OCinBuffalo

Ahh, and in comparison, my trolling skills are as sharp as ever I see! ....lybob, poor ...lybob At least Juror#8 is a rookie, and therefore has an excuse! Did you enjoy watching all those Bill O'Reilly videos? Did you enjoy reading all those articles? Remember the "Soros/common knowledge" thing, you dolt? (I like dolt, thank's Juror#8!) Yes? That's your f'ing penance for posting all your dopey youtube videos. Do it again, and I will make you watch Hannity next time.

Again, you are a rookie, so you don't know why they haven't. That said, you don't seem to get that I completely answered your analysis. Your assumption that we are all idiots, validates my question: since we are all idiots, as idiots, why wouldn't we ignore all your wonderful analysis and simply ask "why should we listen to people that = FAIL"? I am sorry that you are struggling with your own premise. I assure you, if we could get past your premise, I might have some interest in responding to each of your points. But, since we are all idiots, your analysis is irrelevant. I am merely responding to you in line with your assumption. Why are you complaining? What you don't seem to get: when I read your OP, your assumption that we were all idiots was easy for me to infer. The fact that I got you to say it literally? Well, that's just more evidence of my superior trolling skills. I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you still don't understand what's going on here, or, the fact that you believe anybody is going to go back and read posts #64 and 65 I don't know what's funnier, the fact that you are calling so many people you don't know idiots, or the fact that you somehow believe that only the people on this board, and not the rest of the country, aren't dolts. You do understand that the TEA party exists right??? You do understand that NOT ONLY the Obama Administration's incompetence, but ALSO, DC's general intransigence, has energized the entire country, and created them, right? Energized as in: we don't think you are responsible. Response-able. Say it with me. Perhaps you really don't understand, so I will suspend my trolling in this section: Under normal circumstances, you and the rest of the elected people/staffers/everybody in DC simply aren't as important to us as you think you are. In fact, government is looked down on by just about everybody I know and work with. Take any multinational consulting firm: do you think the best talent works in the government group? Do you think that the best people in the government group don't try to get out of there? Go to a government trade show, and then a corporate one, and talk to the people from the same firm on any relevant subject. The difference will be obvious. The talent you have gotten from consultants directly corresponds to YOUR abilities. How can it be that the corporate groups consistently deliver on time, and the government side rarely does? Answer: Because you idiots don't know how to manage anything, and therefore you let the worst of us get away with murder. I can only imagine what the best of us would do to you. In this one section, I am being deadly serious. You have a massive credibility problem, and operating on the assumption that we are the idiots isn't going to solve it. Wanna compare my approval rating with your boss's? Wanna put both of us in a room and see who people will listen to? The truth will set you free: You are the idiots. That's your problem, not ours. It's far past time for some introspection in DC. It's far past time for you to understand that to us? You, and your boss, are a joke that we don't even bother to tell. Ahh, the rookie learns....or does he? The only thing the community will judge...is whether you are still a rookie after you respond to this post.

He's struggling in his job, and blaming his lack of ideas and leadership on us, the American people. Here's an idea that the stupid American people came up with, and he can snag it and claim it, for free.

This is what's so GD frustrating about these people. If they would stop with the character assassination, and the lame, blatantly obvious infusion of leftists political constructs into what they demand we take seriously, we might be able to make heads or tails of this issue. The problem is: we can't tell where the politics stops and the actual science starts. We also can't tell if they are simply bucking for more research $$$ or have actually defined a problem. That's why I want engineers. Now. Engineers would start with how to fix the warming. The problem solving process of how to fix the problem, would in and of itself, define whether the problem actually exists. The problem is: we have skipped the engineering phase of this, and gone from pure science directly to retail sales...and of course a, now failed, commodity trading market.

There's nothing better than when Tom tries to troll. You are waaaaay too literal and serious to be good at this. Stick to the one liners, that's your niche.

This is an awesome idea. The only thing I would add: allow the bondholders to convert their bonds to shares when they are due. How many depends on the valuation of the company at the time the bond is due. This way, the auto worker/investment banker can choose to bail himself out, instead of making us do it. And, if they truly believe, or others truly believe that a completely corrupted company like GM is able to be turned around then it's on them. And, why should only the union be able to benefit from owning the company? Let the working man benefit directly. The unions would have nowhere to go = how could they argue against this? And, why shouldn't a bunch of investment bankers pay to bail themselves out? It's not like they don't have the money. If nobody believes in the business model, then the company goes bankrupt, as it should. We already have the mechanisms in place for this, we would only need the government to oversee the paperwork, and then get out of the way. Let a bunch of average joe bond holders elect the board of GM. You should PM this to Juror#8: Lord knows he needs the help.

