Mitt Romney is a quack and a political peon

[DC Tom]

you mean the Obama? He won, that is doing perfect politically.

 

 

Keynes has helped bring us the greatest prosperity we have ever known. You are arguing against success, that's really stupid

 

Your posts are actually devolving into greater and greater levels of idiocy over time. It's amazing. It's like watching some sort of untreated cognitive disorder progress before our very eyes. Like you're some sort of a mental Benjamin Button.

[OCinBuffalo]

you mean the Obama? He won, that is doing perfect politically.

 

 

Keynes has helped bring us the greatest prosperity we have ever known. You are arguing against success, that's really stupid

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"?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Your posts are actually devolving into greater and greater levels of idiocy over time. It's amazing. It's like watching some sort of untreated cognitive disorder progress before our very eyes. Like you're some sort of a mental Benjamin Button.

Alas he forgot to sign his willing will. Plug would have been pulled months ago.

[Juror#8]

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.

 

Hmmmm....I'll ignore for a second that you've taken this conversation off course and didn't answer any of my questions, or that you've ignored my requests for clarification with respect to the things that you say that I've refused to answer - which, when looked at cumulatively, has conflated the entire discussion.

 

I'll oblige your request and, in doing so, try to distill this discussion a bit (but for purposes of record preservation I'll note my continuing objection to your use of logical fallacies).

 

Your question is: "Why should [you] listen to people who have performed so poorly - politically?"

 

Objection:

 

1. This presumes that they've performed poorly politically. Many will take issue with that. How are we judging their performance?

 

A. Obama's approval rating - is averaging 49% for the year (though at 44% in the most recent poll). In 2008, his percentage of the popular vote was 52.7%. From a purely political percentage standpoint, the difference between 49% and 52% is not that significant (though one can make the argument that in raw numbers, it is). This could suggest that his support, amongst the base and even amongst some independents, hasn't faltered. If there isn't an appreciable difference between the number that he was elected at, and his current average approval percentage, what does that say about his performance (vis-a-vis "support"). And, using the metrics as your guide, is the WH *really* doing that bad of a job? Of course, comparing these numbers is somewhat misleading if you look at it prima facie, because in one instance you are given the choice between another individual for whom you can vote and the other concerns rating one individual's job performance.

 

If you analyze it non-cursorily though, you'll see that someone's view of job performance will likely be inextricably linked to their political and ideological persuasion. So maybe the comparison is not so misleading.

 

Now this is not always the case. Traditionally, during "honey-moon" periods, and after significant emotional moments in a country's history, job approval ratings reach a net positive plateau - ideology notwithstanding.

 

B. Approval for different legislative iniatives - is a more interesting one. I try to look at this in a nuanced way. There are policies which haven't received the support that the Administration may have wanted. There are some that are seen as failures (with respect to public response). But to look at those items and say that they've performed poorly as a result is superficial analysis...at best. Why?

 

a. Because the Administration's programs never made it out Congress the way it went in. The policies came out contorted, truncated, and a shell of the policy as it was intially envisioned. This is a function of Congressional posturing, process, and gridlock. If you really, really want to be superficial and demonstrate a wholesale lack of understanding as to how the legislative process works, you'll mention something like "Well, the Dems had the majority, in both houses, and when the Repubs had it, they did...."

 

b. Congressional Dems lost control of the message. That's not entirely their fault. It was a better job by the Republicans of conflating the message and making something that the Dems were trying to do become so tied up in gridlock that it became per se confounding. Since the attention span of the electorate is guaged in 60 second intervals, that tactic of confound, conflate, and confuse, destroyed any chance of the message being communicated in the artful, bite-sized way that would be received well by vox populi.

 

c. When those huge legislative initiatives have been distilled to their constituent parts, and those constituent parts have been subjected to scrutiny and approval ratings, they've faired VERY well. Look it up. Look up the numbers and note the discrepancy between the legislation in it's entirety and the specific constituent parts. To be fair, please note the approval numbers on all individual aspects of the legislation. Some are amazingly good, some are still poor. Either way, that further analysis lends credibility to my thesis that it wasn't the legislation that was flawed, as much as the communication of the message. Does that mean that they didn't fail, no. But it should be looked at categorically and not as cursorily as many have.

