Juror#8

No it's not. I said that I "wasn't sure" how sound the science was. I cursorily read the findings - but probably more throroughly than most. It appears sound and verifiable. Your analogy presumes that I'm ignoring demonstrable evidence that is evident even prima facie. So, bad analogy. Basically I look at everything through a unique lens. I don't know, nor have I taken the time to determine if: -the study has been tested -the technique that they used has been subjected to peer review -rate of error -scientific acceptance within the community -level of scrutiny Not knowing those things, I "don't know how sound the science is." That is just being fair. The "seat of the pants" review seems solid and verifiable and reasonable and believeable. But I'm not going to formally acknowledge something that I haven't scrutinized almost categorically and certainly more than in a "seat of the pants" way.

Yes, as amended. If you do a simple Google search, you'll find the same data in support. Not sure how sound the science is, but I've read it enough, and from enough divergent sources, to believe that there is merit to it. I really do feel that there is a fundamental difference between giving to an organization that you have fellowship with and consider yourself amongst the community, and giving to organizations with whom you have absolutely no affiliation and expect absolutely no social contact with subsequently. Big difference. Both are awesome and serve a wonderful purpose. I think that one just evidences a greater sincerity because of the lack of convenience and affiliation. This is from someone who has not donated to private charities. (awaiting the "comfortability" point - and how some people feel more comfortable giving money to familiar faces) And with that in mind, anonymous giving is going to be difficult to account for. I can't imagine that church-orientated charitable donations have as much anonymous giving than does unrelated-type donations just because of their respective contexts. A lot of assumptions here...but I think that they're grounded in common sense. I was careful to say that I wasn't aware of another study. And I wasn't aware of the "Brooks study." I'm definitely interested in reading this though. Apologies for getting off topic. Just making a quick point. Don't want to turn this nuanced point into a political schit storm.

Look at this secularly, the numbers lean left. Secondly, the only way that I know that this study has been performed is on a "red state" and "blue state" comparison. That's somewhat unscientific. Personally I think that conservatives are equally as compassionate as liberals. Liberals who say that conservatives are heartless are stupid. Conservatives who say that they give more to charity are misleading. Just trying to square that a bit.

Apropos of the bolded point above, do you have any data concerning who remains in a continuous welfare cycle? I know that you're not making an assertion with respect to numbers but I'd be interested to know if you have any metrics or are simply relying on anecdotal data.

