Juror#8

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be scared of Romney. I'm just saying that they're not. I hear reliably (albeit second hand) that they feel that Republicans won't rally behind Romney; he won't connect with Independents; opp-research is sitting on a considerable amount of content; Romney's ground operation doesn't yet have a national team (and many do as front runners a year out); and their internals show that he comes across as disconnected to average un-committed voters. The word that was used by my brother was "antiseptic." Again, I'm not saying if their strategy/level of concern is right or wrong. Just communicating a message.

I was reading in the Washington Times recently that he would exempt any used goods (including homes), allow businessness to deduct new equipment purchases from their 9% corporate income tax responsibility, and preserve the deduction for charitable donations. Not saying that I don't agree; it's just that exemptions, exceptions and interpretations of who qualifies is part of the reason that the current tax code is so convoluted. I'm hoping that 999 is not a slippery slope. I don't have a link but I'll try to locate one for ya this afternoon.

Just the response I had hoped for. Eh, you're probably right. It's way short of some of the gems that others have proffered.

I like Herman Cain and I like parts of his plan. I just have a few questions that I hope he answers: 1. Several exemptions have been added recently to his flat income tax model. Will this continue? Does it complicate what is supposed to be a transparent model? 2. How does he address international sourcing of components, and products that have a global developmental process? 3. How will he guard against his flat tax model devolving into a Value Added Tax?

You're slow and not up-to-date on this conversation. Your overall development and your ability to comprehend this conversation is retarded. Retarded development: owing to the sexual union of two closely related family members, your mother's crack addiction, and the perverted way in which you were conceived. Retarded comprehension: owing to the above issues coupled with your rampant abuse of meth, Everclear and animal porn.

1. The conversations that I've had have been with trusted folks - family and friends - who have a intimate knowledge of the incumbent candidacy. It's kind of cool but also somewhat poignant to know what truly matters in the WH and what the approach is for the upcoming election cycle. Now to be fair, there are only a handful of people who understand the day-to-day calculus. But there is tons of valuable and illuminating information that filters down to staffers, Jr. pollsters, assistants, speech-writers, and Jr. strategists (some of whom I know) evidencing the direction the WH is going as well as matters related to logistics and stratagem. For those reasons and because there is a proximate link between the decision-makers and the messengers, I'm comfortable with the veracity of these statements. With that said, I don't know anyone who believes that the country has moved massively to the left. If anything, people who I was speaking with at the time suggested a center-left shift. The 06 and 08 cycles substantiate that claim a bit (though I think it was a situational rather than an ideological shift). Those elections were a referendum on conservative politics, Bush's presidency, and an economy that was in free-fall towards the end of Bush's term. Some will say that that the 2006 and 2008 election cycles continue a trend of congressional re-positioning every ___ years. And when you look at the elections for the last 40 years, that seems reasonable. However, I believe that the trend speaks more to the electorate and how susceptible it is to the 24 hour news cycle and how disinterested it is in nuance (and you can see that in some responses in this forum). I believe that this was the case in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Simply put...the vox populi are idiots. 2. Mitt Romney is very controlled, very skillful in debate. During debates he sits there with a smile; not an Al Gore 2000-type smile, but a smile that communicates confidence and a sincere interest in what the interlocutor is saying. He has dealt with some fluctuations in his numbers, but to date he has been victorious. He skillfully managed Rick Perry's surge. He's dealing with Herman Cain's rise well too. He staying calm and on message. He seems to understand the ebb and the flow and that politics operates in trends. His trend line is consistent; never too up, and never too down. He is not Howard Dean. Not Giuliani. Not Fred Thompson. Not Jerry Brown. They understood neither trends, ebbs, nor flows. 2a. I watched every debate in 2007-2008. Obama dealt with some of the worst media (in terms of volume devoted to these issues) that i've seen in some time. Jeremiah Wright, his birth certificate, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, his religion, etc. I didn't vote for him, but many of those things were issues that I didn't feel implicated his capacity to be Commander and Chief. Some media outlets decried these issues, some dismissed them...but they were talked about....CONSTANTLY and for months. He was asked about them in debates. They were recycled. Variations and iterations of the stories were played and recycled. I have never seen that before for a candidate as a vetting technique. Ever. 3. Remember when you say that [paraphrasing] "they didn't get policy right," you're speaking for yourself and those similarly situated and ideologically allied. The polls I've seen show that the body politic seem to be comfortable and even favor, in many cases, the principles advanced in much of the largely unpopular legislation advanced. What they don't like is the process, the manipulation, and the final implementation. Republicans have done a great job of watering down the legislation, diverting the message, and then making the WH own the whole. The democrats haven't effectively combated it. So we will never know if the ideas, or the intended policy, was bad, good, or something in-between. Those policies never made it to the cutting room floor. 3a. Democrats cannot DEMAND that a private commercial entity make bad loans. They can incentivize or threaten dis-incentives. They can mandate egalitarianism. They can review for disparate impacts on traditionally under-represented groups (traditionally protected classifications). But they can't REQUIRE a bank to become insolvent by accepting loans that are guaranteed to fail. 3b. Regulation in many cases is good. The ol' University of Chicago cost benefit analysis model [to me] suggests that the potential itemized waste inherent in any regulatory bureaucracy, is outweighted by the benefit of watch-dogging and preventing Enrons, MCI-Worldcoms, BPs, BoA, et cetera, et cetera. They weren't prevented, in large measure, because regulation was so relaxed.

