why I want parental rewards, not punishment. Hell if we can have hotel points and airline miles, we sure as hell can have parenting points. Hotel points are merely an exercise in learned behavior. I mean, why couldn't the government literally co-opt the various loyalty systems already in place? Award contracts to the 3 highest bidders amongst hotels, cards, airlines, etc. and hand out points for things like "little johnny went 1 month no behavior problems" or, "he came to prepared to learn for 30 days".

Now, before any of you even think about killing the messenger, understand that this is an article in the H_uffington P_ost( _ used to deny them Google cred), and is written by a Havard history professor. The one thing that's nice about history professors? They know how to keep a history. Unfortunately for Krugman, this guy has been up to standard on keeping his shameful(or is it shameless?) history. I don't think I've ever seen this many reference links in a single post. Enjoy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/the-rise-and-fall-of-krugmania-in-the-uk_b_7257236.html?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000090 Once again, I do not agree that all Keynesian policies are bad all the time. I look at economics as a tool box(the same way I look at software). All the tools have a specific purpose and can all be useful. However, as partisan hacks, whose real agenda is patronage(paying off their constituencies with jobs/$), Obama/Krugman treat the Keynesian tools as a Super Swiss Army Knife, capable of solving all problems at all times. Put simply, if your answer to both economic booms and recessions, and everything in between is always: "borrow more and spend more" no matter what? You're not an economist, and you're not even an intellectual. How can the solution to both extreme ends of possible economic conditions always be the exact same approach? That is the opposite of critical thinking. But, it can be your "economic" policy, if you care less about results, and the good of the country overall, and more about paying off your constituencies. Or, in Obama's case, by maintaining the illusion that Krugman is yet another "expert"(aka scientist)? All Obama is doing is "listening to the experts". Therefore, anyone who points out their failure is "anti-science". Surely even the dumbest among you can see they why, what, when...and then how...at work here.

1. Don't forget the other side of the argument: there are just as many dead beat moms. These moms not only get pregnant themselves, as way to entrap men into paying them $ for 18 years, they also encourage their daughters to get pregnant as teens. As I've said numerous times: LBJs "great society" == a business model. For women, who don't want to work, or, rightly, have a man around beating them/telling them what to do, or, wrongly, enforcing discipline in the household, it's a way to get by. Millions of men can tell you the story about the women they've met looking to get knocked up on purpose, who have 0 interest in family, and expect the dad to do nothing other than write the checks. So, I ask you: do you really think this is solely about "true dad's" stepping up, or do we need to stop pretending that every single mother is a victim? Caveat: Understand, I work in health care, so I am surrounded by women( ), and many of them are single moms. But, they are the first to point out, unsolicited, who is playing the LBJ game and who isn't. 2. Teachers and principals are often left to fill the roles of both dad and mom. That's not their job. However, supposedly "objective" methodologies like Common Core do not have adjustments for "kid comes to school with bed bugs", or, "kid comes to school without change of clothes or having bathed in 3 weeks", or, "kid purposely acts up in late spring, and fails on purpose, because summer school == 2 square meals a day". Once again: the "free" this and "free" that? Even an 8 year old can learn how to manipulate the system, when the alternative is starvation. That's why I will say it again: instead of an "earned income tax credit" we need a "child debit", for both parents who are below income X. For every child you have, you start out each year with $X. For each instance of "being unprepared to learn" or cirminal behavior, both parents lose $. This means child support goes into escrow, and can be fined by the school district for every instance of bad parenting. If we do that, somehow I feel the bad dads and moms will amazingly be much more attuned to their responsibilities.

Yes I'm being arrogant and quoting myself. However, has anyone bothered to look at RCP's front page, and compare the # of headlines about the protests vs. the headlines about Hillary Cash? Sorry folks, you can bus in all the assclowns you want but nobody cares. Meanwhile the Clinton Cash stories are only suprassed by Deflate Gate. Tom Brady and Hillary Clinton are competing for who is the biggest liar. As a Bills fan, how can anyone but PastaJoe be displeased with current events? Or, can anyone list for us what Hillary did for WNY?

