Juror#8

This is good. Hopefully, the dysfunction continues and we can start from scratch again. This time, though, with the #1 overall pick and a new coaching staff.

What?!? What? Where? How? You think that that was an argument? It probably looked familiar to you and that's why you thought that huh? Well that is part of your problem. I was poking fun at you for kicks. If I'm making an argument, you'll know it. And you know you'll know it cause you've had to deal with me before despite how dismissive your next response post will be. We know that you know that you'll know it. And we know that you know that that is why you tried to short circuit the effort. You don't want none of Debo.

Quoted for truth. And I'll give Romney this...he was successful at making things happen, as a moderate Republican, in a state controlled by Democrats. His ideological stances have hardened a bit since then (whether sincerely or opportunistically remains the question and is why I don't like him personally). However he has shown a willingness to accommodate and be conciliatory. All hyperbole aside, I can't support him because I can never know if he successful politically because he was moderate and changed ideologically when that context was no longer necessary or if he is moderate and never fundamentally changed, but is more rigid because the circumstances necessitate it now. Or is it a combination of both? Everytime I think of him I think of that confounding crocodile paradox: "If a crocodile steals a dog and promises its return if the owner can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the owner correctly guesses that the dog will not be returned? That is what Mitt Romney does to me. He is an enigmatic fellow who I've ascribed insincerity to. Reminds me of the little anecdote credited to Truman, Roosevelt, Wilson, and likely every President in-between... President Wilson is walking down the street and is accosted by an elderly lady who very enthusiastically tells him that he is a horrible person, a pathetic politician and that he is ruining the country. As the lady leaves abruptly and Wilson and his advisors continue about their way, Wilson looks at them and says: "Put her down as undecided." I've heard that anecdote 3 different times about as many presidents and it probably never happened.

Point taken. Clinton was good at that. Just seems like things have been hyper-partisan since (with the exception of roughly 18 months post fall, 2001). Both Bush and Obama haven't been successful at all at conciliation and political road-making. I know that the Congress' during both administrations were obstructionist. I don't know if that was a Congressional reaction to a perceived unwillingness of the President to work with them,, or political self-preservation on the side of the opposing Congress. Think about it though, the system is counter-intuitive...a majority party in Congress of the opposite ideological persuasion to the WH has no incentive to work with the WH. If they help to advance WH initiatives, and they're successful, they're sustaining the political power of that opposing party. It actually behooves them to stonewall and obstruct.

So how do you watch Skinemax? Are you able to view Spice channel partially through the tv signal interruption? I've heard.....that if you stare at the interruption waves you can begin to make out figures and shapes.

Sure is. In a decidedly partisan political universe, where "crossing the isle" is a talking point that people say just to get votes but not with any real intention, and where the POTUS can't garner any effort from any in the opposite party because of concerns over political self-preservation, and where the highest court in the land is nominated by the President, and where the President sets the legislative agenda for their party, and can disrupt the legislative agenda for the opposing party... ....it's absurd that we're given two individuals with whom we can invest our political hopes and expecations.

Quoted for truth. When you consider that there are over 300 million people in this country, it's absurd that we're given two individuals with whom we can invest our political hopes and expecations. Like Rod Serling absurdity. We can vote for one intelligent jackass or one intelligent dumbass, both of whom inspire zero confidence as a galvanizer of meaningful, sincere, substantive, change. Serling absurdity. And the electorate are a bunch of inconsiderately fu(((ked Henry Bemis'.

I think you're wrong Doc. In order for him to be "posterized" he would have had to show up to play. Since the incumbent didn't end up attending last night, I just watched the mock debate with Romney and the two moderators that he practiced with. That was twice as bad as what Cheney did to Edwards in 04.

And a solar flare is going to knock out the power grid making all forms of communication useless. Stock up on bartering items like Glenlivet, girly mags, and ammo. Fear the zombies (and the turtle after tonight)!