Firstly, great post. I have some issues with a few points (discussed below), but definitely a lot of food for thought. I bolded the sentence above because it seems to be the biggest point of contention. No less than four posters (You, GG, DCTom, and 3rdnlng), have mentioned the "risk" issue as if it were dispositive. I just feel that techincally that is what taxpayers do. They collectively subsidize a system, that they may or may not use, and that provides a benefit to them if "bad luck befalls them." The only difference is the variety in premium payments. But with some health insurance plans, especially employer-based health insurance, there is one set amount paid - nothwithstanding risk assessment or age. To be sure, my best friend has Kaiser Permanente for his health insurance. They pay 50.75 every two weeks for "single" employee health insurance. This amount is set, irrespective of risk factors. Every employee pays it who wants it. Where is the determination of risk? There is no "risk pool" there. There may have been some complicated actuarial analysis done that determined that risk is sufficiently extenuated at _____ amount for every person. But fuctionally, there was no "risk pool" that he pays into. There was no individual analysis done, nor is there an individual risk analysis undertaken for any of his fellow employees. He pays the same amount that every other "single" employee pays to have health coverage in the event that "bad luck befalls [him]." In effect, his $50.75 he pays to Kaiser is no different than the $94.00 that he pays bi-weekely to help subsidize the social welfare system. My guess is that the same cursory (comparatively speaking) analysis took place to determine maintaining the solvency of the Public Welfare system. There is no individual risk assessment - just a determination of how many are on the rolls, how many have come off, the annual fluctuations and how much money is required to account for everyone. And as an aside, how can an Unemployment System quantifiably determine a propensity for being unemployed without running into some interesting constitutional legal challenges - especially if every state, dispensing federal monies, would have different criteria for what everyone pays based on debatably arbitrary personal history characteristics? Don't worry, in fairness, I can also see the italicized paragraph in a light more favorable to your position. On to your insurance point, just like you can avoid driving, and not have to pay automobile insurance, you can also not work, and avoid subsidizing the Public Welfare system. Both are not plausible for the majority of Americans. And before you respond with, "you can still receive public welfare benefits if you don't work, whereas if you don't pay for automobile insurance the benefit evaporates," know that that wouldn't be an accurate statement (as I've mentioned in previous posts). People are fond of mentioning the ineffectiveness of the "look-for-a-job" provisions in many public welfare plans. That's all fine and dandy. The more pointed criteria is, though, the provisions that place time limits on how long you can receive public welfare subsidies or that mandate repayment. So could you benefit for a time without "paying in"? Sure. Will you have to work at some point and effectively subsidize the system retrospectively, yes. So are there differences? Sure. Is the parallel exact? No. But is the calculated objective of any analogy to shadow its comparative counterpart? No. There are enough similarities that my claim wouldn't get dismissed on summary judgment. And I'm content arguing within the margins of that. I think here you're arguing a point different than for the reason it was advanced and in a way that I don't entirely disagree with. My mention of Federal Student Loans was as a quick reference bemoaning my experience with people who lament the welfare state as they're in line waiting on their student loan refund check so that they can buy a new vehicle. You mentioned that people have to pay back student loans [paraphrasing]. I questioned that and introduced data in support. I also suggested that most who received public welfare subsidies "pay it back." Now you're arguing the merits of federal government inclusion into traditionally private commercial spaces such as lending. Since that was never a point of contention between us, I'm only going to address it cursorily. That is to say, I agree with you: The Feddy Gov should be loathe to enter into lending, especially mortgage lending. It's not their place. Technically, I don't see where I-8-XVIII empowers it (as an attorney, you see where I'm going with that). But then again, they can always fall back on Wickard. As mentioned above, it's not just about the "look for work" provisions.Truthfully, it goes beyond that. Unemployed can't turn down a job offer and still continue receiving benefits. Most importantly, there are time limits on how long they can accrue benefits. If government doesn't do it, who will? That is an argument that has spanned this country's history. There are so many instances where **** is going so wrong and the only organization centralized enough, or willing enough, to do anything, is the government. The Body Politic is too stupid, or too complacent to do anything about it en masse (which is what is required to effectuate change). If we left things up to the people, I'd still be drinking out of negro water fountains, and 1/3 of the population would have dysentery. I'm a conservative. I tend to lean Republican (Clinton, Bush, Bush, write-in, probably Huntsman write-in) but I'm also a realist. And the reality of the situation is that the government became so empowered because of individual innaction. And a governmental devolution from these things will leave a power vaccuum that no individual/private group will likely fill in to address. Why? Because when vox populi had the chance to preemptively deal with the management of these sociological considerations, they didn't. So why would they take the iniative now when government bereaucratized it, exacerbated it, and [though managing it] fu(ked it all up? So there has to be a middle-ground between these two things (innaction and inexpert inefficiency). Until then, I'll be a conservative who believes in government intervention to manage domestic concerns that require too much coordination for any private entity to willingly undertake. There are analagous instances throughout history. If the government further degrades an abjectly impoverished class by not providing them any level of sustenance, it will result in a permanent sub-class of folks who will not operate within the established legal framework because that is the same institution that endeavored to forget them. 1. I've discussed the "unemployment insurance" thing above. 2. Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme. Raising the cap some will ensure solvency. 3. Yes, the system sucks. Something needs to be done about it. We agree there. I'm just not sure what the solution is.

