Juror#8

What makes you say that?

Do you honestly believe that the polls are favoring Romney? Or are you being aspirational?

You want 4 more years of nearly empty promises. You want instability in the overall financial environment. You want another 4 years of the Republican Congress blocking eveything just to say the President did nothing. You want to almost guarantee a Hillary or Biden top of the ticket in 2016. You want Harold Koh, Jenn Granholm, or Pam Karlan to replace Ginsberg when she exits the bench in the next 4 years. You want Merrick Garland (as the obligatory "moderate" pick) to replace Scalia when he exits the bench in 4 years. You want Donald Trump to stay relevant. You want people to play the reverse race card for 4 more years. You don't care about your financial well-being. You don't want the Acura NSX made. You enjoy a devisive country that is fractured amongst ideological and racial lines. You want a president who is sincere, pleasant, and an all-around good guy. You want a president who is unprepared and overwhelmed.

Mitt trying another angle to see what will push the polls. What an insufferable jackass.

Anyone surprised?

He's just another Jamarcus Russell. We already have one of those in Brad Smith. It must be Monday.

Good point, and I realize that that will color (no pun intended) our outlook on this subject. I've never been called a "Monday," (not that I'd really care if I was) but I have heard the racial context used in a joke. Once the joke was explained to me I was told by another at our luncheon that someone referred to him that way when he was in Arizona on business. Before that, I'd never heard of it.

Even the birthers couldn't say that they felt that the Prez was a liar. They felt that he was lying about his birth certificate, but not pointing to instances of equivocation, untruths, and similar disconnects to bolster their claim. Mitt Romney is a liar. He has a history of lying, equivocation, skating on the margins, shifting to accommodate a certain moment, trend, or opportunity. Just look up his whole Utah vs. Massachussets (where was his residency) with respect to the Mass gubernatorial race. He said he filed in Mass. Turns out he filed in Utah and (allegedly) claimed to be resident there to reporters, and received a tax break in Utah ($55,000) and.... TO explain it, he says that he doesn't read what he signs (Utah tax docs), some bueracrat is responsible for the tax break and the reporter is lying. There is always a story to explain or explain away schit with this fake fukker. He will say ANYTHING to take advantage of an opportunity. He's odious.

Pedro

Yes

I think that this has a lot to do with it. Something about pets (especially dogs) being loyal, loving unconditionally, having innocence, etc. makes them more sympathetic beings. But you can say the same thing about children. Maybe it's because the expectation is that a human can grow and improve their circumstances whereas a dog can't. If a dog mis-treated, that circumstance won't change. Maybe that is the difference... About the dogs/humans example or the conceptual disaster totals vs. the personalized example?

I have the exact same response. Hearing about that huge tsunamis in India was very sad. I wanted to give and give big to help. Conceptually, the thought of it was heart-wrenching. But to see the affected people on television was different....almost manageable. It was still sad, and I was/am very sympathetic to their situation and pray for their well-being, but I wasn't as emotionally affected as what I was when the media was discussing the situation generically.

I CANNOT watch those Humane Society commercials with Sarah McLachlan. You know, these: Literally, I scramble to find the remote control to turn the channel. I physically cannot watch the commercial. They have a real emotional impact on me. Those commercials literally make me sad. My fiance cries when they come on. It's pretty serious stuff. BUT.... I have no such problems watching UNICEF commercials - you know, the ones with the kids (actual HUMANS) from different countries who are hungry, abjectly impoverished, feeble, homeless, and only require 70 cents a day to combat malnutrition. I feel so bad for those folks but it doesn't impact me the same way. I'm sympathetic but not sad; concerned but not crushed. I was eating a 5 Guys burger and fries while the UNICEF commercial played the other day. I didn't have to turn the channel. I wasn't overly emotional. My fiance was drinking a Starbucks Frappaccino. She wasn't crying. That seems so incongruent. Literally, it makes no sense. I thought it was just me, but it is the same with my fiance. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Anyone else have this issue? Is this the product of some desensitization?

Really looking forward to Bourne Legacy! Opening nighter for me. It's a shame that Greengrass and Damon wouldn't return for this installment. Hopefully Damon will have a Vin Diesel moment of realization that his best work and best box office prowess is with that series. Renner is a good second choice. Let's hope that that they made the right call choosing him over Ryan Reynolds.

What about it makes you feel that it will be difficult to translate into a movie? I understand that there are like 5 separate generational stories happening simulataneously with each one affected the other. Is that why you feel that making a movie out of it will be complicated?

Ooooooooooooookkkkkkk. That's interesting. The three director thing is unique. Don't know how that will even operate as one coherent production but I'm anxious to see if it can.

Good story. I hope that things continue to go well for him. A buddy of mine has a successful cleaning business going. I saw what he went through. The difference is, he was able to get things going with suprisingly little capital investment. He didn't sleep much, but he was never on the verge of going into the red. For the first few years, his only costs were travel and supplies. He started out cleaning a local motel 6 and fast food franchises. He wasn't even bonded or insured. In 2010 when he had grown 5 fold, he began bidding for work and therefore needed to be bonded and insured. Up until then, almost 60% of what he was making was profit. Our issue is being judicious with the little capital that we do have and not borrowing to fund this thing. We also began accepting new business in order to fund the basic business creation things in the future(brick and mortar office space, admin staff, etc.) Everyone told us not to do it that way. We did it anyway.

