Mitt Romney is a quack and a political peon

[Adam]

Changing a law just means "ayes" outnumber "nyes". Just that quick. Like they do in the real world where things need to be done right now. Not in the next session, not after the elections,right now.

That's a bit naive. A lot goes into determining the yays and nays.

[DC Tom]

Depends on how much you want to change it. Massive change takes a lot of time.

 

The American Revolution never happened.

[UConn James]

The American Revolution never happened.

 

And that whole thing involving man flying machines in the air and from that, into outer space --- that took millenia to accomplish.

 

Bullstevestojan, Adam. All it takes is the proper motivation, some elbow grease and good-for-nothing people & tax-men/regulation-monkeys to get the f--- out of the way.

 

Now, for universal/single-payer health care specifically, it won't happen quickly or at all b/c trusting a bureaucracy to make decisions for individuals, or even to insure/pay for treatment (and let's be certain here --- the payer determines treatment, directly or indirectly) is retarded. And it'll be retarded 300 years from now too.

Edited November 25, 2011 by UConn James

[Jim in Anchorage]

The American Revolution never happened.

I would suspect Adam would throw his hands up in the air and yell "it's the British! To many guns! To many troops! We must serve the crown! And we become Canada.

[Adam]

I would suspect Adam would throw his hands up in the air and yell "it's the British! To many guns! To many troops! We must serve the crown! And we become Canada.

Ok. We are very far from the group that revolted against Britain. Changing a law the scope of creating government run health care will never happen quickly. That isn't a bad thing, as rushing into something like that would be foolhardy.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Ok. We are very far from the group that revolted against Britain. Changing a law the scope of creating government run health care will never happen quickly. That isn't a bad thing, as rushing into something like that would be foolhardy.

So you think the government health care plan wasn't rushed into? Nobody on the earth understands it, or will benefit from it, but bang it's law. Just cause the currant president campaigned for it is it worth anything?

[Adam]

So you think the government health care plan wasn't rushed into? Nobody on the earth understands it, or will benefit from it, but bang it's law. Just cause the currant president campaigned for it is it worth anything?

The health care law isn't a good one, but there is a clear reason they were unable to get all they wanted, despite a super majority.

[DC Tom]

I would suspect Adam would throw his hands up in the air and yell "it's the British! To many guns! To many troops! We must serve the crown! And we become Canada.

 

No, he'd just still be fighting it. Because massive change takes a few hundred years.

[Juror#8]

So basically this thread is about:

 

1. We are supposed to listen to the people who haven't got a single political call right in over 3 years. (Not convinced yet? Wait till the end of this post)

2. We are supposed to accept Juror#8 saying strawman 50 times in a thread as a mitigation of #1

3. We are supposed to accept Juror#8 quoting polling that is clearly not good for Obama, is actually good for Obama, and that not only does it mean that Obama will easily beat Romney, it also mitigates #1.

 

I kind of missed this gem of a post. Wow. So much here to enjoy and keep one entertained. In a way, I'm glad that it went unnoticed till Monday. It was kind of like finding a 20 spot in my pocket that had been forgotten since paying my mortgage or something.

 

Ok, well, moving on. Stop me when this sounds familiar :

 

1. Who are the people to whom you should be listening? Who are the people whom I am referencing?

 

2. Weird "defense" mechanism here. So the fact that you've used straw men as an debate technique was somehow projected upon me, by you, as a way for you to explain why it is that you don't know to whom I'm referencing when I'm referencing political conversations with colleagues.

 

3. I can only assume that you added this to have a "third" point, because only two points would look like you hadn't put the requisite time, effort, and energy into formulating a cogent response.

 

 

 

Let's just end Juror#8's argument now, with something from Karl Rove, a so-called "talking head" Yes, as if Karl Rove doesn't have any political skills or experience, and is simply some guy on TV:

 

And you know what? The first time I heard this was from Rove, but, looks like The Washington Post has picked up on this reality as well.