There ya go again...I never used "healthcare, insurance..." et cetera, as "justification" for why we need to continue healthcare. My justification was simple and can be found on the initial pages of this thread. In brief, the "justifications" were humanity and in an effort to avert a sociological catastrophe. What you mis-characterized as "justification" (because of your edit, and your demonstrated discourteousness towards nouns, participles, and edit) was simply an analogy so that insert interlocutor here would be forced to techincally distinguish between an accepted practice and a disparaged policy. If I had have used "healthcare, insurance....blah, blah..." as a justification, it would have been presently thusly: "Welfare is necessary because insurance follows the same formula." That was never my argument. I never said that/mentioned that in that construction. So there you go conflating one thing for another in an effort to appear to add something meaningful to the discussion. Of course you didn't, per usual. Edit - [but I'll retain] - drunkard in an early Irish novel (quick, catch the reference). You're wrong, per usual. A forgotten fact here is that in the post where I analogized welfare and private insurance, that was but a small piece of a MUCH LARGER POST. Everything else that I mentioned there was ignored, and the most controvertial component highlighted, as if that analogy was somehow thematic of the entire thought. It wasn't. It doesn't encapsulate my thoughts on the matter and you would do well to read that entire post (if you haven't already) instead of debating truncated versions. I believe that you generally engage these types of endeavors in a more perfunctory way, but I thought I'd at least ask. Unfortunately, you've demonstrated nothing that says that you can debate cogently for any appreciable amount of time. You're kind of like fireworks, a semi-brilliant display, but forgotten by morning. I think that I'm going to turn my attention to those who can debate a position honestly, and without all the histrionics. I've pounded you Castrato, in thread after thread. In some cases you just let the thread fade into oblivion because I've dismantled you - the entirety of you - so categorically (see the "Mitt is a..." thread and the "Roosevelt" thread). I leave you with questions that you can't answer, positions that you can't argue, and characterizations that you can't dodge. Then you prevert (quick, catch the reference) those points into some grotesque thing that has lost all form and shape and isn't worthy of debating in any true intellectual sense. My dad would always say, "if you debate with an idiot, any objective observer will be asking, 'whose the idiot.'" I'll leave you to your idiocy. There was NEVER a "straw man." I categorically deny that. I argued your position as I understood it. You made a blanket statement suggesting that[paraphrasing]: "Because welfare has continued institutionally for 180 years....the system must not have worked/be working/is broken." I responded with the starfish analogy. In effect, it worked for some. You talk about the "massive problems that it exacerbates, and causes to be ignored." But when pressed about that, you responded with [paraphrasing]: 1. Your experience with your school lunch program. 2. How it demoralizes folks. 3. That they're prioritizing survival over dignity (which is the single most idiotic thing that I've ever heard anyone say that wasn't purposefully comedic, or the product of some polemicist rant). You haven't even supported this claim of "generational debilitation." Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Just because there is an echo chamber that agrees with you, amongst predominately anti-welfare posters, doesn't make it so. And NO, Social Security would not cover those disabilities based on how I presented it. I should know, because I presented the hypothetical. I should know also, because I know the legislation. The hypothetical didn't give enough detail to make that determination. This shows your poor command of policy, and fundamental issues with reading comprehension that standardized testing obviously did not address. For all the reasons that I've stated, I'll just reference this post for all future correspondence with you.

Huh? "Bushbad"? When did I mention that? I asked you a very simple question and you responded with a diatribe wildly hurling accusations. When did I "immediately go Bushbad"? This is what I have always criticized about you and why I find it difficult, at times, to take you seriously. You're obviously an intelligent mother!@#$er, but you have no "off" switch which allows you to approach conversations squarely and without hyperbole and presumption. You, again, took a question that I asked, didn't answer it, however created your own interpretation, and then argued against what you interpreted me to have been saying. You're arguing with yourself.....again. Though you hate it, and try to preemptively diffuse these in later posts, I'll say again, you're arguing a straw man Straw man: "is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." If I'm wrong about you and "straw men" prove it now instead of playing the cutsie referencing game later. Prove it. The gauntlet is there. If you want to have square debate, let me know. Otherwise, keep manufacturing positions to attack.

I havent had a chance to look that phrase up yet...but I will. I actually did argue the point 100% in it's entirety. Initially I just mentioned the superficial comparison. After that, I discussed the comparison in a bit more detail. Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you contend that private insurance endeavors to minimize risk whereas the welfare system invites risk. I contend that welfare doesn't invite risk...anymore than private insurance does. Preliminarily, the welfare system may be less interested (vis-a-vis private insurance) in the level of attendant risk. However, there are tons of measures, tools, and qualifiers used to distill down eligible recipients versus everyone else. Then, once an individual has received welfare benefits, they're saddled with re-evaluations, criteria, and contingencies aimed at removing the riskiest subset from the welfare roles (e.g., those who are not actively trying to work; those who can qualify for medicare, social security, et cetera; those who have a demonstrable ability to pay...). In this way, welfare operates very similiarly to private insurance. So not only does the subsidy schema operate analagously, but the logistical element of identifying imbalanced risk and maintaining solvency by eliminating or excluding that risk operates somewhat similarly as well.

I understand your point that governments don't eliminate the risk class in the same way that insurance companies do. However, they do minimize their risk class (or for purposes of "welfare," we'll say "dependency class") through benefit caps and many of the other tools that I mentioned in my original post. Also (though I understand that nuances can't be dismissed) there is still a parallel with respect to the functional operation of the welfare and insurance mechanisms. Case in point: If you crash your brand new 7 series BMW, you'll get the fmv paid to you - whether or not you paid that in premiums. In that one single instance, that $50,000 represents a windfall to you, that other similarly situated insureds will subsidize ("on their backs," if you will), solely for your benefit. That is my only point.

