OCinBuffalo

Apparently you missed the . Well, now you get 2 :lol: Wanna go for three? Not so fast. I don't know your daughters, but, as I said above, cheerleading is a means to an end for many. If your daughters have the potential to be biochemists working for a pharma company, then yeah, I don't want them to be Buffalo Jills either. Waste of talent. But what if they don't have that ability? Are they just supposed to get married/die/work as servers/go on welfare/live the life of Julia? Can we not come down on the girls who can't be biochemists, do have other talents, and use those other talents effectively to form a career? I don't think they deserve to be disrespected so easily. You try standing in front of a trade show booth for 4 straight hours with no breaks, trying to corral clients based on nothing more than your looks and/or trying to hook them with limited product knowledge you get in a 15 min briefing. Some can do it, others can't, and some become very good at it, which they turn into a full-time PR/Marketing or sales gig. I, rightly, have little respect for some women-specific jobs, but, this is not one of them, as I've seen how hard it can be for them, first hand. You're damn right they aren't. Strippers don't get to work trade show booths later on, and strippers don't get to do all the other stuff that can result from a stint as a cheerleader either. You think anyone wants their company represented by a stripper? Can you imagine the feminazi backlash/boycott? (Then again, having a strpper up front in the booth would actually be a draw for some of the industries we operate in, and the backlash would be seen by our clients in those industries as a huge +. I doubt I'd be buying my own drinks that night.) But still, nobody wants the hassle. Not when non-strippers can be put up front at relatively reasonable rates. It's just smart business, because it is: a business. In my experience, people tend to get what they signed up for. If you think a "product support" girl has never been groped, you are dreaming. However, if she thinks she didn't sign up for the chance of that happening, she is also: dreaming. There's 0 tolerance for it, but, it does happen. Best way to determine if you want to do business with a prospect? See how he/she treats the girl up front. For the intelligent, there's a lot to be gained by observing the "front girl". Now you are dreaming. This a business. It has its rules. One of those rules is, you get paid little as a cheerleader now, but you learn the business, how do to apperances, how to support the product...so that you can get paid a lot more later. It's supply and demand: theres's always a new supply of hotter, younger girls every year. Therefore it's a buyers business by default. However, if you can learn the business, and get good at it, just like in any other business, the more opportunities open up for you. In all cases: morality has nothing to do with this. It comes down to standard business logic. Nobody cries any tears for the girl who starts out as a Jill, but ends up as a product rep for Nike, who makes ~$200k a year...jiggling some days...but selling the F out of sneakers, and everything else, as well. Nobody cries any tears for them either, when age/pregnancy takes its toll, and it's time to move on. The smarter/more centered ones plan accordingly. The dumber ones get what the dumber ones deserve. Are we supposed to cry for all of the poorly paid actresses, who are alway one rent check away taking their clothes off in a bad movie, who later command millions per movie? No. That's the business they singed up to be in, and that's how that business works. Like any other business, those who treat their people the best, and innovate to treat their customers the best, usually rise, while the others fall.. WGR owned the Jills for quite some time. I'm not sure who owns them now. Hey, WTF? I posted pics above, and just like the girls who are pictured, they are tasteful. They are paid to be oggled, just like they will be oggled in the future jobs that they can get, if they learn how to do the job properly. Those that don't possess the smarts/guts/whatever is required to be good at the business of product support...must seek life elsewhere. Apparently that life elsewhere includes suing, for some of the girls who haven't moved on to better things.

This.

May 2009. I still have all the PMs. It started when they started talking about the "mic" and what Schopp does when not on it. I asked: "what mic? and how would you know what occurs "off" mic?" Hilarity ensured. It's like above: how would any random poster here know what Jerry Sullivan does in his free time? Why would any of us care? Is this what we dicuss here? It's not that we don't revel in minute details. For example: We may know that Ralph owned a blue Ford Taurus, but, that isn't the same, is it? So, once again, the surrogate is responsible for exposing themselves as such.