 

This means that Obama's political strategy for the last year has backfired. Rove said, and only an idiot misunderstands: "the single biggest asset of a President is the belief in him as a leader". Almost 60% of people now believe Obama isn't effective at the #2 job for a President. This poll shows that Obama's own stupid staff has, once again, proven they have no clue what they are doing. Yes, yes, "run against a do nothing Congress" there, Barack Truman...and in doing so, destroy your #1 asset.

 

Which, as promised, brings us back to #1 above. Why should we believe that-->specifically these people...are capable of beating Richard Simmons in an election, never mind Romney? Show me something that mitigates #1, Juror#8, or STFU and stop wasting our time.

 

Not sure what you're asking. You presented an item from Karl Rove, ostensibly from a place of dispassion and objectivity, for me to refute. Then you conclude by referencing the same loaded question to which you've referred repeatedly throughout your work of fiction as if the reference somehow validates the non-point that you've made, vindicates Karl Rove's biased opinion, and underscores a lack of credibility with respect to my opinion and the opinions of others to whom I've spoke.

 

"So Mrs. Lincoln, outside of that, how did you enjoy the play?"

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

What is amazing here is the lack of humility that is readily apparent from the people Juror#8 says he knows. We should expect them to be humble, to acknowledge their mistakes, and redouble their efforts. What do we have instead? Talking schit about Romney? Why? I have seen this in organizations before, and what I ultimately ended up finding was: massive insecurity being cloaked in false bravado. "Of course the new product line is going to work, we said it was going to work, and therefore it will. We aren't afraid of the competitive advantages our competition already has in place, that the new line has no answers for, because we will ignore those advantages, talk schit about competitors, and kick their ass!"

 

Consider: if they weren't insecure, they'd be humble, and say something like "we are obviously concerned about every candidate the Republicans field". But, instead we get "Romney doesn't scare us, he's a political hack and we can kick his ass".

 

The funny part is: I don't even support Romney

 

But, I simply cannot abide Obama staffers/politicos saying "Obama can easily beat Romney". It's "F'ing Retarded"^TM, and that's all there is to it.

 

1. Who do I say I know?

 

2. It's interesting how you come to you own conclusions about what someone thinks, then make an analogy based on your own conclusions, and then pass it off as analysis. Other then that, awesome analogy. It's somewhat perpindicular, but it sings...in an Orphan Annie kind of way.

 

3. The Administration is not politically worried about Romney for very specific, articulated, well-understood reasons (as many in the conservative and independent political community(ies) have enumerated them as well)...none related to the bravado and machismo with which you've referred in your haste to ascribe hubris to the Administration.

 

So basically, your post was one big "SIKE."

 

Take another crack at it. I know that you can do better.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Juror#8

[UConn James]

So, yet again, you make these vague intimations. You say you've read some of the op research, and when pressed you've given more vaguery and about stevestojan that everybody already knows about --- abortion stance from '94 Senate run, the MA health care law (of which Romney was a late, small part), and some other mumble about Kennedy something or other....

 

Specifically, what've you got to offer?

 

Put up or shut up.

[Juror#8]

Double post

Edited November 28, 2011 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

So, yet again, you make these vague intimations. You say you've read some of the op research, and when pressed you've given more vaguery and about stevestojan that everybody already knows about --- abortion stance from '94 Senate run, the MA health care law (of which Romney was a late, small part), and some other mumble about Kennedy something or other....

 

Specifically, what've you got to offer?

 

Put up or shut up.

 

1. That's what I have on the subject.

 

2. Something different then what your choir is singing. That offends you.

 

3. I did. That you don't like it or feel that it is unfulfilling doesn't make it any less of a reality. It's all a matter of "degree," and the form of "d e g r e e" is floating in the air in some weird Platonic way. We're dancing on the edges of expectation and satisfaction. You're just wanting coitus and I'm hesistant because you're menstruating.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Juror#8

[UConn James]

1. That's what I have on the subject.

 

2. Something different then what your choir is singing. That offends you.

 

3. I did. That you don't like it or feel that it is unfulfilling doesn't make it any less of a reality. It's all a matter of "degree," and the form of "d e g r e e" is floating in the air in some weird Platonic way. We're dancing on the edges of expectation and satisfaction. You're just wanting coitus and I'm hesistant because you're menstruating.

