Juror#8

Again, you just don't get it. You ignore the substantive aspect of this post and every other one today so that you can make, what you believe to be , a witty closing. You've been wasting my time for 4 posts now. Gotcha.

The stimulus was poorly conceived but it put some people to work. People were put to work on the backs of taxpayers who are already over-burdened though. I don't like the idea of substantially cutting corporate tax rates either because I don't think that there is a necessary correlation between that and job creation. I'm not sure of the best in-between to accomplish one without imposing the other. The economy appears to be bouncing back. I'm not just talking about graphs. The indicators seem to be falling in line to suggest a recovery. That's good. I think that Obama's long term vision seems to be bearing some fruit. I think that he took the scenic route, and other Administrations could have facilitated this sooner, but hey, can't complain too much. Overall, I think that Bush left the economy in absolute disarray and Obama wasn't the person to fix it. His vision was too utopic and altruistic to tackle the challenges of an economy in crises and his large-scale initiaves, prioritization, and the slow recovery seem to substantiate that. I can't blame him for the **** can way the economy was left, but I will for the snail's pace that the economy is in now. I'm not an economist so I can only judge by "seat of the pants" analysis. With that said, I give the economy a "C-" and the Administration a "D." The difference between myself and others here is that there seems to be a personal thing with appraising the man. That is foul and odious. It's as if some here feel that ideological disagreement with the Administration necessarily entails some personal dislike. If I defend him in one instance, or take exception with an unfair characterization, I somehow support him ideologically. Yeah...well...sort of. I'm described by colleagues as "fastidious" but...well ok.

I do this with OC all the time and now I'll extend the same coutesy to you. 1. You mentioned a bunch of points and in you second to last point mentioned the "Kanye issue." (Post#24) 2. I responded to your post in turn. (Post#26) 3. YOU ignored everything else that I said in post#26 and just responded to the "Kanye issue." (Post#27) 4. I responded to your comment that Jesse Jackson And Elijah Cummings said that Bush didn't care about black people (because my point was that it was national media and their pundits who were making those comments about Obama not unaffiliated politicians or activists): (Aside: If you didn't know before, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Joe Blow making that comment and an affiliated media personality making the comment to a national audience - that you continue to try to distinguish that is unfortunate). 5. You made some idiotic comment about "list of approved political and media figures." (Post#33) 6. I mentioned to you that I never said anything about "political figures," yet those are the folks who you referenced (Post#35) 7. Then you said that " asked for examples of such criticisms of Bush," and elaborated on that point. (Post#37) Your response in Post #37 completely ignores points 1-6. I didn't ask for those "examples of such criticisms of Bush" in that context. The origins of our conversation was your point in post #27 since you ignored everything else I mentioned in post #26. So we stuck with the Kanye point and elaborated on that. Can't you follow a !@#$ing train of thought? You've conflated points, posts, ideas, and assertions in a weird way that suggests that your mind doesn't allow for any organization of thought. LA wanted to know why the topic has gone so much off course. Here is the answer. It's dolts like you who deviate a thought into the nethersphere and then try to bring it back abruptly as if one !@#$ing post 9 posts removed is in response to something that wasn't discussed in full bredth for the last 7 hours. Can you !@#$ing follow that? !@#$ing. Dolt.

Apropos the underlined sentence above, you are correct and I respect your self-effacing candor. And the one word sentences are so that you can better understand my point since it's evident that complex sentence arrangements and poly-syballic words confound you. Please. Keep. Up. Cupcake.

I also mentioned the unfair criticism of Bush that were the product of "open opinions." The email was only relevant insofar as it concerned (what I believe to be) racist carictures. The point that we've been focusing our discussion on is individuals saying that "_______ doesn't care about _______ people." You're conflating two things to make a single point. So as I mentioned before: Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly?

...and it's caught on 35 mm film camera, date-stamped, and with RG3 holding an unexpired driver's license and an unlaminated social security card with clearly discernable numbers and letters, in the non-digital photo. Agreed.

What are you talking about? Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly? I NEVER ASKED FOR POLITICAL FIGURES. You just added that in to make your own point. And who amongst Elijah Cummings and Jesse Jackson is a media or journalist figure? I definitely respect your opinion on this. I see it differently though. But still, good points.

I mentioned the healthcare thing because I figured that you brought up the 2 trillion in response to me saying that the cost of the Iraq War far exceeded the value of the healthcare legislation. I incorrectly assumed. Good article by the way.