No, however takers can be arranged for you since you're looking. Are you a back-door beauty or do you just want a submissive man? Any truth to your ex-husband's claim that you like to be defecated on...specifically on the bridge of your nose and on your left man boob?

I chose the former because I felt that pointing out your spelling error would be an excellent incentive for you and your life partner to take your high school equivalency exam(s).

I'm really trying to find the post your referencing. I'm interested in responding. Thanks for the welcome and the intros. I think that I can hold my own but I like to know the landscape. DC Tom - seems like a cool guy. Been reading his posts in the main forum for some time. He comes off as somewhat sardonic...which I like. I figure him for an attorney. He seems to know his stuff. Outside of him basically calling me an asshat in another thread, we've had no beef. LABillz - Enjoy the dialog with that guy. His commentary seems experiential. That's always cool. I don't slip up. I know what I know and don't profess to know more. I'm here to offer opinions and be engaging and contribute, etc. My background is in politics. I work on the Hill and am one of a million nobodies eagerly humping the American Dream. I'm the only non-pretentious UVA guy that you'll ever meet. M.A. in Political Science from Columbia. I was out of work until a chance encounter with David Gregory at the Jerry Subs and Pizza on 18th and K landed me a job on the Hill. I've worked my way up from there. My story is non-traditional. But I have opinions to share and hope that they're valued. I'll value everyone's opinion here...even if they're expressed abrasively. Nope. I sure don't. Figuring that I would make a mistake at some point, I conditioned my response by emphasizing the length of your post. Go back and re-read. Anyway, I could care less about your spelling error. It was your response that was disconcerting. And we'll both call you our trick. So get back to your corner and get me my money. There are "Johns" out there. You better apply yourself and stop standing around fu&*^ng talking.

I'll admit to not being that familiar. I do know that the Act was calculated to help impoverished families secure credit for mortgages. I don't believe that it mandated bad or risky lending practices, rather it was a way to faciliate home-ownership in lower income communities and amongst those who may not otherwise consider owning a home in order to avoid a protracted or near-adversarial application process. Generally, I'm not enthusiastic about making a private company alter business practices to accommodate the under-represented. There are certain instances where I can understand the impetus (See: Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US) and certain select cases. Outside of that though, not really that thrilled about government involvement purely private commercial matters. I hope that I'm referencing the correct "CRA." That is the only one that I'm familiar with and, admittedly, I don't know it that well. Thank you cupcake. How about you scoot that period within those quotations? As your teacher, I'm preparing you for "life." I wouldn't want you to not be successful securing that culinary gig at McDonalds, IHOP, or whatever you aspire to, just because of a little oversight with your punctuation. Carry on Chef Cupcake.

1. I've lurked on this board - always in the main forum though. 2. Your spelling is pathetic; that's unacceptable for as few words as you used. 3. Can I call you "cupcake"? That's cute, and it's consistent with your pretty name and cheerful personality. 4. Good afternoon. Didn't watch it. But I'll give you an "A" for effort.