Excellent post and I see where you're going with it. To be fair though, you may be approaching it in a slightly more nuanced way than the analogy demands. The point that I am making is that functionally (even if not entirely technically) they operate the same way. The little that I know about the field is this: In exchange for a premium, the insurer will pay money in the event that an articulated contingency happens. The insurer is able to offer the protection by pooling risks from a larger group of similarly situated folks. The law of probability says that only a small fraction of the pooled group will need even a modicum of the aggregate amount paid in. If the articulated contingency arises, the impact of payout is absorbed by the even larger amount of premiums paid in. The point that I was making is that welfare, like automobile insurance, follows this arrangement, and operates in this way. Within the minutia, there are tons of differences. That is why I used "if" in my hypotheticals (e.g., "IF _____ remains insured..." et cetera). My goal was to distinguish where appropriate but maintain the broader point of comparison. And there is a strong point of comparison.

What do you mean?

This is what I devoted that entire first section too (an admittedly loooong section - so I wouldn't be offended if no one read it). Most folks pay or have paid at one point through the imposition of taxes. And the vast majority of those who pay any premiums for anything are paying for someone else at the higher end of the risk pool - whether it be commercial or governmental; auto insurance, or cash assistance. They operate the same way.

How do they operate differently?

Let's do this... 1. For one thing, "handout," implies something being "given away." What can you demonstrate quantitatively that supports this? Federal welfare dollars is a function of aggregated taxpayer subsidy. The taxpayer subsidy is comprised of deductions from working folks' gross income. Gross income is achieved by folks working a job. Therefore, working folks pay into a system that they may need to draw from at a later date. If people have paid into something, and then receive benefit or a dividend from that aggregate pool which they paid into consistent with pre-established criteria that everyone was aware of at the outset of the arrangement, can there, by definition, be a handout? To be sure, do you receive a "handout" if you crash your vehicle, receive a $5,000 check AFTER you've only been with the insurance company for 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years? That wouldn't be a "handout" would it? Do you receive a "handout" if you break you leg, require $10,000 in hospital bills that your insurance company begrudgingly pays, even after you've only paid $2,000 in premiums? Those aren't "handouts." It's better classified as an "entitlement program," that you benefit from because you worked and paid into something without knowing prospectively if you'd ever receive the fruits of your payments. That risk, and the subsequent need, justified the renumeration. It's also called acceptable and calculated risk, that for the company, or, apropos to our discussion, the Government, has likely amortized and mitigated in some complicated fashion throughout many decades and trillions of tax dollars. So you're thinking, "you're presuming that these folks worked at some point." Well, allow me to retort: you presume that they haven't worked at some point. I have the strength of numbers on my side. More people in this country have worked AT SOME POINT, then have not worked EVER. What can you provide that supports the thesis (that you impliedly advanced)that the folks receiving welfare benefits have never worked? And absent your ability to provide that data, how do you differentiate between welfare payout and automobile insurance payout? And if we assume that they have worked AT SOME POINT, and consequently paid taxes, what's wrong with them realizing the value of their investment? Some people realize the value, some people don't. It's a circumstance driven thing. What the ufck is the problem? So again I ask, absent your ability to provide that data, how do you differentiate between welfare payout and automobile insurance payout? You can't. Well, I take that back...you may have one play....time. Welfare pays out over an extended period, whereas automobile insurance generally pays out one time. Or does it? How many accidents have you been in? IF you remain insured, does your insurance company refuse to pay you in the event of an second, third, or fourth accident. Nope. They don't. So nevermind, I don't think that you have a play. Can you prove me wrong? 2. But let's just assume that I didn't mention anything above. I can approach this from a different direction: You said: "there is a fundamental difference between borrowing money you're going to pay back with interest, and getting a handout." Really? Is there really that big a difference between welfare and student loans (with respect to your bolded point above)? Student loan default rate is at almost 9% and rising (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/default-rates-rise-federal-student-loans). That doesn't into account folks who have deferred their loan payments indefinitely due to financial hardship. Do you think that William D. Ford will ever see the entirety of that $________ loan that he so graciously lent? Answer: No. And not only is that common knowledge, but even the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT knows it and even codifed the **** with the Income Based Repayment option: http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/IBRPlan.jsp Pay for 25 years, the rest of you shizit is cancelled. So really now....is there really an appreciable difference, other than in principle? 3. Fu_k it, I'll approach this a third way. I can even make the case that there isn't an "in principle" difference. Many of the public welfare programs have an accompanying "look-for-work" provision. There are time limits in many states as an attendant check. Cash assistance in many states require "pay back in full." Section 8 in many states requires actively maintaining a job and limits on occupants (effectively paying back the subsidizing agent). Food stamps, in many states, have time limits (though admittedly very few states enforce this). So when you consider the situation functionally and principally, is there really that huge of a chasm between Federal Student Loans and "traditional" welfare (incidentally, Student Loans is a "welfare" program)? I renew my points from my original post. 1. How are government welfare programs "flawed by their very nature"? 2. This is going to be an anachronistic response - because your response that I'm actually addressing didn't exist at the time that you wrote what I'm quoting above (that reminds me of that flash forward to Brad Pitt's monologue in "Fight Club" btw - not that you care) - but....I know what "narrowly tailored" is. I'm used to using it in some protracted "strict scrutiny" analysis on a judicial review point, but I know what it is. You didn't catch my L1 point, which answers a question and means that I was incorrect in an assumption. As an aside: I have this !@#$ed up idea that only certain folks use certain verbiage. It's very stereotypical and fallacious. Silly me. 3. Absolutist government power - yes. It has to do with a cyclical political ecosystem that, while profoundly "slippery-slopish," seems to bear fruit. And that cyclical arrangement is the reason that on the farthest right, there are also hints of the farthest left (e.g., "purist libertarians" from a political alignment standpoint tend to lean republican, however they also typically advocate no government incursion into social items like choice, expression, marriage [traditionally considered democratic tenants]). Throughout history there are regimes, countries, nations that have evolved thusly: The government begins to legislate, tax, enforce, items that are not accepted by vox populi. As a result a burgeoning sentiment of government push-back develops. That sentiment is sometimes codified and becomes a political entity or it percolates amongst the citizenry. The government either scales back through representative government, or it develops a stronger presence to monitor and quell opposition and revolt. In the latter instance, the percolating sentiment bubbles over (in time) predicating an transformational political shift, usually towards a less centralized presence - in response to the characteristics of the previous regime in its latter stages of existence. The more localized government is cool for a while....until Canadians stage mini-sieges on the northern border and people can't trust that there food from England isn't being delivered replete with e-coli. A plan for a centralized government forms to handle these eventualities, the coordination of territories, logistics, and the growing presence of factions (Let's go James Madison). That government grows, adafts, shifts, changes with the international realties and cultural viccissitudes. It becomes the monster that it was aimed at defeating. So then.... this new government begins to legislate, tax, enforce, items that are not accepted by vox populi. As a result a burgeoning sentiment of government push-back develops. That sentiment is sometimes codified and becomes a political entity or it percolates amongst the citizenry..... Need proof - look at this country from England to now. We're in the circle. The removal of fundamental public welfare programs will just expedite the cycle. I'll acknowledge that what I'm saying exists in the realm of the theoretical....but only because it hasn't happened in this country. If you, however, replace " federal government" with "monarchy," or with "dictatorship," you'll see that analagous historical instances exist. 1. The "you guys" comment is still bothersome. It's seems dismissive and stereotypical, but it's cool. 2. I addressed the "audacity to work" thing above. Provide the metrics, then we'll talk. Otherwise, people, at one point or another, paid into something. There was a "meeting of the minds." There arrangement was bilateral. Their only "audacity," is the audacity to expect that that system will be solvent enough to provide recompense. 3. Debt, yes. Solvency, a problem. So, what's your solution? Let me guess: "just cut the cord," right? Short, sweet, profoundly naive and decidedly ineffective. Gotcha.

