Juror#8

What is any word - an utterance with some pragmatic or meaningful context, right? The "N" word (just like any word) is simply a collection of consonants and vowels - until you realize that it has an implicit negative context. If your Congressman yelled at your daughter saying that she is a "BEEOOOTCH" would you tell her to suck it up cause "Beeoootch" is not even a word (despite his obvious intention) or would you demand that he be reprimanded in some way? If the individual said "Monday" as a surrogate for "!@#$," "coon," "dog ****," or whatever, does it matter that he decided to go the euphemistic route? Or does it only matter that he intended to degrade and demean but was too chicken-**** to be blatant with his bias? Isn't the issue really that he is a public official - charged with a duty to protect and serve and fairly execute the law - who "hates" an entire race of people who he is expected to fairly administer justice amongst? But you'd be fine with a black panther, racial seperatist (who euphemistically referred to you and yours as "the man"), as your beat cop who administered, largely, unchecked justice. Right.

So in my quest to find movies a few months before they come out that appear interesting and worth shelling out the $30.00 or so to see (e.g. "Django Unchained," et al.), I've ran across this "Cloud Atlas" movie. Frankly, it looks amazing: great cast, spectacular visuals, interesting story, novel concept, ambitious in scope, good writers, solid production team. It seems to be generating a lot of the same buzz that "Inception" did a couple months before it was released. I'm not sure if it will shift paradigms and attempt to reimagine traditional cinema like "Inception," but it sure looks like it's gonna be worth seeing on the big screen. Anyone else intrigued?:

PLEASE don't do it unless you're T12, have good connections, don't need loans and aren't paying more than $45,000 for the entire 3 year experience, or are just REALLY passionate about the law. Please join these forums and keep an open mind. If you still enroll, good luck: http://www.jdunderground.com/all/

It's difficult to prove a negative - either way. Some say that the economy was headed towards absolute crises. That was curtailed. The deeply sinking trend coming out of the Bush Administration plateaued. Was that because of BO or something else? Who knows? But it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. So I give him the benefit of the doubt. My economic calculation is a simple one - but it make sense to me: The last year under Bush, the economy, the indicators, and almost everything else domestically, was tanking BADLY. Within a year under BO, many of those economic issues had leveled off and, at least, stopped getting worse. I think the auto rescue was a good idea. I also think it had a good impact on the economy. I also think that the stimulus was a good idea. I understand that some money was irrationally spent, but much was infused into a struggling economy and put ____ back to work.

I want to see if he avoided paying taxes in the last ___ years.

Have you seen an interview with him? Just waiting for his "Jim McGreavy" story to drop.

Good point that I didn't consider. Your points, plus those that I mentioned in my post above, will hurt a Romney/Rice ticket. Those states that have stark regional dichotomies with pronounced voting prowress in the respective regions - Fairfax, VA vs. Clinchco, VA; college triangle, NC vs. south-central, NC; Pittsburgh, PA and southwestern/south central PA vs. the rest of the state - will tell the tale. In all the independent-leaning areas, Romney already embodies the traits that Rice could lend. At most, he'll pick up a handful of independent female voters who want to make history. The Hillary voters are largely going to stay on board because she is Secretary of State and an instrumental figure in the administration. But is does hurt him in those states' other voting half.

I wonder if she knows that her husband is a member of a different brotherhood?

Not literally. Just pointing out what a spineless, repugnant, piece of canary **** he is.

I like to think that she is being vetted because she is brilliant and has foreign policy bona fides. Her social views are a problem plus she'll cost him votes in WV, IA and FL (MS, AL, GA too but they are Romney locks anyway so no matter). Many in those states will just see her as an uppity n____ who they won't "sully themselves" to vote for. He'll alienate those who want to return to a traditionalism in American politics. He'll actually probably drive an entire demographic away from the GOP. It'll be this redux: http://www.economist.com/node/17467202 Those who would like the choice are already behind Romney anyway - the pro business, highly educated corporate types, neo-conservative, latte-drinkers who straddle the fence and live in Fairfax County, VA. What he needs is Grundy, VA and Applachia, and central NC, and Pittsburgh, and Huntington, WV. They will **** themselves with that GOP ticket and will express their dissatisfaction by staying home. I LOVE the idea and think that she'd be a phenomenal choice but I don't see the political calculation being fruitful for him.

