Is The White House Trying To Screw Romney By

[Juror#8]

Still waiting for my response juror8. You are new here, so perhaps I can help you out:

 

I don't want to get into a debate with Magox over the methods of markets, as that's what he does, and you shouldn't either. We can talk about results, but you should stay away from the inner workings.

Same thing goes for arguing with a business owner, LABillz, over what constitutes a sound budget. (The same goes for a lot of us. I suggest you stop telling us to unknow what we know, and do, every day.)

You sure as hell don't want to argue with DC_Tom about science or history(or in Tom's mind, anything )

Actually, the best rule is stay away from history in general unless you really know it = "have read primary sources". Fair warning. Post some dopey conclusion based on some non-historian who's not even good enough to be called a "revisionist" saying, for example, that Lincoln would be a Democrat today, and you will be destroyed.

Same rule for economics. We have highly educated, both didactically and practically, people here. Slip up once and you will be hearing it for weeks, for the exact reason that we like to antagonize people because we can. This is the high school locker room, and you are the new kid.

 

Having said that, my response above is playing on your home field: Politics. This is something you say you know. So, let's hear it.

 

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.

 

I bet you really feel like a fool now don't you.

 

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.

 

No, but he can call you Betty. And Betty when he calls you, you can call him Al

 

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.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

 

 

Here's an article that you might find interesting.

 

http://mises.org/daily/2963

Edited October 13, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[Chef Jim]

 

 

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.

 

 

Nah, I don't need to go back and re-read your post. I understood it the first time. So if my response was disconcerting can you explain why you chose to point out my spelling error as opposed to addressing my vulgar respone?

 

Oh and hey Booster....I think we found your next lover. You two would make a great pair.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm really trying to find the post your referencing. I'm interested in responding.

Here, I'll help you out, I bolded my main questions:

I have no reason to believe you are lying, and every reason to believe that you know who you say you know. That said:

 

1. Why would you, or anyone, put a lot of stock in the political sensibilities and perceptions of those "who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy"? Aren't these the same people who told us the "country has moved massively to the left", were so tone-deaf that they thought "people will like it once they see it" was a justification for shoving Obamacare through the Senate, and were convinced that Barack Obama was the better candidate to prove liberal methods work than Hillary Clinton? What have these people been right about politically in the last 4 years?

 

2. Do these people understand that Romney has connected every single time to a large enough group of Republicans to continue to lead the polls, despite being attacked by all, in every single debate? The same thing happened last night, and he brushed them off with a high degree of skill. Look: I don't care about any candidate yet, but I know excellent body/speech control when I see it. Romney is being tempered in these debates. What has tempered Obama for the last 4 years? Ask your friends if they are even sure Obama can take a punch/deal with a gotcha question in a debate, because I've never seen it. Do they think the Media has been hard on him? (EDIT: Obama is like Rocky goofing off in his mansion, while Clubber Lang Romney is jacking weight in the gym. Rocky wasn't scared either, until he got hit.)

 

3. I'm curious: have any of your friends ever said "boy we really screwed up (insert any of Obama's 20 major failures in policy approaches here)"? If all they can ever say is: "well we didn't message it right, or, we didn't say it enough", then again, why are you paying attention to these people?

 

Nobody is ever going to take what you say about housing seriously if you refuse to identify the root cause: Democrats in the House and Senate demanding that banks give loans to people that can't afford them. We can talk about what happened after, and why, but if you won't admit what created the environment for all of this bad behavior, you are lying to yourself and wasting our time.

 

As for the rest: Do you really think raising taxes to pay for more government employees to poorly create and poorly enforce ineffective regulations is the answer? I have first hand information that regulators are mostly idiots. You can hire 400, 4000 or 40k more of them in Medicare, SEC, whatever, and I will destroy them all, because I have always destroyed them. That's because I am good at my job and they have no clue how to do theirs, and, my job is infinitely easier because it's based on reason and sound methodology, theirs is based on emotion and buffoonery.

Edited October 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

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.

 

Everyone I've never called an asshat or variation thereof, raise their hand.

 

Anyone?

 

Anyone?

 

Thought so.

 

My name-calling don't mean ****. I'm an equal-opportunity !@#$.

[DaveinElma]

Everyone I've never called an asshat or variation thereof, raise their hand.

 

Anyone?

 

Anyone?

 

Thought so.

 

My name-calling don't mean ****. I'm an equal-opportunity !@#$.

