Rob's House

You may be right, but if Mitt Romney's tax records & Obama's war on business is resonating with people and picking up enough traction to overcome the abortion of a Presidency he's turned in thus far, we might as well cash in our chips and head for the hills because the American experiment is over. Envy has won out, symbolism has defeated substance, the golden goose has been slaughtered as retribution for an abstract concept, & the next step towards Idiocracy has been taken.

This rhetoric is dangerous. It's easy to dismiss out of hand when a nobody like Elizabeth Warren spouts it off, but this is coming from the President of the U.S. Even if this tanks his re-election bid, the meme is out there. Think of how many other ridiculous statements become conventional wisdom just by getting regurgitated repeatedly. This feels like a hail mary in the first quarter, but who knows. I'm not taking this lightly.

I never heard the back-story but somehow stumbled across it (the unedited version) in my early 20s and even then it was a bit disturbing. I didn't realize until years later that's what that Filter song was about.

I don't remember the time when conservative leaning people weren't concerned with voter fraud, and I've been paying attention for a while now. You can call me Rob. It's an honor I extend to those I deem worthy. Are you saying it's a bad idea to require photo ID, or just a bad idea to require a voter ID?

What right wingers are trying to ban your access to birth control or curb your religious freedom? Edit: I dig the F. Bud Dwyer avatar.

I don't remember this

A few things here: 1. Where are you getting the idea that voter fraud is non-existent? 2. ID requirements don't necessarily have to be federally mandated; individual states could require them, if the feds don't block them. 3. You didn't really just try to draw an equivalence between voting procedures and private enterprise, did you?

You gotta be the man, man.

I don't think it makes you an idiot. I can only assume you're looking at the economic and ACA parts through rose colored glasses. The foreign policy disagreements I can chalk up to personal preference, but on the economic part I'm at a loss. Simply put the ACA increases demand while decreasing supply, which necessarily raises prices. There's really no way around that. And I've heard people cherry pick certain parts they like but I've yet to hear anyone explain how this helps, or even how it won't be disasterous. Obama's economic plan thus far has been to throw obscene amounts of money at losing ventures that produce no wealth and putting it all on the country's credit card while expanding social spending and keeping the country in the dark as to what his next move might be, thus scaring investment money away. Not to say what a GOP solution would be, (I have little faith in John McCain) but doing absolutely nothing would have been more effective. It would have allowed business cycle to run its course, clear the market, and get back on solid footing rather than running up debt to avoid the inevitable. Anyway, there's a lot of time between now and November to hash these things out, but I am curious to get your take on these issues.

Just curious, because you seem fairly rational, why would you vote for Obama?

Agreed. At least poor liberals tell you they want someone to take your **** and give it to them. The rich ones pass themselves off as philanthropists, then try to dodge every tax they can. [see Bonjovi, John; Springstein, Bruce.]

My friend loves that show. He flew from Richmond to TX to see it; then drove to Charlotte to see it again.

I think it's all purely political. Solar technology exists and the markets naturally bring the most efficient options to the front. If and when our current energy sources become more expensive than solar, solar will be king and investors and companies will throw billions into developing it. In fact, when it appears that there is a chance of solar being efficient enough to compete, all of that will happen. What we have here is government throwing good money into a bad investment in the foolhardy hope that a miracle will happen. Throwing a half-billion dollar grant at a company and saying, "here, develop the technology," is about the most inefficient way possible to achieve the desired goal. The perfect example of this is Celera Corp. who decoded the human genome in about 1/3 of the time and for around 1/3 the cost of the government project with the same goal.

I just assume every Hollywood type is a hyper-emotional socialist twit until told otherwise. Nothing surprising here. Spoiled little rich boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth is really distraught at the plight of the middle class and thinks we need him and his enlightened cohorts to save us from the tyranny of freedom. That article might as well have described him jerking off. In fact, I think it did.

The idea of subsidizing domestic companies to help compete with foreign companies is a fringe economic strategy with a very poor track record. It violates the fundamental principles of economics and hurts all involved. You see how successful this was.

You should know better than most how much bull **** goes into the regulatory process. I doubt anyone would argue that you want some common sense parameters. The problem is, some people, especially when it comes to anything related to the environment, think "cost benefit analysis" is a dirty word. Those people tend to have Ds next to their names.

Been there. That's one where it's 4 a.m., I've got to be at work at 9 a.m., but damnit, I've got to see what happens next [as I start the next episode]. I prefer shows with an ongoing storyline (18 hour movies) for marathoning, but there are a few like Burn Notice *, The In Betweeners *, and Firefly * that despite having some ongoing story are primarily stand alone stories strewn together with a secondary backstory are still fun to watch in succession. My top 8: 1. The Shield 2. Lost * 3. The Wire 4. Dexter (Seasons 1 & 2) * 5. 24 * 6. Sons of Anarchy * 7. Breaking Bad * 8. Strawberry Shortcake * * Available now or recently on Netflix

I think this is the first time I've been accused of libtardem...maybe ever And it's a Chapelle Show reference, Francis.

I think you pretty much nailed it which confirms my suspicions. Personally I could go for a less meaningful health care reform and I have a feeling taking a step towards freeing the markets rather than trying to control them will be the ticket to reviving the economy, but that's neither here nor there. It seems there's not a whole lot to run against other than a few vague policy concerns that don't tend to get the juices flowing. I suspect that's why we're hearing all this nonsense about Bain Capital and mean campaigning.

I haven't read this thread, so maybe someone already said this, but I'm against the whole concept. Nothing against Cunnilingus Rice, I'm sure she's as qualified as the next person, but it reeks of identity politics. If she was a white man with the same credentials and demeanor I'd doubt so many would be so excited about her. The guy who's all excited about her is the same guy who loves to tell you how much respect he has for Colon Powell, how smart JC Watts is, and how attractive he finds Venus Williams. That guy just needs to get a shirt that says "I'm not racist" and move on.

Sorry, I didn't specify. I meant did any liberals have a legit criticism of him.

I still don't get what you mean. What Republicans want to be granted quarter by the dems? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm curious about the context.

Most of you guys, including 3rd, have been here longer than I have. I can see that. Same hit-and-run style without the burden of substance.

All these arguments are bull ****. This argument that they're so concerned, as a matter of principle, that someone might get "disenfranchised" is bogus. Their only real concern is that those on the margins, (illegals, felons, people too worthless to have an ID) will be more inclined to vote D. And while they'd rather get legitimate votes, they're not above taking the fraudulent ones too. On the flip side, if they voted R I'd still support the ID requirement, but if I'm being completely honest I think I'd be less concerned about the proprietary of things. That being said, requiringt ID is almost certain to prevent more fraudulent votes than legitimate ones, and if the ultimate goal is legitimized elections, it is a positive move.

What do you mean?