Juror#8

Been following it. The story was shown on Good Morning America yesterday and some cable news outlets last night. Al Sharpton (predictably) and his Nation Action Network will be there in FL on Thursday. Apparently the alleged perpetrator had a fixation on crime and young black males. Sounds like a fake-ass Elvis Presley. At the end of the day, the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested on the scene is an absolute farce. The dispositive legal issue is that he got out of his vehicle, with a weapon, under no pretense that he was in danger or that Martin had committed a felonious act, to pursue an individual who was unarmed, and moving away from him, and that Zimmerman is taller and 100 lbs heavier than Mr. Martin. Those are incontrovertible facts that will be dispositive in both the criminal case against the Zimmerman, the civil suit against Zimmerman, and what (in this ESQ's estimation) should probably be a colorable negligent entrustment action against the housing community/community-watch group. On the strength of those facts, Zimmerman should have been arrested. In most square places, Zimmerman is awaiting arraignment right now.

I wonder where this post is going to place me. 4019 sounds about right. I was trying for 4000 but whatever.... Maybe 4444 will be possible in about 20 minutes.

In

Just heard it from two separate outlets. Something about Drayton Florence speaking with Schobel and he is considering coming out of retirement to join the party. I think he is only 32. Anyone else hear this?

Now I can officially care about Manningham. Where we at?

Where the !@#$ is "Deep Voice"? Mario Williams signed. He has to be digging this!

Besides the obvious defensive benefit, he would have to be instrumental in attracting other free agents, and players who we may not have otherwise had a chance at, to Buffalo. That, gents, is one of the best benefits!

AWESOME NEWS!! Great job Nix and Co!!!

This probably expedited his departure from Miami: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Brandon-Marshall-Chicago-Bears-reportedly-punched-woman-at-New-York-nightclub-031312

Already called page 90. On page 82. Referencing page 54.

Hot Carl Mario not signing by page 90 Cleveland Steamer

Just different spins on already reported news but in the spirit of recycled info: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/55273/mario-williams-brings-fiancee-to-buffalo

I just don't think that he'd have his wife fly to Buffalo as part of some elaborate plot to waste more time and give another suitor a chance to secure his services. But then again, this is taking an awfully long time, the financial parameters appear to be in place, and courtships/signings don't usually take two business days. But I'm more optimistic than I've been in a while about their ability to land a big time free agent. I hope it happens.

They are VERY VERY VERY different. One is soliciting responses based on an identified trend - and asking if anyone knows of any data that contradicts the trend. One is a declarative statement. Ipso facto. I asked a reasonable question in order to find some common ground or bridge a disconnect and this is where you're taking it. It's like you want to maintain an enemy. Why? BTW...you mentioned that I inferred that "business persons CAN'T LEAD THE COUNTRY." That's different than "poor national leaders." I was stating a fact based on a trend. And asking for discussion about whether or not there were attributes endemic to business persons that predicated that trend and if that implicated Romney's ability to be an effective president. Or if the trend was just a happenstance of history? Does that makes sense? I'm asking seriously, cause I want to know - not to be funny or snarky. There is a GLARING distinction to me.

Keep repeating what? Those were enumerated questions in response to Jauronimo's post. He made a bunch of claims and I simply asked for clarification. Let's stop here. Maybe here is where the disconnect is: My premise wasn't that "business owners can't lead the country." My premise was that business owners haven't historically been good presidents. That nuance is important. It's not "backtracking." It's true. I ASKED IF THAT HISTORICAL TREND IMPLICATED ROMNEY'S ABILITY TO BE PRESIDENT. From post #1 : "I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level." That is on record. It's what I asked. That is what I wanted to discuss. Instead of a discussion, I got people responding as if I made a declarative statement. I didn't. I asked questions. People were defensive over a conversation that discussed the potential of an attribute that didn't translate well into presidential politics. But don't rely on me. There are two bolded points above. It's on record. You mentioned that I was saying that "business owners can't lead the country." I say otherwise. Using my words in the previous posts, prove the bolded points above wrong. That will conclude all the subsequent ****-slinging. With respect to the bolded points above, either I'm right or you're right. Let's find out here and now. There is little else to discuss. Let's not conflate it any more. It's either wrong or right and why based on the record and not on anyone else's interpretations.

