Juror#8

After hearing everything that I've heard over the last few months, I still put the responsibility on Zimmerman. He profiled an individual that wasn't doing anything wrong, chased/followed him (by his own admission) against the admonitions of a 911 dispatcher, then caught an ass whoopin. What I'm not sure of is what happened in the intervening time frame between when he chased Trayvon, lost sight of Trayvon, and they finally confronted one another. The only thing I do know is that if he would have called the police due to suspicious activity, then they could have performed their due diligence and determined that the kid was bored and walking for refreshments. Zimmerman would have been performing a valuable function for his community by observing untoward behavior and notifying the authorities. Instead, he went beyond his citizen function, chased the kid, pissed him off, and caught a beat down. Then, out of options due to his own stupidity, Zimmerman had to resort to shooting Trayvon because he couldn't fight like a man. If Zimmerman is exonerated, then he should be left alone and allowed to move on peacefully without being bothered by people who disagree with the court's judgment. He would have been acquitted and folks need to respect the determination of the court and let the man and his family get on with their lives. Unfortunately, there are probably some cats, in some hood spots, who will endeavor to make Zimmerman's acquaintance.

Frankly I'm not for any regulations on guns save for military-use assault weapons and checks to see if folks have a felony or a history of debilitating mental instability. Outside of that, own, shoot, and collect. But you have to see the technical problem with that argument, right? The calculated objective of alcohol is to consume as a beverage. People don't drink alcohol "to drive." The alcohol is not the instrumentality. The car is the instrumentality that effectuates the harm. The alcohol just alters the state of mind that facilitates the environment wherein harm can be caused. Access to cars won't be restricted without a profoundly compelling government interest that I can't even begin to fathom but...there are laws restricting the usage of vehicles, what beverages can be consumed therein, how fast you can go, the attention needed to operate said vehicle, etc. Cars won't be restricted because their benefit as a transportive device substantially outweighs the harm that they can cause. Conversely, the gun IS the instrumentality. It effectuates the harm. The calculated objective of the gun is to ejaculate a projectile towards an animate or inanimate object. Guns don't establish the environment, or set the mood, wherein harm can happen. They, themselves, effectuate the damage. They are the "harm causer." Similar to a car, they are the instrumentality. Now that we distinguished alcohol and guns, and we're looking at a comparison between the two instrumentalities, guns and cars, guns have been deemed more "restrictable" because their benefit as an object that ejaculates projectiles towards an object is not considered as important an objective as transporting someone back and forth to work or to see loved ones. Therefore, according to Uncle Sam, guns can be restricted with greater zeal. To be sure, which do you use more and need more regularly, a car or a gun? Not saying that I agree with many of the restrictions, because I don't; but guns are ABSOLUTELY distinguishable (as an instrumentality) from alcohol (as at best, a facilitator).

"One must view with profound respect, the infinite capacity of the human mind to resist the introduction of useful knowledge." -Thomas Lounsbury It is phenomenal (and instructive) how quickly any topic around the profound shortcomings of the administration with whom most of you agree ideologically, turns into an end around indictment of the administration with whom you don't agree with ideologically - notwithstanding that the topic has nothing to do with the latter administration. With all the evidence of lies, deceit, subterfuge, blatantly misleading the Congress and the American people, shielding some evidence, aggrandizing other evidence, etc., and at the highest levels of government with complicity amongst every known security agency, the Department of State, and the Executive Branch of government, et. al., you would think the mea culpas would be aplenty. Because we alllllllllllll know that many of you ladies of leisure were taking some uncontested rooster up the glory hole in your support for the Bush administration that had no compunction about lying to you circa 2002-2006. And you defended them. And you defend them some more. And you defended every bit of their contrived machinations over the years. "But....but....but....Obama and Libya....Obama and Libya...." Some of you dolts will probably defend the Bush Administration TO THIS DAY. Can't wait for the *moved to Syria" gems to flow like diarrhea from those well worn butt holes. *and think before you mention Libya please* I voted for Bush the second time. He was a horrible president that makes the current administration look brilliant in comparison. I shouldn't have voted for Bush. They lied. They were pathetic. They were incompetent. It sucks. But instead of mea culpas for many of you, it's blame Obama. It's instructive because the same folks who can't rightfully lay blame in a responsible direction, and would rather turn this into another occassion to talk about BO, demonstrate that they can't be expected to cogently entertain a single political conversation that requires even a semblance of objectivity. And then they have the audacity to talk in generalities about "libs" being ________. Hypocrites.

Welcome. Again, welcome. Post(s) #1 and #8 and #15 http://forums.twobil...e__hl__huntsman Post# 229 http://forums.twobil...an#entry2360612 Post#18 http://forums.twobil...an#entry2330395 By the way, he got my "write-in" vote.