 

d. I'll devote an entire subset to the body politic. They're largely dolts who prefer things spoon fed to them in the easiest most non-intensive way possible. They hate research. The loathe analysis. They despise paradigms that are inconsistent with their traditional way of thinking.

 

e. While there have been initiatives that have fallen flat (for reasons discussed above), there have been others that have been well received generally: CHIP; Cars for Clunkers program; Student Loan Reduction Program; DADT, et cetera. Are those considered into your political estimation?

 

Have you considered any of these factors into your political estimation? I have. Still supporting Gingrich though and I supported Paul on the first go around. But ideological differences shouldn't belie facts, nor should they be a substitute for solid analysis.

 

C. General atmospherics - or more plainly put, how do you feel post 2009 vis-a-vis 2008? The economy was in a free fall in 2008. The stock market was sub-10,000. Confidence was pathetic. Unemployment was in a tail-spin. The Bush Administration (either affirmatively or through impact of unbridled negligence) did things to the economy that I didn't know were possible. The current Administration tried to fix it and some things seem better atmospherically. All-in-all though, there is a long way to go.

 

Answer:

 

Now despite the analysis above, if I were to just accept your question prima facie, it would be answered thusly:

 

A. And I've answered in this way before: You don't have to just accept it. Analyze it (like I did above). Debate it (like I've tried to do with you). But you're being cyclical and self-containing by asking "Why should I accept the answer since they've done a bad job."

 

B. Secondly (and more pointedly) what does one thing have to do with the other (opinion on Mitt Romney's potential and Policy "failures)? Let's just say that the Administration has done a crappy job (despite the considerations above). What would their legislative policy "failures" have to do with their ability to judge Mitt Romney - his capacities, proficiencies, weaknessess, and vulnerabilities - during a political campaign season? Wouldn't a more reasonable and logical analysis be of the Administration's electoral success in 2008 - against John McCain (and how they dismantled him in the electoral college in red states that were seen as decidedly conservative) - to determine their aptitude for making decisive and correct political campaign calculi? Isn't that parallel more exact? Instead you're juxtaposing your estimation of the Administration's policy errors WITH the Administration opining as to Mitt Romney's campaign/political bona fides?

 

Incongruent, Asymmetrical, Perpindicular, Logic.

 

Your reasoning is asymmetrical for myriad reasons: If we just look at it superficially, the Administration's legislative policies/iniatives, some political appointments, et cetera, mandate non-Executive branch (Congressional) protocol, process, procedure, to be fully realized. That process substantially affects the initiative, as intended, and ultimately manipulates the final product, whether for bad or good.

 

Why would you use that as a way to judge the merits of a campaign decision, which is the result of a much more familiar and homogeneous process? There are 2-5 people involved with the truly impactful decisions during the political campaign season. There are thousands involved in the decision-making with respect to legislative process.

 

I'm not sure why you've trumpeted that juxtaposition...it doesn't reflect well on you intellectually (and I'm sure that you're an intelligent person). It's a really bad comparison. It doesn't prove your point. In fact, you've highlighted a conclusion opposite of the one that you intended to convey.

 

And that is why Economists shouldn't EVER debate anything with an Attorney.

 

C. David Plouffe - Little to do with policy; EVERYTHING to do with campaign strategy. The guy just schitted more about campaign strategy/logistics than we collectively know.

 

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.

 

Wrong. Please see my entire response above.

 

 

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:

 

Please read my original post on the subject. You missed the point and you're now arguing with yourself. I acknowledged that things that some things that you mentioned had merit (I try to be fair and consider all sides). However, some of your statements were hyperbolic. You're debating as if I mentioned that everything that you referenced was hyperbolic. Therefore, you're debating yourself.

 

Your bolded claims above are, by nature, hyperbolic. Because you believe them to be true, or because their economic philosophy may be liberal, or because they may have once befriended Chopra or whomever, doesn't make your points any less hyperbolic.