Mozilla is hardly a source of rational thought after they fired the guy who invented javascript because of his gay marriage opinion. IT is IT. I've worked with convicted felons, and I've been around people who should be, for no other reason than they can do the job. The hilarious part is: if you were able to obtain a criminal history of everyone at Mozilla, or, especially, their contractors, you'd be LYAO at them trying to speak seriously about national security. It's just more Valley hypocrisy. These people will spend all weekend doing heroin, but then come back and give $/speeches about the need for urban opportunity. They literally create the underground economy, which has empirically destroyed urban areas, by buying the coke and heroin(that nobody else can afford btw), and then refuse to admit that they are the #1 source of demand, and thus, the #1 source of drug crime. Now we're supposed to listen to them about this? As I said above: all they care about is forcing the government into their business model, rather than being at the government's beck and call. Neither situation is acceptable for the true privacy advocate.

Neither did Dan Rather. As I have stated repeatedly, we are living the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times". Or, how's your Weiner doing? Yes, there are a lot of detriments to the Internet, like the very real possibility that I've seen some poster's daughter's naked selfies, or, that it's just a matter of time until I do. However, we must counter-balance your rage and frustration at your daughter's lack of shame(and weird nipples she got from you)...against the much larger prospect that our leadership is being forced into transparency. Please consider the big picture. Poster's daughters showing us their warez is nothing compared to us finding out our leaders are being bribed. I mean, in the end somebody is going to see every girl naked no matter what. The best you can hope for is it's only 1 person. Realistically? We're talking 20. Meanwhile the Internet exposing Dan Rather and the Clintons is infinitely more important. Trust me, nobody's going to remember you daughter. The best: Hillary Clintons private email server? That's such a 90's way of solving that problem. It reminds me of the SAP/PeopleSoft/Microsoft mentality of that time, and certainly the "Big 6" mentality I served = "control it all"/"be everything to everyone". (Note: my entire existence has been to rebel against this mentality ever since then. Linux, bitches.) And it fails for the same reason: no matter how much you control, you always have to integrate(communicate) with somebody outside the "system". Those emails haven't been destroyed. Who cares if Hillary's server had a "catastrophic event", all the servers she communicated with are still running.

I appreciate the sentiment. But, that's all it is. Buddy, we've been doing this intellectually for years. I'm not saying you can't play with the rest of us. I don't know you, perhaps you can. What I am saying is that it took us a lot of hard, "math and science", work to get this topic from the political hand job it was on this board, to the intellectual discussion it must be. As soon as the clowns decided to go full retard on this, by invoking the Holocaust with the term "denier"? Crushing that became a moral, never mind intellctual, imperative for us. True science doesn't require canards. Nor does it require political support. The facts that weed is illegal, and that Tesla got screwed, validate that point beyond contestation == if the antagonists in either of these histories, Hurst and Edison respectively, were in the right, they wouldn't have behaved as they did. What we are seeing here is a new form of Hurst and Edison bad behavior. It must be stopped, and we can: we have the Internet. What if Tesla had Internet access?

Um, show me the current government policy/program, besides gay marriage, on which this premise is predicated.

I am sorry Howard, but I already don't like you: this is very weak first thread. You're going to have to do a lot better than this going foward. We have a very high standards for threads. For example, we don't allow logic-free threads, like: 1. "Did we talk ourselves out of UDFAs" 2. "Did Kelly's ovation make up for not having a 1st" 3. "The Jets are better than the Bills...because Pete Prisco said so" around here. Being serious(which is rare for me): welcome to the board. I like to hear about the entire history of the Bills, because it gives us a better perspective. As you can see with the threads above, we could use some help with perspective.

Apparently some have forgotten how terrible we were in the Red Zone last year, and the lack of TDs in general. Rex sees that, and says he wants a guy with Red Zone scoring ability as a RB, who scores a lot of TDs. QED Karlos Williams. This pick is easy to understand.

You do realize that this is the basic premise for the entire pharmaceutical industry, right? It's ironic that you'd post this in an effort to disparage weed. Oh come on. You guys spend pages and pages crying about getting trolled by long posts, and as soon as it stops, you ask "where did he go"?