Juror#8

Is 5 months a long time? Do you know how long it takes to craft a piece of legislation? If it starts in committee, if it's amended four times, if the lawyers look at it, if the LDs detail it, if it's voted on in committee, if it makes the floor, if it's ran through the LDs for 400+ people, if the LD kicks it to some junior peon for a synopsis, if the synopsis is given depth by the LD for the House member, if they discuss, if they wheel and deal, if the lobbyists incentivize the vote, if the lobbyist push back, if it goes to Senate, if it needs to run through office politics, btw lobbyists are more influential amongst the aristocracy, if there is too much distance between H and S, if it goes to conference committee, if the lobbyist get back in... You think that you can direct a meaningful legislative agenda in 5 months? A bill or two....ok....especially if he took his transition time to get through much of the bueracratic and technical **** that takes months. The problem is that many people think that since you can buy a house in 5 months, and that since that is 60% of a normal human gestation period, it's plenty of time to put meaning and effect to some paper. It's not. I should know. I was a Congressional staffer. I was the "junior peon" in the equation. It is ridiculous how long it takes for two congresspersons to agree that mankind needs to piss. The truth is, they obstructed his agenda. Republican set a record for obstruction. Why debate a fact?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought that BO couldn't remember what he said, and didn't want to put himself into a position that he had to creatively explain later, so he told Romney to go on in order to quickly move through the topic. It seems like he was questioning himself and had little Axelrod on his shoulders saying (stop talking). It makes more sense when you consider that he became emboldened when Crowley dignified his original comment. He had a reason to restore his confidence in his original thought process.

Specifically, what character flaws?

Fair enough. I just think that outside of the promise of Obamacare (which I view as a good thing) and some small initiatives here and there, we are at the floor in terms of presence and direction. I guess Romney could go all Herbert Hoover, but I hope not. He is a jackass, and a liar, but I hope that if he's elected he has enough sense to stick to the agenda that he's running on (outside of repealing Obamacare which I doubt will be successful) and let the advisors guide this country in a different, coherent, direction.

Here in PPP. I dislike Romney personally but don't like the current Administration so I'm very far from objective on this subject. I can't be trusted to discuss Romney's policies cause I find him loathsome. I'm biased. People like 3rd, Bman, and Doc (and some others) APPEAR to have a personal issue with BO. I think that that implicates their view of him as a leader and a president. To them, BO listens to Iron Maiden backwards, gives alka seltzer to bald Eagles, and steals Halloween candy from blond haired, blue-eyed children. There is always another conspiracy. It's refreshing to read an opinion from a republican that doesn't come from a place of animosity on either side. To a somewhat lesser extent, I feel the same way about Tom (though I'm not sure that he's a republican) and OC (even though OC is an insufferable lout). Y'all are the 1943S copper pennies of this forum.

Not sure if you mean the GOP candidate could be/has been worse or the current leadership could be/has been worse?

Good post. I agree with everything that you said starting with "I" and ending with "." You should post here more. I suspect that this type of approach, expressed nationally, would sway a lot of independents and people who just don't like Romney. For the briefest of moments, your post made a Romney presidency seem almost palatable - if nothing else because it would be difficult to be more ineffectual than the current WH has been (broad scale).

1. You're so inconsistent. 2. Since you're critical of Romney, you secretly support Obama. Sarcasm off.

I know that you don't like B.O. but wow....just wow. And I'm not sure you watched the same election season that I watched in 2008. I've NEVER seen anyone treated with kid gloves in the MSM like Palin was. EVER! MSM Q: What newspapers do you read? Palin A: Thats a "gotcha" question and you're not being nice. MSM: We'll make sure not to ask it again. Sorry. MSM Q: What is the Bush doctrine? Palin A: That's a "gotcha" question and you're not being nice. MSM: We're realizing that we can't ask you much. Did you see the vice presidential debates in 2007? Poor Joe Biden was handicapped before the thing started because of how sensitive Palin is and how every aggressive policy discussion would get spun into some sort of verbal spousal abuse. Ridiculous. Meanwhile, back in Gotham, Obama has it coming at him from every direction...about Ayers, and Wright, and some other professor, and his birth certificate, and his religion, and the Weather Underground, and.... They talked about McCain and the Keating 5 for about a millisecond and then it was back to who Obama knew 20 years ago. People who say that Obama was given a pass either slept through the entire 2008 campaign season, or refuse to dismount from their paradigms. Here is an interesting story that tracks the negative press in the 2008 race (but only into July, 2008): http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election

Quoted for truth.

The brunette should spend some time eating some of that Memphis BBQ. Sheesh!