You must be confusing him with Romney - who is actually a liar. BO is just a puppet and a proxy for certain interest groups.

You know where your bread is buttered.

Wish they could both lose or that some odd brokered convention angle would happen. It won't so we're left (or right) with someone who can't structure, can't connect, can't prioritize, can't message, and can't get out of his own way AND a challenger who is a pathetic one-trick pony who is spineless and who would lie about his own gender to exploit an angle. Bunch of dolts get a bunch of dolt candidates, right?

Missed this one... I'm second fiddle on a pretty fun products liability case that I believe has some wheels. Right when it seemed as if it was going really smoothly.... it was 1332'd out of state; then we had to find competent pro hac; then we had to abandon said pro hac as he was newly minted in TN on comity (but hadn't been sworn in) so they wouldn't let him convey (never use Craigslist to solicit local counsel); then we had to fly to TN to meet with a firm that charged a small fortune just to pro hac (basically they're just sitting there, researching and writing notes [about their own cases undoubtedly], observing the out-of-staters for F ups, and advising about what judge tolerates what style)... Now we're waiting on responses so there is some time to relax. I should have PM'd this all to you but I was on a roll and I haven't slept in almost 30 hours. Hey, are you interning this summer? If so, kick me a PM let me know how it's going... Back to Wickard: Article I, Section 8, clause 3 allows Congress to - "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Filburn growing excess wheat affected the flow of commerce because he wasn't buying it on the open market. If he wasn't producing it in over-abundance, he'd be purchasing on the open market it for his own personal consumption. His usage has a trivial affect, but an affect just the same. The language is (probably intentionally) open-ended and doesn't provide much in the way of guidance around application or constraint. With that said, as articulated, the ruling is techincally correct. a. Congress is obliged to regulate commerce. b. Filburn's personal use of a regulated commodity affected commerce (notwithstanding the degree of substantialness). c. Therefore Filburn's personal production can be curtailed. That the production of wheat for personal use may be trivial does not remove it from the scope of federal regulation - especially when, if made permissible amongst individual growers, the aggregate effect of that behavior would result in a substantial affect on commerce. I think your concern (a valid one) portends the federalism dilemma - e.g. to what extent can the national entity encroach upon the state, the municipality, and the individual to exert supreme authority over very local activities. Fair enough. But that is a political debate. And if those politics rule the day, an amendment needs to be forthcoming. As it stands now, Filburn's actions still exist within the purview of I,8,3 when the language is read plainly and without interpretation. And yes, I do feel that there is a role for a strong centralized government. That national preeminence has effectuated that which the states were too chicken **** or too uncoordinated to do themselves.

Just don't buy what they're selling man. Doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. But I don't buy it. Too many continuous connections that were ongoing for too long to be satiated by the 'hard stop' argument. I'm also not too convinced by this - what is essentially the crux of the support angle: "To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney's departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed." But that notwithstanding, there are too many problems with him as a man and as a leader. But you know that already...or at least you know that some people feel that way (whether you agree with it or not)... So there is no point in arguing around the periphery of likely unchanging opinion.

How long before someone blames Rush's comments/conspiracy theory on the Colorado tragedy last night?

Is that their argument? I didn't think that it was. When do you consider Romney's date certain for leaving Bain?

