Juror#8

PPP

In post #46 I asked for a clean debate. It was actually in response to your post #44 when you mention staying on point. Your last post deviated away from that effort. It mudslinged and insulted. That's ok, but I'm going to hit back in this post. And just know that I'm hitting back because you couldn't resist the temptation of being insulting in your above-referenced post. So I'll respond to your post and, in anticipation of the "namecalling, fallacy, fluff, namecalling" order that comprises your posts, I'll make this my last cogent response to you on this topic. Since you won't accept the challenge to debate above-board, I'd rather just insult back and forth after I address your above referenced post. So.... As I've said before when I've deconstructed your musings and pseudo-intellectualized diarrhea, you're a waste of time and you should be ashamed. Apropos, what the !@#$ are you talking about? Do you read the **** that you type or do you just type by number? 1. Food buying habits are impacted when, because of a rise in the cost of some food item, one's finances can no longer sustain the cost of that item and they're forced to adjust their purchases accordingly. No ****, a mother doesn't have control over the price of milk going up $1.00. Who said that they did? (Let me guess, you just bastardized an argument and argued against it). My point was that the price of milk going up is not going to be dispositive of who is or is not in the poorhouse. Nor is the price of milk, cabbage, hotsauce, meat, etc. - even all at once. And in your theoretical example, are you suggesting that milk goes up $1.00 a gallon? If so, when is the last time that happened in one sitting? Since you're about as worldly and experienced as east-Prussian prostitute, let me school you on some things: a. Those who are so strapped, that the $2.00 - $4.00 increase in groceries in a single grocery buying experience is determinative and impactful (like really, really meaningful), were poor and humping the gov't machine for subsidies anyway. You may find it inconvenient that the cranberry juice that you buy for your yeast infections, or the chocolate that you buy for your post-period relief is .60 cents more, but it's not going to contribute to you not being able to afford groceries or needing to turn to the government for assistance when you were otherwise fine. If you lose your job, or a catastrophic event befalls you - like your husband taking off with your illegitimate daughter which means your golden goose is cooked and you have to go back to turning tricks - then yea, you may have to apply for food stamps. The price of tomatos going up .40 a pound? Not so much. Sorry, toots, but it's not going to inspire any mass exodus to the government food lines. My family has been poor. My mom never used a food stamp or accepted government assistance. Assuming that you haven't been poor (which, based on your unrealistic pov, I'm not sure you've ever stepped outside of your own bedroom let alone your cultural comfort zone) I have a bit more basis of knowledge than do you about the impact that economic and sociological ebs and flows have on the average financially disadvantaged consumer. So shut the !@#$ up and take notes. 2. For one thing, you presuppose that "my policy" creates inflation. It doesn't. And your little Fisher Price example above ("spending = debt = inflation") that you regurgitated out of some GMAT study hypo doesn't do anything to suggest otherwise. 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. But you're probably just now finding that out as you feverishly peruse Wikipedia. a. Secondly, there are c.o.l. adjustments, raises, etc. that can offset the annual increase of goods and services. Those for whom the extra $200 that they may pay in a year for groceries is truly impactful, were so far on the margins that they were likely already on the government doles. 3. You point #3 relies on SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS: "raise people to believe that this is who they are....and there help can only come 100% from the Government..." WTF? Really? Someone on this forum told a story of needing public assistance while he was out of job and his wife was pregnant. Is he in the grips of some institutionalized generational defeatism as well? Oh I get it, when the matriarch in the family of 7 sustains a back injury, but she wasn't at her job long enough to qualify for short term disability, and she doesn't qualify for SSD because she hasn't worked long enough and doesn't qualify for the ethereal "special circumstances," she and her kids should just expire from starvation in order to emphasize the unyielding importance of self-respect, dignity, and self-reliance. It doesn't matter that they won't be able to employ these life lessons; It just matters that they personified them in martyrdom. It's incongruent, assymetrical, and paradoxical. You're displaying a cultural bias and a fallacy of numbers. Not everyone takes advantage of the system and COMPARATIVELY FEW who utilize some form of public assistance, remain for a sustained period of time (I'd say anything over 3-5 years). But since you made the comment, prove it. I want to see the metrics for this historical proof. Jay Z - really? Jay was a street pharamaceutical salesperson until he built enough capital to invest in Roc-a-Fella. He and Dame Dash hustled ill gotten gains until he blew the (proverbial) !@#$ up. Now you want to use him as your personification of independence and doing things "the right way"? Why don't you throw a Bernie Madoff example in when we discuss exemplary demonstrations of fiduciary duty. (In the interest of Full Disclosure: I'm a HUGE fan of Jay Z's music - especially the "Black Album," "Blueprint," and some of his more recent collaborations with Lil Wayne and Kanye). You don't understand what you don't understand. You don't understand that you don't understand that you don't understand. You don't understand that I understand that you don't understand that you don't understand. You have no clue what you're talking about. Bastardize some more arguments. Make some assumptions that tangentially relate to something that I mentioned and argue it so that you can feel that you made a salient point. Keep arguing manufactured points that you made. Cause that's your schtik. But I argued your points, and non-points, one-by-one.