The only thing shocking here is that it took longer for some tool to bring this up, than it did for someone to give Levi and I a hard time for our ongoing fashion discussion. Apparently you haven't been paying attention wrt the length of one of my posts and the propensity for it to be troll-oriented. See, I can say this in the clear, because there's a better than 50% chance that the marks have no idea wtf I am saying anyway.

1. If I was a Democrat, I doubt I'd be running around using the term "fit to be President" at this point in US history....and I say history, because we now at the historical, "worst of all time" level. 2. Democrats disrespect Gingrich's intellect, and more importantly, political skills and familiarity with the material, at their own peril.

Been saving this one for something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrP-dKOIQMM

We reserve the right to penalize you for anything on this part of the board, especially stuff you have no control over. I am penalizing you right now, you just don't know it yet.

Where oh where is Frenkle? FRENKLE! Front and center! Care to explain why we are all a-holes, don't care about the environment and are all terrible people...for refusing to believe in man-made global warming just because these tools say so? ======================================================================= Look at the FOIA Grepper email: Who the F are these guys, f'ing amateur chefs? in junior high chemistry? "yeah! let's throw some sulfates into it and see what that does! It won't matter if we do it over the ocean!" We CANNOT make long term, global, trillion $ public policy and economic decisions based on nothing more than these guys f'ing about in the after school science club. I am not a bad person for demanding that we get some engineers involved in this process, immediately. The scientists clearly aren't up to the task on their own. Looks like the problems here are the same problems with the Obama Administration: no adult supervision. At least if we get some engineers involved, we have a chance, however faint, of eventually getting a straight answer on this issue.

For those of you who don't know what "giving a clinic" means, it usually refers to owning another team so badly that you are taking them to camp, and showing them how to do it. That's what I saw Gingrich do tonight on Hannity. The entire interview is interesting, and understand, this excerpt sorta takes things out of context-->for example, the only time he refers to himself in the third person during the entire interview is this excerpt, so don't read too much into that. But, it's an amazing demonstration of political skill: What preceded this was a discussion of how Gingrich would handle political attacks, and questions about lobbying: Now the first thing that ran through my head at the end was, of course, "BS Flag"! However, the very next thing was "yeah, but very well done BS. In fact this is the kind of BS that I want turned on Iran. By the time Iran figures out WTF he said, they will have given up their nuclear program and recognized Israel"! It was mesmerizing on TV. While he was talking, I found myself thinking, "yeah, of course this is not lobbying, it's better than lobbying!" That lasted a sublime 3 seconds until my training kicked in at the end. The fact is that while you may not like Gingrich, or agree with him, if you are a serious person, you respect Gingrich's skill set and familiarity with the material. In all cases, this skill set is worth at least a Secretary of State nod, if not the big job itself. I feel it's safe to say that if we have learned anything from the last 2 Presidents, it's that skill set and familiarity with the material counts for a lot more than ideology.

I have already determined to throw it on DVR and start a thread based on what he literally says, so I got you covered. Should be interesting to see it in prose, because it's f'ing mesmerizing on TV.

+2 for taking a stand....on something but... -1 for characterizing Newt as an "honest man" If you want to see Newt's "honesty" then you have an opportunity --> Hannity rerun at midnight. (edit: or in a half hour, don't want to offend the non EST people ) Watch for the part where he talks about lobbying, and...not lobbying....or something, it's in the second segment. I saw it earlier at dinner. He puts Clinton's "definition of the word 'is'" to shame. Hannity's head is spinning. I am going to watch it again, just for the entertainment value. However, the first thing in my mind when I saw that was "this is who I want dealing with Iran. By the time they figure out WTF he said, they will have shut down their nuclear program". That's the kind of political ability we need now. If Romney can bring the same, then he's fine too.