 

I've written all of this in several threads and yet here it is again...

 

Peoples' views on abortion can change in the course of 10+ years. What does this prove other than that Romney is human and that his opinion, whether from facts, soul-searching, or what have you changed since '94. Now, you can say it's a craven political move and that's your opinion but I'll give Romney the benefit of the doubt. There's a lot of issues that I see very differently just from 4 years ago. He can point to the As governor of MA, he opposed underage abortion non-reporting such that clinics would have to inform a teen's parents before any procedure could take place. (And for full measure to hardliners, he also opposed and vetoed the Mass. gay marriage law).

 

The stuff on the Mass. health care law --- as I've written many times, occurred with a Democrat supermajority in the Mass. legislature that was going to pass this with or without Romney. He decided that it was a better idea to have the few Republicans and himself work with the Democrats and inject some measure of fiscal responsibility into what would otherwise have stuck the Mass. taxpayers with a large new entitlement spending item in the general fund. Massachusetts' demographics with 4% uninsured, a vast and geographically spread out health care network is far different than stats and resources that other states face. Romney stated then and now that given state-to-state differences, it was NOT a model for a national plan. How about that for good ol' GOP-style STATE'S RIGHTS?!? You know, where each state ought to size up their own situation and craft their own law if they wish. Romney has stated that the federal concentration should have been limited and centered around cutting costs of health care by such things as opening insurance competition across state lines, and enacting tort reform to reduce provider costs, which would then not have to be passed along for patients to pay for. Romney has said he will make it his first act of office to issue waivers for Obamacare to all 50 states and to repeal and replace it with those limited cost-cutting measures.

 

I don't know what the f--- you were alluding to when you mumbled Kennedy something-or-other and you give no more here, so... [shrug]

 

If that's what you have, then you have nothing new... only you act like you do, you pretend to know something and you've wrapped your same pile of poo up in new paper and a bow.

 

You're a !@#$ing idiot.

Edited November 29, 2011 by UConn James

[OCinBuffalo]

I kind of missed this gem of a post. Wow. So much here to enjoy and keep one entertained. In a way, I'm glad that it went unnoticed till Monday. It was kind of like finding a 20 spot in my pocket that had been forgotten since paying my mortgage or something.

 

Ok, well, moving on. Stop me when this sounds familiar :

 

1. Who are the people to whom you should be listening? Who are the people whom I am referencing?

 

2. Weird "defense" mechanism here. So the fact that you've used straw men as an debate technique was somehow projected upon me, by you, as a way for you to explain why it is that you don't know to whom I'm referencing when I'm referencing political conversations with colleagues.

 

3. I can only assume that you added this to have a "third" point, because only two points would look like you hadn't put the requisite time, effort, and energy into formulating a cogent response.

1. Go back and read your own OP, moron. I am not the one claiming to "know" people, you are. How the F would I know who YOU are talking about? If YOUR premise is false, that's your problem. If you do know people, and they do have inside info, then answer my f'ing question: why should we believe in their assessment?

2. Retarded. Tell us why we should accept the judgement of the people YOU claim to know, when all the evidence we have says the Obama administration, and campaign, is populated wholly by unmitigated morons.

3. I think I deleted what I had there by accident, I usually do this stuff when I am on a boring call.

Not sure what you're asking. You presented an item from Karl Rove, ostensibly from a place of dispassion and objectivity, for me to refute. Then you conclude by referencing the same loaded question to which you've referred repeatedly throughout your work of fiction as if the reference somehow validates the non-point that you've made, vindicates Karl Rove's biased opinion, and underscores a lack of credibility with respect to my opinion and the opinions of others to whom I've spoke.

 

"So Mrs. Lincoln, outside of that, how did you enjoy the play?"

Wait, so you do "know" people that have an inside track on the Obama administration's views on Romney?

And, you know full well what Rove is saying, and so do I: more evidence that the people who you say you know, in this paragraph anyway, ....have no idea what the F they are doing. They have seen fit to fully destroy whatever standing Obama had as a "leader" in order to "help" him politically. Amazing staff work.

1. Who do I say I know?

Ahh, so it's back to this now?