For the first debate, Romney was Jordan and Obama was Byron Russell. BO looked frustrated and agitated and completely unable to keep up with the direction of the debate. That said, he shouldn't have had to; he should have controlled the debate. Instead, Romney did. Romney set the tone and BO was playing catch up. It very much reminded me of what Kerry did to Bush during the first debate in 04. Romney won and it wasn't even close. I've heard some spin around the idea that the WH wanted to bait Romney into specificity to make attack ads. Apparently the talk has been that Romney was going to surprise the WH with specifics and zingers so the WH felt that they could make Romney confident enough to speak more freely than he should. According to my brother, debate performances last through a news cycle; ads last through voting day. Maybe, maybe not. But to me Romney seemed disciplined and on message. It didn't sway me into voting for Romney because I feel that he is garbage. But it crystallized why I refuse to vote for the incumbent as well. He is unprepared for primetime and not ready to take on the tough challenges with the level of competency required to make a meaningful difference. Nice guy though. You know what else is nice....the Harrison twins picking the TERPS tonight so we can get that college basketball national championship in 2013 MOTHERFU(((KERS!!!! (ESPN U at 5 pm - fear the turtle)

I think that black folks take it personally because they feel that the conservative mentality is the mentality that slowed up decades of efforts at social progress. For anyone now, even 50 years later, to espouse ideology that is conservative, is to align themselves with a group that most black folks view as "the oppressor." That's why I say that black folks are actually very ideologically conservative (non-politically) - though they identify themselves more progressively - because they are very resistant to change and slow to amend views and biases. I had edited my quote to not make it about me and my experiences directly but you caught my statement pre-edit. And yes, you are right. In the black community, socializing with people post-racially, dating those outsiode your race, etc. is seen as quintessentially "sell-out." Time and generational understanding, tolerance. Also, technology. I truly believe that it crushes prejudices faster than any other single thing.

I don't think he is a sell out. But the few times his name has come up amongst other black folks in conversations that I'm involved with...they characterize him that way. But that's nothing compared to the **** I've heard people say about Cowboy Tom....Cowboy Troy....Uncle Tom....whatever... Ask any self-respecting black person, and they'll say his black card has long since expired. Doesn't make it right, just many in the black community are resistant to change. One of the few kinds of change that they don't mind is cultural/sociological change that benefits them in some way. Black republicans? No! Black Country personalities? No! Black conservatives? No! Black comedians doing white sitcoms (Wayne Brady)? No! Fastly becoming only the second largest minority group in the counrty? How could they!!! Black folks are real homogenous and one of the least tolerant groups ideologically (aggregate mind-set wise) that I've ever had occassion to be around. I'd never tell my best closest black friends that I voted for Bush in 04. When I espouse my very conservative views on abortion, gun control, immigration, national defense, trade policy, etc. the discussion becomes less ideological and more personal. When I discuss my more moderate views of welfare and affirmative action, there is a lot more civility. It kinda sucks. And I probably know what Darius has to deal with to some degree.

As a sell out. That's a good point. I was making racist assumptions.

Republicans are trying to facilitate, and make more inclusive, the electoral process. I saw some Mitt Romney folks out en masse this morning urging black and brown folks in Baltimore to remember to vote on Wednesday, November 7th. J/K

Great Chris Rock skit. As for WuTang, Raekwon the Chef (no relation Jim) is still my favorite rapper of all time. I agree. Most of the stuff now sucks. I do think that it's interesting how much hip hop has gone mainstream political. Puff Daddy had a fund raiser for Hillary Clinton at his home in the Hamptons and Jay Z boasts that he texts Obama regularly. That would NEVER fly 20 years ago! And that's what people have to remember...these folks are entertainers. Jay Z is worth half a billion dollars and hangs out with Warren Buffett. Put him in Bed Stuy projects of Brooklyn by himself and he would soil himself. They're not thugs, they're actors who have a talent with words. I think much of the dislike for the culture is the perception that these folks are rich hooligans. In that case, why not hate Ben Affleck for his role in "The Town," or Joe Peschi for his role in every Scorcese movie ever made.