You cannot take "value" out of the draft. That is because pick #1 will always be more valuable than pick #2, pick #2 more so than pick #3, and so on. The value of the #9 pick is the same, every year. So is the value for every other pick. This is why: the Draft Value Chart is used, and used consistently. The myth is that it isn't used, or we've moved on, has been dispelled. Thus, your premise is retarded. Draft value is reality. It is inherent to the draft. Therefore, it is neither dumb nor smart, and can never be. It simply: is. Moving on, no, your other comments make little sense. If we are sitting at 9, and the players available to us, in our opinion, do not rate a #9 pick, or, the ones that do play a position we already have solid starter+depth at, then the ONLY logical thing to do is to attempt to trade down. Let somebody else overpay, in terms of the value of the 9th pick, for a lesser player. However, unlike the Raiders last year, we are not desperate, so, if we do not get the right value coming back from the trade down, Whaley will stay put at 9, and just pick somebody. EDIT: And that is something every Bills fan has to accept. We have about an = chance of getting value at 9, as we do not getting it, and whether we do is completely out of the FO's control, if they sit tight. Things being out of their control? Is why I don't discount the rumor that we are trading up to #1. Thus, the only way that what you want is going to happen? After draft value has been considered 3 times at least. That's the key thing to remember. Last year, the Rams evaluted Tavon Austin, and decided that his value was >= to the value of their #1+#2 picks, etc. So far, it looks like the Rams overpaid for a lesser player, in terms of draft value, exactly. It looks like the Bills gained more value from that draft than the Rams, in getting EJ, Kiko, Goodwin, and Gragg, for Austin and a JAG saftey. That's how this works. The value of the picks never changes. That's the baseline. Then, you evaluate players againt that constant baseline. Like it or not, this is how it works, it cannot be dumb or smart, and it will always be this way.

And that depends: on whether they are a cook or a waitress at a strip club.

There's a giant difference between "changing your mind".... ...and pretending you have no long-term memory. Nobody who speaks publicly for a living, gets to change their mind in private. You know? I thought the slaughter that ensued, when the WGR surrogate turds defending Mike Schopp showed up here, would have provided the necessary lesson for others. 14 whole posts since 2004? Really. You really thought that was going to slide by? Jeez, we are all privileged to hear from you, as this is such a rare event. I wonder if there is a correlation between your 1.4 posts/year, and whenever somebody really lays into Sullivan? If Jerry wants to post here, he can take a lesson from wawrow, who doesn't need to use his real name, but, he does anyway. Sending turds out to do it for him is just lame. Oh and right on cue? Somebody with 106 posts since 2006. Look: even the rookie saw you guys straight! EDIT: yeah, and it does follow a pattern, and yeah, I do pay attention to it.

I am surprised it took 9 posts to get to this. I am not surprised a lawyer had to chime in.... You are confused: all I see is rational arguments/common sense, that are straightforward and easily defensible. "Progressive" doesn't mean that. It may have once, but not anymore. Time to find a new word, this one's been used up by bad results coming from bad ideas. Yeah this? Is supposed to turn into this: and then from there, a career path doing events, PR stuff, and eventually brand support, etc. Which is why cheerleader pay was never a big deal, as the entire job was merely an entry level position to something else. I don't know if any of you have ever been to a major trade show, but, yeah, many of the "reps" there are merely graduates of this program. Case in point, what are the chances all of these girls represent the marketing/sales brains behind an eletronics distributor? Got a boring product like seats for trucks? Not anymore: (yeah, I'm just linking for fun now....so....on to it) "No, I really do need to ask you the questions that are written on this tablet, so pleeeeease answer them for me? Thank you so much...my boss is mean to me" Anybody who has ever organized an NFL-level trade show booth/space knows where to go to get the "talent". Apparently the former cheerleaders couldn't get themselves on the right track, like working here: http://www.models4tr...ent-hostesses and are facing jobs at the bar, etc. So.....mise well sue.

wawrow. wawrow. wawrow. Why should you apologize for being ornery? Ornery is what makes you worthwhile on every board here. Only you would hold the positions that you do, and never let them go, despite GB after GB of empirical evidence to the contrary. That kind of ornery is either admirable, or lunacy. Either way, no one can say the boards here aren't more interesting because of it. You may be an elitist turd, but, you are our elitist turd. IMHO, you belong right here with the rest of us inmates in this asylum.

Yeah, my Northern engineer and IT friends who have moved to NC, most of whom are apolitical, and the rest center-left....were alive during Reconstruction. It's all the same history thing...because it all happened...before.

