Juror#8

You think Luck is better? Statistics don't tell the whole story, but if we use that as our measure, the 105 rated Griffin III with his 18 TDs against 4 interceptions is Michael Jordan, while the 74.5 rated Luck with his 18 TDs to 18 interceptions is Clyde Drexler/Dominique Wilkins. I'm biased as I said last year that RGIII would be the better pro - and frankly, as of now, the statistics vindicate my prediction. But for all I know you could be talking about Wilson or someone else... That still wouldn't make sense though, because RGIII is better than him too. In fact, RGIII was the best player to come out of the 2012 draft by a good margin. Speaking of Michael Jordan, St. Louis has to feel like they picked Sam Bowie. In the second quarter against the Ravens on Sunday, RGIII threw an incomplete pass 69 yards in the air (the announcer said 60 but it was almost 70 by my count) right down the left sideline after side-stepping a defender.

April 26, 2012. The worst "play" was a badly missed strategic administrative decision - the decision not to sell the house to move up for RGIII.

I don't need to see a full season. RGIII (less than 1 season) AND Cam Newton (1 1/2 seasons) have shown more promise than Fitzpatrick has shown in 8 years. Has Fitzpatrick ever had a year that could even be considered on par with RGIII's 13 games? RGIII - 67% Completion; 2900 yards, 18 TDs 4 INT, 104.2 QB Rating Fitzpatrick - 62% Completion; 2700 yards, 21 TDs 13 INTs, 85.8 QB Rating Heck, for the fun of it: Cam Newton - 58% Completion percentage; 3200 yards, 16 TD 10 INT 88.0 QB rating And for those who reflexively compare Griffin III with Newton just because they're both....well....we'll just say "athletic," you're being ridiculous. Though Newton is better than what we have, he couldn't carry RGIIIs jockstrap. Let's recall Newton's rookie campaign: 60% Completion; 4051 yards, 21 TDs, 17 INTs, 84.5 Rating Cam Newton is on pace to match his own performance from last year. RGIII already bested it twice over. But then again, many of us here were singing RGIIIs praises and saying he'd be better than Luck over a year ago, when others were calling him a marginal first round talent at best (or the idiotic "Andre Ware redux" comments): http://forums.twobil...bout-the-draft/ http://forums.twobil...rd/page__st__20

I don't necessarily disagree with you on many of your points. Something as to be done. We need fiscal sensibility in this country. There needs to be a balance that weighs gratiuty against contribution and that arrangement has to be equally applicable to all. And I know that you throw in "your party" as a slight. It's not though. I'm a registered republican but most of all I'm a pragmatist. In order for their to be less dysfunction in this country, we need solutions to problems and ideas that transcend party affiliation. One party hegemonic control over a diverse minority electorate is not good for the union. Characterizing them as "takers" who are unrepentant, when really they are folks who just operate differently from you, is not going to make any alliances. You may not care about these things because you may have voted for Obama and desire that the GOP remain neutered for as long as possible, but I want to be happy to vote "R" in 2016 and would like to see a vast array of black, brown and other complected folks seeing the same vision for the GOP that I do. But people like you make it difficult. I see things differently from you so you call me a "democrat" though I've told you countless times that my party affiliation, my voting history, heck the majority of my political views, are decidely right of center. I don't dislike democrats, I just agree with them on less things than I agree with republicans on idelogically. But yet you still characterize me as a "democrat" or "progressive." So what I'm left with is that despite what I tell you, me or my diverse views on some matters scream "democrat" to you. In essense, your problem is with "diversity." What about "diversity" means incompatibility with you and "your" party? Is it the diversity of thought? Or the diversity of color?