He was like a man playing against trolls. His performance last night reminded me of early 2000s Shaq and what he used to do to Eric Dampier and to the Nets' Jason Collins during the 2001 finals. It was absolute dominance. It would be hard to be mad about a Justin Blackmon pick...though I would rather trade up for a QB.

In the interest of setting ground rules before I respond to the rest of your post, who are the "you guys" to whom you refer? Secondly..."narrowly tailored" huh? Taking it back to L1. That's cool, we can plug into that.

Can't speak for liberals, but I think I can speak for nationalists with respect to your question. Have you ever been to Dubai? If yes, res ipsa loquitur. If no, then you should go, and after you get over that simultaneous feeling of awe and disgust, it will be obvious why many in the U.S. like electric cars.

Do you think that Bush, in 2009, handed over the country in great, good, neutral, mediocre, or terrible economic condition? Just interested in knowing?

Don't take things too personally. There are some wolves in here who know their stuff. Interestingly enough, it's the ones who insult the most who seem to stand on strong intellectual footing. I use to think that that idea was in conflict, but here it's not. Folks here want you to prove that you have something to offer to the community and don't give two ***** about you if you can't demonstrate that in a meaningful way. Once you prove that you're not a charlatan, or a dolt, they seem to back off....some - at least enough to make your stay here not feel so uncomfortable. I was able to understand this point, despite my racial handicap. I believe that you can too. I think that the perspective that you offer is refreshing and helpful to advance the debate, even if it doesn't necessarily line up with mine. I'm one for the dialectic so we'll always be on good terms no matter what you think politically. Some very good advice that I received when I began posting here (please ignore the timestamps):