 

The fact that you originally suggested that all of Obama's appointments were ____. Then backed up to mention (paraphrasing) "all but one, and he's a token," corroborates the point that I'm making about you. You're massaging facts to fit your criticism. You were (and still are) being hyperbolic and misleading.

 

 

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.

 

As stated above, I never mentioned that the actors in this melo-drama weren't anti-Keynesian. You just created your own point, then argued against something that wasn't said, so that when the substance of your post is reviewed, it is technically correct. It takes someone to ask "What is the point that he is arguing against?" until it becomes evident that your inclusion of this is just to be right about something. Even if that "right" resulted from a debate with your own ideation.

 

You must be used to kicking ass when arguing with 19 year old college students. The tactics there, won't work here.

Incidentally, they won't work next time you try either. It doesn't really matter if you try to diffuse my mention of your "straw men," "red herrings," etc by pre-emptively mentioning them in your post - as if the mention of them, by you, conclusively demonstrates that you don't employ those tactics.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

1. The "rookie" thing is silly.

 

2. YOU feel that they haven't been wrong about only 1 thing. You haven't "clearly" demonstrated anything besides your sentiment.

 

I've rebutted, comprehensively, both your presumption, and your sentiment.

 

3. I know very well how the "real world" works. I'm of the opinion that the cursory analysis that you bring to topics with political and social import suggests that your understanding of the "real world" is somewhat lacking. That's just my opinion though, admittedly based on a limited sample.

 

Have a good Wednesday. And since I know that you're likely reading and responding to this at 11:30 p.m. (per usual), have a good evening as well. I've enjoyed the conversation...even despite the insults.

 

Here's hoping for more focused conversation in the future.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

Hmmmm....I'll ignore for a second that you've taken this conversation off course and didn't answer any of my questions, or that you've ignored my requests for clarification with respect to the things that you say that I've refused to answer - which, when looked at cumulatively, has conflated the entire discussion.

 

I'll oblige your request and, in doing so, try to distill this discussion a bit (but for purposes of record preservation I'll note my continuing objection to your use of logical fallacies).

 

Your question is: "Why should [you] listen to people who have performed so poorly - politically?"

 

Objection:

 

1. This presumes that they've performed poorly politically. Many will take issue with that. How are we judging their performance?

 

A. Obama's approval rating - is averaging 49% for the year (though at 44% in the most recent poll). In 2008, his percentage of the popular vote was 52.7%. From a purely political percentage standpoint, the difference between 49% and 52% is not that significant (though one can make the argument that in raw numbers, it is). This could suggest that his support, amongst the base and even amongst some independents, hasn't faltered. If there isn't an appreciable difference between the number that he was elected at, and his current average approval percentage, what does that say about his performance (vis-a-vis "support"). And, using the metrics as your guide, is the WH *really* doing that bad of a job? Of course, comparing these numbers is somewhat misleading if you look at it prima facie, because in one instance you are given the choice between another individual for whom you can vote and the other concerns rating one individual's job performance.

 

If you analyze it non-cursorily though, you'll see that someone's view of job performance will likely be inextricably linked to their political and ideological persuasion. So maybe the comparison is not so misleading.

 

Now this is not always the case. Traditionally, during "honey-moon" periods, and after significant emotional moments in a country's history, job approval ratings reach a net positive plateau - ideology notwithstanding.

 

B. Approval for different legislative iniatives - is a more interesting one. I try to look at this in a nuanced way. There are policies which haven't received the support that the Administration may have wanted. There are some that are seen as failures (with respect to public response). But to look at those items and say that they've performed poorly as a result is superficial analysis...at best. Why?

 

a. Because the Administration's programs never made it out Congress the way it went in. The policies came out contorted, truncated, and a shell of the policy as it was intially envisioned. This is a function of Congressional posturing, process, and gridlock. If you really, really want to be superficial and demonstrate a wholesale lack of understanding as to how the legislative process works, you'll mention something like "Well, the Dems had the majority, in both houses, and when the Repubs had it, they did...."

