Is The White House Trying To Screw Romney By

[Juror#8]

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.

 

I don't do anything to impress people. Nor do I peruse the Thesaurus looking for more elaborate ways to communicate an otherwise unexceptional point. It's just the way I speak brother.

 

I understand that my comment above might invite more criticism. I'm prepared.

[Booster4324]

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

 

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

[Juror#8]

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

 

I did miss the reference. I must not appreciate good music.

 

But being a jazz guy with tons of Mingus, Monk, Brubeck, and Gordon in the rotation, I mention that skeptically.

[Chef Jim]

 

ZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!

 

But here's the difference. Mine wasn't a joke. I was trying fo find you a date.

 

I did miss the reference. I must not appreciate good music.

 

But being a jazz guy with tons of Mingus, Monk, Brubeck, and Gordon in the rotation, I mention that skeptically.

 

Wow.....you're dreamy.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Chef Jim

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

 

You need to understand that there is a difference between calling someone a weazly little feckless pissant that could easily be the offspring of a threesome with Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore and a remora and posting schit about well, literally schitting on someone. You have set new records here in the time it has taken you to lose any sense of decorum. (assuming it was there in the first place)

[Juror#8]

You need to understand that there is a difference between calling someone a weazly little feckless pissant that could easily be the offspring of a threesome with Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore and a remora and posting schit about well, literally schitting on someone. You have set new records here in the time it has taken you to lose any sense of decorum. (assuming it was there in the first place)

 

Apologies if my posts offended your sensibilities. It appears as if you enjoy the jabs but then you want to be the arbiter with respect to scale. How about you call off the dogs and I'll put away the whip?

 

I'm the new guy. The hits came. I fought back....against all contenders. But before that, I remained respectful. I tried to agree to disagree and I extended appreciation for responses and criticism. I didn't escalate the dialog. You'll point to today's posts as proof that I wasn't "respectful." I said that I began by being respectful. But when things escalated, I responded accordingly. I had people who I never communicated with writing for me to "STFU." How is that for tact? And you want me to observe some level of decorum?

 

Above all, though, I've enjoyed quality, engaging, intelligent, point-by-point correspondence with yourself and others. For that, I thank you all.

[DaveinElma]

I'm the new guy.

 

DC Tom is hardly the new guy.

 

 

I can't believe you guys are indulging his gimmick.

[/dev/null]

DC Tom is hardly the new guy.

 

 

I can't believe you guys are indulging his gimmick.

What gimmick?

 

It's a well documented fact that DC Tom's multiple personas constitute the bulk of TSW members

[DaveinElma]

What gimmick?

 

It's a well documented fact that DC Tom's multiple personas constitute the bulk of TSW members

 

So there's even more of them? Good god.......

[3rdnlng]

Apologies if my posts offended your sensibilities. It appears as if you enjoy the jabs but then you want to be the arbiter with respect to scale. How about you call off the dogs and I'll put away the whip?

 

I'm the new guy. The hits came. I fought back....against all contenders. But before that, I remained respectful. I tried to agree to disagree and I extended appreciation for responses and criticism. I didn't escalate the dialog. You'll point to today's posts as proof that I wasn't "respectful." I said that I began by being respectful. But when things escalated, I responded accordingly. I had people who I never communicated with writing for me to "STFU." How is that for tact? And you want me to observe some level of decorum?

 

Above all, though, I've enjoyed quality, engaging, intelligent, point-by-point correspondence with yourself and others. For that, I thank you all.

 

I don't have a problem with our banter. I just thought you went a little over the top with a couple of comments, especially since you are new to PPP.

[DaveinElma]

I don't have a problem with our banter. I just thought you went a little over the top with a couple of comments, especially since you are new to PPP.

 

 

:lol: :lol:

[DC Tom]

What gimmick?

 

It's a well documented fact that DC Tom's multiple personas constitute the bulk of TSW members

 

Wow. I think he actually believes me.

 

Er...you.

 

Whatever.

[Chef Jim]

Apologies if my posts offended your sensibilities. It appears as if you enjoy the jabs but then you want to be the arbiter with respect to scale. How about you call off the dogs and I'll put away the whip?

 

I'm the new guy. The hits came. I fought back....against all contenders. But before that, I remained respectful. I tried to agree to disagree and I extended appreciation for responses and criticism. I didn't escalate the dialog. You'll point to today's posts as proof that I wasn't "respectful." I said that I began by being respectful. But when things escalated, I responded accordingly. I had people who I never communicated with writing for me to "STFU." How is that for tact? And you want me to observe some level of decorum?

 

Above all, though, I've enjoyed quality, engaging, intelligent, point-by-point correspondence with yourself and others. For that, I thank you all.

 

 

[/dev/null]

Wow. I think he actually believes me.

 

Er...you.

 

Whatever.

 

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together

 

goo-goo-gashoo

[OCinBuffalo]

1. The conversations that I've had have been with trusted folks - I believe that this was the case in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Simply put...the vox populi are idiots.

This is great. Not only did you not answer my question, you suggest that this objective observation of their abilities is....f'ing partisan? Buddy, perhaps you need to leave the bubble and hang out here more often: I'm not saying they suck because they're Democrats, I'm saying they suck because they suck, and it's obvious to anyone who pays attention.