At least he didn't demand a free ride, when his office had already paid.

Yeah, actually, if you use the definition of the word oppresssed properly, that is precisely what the media does to R politicians. Go look it up.

Valuing teachers, truly valuing them, has exactly 0 to do with how the Democrats and their union contributors have run the public education system for the last 40 years. The only value we currently place on teachers is as: 1. a commodity, from which to draw dues, if you are a Democrat, because those dues pay for your candidates. 2. a babysitter, that you don't pay for unless you pay property tax, which allows you the rest of the day to get high, lay around, watch TV in peace, etc. 3. a gatekeeper, that stands between your kid getting what he "deserves", in terms of grades that he needs to get into college. Thus, all one needs to do is rush the gate to get the grades, and it helps to rush them with lots of other parents. It really helps if you threaten the union control of the system, because then the gate is thrown wide open....by union demands that nobody get bad grades and/or "common core" principles of "one-size-fits-all" grading, because we force everyone onto a one size fits all track, and thus, it's no one's fault if the kid doesn't learn anything other than how to take tests. 4. a means to an end, that provides employers with bodies, that hopefully have some semblance of ability Thus, we don't value them at all in this current system. And, no amount of $ added to the current system, is going to cause us to value them more, or more importantly, value them PROPERLY, as a key element in our lives. In my travels, I've learned that my 7+8th accelerated grade math teacher is now a full-blown alcoholic, but, it doesn't mean I don't value her. She was the first teacher I ever had whose class was relatively difficult, and she refused to let me coast. I learned how to approach hard intellectual work from her. And that's the point: I, the student, values her. Notice how there is no student in 1-4 above? What I would call the "business rules" of the current education system tell me that no amount of money makes it work better. We need to change these rules. If charter schools change the rules, so be it. We need complete change here. We can't keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. That change can't only come from schools. If you look at each of the countries, also look at how their parents operate. Whether it is a cultural thing hardly matters as the behavior of good parents is always: the same. Lack of good parent behavior is a huge problem. The biggest threat to good parent behavior? "Progressive Policies". So, I agree, we need to value teachers properly, but we cannot do that as long as "progressive policies" and our relationship with teachers is dictated by bad actors and those whose agenda is guided primarily by something other than students. We need to change how we value teachers, but that largely depends on what we expect from parents, and that 100% depends on removing the policies that contribute to bad parent behavior.

Not...exactly. But I will give you points for using artistic license, and getting the joke.

Yes, and the results? B-man's contribution to this thread has more value. At least Juan Guzman tried with his hilarious charts. Too bad for him I've seen those charts, and the Japan study I've linked totally blows them away = "illegal but common and condoned side payments". Now? The same thing is inevitable here: forcing more people onto the roles of Obamacare(increasing demand), but, restricting the # of doctors available to them(decreasing supply), increases the price, 100/100 times. Inevitable. Somebody is going to pay that price. If we are restricting what insurance can pay, and we are also restricting what government will pay, which we are. Then that price has to come from somewhere: John Adams's pocket! Or else, all you do is force even more doctors out of the Obamacare market. Two words: Death Spiral. People that have paid for Obamacare, but, can't get it's value? Stop paying for Obamacare. Death Spiral. Btw, John Adams's Pocket is a name for a twee little store on 2nd and Market in Center City that sells handbags and other "sundries".

Yep. And it's only going to get worse if you are an Obamacare patient trying to see an Obamacare doctor....unless...you offer to pay extra. It's merely the next logical step in the process. Markets work. And the market for a doctor's "undivided attention" for a half hour is a commodity that has a value. By squeezing out the supply of doctors willing to see Obamacare patients, there is no other logical outcome other than would-be consumers of that commodity, separating themselves from the pack, by offering to pay for it. Thus a price will be set by supply and demand, just like it always is. And, of course there's this: Yet another example of what happens when government employees are put in charge of doing my job. The entire approah to RVUs is fundamentally flawed. (You want details? Long post. You decide. That's my new policy.) And, as per normal Medicare propaganda: the RVU approach is supposed to ensure quality care. What can we observe about RVU vs. quality? The focus of RVU is by defintion not on quality, but on causing Medicare to pay less via "efficiency". If we actually moved the focus to quality, in the big picture, Meidcare would pay less, due to less improper diagnoses/wasted time of multiple doctor visits trying to get it right. Sure looks like all it does is "move the widgets faster", doesn't it? Hint: efficiency is no gaurantee of effectiveness. Efficiency can be the enemy of quality, if it's implementation is left to amateurs. I'm anti-ACA, and I I've gone out of my way to troll that jackass....seriously.

