Rob's House

Oh. Well in that case FOUR MORE YEARS!! FOUR MORE YEARS!!

Sheep go to heaven, goats go to Hell.

I meant your real life. I got a buddy that could be your patient. After seeing him pro bono you'd go home & tell your wife about this brave young man who's fighting the odds to keep himself & his family above water. What you wouldn't know is that this guy goes through jobs like the Travis Henry goes through condoms (kidding, we all know Travis Henry doesn't know about condoms) & that he's on workman's comp or unemployment as often as he's eligible & is probably shacked up with a fat girl who's paying the rent. Forgive me if I question your ability to distinguish between the helpless & the worthless.

If I'm paying their rent you're damn right I'll decide who's worthless. Helpless is someone who CAN'T do for himself. Worthless is someone who WON'T do for himself. The problem with people like you is you lump them all together & question the decency of anyone who resists the perpetual demand for more. I assume you come from a fairly sheltered background that facilitates your romanticized view of the situation, but it's not how you think it is. Even now opportunity exists for those that want it.

It's a bit of an overstatement, but if you want to draw party lines, the R candidate this year gave far more to charity than the D. And not only is there a difference between charity & coerced redistribution, but there's also a big difference between helping the helpless & helping the worthless. Further, I've yet to hear how the Dem policies are helpful to young and minority people looking for gainful employment.

I wonder if they're still glad they fired Tod Haley for Romeo Frigging Crennel

"He who restricts my freedom can kiss my ass" -Rob 24:7 We've been over this, & yes, Jesus never said "steal from thy working neighbor & give to thy lazy neighbor."

I could be wrong, but I think we probably agree on this issue more than we differ. My main problem with the conventional wisdom is that I think equating opposition to the welfare stare with bigotry is dishonest & insulting.

To your original point, no I don't think those comments created the racial divide. Virtually everything listed there is taken completely out of context, and run unchecked ad nauseum by the Dems & leftist media. Plus, none of that, w/the exception of Beck's comment, pushes a racial divide (the Limbaugh piece was wholly satirical). Thes perceptions are created when the words are manipulated and interpreted for the ignorant masses. The fact that you're using "you didn't build that" as the sole counterbalance to cooments taken out of context says it all. Romney's 47% was taken even more egregiously out of context & run repeatedly in ads. The difference is every supposed journalist & news anchor across the country didn't take to the airwaves to make sure everyone knew just how out of context they were. And then we've got the countless other examples of Romney taken out of context ("I like to fire people") like the ones you already mentioned. I agree the Republicans need to do the things I listed in the OP, but caving into the welfare state mentality and prescreening every word to make sure the media can't lie about them isn't the answer. And if they do the things I've mentioned & minority groups still vote as a block, what does it say for them?

If this were true, counterfeiting would be good for the economy

That's the damn truth. I don't think many of us were that enthusiastic over Romney, so it wasn't as hard to watch, but in the days after the election liberals were simultaneously pissed off & excited, and gloating with all the class of Tom Brady. If Jimmy Kimmel had done his Wed monologue in my living room he'd be missing about 4 teeth right now.

I see it as similar to road rage. B/c you don't see the other person & hear their inflection, it's easy to fill in those blanks with preconceptions. Kind of like thinking the guy that cut you off did it to be an ass hole when maybe he just didn't see you in his blind spot. The lack of inflection is key. I call my liberal friends commies all the time & ridicule they're feel good European Santa Clause government, & no one gets upset. I do take issue with you claiming it's all coming from the right. Neither side has exclusivity over this. It's not uncommon for a lib to pop in out of the blue, accuse everyone to the right of him to be a complete POS, and then cry like a pu$$y because people are giving him some of his own medicine. You yourself have, on many occasions, attributed our disagreements to character flaws & lack of morality, when the disagreement is merely over what we believe would do the most good for the most people.

I should have put the disclaimer on my last post that I always expect the Bills to win too. I'm familiar with Milgram, & I must admit, the realization of how programmable we all are makes me a bit of a misanthrope. When it comes down to it, our brains have not evolved with our times b/c evolution works slowly, so we live in a modern society with primitive brains. I myself have bought into nationalistic programming that had no objective basis, which is a product of a programmable mind with shortcuts that allow us to bypass thought circuits once we've developed our conclusions. That's why we have a lot of otherwise intelligent adults operating on premises they concluded when they were children, & never reevaluated with any appreciable level of self awareness, after growing up. It's all so !@#$ing futile, & the futility upsets me, so I maintain optimism that maybe with logic & reasoning we can convince enough to reopen those closed circuits & rewire them with the benefit of knowledge. I know it's a longshot, but I'm not sure what else to do.

