OCinBuffalo

Funny. I should try an experiment. The reason I write long posts, when I'm not trolling(like I said I was in one of these threads ), is because I expect excuses/obfuscations/stupid arguments/tangents/subject changes/arguments to extreme....etc., all in an effort by the usual lames to try and avoid their fate. This is the behavior here. Mostly I write long posts, for the same reason long contracts/scope documents are needed: the other side is dishonest, and will say anything, so you have to build a wall of paper around them. My average long post is not redundant. You just aren't paying attention: I'm anticipating and covering the inevitable dodges, ahead of time, one at a time. So my experiment is: I write no more than 2 sentence replies for a while. But.....I also maintain google docs of what I would have wrote normally. Then, rather than 1 long post, see if we get 3 pages of short posts, each dealing with the specific dodge/excuse/etc, all to end up...in the same exact place. I will post the link of the google doc at the same time I post my first 2 sentence post. I fully expect my experiment to prove that a single long post is ultimately more efficient than 3 pages of prattle/obfuscation/dodge containment. But, you never know. There could be...unexpected results.

In the last 4 years, the left has given us: 1. Lois Lerner 2. FBI agents ransacking a business without a warrant and without any process whatsoever 3. A DC reporter being put on the terrorist watch list, and havin both his and his parent's phones tapped. 4. Need I go on? Really?! Only an unmitigated moron pretends these attacks on PERSONAL privacy...for no other reason than political gain...are the same as trying to protect the country that just got hit on 9/11. Was Afghanistan a war of choice? Then why the F is "wars" plural? That's a F'ing dog whistle, so blow it out your ass. Post that crap, and this place will come down on you: ask gatorman. Guantanamo is STILL open. Despite your idiot candidate's promise to close it. Why? Because he can't close it. He/you were completely ignorant of Guantanamo...which is why he made a promise he never, and didn't even know he never, had a chance of keeping. I laughed at him/you/the posters here the day he signed that executive order....and I'm still laughing. Talk about aggressive stupidity. Everyone accused Bush of that. Obama has far surpassed Bush. Say what you will about Bush, at least he acted in what he thought was the country's best interest. Obama acts either in his own best interest, or, in his "weaken America" agenda's best interest.. Or, he and his chief advisor, Valerie Jarrettt, are completely clueless on foreign policy, but instead of being careful....they compensate for their inadequacies with aggressive stupidity, compounding the problem, then demanding that we accept things like their wonderous Yemen adventure...as a "example of success". You're an unmitigated moron if you can't see the difference between Obama and Bush here. Bush was acting out of good fatih. Obama acts out of petulance, after he gets caught/the ass falls out of his acts out of ignorance. As I said before: REFORM. Whoever can convincingly become the Reform Candidate wins. I doubt Hillary can claim to reform....herself, and the rest of her cronies. It's possible. But, far more likely, someone from the RIGHT, WILL lay claim to that mantle, and that is and remains the reason: Real reform on this subject will come from the right. My best guess? It comes from a Rand Paul Vice Presidency, whereby he will be given specific responsibility to reform the NSA, and all the rest of the alphabet soup.