Is that how characterize calling you out for your platitudes, non-speak, and your otherwise skillfully avoiding my points addressed to you? Or is that how you characterize me indicating that I respect your points on oil-markets, but disagree with you for the reasons that I enumerated in two or three posts?

Much respect for your even-handedness. I didn't vote for the current administration. I found Ron Paul to be refreshing and politically sensible so that's where my support was. Even did the "write-in" thing because I thought McCain was unsatisfactory as well. This year, not so sure. My brother is a speech-writer (therefore between him and his colleagues, I have a nice ear to what's going on in the WH politically - but of course that's no match for a Quinnipiac poll and declarative statements - ). I'm an LA on the Hill. My perspective has changed for those reasons...but I still call a spade a spade. I'm definitely more independent that I once was. I used to look at things very matter-of-factly and without contours or nuance (like some here). I've realized that I was missing things as a result. So I'll debate the other side and debate for sides that I traditionally don't agree with - because I'm trying to appreciate nuance. For what it's worth. Not going to "the link." I've lurked here for three years. I remember Scooby's BMW, the board crash, NeverGiveUp coming and going, Tim Graham and that fiasco, Owen Schmitt needing to be the choice in the second or third round because he would be the best thing since Carwell Gardner, etc. I also have seen how people have substituted that link as legitimate links to news reports, stats and info, etc. I'm the newbie...but I did my reconnaissance.

1. Don't get caught up in the "abrasive" characterization. I told you, I enjoy it. Dispassionate people end up being the best to debate with. 2. Characterizing someone a certain way, then substantiating your characterization with your own opinion, effectively transitions what could be objective fact, into a perjorative. Your "ill-informed" and "sorely lacking" commentary is then followed by an opinion of why you think that is the case. You're claims are meritless. Baseless. Without standing. But they're cute. Factually, you are wrong about the WH's stance on Mitt Romney. You can say otherwise until you're [insert color here] in the face. You're simply incorrect. And if I didn't know first hand that you're incorrect (which I do), what you use to substantiate your thesis demonstrates even further that you're incorrect. I've stated twice now that the polls, and "independent this, independent that," et cetera language that you use as "subtantiation" is problematic...and why. You respond with another declarative and then an ad hominem (please see the discussion above as to why your statements are classified that way). Therefore: Your entire post is a red herring and argumentum ad populum. You haven't addressed my point in either of my previous posts concerning the fallacy in your reasoning. Your posts follow this formula, described presently: Pronoun, declarative statment (no support), declarative statement (no support), ad hominem, logical fallacy, conclusion. Then you anxiously await a cogent response to it. And I'm still watching you behave in this way. 2. Thank you for providing your opinion by answering my two questions. Unfortunately, you ignored the entire rest of that post. I read your post twice, and though I respect the points that you raise and your opinion on the phenomena, I don't agree with you and I'll renew my points. Res ipsa loquitur.

I'm not going anywhere friend. I like the name-calling. I told ya, I think it's cute.

1. You had me thinking politically until the last line...and then I thought "damn, another individual incapable of having a dispassionate debate." But since you mentioned that - how can you hear how I sound? Can you hear the words that I typed. I "mentioned," I "typed," I "referenced." You [presumably] "read" (or it was read to you if you were busy or are illiterate [which I'm not suggesting btw]) Was I audible to you, though? Are you autistic? Or are you suggesting that IF I use "bicameralism" in my daily conversations (which you can't hear unless I know you or we decide to have a phone conversation, or you're in close proximity, or some other serendipitous moment) you presume that I would "sound" smart? If so, ok. If not, then you're not presenting yourself well - or, to use your characterization, you're not "sounding smart." J/K 2. On to sunny point number 2 (or "number 1" based on your enumeration above), THE STIMULUS. Short answer: You're right. It was lacking. It was a lot of things. But it was helpful to many. Was it a waste of money? Eh, debateable. Have you ever seen legislation that wasn't omnibus or replete with "riders." It sucks. All legislation sucks. I deal with the legislative process all day. It's crap. It's all about getting things through and constituent representation. You think that that is a "liberal" thing? Hmph. Here is the sincerity question though: if I point to you legislation that Bush proposed or that was co-sponsored by Republicans in Congress, some of whom are seeking the GOP's approval to be there national candidate, that contains all the moronic, cow-vagina--genetic-grape nuts-urine sample-manually-masturbating-caged-gerbil-fertility study financial subsidy stuff, will you discontinue voting Republican? Will you feel the same about them? Will they be moronic? Or will you just mention that they were simply "acting like democrats"? RINOs, in fact.