The real history that you've described, and the fact that it took decades of Democratic control to destroy public education in NC doesn't matter to the left, because history doesn't matter to the left in general. This is how you end up with a guy wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt, and yelling about torture, at the same time. The history, if known, precludes anyone who isn't trolling, and actually cares about torture, from ever wearing the t-shirt. The ignorance of history thus creates the hilarious irony of such a thing. Ignorance: the tool the left relies on. Thus, why should the left concern themselves with educational outcomes, when there are education consitutents to support? Of course it is. The problem? I'm not sure how you admonish one group and then blame the other. What you've written here says that you are essentially blaming both, you unmitigated moron. Anyway, of course the Democrat's theme is to blame others no matter what happens: when they win, they blame the Republicans, when they lose, they blame the Republicans. This way, the overriding theme is always the same: blame the Republicans. As I've said: since Bill Clinton, the Democratic party and the facts have parted ways. In fact, some of their internal polling shows that they cannot win most of the political issues of the day. Hence the lies. This is why, in the midst of economic peril that should have been their ONLY focuse, the Democrats went health care. They knew that their majority in the House was going to be short-lived, and they had to force through their agenda when they had to opportunity. And of course, it is the Republicans fault that they can't win political arguments with the majority of Americans. Massachusetts also voted for Scott Brown, specifically for the purposes of blocking Obamacare. So, rather than your sweeping generalization, and based on my boatloads of time spent there recently, it's clear that there are a lot of forces at work in Mass. that aren't concerned with lock-step following of the far-left agenda. Warren got elected largely because electing Scott Brown was such an embarrassment for the far-left in that state, and the centrists sorta wanted to make it up to them/her. Thus, this is a thinking state, and in a thinking state, is it really that much of leap to assume they wouldn't let education slip? No. They have their unions in check in Mass. Albeit via Boston "strongman" tactics, but still, they have them in check. If you have heard any of the things coming out of Cuomo's mouth recently about NY education? It appears more than a few NYS Democrats, in fact the majority, want the same control over the teacher's union that Mass has. If the education system was a multinational corporation? It would have been run out of business, or more likely raided, years ago. But in a way, that is what is happening: the stockholders are revolting. They want control of their company back from the "board members" and "executives" who are paying themselves bonuses while running the company into the ground. If the stockholders can't get that? They'd rather take their chances with the raiders, who are promising them a much better return on their stock, via: charter schools, tutoring, and corporate sponsorship. But, it's still a public system. Therefore, it's tiresome when leftists assclowns characterize reform as an "attack on public education". Wrong. What's happening is an attack on public sector union/Democratic party control of public education, including the setting up of the perpetual motion machine that is campaign finance-->"more $ for schools" -->campaign finance. Propagating the growth of the machine, or at least maintaining it, is the goal, not educational outcomes. This would be no big deal by itself, since no bad news on education helps to secure/maintain the machine. If the unions had good outcomes, nobody would dare argue take them on, because: "the children". However, the other outcomes of "progressive policies" specifically the encouragement of government dependence, the loss of self-respect via state-sponsored, removal of consequences for the loss of self-control, and the notion that the state is responsible for children("it takes a village" ), and not their parents? This gives ALL parents, rich, middle and poor a pass, and is the DIRECT cause of the epdemic of bad parenting. When you combine the machine with bad parenting, then the whole becomes a much larger implement of douchebaggery than the parts. Largely because it makes the teacher's union appear to be right: bad parents are the cause. Teacher's can't do much with a kid who has lice/bed bugs/smelly clothes/hasn't eaten all weekend and thus purposely misbehaves, so that they are sent to summer school. Thus ensuring themselves 3 square meals all summer; and so the indoctrination/institutionalisation begins. But, this is also screwing up the machine. Teacher's cannot do much with these kids, and no thinking person doesn't understand why. And, there are many teachers who, against the counsel of their peers/union, do in fact spend their own $ on these kids. But, no one should confuse the charity of some teachers with the justification for the awful system that they are a part of, and have little choice other than to support. The good news? The "progressive policies" we've been enduring for the last 40 years are actually at odds with each other. As I said: they are screwing up the machine. You can't control education, and keep failing. 4 decades of that, and "progressive policies" are the reason that the teacher's union/Democratic party is losing control of the machine. So, birdog, by all means, let's have even more "progressive policies" and let's drive this thing into the rocks at flank speed. This way no one will ever forget what was responsible, this dies here, and we don't have 4 more decades of lost children. But, Obama has already taken care of that, in foreign policy, economics, and elsewhere hasn't he? We've seen Obamacare, The Liberal Cleaver in action. So, you've gotten your wish, but more importantly, so have I.