It took you 5 days to respond and this is what you've come up with? Your first construction is telling me why I should just accept your contention sight unseen. Your second construction is trying to tell me about the dangers of confusing welfare and social security. Where, oh where, did I EVER mention social security or reference the numbers 6 or 2 or 5 or 1/2 in a close enough arrangement for your confusion to be justified? Oh....I get it...you're trying to be cute, by referencing the infinitesimally small amount of folks [comparatively speaking] who qualify for Social Security's disability provision. What you don't seem to comprehend though (since you don't have as thorough an understanding of the Act as me legislatively ;-)) is that even the disability provision requires recent and sufficient work history for qualification. So...what does that have to do with the posts of mine that you quoted so confidently? When did I say that the hungry "disabled" folks, whom I referenced in my last post, after 5 years of faithful service lost their Subway gig within the last couple of years because they fell off a ladder? Or maybe you had a different reason for your social security reference? Lastly, the "180 year" thing is somewhat fallacious because it doesn't take into account someone's individual circumstances. There are PLENTY of people who used welfare as an interim condition to get back on solid footing. Just because welfare conceptually has been in existence for ____ years, doesn't mean that it has failed in the execution of it's goals for individuals. Your "180 year" thing presumes no natural matriculation or life cycle of any thing or any one. Ok, my New Year's resolution is to not use any insults while debating. My original post was considerably more piquant, but I amended it to be more in line with the new and improved Juror#8. S Some of my post will not read as fluidly because it was originally constructed with an occassional nippy insult (and subsequently amended). Hopefully the bright, sunny, optimistic context rings through.

Unfortunately too many on this board have the same mindset. "Oh the pretty draft pics....the draft pics...they fill holes...we can't wager these valuable hole fillers." Here is a different spin - in 12 years, this team has meaningfully traded up twice (for Poz and McCargo). Neither instance was for a player that has the reward potential of a QB. We have drafted at the designated, pre-allocated spot easily 90% of the time. What have those pre-allocated, status quo ante, draft selections gotten this team in terms of wins and losses? In business, investments, and yes, even in sports, it's the risk takers who run the table. The yellow-bellied, intimidated, status quo bunch get walked on. Risk takers lose plenty too, but generally they experience either significant lows or significant successes because of the strategies' boom/bust arrangement. Interesting thing is, though, that their successes are sustained, and their lows can be as short-lived as the next calculated risk. Everyone else remains on this long-winded, protracted, sustained ebb or low-degree incline waiting for the right confluence of events to happen.

+1 The guy is a lot of things - his promises of a new direction haven't come to fruition and we'd be better served under more moderate (preferably right-of-center) Executive leadership. But he is not an unabashed socialist. The point that I was getting at earlier is that many of the policy initiatives that he has championed (and consequently labeled as a "socialist" for), were at one point or another suggested, proposed, or undertaken by a Republican politician or administration. Not all, but many. There is so much ideological conflation amongst politicians that it's sickening. The greatest thing is is that politicians have convinced ordinary folks that there is a cat spit worth of difference between D and R. "It's bad when 'D' does it, distinguishable when 'R' does it." It's "socialist" when 'D' does it, and compromise or when 'R' does it. Oh well. LMAO!

I knew you were a !@#$ing attorney!

You're funny with this "the evidence clearly shows" bs. You've found some term, tried to make it a pejorative, and are now throwing it around as if it's an exact science. I ask you for a simple !@#$ing thing...one simple request, and you can't oblige that with an equally straight-forward response. You respond back with all this bull **** about "the whole world knows that what's his face is such and such and if you don't get it...balh...blah...blah...." That's such a weasel-ass, yellow-bellied response. You make us conservatives look bad. You have to be able to articulate your position, be ready to support it, and not just make declarative statements that rely on the strength of................................the declarative statement. I would love to see you debate one of those sweetie pies in DuPont Circle. They would eat you alive intellectually and then ask you out on a date. At least I now know one thing about you; you have no !@#$ing nuts - like il Castrato. Sing for me castrati. I'll leave it there. You're wasting my time. You won't answer my questions and you keep going with this schtik. Get some sleep. I don't expect you to support to schit. The only thing that I hoped that you would do was debate honestly the points that I've already raised in response to your regurgitated mess above. "Destroying the humanity of entire extended families...," really? Did you get this schit from the Hindenburg narrative? You can't deal with the paradox created by your assertion that the abjectly impoverished, the enfeebled, the handicapped, and the psychologically incapable should avoid welfare (and in that context taxpayer subsidized food, water, shelter) in order to promote dignity and self-worth even if they kick the bucket as a result. So in order to avoid the paradox, you attenuate your contention by discussing the effects on the !@#$ing extended families. Oh wow. That's !@#$ing brilliant castrato.

