Middle Buffalo

House > Houer > Boyer

I went to Walmart today (a place I try to avoid), and I know it's a cliche, but oh, the humanity.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) It's just basic human nature, and it's not going to change. If it's YOUR candidate, you applaud their "evolution" on an issue. If it's THEIR candidate, they've "flip flopped" and they're "pandering" to win an election. Just like Ben Franklin said about the Revolution: "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal." Same diff. No doubt. Ol' Ben had a way with words.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 08:13 AM) Well, the present election is a good example. Hillary being dinged for her husband's trade policies from 20+ years ago or using the term "super predators," it goes with the territory. Two events that happened twenty years ago, related to Alicia Machado and Trump's Federal taxes/losses, are going to help decide the election in her favor. Maybe that's why Obama had an advantage in 2008, having more of a blank slate and much less of a record to run on or against, but looking at only "recent" comments would generally lead to younger and even more inexperienced candidates, yes? Yeah, there is really not a clean solution. I just find it a little head scratching that something someone said 20 years ago that they might not feel now is still a point of emphasis in an election. In this election, Trump has the advantage of never actually voting for any of the current policies, so he is similar to Obama in lack of experience I like to think that I'm not the same person I was 20 years ago, 10 years ago,.....

I clicked on this story on yahoo ranking the top 10 qbs of all time. It's preposterous to me that Troy Aikman is in the top 10. http://newarena.com/nfl/counting-down-the-..._content=aikman His TD/INT ratio is way worse than Jay Cutler's, which is almost unfathomable. And that's with a HOF WR, HOF RB, And the best line in football for most of his career. Aikman http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm Cutler http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CutlJa00.htm

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 05:30 AM) Oh no? 1983 - White Sox first Chicago baseball team to draw two million fans. 2006 - Sox max out on season ticket packages, draw just short of three million with nearly 60 sell outs that season. Only the reduced capacity of the ballpark due to Reinsdorf lopping off the top eight rows of the upper deck a few seasons prior prevents the Sox from blowing attendance records out of the water that year. Yeah, but...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 03:07 AM) If you bought into his transition to a moderate Republican and stripped away all of his extreme viewpoints and statements over the years. He seemed more on point regarding economic solutions and uplifting the middle class than most of his fellow Republicans. This is one of the things I find very odd about politics, and I mean it in regard to how all politicians are treated. We bring up their voting record and and things they said 15 years ago and hold them to it today. It's like they aren't allowed to grow or change opinions without it being called a lie or "flip flop." I understand that their voting records and statements they've made are important, but if 15 years ago I said something that showed a blind devotion to law enforcement, and today I was critical, doesn't that show that I'm paying attention? Would it really be better for me to view a police brutality video and act like I wasn't able to see what was on the video? Again, I don't mean this in a partisan way. I mean it in regard to social, economic, and policy issues. I'm not sure why politicians aren't allowed to grow or change as long as they can justify the change.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) How can you say that? I quote different announcers/broadcasters/shows; I link to a lot of articles; I express my opinions about both candidates whom I dislike. How can you say I provide nothing of substance when I link articles? Just cause I guess I have opinions different from yours I must be worthless poster in your eyes. Again ... I post links and examples. I don't know that I've seen evidence of you disparaging both top candidates in the same manner, but that's your right. You seem to be a little more aggressive when it comes to HC. I also don't see evidence that you "learn" from things others post. Also your right. You often acknowledge a good point made that is in opposition to one of your posts, which is fairly uncommon in this forum, but then you go right back to posting the same things. On another topic of sorts, I wonder how you can justify saying that you are going to vote for Jesse Ventura, who, last I checked, isn't running. That seems like you are not taking your right to vote seriously. That, to me, is a slap in the face of our military who have sacrificed for that right. Yet, you are so upset that football players are not honoring the National Anthem and flag properly because it is an affront to our military.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 08:23 PM) This is an example of the bias against Trump. This is in a news story on CNN.com not an opinion piece. ... The sentence says: "With no apparent consideration for the political recklessness of his crude comments, Trump once again went after Machado's physical appearance, bringing her up on his own." The writer said the comments were "crude" and says they were politically "reckless." Says who? This is how you can tell the writer of the story favors Hillary over Trump. And don't get me started with the TV folks like Chris Matthews. He basically issued a love letter to Hillary making sure he had the first crack at who won the debate. He screamed that it was a shutout with HIllary hitting five home runs to Trump's none. Cmon Chris. Any Trump supporter could point to five zinger lines Trump had that would look good as soundbites as well as Hillary's. If Hillary won, it was by a very very small margin. The bias amazes me. I just saw a yahoo article that referred to Trump's crude behavior, but it also said that Hillary pretends to be amused when you know she's not. My head is spinning. Must be a subliminal attempt to prop up a third party candidate. Perhaps Governer "The Body" will be getting my vote.