 

b. Congressional Dems lost control of the message. That's not entirely their fault. It was a better job by the Republicans of conflating the message and making something that the Dems were trying to do become so tied up in gridlock that it became per se confounding. Since the attention span of the electorate is guaged in 60 second intervals, that tactic of confound, conflate, and confuse, destroyed any chance of the message being communicated in the artful, bite-sized way that would be received well by vox populi.

 

c. When those huge legislative initiatives have been distilled to their constituent parts, and those constituent parts have been subjected to scrutiny and approval ratings, they've faired VERY well. Look it up. Look up the numbers and note the discrepancy between the legislation in it's entirety and the specific constituent parts. To be fair, please note the approval numbers on all individual aspects of the legislation. Some are amazingly good, some are still poor. Either way, that further analysis lends credibility to my thesis that it wasn't the legislation that was flawed, as much as the communication of the message. Does that mean that they didn't fail, no. But it should be looked at categorically and not as cursorily as many have.

 

d. I'll devote an entire subset to the body politic. They're largely dolts who prefer things spoon fed to them in the easiest most non-intensive way possible. They hate research. The loathe analysis. They despise paradigms that are inconsistent with their traditional way of thinking.

 

e. While there have been initiatives that have fallen flat (for reasons discussed above), there have been others that have been well received generally: CHIP; Cars for Clunkers program; Student Loan Reduction Program; DADT, et cetera. Are those considered into your political estimation?

 

Have you considered any of these factors into your political estimation? I have. Still supporting Gingrich though and I supported Paul on the first go around. But ideological differences shouldn't belie facts, nor should they be a substitute for solid analysis.

 

C. General atmospherics - or more plainly put, how do you feel post 2009 vis-a-vis 2008? The economy was in a free fall in 2008. The stock market was sub-10,000. Confidence was pathetic. Unemployment was in a tail-spin. The Bush Administration (either affirmatively or through impact of unbridled negligence) did things to the economy that I didn't know were possible. The current Administration tried to fix it and some things seem better atmospherically. All-in-all though, there is a long way to go.

 

Answer:

 

Now despite the analysis above, if I were to just accept your question prima facie, it would be answered thusly:

 

A. And I've answered in this way before: You don't have to just accept it. Analyze it (like I did above). Debate it (like I've tried to do with you). But you're being cyclical and self-containing by asking "Why should I accept the answer since they've done a bad job."

 

B. Secondly (and more pointedly) what does one thing have to do with the other (opinion on Mitt Romney's potential and Policy "failures)? Let's just say that the Administration has done a crappy job (despite the considerations above). What would their legislative policy "failures" have to do with their ability to judge Mitt Romney - his capacities, proficiencies, weaknessess, and vulnerabilities - during a political campaign season? Wouldn't a more reasonable and logical analysis be of the Administration's electoral success in 2008 - against John McCain (and how they dismantled him in the electoral college in red states that were seen as decidedly conservative) - to determine their aptitude for making decisive and correct political campaign calculi? Isn't that parallel more exact? Instead you're juxtaposing your estimation of the Administration's policy errors WITH the Administration opining as to Mitt Romney's campaign/political bona fides?

 

Incongruent, Asymmetrical, Perpindicular, Logic.

 

Your reasoning is asymmetrical for myriad reasons: If we just look at it superficially, the Administration's legislative policies/iniatives, some political appointments, et cetera, mandate non-Executive branch (Congressional) protocol, process, procedure, to be fully realized. That process substantially affects the initiative, as intended, and ultimately manipulates the final product, whether for bad or good.

 

Why would you use that as a way to judge the merits of a campaign decision, which is the result of a much more familiar and homogeneous process? There are 2-5 people involved with the truly impactful decisions during the political campaign season. There are thousands involved in the decision-making with respect to legislative process.

 

I'm not sure why you've trumpeted that juxtaposition...it doesn't reflect well on you intellectually (and I'm sure that you're an intelligent person). It's a really bad comparison. It doesn't prove your point. In fact, you've highlighted a conclusion opposite of the one that you intended to convey.

 

And that is why Economists shouldn't EVER debate anything with an Attorney.