Is this simpler than what I'm making it? I keep repeating this to myself and can't quite grasp what it means.

Ok, I see what you're saying. You're not necessarily characterizing him one way or the other - just discussing the degree of the comment. I agree with you on that. And I wasn't calling you a misogynist - just trying to add depth to your hypothetical to make my point. So your clarification in your "edit" was correct. I guess I'm putting more emphasis on *his* state of mind than everyone else (who seem to be more focused on how esoteric the term is). Very much basing it on circumstantial considerations as articulated in my post above.

Yep, I do. Politics sucked because you're mainly dealing with a bunch of dolts who are convinced that one thing is so right and the other is so wrong ipso facto. It's fun arguing within the penumbras again - where nuance matters and can determine the outcome. Opening our own practice is taxing though. We're all a bunch of thirty-somethings who have very little big lit experience. We're re-fueling with Wendy's and using Georgetown/American/George Mason law library a lot . We can't afford big time case research subscriptions so we're relying on the free ones provided by our state ba (thank you LexisOne and Fastcase). My buddy Rodney is convinced that if we screw up, using free case search services is our ticket to being on the wrong side of a malpractice action. He may be right. We rent office space by the hour, have "no contract" phones for client calls, and use Rodney's basement for trial prep and strategy sessions (thanks to his very considerate wife). We have about $11,000 in capital left so we're desperately hoping that one of these cases settle. If not, we'll be making capital investment sacrifices (buh bye Mustang). It's pretty Bohemian to be honest bro. As I type this, I realize that I haven't slept in almost two days and I'm trying to figure out how to tell my fiance that I'm going to have to postpone the April wedding for a second time. She'll probably move in with her sister again which I'm too tired to be upset about because it means that I'll have a day or so to sleep before having the "are you serious about us" conversation once she gets back from whatever night out her friends take her on to show her that she can do better and I'll always prioritize my job over her. Most importantly, we have good health, and wonderful blessings, and ambition. Our spouses/fiances are supportive and haven't committed adultery yet. My doberman still loves me. Thankfully we have clients and cases and overtures from defense counsel about preliminary settlement numbers in a fairly significant case. We figure that once we make it through this year and next, we'll be good. I'll keep you posted.

The term "Monday" in the racial context (that I've heard and always understood) suggests that no one like Mondays just like no one likes blacks. Blacks are a "race of people."

Now add in that you're a misogynist and in a position of power and you call her a "pain in the ass." Doesn't that complicate things?

Because he is saying it as a derogatory term to convey his hatred for a race of people. Or else why would you ever call someone a "Monday." Let's look at the case for and against: Against: 1. He could have called him a "Monday" because that was just the first thing that came to his head. 2. " " because it was an honest mis-pronunciation of the players name. 3. " " because that is what he calls everyone who he has any issue with or dislike for. For: 1. It is a known racial epithet. 2. There have been reports of him making racist comments in other instances. 3. He was fired for cause and a public statement from the mayor was issued citing him as a "racist." 4. NOT one of his colleagues have come to his defense to say that he has a history of saying "Monday" as a casual way to express any generalized dislike. Seriously, [MOST] of y'all are smarter than that, right? But I forgot, if any one is a racist, they're only a racist because some one played the race card. It's a co-dependent attribute.

Yes it is diffuclt to believe that his resignation was finalized 3 years later. It's cool that you've over-simplified the matter but unfortunately, given the nuances of the world at large, it's not very pragmatic. Nothing that you've said in your 5 sentence glee club pamphlet for Romney addresses the issues that I (and many others) have with his lack of leadership, lack of constitution, lack of consistency. I have a friend who opened up a successful janitorial services biz that began with two employees and is now a 30 employee operation that serves 4 states, 15+ counties, and now has contracts with the big quasi-government entities in NoVA. and he just made his first million in FY2010. He's buying out a couple of local franchisees and SPs to keep the show going. He'll end up hiring another 30 employees in the next 15 months. And he did that without a wealthy upbringing, hundreds of advisors thinking for him, an ivy league background, etc. ****, he had to actually work for his success. In fact, he did that with his $1400 tax return from 2007 and craigslist. Plus, since the 11th grade, I haven't known Jerome to flip flop on a single meaningful political belief and he is consistent in what he says. And he has a history of employing different races of people and having them work together towards a common purpose. Since that's your criteria, maybe J-Dub should be president too? Loud and wrong. Never a good combination.

Exit polls (reporting preliminarily) had Kerry up. Most national polls going into the election had the race statistically even and trending towards Bush. I've heard that most raw polls had Reagan up weeks out and that most adjusted polls were showing the race statistically even going into election day. There were some outliers but I've always heard that that was how those polls played out. And then wasn't there the John Anderson factor - the guy who basically every middle-of-the-road Democrat voted for in that election....and who wasn't considered in head-to-head poll data?