1. "How business are run" wasn't central to my initial post. Characteristics of a business person and how well will they translate in to politics was central to the original post. Where Romney is from, his allegiances, etc. was central to my original post. We're discussing this because you haven't discussed anything else. 3. Wow. So you want to discuss contract law as if that constrains a CEO? Let me save you the suspense: it doesn't. For one, contract law governs a relationship once two entities who willingly enter into a bilateral arrangement (or unwillingly in the event of certain implied contracts and estoppel situations). Generally though, the CEO of the company is signing the MSAs, LOAs, SOWs, etc. Many times they're spear-heading the procurement of contractual partners, subs, etc. At my friends spot, his director of procurement has signature authority on contracts up to $25,000. After that, his is the final signature needed before a contract can be sent for counter. And he has to sign off on all reqs. Then the contract is is in place (well, after the wet signature returns on his paper). But then....once the contract is in place...the CEO can break it! They're not constrained by that contract. They can repudiate it. They'll pay their damages - all incidentals and consequentials (which is capped by general duties to mitigate) - and they'll move on to the next contractual relationship. You think that a CEO is bound by contracts?!?!?! Son, you don't know **** about business or contracts if you believe that. That's laugh out loud funny! I think that one of the few constraints that a good CEO has is governed by their ability to pay outside counsel. Wanna argue that? Let me know and I'll give you a tutorial on contracts. Contracts was my game before politics. I'll help you out. Smooches. 4. I know government for the reasons that I mentioned in my last post to you. Have whatever person that reads to you read that again and then you get back to me with your next innane comment. When did I say that "legistlative experience" provides "executive insight"? "Legislative experience" was relevant to the extent that it addressed your claim that I had a very basic understanding of government. Now it somehow implicates an innability to understand "executive decision-making" on a corporate level? As if I referenced "legislative experience" and any level of "decision-making" in the same context. Son, that's not what we were discussing and you're conflating two separate conversation tones in order to confuse the direction of the conversation (but I bet that some clever person will use "conflate" in a later post to reference my having mentioned it - as if it somehow is being said, in it's current context, dismissively). This CJ prop stuff is silly here in it's omnipresence. Jauronimo, what were you saying again about nebulous points? "The nature of decision-making in leadership positions" was one component of a larger thread. I also cursorily discussed presidential history, Mitt's geographic presence and if that implicates allegiance, Mitt's aggressive neo-cosmopolitanism and whether or not that implicates self-defeating opportunism. Jauronimo, what were you saying again about qualifying positions? Amateur hour.

1. What was my position that was indefensible? 2. Smartest kid in the class? What gives you that impression? 3. What was my entire argument and what did I mention that qualified that argument into a tiny box? Specifics. 4. When did I say that there is no one capable of understanding my argument? 5. When did I declare "total victory" in the debate (aside from mentioning that I kicked DCTom's ass is a **** thowing contest)? 6. When I mention that the board had no right to scrutinize my comments? Interestingly enough, the only thing that I mentioned with respect to you in this thread is to thank you for the discussion. Is that the moment when I "accused you of obfuscating," or told you that you aren't "intelligent enough to understand [the] arguments"? Did you just get ahead of yourself in the mob frenzy? It's ok if you did. Exactly, as I willingly mentioned that I wrongly attributed the Iacocca quote 9no one else caught that). And I mentioned my shortcomings in business and so therefore I'll defer to others with respect to those areas. You're wrong bordering on purposefully misleading and lying.