Here we go again. This guy never learns. Sigh... You essentially spent a few minutes of your time saying nothing in the above paragraphs. I ask a simple question, and you can't dignify it with a response that can be taken seriously by any non-developmentally challenged adult. I'll try to make this easy for you: Which of Obama's policies are socialist? Obamacare? Stimulus? Which? And why? Most importantly...from an ideological standpoint, does advocacy of these programs characterize one as a socialist (as you suggested)? Now I want you to be careful and think it through. You've already backtracked from your suggestion that *he* is a socialist. Try to get some firm footing, take a position, avoid equivocating, and take a !@#$ing stand. You didn't "hammer" anything. I wish you would have. At least then I would have felt as if responding to you represented a semblance of challenge instead of constantly feeling like I'm doing you a favor and then having that feeling confirmed with your subsequent posts. You didn't "hammer;" you didn't even purposefully tap. You kinda nudged me....but in that sensitive way that a woman does a couple days before she is to menustrate and, overcome by hormonal shifts, wants a lay. I gave you a lay. A good one. I'll give you more. Just keep nudging. For your edification - I asked you for clairification as to your assumptions on welfare (otherwise, please explain the "Correct me if I'm wrong" request). Absent clarification or mention to the contrary, and without the benefit of your contribution, I felt_____ way. You, consistent with your bastardization of facts and desire to argue with yourself, rebutted an ADMITTED presumption (which is fine) but did so as if you were arguing a dispositive point (see where I destroyed you on this before: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__40). Anyone, anyone, can re-read this and understand this patently simple arrangement. If you feel such and such a way. Great. My VERY MUCH conditioned statement evaporates on the strength of the very condition itself that I, myself, imposed. Again, it's called intellectual fairness. Oh, but you did some "hammerin" didn't you? *Teehee* Silly wabbit. Post 64: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60'>http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60'>http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60 I've already addressed this in a previous thread (reproduced above). Here is my exact quote: You can say it over and over again. Doesn't change the fact that you employ straw men tactics. You're fond of changing the nature of the conversation or bastardizing an argument, and then arguing the point that you, yourself, created. I can point out instance, after, instance where you've done this. But then, anyone can read through the referenced post above or probably many of your posts previous to my arrival here and find such tactics employed by you. You "ignore it" because you have no meaningful response. I quote your words (YOUR WORDS) in context, point out the fallacy, and then you usually shut up because you can't argue with yourself twice. But then you wait a few posts until the conversation has evolved, and point out the fact that you were called out for being fallacious, as if the act of pointing out logical fallacies is somehow a fallacy. How about this hotshot - address the outstanding accusations lodged against you of logical discord in myriad threads and posts, then when you've demonstrated that you haven't done what I've said you've done, I won't reference them because you will have proven them untrue. Up to this point, when the weight of your bull **** was upon you, you've responded thusly: [Paraphrasing] "This is just one big hazing. Lighten up." See: Post #80 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60 Oh well, disco. "Clear and convincing" my ass. You offered an opinion. I can respect that you've opined. But you, sir, don't have a monopoly on "right." The reader determines whose position is more convincing. Apropos: Nothing that you've said addresses one incontrovertable economic reality: there are not enough jobs for the skilled, educated, and experienced workers - those who *typically* find the job search easier. There are considerably less jobs than job seekers (http://stateofworkingamerica.org/great-recession/the-job-shortage/). Apropos, skilled labor force are flocking to unskilled jobs en masse because of the dearth of opportunities in their industry of choice( http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_10/b4218014902482.htm) That trend filters downhill and ultimately impacts the profoundly unskilled who find themselves in dogged competition with those more qualified for opportunities in the most modest of employment areas. So your thesis above conspicuously misses a fundamental point. And in your effort to ascribe psychological traits to the down-trodden and construe "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" in the most liberal way possible, you miss a basic truism that is required for people to even have a psychology to analyze, a morale to esteem, and a "need" to fulfill: They have to eat. And that very necessary "need" is not going to be fulfilled within the constraints of the current economic atmosphere. Because there are not enough jobs to to allow people to be self-sufficient in this current economic context. So even if everyone wanted to be self-sufficient and independent, and get their localized manifest destiny on, they would be punked by eligible spaces with which to be resourceful and accomplish that. It's like life's fun little game of musical chairs. So what now? If there are NO jobs for them to be able to fulfill their "4 other basic human needs," and according to you welfare shouldn't be an option in the interim(for the reasons