Bolded #1: And that doesn't give you immediate pause? Why the F not? That's ad-hoc law, vigilante justice, whatever. What if some psycho just starts killing people? What if he means to shoot you, and hits me instead? That alone is reasonable cause for the rest of us, who also live in this world, to demand that you reform your religion. You can't have rules like this in civilized society. #2: I know there are Catholic, and Protestant scholars. We have all sorts of Catholic and Protestant schools and Universities. Are there really Muslim scholars? I mean scholars as in: academic rigor, not madrassa horseshit. You can learn calculus at a Catholic high school. Can you learn calculus at a madrassa? How about biology? Madrassas teach that demons cause illness, and that homepathy works. So again, what exactly is a Muslim scholar? We have the Jesuit Priests and their deacons, and Franciscan Friars, and F'ing nuns, who, granted, can act like demons(F'ing ruler to the knuckles)...but they teach calculus, biology, etc., they don't teach about demons. Do Muslims have any Jesuits? #3: Yes, Christianity could be called reformed Judaism. However, no Orthodox Jew I know agrees. Rather: Jesus was an Orthodox Rabbi. They point to his ideas, and many of his actions, especially doing things like throwing the gamblers and whores out of the temple, as unquestionably those of an Orthodox Rabbi. They say the apostles were self-interested propagandists, who took Jesus's Orthodox teachings and turned them into a separate religion for their own purposes. But, they also say that they understand those purposes: the Jewish Rabbis were not only corrupt, they were complicit with the Romans, so Christianity was inevitable. It's an interesting theory, and I've spent hours learning it(no choice). It has a lot of holes. I could torture most of the Protestant South with it, because these Jews have been working on this for 100s of years, and if you say it right, it all sounds very plausible. But, as usual, you'll also notice that the Orthodox Jews don't have a place in this version of events. They are bystanders. Convenient. But, consider: If this is the Orthodox Jew's, or all people's, takeaway on Jesus, and they claim that every single change in the New Testament was something they were doing/going to do anyway...why can't Islam make the same major, sweeping changes? Horsecrap: my post may be lots of things(some of them intentionally galling, especially for other posters, not just you) but one thing it isn't is hypocritical. 1. Mutilation of any kind is barbaric. Period. This is why I call "Purist Islam" a civilization and culture-killer. It retards the growth of any people that live by it literally. Moderate Islam, by definition, means you don't get your hand cut off for stealing, doesn't it? IF so, then there's one line we can easily draw: moderate Islam can be tolerated in a civilized society. Purist Islam cannot be, and won't be...ever. 2. Hypocrisy or history? You're seriously going to tell me that there's no such thing as Sunnis and Shiites now? I call BS on the "never been altered" thing. We can sit in a circle and play "pass the secret". The original message never comes back the same. The same thing is true for any ancient work that has been hand-copied over centuries. The likelihood that no one altered the text approaches 0 the more times it's been hand copied. Why? People are stupid, lazy, prideful, get a new assignment, die, and some are just wiseasses. They could easily have made changes for any of those reasons, and there's no way to prove it either way. Now, as far as the Gospels go? History. Not hypocrisy. The Gospels were held in secret, because keeping them == death by Romans. So, of course some are going to recopied wrong/redundant, incomplete, missing, whatever. The Gospels weren't being protected by an army that was going around conquering people. They were being held by people who very likely were going to be eaten by lions tomorrow. Comparing these two this is merely: ignorance of history. The fact is that Emporer Constantine, many Popes, and King James all got sick of the endless bloodshed, or just mere quibbling, over this passage and that one, and they themselves ordered the Gospels to be edited for clarity, and to reduce redundancy and obvious error. They didn't intend to change the content. However, a strong case is being made that there are certain gospels, especially ones pertaining to Mary Magdelene and women in general, that have been kept out by bad actors. That? I have no idea if its true or not. 3. There are polls that say 25% of all Muslims support the Jihadi movement fully. Now, are they accurate? Who knows. My point: if ONLY 1% of all Muslims are the bad guys? That's 16 million people. 16 million people are not, and never going to be, "a few". So, the tired "a few bad Muslims doesn't mean all are bad" excuse? Retarded. Not when we are talking about 16 million. Or 8 million, or 4 million, or 2 million, or 50,000. We don't have 50,000 of the rest of the world's religion's, combined, bad guys looking to murder innocent people. But, we have at least that number of Muslims, and probably a lot more. 4. I do talk about the Mahdi, for a very specific F'ing reason: Iran, or at least the F'ing nuts in charge, believe that it falls to them to start a world war. And why? So that the Mahdi will reveal himself and lead ALL OF ISLAM....not just the bad guys...to victory over the rest of the world. Iran is trying to build nukes, supports terror all over the world, and is trying to rule the entire ME. Good enough reason to talk about the Mahdi? Look, this can't be that hard to understand: I don't call these people Muslims. THEY call themselves Muslims. I didn't make up the name "The Islamic Brotherhood". THEY did. It doesn't matter what you or I or some panty-twisted apologist calls them: they are Muslims until Islamic clerics unite, and tell them "NO you aren't!". Declare a Fatwah. Do something. They are Muslims right up until the minute they pull the trigger, and then, their entire history of being Muslim is gone? BS. They were a Muslim yesterday, and they are one today, and if they go pray to Allah and visit the Mosque....because no Mullah has the balls to kick them out...tomorrow, after setting off a bomb today? They are STILL Muslims. You know the only way they aren't Muslims? You. You and/or their Mullah. It falls to you to kick them out your faith, publicly and permanently. Period. 5. Much of the killing has been done for nothing, now that Obama has lost both wars, and Yemen, and Syria, and everywhere, by sounding the general retreat...for no reason. Iraq wouldn't be ISIS if we stayed. The entire world smells both ideological far-left weakness, and personal weakness, on Obama, and we live in world of wolves. This weakness? It means a lot more people are going to have to die. Sorry, but that is the lesson from history. Weakness invites war. Weakness give people in Hamas and Hezbollah hope...that they might actually win, instead of giving up on violence == more die. And, often the wrong people have been killed for the wrong reasons. I have written this before: our strategy in Iraq was stupid. We acted like it was WW2. We should have adopted a "castling" strategy. Slow and steady. Damn the press and the Democrats. Getting us a "quick victory", to keep them from bitching was militarily stupid, and therefore, politically stupid. Blitzkrieg to Baghdad did nothing but challenge the authority of every clan/village/chief/elder behind us. So we ended up fighting about that, in addition to fighting terrorists and leftover Bathists. That's where most of the unnecessary casualties came from. We should have respected the local leaders, and asked them what they needed from us, and let them do their jobs: all politics is instantly local when you stop a dictator. Then, you get security, and, everybody gets time to be comfortable, and see it working. The guys in the next village can't wait for you to show up, because they want what the current guys are getting, etc., and they kill the bad guys for you, or at least drive them out, so you will show up. That's the better way, isn't it? But, what's done is done.