I think so but I also know that that is a matter of personal opinion. I, am always will be, in the "rap is [a] poerty/narrative" camp. I really think the wordplay is awesome and it's something that only a small percentage of the population can do with any degree of proficiency. Even this simple Little Wayne verse : "Paper chasin tell that paper 'look I'm right behind ya'. Bich, real Gs move in silence like Lasagna." (keeping in mind that a "G" is a gansta) is replete with interesting metaphors, word play and fairly complex double entendres. Lil Wayne probably couldn't tell you what a "double entrende" is, but he does it.

I missed that! That is definitely some interesting hand placement! I'm waiting for the story to come out that this picture was photoshopped to give Mitt a picture presence with actual minorities....cause you know, Mitt only hangs out with rich white folks. Reminds me of this classic: http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-guy-photoshopped-in,1433/

So what do you make of the fact that the majority of hip hop's commercial audience is suburban white females? The majority of hip hop's fan base is white. If hip hop is a rejection of them, why is it so popular among them? Self-loathing?

I love my people. I love all people. But really? Do we have to pose, "throw a deuce," point , whatever, in every picture http://www.gazette.c...e-chipotle.html If there is a cultural disconnect, and you're not exactly sure what I'm referring to, have a looksee: http://i.ytimg.com/v...ZUUm1s2sE/0.jpg FU(((((K It's so flippin irritating! As an aside: This is only tangentially related to politcs but I figure that there is also sociological and cultural relevancy and it should give folks here good reasons to hate on rap music and mention how it's destroying the world and how the POTUS is a fan of Jay Z. That's the tie in. There really is no tie-in for this though... THE HARRISON TWINS ANNOUNCE THEIR COLLEGE CHOICE TOMORROW!!!!!!!!!!! It's between Maryland and that piece of **** school with that piece of **** coach. They're announcing live on ESPN U!!!! http://www.baltimore...0,4443136.story OH SNAP SON!!!!!!!!!!! GO TERPS!!!!!!!!!!!! Back to trying to figure out secured interests.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! It's the same thing with you. You just won't answer the questions. Instead you defer to this "and let me show you something mister" persona so that you can obfuscate, and devote 5 paragraphs to say one meaningless thing: You don't feel that I took an economics class. Super! Feel how you want to feel. I did take two semester of econ classes at UVA. I'm sure of it, cause I was there! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! I could give two schiiiits in a can less if you believe me or not. As I stated in my previous thread to you, it doesn't implicate this discussion as much you want for it to anyway. Wow. Just, wow. You articulated what, in your mind, qualifies as an argument. I challenge the basis of your argument and ask you to prove it beyond just articulating a principle. You respond by telling me that I'll have to prove your argument for you. You could have just said "you win" and saved yourself the ignominy. Let me teach you something junior, in the real world, if you postulate, please have the backbone to back it up. And that qualification is not satisfied by saying "you contextualize this stuff for me." Because that would be incongruent and inconsistent with the basic tenants of argumentative discourse. I can see it now: Counselor A: (to witness) "...and on the evening in question, what did Clarise say to you about Mr. Adams' fetish?" Counselor B: "Objection, 'heresay'." Counselor A: "Statement against Interest your honor." Counselor B: "ummm...well..." Judge: "Counselor B, anything? It sounds like a good exception..." Counselor B: "You can access the law. 'Hearsay' is a real principle under the law. You contextualize it and figure out why 'hearsay' is the appropriate objection in this circumstance." Judge: "Really, you dolt. You're the one who objected." It's not my job to apply your articulated principles to the circumstances that we're discussing. If you make an argument, prove it. There are two things going on here: a discussion of economic principles and the sociological circumstances that they influence. You say macroeconomics after everything as if that somehow carries some degree omnisicence. Newsflash: It doesn't. Principles, within that discpline, need to be applied to facts and circumstances. There is a principle, and an application. You are deficient in one, and completely lacking in the other. Apropos, I asked you to: 1. Prove the proximate relationship between government assistance and food prices going up. Not an attenuated "if a bird farts in Oregon, someone in Kenya will receive a $15 dollar Apple iTunes card." Just provide the proximate relationship between the two as it HAS occurred and in consideration of every other extant economic condition - including actual examples replete with some metrics, historical data, et cetera. 2. You said that food prices will increase appreciably as a result of government welfare programs. We currently have government welfare programs and have for some time. So give the audience some examples of when those programs have led to inflation, a 5% uptick in food prices, and expanded the povery base. 3. I said: "Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways." Explain how this is incorrect and provide examples. 4. Prove your contention that folks who are on welfare, or are being provided government assistance, will rely 100% on the government which results in a culture of sustained dependency on government support. 5. PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. 6. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. 7. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity YOU MADE THESE CLAIMS, jackass. You did. No one else but YOU. So you need to substantiate them. None of these answers are in an economics textbook. Principles that they may implicate could be. But then there is an application in consideration of myriad other factors and circumstances. You can't answer these questions because you're not sophisticated enough to. Not only are you profoundly unskilled in the discipline of argumentative discourse, but you're woefully unprepared to apply principles to circumstances. And that is what my kind does day in and day out, son. We apply complex principles to complex facts. If someone tells me they're hurt from a falling air conditioning unit in a Walmart isle way I can't just say "res ipsa loquitur, that'll be $500.00." And I certainly can't tell the client to figure it out themselves. And that is why you're being pimped so hard in this discussion and why you find yourself running back to your comfort zone though it is so evidently at odds with any reasonably cogent argumentative direction. And why you're three posts behind me at any given time. And why you're last three responses can be summed up thusly: a. "You don't know economics." b. "Read an economic text book and help me prove my own point to you." No, you dolt, I won't. You made the contentions. Prove them. It is a simple request. But I already know what your answer is going to be: OC: "Hearsay." Really, you dolt.