You know what this debate demonstrates, that they're both bad candidates; they're sad representatives for the nation; they're unprepared for the behemoth tasks that will confront them. Bill Clinton would have answered Jeremy's (the college student) question with "what are you in school for?" "What do you want to do post graduation?". Instead, Romney talks about taxes and Obama discusses the Detroit automotive economy. They are SUCH BAD CANDIDATES. Wow! They're pathetic. Anyway, I said after the first debate that Romney was Michael Jordan and BO was Byron Russell. This round, BO won. He won on points. They both lost on style. I'm not sure if BO was too timid or too over-confident during the first debate. Whatever it was though, Romney picked up on it and you can see his confidence growing. It was a different story on this go around. Funny thing is is that I thought Mitt would win this debate. I thought that he could more easily anticipate BO's strategy and diffuse it. I thought that he would have an advantage on substance, an advantage on delivery, and an advantage on style. It's interesting that he wasn't able to capitalize on any of those things. More interesting than that is how conspicuously quiet the "he can only use a teleprompter" crowd has been post debate. There are real points of criticism, there is bias, in then there is the "teleprompter" inanity. If your thesis is 'the man can't interact without a teleprompter', then you have to have some semblance of explanation for instances when he shows well "without a teleprompter." It's classic Brady v. Maryland. Give up the exculpatories and address your deficiencies. BTW, for you one trick ponies who can't internalize the concept that 'not hating' isn't tantamount to 'supporting,' this is not about supporting one candidate's policies (if you can't grasp that, please see my bolded point above). It's about trying to understand the personal dislike for BO and all the subterfuge and surrogate positions used to mask that personal dislike. At least I just say that I don't like Romney. I don't try to couch it in policy terms. He's just irksome. And to Doc - with regard to your question two weeks ago - I'm voting for Jeb Bush and Buddy Roemer.

I have to wonder what people do to be able to spend $10,000.00 on some BBQ sauce. My guess, investment banker. http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8511732/gallon-1992-michael-jordan-barbecue-sauce-sells-10000-ebay

I know it's what you do. And you know that I respond. That is our ebb and flow. You **** talk with some substance sprinkled in. I **** talk with some substance sprinkled in. The thread descends into ****. And then we start anew the next time around. We're both polemic - to some degree. What I say remains consistent actually. It may be contrarian, but it's damn consistent. Many don't like it cause it doesn't fit their conception of what a republican should be. I don't hate BO. I think he is a nice guy actually. I don't hate welfare. I don't hate affirmative action. I'm very much in the mold of a Northern Virginia conservative. We're ideologically very neo-"bull moose" Rooseveltian. Didn't disagree with you on this then. I don't disagree on this point now. I just wanted some more development on your latter point because it implicates your thesis. Let's just say that it was not within the comprehension realm of every audience, and I can understand how some audiences could view it as "babbling" - depending on their level of political sophistication. Thank you for making my point. This was absolutely the point of the left shoulder, right shoulder bit. Not seeing it yet....keep thinking about it, it'll make sense. Trust me, the electorate is still very conscientious of social issues. It comes and goes in waves. It was huge in 2000...not so much in 2004. 2008 it was big again, especially in state-wide elections. 2012 it's not getting much play. At the end of the day it's because the electorate are largely dolts. They go for the red meat and are very easily Pavlov'd. And I know that ideologically, the social can be separated from the fiscal AND even the defense crowd. Many of the neo-cons were 60s-era flower children who marched with King but wanted to bomb the **** out of every country that had 'istan' after it. The Northern VA conservative crowd here are mostly business and national defense wonks who really do believe that affirmative action serves to address an articulable historical wrong, and that BO is a cool cat, BUT also believe that businesses should be given carte blanche to operate somewhat autonomously in a competitive marketplace and that we have strategic interests that need protected internationally, and that the current administration has been derelict in fostering an environment in which the nation can really thrive. That's the camp that I fall into. You may call that "inconsistent." I call it self-assured and independent big tent conservatism. You really think that when the **** hits the fan, the accusations are flying, the money is at stake, the hypothetical person is going to call an IT consultant? No, they're gonna lawyer up. They're gonna call me and I'm gonna call their people. Then my people feel comfortable. Lawyers...dime a dozen. Eh, probably so. That's because you mother!@#$ers need us; you want us. We take care of **** that you don't want to deal with. We make you feel warm and fuzzy in a real preternatural way. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson: "....my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Figured you couldn't entertain a debate without mudslinging and name-calling and your usual non-sense. Look at my post and look at your response. This is completely unnecessary. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, maybe you should have the manners enough not to type it in an otherwise non-caustic discussion online. And I guarantee you wouldn't call me a "moron" to my face without provocation. There would be a significant misunderstanding if so brother. Moving on... Reasonable. Check. Moving on. You said that the only thing conservative about conservatives was "social stuff." You mentioned that as if it was easily reconcilable with your thesis. It's unfortunate that you can't understand that. Said the unsophisticated prostitute at a bounded harmonic functions lecture. So.......what does that have to do with trivializing, or otherwise breezing through the characterization with regard to the social policy agenda? I never argued with the substance of your point. I just mentioned that there was more to it if you wanted to claim a thorough analysis. You're apparently arguing with yourself. But if you want to tell me more about how your original point is pretty cool, you can. I'll just tell you again that it's not analytically thorough. Note that I'm not saying that there is no soundness to your argument. Interestingly enough, I think your argument is pretty interesting and I've made a similar one before in a slightly different context. However, in a comprehensive analytical sense, there is no divorcing the social agenda from respective political parties as it pertains to a "conservative," or "progressive" characterization. Simple. Dimple. No, girlfriend, I heard the term bastard - understood the meaning of it - and then incorporated it where appropriate into my lexicon. I've never heard it used in the context that I use it and I certainly didn't hear it from an IT guy. The only thing I hear from "IT guys" is a lot of "pleases," thanks yous" and " yes sir." Then I stroke them a check so they can get off my dick and get back to being 40 year old overweight losers who are too focused on their next IBFDLKJFVDKLJSFDJK++ certification to get some pussssssy or pay rent. But as long as you dickless peons keep my firm's website up, you can continue with your little "profession" that is just an excuse for you to live in your mom's basement and continue meeting women in the Ukraine.