Again, it's back to contradiction: Your entire analysis is predicated upon the assumption that the American people are idiots. Well, if that's the case, then chances are they are going to miss all of the nuance you have nicely laid out here....and merely look at the results = FAIL. Your "we are idiots" assumption, despite all your machinations above, provides the validity to my question "why would we listen to those that have failed"? The fact that you argued as eloquently as you have, albeit wrongly in many areas, contradicts the notion that we are all idiots though, doesn't it? Why not just call me an idiot, and move on? Also: are we only going to pick up on the nuances that you have described...as you have described them? What are the chances of that? You aren't allowing for the possibility that many of us are simply done with these people. Done, as in I don't need more than 3 massive F ups to fire somebody. And before you say "yeah but you were done day 1" understand that, no, we weren't. Most of us are wise enough to know that ideology for ideology's sake is chickenshit. We are done with them because they couldn't/can't get past their own ideology. I would have fired most of the political staff right after the Obamacare debacle. They had an opportunity to put their man into the history books. Instead they put him into the comic books. First, they had the choice to win first on the economy, and save Obamacare for the 2nd term and the wave of goodwill they would be riding. But they chose to overreach and, next, they had an opportunity to really make an excellent new program that would leave FDR/LBJ's legacy in the dust. Instead, they were flat out cowardly, intellectually weak, and politically....grossly incompetent. Never mind the historical big picture, they didn't even get the near-term re-election part right. The entire issue was handled incompetently, from start to finish. I predicted they would fail, and I said why, a full year before they shoved it through the Senate. I wasn't alone. There were 5 other posters here who pointed out solid flaws, and how to fix them, each from their own REAL WORLD experience. Hell, if you took 5-6 people from this board, and put us in charge of designing and pitching Obamacare, leftist ideology included, we could easily have come away with better results, for Obama, Democrats, and the country. In fact, unless I am seriously missing something, there's very little doubt in my mind that we could have sold it better, could have messaged it better, could have designed it better detail for detail, and most of us don't even agree with the f'ing thing. I am not being arrogant, I simply know what I would have done, that they didn't do, and why I would have done it. I cannot unknow what I know, just because it doesn't suit some clown's methodoloy, therefore I honestly believe that we could have put forward a left-leaning plan, never mind one that made the most sense, that was better than what we got. I know we are amateurs in politics, but I remain 100% confident that we could easily have done better at their jobs than they did. You seem fond of calling the American people idiots. Well, given the performance we have seen in DC? If we are idiots, then pardon us for calling you even bigger idiots. If we were so dumb, your rank incompetence wouldn't be so readily apparent to people on a message board now would it? Here's the bottom line: Your analysis above clearly shows that what you think is important to us and urgent to us....isn't, and you have missed what we do consider important and urgent. It's like DC in general is tone deaf. We solve problems and let me assure you, I have to deal with politics every single day. We know there are solutions to all of the problems in DC, but, instead of having the courage, and humility to seek those solutions, you are about yourselves, and not the work. You don't seem to get that making yourselves about the work, and making that demonstrable to us<--this is the key, will do far more for you personally than even you can imagine. You can say hyperbolic, or strawman, 50 more times in this thread, it doesn't make the fact that these people have completely departed from tried and true Democratic/Keynesian economics any less true. I never said all, go back and read what I wrote. Whenever you get done talking, or lamely distorting what I write, the fact will remain that the stimulus was wasted on things that don't have any chance of producing the Multiplier effect that Keynes argued, and was at least marginally able to prove. These people lied to their own constituencies, never mind everybody else. The only reason the labor unions haven't tarred and feathered these college professors is that they simply don't represent the working man anymore: the merely represent their need to accumulate political power. IF the unions actually represented the working man, they would NEVER agree to increasing gas prices on purpose, as gas is how the working man makes money. Gas is an absolutely essential component in any Keynesian government spending = multiplier construct. Obama Admins being unable to even run the Democratic playbook, never mind triangulate.....means they aren't incompetent? The fact that you think David Plouffe, or any politico, could take me on in a "Obama Stimulus in terms of Keynes" debate tells us all we need to know about just how goofy and pompous DC has become. I doubt any of you could even give us 2 paragraphs on Keynes in any context and have it even approach being accurate. Hell I doubt you could even define macroeconomics properly. Meanwhile, the last time I was in DC, they asked me to come back ASAP and teach them more about what I am doing...because it's going to "change the economics of health care permanently"...but yeah, I can't take out a silly little lawyer in an economics debate? So, then I guess my argument isn't hyperbolic, is it? Anybody else see the pattern here? The guy attacks the argument, and then right after, admits that it isn't wrong, and then says I'm not arguing the right points. 1. No, in your case it's accurate 2. I have demonstrated plenty of things that not only were they wrong about, they simply had no chance of ever being right about. It's a simple concept: you have to know the material. It's clear they don't understand business, economics, or statistics, on even a basic level. So, they were easily duped. End of story. 3. No, you haven't. 4. No, you don't. I have no problem with you personally, and yes, I usually work from 7-7, unless of course I am on a boring conference call... I do have a problem with people who have no cause to be cocky, about anything, saying they can take out Romney....as their performance on any problem/project so far has been marginal at best.