"Simply because Islam had to grow"? Says who? That, ladies and gentlemen, is the mentality. "Get out of the way, or die, because this has to grow". The apologists can begin their weeping now. And of course it's: "Simply" Islam is not supposed to be "spread by the sword". IF that's true, then WTF was Muhammed doing with 9 "holy" swords?(and notice that this comes from a site whose stated purpose is to "educate the Ummah". All have names, and one of them is named "Cleaver of Vertebrae". So much for claiming that beheading "isn't Islamic". Google the Battle of Vienna, and ask yourself a question: why is Islam the only religion whose founder required a battle flag? Then ask: why did the Muslim general there sacrifice his entire personal guard to get Mohammed's personal battle flag back after it was captured? What would the world be like today if he had failed? What if that flag was sitting in a Museum in Vienna?(Or, more likely, Warsaw, see: Polish Winged Hussars) Don't blow by those last 2 questions too quickly. The way things turned out is either a great tragedy or a great blessing...or neutral. (But I hate that answer because it's no fun.) Consider: would it's capture have led to endless jihads to reclaim it, millions of lives lost, and a far worse fate for the Muslim world than mere colonization later on? Europe was already on the rise, and many would argue that constant Muslim invasion was the key element in that rise. IF that flag stays in Vienna, after withstanding even more massive and consistent Muslim invasions to take it back, its quite likely Europe, in the 1600s, and certainly in the 1700s, would have annihilated all of Islam completely. Thus, flag saved == tragedy averted. Then Consider: would it's capture have led to a wave of shock for the Muslim world. If they saw it as a call to give up their invasions? Would they have had their own Reformation, and therefore, their own, Renaissance and Enlightenment, rather than completely lose their lead in commerce and technology in only 50 years after the battle? Is it possible that Silicon Valley winds up in Damascus? Thus, flag saved == tragedy. Or, is the best outcome that they got the flag back? See when I hear the words "Islam is the Answer"? I agree, if the question is: "What religion caused the Arabs and Turks to piss away the 700-year head start the Romans and Greeks gave them?" That's why #3 is probably the best answer, because? Full-Blown Islam, like Full-Blown Mormonism, or Gangsta Rap, are all civilization and culture-killers. Humans who follow any to their full extent? They end up dead and/or poor and/or ignorant. Doubt me? Take a look at the entire ME right now and what do mostly see? Dead. Poor. Ignorant. You see the same thing in West/South Chicago, and in rural Utah; except here we hand out food stamps to them, so it's less dead, and more poor and ignorant. And that's the point: you can tell me ISIS aren't "good Muslims". Or, I can tell you they are "full blown Muslims", meaning they follow the Quran far too literally, in everything. But, what we can't tell each other is: they AREN'T Muslims. Well, that's a snapshot statistic, so yeah, there's no point in looking it up, as point-in-time data is usually worthless, unless we are making "today" or "this hour" or "this minute" decisions. Are you aware of what Thailand did to all its people who contracted AIDs? Wanna bet on what Iran does compared to what the US does? How about Saudi Arabia? Male gay sex is the #1 cause of the spread aids. What happens to gay men in Saudi Arabia? Injections are #2. What happens to Heroin addicts in Syria? Speaking of bastards: I was treated to smuggled and uncensored footage of a beheading for the man/gunshot execution for the woman, for adultery, in my 8th grade advanced social studies class. I'll never forget the piece of her brain/skull that splashed back on the shooter, how pissed off he was, and my uncontrollable giggling at him, because "she got him too" in the end. Why our student teacher, who was a Jordanian, btw, thought it was a good idea to show that to 8th graders? I'll never know(I do have a wild guess). I will see those images forever. I wonder if that coward ever forgot the piece of brain that got him? So uh, yeah, I guess that there's one way to handle a pregnancy out of wedlock, and then, there's another. Hell, we'd have no need for all this abortion commotion if we just killed every unwed mother. (This is why I can't take the "War on Women" seriously). I bet that would affect our #s...just a little. You want to measure STDs and unwed pregnancy as if every nation on earth has the same policy, and think we can actually create statistics out of this raw data? Here's my bet: You can't, because: what exactly is your methodology for weighting "bullet to side of head at close range"?

Yeah, you can say that word again. Convenience is the crux of your entire argument. Whenever a Muslim, who was a Muslim yesterday, and for his entire life prior, by all definitions, suddenly does something violent today, he's no longer a Muslim, and now is nothing more than a vicious biker? I mean, literally an hour ago, he's a Muslim, but this hour, because he fires a rifle, throws a grenade, blows himself up, he stops being a Muslim? How? Define that apparatus, and please: show your work. Boy, that's one hell of a transformation in such a short period of time, and what's even more amazing? Your ability to bestow it on anyone, at any time. Convenience indeed. The transubstantiation ain't got nothing on you: body and blood of Christ is just bread and wine. You can change/wipe an entire person's life experience in an instant. There must be some highly funky quantum physics going on here. A 30 year old Muslim, stops being one, and apparently jumps into a new timeline, which erases the last 30 years of his life and replaces them with entirely "not Muslim" experience, and also indemnifies all his future activity as "not Muslim", as soon as he fires his first shot down range, all while he himself swears up and down he's doing it in the name of Islam, and that his is, in fact, a Muslim. He continues to act/speak/think as a Muslim. But, once you've auto-converted him to "not Muslim" status, then he isn't, he has no idea he isn't, has no say in the matter, and that's all there is to it? Again, this argument is a marvel of convenience. But what about if, as he approaches non-Muslimhood and is about to do something for which you will wipe his Muslimhood away, he suddenly changes his mind? I bet that's a tough one. Not so convenient. He was going to be "not Muslim"...but now? He's back to be being 100% Muslim again? This is hilarious stupidity, and you are an unmitigated moron if you can't see the fault in your own logic here. The very notion that "people pick and chose" PROVES that terrorists ARE Muslims, by the very picking and chosing THEY, not you, do = if the guy still prays 5 times today, after blowing up a bomb yesterday? He's still a F'ing Muslim, you nitwit, just like he's been his whole life. Of course it is. And just like at a buffet, some people choose to eat everything, and some don't. The fact that some people choose to eat everything doesn't mean it isn't a buffet. It merely means that they are eating everything. But, every F'er at this religion's buffet...IS part of that religion. We don't get to conveniently pretend that the people who load up on crazy aren't part of the religion. They are eating at the F"ing buffet, and it's THIS buffet, not some other. And once again I will ask you: why was this necessary in the infancy stage os Islam? Every other religion had infancy stages. Buhda got to travel around in style. The Christians got routinely slaughtered in their infancy....but not by other Christians. There is a distinction and a difference. Intellectually, you KNOW why: Islam isn't 100% about coming to God of one's own free will, and it never will be. It will always be, at least in part, about: man's control over other men on earth. That is the defintion of politics, or government, if you like, and not the definition of religion. Laws = acceptable behavior defined + application of force. The apostasy rules make Islam political, period. That makes Islam a problem, because Islam can always be exploited this way, while other religions cannot. IF this was software, we'd wouldn't choose Islam because of these obvious exploit problems. Islam's other problem is that, since it is tainted by politics, separating it from politics is extremely difficult. It's somewhat incompatible with the Western notion of "freedom of religion". This also explains why we see "sharia law here" signs being put up by Muslims in England, and "no Sharia law here" signs being put up too. Islam is political, and always will be. Also, this is hilarious: Please set your watches forward 1400 years Oh, I'm sure there'd be plenty of bastards out there regardless of religion. Bastards have always been around, and they always will be. Hell, back in the middle ages they even had rules in heraldry(coat of arms) for bastards, and that was during the height of the Catholic Church's control over Europe. Heraldry rules mean: plenty of bastards. If the nobles were making rules, just imagine how many bastards the average bar wench was cranking out. STDs? Come on. Obviously you don't know that much about military history. STDs have been a problem before Christianity and Islam ever existed, and probably before Judaism or any other religion, and they still are a problem. The term Hooker comes from a Union general officer legalizing prostitution in DC...so that he could get the hookers checked medically, and regulate them. I seriously doubt that religion in general, existing or not, has had any real effect on premarital sex, adulterous sex, bastards, or STDs. Now, Communism? That's had an efffect, because you can't have sex if you've been murdered, sterlized, or imprisioned by the state. Therefore, I'd argue that Communism has had more effect here than religion. As I've already stated many times, the "a few don't represent all" argument is absolutely stupid when used to defend Islam. We are talking about 1.6 billion people. If ony 1% of the Muslim population is nuts? That's 16 million nuts. Polls suggest that # could be as high as 25, not 1, %. Only an umitigated moron calls that # of people "a few". No. A few is the Westboro Baptist Church...in comparision to all the Christians on the planet. Yes, holding those 50+ people out against the rest Christianity is nuts. However, 16 million is not "a few". So here ends that dopey argument, defeated by 4th grade math. We DO have a problem with more than 16 million absolute nut jobs(at least), who ARE Muslims, and DO have access to state assets. Some of them are heads of state/hold significant power. So, once again, enough of the nonsense comparisons and false equivalencies. You don't get to play that, when we are talking about this many nuts.