 

C. David Plouffe - Little to do with policy; EVERYTHING to do with campaign strategy. The guy just schitted more about campaign strategy/logistics than we collectively know.

 

Wrong. Please see my entire response above.

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.

Please read my original post on the subject. You missed the point and you're now arguing with yourself. I acknowledged that things that some things that you mentioned had merit (I try to be fair and consider all sides). However, some of your statements were hyperbolic. You're debating as if I mentioned that everything that you referenced was hyperbolic. Therefore, you're debating yourself.

 

Your bolded claims above are, by nature, hyperbolic. Because you believe them to be true, or because their economic philosophy may be liberal, or because they may have once befriended Chopra or whomever, doesn't make your points any less hyperbolic.

 

The fact that you originally suggested that all of Obama's appointments were ____. Then backed up to mention (paraphrasing) "all but one, and he's a token," corroborates the point that I'm making about you. You're massaging facts to fit your criticism. You were (and still are) being hyperbolic and misleading.

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?

As stated above, I never mentioned that the actors in this melo-drama weren't anti-Keynesian. You just created your own point, then argued against something that wasn't said, so that when the substance of your post is reviewed, it is technically correct. It takes someone to ask "What is the point that he is arguing against?" until it becomes evident that your inclusion of this is just to be right about something. Even if that "right" resulted from a debate with your own ideation.

 

You must be used to kicking ass when arguing with 19 year old college students. The tactics there, won't work here.

Incidentally, they won't work next time you try either. It doesn't really matter if you try to diffuse my mention of your "straw men," "red herrings," etc by pre-emptively mentioning them in your post - as if the mention of them, by you, conclusively demonstrates that you don't employ those tactics.

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. The "rookie" thing is silly.

 

2. YOU feel that they haven't been wrong about only 1 thing. You haven't "clearly" demonstrated anything besides your sentiment.

 

I've rebutted, comprehensively, both your presumption, and your sentiment.

 

3. I know very well how the "real world" works. I'm of the opinion that the cursory analysis that you bring to topics with political and social import suggests that your understanding of the "real world" is somewhat lacking. That's just my opinion though, admittedly based on a limited sample.

 

Have a good Wednesday. And since I know that you're likely reading and responding to this at 11:30 p.m. (per usual), have a good evening as well. I've enjoyed the conversation...even despite the insults.

 

Here's hoping for more focused conversation in the future.

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.

[Adam]

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.

personally, I hope romney loses to Newt. I wouldn't vote for romney, but I would vote for Gingrich, who is an honest man, unlike mitt, who I see as a fraud.

[OCinBuffalo]

personally, I hope romney loses to Newt. I wouldn't vote for romney, but I would vote for Gingrich, who is an honest man, unlike mitt, who I see as a fraud.

+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.

Edited December 1, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Adam]

+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.

If I can find the time, I would like to see it. I honestly don't think a politician would be honest if they said they wanted to end lobbying, though.

 

The fact that romney is running on the concept that he wanted a health care bill makes me sick. All it is, is an attempt to steal votes from the left. Run as who you are and let the chips fall where they may.

[OCinBuffalo]

If I can find the time, I would like to see it. I honestly don't think a politician would be honest if they said they wanted to end lobbying, though.

 

The fact that romney is running on the concept that he wanted a health care bill makes me sick. All it is, is an attempt to steal votes from the left. Run as who you are and let the chips fall where they may.

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.

[Adam]

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.

I look forward to it

[Juror#8]

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.

 

I'm surprised that no one has called you out on your evasion. I would have thought that someone else would have interjected with "OCinBuffalo didn't answer a single substantive point, or make a single substantive rebuttal argument." Folks here have to be thinking it. They had to have read my very comprehensive post, replete with two layers of analysis in response to your question. They had to have read your response to my post...and noticed that your's was so insufficiently detailed, so evasive, so obviously intimidated by my command of the subject matter as to be figuratively hiding behind generic commentary, and punchless remarks.