2. It's interesting how you come to you own conclusions about what someone thinks, then make an analogy based on your own conclusions, and then pass it off as analysis. Other then that, awesome analogy. It's somewhat perpindicular, but it sings...in an Orphan Annie kind of way.

Thinks? I am not the one who said what they think-->you ARE! The only conclusion I have drawn = The Obama people you say you know, talking schit about how easy it will be to beat Romney and saying they aren't afraid of him is retarded. If that's what they think, according to you, then they are clueless. And, their performance to date supports that conclusion.

3. The Administration is not politically worried about Romney for very specific, articulated, well-understood reasons (as many in the conservative and independent political community(ies) have enumerated them as well)...none related to the bravado and machismo with which you've referred in your haste to ascribe hubris to the Administration.

 

So basically, your post was one big "SIKE."

 

Take another crack at it. I know that you can do better.

The Administration thought:

1. Obamacare would be a well-like piece of legislation

2. Obamacare would be better off being written by Pelosi and Reid, rather than by them

3. Talking to Iran, SA, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and China in the weakest way possible....was a better plan than demonstrating power and resolve.

4. Cap an trade was a good idea

5. Card Check was a good idea

6. Letting the EPA run wild was a good idea

7. Hiring college professors who have surpassed Keynesian economic theory to the point of FUBAR and putting them in charge of the economy, was a good idea

8. Shovel-ready jobs existed, and given the amount of regulation, corruption and malfeasance their party has engendered in nearly every urban center in the country, it would be a good idea to hand these corrupted officials billions of dollars to create jobs.

9. Hiring a self-admitted socialist revolutionary and empowering him to not only create but to define "green jobs" was a good idea

10. Becoming a VC for green technology companies, even when the engineering was demonstrated to be questionable, never mind the financial statements, was a good idea

yet, you are arguing they haven't acted based on hubris? or bravado?

 

How the F else should we define 1-10....besides hubris?

 

You want to invoke Mrs. Lincoln? Ask her what she thinks about how to handle those who plot assassinations on our soil, and compare that to this administration's approach.

 

Look, forget whether you agree with the motives of each of the 10, think about how they were conceived, how the policy was created, how it was sold, and how it failed in deployment. Whose job was it to do each? Wasn't it the very same people who "aren't afraid of Romney"?

 

Where's the haste? It's taken us 3 years to compile this list. The only hasty thing is: it only took me 30 seconds to write it down. Think about that. I am certain there's more, but if I can write down 10 damning things in 30 seconds, what can a guy like Karl Rove do?

 

How in the hell am I supposed to buy that "we can beat Romney easy" is anything other than pure insecurity? These people are either insane or stupid if they really believe that beating ANYBODY the Republicans nominate will be "easy".

 

and it's "psyche", not "sike".

[DC Tom]

1. Go back and read your own OP, moron.

 

 

Trademark infringement.

[dpberr]

I think Romney is going to have a tough time just getting through the primaries. He may lose two of the first three primary votes.

 

Regardless of who the GOP puts up there, I think Obama is finished. He's tired of the country and the country is tired of him.

[Juror#8]

I've written all of this in several threads and yet here it is again...

 

Peoples' views on abortion can change in the course of 10+ years. What does this prove other than that Romney is human and that his opinion, whether from facts, soul-searching, or what have you changed since '94. Now, you can say it's a craven political move and that's your opinion but I'll give Romney the benefit of the doubt. There's a lot of issues that I see very differently just from 4 years ago. He can point to the As governor of MA, he opposed underage abortion non-reporting such that clinics would have to inform a teen's parents before any procedure could take place. (And for full measure to hardliners, he also opposed and vetoed the Mass. gay marriage law).