Your entire post SEEMS to rely on three principles, that, in order for me to take seriously, I'd have to agree with. Let me know if you see it differently: 1. That people utilizing public services will cause the price of food to rise so precipitously and appreciably enough that it will affect the food buying habits and financial solvency of other mothers who, otherwise, would have been completely fine. 2. " " that it will expand the poverty net. 3. That as a result, there will be generational dependency on subsidized public services. I just don't agree with your premises. I feel that reformation is in order. I feel that reformation is necessary actually. I just think that what you suggest is VERY strong medicine. My argument is grounded in domestic security. Whether we like it or not, there are instances throughout history of the world where unrest and anarchy was precipitated by a failure of the government to provide adequate goods and services to the abjectly impoverished. And in most of those instances, the govs were at least trying. I believe that you're suggesting an abandonment of the system of government subsidies. Yikes! It's both a domestic security AND an aesthetic challenge. And i just responded to it. There you go again...by the way. Looking forward to a clean discussion sans the mudslinging. We'll see who breaks first.

Dammit 3rd. You always quote me before I can edit. Hmmphfff!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Why don't you post that link kind sir and we can see who was obfuscating, ignoring, and generally evading facts while making their own facts up as a surrogate. I consistently point-by-point-by-point addressed your questions and you, consistently, ignored those and re-manufactured arguments and positions as you went along to fit your schizophrenic concept of domestic poverty culture. You couldn't answer a few basic points that, while theoretical, comported with a reality and a basic truism of human nature. Instead you cracked open a philosophical text and plagarized ideas and notions that were misapplied and that you couldn't possibly understand even if you would have made it beyond the 10th grade. Oh OC, you're so silly. And in truth, I enjoy arguing with you because I'm always victorious in our little flare ups. Then you recede back to your dungeon of pessismism and misery, only to re-surface later to take another beating. I like you because you're an admitted and unabashed masochist. And while the lifestyle is disturbing, I think that it's laudable that you advertise it and you don't hide from your enjoyment of having pain inflicted upon you. Oh yea...I never said that we should rely on their instincts. In some context, I brought up their POV and you (in your classic fashion of bastardizing arguments that you then argue against) felt that I should answer for the veracity of it. You decide if the info is impactful to you. If it's not, than move on. Otherwise, argue the merits of the point and don't ask me why should it matter to you. That's for you to decide. BTW, why should I trust that it's raining outside when a weatherman, some how, some way, some where, has been wrong before? Can you answer that for me so I can know which way is up? Idiot. I don't "use" hyperbole, I've mastered it. OC is my 44th pupil.