Reading through the comments on that is like reading through a thread here. 1. Funny "wish we had Romney" joke 2. Obama sucks at 39.5% 3. Obligatory "I hate all politicians" comment 4. Obligatory something about Ron/Rand Paul. 5. Some guy not laughing about having Obama, and not having Romney, at all. 6. More than a few guys actually seem pissed about this. .... 43. "WTF are all of you talking about? Obama's done a great job: high stock market, low gas prices, unemployment down, what's not to love?" As I was saying in the other thread. Literally, every village has to have their idiot. Out of 1365 comments...and the 50 or so that I read...there's always a gatorman.

Yes, of course, the standard excuse in full effect. For those not familiar, Communism/socialism has never failed anywhere. This is for 1-3 reasons: 1. It was never actually implemented anywhere, because of obscure reason X/economic detail/something Karl Marx wrote on a napkin that proves that.... 2. Whoever was doing it was doing it wrong. This is the standard Russian failure excuse. It's not socialism that has failed, it was that damn Stalin and him "doing it wrong". 3. (My personal favorite, because it's so racist): Of couse it failed, it's only ever been implemented by brown/black people and Russians. These are the least educated, least cultured people with the worst work ethic and cultural affinity for Communism there are in the world. IF the West were to implement Communism it would work, because we are the best people/smartest/most educated, etc. It's hilarious how, just like with Scientology, it's never the design of socialism/Communism that's at fault. It's always implementation/QA. This is like listening to Microsoft talk about....anything. Maslow or Glasser? Or am I F'ing up your thing...like you've done so many times to me? Tough. Paybacks are a biotch. Many might wonder why gatorman keeps showing up, and the answer is here: because DC_Tom loves him. Or, more properly stated: DC_Tom satisfies his need for love and belonging. gatorman has ensconced himself as part of the tribe, or, perhaps better, PPP Village. What village would be complete without an idiot? Combine that with DC_Tom's need for order and symmetry and viola, DC_Tom is more than happy to entertain everything that comes out of gatorman's mouth, because that means keeping the village idiot. Keeping the village idiot, means keeping the village in order. DC_Tom derives a lot of esteem from keeping the village orderly, and he cannot self-actualize without order and esteem. Thus, as we can now clearly see, gatorman is more integral to PPP in DC_Tom's perspective, than any of us. And, for those of you who have been here longer, the same was true when Molson_Golden was here, or conner, or pBills, or others. It may even be that Molson is gatorman. I haven't checked, because I don't have to, because no matter what, this village needs at least one consensus All-PPP idiot, at all times, or it is out of order, at least for DC_Tom. If it doesn't have one, DC_Tom will do his best to convert someone into the new idiot, by cajoling others into agreement. But what about gatorman? Why does he agree to his role as idiot? That's because our 5 needs are much stronger than most of us realize. Village idiot is preferable to no village at all.

