Rob's House

Depending on what their goal is, I'd suggest taking a position that the other side could be objectively expected to compromise on. However wrong they may have been in any scenario, it's a bit much to expect them to accept their own destruction as a legitimate end.

I have a question for the Palestinian supporters. To preface, I'm no fan of the Israelis, and I don't expect the Palestinians to accept their settlement expansions under the rationale of "our God said your land is ours" any more than I would if a bunch of hairy krishnas evicted me because my house was on their holy chanting ground. That said, how are the Israelis to make peace with a group whose stated goal is their destruction?

I don't know much about them except that people I know to be shrill simpletons hold them up as boogie men regularly. Do you have a substantive reason we should despise them besides the idiotic drivel OP provided?

Does that include taxation derived from S-corps and LLCs?

This is the problem with trying to enforce it. They throw out an arbitrary number that's effectively meaningless. A guy that hasn't smoked in 6 months may be floating through the clouds at that number while a daily smoker would be minimally impaired.

I'd be interested, but last time I participated in one of these PPP games my opponent pussed out.

I'm not really pro-cop or anti-cop, but the outrage here seems to be manufactured at best. Was tackling him excessive? I don't know. Maybe. I didn't see what came before it. But to accuse them of killing the guy's a bit much. It's not like they shot him; he died of a heart attack. Death was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their actions.

I was hoping more liberals would chime in on this. I've heard a lot of moralizing and platitudes but I've yet to hear a coherent legal argument against the ruling.

I count all of it: Network news, cable news, late night talk shows, Comedy Central, sitcoms, movies, newspapers, websites, radio, etc. It's not that there aren't sources of different news for the political junkie who's actively seeking answers; it's about the message that reaches the average Joe on a daily basis, and that message is overwhelmingly liberal. I'm not basing that on the political makeup of Hollywood and the average newsroom, although I do believe that's where it starts, but I'm basing it on the coverage. I honestly don't get how any serious person who was above the age of 12 during the Bush years could argue otherwise. Others have cited several of examples of Obama scandals that never get traction. That's because outside of Fox News, Drudge, and Talk Radio no one talks about them. By contrast, Bush could have farted in a crowded elevator and it would have been national news for two weeks. Bush fired a handful of US attorneys, which is nothing. You gotta be trying really hard to find a scandal to run with that, but they did. You didn't have to track that down or watch news media to know about it. It got more coverage by media not overtly conservative than any of Obama's blunders that have been mentioned in this thread.

There doesn't have to be collusion. When the overwhelming majority of those employed by and in charge of major media outlets happen to subscribe to the same general philosophy, the message that most often reaches the majority of the public can be terribly skewed in one direction with no coordination whatsoever. Don't you live in Hollywood? Look around at your peers. Those are the people with the biggest microphone. If you can't see the broadly disparate treatment given to liberal v conservative politics in the aggregate I think you may be living in a bubble. That or you've become Californianized to the point that you're desensitized to it.

http://news.yahoo.com/-it-s-obama-s-presidency--but-bush-s-world-083705971.html Nice puff piece blaming Bush for Obama's presidency. Kind of sad that despite all the media support his approval ratings are still ****.

Should they pursue "diversity" for diversity's sake?

That **** makes me want to eat my own brain (almost as much as the guys who refer to Sammy Watkins as "Sammy" as if he's their !@#$ing neighbor or something, but I digress). This retardation was just endorsed by Netflix on "Orange is the New Black" where an idiot explained that the "colloquial" use of "literally" won out, and justifies it by saying languages evolve. If I'd been given the opportunity to write the other character she'd have told that stupid !@#$ that there is no colloquial use of "literally"; just dumb mother !@#$ers who don't know what the damn word means and continually misuse it to the point where there is no longer a word that enables you to clarify that you aren't speaking figuratively. !@#$ing !@#$!

Last time the Rs had both houses and the Presidency they gave us a new leftist education bill (NCLB), the biggest expansion of Medicare since "The Great Society," a nation-building experiment in Iraq, and all manner of protectionist measures like steel subsidies, farm subsidies, etc. It wasn't the conservative revolution one might have expected. When the Ds got a supermajority idiots rejoiced until they saw what the non-retarded knew to begin with - that so much unchecked power in the hands of a political class accountable only to the occasional vote of an overwhelmingly ignorant populace, the majority of which treat politics like a team sport, is going to lead to the having of a bad time for those not connected to the politicians in power. Gridlock is a good thing. It keeps stupid from running wild.

For ***** and giggles, how about you find out how that money is allocated. Until then your data point doesn't tell us much about the Federal expenditures' impact on the average resident of Mississippi or its economy overall.

The parts that aren't still there, dumb ass.

A closely held corporation is substantially different from a publicly traded one. The two are not difficult to distinguish between, and thus, the precedent you're concerned with does not exist. As far as corporations being people, corporations are essentially extensions of people. All a corporation is is a way to limit liability. TTYT is quite right when he suggests that people don't lose their constitutional rights by choosing to incorporate. If that were the case the government could shut down your employer and/or family business (assuming you've incorporated) on the whim of the executive and leave you without recourse. Be careful what you wish for. Still waiting for you to explain the constitutionality of Obamacare. Not holding my breath on that one.

People are already allowed to do this.

I've never understood the high regard for Dixon. IIRC he had one marginally decent game 5 years ago and hasn't done anything noteworthy since. At least Tuel is a young unknown who might improve. Dixon's almost 30.

I voted for you to stay, even though you once called me the biggest !@#$ on the board.

You're an idiot. No offense, it just seemed appropriate given the thread topic.

Alright smart guy. Explain why the states don't have to comply with the Medicaid expansion called for under Obamacare. I'll wait.

Actually it didn't. Read the case you fu©king moron.

I agree. I think it's partly due to her being talented enough to succeed without much in the way of looks, and also one of those things that just gets repeated so often that everyone just accepts it. Kind of like ca. 2000 when Susan Sarandon was the consensus greatest female actress.

I'm not a big death penalty proponent, so I'm not taking a side in the overall debate on that, but all the data you're referencing is purely speculative. The Innocence Project is doing all they can, but they still have yet to conclusively find 1 instance of a factually innocent prisoner who has been executed.