I agree with you and your point. I also feel that we need some sort of reformation or the system will become the menace that it was designed to defeat. Something about OC's hyperbole though... And then, if I recall correctly, he was of the opinion that the most compassionate thing that we can do for a starving mother/family, is to let them starve so as to engender within them a modicum of self-respect and self-reliance. I suggested then, and still feel now, that that approach would incubate the ingredients for an underground anarchical society - comprised of individuals who feel that the laws, policies, and structure that's ostensibly designed to protect them, ignores them and leaves them to perish. When that feeling permeates, it's gonna spell trouble. Cliff's Notes: When you tell Steve, who has some mild mental disorders and is a 2 strike felon, that the local food bank is closing because OC didn't approve the state grant subsidies, and that his rental assistance application was denied because the budget was cut by 50%, or that WIC will no longer be providing Formulyte for his youngins, and that he'll have to make due on his 20 hour a week gig at Subway, do you think that Steve is just going to get Darwined? Steve needs to eat. He is not just going to expire. Steve doesn't fully understand it because he has a sub-30 IQ, and if you ask him about it he'll look at you quizzically, but he is abiding by the same "state of nature" don't-get-pimped-by-natural-selection, response that our neanderlithic ancestors made famous. And at some point a combination of hunger and the urgings of his sympathetic nervous system is going to convince him that since his hunger has reached a critical level, and since he is having difficulty distinguishing colors or having complete feeling in his lower extremities, he should take your food by any means necessary. If we don't provide any public services, some will find jobs and make due. Others won't. And we're talking about raw numbers in the millions who rely on these services. We can't even provide jobs for the actual job seekers. What about the Steve's of the world and those who haven't had consistent employment in 18 months and are therefore off the unemployment records? It will be bedlam. To me it's not a democrat or republican thing - it's a domestic security matter.

I tend to follow realclearpolitics because they aggregate the polls. Just like anything else, it's only a snapshot; but you get a fuller picture there than anywhere else and you're not saddled with any particular poll biases. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh OC, I would indulge this...you know I want to, but you and I have danced this particular selection before...for about 10 minutes and 10 pages. We should, however, find that thread and reminisce. Regardless, I'll just renew my extensive objections to your line of reasoning from that particular debate to save you the trouble.

Does this angst also apply to Alexis Texas, Jenna Presley, or Kayden Kross? I mean...I'm just sayin.

"How Harry Wet Sally" Oh ****, nevermind. I almost thought we were discussing p flicks adapted from crappy romantic comedy titles.

You are right. Much of what they thought would stick, hasn't. They've tried taxes, Romney bullying, Stericycle (which concerns me actually but not body politic at large), Bain, off-shore accounts, etc. They have a lot of things that they banked on to disconnect Romney from the electorate. But he is only barely outside the margin of error in most polls and even or leading in others. I don't think the WH is done. They've managed the news cycle well and it's going into the debate season where the debates will dominate the punditry. That's all they wanted to do because no one will be talking economy going into November - they'll be talking gaffes and mis-statements.

I think that there is a lot to this actually. Living in a predominately urban environment while growing up, there is a tendency to gravitate towards basketball as the sport of choice. There is not as much land, and not as much room to run and throw. Basketball is a more insular sport and is a perfect fit for urban environments. I guess the south is traditionally less urban and more agriculture. There's more land, more outdoor activities, etc. So maybe it is environmental based on the atmospheres. I just think it's so odd how much the SEC has hegemonized college football. I can't think of a single instance of one region, or one conference so completely dominating for such a sustained amount of time. Teams? Yes. Regions where you can almost bet that the champion would come out of? No. Even the ACC during its prominence had competition from the Pac10 (UCLA) and Big 10 (Michingan). If it's a team, then it can be attributable to dominant players staying during their college days. But a region, for the better part of a decade plus, suggests that all the best players are situated there or are going there for some reason. The dynamics are just interesting.

I can't disagree with you here.

About 700,000 viewers a day for the 7:00 show so at least a few. It's nothing compared to the Fox lineup, but it's not insignificant.

What "skeletons"? Oh...you mean opposition research? I guess you've been in a cave the last 3 months. And then there is that thing called strategy, and judicious management of material facts, and 6 week projections, and.... But those things probably don't matter to you. You're too busy trying to blithely discredit me for something that I stated a year ago (that is as true today as it was then), that you actually didn't contest in any material way, and that has yet to be unproven going into this election season's final act. According to folks who I trust, the WH had "voluminous" amounts of opposition research and strategy directions with respect to Romney that they had with no other candidate. I don't see how that has proven untrue, friend.

Exactly, and how often during any given Sunday during any given season are their complaints about bad PI calls. All the time, right? It's just that now, we have a culprit - "the replacements" - whereas before we just had to accept it as a happenstance of the game.