Right, and now it's left to us to prove it isn't, and therefore, we have to prove a negative. No. You say Global Warming, its on YOU to prove what you say, everything, all of it. "Could be" is not "is", and therefore, you fail. Now run along and go find conclusive, reproducable results, or STFU. It should be no trouble for you, since "consensus", "settled science", and it's only ~1 year from me opening my Battery Park Kiaks business. I'm inviting everyone at PPP to come down for my Grand Opening in 2016. It's going to be hilarious. This is the 1 and only thing I can guarantee. Within the last 3 million years, all sorts of things have polluted our world, with all sorts of things. Volcanoe have done more polluting than man....by a lot. And, wrong: The South Pole is not "heating up", in fact, the opposite is happening, but, you don't know that, do you? Ask yourself why you said "the poles are heating up". Why did that piece of non-fact just roll so casually off your keyboard? I know why, but you don't. I wonder how much biodiversity was lost during the last Ice Age, or solar flare bombardment, or when thee comet that we think killed the dinosaurs hit? All of these have a hell of a lot more data backing them up, than, once again, your fact-free assertion that we "have lost a lot of biodiversity". Compared to what? What's the baseline for that? The same answer as last time: you're parroting something you've heard, but don't understand. If you actually thought about this for yourself, you'd be asking "compared to what? What is the baseline?", and you wouldn't require others to do it for you. But you aren't, are you? Why not? DUH Because you haven't done any personal review of the material/expended any personal thought on this topic/applied any of your own intellectual rigor to this topic whatsoever. You're not in the habit. Well, here at PPP? You're going to develop new habits, I assure you. Seems like the rest of the killers here gave you a newbie pass. Fine. I can respect that. My respect for that ends with this post however, meat. Greed is not the problem. Stupidity is. Humans have always had much more to fear from the stupid than the greedy. Greed requires a plan. Stupidity requires nothing. Sure, greedy people can create stupid plans, but not near as often or as likely as stupid people creating stupid plans, or no plan at all. Right now we have both stupid AND greedy people taking half-baked science, or no science at all, pretending it is 100% settled and then trying to enforce massive, sweeping policy changes on the entire world, with the very real consequences of causing, not preventing, a global economic crisis, which would cause, not prevent, a global war. And what's worse? Most of them are doing it purely because of greed for power and/or $. It's all short term gain: so it doesn't matter if the "science" ever holds long term. All that matters is can they take they today $ and run? This is, by definition, stupidity. The only thing the "science" has proved so far? We have no idea what we are doing. It may even be that we are preventing/delaying an Ice Age by sheer accident. But, we should stop using oil immediately because "they say so"? F them. As I said, I'd rather trust a greedy Wall Street guy with plan, than a moron enviro with her "cap and trade" == Solyndra x1000 plan. Yeah, there was no greed involved with any of the "green" venture capital projects that Obama has wasted billions of our $s on. Yeah, no enviro is ever greedy, and AL Gore hasn't made any $ on this scam at all. Speaking of stupidity, why are you so willing to trust the same people who gave us Obamacare? What, do you think their intellectual capacity/performance auto-improves from one issue to the next? (Never understand: LBJ was an "idiot" for Viet Nam, but Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare are all "smart"? WTF? No they aren't, and not one of them is currently operating as intended or designed.) Please come to Mars to save the planet, it's canyons are so deep if you fall in, then you cain't be found You can grow oxygen-deprived mutations Please come to Mars She said "No, boy, would you come home to me". The natural state of people in the USA is: indifference. Especially to happy horseshit "causes". Sure if they see a neighbor that needs a quick hand, you got it, but "Global Warming"? No. That's why we now use marketing as philanthropy here. As in: "Yes, here's my $1 for whatevertheF, now give me my Taco Bell and STFU, because I gotta go". This is not Europe. We have schit to do here. We don't relish an adulthood spent F'ing about in college bars/bistros 6 hours a day and pretending that = being a productive member of our society. However, these bars/bistros are the very places from which nonsense like Obamacare, Global Warming, the Stimulus, and every other stupid idea that Obama has tried and failed originate. Then, when they fail, the people who failed are held accountable for nothing, and promptly return to their 6 hours a day of college bar BS. That is precisely why the enviros had to go with words like "denier". They had to shake people out of indifference. However, once again, they went full stupid. While shaking people out of indifference is good, it doesn't guarantee what will happen next. However, in typical college-borne lazy/arrogant fashion, they thought the "denier" plan would be more than enough to drive all of this through. "They had this." Especially since they think we are all idiots. However, unfortunately for them, and, as you will see over and over here with gatorman: amongst large swaths of the US population, and certainly here at PPP, the liberals are usually the dumbest people in the room, not the smartest. The enviros never considered that when you shake me/people like me out of indifference, you better have a damn good reason. I WILL ask why, and start poking holes in the reason given if it sucks. And, if you start trying to put an "=" between me...and a F'ing Holocaust denier ...for doing that, because you can't prove what you are saying? Forget poking the bear. No. The bear is now going to eat you whole. Ah I knew it! Global Warming is a Racist! That's it! Sensitivity training for 4 weeks! No time off. Or is it.... Well, clearly Global Warming has a problem with systemic racism. Boy, if that hurricane hears broken English, oh man, no matter what, it's going after those people, while it tends to leave others unscathed. I mean these are the statistics. Poor people tend to live on the coasts, especially new immigrants, because for some reason they don't move inland. (I don't think having little $, not knowing the country, or finding communities of their former countrymen has anything to do with it.) Global Warming is going to cause 3 ft of water in NYC. But, that nothing to do with this. Duh, the immigrants are going to get hit because of systemic racism that is pervasive within the Global Warming system. Oh, and Global Warming really hates retards, so gatorman is in big trouble. He's going to come home one day and find half his trailer has been melted. It's always a shock when people of means are less affected by natural disasters then the poor. I mean, it's not like they have better houses, live in the suburbs/on higher ground, have insurance or more/better insurance, or can afford to miss a few weeks of work/will still have a job if they do. And what's worse, none of these things are a result of them working hard/making good choices/sacrificing/sound long term planning. Nah. The guy who Fs around playing the lottery all day at the convenient store? Nobody knows why he is more likely to end up dead in a natural disaster. It's a mystery. But somehow, white male privilege is going to be at the root cause of this. It always is!