 

The stuff on the Mass. health care law --- as I've written many times, occurred with a Democrat supermajority in the Mass. legislature that was going to pass this with or without Romney. He decided that it was a better idea to have the few Republicans and himself work with the Democrats and inject some measure of fiscal responsibility into what would otherwise have stuck the Mass. taxpayers with a large new entitlement spending item in the general fund. Massachusetts' demographics with 4% uninsured, a vast and geographically spread out health care network is far different than stats and resources that other states face. Romney stated then and now that given state-to-state differences, it was NOT a model for a national plan. How about that for good ol' GOP-style STATE'S RIGHTS?!? You know, where each state ought to size up their own situation and craft their own law if they wish. Romney has stated that the federal concentration should have been limited and centered around cutting costs of health care by such things as opening insurance competition across state lines, and enacting tort reform to reduce provider costs, which would then not have to be passed along for patients to pay for. Romney has said he will make it his first act of office to issue waivers for Obamacare to all 50 states and to repeal and replace it with those limited cost-cutting measures.

 

I don't know what the f--- you were alluding to when you mumbled Kennedy something-or-other and you give no more here, so... [shrug]

 

If that's what you have, then you have nothing new... only you act like you do, you pretend to know something and you've wrapped your same pile of poo up in new paper and a bow.

 

You're a !@#$ing idiot.

 

 

November 29,2011

 

 

UConn James

1454 Sweetlove Ave.

Bridgeport, CT 06601

 

 

Good morning sunshine,

 

I've had occassion to read your letter. It brought back fond memories of home - the blissful smell of your perfume, your supple crescent-shaped bosom, your womanly embrace. How I long to be back from the perils of war and with you and our children, whom you've raised with unquestioned dignity and charm.

 

And though the country cannot refrain from tendering to you the thanks of the Republic that we fight so that you may enjoy, it will remain an inadequate consolation. So hopefully the following points will supplement, and assuage the anguish of your longing:

 

1. The Administration has tons of opp research on Romney. It can be best categorized as voluminous. In talking with folks who vet data and write speeches, I've had occassion to hear and see some of the info. It's basically different iterations of core issues where Romney has fundamentally changed.

 

2. You, as a person who supports him (though you'll invariably say that you don't - but the passion with which you inarticulately present your case suggests otherwise), are getting annoyed or otherwise flustered because you don't like the idea that the information exists. You're arguing against generalities...with platitudes.

 

3. I made a declarative statement; to be believed or disbelieved. I'm comfortable with what I've read, and what has been divulged concerning Romney's inconsistencies. Though it would be somewhat awesome to have a more developed conversation about his inconsistencies, its fruitless to have that conversation with you because:

 

a. You haven't demonstrated a shred of anything resembling objectivity that would suggest, even given the most liberal of interpretations, that you could lend value to such a conversation.

 

b. Nothing that you've mentioned would suggest that your contribution to such a conversation would amount to more than "people change their minds." If I had no other way to valuably utilize my time, I would write out a page long exigesis for you to respond with that gem of analysis.

 

c. When people insult, without provocation, it's time to move on. You're welcome to say/write anything that you want. But I'm not sure that you should expect that your insults be met with reasoned response and substantive discourse. So, I'll continue to humor you with a little condescension here and there now for fun...but I won't take you seriously. When someone concludes any level of intellectual exercise or debate with "!@#$ing idiot" they've discontinued taking themselves seriously. Why should I give you more than that which you've given to yourself?

 

SO save the heavyweight conversation for Magox, 3rdlng, or anyone else who has demonstrated some aptitude to debate. And don't think I'm just picking on you lady luck, it's OCinBuffalo too, whom I'll now turn my attention to tackling his mess of a post above.

 

In conclusion, if you don't like my comments above, super; move on. But I'll reiterate again, the WH has tons of opp research on Romney. And it will be a fun campaign.

 

Thanks for your kind words. You're !@#$ing wonderful.

 

So I leave you with these words, that I hope you care to receive, and I remain, Sincerely,

 

Juror #8

Edited November 29, 2011 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

1. Go back and read your own OP, moron. I am not the one claiming to "know" people, you are. How the F would I know who YOU are talking about? If YOUR premise is false, that's your problem. If you do know people, and they do have inside info, then answer my f'ing question: why should we believe in their assessment?

2. Retarded. Tell us why we should accept the judgement of the people YOU claim to know, when all the evidence we have says the Obama administration, and campaign, is populated wholly by unmitigated morons.