1. I've said on numerous occassions that I'm not very familiar with the way business runs operationally. 2. Two LLCs and an S-Corps actually. 3. The only constraint on his decision is his fiduciary responsibility to his share-holders and his conscious. But he has all kinds of carte blanche. Again, there is none of that in government. 4. Take it back all you want. You're just butt hurt because I called you unsophisticated. Cry about it winch. The fact remains, I know government...well. You don't. I know legislative politics because that is what I do. I also know the Judiciary as I have petitioned for cert on behalf of clients and drafted habeas motions in Fed court on behalf of clients. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you a bit about judicial functions. I've also worked on presidential campaigns at a grass-roots level (door-to-door canvasing and local strategy sessions). I interned at the Republican National Convention in 2000 and 2004 and my academic background is in matters of politics, domestic governance, and policy. My brother works in the WH. Heck, I even had lunch with Gerald Ford a few times. Again, I'm not an expert, but I can speak cogently on matters of executive governance. I know government. Not as much as some. But certainly more than you. How about you? Oh yea...you watch the news and politic with your alcoholic relatives. Get the !@#$ outta here. Here comes the..."oh you consider yourself an expert/aren't you special" posts. Save all that ****. I'm pointing out that I have some background to talk about matters of government and politics. And my background is more extensive than yours. Good night. Good points and food for thought. I wish that you'd offer more than declaratives. But it's a start for both of us to have a reasoned conversation. The conversation has developed some of these points a bit more since a week ago. In my last post before I began pissing all in DCTom's mouth, and in my response to OC, I mentioned a couple of things relative to business and presidents that I'd be interested in getting your response to. I've kicked enough ass for a few days folks. We'll give time for Tom to post something and get excited because I haven't responded for a few days. It'll make him think that he stumped me. :-P Then I'll return to **** in his face some more. Until then.....

Awesome post and good points. I think you, like Magox and Taro, highlighted some traits that a dedicated business professional would have which translates well to the presidency. In your case, you mention "convincing." I think that you're right generically. I'm just not sure that Mitt has that skill himself. He worked with a democratic house to effectuate some change. But it could be said that he accomplished that somewhat subversively and without the benefit of any side knowing where he truly stood. It's only recently that we're learning his "true" leanings. The base in national politics holds you to account more definitively than in state politics. I'm not sure that he can be as nebulous to solidify alliances. He is gonna be on record and he can't change his mind for political advantage. Will that affect his ability to "convince" when Tony Perkins is perched on his shoulder preaching certitude? But good point nonetheless.

Actually, in post #62 you said that my "understanding of business AND government" was at "a very basic level." You've already shown yourself to be politically unsophisticated. You're only making a bigger ass of yourself with mis-directed comments about my knowledge of government. Thank you. At least you cleared up one of your mistakes. Nothing that you quoted in your last post evidences any shred of a lack of business knowledge. My buddy is CEO of a boutique IT staffing firm in Herndon. I don't know much about business from an operational perspective but I know that his spot rises or falls by his decisions and his decisions alone. I also did some corporate structuring back in the day (setting up S-Corps, and making sure the corporate veil remained in tact). I know that those gentleman made operational decisions without much in the way of interference. I know that government doesn't operate that way. And that, kind sir, is a fundamental difference. Care to disagree on the merits without the simple declaratives? Probably not huh? Ok, moving on... Your context in which you mentioned this was actually entirely without a substantive point. Maybe you thought if you constructed it that way there would be a presumed point. AKA...the CJ proposition conveying benefit of the doubt eh? You're silly boo. The only one equivocating is you. I have been very clear in my points. You've tried to obfuscate because you've lost all control of your points of criticism. That's unfortunate. But it speaks to your lack of sophistication in debate and to your Napoleonic narcissism...as I imagine it would take that level of insecurity to continue responding on a topic that you add such little value to. To be fair though...you one-up me on matters of business. I'm in no way denying that. My beef with you is on matters of political mechanics and just plain civility. We've always been cordial, even in disagreement. Not sure why that had to change. Righty right.