Another reminder to all in this thread: thanks to the psuedo-intellectual contortions on display here, exactly nothing is "Islamic". The word has no meaning. It can't have one, if every time we show a direct connection between something written specifically in the book(like slicing off heads, which IS IN FACT directly described as punishment for Christians and Jews), and behavior exhibited by those who claim to merely be acting upon that writing, we are told that it can't be "Islamic". Islamic's definition is one of pure convenience, therefore it means nothing. It means whatever it needs to mean, based on whatever point is being made today, by some phony-ass clown who thinks they are doing the right thing(and of course are self-congratulated) by eternally changing its meaning. In fact, this is the 100% wrong thing. If we can't ever define what is Islamic, because phony ass clowns keep changing the meaning to prevent themselves from being wrong/looking stupid, how can we ever truly separate, never mind condemn, those who are acting inside it tenets, from those who aren't? The "I am more moral than you are, because I defend Islam, and its 1.6 billion people" crowd, mostly comprised of the far left, once again are obtaining standard far left results: They are getting the opposite of what they intend. Math puts things into proper perspective: The generally accepted # of Muslims, based on a multitude of polls, who specifically believe that "Islam is the Answer"TM and therefore believe that Sharia Law is the answer, and therefore believe that world war to reveal the Mahdi(there's that word again), or to impose a world-wide caliphate, is necessary and is therefore something they would support? ~25%. But lets say that's too high...because: standard leftist whining, and because thinking and doing are not in fact the same. Let's go with 10% of Muslims who are willing to act to force the entire world into "submission to Allah". (Since we are talking far-left people, I'm going to write out the math: 1,600,000,000 / 10 = 160,000,000) Wow! 160 million people. Now, let's assume that all 160 mil are "not Islamic". Then, let's assume that the remainder not only ARE Islamic, but as pure as driven snow. Fair enough? We cannot pretend 160 million psychotic people, some of whom are heads of government/have access to state assets == the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members don't even top 100, and who only have access to Wal Mart.(The God Hates Fags people, who, by that phrase alone, prove they have 0 conception of God. They are acting in direct contradiction to the words written in their book, in over 100+ places, and we are therefore 100% justified by calling them "not Christian".) It's F'ing retarded to place an "=" sign between these two groups of people. Especially since the 2nd group is merely annoying sick, not deadly sick. We cannot write off, ignore, or attempt to marginalize these 10% people, by using the same old "a few people don't represent the entire group" excuse, for 1 simple reason: There's too many! 160 million people, never, ever = "a few". And, if the 160 mil all claim to be following Islam? Then Islam has a serious F'ing problem, that is Islamic, and yeah, the rest of the world has a right to call Islam on its problem, no differen that the Egyptian president did. Even if we cut the number to 1% of all Muslims? That's still 16 million people, that's still not a few, and the "few don't represent the whole group" excuse is still stupid/naive/whatever wrong. Thus, one policy that is clearly superior to Obama's that would get results, with less cost, less death, and less suffering: 1. Define what is Islamic, specifically, and then stick with that. (Enough with the excuses, the ever-changing definitions, and the BS) 2. Stop moving the goal posts subjectively, so that more people can be defined under #1. We haven't seen this much dicking around with supposed fixed church teachings, since Henry VIII. 3. Identify the enemy, not only of the US/world, but also of Islam itself, give every Muslim opportunity to renounce that definition, and self-identify as not the enemy. 4. As I said above: open up the full US arsenal. 5. Put every Muslim to a decision: either they and their kids are willing to die, now, because they are the enemy, or, they are not. 6. Annhiliate those that self-identify as the enemy. Repeat this step until all Islamic terror comes to a halt. After a few US fuel-air bombs have suffocated entire towns full of people, the message will be delivered. And, spare me the "that will only lead to more violence because: vengeance" nonsense. No it won't. I used the word "annihilate". That means: nobody left to be "radicalized by US military attacks". As we've seen "countries" mean nothing to most Muslims in the ME. Villages/Towns do. Wipe out a town/village, and you wipe out 99% of the "radicalized" argument. You see, the Great Sin here is: hope. Terrorists, and their 10% supporters, are given hope by the leaders of terror oganizations...that somehow all this death will eventually get them what they want. Therefore, the most logical, compassionate, and commonly sensible choice: erase that hope completely, and replace it with certainty of death, destruction, and no chance of gaining anything else.

Bunny: "What's this microphone for?" Obama: "2 reasons. First, in case the media suddenly informs me of something happening in my administration. See, I never know about it until they tell me. Second, in case there's an incident that can in any way be called race-related, I can step up, make a snap judgement, and comment on it immediately, before the media informs me of anything, and even before they know anything about it. This way I'm unpredictable, and that's good, because it keeps the rest of the world off-balance." Bunny: "Ah, so you've got it covered either way, huh? Obama: "This is why they call me a thoughtful guy. Nobody ever has any idea WTF I am doing, not even me."

Also, don't forget that all 3 QBs are decent to excellent runners. With all these weapons running around in their D backfield, teams are bound to be a little distracted, leaving the designed QB draw open. God help them if they are in man, and all 4 WRs/RBs who went in motion and are now WRs/TEs are all 20 yards down the field, leaving the QB with the width of the field, and only, maybe, the middle LB to beat. Or worse, some exotic D set/blitz where one of their D lineman drops into coverage? All our QB has to do is run his way, and it's an impromptu screen play. And, I hate to say it, but that could also mean Wildcat baby!... Just give it second: so far in this thread, we have been talking about who/who not to put on the field/having too many weapons. What if situationally, the best 6 offensive players we can field, don't include the QB? If I'm not mistaken, Harvin can throw. So can Freddy. This is fun.

This, from 3 days ago and taken at face value, seems to suggest Rex gets it. Now, is this Rex keeping his options open? Are they actually going to cut Fred? Who knows? Also, great thread Kelly! TBD's Feature #1 in full effect!