I hope that you read post #26. It addresses much of what you referenced in your post above and provides a glowing distinction. This is not about picking the personal for one and policy for the other. It is about a square distinction that exists. If you don't see it, or if you don't want to see it, we'll jsut have a difference of opinion. But I've made the point that I feel needed to be made. I'm satisfied with that. We haven't spent 2 trillion dollars on anything that relates to the healthcare legislation. They're both progressive spend initiatives. I accept your question and raise you a question: Was all the money spent for the Iraq War "on-the-books," budgeted and allocated dollars? You're better than this. I ask you a question and this is how you respond....with a non-answer. Stop wasting my time. Politicians are not paid to communicate information to the masses. They're not tasked with objectivity. They're paid to legislate. They have opinions too and sometimes they feign a good thought. But just like Alan Grayson and Joe Wilson, they're opinions are mostly stupid. For the reasons contained herein: I. Asked. For. Media. Moment. You answered with Jesse Jackson. Figures.

My memory isn't "convenient." There is nothing that you've mentioned that I didn't address in my post. 1. I mentioned that their were caricatures of Bush that were entirely inappropriate. Just none that implicated a protected classification and none that referenced cooly a long history of injustice. Notice that I didn't mention the myriad pictures of Obama as a monkey. The one that goes over the top paints HIS PARENTS as monkeys and since he is the direct descendent of chimps that explains his birth certificate being "lost." And it was circulated amongst local Republican party officials: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/gop_official_wont_resign_over.html Monkey generally suggests someone as doltish. That's fine and is an acceptable politcal point (for black, white, whomever) if made in the scope of political commentary (e.g., "this person is clueless, let's illustrate him as a monkey.") This wasn't made as a political point. It came from an irascible and boarish place and relates to a intrinsic characteristic. Different. If you can't see that, it's not because it's not there; it's because you don't want to see it. 2. The slogans were/are conspicuously political points - as they were during Vietnam (Johnson and Nixon) when similar slogans rang loud. They were fine then and they're fine now. Democrat and Republican - fine. The signs against Obama concerning Afghanistan - FINE. Whatever. Secondly, I'm not talking about any Joe Blow who can make a noxious sign. I'm talking about commentary that is media-driven or that is of a conspicuously media disseminated moment. Again, it's still fine, because it's within the context of political discourse. But there are distinctions. And with respect to the "nightly news [that ran stories expressing] that Bush deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage an illegal war for no other purpose than to award lucrative contracts to Halliburton," I addressed that too. Again, conspicuously political point that draws inferences from data. The inferences are incorrect. The inferences are specious. It is a truncated conclusion. But they're grounded in something that is uniquely political and with data that is verifiable (i.e., there was a war, Halliburton was there, some in the Administration worked for Halliburton at one time, the justification for war was dodgy and unsubstantiated). Truncated conclusion. Verifiable facts. Please read the above paragraph and sentence again. It's important and since I'm confident that you breezed through it, you've likely missed something that I won't be compelled to address again. So how does that relate to birth certificates, and watermelon, and terrorist, and Christianity, and non-citizen, and Manchurian Candidates, and blah...blah...blah? How about this, I'll accept the truncated conclusion, just show me the verifiable facts. What individual or outlet, of national media moment, articulated that Bush doesn't care for black folks? Wanna try again?