I'm about as free market/free will as they come & I agree with the court's decision and what you're saying here. The courts shouldn't step in to cure a bad bargain, but IMO that was just a sophisticated form of fraud. And since it was pretty clear the people didn't understand the terms (I didn't even know what a cross collateralization transaction was off the top of my head, & I aced contracts) there couldn't have truly been mutual assent.

I doubt he'd leave Houston to be our DC.

Well maybe if your skin was as thick as his you wouldn't have a message board melt down. Oh wait...

Swapping HCs every 3 years isn't a recipe for success. Daniel Snider's been going that route for years and his teams have been about as good as ours. Unless you've got a top HC ready and willing to take the reigns (or we really bomb out over the next 7 games) I say you give him his last year. I mean really, if OJ can get away with murder, why can't Gailey finish his contract?

I don't know, it sounds kind of complicated. You remind me of my friend who said if your village was hungry you would do best to plant more crops. It seems like it would be easier to just print more money.

I don't recall whether you were rude, exactly, but you certainly come off as arrogant. If you were to come in with some humility you might find that people will engage you in similar fashion. I'm still not sure what was said that you were so offended by, but if it had that much affect on you perhaps it is best that you leave before DC Tom comes back. He's not as nice as I am.

How did I insult you? Pointing out that your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics isn't an insult, it's a constructive criticism. You currently don't understand how markets function. It doesn't mean you can't learn. Personally, I think you come off as very close minded. You've created this paradigm in your head where the greedy rich people and corporations have all the power and are holding our economy hostage, and you accept it as unquestioned reality. You can continue to believe that if it gives you some sort of satisfaction, or you can choose to open your mind and learn to understand that which up to now you've rejected out of hand. It's up to you.

Unless we crash and burn down the stretch I say stick with him. Bringing in a new coach next year is starting over again, and Chan has done a lot with this offense. If we close out the year strong and finish 8-8 I'll be behind him 100%. I'd like to see how the Defense does through the rest of the season before blowing that unit up too. I don't think changing schemes and our base D excuses the travesty that has been the defense this year, but if it tightens up over the next few weeks it might be preferable to starting over again with a new DC and a new scheme. That being said, if we're still giving up 30+ pts a game in the last quarter of the season then Wanny has to go.

In addition to what's already been mentioned, reducing the corporate tax rate would help because we live in a global economy regardless of whether or not we choose to accept that reality. Repealing some of the aspects of ACA that are going to be hard on businesses over the next few years would have helped too. SS and Medicare reform would help in the long term, but we seem to be content to kick the can down the road. Freeing up energy resources, and regulatory reform would help to get the gum out of the economic gears as well. But even if he did absolutely nothing, that would be preferable to the Obama plan of continuing to squeeze business and hope that will magically lead to growth. And the idea that adding a few % pts to the top marginal income tax rates will have a significant impact on revenue is beyond absurd, and I'm being nice here. That's like trying to break our dependence on foreign oil by checking our tire pressure more frequently. All you just told us is that you really don't understand basic economics.

While I don't think this is wrong (people wanting to be led), I do think there are enough people that could be swayed with reason and, with the divide being as tight as it is, that could be enough. There are a lot of people who just don't get the debt crisis we're racing up on and no one is explaining the issues for them. And I know a lot of people who do understand, but vote D because of bogus issues like gay marriage and abortion. I'm not saying Rep's need to sell out their values on those issues, just prioritize correctly, and take realistic steps rather than idealistic ones. Another example is immigartion. Hispanics, in particular, tend to be conservative people, but they vote Dem b/c Republicans haven't been able to articulate a logical immigration policy. I do think the biggest problem is that they need a candidate who can break the stereotypes. And I don't mean someone who's black or Hispanic, although I'd vote for Walter Williams, but I mean someone who's down to earth, likeable, and has a cool demeanor, and who the average Joe can relate to. Like me. Examples?

I attribute most of the racial divide to a combination of Democrats pandering to minority groups combined with a concerted effort by the left, picked up and amplified by the media, to push the stereotypes of conservatives as Klansman who want to "put yall in chains". And I don't think becoming more moderate is the answer. I think moving beyond the sound bites and attacking the issues straight on with logical arguments is the best strategy. That and keeping an eye on the ball. That means teaching the electorate how the economy works, and why interventionist and redistributionist policies that they've been sold are detrimental to their long-term success, rather than getting distracted by side issues that really don't make that much difference but feed the stereotypes.

I heard through the grape vine that Chan Gailey emailed Bellichick telling him, "We're going to bring a 55 gallon drum of whoop ass and pour it on you."