I just saw the Boston celebration after they clinched, and it reminded me of the total lack of spontaneity in sports. Guys wearing goggles for the champagne celebration. Generation wuss.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 10:59 PM) I wonder how great or how bad Obama would have been if he wasn't handcuffed by congress. Do we have round 2 to look forward to for Trump or Clinton? This is one of the things I find funny about the whole "Make America Great Again" movement. Republicans have pretty much been in control for the whole of Obama's tenure. So, it's a little off to blame Obama for everything. It's even more wrong for Trump to hang everything bad on Clinton, as if she was the one making policy. But, I guess that's politics.

I don't really understand all the hand wringing over the Bears. The majority of their fans are either Cubs or Sox fans. The Cubs tanked for several years. There are many Sox fans who want the Sox to do the same. The media seems to be totally on board for that type of tear down. The Bears have dumped most of their high priced talent and older players, yet people can't deal with them losing. That said, it's brutal to watch at this point.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 10:49 PM) You are a very very smart man. But hey as far as the winner? Just ask Chris Matthews. It was HILLARY. She mauled Trump. Election ... OVA. What is your opinion Greg? Who do you think did a better job in this debate? There's really only 3 options: 1) Trump won; 2) Hillary won; 3) they tied.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 09:09 PM) I also forgot that Hillary let him off the hook for the racist housing practices. He first started with "well lots of other people were doing it", but then kept saying "We settled with no admission of guilt." Well, thats most of those investigations go when they settle. Also, she now has better footing with any of the allegations against her cause she never was even investigated, which is better than "settling". There were a few times where she really could have nailed him, but she's had such a hard time being forthcoming and entirely truthful on some issues that throwing a barb at him would open her up for a return shot. And, that's where Trump thrives, so she was smart to avoid those situations. I thought she crushed him on the probable reasons he doesn't want to disclose his taxes. Him muttering that not paying taxes makes him smart should be an eye opener, but I doubt people will even care that he's proud of taking advantage of every financial and legal loophole at the expense of others.

Trump says NATO like it's a person. My mom used to do the same thing with Led Zeppelin.

There have been a few times where it looks like she's convincing Trump to vote for her.

Now trump wants to takes guns away from people?

I guess you can stay under budget if your business model is to "take advantage" of the laws and stiff people.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 21, 2016 -> 08:06 PM) My bad. I'm calling for an emergency meeting called by Obama of all police stations in the country. Our cops are out of control and I want Obama to lecture them on it. I said out of each cop station I want one black cop, one white, one Asian, one Hispanic, etc. Four or five cops from every police station in the U.S. Rent a speedway and have a couple sessions of 150,000 cops per session. Let's keep the speedways open for left turns only. A few months from now, when this country is great again, this police brutality will all be a bad memory.

I am usually pretty forgiving when it comes to Cutler's play, but that INT was ridiculous. He didn't even attempt to set his feet. That said, I can't believe a guy like McPhee thinks it's ok to get in his face afterward. He's not exactly earning his paychecks right now. Bears suck. Sox suck. I seriously wonder why I even care.