Ahh, so you refuse to equivocate on at least one thing? Well, that's progress. Next session we'll begin with the difference between principles and values, and see where we get.

The only shocking thing is that it has taken this long for someone, anyone, to give us a hard time. However, I make no apology for my sense of fashion. I imagine Levi has a decent sense as well, minus the fruity scarf thing. IF you mean that you've figured out that guys like me smell weakness a mile away, then yeah, you've figured me out. Consider: why wouldn't I, or more likely, someone who smells the same weakness but has lower standards, bang your wife? Since you are more than likely to give them a pass for doing it, as you give everyone a pass for doing everything, why wouldn't they bend her over? I'm certain they'd love to bask in your radiance, provided they get to keep throwing it to your wife. Because what would you say other than: yeah, but, other wives cheat too, so I can't only get pissed at mine.

Wait a second, we have an opportunity for some soul improvement via correcting errors here! How about YOU be honest with us first? How about you admit that your expectations were 6-10 at best? Consider: the only way one could be "disappointed" was if they expected more than 5-12/6-10 this year, as being 1-15 wouldn't really matter-->they expected to suck. Disappointment depends on expecting to make the playoffs/be 10-6 or so, and then sucking instead. The contrapositive is therefore also true: the only way you could be right, that this team is a bunch of losers, is if your expectations, of ~6-10, end up being correct. Being "right" about this team sucking means they have to finish 6-10. As neither has occurred, it's ridiculous for anybody to draw sweeping conclusions about Ralph, Buddy, Chan, Fitz or anybody. Here's what is true: 1. This team is nowhere near as bad as people said it was in preseason. They will never be right about their predictions and the aspersions they cast on the owner, manager, and coach. It's over. Own it. Fitz is a good QB, and you have to own that too. 2. This team is nowhere near ready to be a consistent playoff team. 3. We really don't know where this team is yet. 4. We need depth. 5. We need another solid draft. We need some key FAs. This crew has already proven they know how to pick players, they need to continue. 6. We need to have a season where we don't lose so many key players to injury. We can lose 1-2 but not this many. We simply cannot know how well our team is being owned, managed, coached with this many injured players. I wish dumbass Mularkey hadn't fired our strength and conditioning coach who was immediately scooped up by Chicago. We have been paying a heavy price ever since. This past game I was as proud of this team as I have been since 2000. They played hard, they didn't quit, and they were in a game they probably should have had no business being in given the talent level they could field. That's good coaching, period. That's good leadership, period.

GQ is a fine magazine, except when they publish guys intentionally dressing like Charlie's Angels.

Only if it's directly related to wearing a scarf there, Mary Poppins.

Wait a minute, you said you were in high school in 2008-9. Were you lying then, or are you going to say that everybody was that age in 2008-9? Edit: or, are you going to say that everybody says they are always right, everybody lies about their age, everybody gets everything wrong, etc.? Yes Tom, you are one to talk about that. When I, albeit rarely, catch you being wrong...before you edit...you cry like a baby, so please, spare us the projection.

No Dave, I am arguing that Obama winning has more to do with Bush sucking, and less to do with Obama's campaign, subsequent administration, and campaign now being good. The historical facts seem to bear this out. As always, I believe that Obama's considerable speaking skills could be used to turn this trend of sucking around. However, until his staff and he himself begin seeing the world as it really is, and start making the necessary corrections required, they will continue to fail. If that were true Dave, why would you support Obama's direct contradiction of Keynesian multiplier theory? If you really believe that, then you should be for Hillary replacing Obama immediately as your candidate, because, Clintons are the only people I have seen be able to enact: 1. supply side economics(Clinton's adult education/re-training policies) 2. Keynesian economics(Clinton's "infrastructure" spending) 3. Libertarian Free trade agreements (NAFTA) but call it all Keynesian, and get dopes like you to not only believe it, but also claim it as a victory for Democratic ideas. Perhaps I should have just gone with "you're an idiot"?

My unsolicited advice: Stay here a year. See the same idiots unable to construct a logical argument in 20 threads in a row, and then get back to us regarding the name-calling*. See the same idiots speaking from authority they patently do not possess...and do the same. The "idiots" have earned their moniker. *Disclaimer: if said name-calling, or seeming unwillingness to construct a logical argument, is funny, used for trolling purposes, or in any other way contributes lulz to the board, then it's acceptable.