1. You're welcome to cite your Quinnipiac data and the pulse of independents based on polls 13 months removed from the election and before the opposition candidate is chosen - incidentally when most independents are entirely dis-engaged from the political process - as demonstrative proof that Mitt is their biggest concern. He is not. Repeat, The WH is not concerned about a Mitt matchup. You're trying to advance an opinion that is in direct contradiction with the beliefs of the people whom you claim to know ("know" - with respect to their political mindset). That is analogous to you proclaiming vehemently that I'm thinking about oatmeal for breakfast when I'm thinking about pancakes and telling you, unequivocally, that I'm thinking about pancakes. And silly me for observing you behave in this fiendish way. I know, for a fact, that the WH's biggest political concern is not Mitt Romney. Fact. Period. The end. If this is an issue of "belief," then simply just mention that you don't believe me and let's stop wasting our times discussing this ad infinitum. I still won't stop opining, and I'll still discuss facts when I know them. I appreciate your opinion - even when tainted with name-calling. I understand that your style is abrasive - hoping that the interlocutor acquiesces. Not me though. I like it. I think it's cute. 2. I never professed to be an expert in oil markets. That seems to be your area. But I know enough to have an intelligent conversation and I like to consider myself somewhat proficient in common sense. What common sense tells me is that the dramatic incline is gas prices over about an 9+ month timeframe is inconsistent with any natural economic trend. Never (to my knowledge), in the history of this petroleum producing, gas-engine, century and some change, have we seen the magnitude of gas price hike that occured during that timeframe. Not after 9/11 Not after disastrous hurricanes Not after earthquakes and other debilitating natural disasters of profound moment Not after wars, strife and other international conflicts Not after Iran, Iraq, Milosevic, Khomeini, Castro, Hussein, Pyongyang, Gorbachev, Arafat, etc. I realize that prices may have fluctuated in the above instances. But magnitude is what impresses me. My opinion is that hoarding, speculating, and profit-acquisition inconsistent with a supply-demand trend impacted the price of petroleum. I believe this based on historical data; the fact that 60%+ of oil contracts in the futures market is held by speculative entities; the fact that the amount of money that Wall Street and hedge funds had placed in the commodoties markets went from 13 billion to 300 billion in 5 years, and inconsistencies with the supply/demand proclamation. If it is simply supply/demand, then how do you explain oil jumping $25 a barrel on one day on or about Sept. 21, 2008? Recently I read that from Q4 of 2007 to Q2 of 2008 (the period of the most recent significant spike), worldwide supply went up, while worldwide demand went down, yet prices still sky-rocketed. Why? I'm sure that there is a fancy reason for why this happened which is common-place to you, because, ya know, you worked on Wall Street. And I'm sure that I won't be able to count on both hands the amount of name-calling that is mentioned in your next post. But with that said, I'm unconvinced with what you're saying. I believe that it is, what I think that it is. It's inconsistent. Unnatural. Not attributable to supply and demand. It stinks. We can agree to disagree. Good morning.

Hope you're not referring to me. I'm surely not a liberal (although I don't consider the term "liberal" as a pejorative) and I never once said that he is a viable candidate. He is just the one that the WH has the most concern about.

So...you replied to my contention by.......mentioning the same thing. So I just renew the points I made about bicameralism and hope for a more pointed response. On to your Stimulus point: You didn't like it. Understood. I know people of all political persuasions who enjoyed being put to work on infrastructural projects on Rt. 7, Rt. 81, and 495. They were out of work since Bush. They were put to work because of Stimulus funds. Did nothing for you - got it. It did something for some. Hope you got that. Trust me, I'll answer all questions and address all debate points posed to me. At this point, I'm just arguing logic. I'm not even a Democrat. But I can't let unsound logic stand - Repblican or Democrat. Thanks for your question btw. I'm interested in some good debate (or maybe agreement) with ya about it. Will get to this later. Dinner appointments...