"You're the shepherd." Good catch by the way.

In post#54 I asked you very simply to address a number of inconsistencies from your previous posts. I asked you to prove your contentions. I asked you to provide some data. I asked you to bring something to the table to substantiate your points. You did none of those things. You continue making declarative statements and following them up with academic flubbage designed, ostensibly, to give the appearance that you know what the !@#$ you are talking about. It doesn't work. You come off as an amateur - notwithstanding your self-serving statements about your mastery of economics. It's apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. You try to hide that by mentioning that others don't know macroeconomics. I know economics to some degree (whatever two semesters in college is worth) including some of the principles of macro and micro economic theory. I'm not an expert, and I'm not an economist; but I know enough to get by. Interestingly enough, the extent to which someone understands macroeconomic theory doesn't implicate this debate as much as you want it to. You're using that as a surrogate to mask your innability to entertain this conversation on a cogent level. I started this post mentioning that you didn't prove, substantiate or otherwise defend claims that you yourself made in previous posts on this subject. Try as you might, you won't get away from that. In my last post to you I asked the following of you: 1. You said that the word "dispositive" was picked up recently and used as my "word of the day." Explain in consideration of the facts that I presented in post #54. 2. Prove the proximate relationship between government assistance and food prices going up. Not an attenuated "if a bird farts in Oregon, someone in Kenya will receive a $15 dollar Apple iTunes card." Just provide the proximate relationship between the two as it HAS occurred and in consideration of every other extant economic condition - including actual examples replete with some metrics, historical data, et cetera. 3. You said that food prices will increase appreciably as a result of government welfare programs. We currently have government welfare programs and have for some time. So give the audience some examples of when those programs have led to inflation, a 5% uptick in food prices, and expanded the povery base. 4. I said: "Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways." Explain how this is incorrect and provide examples. 5. Prove your contention that folks who are on welfare, or are being provided government assistance, will rely 100% on the government which results in a culture of sustained dependency on government support. 6. PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. 7. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. 8. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity. If you want people to take you seriously, you should first demonstrate that you can talk about something other than glittered schiiiit. You made some points and just hoped that they'd fly. I deconstructed your bs to it's foundation. Now you're stuck being unable to defend them. You're probably used to that because people accept your BS prima facie. You gift wrap schiiit it in poly-syllables. I would think that others here, even if they agree with you ideologically, would have said "hmmmm....that doesn't make a lot of sense." They won't, I will. I deal with fluff biatches like you all day - slick talking corporate lawyers who go all fetal when the wolves show their teeth. You're all talk, no substance. The closest thing you know to "love" is a sonnet. You know "war" through Shakespeare. Defend your position. Prove your points. They are enumerated above for clarity and ease of understanding. Answer my questions or stop wasting my time. Cause right now you're flirting, but I want the puuusssssiiieee.