It's very correct. Here is why: Criticism of Bush, from media sources, was ideological and political. DCTom made a point about Farenheit 911. Michael Moore, who is hypocritical is so many ways, was making a connection between Bush's associations with the Saudis and Pakistanis and the events of 9/11. His point was attenuated and required a lot of reaching, but it was a decidedly POLITICAl point. Call Bush a communist and reference instances that (to Moore) supports that: political point. Say that Bush was derelict in his vetting of political partnerships (with respect to Musharraf): political point. Insinuate that Bush could have done more with respect to intelligence pre-9/11: political point. Insinuate that Bush pushed the war in Iraq andf that the war fueled business interests that peripherally benefitted people that he was close with: political point. The majority of the indignation directed at Bush was with respect to the Iraq War. As it turns out, the justification was not substantiated with results. It just wasn't. Trillions in tax dollars were spent for a conflict that wasn't what it was claimed to be. Whether or not there were ancillary justifications that people *may have* been happy with if articulated preliminarily is really of no consequence. You can't prove a negative and all we know is that what was presented as the case for war wasn't substantiated in fact, FOR WHATEVER REASON. I don't care to relitigate this issue. I'm making a salient point about whence the ire towards Bush comes. The dislike had predominately politcal origins. There were, however, some personal things that were unfairly leveled at Bush. Media suggestions were that he was somewhat unexceptional and incurious. He did have a tendency to bumble his words and was plain-folkish. To some, that was endearing; to many, that made him seem disengaged (and I'm being all kinds of euphemistic). Obama is a different story. They've called him anti-American. They've said that he hates white people (not from an entertainer either). They've said that he is literally, not an American. They've disrespected his religion. They've taken very old associations and suggested it had an affect on his capacity to be President. They've called him a Manchurian candidate. Two years were devoted to his birth certificate. He was, functionally, called a liar, a charlatan and a hoax. The New Yorker magazine had a cover that illustrated he and his family as black revolutionaries and his wife, an educated Harvard grad, as an afro-sporting black panther. He has been illustrated as a Kool Aid drinking, watermelon eating, chicken devouring fiend - a foul throwback to early 20th century bigotry. Republican Congresspersons were circulating pictures of Obama as the child of chimpanzees. His dad was disrespected posthumously; he was analogized to modern-day black dads who father tons of kids only to leave, have more and collect the corresponding welfare benefits. There were caricatures of Bush, yes. The "Mad Magazine" face comes to mind. They were inappropriate and insensitive and don't have a place in any square political discourse. And there were anecdotes about Bush's past to. Whatever Bush did or didn't do in college didn't implicate his capcity to be president. The attacks weren't fair. The difference is, though, that Bush generally seemed to be criticized for the squareness of his political decision-making. The dislike of him, the caricatures, the jokes, all came from a place of political disharmony. What is the political point being made by illustrating Obama with big lips eating chicken? What is the political point made by questioning his Christianity, his nationality, and his love of country? What is the political point made by illustrating his wife as a black "soul sister"? Whence does it come? I stand by my point. The political virulence against Obama far exceed (at least in scope) that which was directed at Bush. Do you remember the pulse of independents in late 04 towards the Iraq War? Do yourself a favor and check it out. The Iraq War was a calculation that far exceeded (financially and otherwise) the potential exposure of the new healthcare legislation. Bush was still elected. So again I say, there are a bunch of dolts out there thinking Obama is going to lose in 2012 on the strength of partisan criticism. This movie have been shown before. It's unfortunate.

My politics are complicated. I'll acknowledge that. Much of it has to do with growing up in in the city and in poor neighborhoods. Now my situation is different. And everyday I work with a conservative Congressman. That dichotomy had had a profound influence on my politics. I didn't vote for Obama. I won't vote for him in 12 either. But I'll fairly appraise the landscape when determining who will get my vote. And I exclude candidates based on fair and competent analysis - not hullabaloo by people who were predisposed not to like the guy from the beginning and who regurgitate talking points without context. When folks criticize an article, not on the merits, but because it is a prima facie favorable article about someone that they don't like - then those are the folks referenced in the bolded point above. I criticized folks on the left for unfairly criticizing Bush. It is happening amongst Republicans towards Obama in a way worse than what what was done to Bush. There are plenty reasons to criticize the man, but also lots that just seem like subterfuge. Obama won't get my vote not because of his handling of the economy. He won't get it for the same reason that he didn't in 08. Because I feel that the conservative vision, slightly tweeked, presents a better course for this country's future. As a last thought on this, if Obama wins this election, it will partly be because independents were never given an actual reason to disagree with the Administration...a reason that didn't seem as if it came from some odious and irascible place.

So what interpretation do you gather from the fact that I also mentioned voting for a D?

I'll do this one time, and hope that it's enough to curtail what appears to be an attempt to redirect a request for erudite discussion into a microchasm of domestic partisan political debate. I REALLY want to believe that your tempermental stomach can tolerate articles posted on here that are not vitriolic and critical of the Administration (even though I didn't post the article, but rather a criticism piece from a conservative blog that I frequent). I really want to believe that you can argue a point without innuendo. I really want to believe that the extent of your political understanding is not limited to what you picked up from diatribes by some bigot articulating pre-menstrual neo-Orwellian theory while liquored up on Grundy, VA potato moonshine. I WANT TO BELIEVE IT. But when you introduce innuendo into an otherwise antiseptic convo, I question you LA. I. Question. You. And in doing so, I necessarily question myself. Like "negligent entrustment" question. And both questions have a dearth of answers. I don't want that for either of us: the dearth; the innuendo; the negligence; the potato moonshine. Are we in a better place now?

