Juror#8

Nope the argument is actually solid. And every time someone makes comments like yours, nothing but superficial declaratives and inexpert valuations, it let's me know even more that my argument is actually fine and holding up well.

Take a picture folks. At least you had enough umph to acknowledge it. Nothing much you can do with that. There is no amount of reason that can ever overcome that. It's a self-contained theory unto itself. It's solipsism. It must be bliss. Good day.

They're all academics. You must think I mean that they were "professors." They were "academics" because they were scholarly, learned, well-educated, tended towards Ivy league, erudite, etc. Look at the definition of "academic," both noun and adjective if you're so inclined. Anyway - Neither Harding, Hoover, Carter, or W have stellar academic credentials. Hoover went to Stanford...the first year it opened. W, bucks the trend because of his alma maters but its really really really hard to call him an academic. In fact, I don't think that it's much of a reach to say that he benefitted from certain "institutional understandings." But they were all business men. And they were all horrible presidents.

Taro, A good summary. I'm not a business man, so your last paragraph is definitely instructive. Everyone else, I'm not saying that you're doing this, just that it's done here...and that is that one piece of a larger thought will be picked out and then the thread devolves into a discussion about that point. Someone separated out a superficial statement, that relates to something that Lee Iacocca said, which in no way encapsulates the thought in total, and in doing so missed the larger point that I was trying to make. Yes I agree with Iacocca's point. I think that he is correct. No matter if every board participant here - who also once moonlighted as a Fortune 50,000 business owner - tries to rationalize the point otherwise, I'll take it from the person who has ran several business which eclipse the scope of anyone's business background on this site. Tom, Jauromino, LA, Chef, UConn...wanna argue that? Good. Some semblance of agreement. Incidentally even without reliance on that singular quote, I would argue a cumulative/aggregate effect scenario wherein a decision made ON ONE DAY would affect the profit or loss ON THAT SAME DAY. It's the idea that all things financial exist on a continuum. And noone was conflating "announcement" with "decision." "Announcement" in that context was just one of a thousand different decisions that could have been used by way of example. Tom said a decision on one day couldn't affect such and such the same day. I countered by saying that if a CEO announced _______, that decision, that move, that activity could have profit and loss impact on that same day. But now that you know that you can't change my mind about whether or not a business decision made one day can change the profit and loss for that same day, any one else want to throw a few more thoughts, ideas, opinions, or insuls on THAT point so that we can re-direct back to the topic's full scope? The point that I was making about 2004 is that a guy who has many negatives on big issues is being insulated by the other side's quest to move so ideologically hard _____, such that they're putting themselves on an island, and the general election becomes a referendum on their hard_____ness, and the realities of the prior three years gets lost in a sea of complacency. This election is going to turn into Mitt Romney's comments about two social issues. And independents will choose the known quantity over that....despite the known quantities shortcomings. You can see it shaping up now...

Madison contributed greatly to the structural foundation of this country. The Bill of Rights owes a debt of gratitude to him as does the philosophical underpinnings of the entire Constitution. Jefferson was 20 times the academic than anything else. Wilson was a racist, but so was Henry Ford yet I drive a Cobra. ;-) And maybe "Birth of a Nation" was the original satire? We'll never know. Anyways, Wilson was also a visionary. Yea, the League of Nations was a flop, but he conceptualized an international group that could address problems diplomatically and pressure rogue nations through the use of sympathetic nation states. Pretty awesome stuff. What? Who said that? However an "announcement" is a "decision." And that type of decision would affect profit and loss THAT DAY. How about you stay up? If you can't just use smilies as your sole means of response and, at least, appear engaged. Think that through...

So what do you think of Iacocca's point? You may have run (and turned around) businesses comparable to Ford and Chrysler like he has. In that case, I may defer to you. Otherwise... So if a CEO decides to make a business-related announcement about a matter, that won't affect profits and losses that day? Think this through... You never made an argument to make a comparison. You threw around some insults and then talked about how Obama traveled a bunch as if that belies the point about Romney. Again, you never made an argument to make a comparison. Incidentally, I agree with you. Obama traveled a bunch and liberals construed that as cool and "worldly." So the !@#$ what? Lube up and give it another whirl. You buying drinks? All aboard mother!@#$ers!

Very good points and written by someone who obviously knows business. You possibly over-stated them. I don't care if he ran the government as a true conservative. I was relating that point back to the "locus" point.

I'll say that they can and they do. Daily. I'll agree to disagree though. You haven't once made a point, that when construed in the light most favorable to you, could be considered substantive. Shut your trap.

I'll take the former. And I'll wager that Iacocca has more political and business experience than us both.