Sooner or later Adam is going to learn that endless moral relativism and equivocation are no way to go through life, and instead of making you look erudite, make you look weak. Unless of course you plan on living in San Francisco. But, what? He's around a sophomore in college or so? I expect Adam's tune will change around a year and a half from now, when the girls at college are looking for husbands and things start getting real. If not, I take comfort in the fact that LABillz will be here to routinely knock him back into line until said tune changes.

You refuse to answer the very simple point at hand: why should we listen to the people who have performed so poorly ---> POLITICALLY. Instead of that, you try to focus on the process, instead of the content. Well, I am sorry rookie, we all know that trick here. It never really worked since I have been here, and I haven't seen it since 2007. This is not about opinion, it's about a historical track record of poor judgment. As in the judgment of those have miserably failed --- POLITICALLY --- never mind policy-wise, and the amount of weight we should reasonably assign to their ability to make POLITICAL assessments. I understand that these people may be your pals. We can talk about the policy, circumstances, issues, conditions, etc. and ALL of that is about opinion. However, when we talk about the POLITICAL choices that have been made, when we move to the decisions, now we are talking history and fact. The POLITICAL failures of the Obama administration are not up for debate: they are a matter of fact. Refusing to include these failures in our assessment of any POLITICAL assessments coming from this administration, especially when they describe having an "easy time" against ANY candidate, is also not up for debate: it's a matter of stupidity. I will now demonstrate why it's a bad idea for a lawyer to argue economics with an enterprise consultant. I don't expect to have to do it again. There is absolutely NOTHING hyperbolic about my characterization of Christine Romer, etc. As I have said before, I know who these people are, and they only put 1(one), University of Chicago guy as the token representative quant on that team. The rest of them are Chopra-worshiping, anecdotal-loving, "social-conscience/justice" turds, that left John Maynard Keynes in the dust long ago. That's not hyperbole, that's what these people literally say when they speak. I have heard them. Now, I will tear what they preach a new a-hole in terms of Keynes: These people believe in green jobs, shovel-ready jobs, and quantitative easing. Keynes would agree with none of this. They believe that capital is better spent by the government. Keynes would say that government spending creates capital, so, he would argue the inverse. They specifically contradict Keynes' views on government spending solving near/mid term frictional unemployment issues with....consumerism (purposely inflating gas prices = Keynesian? WTF?)....and instead, believe that we can bastardize Keynes into solving long term, structural unemployment by spending money in industries and amounts Keynes would never, EVER abide. Keynes would never agree to creating the debt this spending has, and thereby inflating away the very purchasing power that Keynesian economics seeks to create...so that people will use said power to....purchase. Keynes would NEVER support the notion of a single massive stimulus bill. He would support a number of small infusions over time, so their effects could be QUANTIFIED, and reviewed to see if they needed to be modified. He would NEVER support government spending on unproven technologies, green or otherwise. He would support government spending in PROVEN industries/sectors that would hire/expand immediately due to the increased government purchases of their goods/services, or as otherwise known: the Keynesian Multiplier. See? I can argue for Keynesian economics better than any Liberal you know, but, I can also argue against it better than you can. That's just the economics professor thing. I can do the rest, but why? There is NOTHING hyperbolic about my statements, as I just proved. You calling it hyperbolic means nothing. You can't back up your claim. And, as you seem destined to learn the hard way, rookie, I will always back up mine.....unless your name is ...lybob, and I am purposely trolling you = making you watch Bill O'Reilly videos as your penance for posting ridiculous videos on this board. But, as I have shown clearly, they haven't been wrong about only 1 thing. Ahhh, but, that's the problem for you: the same principle IS applied to me, and my whole crew, every single day. You being unable to handle it doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Mistakes happen to all. The difference between you and me is: what we do about them. We plan for mistakes, and we tell our clients ahead of time what we will do to fix them if they occur. It's called: contingency planning, and again, accountability. You deny ever making them even when they are blatantly obvious, and hope another news story diverts attention. The other difference between us is: if mistakes become a pattern, we are done, we don't get to keep making them and blaming everybody else for them. No, you simply don't understand how the real world works, which is not a shock to anyone here I assure you. There is nothing paradoxical about telling the client what can be done by you, and what can't. People in my business who over-promise don't last very long. There's nothing paradoxical about owning up to a mistake. When's the last time your boss, or any politician, or political staffer, had the basic humility to admit that what they are about to try may not work? When's the last time they owned up to a mistake? Most importantly, when's the last time they actually planned to deal with future mistakes? Medicare is the single best example of refusal to accept accountability, and, refusal to plan for future mistakes. We've had 60 years of precisely that. And you want me to ascribe the word "paradox" to DC's lack of humility? No. I don't think so.