Juror#8

Why I have to drink 40s? Why can't I drink Hennessy Ellipse, or Chablis?

And a mule. YOU PEOPLE conveniently forget the mule.

You're thinking of Prohibition. That was repealed last year and, to, plus forthwith Speakeasys.

Aflack X.

You joke eh? I'm really considering bringing a 5th Amendment Due Process claim in Federal Court because I sincerely feel that my tax return has been impacted on account of my race. The "woman" in the story is white but yet she is going to get more than she paid in. I'm black, and I get less. This is just another example of the takings that my people have endured for the last 400 years. Jesse Jackson is right.

It will be made: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/honda-acura-nsx-marysville-ohio-made-in-the-usa/1 I'm hearing that that design is 70% production. They haven't finalized the powerplant yet though. It will be hybrid-electric. Suspension will likely be AWD to make it competitve with GTR and 911 market. It will be built in the Marysville, OH plant. Radley Acura here locally is expecting to send techs for training in 2012/early-2013. They're expecting a late 2013 release as a 2014 model year. I was close to making a move on a 2003 NSX-T late last year. The NSSEX is back! And the world will be a better place because of it. Apologies OP for the Thread-nap.

Incongruence: How is it that someone can pay $9,400 in Federal taxes, claim no withholdings throughout the year, yet only receive around 10% back as a refund... Yet.... A mother of three, who pays $1900 in Federal taxes throughout the year, receives almost $8000 back as a refund. She receives 4 times her initial federal tax exposure, and nearly 1/2 her gross income...and for what!?!?! The articulated policy behind Earned Income Tax Credit is to offset the burden of social security and to provide incentive to work. Yet the grapevine says that qualifying persons with families, in many instances, will work up to EIC limits and quit because that lump sum check is more advantageous and financially significant than working throughout the year and possibly disqualifying themselves for EIC. I believe that social welfare is a necessary program and that the benefits, in the aggregate, outweigh its, admittedly, considerable negatives. But the way that tax distribution, EIC, refunds, withholdings, etc. is handled is pathetically bad...like recklesslessly so. Shame on the Libs for passing that heap of garbage legislatively and shame on Ford or whomever for signing it into law. It is legislation without purpose. The articulated aim of the legislation is bull **** and is undermined by it's very own requirements.

Acura NSX. Already been to Radley Acura to inquire.

Ask him yourself. He would probably be interested in an intellectual debate about politics. Right around 1:00 p.m. he has lunch at the Jerry Subs and Pizza at 18th and Pennsylvania. Unless, of course, he is having lunch with Britt Hume, in which case they go to the Cosi right around the corner. Seeing Gregory and Hume together is hilarious too because they're both like 6'5" 6'6" so they dwarf the people that they're walking with. PM me if you decide to go. That would be an interesting conversation to watch.

It's that simple huh? Cute. Was reading some conservo-blog stuffs yesterday. What is up with the bucket?

He had a lot to do with it because he is the president ipso facto. Logistically, operationally, and the fact that he says "go ahead," in view of the tremendous amount of variables that are at play. At the end of the day, the military are the heros in this situation. Obama is behind a desk and they are in the field. You said it best..."it's his job to make those kind of decisions." You're right. It is his job. And in this instance, he did that job well. That's all I mentioned.

Egregious indeed.

My sincerest apologies. I was wrong. I believe that I misread one of your posts to have mentioned something that I now don't think it mentioned. I think "in voice" your post read one way. When I went back to read your post again, it read differently and I noticed that it was edited. I've read the post probably 15 times since then, and I believe that the error was mine. I was impetuous, and rude. I was going to send you a PM but since I called you out in view of the forum, I felt that the only right thing to do was to apologize in view of the forum. Please don't feel compelled to respond to this. I'll erase this post after it's been posted for a day or so (if the mods don't erase sooner because of it's 'non-political' nature). You handled the situation with class and a lot better than I would have if criticized similiarly. -Jason

Exactly...cause post #12 wasn't a four sentence post.

Concise and perfect. Agreed 10000% Yes x 3. We only differ on one key point. The CRA wasn't some sword that scared lending institutions into submission and reactionary lending. I can't articulate it any better than DCTom did in his post.

And GG, this is not an erudite conversation either.

There are other citizens still over in that region being held by those factions. There may be reprisals. That is WEIGHTY decision that takes steel ones. I don't give a !@#$ who you are, the level of responsibility that that in entails is momentous. You're efforts to mitigate it suggests a personal dislike, rather than a principled disagreement, with the man. And people here have long memories.

You assumed my point though. It wouldn't matter if it was the 2008 CRA enacted one week before the first sub-prime loan was issued. My point is that the CRA just doesn't have the teeth to facilitate the behavior. The meltdown was the result of affirmative behavior, not responsive behavior. All that other crap is subterfuge. People like throwing "CRA" around as if it represents some convenient explanation for bad lending practices. That would be true, if every loan denied to a member of protected classification were scrutinized, or if they could be subjected to disparate impact claims 82-352 style, or if CRA mandated lending criteria for traditionally under-represented communities, ****...even if there were finable offenses. You know what CRA gets ya, some bureaucratic scrutiny around merger time, and a few frivolous ACORN class-action suits that will be met with a directed verdict and a Rule 11 ass-whoopin. If only people knew the law...

I just don't agree. In fact, I think that your argument is fundamentally wrong but not in the way that you might think. My disagreement with you is with respect to the impetus for bank lending practices. CRA just didn't have the teeth to facilitate those practices and the consequent meltdown. Seriously. The genesis did begin with the Dems. The legislation that Clinton signed into law back in 99 that repealed portions of Glass-Steagall is where things got nasty. Bush was too vapid and disillusioned, and Congress, too "juiced in," to see how badly things were getting out of control. Bush was a pathetic leader. Lenders were paying good lobbying money to keep regulations calm and auditors at bay - and not because of concern about innactivity and CRA compliance. Just the opposite actually. Dodd (D),the insufferable hypocrite, was monitoring all this, accepting lobbying money, and all while chairing the Senate Banking Committee.

Great job military! Good job Obama!

So let me get this straight, the economic collapse was only tangentially related to Bush....because he didn't "press the issue"? In reality, the economic recession is a result of "democrats pushing subprime loans"? Let me guess, the genesis of the 2008 recession was the 1977 CRA right? Just looking for clarification with respect to your position.

Yea, but at least Mitt's money is a political topic. To be fair, talking about Mitt's income is largely irrelevant, and a pitiful attempt by the Dems to alienate the man, but it is, at least, somewhat political in nature. Talking about DIN is not political in nature. Now if you consider him a "pundit"...

In many jurisdictions, offspring are entitled to enjoy the standard of living that that the parent enjoys. It doesn't matter that he is not the custodial parent. It won't matter that he is not producing unless he can prove that he no longer has the capacity to produce at that financial level. The fact that he is trying to get back into football, and has business ventures, and is promoting television shows, and is acting, etc., is acually working against him. It's a sad paradox.

Jesse Jackson is a self-aggrandizing stooge. Really, he is.

Talk to Mike Smith and then make that claim. He used to be around the Hill a lot doing advisory visits. Not so much anymore. Had the privilege to speak with him a few years back. He is an energy encyclopedia.