 

Maybe comparative tenures will keep the peer criticism that should be directed at you, at bay. But just know friend, they're thinking it. They have to be. I read your post and you scream "ignominious retreat." You lost this battle. You're the candidate who doesn't call the victor after being defeated in a landslide. I'm Reagan; you're Carter. I'm Clinton; you're Dole. I'm Jordan; you're Sam Bowie. I'm E. Murrow; you're Joey M. You're May, 2009 LeBron, Pistons circa '91. Anyone who reads my post #64, followed by your post #65 will know it.

 

You. Literally. Said. Nothing. For. The. First. 8. Paragraphs.

 

Well, maybe not "nothing." You offered your opinion on some things which addressed the contours of my post - just enough for someone reading it to feel a semblance of continuity in the conversation, and for you to hope that they get lost in the diversion enough not to notice the subterfuge.

 

Oh. Disco.

 

To be sure, you asked a question a few posts ago [paraphrasing]:

 

"Why should [you] listen to folks who have been wrong about so many things?"

 

I distinguished your question. I even ANSWERED your question DIRECTLY (undistinguished). I analyzed the problems with your presumption(s). I then deconstructed your presumption(s). Finally, I deconstructed your comparison(s).

 

You responded to none of it. Not a jot.

 

The first 60% of your post #65 consisted of three unmemorable points (paraphrasing):

 

1. Juror#8 thinks that the electorate is stupid.

 

2. Juror#8's "nuanced" and "eloquent" post doesn't take in to account what people are really going through since DC is so disconnected.

 

3. You and everyone else on the board could have done a better job than the Administration with respect to policy creation, messaging, and implementation.

 

The above is what you felt was an appropriate response to my exegesis? That is pathetic. The only reason that I'm dignifying your post with a response is in hopes that people will go back in read post# 64 and 65 in succession and in their entirety and make an unbiased decision about the comparative weights of the posts - based on content, substance, proof, support, et cetera. I'll let the people decide for themselves.

 

Just for kicks though, let's address your three points in turn:

 

1. I do think that a good amount of the electorate are dolts. They accept what is given to them and they choose to look at politics superficially. What does that have to do with you? What does that have to do with anyone else on this board? I never said you were a dolt. In fact, I credited your intelligence. So what's it to ya? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? And why couldn't you address my points in any substantive way?

 

2. This is a head-scratcher. It's a declarative statement, and classical ad hominem, used to discount the merit of someone's claim not based on the substance of the claim, but rather, based on the individual personally.

 

3. I'm not doubting that you could have. There are some intelligent folks here, including yourself. I've learned a lot from you folks. And none of my criticisms of you should detract from that.

 

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.

 

What is your obsession with Keynesian philosophy? Is this more subterfuge? I don't care about it. The only reason that it was relevant in this discussion is because you said that Obama hired a bunch of anti-Keynesian folks. Then you doubled back and said "all but one...but he is a token." You doubled back only after I called you hyperbolic. INCIDENTALLY, part of your hyperbole was originally suggesting "all" (with respect to Obama's economic appointments) when in fact it wasn't "all" - a point that you acknowledged in a subsequent post - though tacitly.

 

I called you out for being hyperbolic because of the way that you characterized WH appointments in YOUR ORIGINAL POST on the subject. You have done everything to conflate this into some discussion about the propriety of Keynesian economic philosophy.

 

If it wasn't clear before: You've missed the point. This discussion wasn't, nor has it ever been, about Keynesian economic philosophy. Stop conflating points. You're better than that.

 

And when I gave you credit, it was for the fact that some of the WH appointments don't abide by Keynesian economic philosophy. But as I said before, WHO CARES? That was never a point of contention. That you try to turn that into a small victory is silly. THAT WAS NEVER A CONTESTED POINT.

 

That's like someone claiming some sense of satisfaction because they say that the sky is blue and others agree. NO ONE EVER CHALLENGED IT. There is no associated adversarial context.

 

Oh. Disco.

 

And the David Plouffe mention had NOTHING to do with economic philosophy. It was a two word, proper name, answer to your original question ("Why should [you] listen to folks who have been so "wrong' about ____.").

 

My answer to your question, was "David Plouffe." It was the third answer in a comprehensive and segmented analysis.