QUOTE (SpankyEaton @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 05:46 AM) Let me ask you all this. Is there, or should there be "Chicago fans," where people are loyal to one team but cheer for the other in the postseason if their team is not there? And, if your wife/girlfriend/family/friends are Cubs fans or have ties to being Cubs fans, how would you approach what is about to happen this October? My approach right now is to just not address it and say they are having a hell of the season. I wish them well but I am not actively cheering for or against them. I really can't see anyone but the Nationals having a legit shot beating the Northsiders in the postseason. I don't cheer against them, but I will be happy when (please) they lose. Most,if not all, of my friends who root for the Cubs are good fans. It's not them I worry about. It's more the collective douchiness of their fans and the media slurping that sickens me. I hate that their fans are so proud that they are the majority of the crowd at some away games. it just seems that a good number of their fans care more about being part of the fan group than they care about the actual team. It's like the people who are on social media who only care about how many friends or followers they have.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 17, 2016 -> 08:36 AM) That's a pretty misleading headline and story. Almost all of the $18b figure comes from an estimate on how much of a "gift" only allowing the usps to use mailboxes is worth, and when describing the reasons that the usps "loses" money there's no mention of the huge pension prefunding requirement put on them in the mid 2000's. Yep. "American taxpayers give an $18 billion dollar gift to the post office every year." $14 billion of that gift is an estimate of how much having a monopoly on first class mail and exclusive delivery to mail boxes is an economic advantage to the post office. True or not, that $14 billion dollars is the result of sales made, not taxes paid by citizens. It also makes no mention of the fact that the post office has to have an act of congress to increase rates. So, when the price of gas shoots up and stays up, competition can react with price increases, delayed delivery times, etc. The post office can't charge more or change delivery schedules, it has actual delivery requirements that it is supposed to maintain. $2 billion is savings from not paying real estate taxes, vehicle registration, etc. I'm pretty sure that's the deal for all government agencies. And the rest is savings the post office gets from borrowing from the Treasury at a reduced interest rate. Borrowing hardly qualifies as a gift from the taxpayers. I believe that means the money has to be paid back.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 10:49 AM) USPS and Treasury department donating to the DNC, likely with tax payer money. USPS doesn't get taxpayer money. It's self sufficient. The USPS unions are pro-Democrat especially after the Republicans tried to cripple the USPS with the Retirement Health Care pre funding mandate in 2006. That's why it's always reported that the USPS is losing money.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 11:41 PM) People didnt know how ambassador jobs work? Ironically Strangesox posted an article today about the ambassador to Denmark. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archiv...denmark/497543/ If this is the worst that they found, then honestly the Democratic party is a lot cleaner than I would have expected. Ambassador positions have always been this way. George W Bush. UK Ambassador- Robert Tuttle He had raised more than $200,000 for Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and inauguration ceremony. He also held the post of United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom from July 2005 to February 2009. Other examples are Canada, David Wilkins, Sweeden, Teel Bivens, etc. Its so common, it actually has a name: Patronage Appointment. And if anyone thinks that Clinton or Trump wont make them, I have a really big bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale. In fact, you probably couldnt pick 2 candidates who were more likely to make patronage appointments. They both love nepotism. Anyway, I think theres a cliche, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The more they hack, the more I wonder what their true motivation is. Because I just dont believe that hackers are trying to do what is best for me. Maybe I am an old cynic, but something just seems odd about hackers all of a sudden becoming altruistic. I'm not really sure what I'd do with it, but I kinda like the idea of owning a bridge. How much?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 07:55 PM) Same here, mostly with the LA comedy scene, though I find the episodes with guests I'm not familiar with tend to be great none the less, but it's hard to commit. Sometimes you don't immediately recognize a name but you realize right quick that it's some one you do know and they're hilarious. That's what I like about Never Not Funny. I often don't know the guest, but Pardo does a good job of integrating them into the show. It's not an interview, they just goof around. I recommend Daves of Thunder as a comedy podcast. It's from 2010 and isn't recording anymore, but it's not really topical, so it's pretty evergreen. It's consistently funny, though it might take a few episodes to "get."