I believe that the official line was that is played on the victimization of women, encourages violence towards women, and portrays women as weak, scared and defenseless. I'm not sure who would look like anything other than scared and defenseless if someone was wielding a chainsaw in their direction, but no matter. The advertisement ran for one night during the Olympics (I remembered it being during the Superbowl but that was 13 years ago) and then was pulled. I saw it when it aired live and thought it was a brilliant concept. I guess that you can't make an ad with a woman being kissed, lusted over, chased, stared at, laughed at, stereotyped, etc. EVEN IF the advertisement empowers women and pokes fun at the individual doing the lusting, chasing, stereotyping, etc. I just don't get how these retailers can fold to the pressure of groups to pull ads when the groups complaining traditionally are not even their target demographic: http://www.kdays.com/2008/07/06/horror-why-sport-nike-ad-campaign-2000/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-234668.html http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=89339&page=1 http://www.seanbaby.com/news/nike2.htm

In the spirit of this year's commercials that the PC folks are actively trying to have banned from the airwaves because they hate freedom and creativity, anyone know of any uber-controversial commercials that fell victim to some interest group that was offended? If you're unfamiliar with what I'm referring to, some lefty feminists are frustrated about that very well executed Audi commercial last night: http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2013/02/superbowl-audi-commercial/ It reminds me of this brilliant Nike commercial that ran during Superbowl XXXIV that feminists successfully forced Nike to pull: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQLYfTy5q8

I just posted a response in that thread. Anyway, off topic but I never miss an opportunity to share this with an Audi fan boy: http://www.autointhenews.com/bmw-vs-audi-billboard-wars-a-battle-of-ad-budgets/

What year is your A4? Speaking of tickets, we had some unseasonably warm (and cold too btw) days here in the DC area over the last two weeks. I decided to dust off the Mustang. Wasn't driving it for 20 minutes before I got a ticket for my exhaust being too loud. Then he had the audacity to ask what setup I had. I figured that he must have been a Camaro owner.

I understand that reasonable people have very different musical interests, but I can't understand why the complaints about the production itself. I thought that it was very well done. The camera angles and replicating Beyonces was novel and, I thought, entertaining. Also, I'm confused by the "she can't sing" camp. Beyonce has a beautiful voice. And I'm not just saying that because I want to have sex with her.

Good catch...you're right that is an S6. I'm partial to the E92 M3 but Audi's high performance "S" lineup is sexy as ****. Anyway, I enjoyed that analysis. The "assault" angle just makes the whole thing more baddass imo.

Yea...cause I mentioned nothing about topography, climate, population, demographics, sparseness, etc. And of course, the t-shirt represented the crux of my point, right? It obviously wasn't the encapsulating point that, at it's foundation, relied on 50,000 other points that I had made in the preceding paragraphs leading up to it. I simply said - "South Dakota sucks because I read it on a t-shirt." Right? Wrong. Let me guess, you were so confused by the "this is all you need to know about the Dakotas" comment (the encapsulating point), that you missed the vindicating arguments. If you're using the same logic here that you use to make ANY other point, at any other time, then this should be instructive to anyone arguing a point against you why they should never take you seriously. If it was just a bad outing for you, then just take the L and move on quietly. Incidentally, I was in Sioux Falls for a conference in 2009. Save for a kinda cool park with a water fall, it sucked. (BTW, if you go, never eat at a restaurant called "the Fryn' Pan" - it'll give you the *****)

I was pulling for the Ravens and I'm glad that they won. They are a class organization. Back in 2010 when Buffalo sucked, we played them, and during the postgame they had nothing but good things to say about the Bills and their competitiveness.

I didn't follow Kaep in college. But I do remember a large contingent here wanting the FO to draft him. He is a baller. I wish that he was in a Bills uniform

The Audi S5 commercial was all kinds of awesome and the best commerical in my opinion. But they should have panned to the prom queen in the passenger seat with a naughty smile on her face as he was driving away. Pulling up in the "principal" parking spot was a nice touch.

She is an amazing artist and an amazing talent. This is the first half time show in a while that I watched in it's entirety. The performance and the optics were very good. I just wish Jay Z would have made an appearance...but that would have meant that this board, along with 70% of middle America, would have exploded with criticism.