Ok, in fairness LA, you didn't address my point about Asian Americans. The point is an interesting one, too, because it is a verifiable fact that directly contradicts your thesis. You contend that there was an uptick in the African American and Hispanic vote because they comprise the largest percentage of folks getting "free stuff." Asian Americans are a minority group. There was a substantial uptick in the Asian American vote (60% increase). As well, there was a voting homogeneity amongst Asian Americans for Obama (73%). however.... They are the wealthiest and most educated demographic within this country and use "free stuff" the least statistically. Asian Americans represent 2.4% of the welfare recipient list - compared to 38.8% (percentage of welfare recipients who are white). The Asian American experience belies your thesis. Their experience in the 2012 election cycle has to be accounted for. It's logically suspect for you to say that African American and Hispanic minority groups increased their aggregate voting percentage in favor of Obama because they want free stuff, but the Asian American minority group, being largely affluent (more so than whites), had to have increased their aggregate voting percentage in favor of Obama for different reasons. This is especially so when I pointed out that Asians are a very disunified group in everything else. An Indian woman in Spokane has nothing in common with a Japanese man in Toledo. Thinking that one group does something for a bad reason but the other group does the same exact thing for a different reason doesn't implicate the group as much as it does the thinker. I want to keep this civil and not name call, but, try as I might, I can't reconcile your thesis without thinking that there is some nefariousness and bias in your thought process. Otherwise, literally, your distinctions make no sense. There are approximately 1,677,000 black folks on welfare. There are 40,550,000 black folks in this country. Only 4% of the aggregate black population in this country, then, are on welfare. 13% of the electorate were black. 16,100,000 black folks voted. Even if every black person who was on welfare voted, that would account for only 10% of the black voting total in 2012. What about everyone else who voted for Obama and who is not on welfare? What of those 14,000,000 people? Are they voting prospectively based on their expections that their temp services job as a janitor will end leaving them in need of welfare. Are all black/hispanic folks who voted for Obama at or near the welfare line? The idea that black folks and Hispanics would vote for Obama for the express purposes of welfare continuance - as if no other issues matter - is patently ridiculous. Though you didn't say those words exactly, what you did say was that the "uptick" was due to them wanting to retain "free stuff." It stands to reason, then, (considering you provided no basis for your contention) that since every one in that group is voting for the same candidate, with the same vision, articulating the same message (to include the subgroup who are just voting to perserve welfare), theoretically any one within that aggregate pool of similarly situated voters could be equally as likely to be voting with the same welfare preservation end objective in mind. I've pointed out the problem with that in the paragraph beginning with "There are 1,677,000..." above. At the end of the day, what you're saying doesn't comport with any exit polling. It doesn't stand on solid logical footing. It's not reconcilable with the experiences of people with whom I affiliate that voted for Obama. But you're so comfortable with that idea, yet have no basis of support for it. That's why I have to believe that you have an inherent bias that colors (no pun intended) your view of the African American and Hispanic civic experience in this country. You're just throwing out too many very negative assumptions not to.

Figuring that someone (what a surprise, it's you) would make that specious argument, I added in there that little nugget about the Asian American vote. 73% of Asian Americans (the most wealthy and most educated demographic group in the country) voted for Obama. In 1992, 62% of Asian Americans voted for George H.W. Bush. Hmmmmmm..... Asian Americans comprised 2.4% of the electorate in 2008. They comprised 3.9% of the electorate in 2012. Hmmmmm...... If what I'm saying is not correct, and there isn't a collective dissatisfaction amongst minorites with what is perceived to be GOP efforts to marginalize, trivialize, and disenfranchise - how do you explain the Asian American vote? Their story isn't reconcilable with your stereotype oops....thesis. What I said about Trump, Coulter, Limbaugh, You, Sununu, etc is the reason. If it's not fixed, and your vision governs the direction of the party, there will be a worse reckoning in 2016...because the minority population is growing faster than the extant majority. Hang out with some black folks outside of LA and get a clue.

3.

PIIHB

Or Deebo.

You're absolutely right in that people will mention things here that they would never say to you in person. Tom wouldn't call you an idiot to your face; I wouldn't call LABillzfan a "nutsack" to his face; Doc wouldn't call the president "Barry" to his face; etc. Though it can be frustrating at times, you kind of sign up for the discourteousness when you join and participate in this forum. The folks here don't really feign altruism. I think that Westside brings an interesting perspective that gives depth to the dialog. I hope that he doesn't allow some ribbing to run him off. All anyone can do is state their position and move on to the next topic of conversation. If it gets a little contentious, at least people are paying attention. Westside: Don't take any guff from these swines. You came in here in search of the American Dream. Now that you're in the vortex, you want to quit? You must realize that they're ganging up on you because you've found the main nerve.

Well said and I'll toast to that.

Rob, I think that you have more confidence in body politic than I do. Maybe it's political cynicism from reading the inanity in constituent letters. Either way, I've come to the consclusion that body politic are largely dolts, and that they don't really care about making the right decision; they're just looking for the person who can better convince them of what the right decision should be. I think that that explains stockholm syndrome, Eugenics, Milgram's experiment, slavery, Japanese internment, 1922 - 1945 Germany, 1980s stylistic androgyny, etc. Seriously, check out Milgram's experiement and the "agentic state theory." That may change your opinion on the capacity of ordinary people to make rational decisions - especially en masse. I think that if a large portion of the electorate could be swayed by reason, it would be because they were convinced by the personality of the one communicating it that they should be swayed by reason - and what is "reasonable" would then be dictated by that governing, and now more trusted, personality. This doesn't apply to all, but it applies to most.