1. Thomas Jefferson 2. Franklin Roosevelt 3. Teddy Roosevelt 4. James Madison 5. Woodrow Wilson ...

\ I really don't care that he has been faithful to his wife. My point had nothing to do about his nuclear family. You must have missed that. Oh you must be focusing on the "nothing about him..." language. Fair enough. Figured you would have understood the context...since everything previous to that in my post concerned Romney's Locus in Quo. I made two points: 1. Business persons haven't done well in national politics. 2. Academics largely have. You didn't contest either of those points. The only thing you did was bring up the uncontested, unchallenged, heretofore irrelevant point that there were people who were presidents who were neither academics or business persons. !@#$ing bravo!

Really folks.... Profit and loss, black and red, is acknowledged daily by the markets. A decision made today can have a deleterious impact, and tank what was a profit yesterday, by lunchtime. There are business-persons on this board right? I know we have an historian-in-residence at Oxford (Tom), an Executive Chef at the French Laundry (Chef Jim), and international traveler and independently wealthy film connoisseur(LABillzFan) but I was hoping that business folks could interject. Youre used to running a big corporation. When you make a decision in the morning, you either earn a profit that day or you dont. You cant run a government that way. It would drive you crazy. You wouldnt last a year. Youd have a heart attack because of the frustration. -Lee Iacocca (1988)

On your last point, I certainly agree. There are many intangibles, and I don't want to stereotype Romney into a category that doesn't take account of his uniquenesses and idiosyncratic distinctions. But there is something to be said for buiness-persons NOT doing well in national politics. And it has to make you wonder, is there an endemic quality or characteristic that successfull business persons have that doesn't translate well to national politics? There is a large sample to work from. VERY little success amongst business-persons. And if we get into their ability to WIN a political nomination, the success pool shrinks even further. Of course there are the Corzines and Rick Scotts, but there are many more Perots, Forbes, and Fiorinas.

How well did he govern...in your estimation? At any point from 03-07 did he govern to the left of his current policy proclamations....in your estimation? You know what, nevermind. You just want to sleep in the echo chamber...ensconced amongst the comfort of voices that sing your lullaby. Sleep love. I won't wake you. Huh? What? Where was that inferred? Did you come up with that from the many instances of me mentioning how he would operate AS PRESIDENT in my last post? So conceptually, how would that **** work? Some kinda weird European style run-off deal? You gonna answer the question or just buzz around it and move on to some other witty, but incongruent, point. Stop smearing **** jackass. Are you here to advance or muddle a debate? I want to discuss business attributes and whether or not they'll help or hurt a president. To that end, I provided some criticisms. You want to conflate this post with every other MR post ever written. LINK THE POST THAT LIKEWISE MENTIONS MY POINTS SO THAT I CAN DELETE THIS ONE FOR BEING DUPLICATIVE. Edited for tact.

If anyone remembers 2004, they'll realize that this 2012 campaign cycle is following a similar trend. The parallel is damn near exact. But I can address similarities later, if anyone cares to taste that particular vintage of wine. Concern# 1 - There is something that is not being discussed about Romney and his interest in leading this country. He is a business man. Was he a successfull businessman? Yes! But just like sports and athletics requires a discussion of an individual's skill and how well they translate to different levels, me thinks politics can benefit from a similar discussion. Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. Will that corporate characteristic, if true, be an impediment to Romney's and by extension, the country's, success? Lee Iaccoa thought so. Alright, so, where the !@#$ is Romney from again? Michigan, New Hampshire, Utah, Massachusetts? Does he really live anywhere? There was a time when the American upper class had roots to a community. Mitt Romney lives in some ruthless neo-cosmopolitan world where he has no roots or attachment to any particular community. Attachment to a community fosters a desire to improve the community. Romney has been so damn opportunistic that what he has gained in socio-economic stature, he has lost in connection, affiliation, familiarity, and membership. Romney is an automaton. He is a technocrat. Nothing about him bespeaks much in the way of allegiance. It shows in his equivocations (oops, evolutions) throughout his political history. I sincerely worry about that. On the topic of "evolutions," this new ad hurts: He's certainly not a Norwegian Telemark Raider. Leo Marks can tell you that. Concern #2 - business folks just don't seem to show well as President. Harding, Carter, Hoover, and W were pathetically bad presidents. H.W. wasn't "bad" but he wasn't memorable either - he was a one and done; this even though he had a successful war and a crumbling Berlin Wall on his side. I wonder if concerns #1 and #2 are related. I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level. Academics seem to do fairly well. Business owners, not so much. Can't seem to narrow this thought. It may require debate to focus it. Eh, just rantings I guess....