No, really I'm not. It's weird how you think you can psychoanalyze a poster and their intentions. I said from the beginning that I don't like the man so let's discuss the politics of it. I haven't browbeat anyone for their opinions on the topic and haven't endeavored to back anyone into a corner for their opinion (with respect to this topic). 3rd gave a very concise "they both suck" answer and I very graciously agreed. Someone mentioned that dispassionate financial decisions should trump a emotionl ones and I accept that without argument. You're not holier than anything and your attempts to paint people with a broad brush is dry. Your schtick is old. Do me a favor, just don't reply to my threads. You add nothing. Reading your pathetic attempts to psychologically define folks while you insult in the most infantile of ways in order to substitute for your lack of substantive contribution is old, and dry. I can say that your 30,000 posts on a message board, and "trademarking" of phrases endemic to prepubescent teens who can't curse without risking in-school suspension, evidences some weird existential dilemma that long ago culminated in Napoleonic megalomania. That would accurately characterize you. But I've been civil with you. And just kept that little truism about you close to the vest. So how about this, you can easily avoid my "gotcha" stuff by IGNORING me. Please. You would be doing me a favor. *Since I know that you don't want to do that, I'll say that that would make me really upset if you were to ignore me.* Then I wouldn't have to restrain myself from replying to your ignorant ass with the level of incivility that your posts merit. Go away. Be gone. Thanks. There are 30-something other regular contributors on this board. You can spend your free time augmenting your 'poster of the decade' status by replying to any one of them. Funny thing is, if your first paragraph was based on your second paragraph, you're wrong on the facts. I've called Obama, his administration and politics in general a hypocritical joke. I have a thread a few month back related to his (and the left's) hypocrisy. Don't let that get in your way though. That would disrupt your otherwise perfectly good hypothesis. Keep fellating Romney under the auspices that you're dispassionately searching for truth and are unbiased to the T. You're the worst of all. Ignore me. I'll just respond to your posts addressed to me in that way to help you get the message. Your comments to me, and this response, should just about close any open lines of communication between us nicely. I don't want to waste the boards time with any more of this silly back-and-forth ****. Now that amateur hour is over...

2. Look around at posts I've started - I've started threads critical of Obama and the administration (admittedly only 2). And besides saying the man is personally a nice guy, my general consensus (documented for your reading pleasure) is that he is a guy unprepared and unready for the realities of the economy and the domestic disharmony. What's your balance record? You've posted a lot of copyright-infringed articles unoriginally co-opting everyone's opinion who may have a gripe against this administration. So you know what, perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Obama. But noooooo....that would be asking you to practice what you preach which fundamentally goes against your political agenda here. See post 30 above. Ok, let's get on the same page. I just updated the first page to contain the MotherJones piece. The first time I linked to the Salon piece in the original thread. Check out the updated link replacement.

I don't care who you are, that ****'s funny.

Lol! I know right, because I have an obligation to discuss things in a fashion that obliges the slant. Thanks for that. Discuss the politics or the merits or get the !@#$ out the thread. I've already acknowledged that I don't like the guy. What does that have to do with an article that is substantiated by offical documents written by someone who is not me? Leave the ad hominems elsewhere or just politely ignore the thread. I updated the first post with the article that discusses the issue in more detail.

I understand your analogy but the difference is that Romney was financially benefitting off of something that he claimed to be morally against. It seems to vindicate that segment who claim that he will say and do anything for money/esteem/status/his immediate benefit - despite what he believes to be inherently true. I wish that not voting, voting third party, or "writing in" had a meaningful impact on the major candidates. The more research I do, the more disappointed I become. These candidates, for one reason or the other, are as unimpressive as any in a long time. I don't know how so many here can have their minds made up. Are you sold one way or the other? I like issues but I don't like these candidates. That's a tough political place to be. I guess the more pertinent article with respect to the details is the 'MotherJones' article. If you don't mind me asking, why won't you address the issue of his financial investment vis-a-vis his moral objections. I'm not being pushy and if you don't want to discuss, I understand.

My whole issue is about the judgment of someone who would invest is something of that nature that he claimed to be so philosophically antithetical towards. He is facilitating a process that he claims to be against. It just seems to clash in so many respects.

Documentation shows that the investment was made during Romney's tenure: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec If you ran a business, would you use that business in order to facilitate an activity that you were principally, morally, ethically, philosophically, and personally against? If you would, then you, in some measure, redeem Romney. I just wouldn't. Well, since you put it that way, there is never REALLY enough...

And I said: "Let's get that out of the way and discuss politics." You liberals are just wildly inconsiderate towards subject and predicate sentence constructions. Sadly, I do believe that you have a point.