I edited my post above by the way. They did pay off the couch. They paid another $75 after buying the toaster. The default was on the toaster but since the account (and therefore, the balance) was aggregated, and couldn't be itemized, any default is considered in total.

Fair enough. But there are companies that prey on the proclivities of the ignorant and the less sophisticated. Those folks paid off that couch fair and square and if they understood what a cross collateralization transaction was, they may not have proceeded forward. Some places don't deal in good faith. They employ language and tactics that are difficult for most to comprehend. Just like we protect those under 18 from entering into contracts by making them "voidable," the law should protect the financially ignorant from predatory practices that the reasonable person would have no reason to think are predatory. And these companies should be ashamed of themselves for not dealing in good faith.

I remember a case from law school about these folks renting furniture and electronics from a "rent-a-center" type place. The plaintiffs had bought multiple items but the way that the contract read was that as long as they had an outstanding balance on any rented item, all items were subject to repossession in the event of a default. In effect, the individual would buy a couch for $1200.00. Then 18 months later when they were within $10 of paying off the couch, they'd buy a toaster for $200. 3 months later, after paying $75 towards the couch/toaster balance, something happens and they can't make the payment. They would lose the couch and the toaster because they would have defaulted on the aggregate balance...even though had they not bought the toaster, the couch balance would have been paid off and then some. It was the dreaded cross-collateralization clause. Of course the terms were hidden and somewhat userous. And the court found for the plaintiffs. But I don't think that cross-collateralization clauses are per se unconscionable. The plaintiffs were poor. Do you think in that instance that the store was correct and that the poor folks signed a contract and exercised poor responsibility and should, in fact, lose their couch? Or do you think that the terms were unconscionable and that the store in the wrong? I can't find the name of the case. Anyone have an L1 Contracts text? Should be first semester under the section on "unconscionability."

There really are republicans and people on the fringe right fanning the flames of xenophobia and ethnic skepticism. Things don't happen in a vaccuum and there are articulable reasons why the environment within which pandering can be successful, exists. I've been saying since day 1 here that the electorate are dolts. They don't want to know how the economy works. They just want it to work. They will tune out mid-way through your explanation. Side issues matter to them. Social issues are not merely side issues. That said, social issues matter to them too. And if the economy was dispositive, Romney would have won by a landslide. You're on the wrong side of the trustee vs. delegate debate. It's laudable; but wrong. The American people want to be led. They want a trustee. They don't want to put too much thought in the decisions; they just want to know that they are choosing an ingenuous decision-maker who will sincerely and decisively use their best judgment on a national level. The electorate doesn't want a delegate. They don't want to be taught and then choose someone to represent their now comprehensive understanding of how things should work on a national level. 70 million people tuned into the debates. I'll guarantee that the vast majority of those folks tuned in to determine who they felt was the more trustworthy candidate - not the most knowledgeable. They want to believe in someone. They want to believe that their leader possess the intelligence and knowledge that they don't care to ascertain, but care enough to know that it matters that the one leading the country ought to have ascertained it. And they want to believe that their leader is wise, understanding, faithful, and deliberative. And that comes down to trust, believeability and sincerity. The person who represents those qualities will win election after election against the automaton databot who understands the economic impact of anything (and can explain it conscisely).

The beer summit he spoke indelicately and obviously favored the professor. I think gates was his friend. I hope that his motivations for speaking impulsively were not racial. I'm not sure though. I still don't understand the meaning of his comments on Trayvon Martin (the "if he had a son" commentary). That seemed somewhat outside the scope of presidential decorum to speak on that issue. He should have the Justice Dept look into any claims of voter intimidation - to include the alledged intimidation by the Black Panther folks. I don't know know many of the details. I do know that intimidation at the polls, from any source, is problematic. I'm not sure what he or the Justice Department can do about threats to Mr. Zimmerman. That is a job for local law enforcement. Food Stamp thing is sad for myriad reasons. I think that that is something that should have been in the public discourse pre-vote. Those are the kinds of things that people should know before going into the voting booth. It implicates the budget, public resources, and the allocation of tax monies. If those numbers were held for that reason, that would be pretty pathetic.

I can't tell you how credit scores factor into the equation. If the administration is trying to turn credit scores into a racial issue, then they're dolts and need to not take credible legal shields and make them applicable to matters of personal indiscretion. That would be stupid and a dilution.