Apologies if I offended anyone. I hear other white people using the "C" word in Starbucks, Panera Breads and Coldstone Creameries. I just figured it was a term of endearment that I could say too since I have white friends.

Checked it out. There has been a 7.5% change in Caucasians from 2000 to 2010 (from 27% to 20%) but a negligible percentage increase in the population of blacks over that timeframe (63% to 64.5%). So there was already a pronounced black population presence in PG pre-2000. PG has long been a predominately black county. Their arrival wasn't in spades, wasn't abrupt, and didn't influence a demographic shift (nee "white flight"). There was also a 5% drop in "other races" over that timeframe. I wonder what precipitated that? There was only one racial demographic that grew significanly during that timeframe(2000-2010).

I was reading an article by News Week's Andrew Sullivan that is creating a lot of buzz. I don't have the online article, but here is a good reference from NewsBusters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/15/newsweek-cover-story-why-are-obamas-critics-so-dumb In the article Sullivan slams the left and the right for platitudes and uninformed and regurgitated political attacks. I began looking into some of the assertions in the article and ran across a few things that I found interesting: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/99136097/tracking-u-s-monthly-unemployment http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet I think that the second graph in the first link above is interesting ("Monthly Change in Payrolls"). It seems to suggest a steady and progressive economic recovery that has continued for almost 17 months. If there were spikes, maybe it could be construed as anomalous. But it seems measured and to have continuity. I checked out NewsBusters, Heritage and Fox to find counter-points (albeit cursorily) and didn't find much. As a moderate conservative, as someone who has voted Democrat nationally, and as someone who isn't an economist, I'd be interested to hear a different opinion.

Defense is important. I think, though, that statistically speaking an amazing offense and suspect defense is going to win you more games than an amazing defense and suspect offense. Everyone says "balance, balance, balance." True! But at some point though, at least in the short term, you have to put your eggs in a basket (in terms of draft selections) and prioritize your growth goals. I say "offense" with "defense" sprinkled in as an accent point for right now.

Any support for that? If that is true (and absent some other statistical explanation) then I'll acknowledge being wrong. I've haven't seen that shift in PG. I used to be there a lot. It is an ecclectic county with a solid racial balance. If anything, I see segregation in terms of the the "ghetto" PG and everwhere else. The "everywhere else" seems to be where the white folks are...though they have their presence in the "Hyattsville-type" areas of the county too. And I'll reiterate again, PG is a VERY wealthy county. Anecdotally (and without anything to support this), PG has the wealthiest concentration of blacks in the country. My aunt lives right off of Lottsford Rd in Mitchellville. It's like Beverly Hills Black over there. They're about as uppity "**** don't stink" as you can imagine. It's not Potomac, Chevy Chase or Great Falls but there is a lot of money there. She is a COO. All of her black corporate friends live in the same community. Real homogeneous. Just don't want to give the impression that PG is a dump because it is FAR from that. People are free to read through and formulate their own opinion. I am on topic; where are you? Happy Monday.

5 of 6 teams who surrendered loads of passing yards made the playoffs. The record for most passing yards given up in a single season was the 1995 Atlanta Falcons - 4,751 yards passing (http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/12722/the-worst-pass-defense-in-nfl-history). Two teams nearly matched or exceeded that record this year: 2011-2012 Green Bay Packers (15-1) - 4796 2011-2012 New England Patriots (13-3) - 4704 Both teans were 32 and 31 (respectively) in total defense (total yards per game). Both teams made the playoffs. Both teams made it to week two of the playoffs. The Patriots are going to play in the conference championship. The Giants gave up 4082 yards passing. That was good for bottom 5 in the league. They have the 6th worst defense overall. They're playing in the conference championship. If we're going to correlate having a strong rush presence with getting to the qb, putting him on his back, and significantly lessening pass yardage, than shouldn't the inverse be true - that being that teams with tons of pass yardage surrendered, indeed amongst the worst in the NFL EVER, have LITTLE TO NO pass rush? While the defensive numbers seem to be nebulous at best, and certainly don't support what you're trying to convey, the offensive output seems to be more dispositive. 3 out of 4 teams still playing are in the top half of the league with respect to offensive output. 2 out of 4 are top ten (Patriots and Giants). Saints, Patriots, Packers, Giants are/were in the top 8 with the first three being 1,2,3 (respectively). So yea, you're substantially over-estimating the impact of defense (especially with respect to pass yardage surrendered) and behind with respect to what will be successful in today's NFL. You can continue living in 1990-2000. Buddy nix can too if he wants to continue this cycle of mediocrity. If we draft Upshaw with the 10th pick of the draft it would be pathetic and a waste of a pick. The NFL has moved in a decidedly offensive direction. The numbers seem to substantiate it.