3. I think I deleted what I had there by accident, I usually do this stuff when I am on a boring call.

 

1. Not suprisingly, you missed the point of my questions. But you've formulated your own question. That doesn't come as a surprise either. Either way, classy response.

 

2. Another classy response. I don't think that you should accept the judgment of those whom I know. I never once said that you should accept it. I mentioned it to add to the intellectual discourse. The reason for referencing them was to indicate that my commentary/opinion wasn't coming from a place of personal political experience. It may be based on someone else's political experience...just not my own. Do I have an opinion on their poilitical opinion. Yes. However, for a variety of reasons, I don't expect for you to have the same opinion.

 

3. Usually people only say this when they actually do devote considerable time and energy into something, but they want it to be seen as a non-intensive endeavor by everyone else. For what it's worth, based on the content of your response, the poor analysis, the bastardization of facts, it's obvious that you don't put a lot of time and energy into responding. If you did, it would suggest something about you that I don't want to believe is true.

 

 

 

Wait, so you do "know" people that have an inside track on the Obama administration's views on Romney?

And, you know full well what Rove is saying, and so do I: more evidence that the people who you say you know, in this paragraph anyway, ....have no idea what the F they are doing. They have seen fit to fully destroy whatever standing Obama had as a "leader" in order to "help" him politically. Amazing staff work.

 

Ahh, so it's back to this now?

 

Thinks? I am not the one who said what they think-->you ARE! The only conclusion I have drawn = The Obama people you say you know, talking schit about how easy it will be to beat Romney and saying they aren't afraid of him is retarded. If that's what they think, according to you, then they are clueless. And, their performance to date supports that conclusion.

 

1. You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The problem is you characterizing it the way you do (e.g. WH people..."talking schit"). You're being hyperbolic. You're randomization/bastardization of facts is unfortunate and it makes debating with you an exercise in futility.

 

 

The Administration thought:

1. Obamacare would be a well-like piece of legislation

2. Obamacare would be better off being written by Pelosi and Reid, rather than by them

3. Talking to Iran, SA, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and China in the weakest way possible....was a better plan than demonstrating power and resolve.

4. Cap an trade was a good idea

5. Card Check was a good idea

6. Letting the EPA run wild was a good idea

7. Hiring college professors who have surpassed Keynesian economic theory to the point of FUBAR and putting them in charge of the economy, was a good idea

8. Shovel-ready jobs existed, and given the amount of regulation, corruption and malfeasance their party has engendered in nearly every urban center in the country, it would be a good idea to hand these corrupted officials billions of dollars to create jobs.

9. Hiring a self-admitted socialist revolutionary and empowering him to not only create but to define "green jobs" was a good idea

10. Becoming a VC for green technology companies, even when the engineering was demonstrated to be questionable, never mind the financial statements, was a good idea

yet, you are arguing they haven't acted based on hubris? or bravado?

 

How the F else should we define 1-10....besides hubris?

 

You want to invoke Mrs. Lincoln? Ask her what she thinks about how to handle those who plot assassinations on our soil, and compare that to this administration's approach.

 

What you will never understand, because you do it so frequently, is that your entire post presupposes "truth" and accuracy on your enumerated points. The problem is that you're not correct. You'll point to instances that, in your estimation, substantiate the way that you decided to characterize Administration actions. But your characterizations are hyperbolic at best, fundamentally wrong, at worst.

 

Did the Administration hire economic professors. Yes. Everything after that is hyperbolic. Was the WH expecting some "shovel ready projects"? Undoubtedly yes. Did they hand over billions in money to corrupt officials? Again, hyperbolic. Was some stimulus cash used injudiciously? Yep. Did some money go to folks who misappropriated stimulus funds? Probably. Did they turn a blind eye to unmitigated corruption? No.

 

Basically, you ask a question that relies on the veracity of the points that you, yourself, contrived. Therein lay the loaded question. For me to answer it requires an acknowledgment that your points have validity. Therefore your question, "how else should we define 1-10 besides hubris" is premature. Though I can see where some of you points originated from, I think that the majority of them are embellished and structurally compromised.

 

Trully, only you or the choir can answer your question, since it requires acquiescence of many other things to even entertain it.

