Rob's House

If (and it's admittedly a big if) Merriman return to pre-injury form he could be our best pass rusher.

I noticed that last night. Just shows he's a horrible speaker when he goes off script. Either way, the gist and tone of that bit overall was to basically tell entreprenuers that they're not **** and they owe their success to the existence of government, basically implying that if government wants a bigger chunk it's rightfully entitled to it. He's also playing to class warfare by telling losers that haven't accomplished anything that the successful people doing better than us got there on our backs. The fact that it basically echoes that crazy lady's rant, which said the same thing more emphatically, pretty well dispells the myth that he was somehow bolstering the middle class. And honestly, he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand that the roads, bridges, police, etc. are more than adequately paid for by the tax base created by successful business through corporate taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, taxes taken out of employee salaries, etc. His best defense is that he's a disengenuous, divisive POS who's happy to pit Americans against each other for political gain. Quite the uniter this guy is.

I haven't really followed Bachman to know much more than I hope my wife ages that well. Does she have any particularly wacky stances or is she just a big R party line Republican?

I hope not. pBills was actually fun to argue with. What's w/ everyone coming back w/ new profiles? Was there a mass banning I missed?

I truly think so. Are you going to law school?

I couldn't agree more. There's probably plenty of legitimate and legal things that could be twisted to sound nefarious (like Swiss bank accounts) that would be exploited and manipulated to perpetuate the irrelevent "Mitt is rich" assault. It's just like when a Republican makes a controversial statement & the douche bag wing of the party joins the left wing chorus demanding an apology. Then once they capitulate they appear (& in fact are) defeated. Like others have said, when Obama calls him out in the debate he should tell him that if he produces his transcripts, 97-99 returns & F & F docs he will. More than anything I'd like to see that mother!@#$er's LSAT score.

+1 Since I started posting here I no longer feel the need to rip every lib I know to shreds. It's very therapeutic.

I find it surprising that so many people outside the left see Romney as the underdog. Obama's popularity has taken a nose-dive, the economy is in sad sorry shape without much hope of improvement anytime soon, & Obama has no message to pitch...well, except Romney's rich. Once they hit the debates I fully expect Romney to hand Obama his ass. And this new Marxist tone isn't going to go away. I don't know if it's a ploy to charge up his base at the risk of alienating others, if it's a hail mary, or if he knows it's over & wants to start the Marxist meme to tilt the conversation in that direction so as to legitimize it & soften up the country in hopes his socialist dream will be realized down the road, but without a serious game changer I think he's dead in the water.

Was it the one that said Magox might be traveling the world, or he might be dead?

No, I didn't get the memo. From the way he worded it I was afraid he had died.

what happened to Magox? Edit: and how thick is the irony in claiming he's "dancing around the issues" when the whole point of bringing up his tax return is to avoid discussing the issues.

Serious question, because my knowledge on the subject is limited to second hand info (I haven't read the bill) but how will the additional 30 million be insured? Is that number accountable to those added to medicaid? So it's not all bad.

I have yet to hear anyone explain why the ACA is good for this country. Sure, I've heard a few platitudes and a few cherry picked provisions, most notably the requirement to cover pre-existing injuries (which is essentially the abolition of insurance as insurance), but no one has explained how this helps the general public, the country, or honestly, even individual segments of the population. Further, I've yet to hear anyone explain how a system that increases demand while decreasing supply doesn't lead to price explosion and a shortage of services? So for everyone that thinks this is good law, here's your chance to tell the rest of us why. Have at it.

I see great irony in the characterization of Obama as the blue-collar President and Romney as the white-collar guy. In reality, liberal policies benefit the very rich and very poor (if you don't count the opportunity the poor are deprived of) mostly at the expense of the middle class. A good example is the ACA. This is why people like Chris Matthews don't understand why the middle class vote "against their economic interests" (Republican), because in his elitist bubble little Chrissy doesn't understand that his party does next to nothing to help those people, but does a great deal, both directly and indirectly, to deprive them of wealth and opportunity.

I'm told the tone of my writing comes off as aggressive (my boss actually said this yesterday). If you heard the words in my spoken voice you wouldn't find it shrill or overly emotional.

Okay, I get what you're saying here. I don't believe that's what he was saying, but I'm sure that's how he's going to try to sell it. I don't think he'll be able to explain that one away to anyone who doesn't really want to be convinced, but I'm sure he'll try to.

Never underestimate the power of denial Okay, two things. First, "it just is" isn't worth typing. It's not an argument nor is it in any way informative. Second, you're the one mischaracterizing his statements. It takes a big stretch to come to your conclusion. I get it that you got on board with this guy and to recognize that he's a straight up Marxist is hard to swallow, but be honest with yourself, you'll be a better person for it. Edit: Look at the context. We've long suspected this guy was a socialist. From his upbringing, to his associations, to his writings. Even in his first campaign he let his true feelings about spreading the money around slip out. Now he's out here regurgitating Marxist collectivist rhetoric and you claim it's some endorsement of the strength of the middle class in a capitalist system? I think you're stretching here. Maybe in a full split at this point.

How is he being mischaracterized? Claiming entrepreneurs owe their success to the government is exactly how it's being characterized, and is probably the most outrageous thing a sitting President has ever said out loud in public. If you don't understand why that is I'm not sure I can help you. It's more than an outrageous statement; it's !@#$ing stupid. Edit: His statement was worse than what you deem a mischaracterization. His point is basically that we're all in it together, everyone contributes to everyone else's success, so when the government reaches out and wants to take more from you or more tightly regulate you, you should shut up and get with the program because you're unfairly benefitting from the contributions of others.

Dude, you're really starting to disappoint me. How in the hell is the President's opinion that American entrepreneurs owe their success to the government less substantive than Romney's PERSONAL finances?

Is that why you didn't answer it? In a previous thread I said the economy would likely be in better shape had Obama done nothing. you said you strongly disagreed. Thus far you've presented nothing other than a poli-sci thesis on cooperation in Washington. I disagree with many points in your thesis, but those are beyond the scope of this discussion. And I don't care do defer to authority based on the Nobel prize (which carries about as much weight these days as an ESPY) or PhDs (many of whom are overeducated twits and/or hyper-partisan ideologues), but rather I defer to reason, and reason (as well as the overwhelming majority of the economic community, but mostly reason) recognizes that the stimulus didn't do ****, and was more likely counterproductive. So I ask, again, what has Obama (or the government under Obama) done to fix this economy that is preferable to doing nothing? (And don't say TARP; that passed under Bush)

So far this (a move of questionable ethics and legality at best) is the only move by Obama anyone has thrown out to defend Obama's work on the economy. That's just sad. No wonder all I keep hearing about are tax returns. Obama's got nothing.

Where is all this brutality taking place? MSDNC, John Stewart, & network news? I haven't been watching TV so I guess I've missed it. What's funny to me is Romney's campaign is supposedly taken a beating, but I have yet to hear any substantive knocks on Romney or positive marks for Obama. It really makes me realize that elections mainly come down to making the disinterested morons in the middle FEEL differently about a candidate.

Because Romney's tax records don't necessarily have anything to do with what his tax policies would be. You know as soon as they had the info the Dems would suggest it's a natural conclusion that Romney would tailor tax policy to favor himself (I.e. The rich), which is an unfair assumption.

Does it count if you saw the movie?

It's funny how certain they are that this kind of stimulus works. They're not going to let the lack of any historical precedent or the complete failure of their attempt dissuade them from their blind faith religious belief that this works.