Taking your post in turn: 1. "Rant" - "To speak or declaim extravagantly OR violently; communicate in a vehement way." So what about the word "rant" is a personal attack? Incidentally I "ranted" at various times during this thread. Am I insulting myself by characterizing my own words at various points as a "rant"? Most importantly, if you are trying to use my characterizing of your words, in one segment of your response, as "rant," in an effort to justify your name-calling and personal attacks, do you back-track now that you're proven incorrect? 2. If I have to explain to you about how a speculator daily purchases oil futures at a price that is inconsistent with the current market price effectively causing a "stop pro" or "full stop" by oil producers who salivate at the opportunity to take advantage of the future price...then I'll understand the preterite tense in your verb "to trade." I'd like to know your thoughts on why back in 2005-6, when petroleum reserves were at a near decade high, oil prices sky-rocketed, if not for an articificially created market. Maybe we will just respectfully agree to disagree. 3. I said that the WH isn't overly worried about Romney, and you cite polls 12 months out that show Romney ahead in a couple of polls in this theoretical match-up. So, let me get this straight, your support for why the WH is most scared of Romney is because you can cite a Quinnipiac poll which shows Romney ahead? Or a handful of polls? (Incidentally, CNN, Rasmussen, and Fox have Obama ahead) I'm basing my belief on conversations with some good folks who I have the pleasure of knowing. You're basing yours on a poll of 1000 people conducted between 6 and 8 on M-TH. I have my approach. You have yours. Just wanted to share some tidbits gleened during some interesting convos.

I don't care who you are...that **** is funny.

You know what, I didn't like that either. Thank you for providing a reason as opposed to a generalized dislike for someone personally because you don't their politics or affiliates. With that said, she did pay her personal expenses (if I remember correctly). However taxpayers picked up the plane tab, security, etc. As an aside, do you personally dislike those who use taxpayer monies during difficult economic times? Do you think that Richard Shelby and Daniel Inouye are disgraceful for taking $5700 an hour flights to Paris and dining in the South of France on $500 a plate entrees, while meeting with defense contractors...all on the taxpayer dime? How about Rick Perry who still won't release how much he pays bodyguards from the state budget to chauffer he and his wife around on personal trips? And then there is the curious case of Nikki Haley, a staple at European resorts, who enjoys spending South Carolina tax payer dollars on herself and her friends. This trend is equally applicable to Democrats, Republicans, Independents; they're all morally questionable. I just want to know if you feel that they're all disgraceful and personally dislike them because of it?

Considering that I live in Potomac, MD (a suburb of DC), and she has visited elementary, and middle schools in the area - in addition to the fact that she has visited local bookstores, community centers, Boys and Girls club in Montgomery County, (I believe Fairfax County as well), et cetera - I feel confident in my assertion that "she has been active in the community." But don't let that stop you from thinking that you're quick-witted and perceptive while others are mis-informed. I, too, can appreciate incongruity.

I was nothing but respectful to you and your post. It appears as if my points may offend you though (or maybe it's the presentation of those points)as you've resorted to name-calling. Incidentally, you answered none of the propositions put forth in my last post. You retorted with declarative statements and name-calling. Ad hominems, red herrings, and other logical fallacies generally evidence a desire to ignore the merit of someone's position and re-direct the conversation in a fruitless direction. That's a problem, because I like fruit. I was once told that you know when you've accomplished having someone re-evaluate their most dearly held paradigms, because they'll pout. And finally..."left wing rant..." If you only knew who I was, methinks you'd get a good chuckle out of that. Good afternoon sir.

If you think that he had two years with full control of the government, then I question the extent to which you know the mechanics of politics. And before you argue that he had the Executive, and both houses of Congress, keep in mind that we're not discussing the tenants of a bi-cameral legislature. He didn't have "full control" of the government. He had theoretical control of the mechanics of government. The opposition party did everything possible to facilitate you feeling the way that you feel.