 

For example, if I asked you "what shade of orange do you think the sky is?", in order for you to answer the question in any affirmative way, you'd have to acknolwedge the the sky is orange.

 

For the reasons mentioned above, I think that you're being intellectually dishonest.

 

 

Look, forget whether you agree with the motives of each of the 10, think about how they were conceived, how the policy was created, how it was sold, and how it failed in deployment. Whose job was it to do each? Wasn't it the very same people who "aren't afraid of Romney"?

 

Where's the haste? It's taken us 3 years to compile this list. The only hasty thing is: it only took me 30 seconds to write it down. Think about that. I am certain there's more, but if I can write down 10 damning things in 30 seconds, what can a guy like Karl Rove do?

 

How in the hell am I supposed to buy that "we can beat Romney easy" is anything other than pure insecurity? These people are either insane or stupid if they really believe that beating ANYBODY the Republicans nominate will be "easy".

 

and it's "psyche", not "sike".

 

The problem with what you're saying here is that because the WH *MAY* have been wrong about one thing, they're unsatisfactorily capable somewhere else.

 

Imagine if that same principle was applied to you, or to anyone else, or any thing else.

 

Seriously, follow that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion: The extent of someone's competence as to any thing is only as sound as their first, second, third, tenth, whatever, mistake. If you make a mistake, that conclusively means that everything else that you do going forward is presumptively wrong. Really?

 

Look at the converse as well. If someone does anything right, their presumptively correct about everything else res ipsa loquitur. It's a bit of a self-referential paradox\

 

Speaking of paradoxes, here is a fun one. Maybe you'll enjoy it as you read this while bored and on the phone:

 

"A male beautician shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?"

 

Did you apply that same logic to Bush?

 

And that is presuming that the WH is making mistakes.

[OCinBuffalo]

1. Not suprisingly, you missed the point of my questions. But you've formulated your own question. That doesn't come as a surprise either. Either way, classy response.

 

2. Another classy response. I don't think that you should accept the judgment of those whom I know. I never once said that you should accept it. I mentioned it to add to the intellectual discourse. The reason for referencing them was to indicate that my commentary/opinion wasn't coming from a place of personal political experience. It may be based on someone else's political experience...just not my own. Do I have an opinion on their poilitical opinion. Yes. However, for a variety of reasons, I don't expect for you to have the same opinion.

 

3. Usually people only say this when they actually do devote considerable time and energy into something, but they want it to be seen as a non-intensive endeavor by everyone else. For what it's worth, based on the content of your response, the poor analysis, the bastardization of facts, it's obvious that you don't put a lot of time and energy into responding. If you did, it would suggest something about you that I don't want to believe is true.

You refuse to answer the very simple point at hand: why should we listen to the people who have performed so poorly ---> POLITICALLY. Instead of that, you try to focus on the process, instead of the content. Well, I am sorry rookie, we all know that trick here. It never really worked since I have been here, and I haven't seen it since 2007.

 

This is not about opinion, it's about a historical track record of poor judgment. As in the judgment of those have miserably failed --- POLITICALLY --- never mind policy-wise, and the amount of weight we should reasonably assign to their ability to make POLITICAL assessments. I understand that these people may be your pals. We can talk about the policy, circumstances, issues, conditions, etc. and ALL of that is about opinion. However, when we talk about the POLITICAL choices that have been made, when we move to the decisions, now we are talking history and fact.

 

The POLITICAL failures of the Obama administration are not up for debate: they are a matter of fact. Refusing to include these failures in our assessment of any POLITICAL assessments coming from this administration, especially when they describe having an "easy time" against ANY candidate, is also not up for debate: it's a matter of stupidity.

1. You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The problem is you characterizing it the way you do (e.g. WH people..."talking schit"). You're being hyperbolic. You're randomization/bastardization of facts is unfortunate and it makes debating with you an exercise in futility.

 

What you will never understand, because you do it so frequently, is that your entire post presupposes "truth" and accuracy on your enumerated points. The problem is that you're not correct. You'll point to instances that, in your estimation, substantiate the way that you decided to characterize Administration actions. But your characterizations are hyperbolic at best, fundamentally wrong, at worst.

