Rob's House

Someone did. You seem to be arguing that for some reason we shouldn't take an easy & effective measure to minimize it.

okay, Bill O'Reilly. Sure, let's ignore Obama's past statements, the fact that he was parroting that crazy lady who was openly making that point, & suspend disbelief so we can be "Super Centrist: the most reasonable man in the room". Edit: After regrading your statement I agree, as most here have, that although proper interpretation of the plain wording would suggest business owners didn't build their business it does seem he (erroneously) meant they didn't contribute to the building & maintenance of the roads. But make no mistake, he was absolutely crediting government with more credit than it is due in much the same way an unskilled and easily replaceable line-cook might grossly overvalue his contribution to a restaurant. I understand wanting to think your guy's not a Marxist POS but he said what he said. If you're trying to say we're all in this together you would never communicate it that way. And what would be the ultimate point? If you listen to it, in context, you can't honestly escape the reality that his point is that these greedy, self-congratulatory mother!@#$ers need to stop hoarding all the money and need to start paying their "fair share" instead of getting a free ride on the backs of the rest of us. There is no other logical outgrowth of his statement; especially when framed in the context I've explained previously.

You make a good point. How would we know after the fact if the people who voted were legitimate voters. Kind of undercuts your argument that it doesn't exist or we'd know it.

It's absolutely an arbitrary level of abstraction. You're holding all other variables constant because closer analysis confounds your conclusion. What's your solution? I must have missed it. Are you suggesting an outright gun ban? If so stop beating around the bush and say it outright.

So if we call it reactionary it must be categorically bad because you would never want to react to a situation? We've had a few stories in the local paper recently about criminal cases against people who illegally voted in 08 and another about a left wing group sending out voter registration cards to children & corpses. That's just casual observation over recent weeks with zero effort or research. When you look at the narrow margins of Ohio in '08, FL in '04, or the SNL douche that became Senator after they recounted over & over again until they finally got a tally with him in the lead, you have to be a disingenuous lib or a head in the sand sucker to dismiss these concerns out of hand because you heard from some lib that the problem didn't exist & conveniently chose to believe it.

Mitt was telling athletes that they should appreciate their families, friends, and communities (community =/= government) that helped them along the way so let's take a moment to recognize them. Obama was telling entrepreneurs that they don't deserve the fruits of their success because they couldn't have done it without government so they better not complain when we spread that wealth around. That's just the difference in the substance of the words. There's also the difference in tone; Mitt's was very respectful, Obama's was snarky & condescending. Anyone who sees these two statements as similar is trying really really hard to do so.

Be honest. Are you really not able to spot the obvious difference between the two or are you just banking on a handful of us being too stupid to do so?

I have no such limitation.

Your analysis requires an arbitrary level of abstraction to hold water. If you're just interested in justifying your opinion that's fine, but if you want to understand this on a meaningful level you have to look a little closer. Take Richmond, VA for example. For years we were among the top 5 cities for highest murder rate per capita. However, roughly 80% of the murders occurred in less than 20% of the city. You could look at the raw numbers & draw a lot of conclusions that don't reflect the reality of the situation. You'd think this was a scary & dangerous place to live, but growing up we never knew or heard of anyone we knew getting shot or murdered even though most of our parents had guns.

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2012/07/27/101845

I think I can distill his message even more than I already have. It basically comes down to "You don't deserve it."

Congratulations, man. To have not one but two produced is bad ass. Maybe now you can afford to put some meat in your diet.

I wouldn't touch that with a ten inch pole.

Pointing out constellations is money on a date. MDP should get this app.

I think I like Vince Young now.

You think that's funny, man? I was in a SC and ordered Chesapeake crabs. The waiter, who knew we were from VA joked that it'd be like home cooking for us. Do you have any idea what that felt like? It was like I wasn't even a real person. If I could I'd take away a once in a lifetime dream he's worked & sacrificed for years to achieve. It's only fair.

I wouldn't call him a selfish douche bag. At least not yet. He's a premier receiver in his prime that's one injury away from losing it all & wants to guarantee he & his family will be set if that happens & right now he's looking at a sorry offer. I'm not saying we should go for him at this stage (although I've heard worse ideas) but I see no reason to denigrate the man.

He's probably just savoring his leverage. It's probably the last time he'll have some.

It's not enough to just kick ass. You gotta take names.

That's some selective history. I'm not saying Reagan was perfect, but metaphorically speaking he cleared the clogged pipes so the water could flow. An economic hiccup During Bush I's presidency hardly outweighs his contribution. And contrary to popular belief, W inherited a recession as well. He just didn't handle it so well. And make no mistake, "Read my lips" cost Bush reelection. That's not quite accurate. In the waning days of the Clinton administration the tech bubble burst. Not that it was his fault, but it happened. The economy was slowing to recession and the "surpluses" were evaporating before Bush ever passed a budget. The tax cut was a supply side idea to spur growth; I'll not claim whether or not it worked because, like you said, 9/11 makes it hard to quantify, & as I said in a previous post, a tax cut isn't a tax cut w/o a corresponding cut in spending. I'll not speak to that, but fiscally he was far more consequential than UP.

Actually I was referring to Milton Friedman's "Capitalism & Freedom" which would give you a better understanding of the philosophy of classical liberalism (know your adversary), but Folsom's book is good too, but in a much different way. He basically dispells historical myths about many pioneering industrialists.

To get an idea of the net benefit you have to factor in opportunity cost I don't think it's fair to say Unnamed President was better domestically than Reagan. Not to say UP doesn't deserve some credit for taking pragmatism over ideology, but Reagan's policies paved the way for that prosperity.

You should read the book too. Sure, many on the right don't fully understand the underlying theory, but you mischaracterize Reagan & the relationship between deficit spending and growth. Plus, those of us who know understand that tax cuts, like those enacted under Bush, are only really tax cuts when accompanied by a corresponding cut in spending. The ratio of tax receipts to deficit spending as well as debt : GDP are important as well. All deficit spending is not equal. Here's an interesting bit that touches on a lot of these topics: http://business.time.com/2007/12/07/talking_to_arthur_laffer_about/

I took it as him making fun of how much the movie sucked rather than laughing at the people who got shot. I find it funny how a few years back it was cool to like Dane Cook & now everyone thinks he sucks. I guess it's because even though he has some funny bits, too much of his routine is just him being super high energy acting absurd & making sound effects instead of saying anything funny. I will say, it'd be super funny if someone told that joke in front of JTSP.

If you're a hard-core conservative Romney has some problems. If you're an "independent" or moderate Republican he's exactly what you've been asking for. I started a thread asking what the knock on Romney was & got nothing of substance. So no offense, but when I hear stuff like this I roll my eyes.