No you !@#$ed up when quoting. But cute explanation. Please see my previous email to you. It addresses every point that you just made. Again.

I've heard that Mt. Ranier is seeing some gentrification happenings. Didn't know about Capitol Heights though. You very well could be right. I haven't had ocassion to visit Capitol Heights since my dad left the hood 4 years ago and moved with his wife to Rockville. And now that they put a Bojangles in Union Station, I don't need to go into PG at all. *So stereotypically black*

Now we're talking my stomping grounds. White people are NOT wholesale fleeing PG County. They've left Capitol Heights, Ft. Washington, Hyattsville, Laurel, Beltsville (and basically everywhere on the Green Line) over the last 10 years because of ghetto ass blacks being pushed out of DC (especially SE) and settling in PG due to the tax hikes owing to DC "urban renewal" projects. Basically, affluent folks have been taking over SE/SW DC after they put Nationals Stadium in and began building high priced condos. The property taxes have forced many lower income black folks across the line into MD. MoCo is too expensive. Howard County is too far off the beltway. They're damn sure not going into Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Tyson's, McClean, Reston, Herndon, Springfield, etc. (in Virginia). So ghetto ass black folks are settling in Temple Hills, Suitland, Ft. Washington and Mt. Ranier and Capitol Heights. But white folks haven't left PG. They've just moved to Mitcheville and Bowie and Upper Marlboro. Those areas have more aggregate wealth than some midwest states...but mostly due to VERY rich black folks. Also, PG has long been an area for wealthy blacks...going back into the 70s and 80s. When Marion Barry was giving blacks 6 figure jobs in the DC government (some with questionable experience), and saying "!@#$ the budget" as he was doing it, all those folks aggregated in PG.

Speaking of OC, some of his reading comprehension issues are rubbing off on you. I mentioned why I referenced the science; it was, at minimum, reasonable given how you quoted my post. I thrice discussed the charitable contributions point. Fu9king THRICE. If it makes you feel like more of a woman to ignore the somewhat detailed way in which I expressed the opinion - fine. Just do me a favor and stop wasting my time trying to present the situation as if there is some level of disconnect. There isn't. The schit is simple. But it may not be for you. And I don't want to be selfish. So I don't mind handicapping it for you (presently) if it helps: 1. I made a comment about charitable contributions. 2. You asked for clarification. 3. I clairifed. 4. Then you quoted a portion of my post ABOUT THE SOUNDNESS OF THE SCIENCE and made an analogy (look at post #55). 5. I then refuted the analogy vis-a-vis the post that you quoted. 6. Inexplicably, you were befuddled as to why I addressed the analogy the way I did. (post#64) 7. I explained why (as if any fu((ing explanation were needed - see point 4 above). 8. You then mentioned AGAIN that "no one is arguing the science or the data collection..." as if point(s) 4, 5, 6, and 7 never happened. Let me help you guy: I understand that now. The fact that you like to quote scchit, and then act as if the quote that you referenced has no significance to what you're hoping to solicit, is a personal problem. But I can boogie with that. I'll just know that if you quote this post or any other subsequent post, you could conceivably be referencing any of my posts ever, from any topic, or even someone else's post from another forum. It'll just be a game that you and I can play to satisfy your Asperger issue. "Find the !@#$ing post that GG is referencing," because relying on his quote is a !@#$ing crapshoot. And as we were playing "hide and seek GG's !@#$ing post," and after I realized that that's what we were playing, I still explained to you, THRICE, why I felt the way I felt about charitable contributions. And you act as if I haven't explicated that. The only person who is lost, off topic, slow, challenged, et cetera, is you. THRICE.

I'm going off the abbreviated portion of my post that you quoted - which any reasonable person would understand to mean that you were criticizing my comment about the soundness of the science. Also, I explained what I felt the difference was. If you don't agree, that's fine; it's my opinion. Your non-linear analogy isn't a dissuasion. I've been treading lightly trying not to get you wound up. And that is out of character for me.