And Phil Luckett didn;t know his heads from his tails. I'm not saying that they won't screw up a call. I'm saying that I'm not sure that they do it with any more frequency than did the regular crew. However the expectation is that since they're replacements, they'll screw up. So there is a heightened level of scrutiny around EVERYTHING they do. They're also dealing with a dynamic that the regular refs didn't have to deal with...players are trying to push the limit to see what they can get away with. So when people point out that there are more flags, that is consistent with player's own admissions that they're pushing it a bit. It's like when Gerald Ford was labeled as clumsy because he tripped descending the airplane stairs. It happens ALL the time. But because there was so much media attention on the president and every move that he made post-Watergate, even pedestrian things began to define him. That's what's happening here. This ^

I do. I still remember a Hardball segment with Chris Matthews, Ezra Klein and Chris Cilizza. Those were Chris Matthews' exact words.

Why is the SEC so freaking dominant in football? Do they feed the kids something out there in Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana that fuels a football gene? Derrick Henry just broke all kinds of records a couple of days ago (ran for 502 yards within 3 1/2 quarters). He is probably going to Florida. And he is only the second leading rusher in the state!?!?! Kelvin Taylor, son of Fred Taylor, is the leading rusher in the state (and in the country I believe) and has ran for like 10,000 yards in his high school career already. He is commited to Florida. http://jacksonville.com/sports/high-schools/2012-09-21/story/derrick-henry-breaks-state-record-502-rushing-yards-yulees Seriously, though, why are they so dominant?

Not sure 2010 is a good example. 3 months before that midterm, it wasn't a matter of "if," it was a matter of "when" the Dems lose 5+ seats in the Senate and 35+ seats in the House.

Bernie Mac Richard Pryor Jerry Seinfeld Cause they're funny. Bernie Mac is the only comedian that made me cry from laughing so hard.

Oh yea...and he reiterated to me that Romney was best case scenario as a challenger. As I mentioned a year ago, the WH was convinced that he was unrelatable and that there were enough narratives from Romney's history to maintain that disconnect. My brother once described the opp research that they had on Romney, and the number of directions they could take to box him in a philosophical corner as "voluminous." As I told Magox, according to what I was hearing, the WH was never worried about Romney - they were only concerned about a GOP move towards Huntsman or Jeb Bush or someone who could capture lightning in a bottle, like Paul Ryan, coming out of nowhere. They never felt that Romney would be able to connect with enough voters to make a difference. Who knows? We'll see if they're wrong.

Take it for what's it's worth - talked to my brother who is a speechwriter, has NO access to internal polls, but is fairly close to a yound lady who interprets some data from the internals and... APPARENTLY absent something happening completely outside of their control, the WH sees it as almost a done deal and are VERY optimistic. They've transitioned to turnout (though they don't want that advertised) while Romney is still focusing on strategy and electoral vote mapping. The only way they feel that they can lose is if they have a turnout take of greater than 10% of projection. Also, they're trying to minimize info coming out about trends and moving ahead in the polls. As I understand it, some of the top strategy folks feel that 6 weeks of the electorate hearing that the incumbent is surging ahead will actually make their folks complacent and suppress turnout. They're frustrated with the "Romney self-destructing" commentary. They would rather him continue being undisciplined and allow the electorate to react naturally without the punditry that can cause unpredictable voter behavior. Apparently, Axelrod is convinced that that's what happened in 04 to Kerry. None of the top folks will talk polls and they're telling their surrogates not to either. Again, take it for what it's worth and I won't be offended by the "mother's, brother's, parrot's, second cousin's..." posts. I mentioned that my information was two steps (maybe even three steps) removed from the actual source. If that is not good enough for you, than ok. But I'll pass it along anyway. Their strategy seems sound but I think that there is still trending left to be done. Romney can find a rhythm and jump ahead in this race still. WH doesn't seem to think so though. I'm thinking that that is hubris but what's new... As I said previously, I have no dog in this race, I'm just conveying a little info.

In before the zombie apocolypse.

Apparently all castrati performances were replete with women and their assets too. Those cats were the Beatles of their time. All kinds of PIIHB happenings.