Get over myself...for what? Being objective, and patient, in the face of staggering idiocy, like telling me asking for objective standards = insecurity? People thinking EJ sucks, or going to be good: provide objective standards, how you applied them to EJ, and falsify them by showing how applying them to other QBs produce expected results, or STFU, because nobody here gains anything from anally extracted opinions. The people who are reserving judgement, if they are actually reserving it, and not simply incapable of forming it, are: wise. We don't have the raw data required for sound analysis, period. Metrics? You? I highly doubt it. You are already struggling with the concept of obective standard. As a metric cannot be created without first understanding that concept? No chance. And, what is an "advanced metric", exactly? Is that like next year's sales projections? They are "advanced" because they come after this year's, or is it the other way around? Um, no. A metric: ....is a metric, is a metric. You would know this, if you could in fact post some, "advanced" , or otherwise. Um, this is a message board, and unlike other team's garbage boards, we actually, yes, do in fact expect you to defend your argument here. We expect posters to respect our time, and not waste it, with poorly, or not, thought out posts. Look: I wasn't kidding when I said I wanted to know his methodology. I've been working on one for quite some time(and if you haven't noticed yet, I am an expert in this stuff). If this guy's beaten me to it: by all means, then let's hear it. That is why we come to TBD. Why would we come here if all we wanted was to hear our own opinion? You can do that in your room, all by yourself, or on youtube. No. Feature #1 of TBD is hearing things you don't know, or didn't consider, or are just flat wrong about, and refining your thinking. That can only be accommplished by other posters reading your posts, and responding. QED My response = how did you arrive at that conclusion? Because I'd love to know if there is a real methodology behind his answer. EDIT: and, I'm quite pleased that was my 7,777th post. My 6,666th was trivial.

Comments are worth a read as well.

Oh my, is that the beginnings of an objective measure? Or, perhaps a dependent variable you've identifed? Stop being insecure! Or, since we are apparently speaking retard in this thread: stop being elated!

Yeah, asking for specific, objective standards == me being insecure? I now doubt you know what the words "objective", or "standard" or "sample size" mean. Your post above is the reason for my doubt. Opinion? Opinion doesn't enter into it unless we all of the same opinion, which, just happens to be the defintion of the word "standard". Hooray! When we all agree on the distance of a foot, it's a standard. Congratulations, you've just accessed feature #1 of TBD: you've learned something you didn't know! I am asking for the objective standards that were used to put EJ at the bottom of 3 QBs. That's not even in the same zip code as insecurity, or bravdo, or despair, or elation, or sensitivity, or callousness. Do you know why?

And what were the criteria that allowed you to arrive at that conclusion? Are they standardized? IF so, how? Are they objective? IF so, how? I'm sure we all could benefit from the work you've done to come up with objective standards for EJ that apply equally not only to the other QBs on the Bills, but other QBs in the NFL. I know I'd love to hear them, because I've been trying to figure this out for quite some time. <----Given what's written here, you can see that I've already identified a serious problem with the sample size available to us. How did you solve that problem? Or....do you simply lack obective standards? Or, do you have them, but give them a tweak for EJ, and only EJ? Or, is this a "gut" feeling...and if so, what's your gut's track record? I mean if your gut has a batting average, at least that would be something quantifiable. Or, is your entire conclusion merely anally extracted?

Yeah, just when you think DC_Tom is really an amalgamation of insults, business rules, and wikipedia, running on a workflow engine. He throws in a Rush lyric(and one my favorties) and you remember he is actually a real person. I don't know if that's comforting, or scarier. And remember, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. EDIT: Oh, and I was thinking about this while on the crapper earlier: those of you who say "I think what I think and I'm not going to listen to anything anyone else has to say on this!'? You are choosing not to take advantage of this site's #1 feature. That's like using Facebook...with no friends. IF you stop and think, it just takes a sec, the #1 feature is obvious.

Perhaps, but it's also part of a time-honored tradition here and amongst some Bills fans. Step 1: Make snap judgement based on very little information/whatever ESPN says. Step 2: Post sketchy opinion as "settled science", and in the process: confuse poor decision makng methodolgy, or being first to make a point...with being "insightful". (Yes, Mike Schopp, I'm looking at you) Step 3: Be either shocked or indignant when other posters push back, and poke holes in the opinion, or point out the absence of facts/data that an educated/informed/solid opinion requires. Step 4: Instead of acknowledging valid criticism, and then comitting to doing some more thinking/fact finding/research...indignation, belligerence and laziness are chosen, and said opinion now moves from that, to Holy Writ that must be defended at all cost. Step 5: We have 19 page threads where Holy Writ is defended, because for some strange reason, some fans have forgotten that this is entertainment, and that there is no fan scoreboard.. Going forward, even if, in this case, EJ does visibly and consistently well, Step 1s ground will never be given up fully. And, the instant any information, no matter how insignificant(um, 1 pass thrown behind a receiver in March), arrives that confirms Step 1, it and any like it are the only facts, and every other fact that contradicts Step 1 doesn't exist. Like I said: it's tradition. Stevie Johnson. CJ Spiller. Marcell Dareus. It's as if there's no such thing as coaching, or scheme, or other players playing poorly around the player who has been condemned by Step 1. It's also as if a player, like in Madden, is eternally locked into their score, and can't improve, or get worse. That's the objective view of this. Like it or not.

Tolerance is a 2, or 3 or 10 way street, otherwise it isn't tolerance. So what's the problme here? In this day and age of "gotcha" games, and the obvious drive from the left not just for tolerance, but forced acceptance, do you really put it past some clown to purposely set up a business owner to have to compromise his beliefs....or else? == post the video on Youtube? send it to MSNBC? South Park did a wonderful job of explaining that civilized society begins and ends with tolerance, and not acceptance. I suggest you Google it. Now, if South Park can explain this so easily, WTF is wrong with supposedly serious media people struggling with the difference in meaning between the two words? The struggle is a lie. They are purposely trying to distort the meaning of these two words into synonyms. And, please: you know damn well that the real agenda here is forced acceptance, via ostracization.