Again, that's NOT my thesis. But to understand why will require you to loosen up and discontinue your efforts to box me into an intellectual corner. You're not JJamie. That doesn't seem to be your game. Maybe I splashed water on you when I was driving down Connecticut Ave or something and this is your way to express your discontent. I'd rather just pay for the dry cleaning and call it square. I NEVER said that business men make bad political leaders. So I'm not sure WHAT you read? I said that business persons have sucked at being PRESIDENT. And my first point was about [Romney's] interest in leading the country. You people are reading my post superficially and then diving in on bastardized points. Business persons have made wonderful political leaders. Business men have made ****ty presidents. As I asked JJamie, can you refute that on the merits? One doesn't necessarily portend the other. But 200 years of trend can't be trivialized as inconsequential. Can it? The point about government and business and transparency hold true. In business, a CEO is traditionally responsible for making da-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, operational decisions. There is some carte blanche when making that decision, that day and having it implemented. Of course there is accountability to share-holders, consultation with advisers, and fiduciary duty to acknowledge, but the impact of those checks is sometimes retrospective. In government, NOTHING happens without prospective checks. Simple legistlation can't move without a host of administrative burdens and protocol. There is no carte blanche. There is no discretion. There is no deference to position. And state-wide politics doesn't begin to smell the political posturing and gridlock of politics on a national level. That may not be the reason why business persons have historically been bad presidents, but it may have an impact. I was just soliciting thoughts. Then came the CJ proposition. Obfuscation. Nah, you're just being polemic. At this point, you're probably beyond salvaging.

Professional student.

You and many others. So, if your politics are are in opposition to those whom you deisre to represent, you adjust your platform in that direction in order to secure the job and then later claim that that representation wasn't an honest reflection of your political leanings? How about just lose on the merits and retain a sense of ideological dignity. Ok. No one mentioned anything about being smart, blah, blah, blah. This is not about me and you. It's about a position. It's a bout a thesis: Business persons haven't traditionally made good presidents. Care to refute it on the merits? The only thing that you've done is *questionably* attack the methodology that allowed me to arrive at the claim. Apparently, you don't like the conclusion. But you haven't responded with a substantive point in opposition. You're instead debating around the periphery against technicalities. So how about this - sanz support, 86 quotes: Business person's haven't traditionally made good presidents. Maybe it's something in their personality makeup or just something in the water. Go. 1. Yes I interpreted the Iacocca quote very literally. I still do...or did. I read his book this weekend: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Iacocca never made that statement. Tip O'Neil did as an advisor to Iacocca's presidential exploratory process. Do I still think that a decision today can affect profit and loss on that day? Yes. Am I business man? No. Does my belief that decisions don't exist in a vaccuum - but rather on a continuum, and therefore the decision-making can have a fairly immediate impact - originate from my lack of operational business experience? Maybe. But to say that that belief encapsulates the greater discussion, or that I'm not interested in a debate because I made claims that you don't agree with, is disingenuous, and suggests that you never were interested in contributing to any semblance of debate at the outset. It suggests that you were just looking for a straight-forward agreement or disagreement on the superficial statement itself. Ok. So what's with Tom telling me that I have little to no understanding of government when I spend 10 hours a day dealing with legislative politics (rhetorical - don't answer). It's demonstrative of the Chef Jim approach (hereinafter "CJ proposition")to this whole mess here. Really? Whether you simply don't agree with me on business or someone is out-and-out wrong, you long-arm that **** as a wholesale criticism? To Tom: Stay in your lane. Critique me on business. Fine. But there is no one on this site (that I've communicated with) who approaches my experience level with respect to the mechanics of government (especially as it concerns legislative politics). There is no one on this site who spends time on the Hill. There is no one on this site who spends hours a day reading constituent letters, finalizing bill briefings, and pro-conning legislative proposals for an individual who relies on that to represent a growing mid-western constituency. I'll leave it at that. Back to Jamie... 2. Pointing out that no business-man president was also a good president is a valid criticism. I mentioned that maybe there is a personality trait endemic to successful business-men which makes it difficult for them to also be effective politicians. Maybe it's for the same reason that NBA stars, on average, don't make great team executives. Who knows? But there is a quantifiable, metric driven claim there that begs to be explored further. This is so whether you and the peanut gallery like it or not. Your "criticisms" would be more meaningful if this wasn't such a monolithic place. Unfortunately, it is. So if you think the appeal to force is changing minds, it may be time for agonizing reappraisal of the whole scene. The CJ proposition put it best - this is your community so be on the bandwagon or get out. The proposition notwithstanding, I'll be here attacking paradigms and ruffling your tail feathers. Attack the methodology to avoid the substance. Attack the methodology to alienate. Attack the methodology as a way to insult. Have fun with that. Oh, well let me guess..."there is no substance; I'm 'trying' to be smart; it's wrong-headed....blah, blah, blah..." Ok. Jimmy Carter was a business man. He ran his family peanut farm and became very wealthy as a result. I believe that Carter's father was also a very wealthy man due to his operations as a peanut farmer. Carter had employees, overhead, equipment, expenses, etc. He was a business man who ran a successful and very profitable business operation. Carter was also a very bad president. Don't let the force of the peanut gallery convince you to speak wrongly. You are a community creator, but try as you may, there still remain apriori things that this group-think community can't corrupt. Yea, so my responses to Taro and Magox (who also responded oppositionally to my points) don't demonstrate an interest in other people's thoughts? Think again. Just like the Jimmy Carter thing...you're just making unsubstantiated "red-meat" points that run contrary to facts but are consistent with your thesis. I just attribute that to the CJ proposition. And if you you would have looked at my post in anything other than a superficial way, you'd notice that I mentioned politics "on a national level." Many of the ****ty presidents were successful state-wide. But being successful nationally is a different animal. So why would I look at at a variable that other ****ty presidents shared to distinguish him from those other ****ty presidents? He governed competently in Mass. Disco. W was a competent Texas governor. But thanks for mentioning how my topic could have been presented in a way that's acceptable to you. It's under advisement.