 

What are you talking about? What you say above about Plouffe and knowing more about economics them him is so out of left field that it didn't dignify a response. "Plouffe" and "economics" weren't even mentioned in the same context. This is "the blue sky" thing again. You're just throwing things at the wall to see if it sticks.

 

Is anyone else seeing this?

 

 

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.

 

1. We'll let the community here judge.

 

2. ?

 

3. We'll let the community here judge.

 

4. We'll let the community here judge.

 

Please, please, please answer my rebuttal to your question. Otherwise, why would you bother posting?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Juror#8

[IDBillzFan]

The one small concern I've had here is that someone would come along and argue with OC by trying to match his word count.

[OCinBuffalo]

The one small concern I've had here is that someone would come along and argue with OC by trying to match his word count.

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.

[UConn James]

If I can find the time, I would like to see it. I honestly don't think a politician would be honest if they said they wanted to end lobbying, though.

 

The fact that romney is running on the concept that he wanted a health care bill makes me sick. All it is, is an attempt to steal votes from the left. Run as who you are and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Wait... what?!!?

 

Maybe you ought to go back and read my previous post vis-a-vis Romney's stance on the chicanery that is Obamacare.

 

You're laboring in misapprehension.

 

Romney isn't running on the Mass. health care plan, which he admits isn't perfect but it's much better for the taxpayers than it would've been without his input.

 

What was Romney supposed to do? Leave the supermajority Mass. Democrat legislature to its own devices and let Jon Q. Taxpayer pick up the whole tab... just to be able to say that he stood on principle? He believes that in combination with repeal and replace of Obamacare & limited federal legislation that will cut costs (e.g. opening up health insurance across state lines, enacting tort reform that would reduce malpractice insurance and is driving doctors out of practice). This is an opposition to the Obamacare plan of enrolling everybody in the entire country, and then see if the rainbow-farting-unicorn can magically cut costs. Romney has said that every state should be allowed to do (or not do) what it wants and what is best for that state's citizens given its own specific givens/demographics/resources/etc, and following the laws of each state's/commonwealth's constitution.

[DC Tom]

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.

 

Even this post was too long by half.

[OCinBuffalo]

Even this post was too long by half.

 

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.

[DC Tom]

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.

 

That was a one-liner, you nitwit.

[1billsfan]

If you want to have a good laugh, this is Mitt Romney from 1994...

 

http://gawker.com/5864166/mitt-romney-has-not-gotten-any-less-awkward-since-1994?autoplay

 

 

Present day, he still acts like a lifeless automaton. He's exactly what I would picture when robots become so advanced that they're walking, talking and conversing with humans.

[....lybob]

Even this post was too long by half.

Give up Tom you are never going to convince OC that brevity is the soul of wit.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm surprised that no one has called you out on your evasion.

Again, you are a rookie, so you don't know why they haven't.

I would have thought that someone else would have interjected with "OCinBuffalo didn't answer a single substantive point, or make a single substantive rebuttal argument." Folks here have to be thinking it. They had to have read my very comprehensive post, replete with two layers of analysis in response to your question. They had to have read your response to my post...and noticed that your's was so insufficiently detailed, so evasive, so obviously intimidated by my command of the subject matter as to be figuratively hiding behind generic commentary, and punchless remarks.

 

Maybe comparative tenures will keep the peer criticism that should be directed at you, at bay. But just know friend, they're thinking it. They have to be. I read your post and you scream "ignominious retreat." You lost this battle. You're the candidate who doesn't call the victor after being defeated in a landslide. I'm Reagan; you're Carter. I'm Clinton; you're Dole. I'm Jordan; you're Sam Bowie. I'm E. Murrow; you're Joey M. You're May, 2009 LeBron, Pistons circa '91. Anyone who reads my post #64, followed by your post #65 will know it.

 

You. Literally. Said. Nothing. For. The. First. 8. Paragraphs.

 

Well, maybe not "nothing." You offered your opinion on some things which addressed the contours of my post - just enough for someone reading it to feel a semblance of continuity in the conversation, and for you to hope that they get lost in the diversion enough not to notice the subterfuge.