 

Did the Administration hire economic professors. Yes. Everything after that is hyperbolic. Was the WH expecting some "shovel ready projects"? Undoubtedly yes. Did they hand over billions in money to corrupt officials? Again, hyperbolic. Was some stimulus cash used injudiciously? Yep. Did some money go to folks who misappropriated stimulus funds? Probably. Did they turn a blind eye to unmitigated corruption? No.

 

Basically, you ask a question that relies on the veracity of the points that you, yourself, contrived. Therein lay the loaded question. For me to answer it requires an acknowledgment that your points have validity. Therefore your question, "how else should we define 1-10 besides hubris" is premature. Though I can see where some of you points originated from, I think that the majority of them are embellished and structurally compromised.

 

Trully, only you or the choir can answer your question, since it requires acquiescence of many other things to even entertain it.

 

For example, if I asked you "what shade of orange do you think the sky is?", in order for you to answer the question in any affirmative way, you'd have to acknolwedge the the sky is orange.

 

For the reasons mentioned above, I think that you're being intellectually dishonest.

I will now demonstrate why it's a bad idea for a lawyer to argue economics with an enterprise consultant. I don't expect to have to do it again.

 

There is absolutely NOTHING hyperbolic about my characterization of Christine Romer, etc. As I have said before, I know who these people are, and they only put 1(one), University of Chicago guy as the token representative quant on that team. The rest of them are Chopra-worshiping, anecdotal-loving, "social-conscience/justice" turds, that left John Maynard Keynes in the dust long ago. That's not hyperbole, that's what these people literally say when they speak. I have heard them. Now, I will tear what they preach a new a-hole in terms of Keynes:

 

These people believe in green jobs, shovel-ready jobs, and quantitative easing. Keynes would agree with none of this. They believe that capital is better spent by the government. Keynes would say that government spending creates capital, so, he would argue the inverse. They specifically contradict Keynes' views on government spending solving near/mid term frictional unemployment issues with....consumerism (purposely inflating gas prices = Keynesian? WTF?)....and instead, believe that we can bastardize Keynes into solving long term, structural unemployment by spending money in industries and amounts Keynes would never, EVER abide.

 

Keynes would never agree to creating the debt this spending has, and thereby inflating away the very purchasing power that Keynesian economics seeks to create...so that people will use said power to....purchase. Keynes would NEVER support the notion of a single massive stimulus bill. He would support a number of small infusions over time, so their effects could be QUANTIFIED, and reviewed to see if they needed to be modified. He would NEVER support government spending on unproven technologies, green or otherwise. He would support government spending in PROVEN industries/sectors that would hire/expand immediately due to the increased government purchases of their goods/services, or as otherwise known: the Keynesian Multiplier.

 

See? I can argue for Keynesian economics better than any Liberal you know, but, I can also argue against it better than you can.

 

That's just the economics professor thing. I can do the rest, but why? There is NOTHING hyperbolic about my statements, as I just proved. You calling it hyperbolic means nothing. You can't back up your claim.

 

And, as you seem destined to learn the hard way, rookie, I will always back up mine.....unless your name is ...lybob, and I am purposely trolling you = making you watch Bill O'Reilly videos as your penance for posting ridiculous videos on this board.

The problem with what you're saying here is that because the WH *MAY* have been wrong about one thing, they're unsatisfactorily capable somewhere else.

But, as I have shown clearly, they haven't been wrong about only 1 thing.

Imagine if that same principle was applied to you, or to anyone else, or any thing else.

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.

Seriously, follow that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion: The extent of someone's competence as to any thing is only as sound as their first, second, third, tenth, whatever, mistake. If you make a mistake, that conclusively means that everything else that you do going forward is presumptively wrong. Really?

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.

Look at the converse as well. If someone does anything right, their presumptively correct about everything else res ipsa loquitur. It's a bit of a self-referential paradox\

 

Speaking of paradoxes, here is a fun one. Maybe you'll enjoy it as you read this while bored and on the phone:

 

"A male beautician shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?"

 

Did you apply that same logic to Bush?

 

And that is presuming that the WH is making mistakes.

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.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

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

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