 

DC Tom talking to himself-The Thread.

[Wacka]

... I work on the Hill and am one of a million nobodies eagerly humping the American Dream...

 

Barney Frank's boyfriend?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Barney Frank's boyfriend?

[Juror#8]

Nah, I don't need to go back and re-read your post. I understood it the first time. So if my response was disconcerting can you explain why you chose to point out my spelling error as opposed to addressing my vulgar respone?

 

Oh and hey Booster....I think we found your next lover. You two would make a great pair.

 

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).

[Juror#8]

Barney Frank's boyfriend?

 

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?

[Magox]

specifically on the bridge of your nose and on your left man boob?

We're still talking about your boyfriend Barney right?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Magox

[erynthered]

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?

 

 

See now, this is a good post for PPP. Much better than those long drawn out look down over your nose posts that you've been writing.

[Juror#8]

I have no reason to believe you are lying, and every reason to believe that you know who you say you know. That said:

 

1. Why would you, or anyone, put a lot a stock in the political sensibilities and perceptions of those "who know the logistical ins and outs of the 2012 incumbent candidacy"? Aren't these the same people who told us the "country has moved massively to the left", were so tone-deaf that they thought "people will like it once they see it" was a justification for shoving Obamacare through the Senate, and were convinced that Barack Obama was the better candidate to prove liberal methods work than Hillary Clinton? What have these people been right about politically in the last 4 years?

 

2. Do these people understand that Romney has connected every single time to a large enough group of Republicans to continue to lead the polls, despite being attacked by all, in every single debate? The same thing happened last night, and he brushed them off with a high degree of skill. Look: I don't care about any candidate yet, but I know excellent body/speech control when I see it. Romney is being tempered in these debates. What has tempered Obama for the last 4 years? Ask your friends if they are even sure Obama can take a punch/deal with a gotcha question in a debate, because I've never seen it. Do they think the Media has been hard on him?

 

3. I'm curious: have any of your friends ever said "boy we really screwed up (insert any of Obama's 20 major failures in policy approaches here)"? If all they can ever say is: "well we didn't message it right, or, we didn't say it enough", then again, why are you paying attention to these people?

 

Nobody is ever going to take what you say about housing seriously if you refuse to identify the root cause: Democrats in the House and Senate demanding that banks give loans to people that can't afford them. We can talk about what happened after, and why, but if you won't admit what created the environment for all of this bad behavior, you are lying to yourself and wasting our time.

 

As for the rest: Do you really think raising taxes to pay for more government employees to poorly create and poorly enforce ineffective regulations is the answer? I have first hand information that regulators are mostly idiots. You can hire 400, 4000 or 40k more of them in Medicare, SEC, whatever, and I will destroy them all, because I have always destroyed them. That's because I am good at my job and they have no clue how to do theirs, and, my job is infinitely easier because it's based on reason and sound methodology, theirs is based on emotion and buffoonery.

 

 

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.

[Chef Jim]

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).

 

Gay jokes..........great.

[Juror#8]

We're still talking about your boyfriend Barney right?

 

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.

[Magox]

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.

Actually, it's the other way around, try to keep up skippy.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

When you first started posting here I sort of had high hopes for you. Now, not so much. In order to inflict a proper and stinging putdown you must be clever. Anyone with a keyboard can do this kind of crap.

[Juror#8]

Actually, it's the other way around, try to keep up skippy.

 

Just the response I had hoped for.

 

When you first started posting here I sort of had high hopes for you. Now, not so much. In order to inflict a proper and stinging putdown you must be clever. Anyone with a keyboard can do this kind of crap.

 

Eh, you're probably right. It's way short of some of the gems that others have proffered.

 

Edited October 14, 2011 by Juror#8

[Chef Jim]

When you first started posting here I sort of had high hopes for you. Now, not so much. In order to inflict a proper and stinging putdown you must be clever. Anyone with a keyboard can do this kind of crap.

 

Nah, I had no hope for him immediately. When you feel the need to use big words to try to impress people you lose me.

 

He might be Jackie Chiles.

[/dev/null]

When you first started posting here I sort of had high hopes for you.

 

Nah, I had no hope for him immediately.

 

I have no hope for anybody that posts on PPP

 

But not to be disappointed, he proved that he is in fact an asshat but trying to come up with some lame response to my Paul Simon reference. So he's both an asshat and doesn't appreciate good music

Edited October 14, 2011 by /dev/null