Au contraire....part of my corporate world is now dealing with useless government paperwork plenty. I've already posted examples. The thing is, I could probably start a new thread every week, if not every day, of examples I've found of hilarious idiocy/incompetence. The reason I don't: at what point does it become useless to PPP? It's not funny if it's essentially the same joke over and over. Of course, I chose this, so I have no one to blame but myself. But make no mistake: I'm often standing right next to you, glaring in disbelief equally at the utter failure of the paperwork to actually accomplish its intended goals, in fact it often achieves the opposite, and, the fact that no one seems to understand that most of it only exists to make work for government employees. I am working on a few ways to expose all of this as the sham that it most certainly is. We'll see...

You still don't get it? Oh well, whatever, nevermind.

You don't even know what your costs are, yet you declare that you will be doing things for the lowest possible cost? And, not knowing it for one guy, is made better by not knowing it for all of the "population". Who is delusional again? How the F will you prove "lowest possible cost" to anyone? What happens when your unplanned work(at least 60% of the work that occurs in every single health care outfit on this planet), costs more than you figured...but...you can't figure it, because you don't know what it costs? And you call this: ethical? (Btw, we are your only chance of ever actually being "ethical" in this. How funny is that?) Oh sure, let's bring in B-large and his dopey, "I know what an MRI costs, because I work sampled 3 of them last year, and then extrapolated the average onto every one of the 837 MRIs we did". "Variance? Nah, every MRI costs the same, and birdog ethically says that this cost is always the "lowest possible cost"...because my financial allocation averaged, Excel spreadsheet says so". birdog, you can try to blow smoke up somebody else's ass, but not mine. I know this stuff cold now, so of course I love your pulled-from-ass, solution-free solution: You acknowledge the fact that a solution is required. Therefore, you acknowledge the fact that a problem has been created. What you don't seem to get is the challenge that Meaningful Use directly presents any solution(except mine) to that problem. Like the many useless twits I encounter in health care: you predict that a "solution" will materialize out of thin air, but don't have the foggiest clue how to even begin providing one. For the rest of you: We see here what happens when "hopefully" encounters oxygen. Absolutely nothing. "Hope and Change!" "Forward!" You have no earthly idea what Meaningful Use means, and neither do your pals. You see it in terms of "point in time", not "over time", which is required for this scam to own you, as designed. Question: What's it gonna take to keep you certified? Oh, didn't think about that, did we? Poor birdog. He doesn't see it yet. Well? As I've said: they are just handing this to us. We can turn Meaningful Use on its ear, and actually use it as a weapon against the government. But, only for non-useless twits...and only because the Friends of Birdog created the problem for us to solve.

Hey tithead, I've given you that exact thing, 10 pages ago in this thread, and in the other where you asked for it. Learn: you directly challenge somebody here, be prepared to get a long post in response If you didn't read it, 10 pages ago, how the F is that my fault?