Again, good points. I'm just trying to make sense of it all. All these proposals are not original. They're recycled initiatives and have been discussed, proposed, or tried before. You just begin to wonder, why haven't they worked or why haven't they been tried yet? Drilling, tax reform, job programs, etc. have all been tried and for one reason or another lack staying power as a economic driver. Why? And is it the chicken or the egg? Is the unemployment rate in the Dakotas (South Dakota - 4.4%; North Dakota - 3.2%) low because of oil drilling, or because the state is sparsely populated, has attracted financial centers because of favorable business tax rates (Citi, Capital One), and, because no one wants to live there, they lack competition for jobs? 1. If it's the former, how do you explain Nebraska's 3.7% unemployment rate, or Montana's 5.3% unemployment rate, or Wyoming's 4.7% unemployment rate? 2. If it's the latter, wouldn't that then give you a convenient answer for question 1 too (given the population, climate, regional closeness, and topographical similarities)? We're only 4 years removed from a republican presidency that, ostensibly (to hear '3rdnlng' tell it), should have been the antithesis of the "fairness" inherent in a democratic administration. Yet we still had the same **** economy, the same proposals, the same "what ifs," and coulda-shoulda-wouldas. The only difference is that under the R we were on the road to ****, and under the D the **** has materialized. This economy has been ****, but it was tanking under Bush. Who is to blame? Reagan's job economy was **** for a while, but Carter was his predecessor and was a dolt. Clinton's job economy was magnificient - but he benefitted from the internet boom. Who was responsible for putting those pieces into place to incubate that pro-business environment? D or R? It just seems that folks (not you btw) are quick to ascribe laudatory or disparaging descriptions (or just turn a blind eye) based on D or R associations. But it seems to be the same thing over and over again. I wish I could look back to see how many 3rdnlng "the more you know" posts there were in early 2008 when the Dow was at 3 and people were losing jobs faster than an Aventador LP700 on the Autobahn. I like your idea about natural gas cars. From what I can tell that hasn't gotten much play here in the states and the rationale and potential impact makes sense. I think that we should drill because we have untapped petroleum resources and I think that there would be a job boost. I'm just not sure that the Dakotas are the best example to advance the concomitant job growth angle, because I think that their state's *unique* distinction as states that you only live in if you have to, likely embellishes the impact of those numbers. I was once at an airport in Minneapolis. They were selling shirts that said "North Dakota is not the end of the world but you can see it from there." That probabaly tells you what you need to know about North and South Dakota. Not being contrarian; just trying to make sense of what appears to be 30 year old unresolved arguments that overlap different congresses, leadership, and both D & R presidents.

Thanks for taking the time to go through this so comprehensively. I read your post three times and I appreciated it more with each read. I can't say that I disagree with anything that you said, however I must admit that I'm at a disadvantage because I'm not an economist and I only understand economic theory and the componentry at a very pedestrian level. With that said, the thrust of my questions was in an effort to highlight a seemingly recurring and abiding motif: "If it is that easy, why can't anyone accomplish it consistently?" The rest of my post is going to seem really very unscientific and as if I'm arguing along the margins. That's because I am. As I said earlier, I can't disagree with what you're saying technically because it seems to make sense conceptually. But I wonder why in practice, there is a disconnect? You said earlier, that Reagan and Clinton were assisted by some good atmospherics to drive their growth numbers. It almost seems like there are too many variables to have a coherent strategy that is guaranteed to work in any extant economic environment. Sort of like a continuum...where if you make a decision based on the current climate, then the situation has changed too substantally by the time of implementation. Conversely, if you try to forecast ahead, there are too many unknown future variables that could impact your guesswork. And maybe that explains the ebb and flow to the unemployment numbers over the last 60 years: http://data.bls.gov/...ods=Annual Data I can't discern a single explainable pattern from those numbers. Democrats and Republicans. Reagan and Obama. Eisenhower and Clinton. War and Peace. Harmony and Strife. It just seems like its' guess work. Almost like phrenology.....an effort to make science out of happenstance. In that prism, your criticism of the administration's economic policy seems like throwing darts blindly. Because you're advocating for an approach that either hasn't been sustainable before, hasn't been tried, hasn't worked, and that is based on the current economic climate that is so vicissitudinous as to potentially render the model ineffective by point of implementation. Now that is not to say "Why try?" Really what I'm asking is that in consideration of the above points, why would your model be more effective that anyone elses? And how do you feel comfortable criticizing the current administration for their approach? And how do you know if what didn't work today, won't work tomorrow - and vice versa? It just seems like a bunch of guesswork to me.

I have a response but I am unsure of a few things from your post and I was hoping that you (or anyone) could help me clear them up. I have my opinions on some of these items, but I'd like to know yours: When was the last time a president addressed "structural labor market woes"? When was the last instance that something more significant than a "short-term measure" was employed to boost the economy enough to reach escape velosity? When was the last time the country experienced something appreciably better than "subpar growth"? To the best of your recollection, when was the last time very much [was] done to "structurally and sustainably improve labor markets and the economy"?

2016 will be your year 3rd. You have the wind at your back. Can't you feel it? Keep fighting the good fight.

I can't disagree with that.

This **** is so ridiculously, and absurdly, funny... "I feel like you're eye ballin' me dawg....see the skillz....see the skillz...."

I was repping this movie here back in September. I figured that Tarrantino, with the topic of slavery, and considering how he likes to play in the realm of the ahistorical and the anachronistic, would make a good show.

Buck Turgeson at around 4 minute mark:

And the montage before that is great too. Usual Suspects is my favorite movie. I saw it in the theater unintentionally and as a second choice because the movie that I went to see originally was sold out. The Limey. Great little indie flick with many Soderbergh querky film conventions. Not my favorite scene from the movie but a good little dialog clip nonetheless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BaXPg_2FJ4

Starting at 15 seconds in: