Rob's House

Hey ass hole. I love the way so many of you statist douche bags blast away with broad generalizations and absolutist declarations in response to perceived generalizations and absolutist declarations. You & C.Biscuit should hang out. And while, contrary to your obvious interpretation, nobody asserted everything public sucks and everything private is awesome (private is usually better but getting into the finer distinctions is too nuanced for your comprehension), it takes a certain level of willful ignorance or outright stupidity to hold public schooling in this country as a whole up as a great model to follow. I suspect you're the type that scoffs at the notion that allowing the Feds to control the curriculum is a good way to let the government ultimately control the minds of the people.

What happened to the teacher thread?

Maybe. I kind of wish it ended last season. It would have been a great place to end the story. I'm going to watch next season but I'm not really looking forward to it.

Jessie will be Walt's arch nemesis next season.

I hated Skylar because she was so self-righteous and just plain nasty to Walt. Whatever her feelings on drug distribution (which I have a hard time mustering up too much hatred for someone who is merely making the drug available to those who choose to buy it) the guy [believed he] was terminally ill and was trying to provide financial security for his family. It may not make it okay but those are certainly mitigating circumstances. When she came home and told him she !@#$ed her boss I wanted to shoot her myself.

The classic "we shouldn't worry about any problem if there's a bigger problem" argument. The problem is one guy not paying for his kids isn't a significant drag on society. But a million guys not taking care of their [often multiple] kids makes Enron look like a small blip on the national radar.

You are talking about the movie with Billy Bob Thornton and John Ritter, aren't you?

Are you a lawyer/law student?

To some extent we're discussing semantics. Some described as "moderates" are people who understand the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and look to find a sensible balance. Many (I'd say most but haven't done a study on it) just kind of go with whatever seems intuitively right to them and get off on being too level headed to get caught up in the details. Compromise isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary but sometimes it's essentially surrender. On fiscal issues the left has mastered this deception. Fiscal conservatism would dictate cutting taxes and spending while fiscal liberalism would dictate the opposite. Conservatives (as a compromise) stake out the position of leaving it how it is, liberals decide we need massive increases; conservatives "compromise" by keeping tax rates level and increasing spending (which is no different in the long term from a tax increase). CA is a good example. Min. wage was around $8/hr a few years back, Conservatives didn't even think there should be a min wage, liberals thought it should be $12+, so as a "compromise" they raised it around $2/hr. There's no compromise here. It's just whether the left gets all they want or some of what they want.

That was the best part. ***SPOILER ALERT*** Because in every other movie like that the good guy wins and the bad guy gets killed or captured. Movies that go the other way are not only refreshing (in a depressing sort of way) but also make every other movie you watch that much better b/c there's no guarantee that good will prevail.

It seems for the emotionally charged lefty segment that made up its mind at "black kid with skittles shot by white..." and is incapable of any deeper analysis or change of position based on new facts, the lynchpin of the argument they desperately cling to is Zimmerman's failure to comply with the 911 operators order/suggestion. Let's analyze what was said. Zimmerman said he was going to follow Martin to see where he went. The dispatcher said: "I don't need you to do that." In what world is this an order? It's not even a request. You'd be hard pressed to even construe it as a suggestion. He simply said that he did not require that of Zimmerman. Let me lay this out for the simpletons: Order/Command: "Do not do that" Request: "I'd like you not to do that" Suggestion: "I wouldn't do that" Relief of obligation: "I don't need you to do that" If this is the heart of your case, your case is a piece of ****. Not that it matters anyway, because you don't forclose your right to self-defense by disobeying an order unless, as the initial aggressor, you threaten death or severe bodily harm; there is no evidence that Zimmerman did any such thing. The bogus "stand your ground" controversy is irrelevant here anyway b/c in jurisdictions that require a duty to retreat, you only have to retreat if you subjectively know you can do so at no risk to your safety.

From reading your posts I get the feeling that the Israelis will always be wrong and whoever their adversary is will always be right, regardless of the circumstances. Whether I understand, or however you've been treated, is irrelevant to that end. You may have good reason to distrust and dislike the Israelis, but all that means is you have a reason for being biased. It doesn't make your word any more objectively credible. It really makes it hard to take him seriously.