you've expressed), what's the end game and how do they eat? Your thesis entirely misses this issue. It doesn't even feign acknowledgement of it. That is one of the reasons that you can't be taken seriously. You waxed poetically about your command of a subject matter that you couldn't even pretend to understand the nuances of. I couldn't even yell to you that you're not on my level because you wouldn't hear me from the shithole beneath me that you're residing in. So what now? There HAS TO BE an interim sustenance strategy because this country doesn't have a job economy where there are enough opportunities for everyone to work, be fruitful, and add value - even if everyone wanted to work, be fruitful, and add value. There will always be people left out of the equation - notwithstanding their individual effort or initiative. That fact right there decks your thesis and causes it to fall flat on its face. In reading your point a third time you seem to be suggesting that people should prioritize some nebulous concept of "self worth," or some other "need" over basic survival. So they should starve in their efforts not to starve with dignity, and panache? Interesting analysis. A bit self-defeating; but then again it was contrived by you - so it doesn't come as a surprise. The second point, which I haven't even begun discussing yet, is what about those who are entirely unable to work due to incapacity, handicap, developmental issues, psychological restrictions, etc? What about them? Should they make their legs walk? Should they take their two fingers and extingusish the synapse misfire so that they can stop thinking that their Big Mac is trying to have a conversation with them about the McFlurry being the real D.B. Cooper? All in an effort to be self-sufficient and not over-emphasize survival by relying on a public welfare system? By the way - you keep talking about how you're "on a different level" with respect to this argument. You're so behind and out-of-touch that you're becoming pathetic to read. A debased, hungry, homeless gentleman would absolutely circumcise you in this debate on the merits because at least he'd have effect on his side whereas you have absolutely nothing. You're argument is weak, enfeebled, attenuated, crippled and sad. It really does suck. Like "schit sandwich" sucks. Edit: It's now a few hours later and I had to return to this (it's now 2:30 D.C. time) to mention again the ridiculousness of your term: "over-dependence on survival." What the !@#$ are you thinking?!?!? Do you not understand that that concept, with respect to self worth and human condition, is INHERENTLY SELF-DEFEATING??? Wow man. I almost considered erasing my entire post, quoting your sentence, bolding it, and just responding with the most innane smiley that I could find. That would make the point just fine. "Over-dependence on survival." Oh schit. I NEVER said that I indentified "flaw after flaw..." in THIS thread or anything "from above." Please follow this closely now: You said in post# 82 that [paraphrasing] " have failed to find a flaw in anything that [you] have EVER posted." I then responded that I have identified "flaw, after flaw, after incongruity..." etc. Your use of "EVER" is decidedly universal and applicable to all of our conversations in all of our threads. Yet now, you've distilled my available samples down to this thread ("from above"). That is what I'm talking about with you. The little switches, bastardizations, subtleties, and fallacies that you employ in an effort to manipulate the flow and direction of conversation. DO YOU SEE IT? ANYONE ELSE READING THIS? Read this and the bolded paragraph above over, and over, and over again because OCinBuffalo WILL do it again. And I'll reference it AGAIN. You are VERY intellectually dishonest. But you're not good at it because you're also so VERY transparent in your dishonesty. The above is yet ANOTHER example of it. Here are some examples of my identifying "flaw after flaw" in your reasoning: Post #71: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/138183-mitt-romney-is-a-quack-and-a-political-peon/page__st__60 Read it, and enjoy. I'm looking forward to another of your contorted replies that is long on volume and short of substance. Huh? Drew what out? So I've responded to all your contortions and mischaracterizations, and assertions, and opinions. You want to try again? I know you can do better. OCin Buffalo likely response (paraphrased): 1. "Babble babble. If I use 'straw man' enough I can transition it from his sword to my shield. Then I can straw man with impunity because he'll be intimidated to call me out on it because I prospectively referenced it." 2. "My command of the subject matter is so great that I'm not even going to address your points about welfare because it is at odds with my 'welfare greatness'." 3. "Babble, babble. Provide some facts." Translation: "I don't want to read the points that you made about jobs for job seekers, or scan the metrics, or address your contention that my 'welfare greatness' point about human dignity being shattered or other arguably more important needs being sacrificed in an effort to simply survive is paradoxical and inherently self-defeating. I'll just keep asking you for the same thing that you answered already and telling you that you didn't address the point in hopes that people read it and believe it." 4. "My command of the subject matter is fantastic and it should be because I knew people who grew up in the rough streets of Orange County and had to survive everyday on school lunch vouchers." 5. "Babble Babble, blah, blah, straw man, logic games, you suck." I may have stated it a bit more eloquently then you would have but, if you want, I can just reply to the above (since that will undoubtedly be your contribution), and save you the time?