They don't see the fool's gold yet. That's fine. This is like a fad in that sense, cool now, embarrassment later. When they realize that they can't actually see the doctor, for which they are paying, without sliding him an extra $200 per visit to "move up on the list"? Yes, the lady(90% of the time, it's a lady) holding the clip-board at the "velvet rope" is going to be very unkind. John Adams: walking around in parachute pants, sporting his Don Johnson hair and sport coat, and playing with his pet rock. He's the coolest...today. But, later, when he tries to get in with that outfit? He's going to get the "fire code" excuse. And what's better? When they start howling about the "unfairness" of it all! Obamacare the unfair, fairness policy. The best is when the "fixer" Democrats demand to be allowed to fix it, and suddenly realize , that the far-left buffoons have made that impossible, due their idiotic "cost control" plan: Meaningful Use. Meaningful Use: a tenet of this abortion, that it seems hardly anyone but me truly understands. And therefore: few see it correctly as the giant cluster F that will be the #1 barrier to "fixing Obamacare"s success. When the Ds finally arrive at the notion that they have to immediately jack up health care supply, or the whole thing folds, it is Meaningful Use that will make doing that impossible. No doctor is going to "invest" $100, so that he can return at best $80, and face the ongoing threat of a fine, or, lose his existing %, because he tried to grow his practice. He's going to do: nothing. (I can just see the Public Service announcements cajoling them to do it anway). There won't be any way to get "new" Obamacare docs to provide the supply. So, now JA has to see a PA, or an RN, who isn't really capable of providing an Dx, nor are they legally qualified to do so. And, I'm sure there will be all sorts of legal wrangling to try and make that possible.....to which the trial lawyers will say "no way", because then they would lose out on their #1 way of proving malpractice = misdiagnosis. It's going to be very fun to watch trial lawyers fight the "we must keep it alive no matter what" Obamacare supporters. The knives and guns will have to come out, because for both sides: that's a fight to the death. It's going to be hilarious watching them all fight, and scurry about...and then? There's my crew, or more likely, our partners, offering everyone, but the lawyers, of course, the ONLY way out. Once again, I encourage you all to do your own work on Meaningful Use, because once you do, you'll see things straight.

In your DOD world, or my corporate world? In my world yes, in fact, that was 20 years of nothing. In my corporate world, this problem dies before it starts, largely because we would never have acted so stupidly as to solve the "turtle problem" this way in the first place. Moreover, we would have looked for a deal with the ranchers that made both them and us the most $ possible. For example, rather than restricting grazing by attaching a fee to it, I would want a regressive cut of the cattle price. This incentivizes the guy to produce as much cattle as possible, because the more he produces, the smaller % he owes me. This way, the more cattle they produce, the cheaper the cost of meat, AND, I get plenty of $ for the land usage, which I can then use to ensure the land remains viable, and take care of stupid turtle. Grass/weed whatever seed is dirt cheap when you're buying it by the ton. "The poor" pay less for their food, so even the biggest political hack, on any side can take credit, and, we can point to how well we take care of small business owners. But, that requires somebody who solves problems for a living, and not somebody who spends all their time trying to get more free schit/whining about their pension.

No. If I was you'd know it. Well, maybe not you, but it would be obvious to some. All I did was respond to a thread jumping dumbass. He's the one who demanded the same thing here as in the Obamacare thread, and thought he would get away with it. Rookie. But, now I see that I'm not as guilty as you say, because you've preceeded to highjack your own thread by talking health insurance. Oh yeah, nothing like an opinion stated as a fact. Hey clown? You might want to check the latest polls on abortion: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm In every single one, the majority of people in this country aren't big fans. Over and over: 60+% favor restrictions, if not banning it altogether. The biggest shift has come from the young, not the old. When policy is created by a minority of people, in this case the pro-abortion left, that contradicts the views of the majority? That is forcing beliefs. It is the left, not the right, that is doing the forcing here, by any reasonable definition. Thus, not only is your opinion not fact, it's flat out wrong. Standard Abortion Disclaimer: I don't care in general, and I am perfectly willing to largely defer to women on this. As much as I think abortion should be legal, because, just like drugs, it's going to happen anyway, I also think that ice-picking otherwise healthy babies in the back of the neck is disgusting behavior. That is far worse than anything Wall Street has or ever will do, and thus, it should be just as regulated as Wall Street. Hmmm. Now that I think about it, I've never given my standard disclaimer quite that way, which gives me an idea for a thread.

Um...it's PPP?

I specifically used the term "artisitic license" and that just blew right by you, didn't it? Man. Is there such a thing as double irony? There's such a thing as a double negative, so why not? 3rdnlng: doing everything he can to stay firmly entrenched at the kids table of PPP.