No, the last 5 years I've just used it on this forum more frequently than any one else. Actually, in the forum's history (or at least as far back as the search function takes me), I've used the word more frequently than anyone else. Type "dispositive" into the search box and see for yourself. Up until 2008, it appears as if Mickey utilized the word with some frequency. After that, there was a single mention of the word until I joined the forum in 2011. Then there was a considerable bump in the usage of the word - 9 times by me in the last year. I could have also said that in the last 8 years (which is apparently the first time the word was uttered on this forum), I've used it more frequently than anyone else - at least 9 times. Mickey is a close second with 8 usages of the word. And there are a few scattered instances of individuals using the word here once or twice. I was just contesting every aspect of OC's post. He makes claims that are untrue. That was just another one (though he was probably being tongue and cheek)...

If you search, it brings up the dates and threads for your search topics. I could tell based on the dates how many times the word was used in ____ about of time. Also, OC tries to be like me. I've taken him on as a student to direct and guide him. Unfortunately, he is woefully inadequate as an intellectual and is better fit for other things.

You glossed over 50% of my post points. You, per usual, responded very generically, and avoided the nuances of my points. Let's see how much of this post you respond to. Beginning with: 1/2. The word "Dispostive." You said that I: "got it from B-mans post in the other thread, didn't you?". Is that so? How about you check out post #83, in a response TO YOU, almost a year ago: http://forums.twobil...ve#entry2343945 If you search for the word on this forum, almost every instance in the last 5 years was by ME. I think I've used the word 9 times in the last year. So quiet as it's kept, B-Man is either an attorney, has a fantastic command of the English language, or HE got it from ME. This is nothing that a simple search wouldn't have illuminated for you though, you !@#$ing dolt. Are you going to respond to MY EXACT point? Probably not, so moving on... 1. You can't comprehend basic English. That is why we call this ESOL. That is why I'm the brilliant teacher, and you are my 44th student. Where do you get "5%" from you !@#$ing dolt? Do you just come up with schit on a whim and request that someone refute it? You just typed that "a 5% uptick in them can in fact put people into poverty." That's fu(king great! And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Macro, micro....stay on topic. Stop arguing against yourself. In post #42 you mentioned that public assistance will cause food prices to inflate. So prove the proximate relationship between government assistance and food prices going up. Not an attenuated "if a bird farts in Oregon, someone in Kenya will receive a $15 dollar Apple iTunes card." Just provide the proximate relationship between the two as it HAS occurred and in consideration of every other extant economic condition - including actual examples replete with some metrics, historical data, et cetera. (Edit: Are you thinking about responding with your go to: "you don't understand Macroeconomics BS" again? I don't want your theory. You said that food prices will increase appreciably as a result of government welfare programs. We currently have government welfare programs and have for some time. So give the audience some examples of when those programs have led to inflation, a 5% uptick in food prices, and expanded the povery base). Pardon me for saying, I just don't trust your word. You have a proclivity for making things up and arguing with arguments that you yourself constructed but attributed to someone else. Ok, how about let's just cut to the chase - public assistance, welfare, et cetera is not going to raise the annual price of food 5%. Your little farce of a thesis is corrupted at it's foundation. A confluence of events (hurricanes, international strife, food shortages, increased gas prices, increase in transportation costs, et cetera) has caused food prices to rise to those levels. http://www.forbes.co...ices-so-high/2/ 1a. I don't give a !@#$ about markets and businesses being priced out. I'm talking about people and bread. 