Counties in MD and VA were rich long before the current administration and will be wealthy long after. I remember when Fairfax and MoCo were top 3 and had been consistently for years. Now MoCo folks moved out to Howard for tax reasons and because 29 and 70 is easier to deal with than 495. Anyway, the money, like Tom mentioned, largely goes to government contractors of whom most are civilian. Software developers, IT folks, attorneys, etc. are working either directly or indirectly for CACI, Boeing, Bearingpoint, Lockheed, Northrop and Unisys etc. and they're getting paid $95+ an hour and mandatory overtime. That is all dedicated defense spending (pushed by the neo-cons during the 2000s) and it is directly benefitting a decidedly liberal community (MD is a VERY liberal state and VA has trended that direction with the ascendence of northern VA which, regionally, is very liberal). Someone once said to me that when someone REALLY has money, like REAL REAL money, they don't move to Manhattan or Beverly Hills....they move to Middleburg or Bethesda or Purcellville.

The last time we drafted for uber-specific, characteristic-defined positional need, rather than BPA at a position of need, we drafted James Hardy. We didn't draft him because we needed a wide receiver (otherwise why not Deshawn Jackson?). We drafted him because we needed a TALL wide receiver who had a penchant for catching tds in the redone and who played in inclement weather. It would suck to get Hardied again.

Whitney's version was the best that I've ever heard that beautiful song performed by voice. Best ever, though, was orchestral.

Not overtly political, but definitely in the ballpark considering the ongoing discussion about Congressional involvement in NCAA business. Not sure how many here follow college hoops but if so: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/opinion/09nocera.html?_r=2 The race aspect is an over-reach. Would love to hear opinions. PS: Still checking in. Private sector transition has been hectic. Two weeks without a sensationalized debate has been hard on a brotha though. I'm thinking of a witty Mitt Romney slight to get Magox wound up.

I thought you folks down in Tidewater wanted to be called 'BadNewz,' or 'BadNewz Kennels,' or 'Newport Nightly Newz at 5' or some other such reference to the local crime reporting there. My sister is in the Navy stationed in Norfolk. She seems fond of calling it BadNewz.

Good point. And it goes to your initial point about my politics. I believe that we, as a country, have an obligation to ensure the basic subsistence of our fellow citizens - nothing extravagant, just food and shelter. I feel that way for myriad reasons (that was discussed vehemently in a past thread). Some people may take that subsistence money and get their hair done, or buy a 40; but it represents an amount that theoretically should only facilitate the payment of essential subsistence items - food, shelter, clothes. Where I draw the line is when monies are being redistributed arbitrarily, and are, by their very nature, designed to fund non-essential commodity spending. I know that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance in those ideas. But they're oddly reconciliable. It's kind of like pro-2nd Amendment people *generally speaking* are constitutional literalists who don't recognize a role for an activist judiciary. A consistutional functionalist is generally more activist, more historically interpretive, and have a considerably more constrained view of 2nd amendment protections. A literalist would hate Griswold v. Connecticut, the functionalist loves it. But they overlap in that Griswold both ensures that, theoretically, gun ownership is protected and held inviolate, and that the functionalist can indulge her intemperance and debaucherous proclivities. And that appropriately defines politics' hinterlands - an odd affair between guns and orgies. Damn, what was the point again...

I guess I can see how it incentivizes work, but there are also those who work to EITC limits, stop working, and then basically receive a bonus check for having worked at some point during the year. Work should be it's own incentive. But I also understand that EITC is preferable to full scale tax-payer subsistence. And though it is payout capped, $3000 - $5700 is not a small amount. The whole thing just seems busted and broken: people work so that they can get a bonus check for having worked below a threshhold amount; single middle-class Americans can't qualify for any public assistance because they make too much, can't qualify for tax credits because they make too much, but get peanuts back of what they pay in to the Federal treasure chest annually - as if they're penalized for being single and not having 8 kids and buying a home impulsively; folks can qualify for EITC AND housing, food, and cash assistance; housing, food, and cash assistance doesn't offset their EITC monies nor does their EITC monies affect their ability to receive federal/state aid.... It just seems arbitrary. The whole system is reactionary. I can understand subsistence, but when you take money from one person, and redistribute it to provide, what amounts to, an arbitrary and tax free financial contribution to another, it resembles....well.... Nevermind. It's just BS.

And the 40 acres. YOU PEOPLE conveniently forget the 40 acres. For some reason your post reminded me of my second favorite article from the Onion. It's an oldie but a goodie: http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-urge-minorities-to-get-out-and-vote-on,1241/

Exactly. It's amazing that this isn't a bigger point of contention. I think that the group that makes up a significant portion of the Democratic base, middle-class skilled and un-skilled labor, are actually voting against their economic self-interests by voting for democrats and democratic fiscal policies. Why won't a candidate just say: "Look, does this **** make sense.....your tax dollars just paid for some woman who doesn't make much less than you, to have a $5,500 bonus check and she went and bought a new living room set and a small mule." WTF! But then again, I don't see anyone, D or R, crusading against the EIC. That's disappointing. Edit: Michelle Bachmann was very against EIC.