 

Oh. Disco.

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.

To be sure, you asked a question a few posts ago [paraphrasing]:

 

"Why should [you] listen to folks who have been wrong about so many things?"

 

I distinguished your question. I even ANSWERED your question DIRECTLY (undistinguished). I analyzed the problems with your presumption(s). I then deconstructed your presumption(s). Finally, I deconstructed your comparison(s).

 

You responded to none of it. Not a jot.

 

The first 60% of your post #65 consisted of three unmemorable points (paraphrasing):

 

1. Juror#8 thinks that the electorate is stupid.

 

2. Juror#8's "nuanced" and "eloquent" post doesn't take in to account what people are really going through since DC is so disconnected.

 

3. You and everyone else on the board could have done a better job than the Administration with respect to policy creation, messaging, and implementation.

 

The above is what you felt was an appropriate response to my exegesis? That is pathetic. The only reason that I'm dignifying your post with a response is in hopes that people will go back in read post# 64 and 65 in succession and in their entirety and make an unbiased decision about the comparative weights of the posts - based on content, substance, proof, support, et cetera. I'll let the people decide for themselves.

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

Just for kicks though, let's address your three points in turn:

 

1. I do think that a good amount of the electorate are dolts. They accept what is given to them and they choose to look at politics superficially. What does that have to do with you? What does that have to do with anyone else on this board? I never said you were a dolt. In fact, I credited your intelligence. So what's it to ya? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? And why couldn't you address my points in any substantive way?

 

2. This is a head-scratcher. It's a declarative statement, and classical ad hominem, used to discount the merit of someone's claim not based on the substance of the claim, but rather, based on the individual personally.

 

3. I'm not doubting that you could have. There are some intelligent folks here, including yourself. I've learned a lot from you folks. And none of my criticisms of you should detract from that.

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.

What is your obsession with Keynesian philosophy? Is this more subterfuge? I don't care about it. The only reason that it was relevant in this discussion is because you said that Obama hired a bunch of anti-Keynesian folks. Then you doubled back and said "all but one...but he is a token." You doubled back only after I called you hyperbolic. INCIDENTALLY, part of your hyperbole was originally suggesting "all" (with respect to Obama's economic appointments) when in fact it wasn't "all" - a point that you acknowledged in a subsequent post - though tacitly.

 

 

I called you out for being hyperbolic because of the way that you characterized WH appointments in YOUR ORIGINAL POST on the subject. You have done everything to conflate this into some discussion about the propriety of Keynesian economic philosophy.

 

If it wasn't clear before: You've missed the point. This discussion wasn't, nor has it ever been, about Keynesian economic philosophy. Stop conflating points. You're better than that.

 

And when I gave you credit, it was for the fact that some of the WH appointments don't abide by Keynesian economic philosophy. But as I said before, WHO CARES? That was never a point of contention. That you try to turn that into a small victory is silly. THAT WAS NEVER A CONTESTED POINT.

 

That's like someone claiming some sense of satisfaction because they say that the sky is blue and others agree. NO ONE EVER CHALLENGED IT. There is no associated adversarial context.

 

Oh. Disco.

 

Ahh, the rookie learns....or does he?

And the David Plouffe mention had NOTHING to do with economic philosophy. It was a two word, proper name, answer to your original question ("Why should [you] listen to folks who have been so "wrong' about ____.").

 

My answer to your question, was "David Plouffe." It was the third answer in a comprehensive and segmented analysis.

 

What are you talking about? What you say above about Plouffe and knowing more about economics them him is so out of left field that it didn't dignify a response. "Plouffe" and "economics" weren't even mentioned in the same context. This is "the blue sky" thing again. You're just throwing things at the wall to see if it sticks.

 

Is anyone else seeing this?

 

 

 

 

1. We'll let the community here judge.

 

2. ?

 

3. We'll let the community here judge.

 

4. We'll let the community here judge.

 

Please, please, please answer my rebuttal to your question. Otherwise, why would you bother posting?

The only thing the community will judge...is whether you are still a rookie after you respond to this post.

Edited December 1, 2011 by OCinBuffalo