This is actually the primary concern of a lot of religious people. Being mindful of the historical trend of Government intrusion being implemented incrementally, the concern is that once gay marriage is legal the church can be compelled to perform such ceremonies on the grounds of equal/civil rights. Whether this would occur or not is anyone's guess, but seeing as how the Government sees fit to compell the church to provide birth control, it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

This is true. However, the middle is a big !@#$ing place. The inclination of soft moderates to try to find ground between the two competing ends of a current political spectrum and think that somehow makes them enlightened is irritating. There are all manner of different approaches in the middle. In fact, most partisans are somewhere "in the middle." It's usually a question of what side you're erring on. Where I think liberals miss the boat, and therefore why I tend to identify more with conservatives, is they view the world almost exclusively through a prism of rich v. poor, or haves v. have nots, or corporations v. government; and then proceed to label one group the good guys and the other group the bad guys (so much for shades of grey). In my experience, conservatives are more likely to understand that government and corporations both pose a threat and both are essential. Conservatives also understand that what is good for the rich and what is good for the poor isn't always mutually exclusive.

+1 In all seriousness I'd say the board is primarily fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We don't talk social issues all that much so it makes it seem a lot more conservative.

Dude, seriously, I'm no fan of Israel, but you take your bias to such an extreme that you lose all credibility with anyone who isn't completely in lock step with your philosophy; even people who may be inclined to lend an objective ear to your cause.

Shianco was awesome when Favre was there. Of course, he had Favre throwing to him.

The Big Kahuna with Danny Devito & Kevin Spacey's a good one. One of my all-time favorites is Richard Linklater's Suburbia, based on the play by Eric Bogosian; but it's one you might have to watch a few times to fully appreciate. Swimming With Sharks is not as deep as the others, but maybe more fun. And Happiness is hilariously disturbing. Of course if you've got time for 15 movies you might do well to indulge yourself in season 1 of The Shield. It's a hell of a ride.

Get outta the closet, you pinko commie fag!!!

14th amendment

Back to the original topic, it is not good for Obama to have Reverend Wright exposed to the masses. The writer of the OP piece is too insulated inside the world of politics to understand that most people knew very little about Wright in 2008. Romney shouldn't dwell on it but PACs could be effective with it. You know it's damaging to Obama b/c his people are so upset about it. The best indicator of effectiveness is to see the other side's reaction. That's how I knew OWS, war on women, & all this gay talk is a massive failure. Because it never gave me gut outrage & the right ridiculed it rather than defend against it. Moderates aren't all that sympathetic to the whole kill whitey thing.

First Guns N' Roses and now this?

BWP was so boring I wanted to leave the theater. It's only interesting if you believe you're watching real footage that was uncovered. Once you know it's "acting" you're just watching a lost in the woods flick with bad acting, a sorry script, terrible dialogue, & shoddy camera work.

You are deeply flawed, but I'll give you credit for a reasonable attempt at reductio ad absurdum. You first equate the argument to one of freedom, then apply only to this issue, draw an equivalence between something else, pretend that something else is the same, and voila, if we follow you down the rabbit hole the initial argument is absurd. Problem is freedom is being used broadly and you're trying to use it narrowly and obscure the real concerns. Let me share a metaphor. It doesn't bother me that my county prohibits me from owning goats in a residential area. I would be irate if the feds had the same rule, regardless of the fact that I have no desire to own goats. Does this mean state and local government can't be oppressive? Of course not. Do I approve of Obamacare at the state level? No. Do I give a **** that they passed it im MA? Hell no. These distinctions may seem random to you. If that's the case you should ponder it for a bit because if you can't see why you don't understand the counter-argument. You can't even see how and where you could be wrong. You remind me of my cousin, who is fairly smart, but not smart enough to realize how likely it is that he is wrong, which he often is. He is of the opinion that if the government becomes tyrannical he'll change his government, which is kind of like saying if the fire gets out of hand I'll just put it out.