What if gayness was caused by a prenatal virus/environmental factor(other than a hormone)? Now stay with me here, because that also might finally give us a rational explanation for bisexuals. IF you only get a weak strain, you aren't totally moved to the other team. Otherwise, I don't see the logic in "I have been partially gay since birth". IF there is a cause, and it's not free will, then that cause must be a definitive cause, for gays to claim that they are born gay. Thus, for bisexuals to claim the same "from birth" status as gays claim, there would have to be some sort of definitive, but also graduated, mechanism at work. Differing levels of exposure to that cause, would produce differing levels of sexual preference. Exposure to a virus, or some sort of environmental factor, could be graduated, and therefore, would explain it all. You get hit with high levels, your brain develops, and you're Mr. Slave. You get hit with nothing, your brain develops, and you're John Boehner. This would also explain why heredity seems to correlate: if the virus was passed from mother to child, etc., or, if a nuclear/extended family were all exposed to the same environmental factor, and are routinely exposed to each other, what looks like heredity could actually be one of these instead. Individual mutation, or inherited genetic, immunity to the virus/factor could cause straight kids to be produced, despite their exposure. While some kids end up half-exposed, thus, bi, and others, fully gay. (Fully gay is the best way I can describe it. Give me better terms, and I'll use them). This currently seems to be the best fit as an explanation, for me anyway. Is there a better explanation for Tom Brady, other than being 20% exposed? EDIT: Christ, I forgot the conclusion. So, rather than looking for the gay gene/the gene that causes gayness, my hypothesis says we should be looking for the gay virus/factor immunity gene instead. Perhaps they've spent years looking for the wrong thing?

Well let's see now. First we had everybody but Fox News refusing to vet Obama. Then, we had Obama be Obama. Now, how is it a shock to anyone that all the people who refused to do their jobs and have been cheerleading for Obama for years.... ...are now less trusted than Fox? This is simple cause and effect. Obama's certain failure was bound to create splash damage to those around him, and who has been closer to him than the networks and MSNBC? They are merely reaping what they sowed. You back a loser, you lose. The question that remains: are they going to learn from their mistakes, or, are they going to keep driving their own numbers down, and drive even more people to Fox? This is an easy one: They are going to do their job with Hillary, or they aren't. They will either regain their cred or they won't. And, if they don't at least make it look good? I think it hurts Hillary(or, please, Warren) rather than helping her.

Lighten up Francis. You know damn well you'd buy a ticket. And the question remains: does a woman who dies as a martyr in Jihad get 72 virgins, or doesn't she? Strike back? Buddy, you can't even touch me. I'm flying far too high above you. And, oops, I just released the contents of the toilet. And, like I said before: IF there were 72 virgins to be had, where would they come from? Since thy are in heaven, they must have died as virgins. That's a hell of a lot of virgins that have to die, just for one dude. If you have 10 dudes, now you need 720 virgins. Nah, somebody has to be printing up virgins for this one to be true.

The knee-jerk from some corporations on this issue, like Angie's List, which is based in Indy, is so telling. It tells me 2 things: 1. um, hey gay people and Democrats, Angie couldn't give 2 schits about your agenda. 2. once again we see that micro-marketing event by event is being cast as long-term, constant support for a cause, when in fact the opposite is true: the cause is irrelevant, it's the clicks that matter. This is about marketing and clicks. Period. Some may not understand how the internet works. For those people? "This is about getting your name in the paper". These corporations have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by running out to the media and proclaiming all sorts of things, like they are going to delay their expansion in Indiana....(yeah...until their corporate counsel tells them they are in danger of getting sued for breach of contract)..... ....for days! Right around as much time as it takes for the next OUTRAGE! story to break, miraculously Angie and her people will be back at it, "creating 1000 job for Indiana". Only a total rube, or somebody with no high-level business experience, doesn't see this angle. Marketing has been every bit the death of corporate philanthropy and suppor for causes, as it has personal philanthropy and support for causes. Doubt me? Well, do you want to add an extra $1 to your McDonald's bill for Charity X, or don't you? Consider: nobody knew Ralph Wilson gave a ton of money down in Miami for spine cooling research, before Kevin Edverett, did they? Why, because Ralph was a real philanthropist. In contrast: everybody knows every detail via twitter of every second/penny spent on "charity" by celebrities. Why? Marketing in the form of "look at me" self-promotion. So what do we really have here? A bunch of corporate marketing people, who will gladly latch on to anything gay, or black, or woman, because this is about the bottom line. Making a big PR splash when the time is right drives the clicks today, and they can always go back to not giving a schit next week, because? Nobody else will either. The days of the Ford Foundation getting its 2 second notice, and no more, for funding PBS, even though they've been doing it for 30 years? Over. EDIT: And hey, I'm not the cynical one here. Cynical is telling people you're going to delay your corporate expansion, profiting from that, and then slowly backing away.

First time I heard that one it was a Texas A&M joke. It's great, because you can use it with just about anything, even sushi. I am happy to hear from you again my friend. But, I still not recieve your information. Once again I ask for your bank name, bank account, and routing number so we share in great day for us. I will be coming to USA soon. I do not want to fly on German plane, or speak German person on this great opportunity. German plane crash because of crazy German. German official here in PPP UN he is crazy man. I not wanting crazy man to do business. Please do not tell to me Germany. Polish do not trust them with response. Germans come to their country. This I tell you is geat opportunity for us to work together in good faith. Please reply with correct information. I will send you Polish response and we can sell to UN for many Euros. I thank you again in good faith, my friend. Nigeria.