Question: Does the bold entail voting for Romney? Second Question: The "social stuff..." really? That's all it is? Or is that your way of claiming that you acknowledged something that, if you really got into detail with it, undermines your thesis. But that's just if you want to look at these ideologies wholistically. If you want to piece-meal them, you can have all kinds of fun with contrarian theses. And given the cyclical nature of the theoretical political spectrum, and how the right shoulder of anarchy touches the left shoulder totalitarianism, then one can postulate all kinds of fun theses and attribute them to different political proclivities. But again, that may be more than what you were bargaining for on this Monday morning so I'll let you have your fun. But just know - the "social stuff" is not an also-ran. And any discussion of the viccissitudes of political attributes and their relation to the mainstream political party agenda needs to acknowledge that breadth. BTW - I see you very cleverly used the word "bastardizing" in a recent post. The influence of the Eighth Juror knows NO bounds. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You tell me. I didn't think that was his best game ever and I consider the competition in that equation as well. But with that said... Isn't everyone saying that his passion is impacted by his family loss? Didn't I say that everyone responds differently? Do you want me to find what Brett did the next game, or Mike did the next game, or how Douglas fought the next fight or you want to just call it square? Dan, what would that do for your rant/fact paradigm if Brett/Mike/Buster continued to beast out and Marcell responded the way he did? Just some queries...

I understand that in subsequent posts in this thread you've amended some of your original thoughts but I did want to mention that I made this same argument, almost to the letter, last year when Marcel was looking promising. I wondered in AJ Green would have been the better pick 2 games into last season. I, personally, think that building from the lines is an antiquated approach and put us at a competetive disadvantage in a greatly evolving league. I would rather this team lose 50-48 every game and know that we can score than to have no identity and not know which team will show up from game to game. If you can score points at will (indeed the objective of the game itself) you keep their defense on the field and you affect their offensive gameplan. Having an unstoppable offense literally has a defensive element as it impacts the opposing team's offensive gameplan. They want to keep you off the field so they run, try to use the clock, and go away from their usual approach OR they have to keep up so they take chances. If you have an opportunistic and fast defense, you can exploit these adjustments. Instead every year we're talking about if such and such a tplayer will fit in this defense, 4-3 or 3-4, DE or LB and in what scheme. Blah! Put some playmakers on the field and let them score points. Get a stud QB who can intelligently read a defense and launch a ball 60 yards on a rope. Get some beef up front to give him time to appraise the landscape. Sprinkle in some 4.3 speed elusive guys and let these cats go to work. TJ Graham and CJ Spiller are good starts.

Obviously everyone responds differently to tradgedies but... Didn't Michael Jordan kick the crap out of Phoenix to win a championship after his father passed? Didn't Farve have a magical night on Monday night football after his dad passed? Didn't Buster Douglas ko Mike Tyson (the "Iron Mike" iteration not the Glass Joe or first Bald Bull iteration) after his father passed? But then again, everyone responds to adversity differently.

Excellent thoughts Bill. I look forward to 16 of these a year. Can't wait to see an "A Few Thoughts..." post in week(s) 19, 20, 21.

Should have drafted AJ Green. He was the BPA at pick number 3. I hope, hope, hope that this is not true, but I see Dareus having a Glenn Dorsey type career. I see AJ Green being a Larry Fitzgerald clone.