1b. I don't know how you grew up but I know how you turned out - which is pitifully and which doesn't evidence any cultivation, acculturation, or anything else that would suggest that you've experienced anything beyond your mother's incestual bosom. Are you going to address each of my points? No? Ok, moving on then... 2. Since you're fond of manipulating points, let me help you out here. What I said, very clearly, was that: "Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways." Nothing that you mentioned in the intervening time has refuted that. You've obfuscated, and tangentially referenced my points to make it appear that you're engaged in the conversation, and masturbated with acronyms, and soiled yourself, and exhibited every other kind of preternaturalness....but you haven't refuted the simple point that: "Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways." Do you want to try again? 2a. Who is saying that it's "irrelevant"? I said that it won't push them into the government food lines because they're likely already there. That is an example of you changing the context of my statement just enough that it provides you with a point to argue. It's you bastardizing arguments. 2b. If you're laughing, it's because you're intellectually challenged and even the most basic processes are a struggle for you; therefore you laugh to hide your pain. I'm here if you want to talk. Now are you going to respond to EACH of my points, AS I ARTICULATED them? Probably not? Ok, moving on... 3. Here is the kicker that demonstrates your classic style - YOU ARGUED A POINT THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT YOU'RE CONTRIBUTING SALIENT POINTS. Here is what you said originally: "Whenever you put people in a desperate situation, and raise them to believe that this is who they are, and the only way to improve that situation....will 100% come from the government...you create a culture of dependency. This is historically proven. Did the slave's economic future not depend 100% on his owner?" Then I said: "Not everyone takes advantage of the system and COMPARATIVELY FEW who utilize some form of public assistance, remain for a sustained period of time (I'd say anything over 3-5 years). But since you made the comment, prove it. I want to see the metrics for this historical proof." You responded thusly: "And, http://money.cnn.com...tance/index.htm there. There is your proof about how many people are now on public assistance. Your "challenges" are like stepping on ants...for me." When did I ask for fu(king proof about how many people were on public assistance, you fu(king dolt? You are a arguing and providing support for something that was never a point of contention. I very specifically asked you to prove your contention that folks who are on welfare, or are being provided government assistance, will rely 100% on the government which results in a culture of sustained dependency on government support. I didn't ask you to itemize how many people were on welfare. Yet that is what you provided. Simply put, and if you allow me some creative liberty here, PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity. Just prove it. Don't link to some article from some guy quoting some lady talking about hypertension in hibiscus plants just so that you can provide a link and appear engaged. You made a claim. I asked you to prove it. You linked to something only tangentially related to what your claim was. And then you had the audacity to mention: "there's your proof." What!!?!?! You !@#$ing dolt. You didn't prove schiiit besides your familiarity with the off-season mating habits of Himalayan seals. Just a bunch of cold, dry, pooooosssssssyyyy. So are you going to address this point? No? Ok, moving on.... Whatever, I can't be mad, cause that's your schtik. You make up arguments to argue against. You subtlely change the inflection of someone's point so that you can argue against it on your own terms. You're a charlatan. You talk a lot of pointless schit, use words that you pulled from some SAT "words you should know" flashcards, peruse Econ 101 texts and plagiarize the first paragraph of the more rudimentary chapters, and try to pass them off as if they're original thoughts. You're a snake charmer, bro....a new-age phrenologist. Yet you're trying to run with the wolves? Really, son?