 

And, we had to deal with Reverend Wright, because there wasn't anything else to talk about. Think about that: we couldn't discuss how well Obama's Illinois health care plan went when he was governor, because there wasn't any and he never was anything, really, but a state legislator. He didn't do anything in the Senate. So why are WE the idiots, when the media should have been all over this, rather than giving him a pass, or worse, kissing his ass every day? How's Chris Tingle doing? Is he one of your friends?

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.

Media? You mean Sean Hannity by himself? Look I got sick of hearing it from him, but what did I hear on MSNBC? Chris Tingle. You are fooling yourself if you think the majority of the media did anything with any of the stuff you listed above. Obama was given a massive pass, by 90% of the media. Concluding otherwise is delusion. Ask yourself: how did he get the Nobel Prize, and what did the media have to say about that? That was the day I saw a look in the MSNBC anchors' eyes of "Oh F, we overdid this didn't we?"

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.

Reading comprehension is important. Words mean things. When I said "policy approach", I meant it. Here's an example: "well, there's 40 different ways we can approach Obamacare"....and they picked the worst possible. Part of my job is working in health care. In fact, I can do what you can only wish: tell you the cost of doing business in any provider in the country in real time.

 

I know how we would have approached Obamacare, and more importantly, since we have to do this every day, I know how I would've sold it. Again, I am looking at this purely from a competence standpoint. We identified plenty of good things, and plenty of bad things, in Obamacare. The stupidity here was letting Pelosi create a bill with Obama's name on it, that has over 300 idiot provisions, and worse they are almost all unnecessary to support the overall plan. How about you define "meaningful use" for me. That will be fun.

 

We can take any of the other 15+ policy APPROACHES, and find the same thing. I understand Obama is a Democrat, and what that means. But, I also understand stupidity and incompetence. Are you are suggesting that being a Democrat means it's ok for you to be incompetent, or that it's inherent?

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.

Republicans have done nothing other than take advantage of idiots who keep fumbling the ball away. If you call falling on the ball after it's been fumbled "great"...OK. But how hard is 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.

You should know this better than anyone: who cares? It doesn't matter. The 2nd thing I teach rookie consultants: "It's my fault if you are dead wrong, but it's your fault if you are dead right. Being right doesn't matter if you are dead, and if you are dead, there's good chance the project is next."

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).

Buddy, I did a project for the 3rd largest mortgage company in the world. I know exactly what the Democrats did. I spent a year of my life listening to my client whine. If you throw out 50% of it as just that, the remaining 50% is patently retarded. I physically had my hands on the laundry baskets, literally, of mortgages that were classified, literally, as "we don't like these, but we have to because of the Feds" by the manager of one of the processing offices. I helped carry them, because I always physically participate in the business process. So please, spare me. Perhaps you should carry some laundry baskets full of mortgages, rather than sitting in DC unaware of the real effect of it's "activities"?

But they can't REQUIRE a bank to become insolvent by accepting loans that are guaranteed to fail.

I will give you the opportunity to withdraw this.

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.

They ain't got schit on me, because my data says the opposite, and my data is every day, all the time, not some lame sampling. This notion is retarded in health care specifically. The massive cost of compliance with regulations that are nebulous at best, constantly changing, and 50--60% subjective, for everyone, every day, cannot be justified. The reason fraud is so rampant, is that the regulators have no idea what constitutes quality, or how to maintain it. Focusing on the patient, rather than the process = amateur hour. Consider: do you judge a football play based on whether it scored a TD, or got a 1st down, or, do you judge it based on what each individual player did on the play? IF you don't know the difference, you are part of the problem.

[DC Tom]

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).

 

Actually, lawmakers (not just Democrats) can and have done just that. Easiest way is to claim "racism" when they don't lend to low-income minorities.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I don't do anything to impress people. Nor do I peruse the Thesaurus looking for more elaborate ways to communicate an otherwise unexceptional point. It's just the way I speak brother.

 

I understand that my comment above might invite more criticism. I'm prepared.

Well your points are not unexceptional. They are uniquely ignorant.

 

Is this Conner with big words?

[DC Tom]

Well your points are not unexceptional. They are uniquely ignorant.

 

Is this Conner with big words?

 

No. He's using big words correctly. Conner never did.

[/dev/null]

Well your points are not unexceptional. They are uniquely ignorant.

Calling someone unexceptional but unique is kind of a contradiction

 

No. He's using big words correctly. Conner never did.

To be fair, conner did use big words every so often.

Granted he was just regurgitating somebody else like a mindless drone, but he did use big words

[Taro T]

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.

Well, your mother's boyfriend's sister's best friend's boyfriend's cousin's girlfriend's sister might have seen Obama at 31 flavors looking pretty gross; but considering as tone deaf as our current President and his crew have been I wouldn't put much credibility on Romney being the Republican that they can most easily beat of the current frontrunners, even if they do believe that.

 

I must admit a curiosity as to how you can claim to have inner circle knowledge of the Obama administration and also claim to not know anybody that thinks the country has moved massively to the left. Might you clarify that a bit?