Ralph is such a convenient excuse for the last decade of incompetence. The man was in his 80s and the team was really damn successful. There are teams that have been bad with young owners, and good with old, meddling ownership. Tom Benson is damn near 90 and he has been successful. Dan Snyder and Jim Dolan are young and fertile but they don't have a clue. If you don't believe that Ralph allows Nix to do his job, then that's on you. I think he does. I just think that GMs have been piss poor. Nix is marginally better but he still doesn't have any success on his resume as a GM. Can Ralph be blamed for hiring bad GMs. Yeah. I guess so. But how proximately related is he to the product put on the field? If a GM or coach claims football bona fides, I blame them for putting out a ****ty product and for not having that claimed acumen. If I go to Cheescake Factory, and my service sucks because the waiter was terrible and my burger is undercooked, and it is like that every time I go, I don't blame it on Dave Overton. I blame it on myself for going, and on the individual most responsible for the hiring and retention of that employee. This team gets better when we stop trying to emulate every trend and begin to think somewhat innovatively about the game of football.

Good thoughts sir. I think we agree completely on that (franchise QB and WR needs). This organization is too accustomed to following someone else's model, what some other GM did here, there or wherever. We need a franchise QB and we need to give a king's ransom to get one. If I hear one more person say that we should use our fist pick on a LB I'll completely lose it. That is the same reactive 'plug-the-hole' so that we can be like ________ mentality that leaves us playing this ridiculous game of "catch up." We need to build a team predicated on scoring points and that can score points both running and throwing the football. We need an intelligent, franchise QB that can grind out wins on those rare occassions that a defense presents a challenge. We need a coach that is ahead of the creativity curve with respect to designing schemes that exploit opponent weaknesses. We need playmakers who are measurably fast, athletic, svelte, and are accustomed to finding the endzone. And we need a defense that is fast and opportunisitic. Frankly, we need to tank this season and get our QB. I wish that Howard Schnellenberger was born 30 years later.

Who cares? Build the **** out of the offense and we will win games.

I've said before, and I'll say again, that the organization is going to continue being inept until it stops trying to play catch up. And the sad thing is that many fans here have been complicit in that effort. Headline: THE GIANTS WIN SUPERBOWL ___ BY PRESSURING BRADY. What do we do? We follow the formula...we spend a bunch of money on a Dline, mortgaging the future in order to insert individually strong components on a line hoping to replicate the tandem that beat one team, one or two times. We're always a game behind, a trend behind, a player behind, a unit behind, a coaching staff behind because the organization (and the fans, but I digress) lack the creativity and the perspicuity to see things beyond what happened over the course of a couple seasons that was successful for some other team. Meanwhile, most of the league grows up and evolves. The Patriots, who twice were beat by the same formula, continue to stockpile quick-hitting receivers and big tight ends to neutralize the rush. They incorporate a lightning fast non-huddle attack to nuetralize the rush. They stock pile these little annoying water bug no-name receivers (Edelman and the annoying squirt who was cut from the Jets) to neutralize the rush. And frankly it worked and is working. They lost to the Giants again but Brady wasn't man-handled like he was a few years ago. They were one Welker drop away from a different outcome. We're always playing catch up. We're reactive. The only way to change that trend is to turn the pressure around on everyone else. We need to mortgage the farm to draft Geno Smith, stockpile offensive playmakers, and continue constructing a formiddable o-line so that we can take the battle to the other team. I started a thread on this a year or two ago that was all about the merits of drafting AJ Green over Dareus towards the goal of putting points on the board and making the other teams play catch up. For once, we can be ahead of the trend. Many thought that idea was ludicrous. Theirs was more of the same, knee-jerk, stay the course, lack creativity and follow the formula BS that this team has adhered to for decades. The ONLY way to put the game-day fortunes of this team in it's own hands is to place the primary focus on scoring points. The defense can be built incrementally and will be helped by the pace that the offensive sets and the pressure that that places on other teams to score. In my thread a year ago, I mentioned as an example a Colts/Patriots game 5 years ago or so were Belichick had to keep going for it on 4th down because he couldn't afford to get down to the Colts because their offense was so potent. Very few will agree with me. Very few did last year. But my concerns continue to bear themselves out. We've spent a hundred and something million on a pass rush that is getting pimped by the opposing team's offenses. BECAUSE THEY'VE SEEN THAT MOVIE BEFORE. Teams are scoring an assload on these Bills because our "fix" was a season or two behind. Go ahead...be silly and ask me what the offense could have done to prevent the 49ers from scoring 45 points or how AJ green could have stopped Frank Gore from running all over the place. First person to do that missed the point. By the way, not everyone has been myopic and has lacked creativity. The Senator proposed the idea of hiring Mike Leach a few years back. Though I wouldn't have supported it and don't think he would have been successfull here, it still shows A LOT of creativity and vision. That is what this team needs.