No I was laying a foundation for a claim that they may make bad presidents. I presented a few points, and was interested in getting some counter-examples. Noone, besides Magox, has made the point that characteristically career business folks have translatable political skills. No one has provided any examples of a successful business owner and president...in 200+ years. And that, Jauronimo, is why I'm laughing, though LABillzFan thinks that he is so entitled. But it all goes back to Chef Jim's point. None of this matters. OCinBuffalo said it months ago. Eh...nevermind. I haven't gotten an answer in 65 posts so I don't expect anything but the same forthcoming. Thanks Magox, Jauronimo, and Taro for the discussion. That's not, and never, was my thesis. There is no digging involved here. My point hasn't been addressed. You've proved that you fundamentally misunderstand what it is that I'm trying to discuss. And for the second or third time, what did you think of Iacocca's point? Oh, I get it, you make the rules so it doesn't matter. It "mattering" would disrupt what, to you, is a perfectly good hypothesis. The "spiraling," and "digging" hypothesis. Check. Gotcha. You've made your point - but not one that you likely intended. Rinse. Dry. Repeat. Have a good day folks.

I didn't describe anything. I made mention of an agreggate effects doctrine though. Your mention is entirely the opposite of how an aggregate effects scenario would operate in the context of executive decision-making. In short, a decision made today would absolutely affect the profit and loss on that day whether or not it was acknowledged on that day or not because of the frequency/method with which it's tabulated. The wheel's are in motion...so to speak. It's fine if you don't agree. I may be wrong; I'm not a business man. But I'm sticking with it because it makes sense conceptually. Fruitless discussion anyway. I'm not expecting any concessions from you - right or wrong. Chef Jim already explained how that works. Trust me toots, I'm the one laughing.