From the article: "In retrospect, the Romney team is in awe and full of praise of the Obama operation. 'They spent four years working block by block, person by person to build their coalition,” says a top aide. They now recognize that those offices were created to build personal contacts, the most durable and useful way to gain voters.'" "'We just didn’t expect the African-American vote to be so high.' African-American participation in Ohio jumped from 11 percent of the electorate to 15 percent between the 2008 and 2012 elections. 'We could never see that coming. We thought they'd gotten a lot last time.' But that wasn’t the only problem. Romney underperformed George Bush’s results from 2004 in the vast majority of Ohio’s counties, not just the ones with big African-American populations."

Enjoyed your original post Rob. Can I just opine here for a second... I talked with a conservative blogger who is MUCH smarter than me on this **** and he said that in his estimation the Donald Trumps, and birther stuff, and Limbaugh fanaticism, and xenophobia, and voter i.d. efforts that APPEARED to many to be a targeted attempt to suppress the minority vote, took it's toll on minorities in general. African Americans and Hispanics came out in greater numbers than in 2008. Explain that. Romney won independents by 5 points nationally and 10 points in OH. That didn't matter at all. But as someone said this weekend, the real tale of the tape is in the Asian vote. Obama won Asians 73% to 27%. Folks can't fall back on the usual "they want handouts" or " they're dumb" characterization attributed to *some* minorities. Asians are the wealthiest and most educated ethnic group in the United States - much more so than whites, blacks, hispanics, et. al. And, folks can't fall back on the "homogeneity" excuse. Asians are not as homogenous as black folks. An Indian woman in Texas has nothing in common with a Chinese man in Detroit or a Phillipino woman in Alexandria, VA. They're not a homogenous group. But yet they voted as if they were. Why? It says to me that the Republicans underestimated how annoyed minority *people*, in general, would be with some of these polemicists and their rhetoric and efforts that appeared to target and marginalize minorities as a group. So I'd like to add that Republicans need to distance themselves from the Donald Trump, Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, John Sununu, Sean Hannity, element of the party and move towards a slightly more moderate footing. And it is a problem when candidates are doing campaign events with these people. A friend of mine who works for a republican on the Hill texted me a link to a story on the uptick in the black vote in 2012 and captioned it with "this is what happens when you trivialize a figure like Colin Powell as simply making a racial endorsement." He's right. Words have consequences. I'd also like to add that Republicans need to figure out Obama's ground game. All you heard was that Romney's folks had taken notes from Obama's 2008 'get out the vote' effort and had built a formiddable operation themselves. For those who haven't read it yet, this is a good article on how the Romney campaign were misled on the numbers: http://www.slate.com...umbers_bad.html

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with ya on that RK.

I don't imagine that you care, however many of you are the reasons that the GOP is so damn unpalatable to so many. When I read that "disparate impact" was a "stealthy" way to advance racial preferences, the article lost credibility. Considering the "disparate Impact" on certain classifications of individuals is a way to demonstrate indirect or "stealthily" administered racially biased practices that disproportionately affects certain groups. It's about the only way that you can prove institutionalized racism against small municipal government entities and mom and pop employers. I don't expect this to matter cause I'm black and you're white, blah blah blah...but sometimes, and in some instances, people surreptitiously act in a racially or gender biased way that is difficult to follow in any conventional sense because the scrutinized requirement is facially neutral. If a restaurant says that you have to be under 5'2" to wait tables there, that is going to have a disparate impact on men. Unless there is a business necessity or the height requirement constitutes a bona fide occupational qualification (maybe the ceilings are only 7' tall, who knows...), I imagine that is going to be scrutinized. "Disparate Impact," if it's anything, is a shield, not a sword.

There have been a few responses mentioning that there is no "sure thing" and that you can find talent late in rounds or in the later rounds. The issue is that, just like with anything else, the prospects of finding that impactful, stud, franchise player increases when you can pick from 30 choices versus picking from 3 choices. It simply in the averages. The concern I have with the "fans buy tickets to enjoy a competitive game" responses is that it presupposes that fans are concerned with nothing beyond that insular experience. I don't believe that. I think that your average fan desires an overall competitive product that is sustainable. I think that being a football fan is more analagous to buying a car or other consumer good than it is to, say, attending a theme park. You don't want your car to work well for just one day or even one month. You make an investment into it with hopes that it will continue to provide value and utility for the forseeable future. I think that the "want to see a competitive game" approach assumes that a football game is simply a transient entertainment experience. You go to a theme park for transient entertainment because you don't take anything from the experience but that snapshot in time. It's kind of like fireworks - a semi-brilliant display but forgotten by morning. Football and fandom is different. We make an emotional investment and expect a consistent ROI.

Just messin with ya man. Good post idea. I'd be interested to see what the responses are.

You read my post and jacked my topic. Booooooooooo! lol.