Rob's House

If you think that's crazy you should see him on PPP.

Easy recovery. Just say "I don't have girlfriends, I got bitches."

Thank you for your cut & paste (which contrary to Obama ads acknowledges the rape & incest exception) but you never explained the rationale behind Roe which is the key to understanding why it's bad law regardless of whether you like the outcome.

I think 49er Fan takes the inverse approach: Who gives a **** about a job if you can't kill your kids?

Jauron's D + Chan's O = Winning

Now who's being disingenuous? People who don't pay Fed income tax aren't being demonized. People who don't pay it AND THEN complain that it isn't fair that people who do pay 35% off the top to the Feds aren't forced, by threat of imprisonment, to pay more are being demonized. One inartful line by a politician does not make a popular revolt.

Explain to me the rationale behind Roe, what its implications are, and what overturning it means. And THEN explain why overturning it would be "extreme".

Given our schedule down the stretch I don't think 8-8 is unrealistic. Sure, we'd almost certainly miss the playoffs, but at this point I'd be happy not to have a losing record. Plus, it's not like the only elite players are in the top 5 picks. And if the staff really thinks G-No or Barkley is the man they can trade up. But this years QB crop is more like 2011 with a lot of good prospects but only a few teams likely to take a QB that high this time around.

Hookers & blow?

Did you just start following politics this week? Mitt got in a lot of trouble with the base for his pro-choice stances & had to "evolve" on the issue. He still maintained the "rape & incest" safety valve. He also never gave any indication he had any problem with birth control. Edit: Based on what you've highlighted I'd say that YOU are the extremist attacking a very reasonable pro-life stance. I'm also guessing you don't understand the Roe decision or what overturning it would mean. I couldn't agree more. I hate it when Republicans start looking to play identity politics. It's a bullish!t game they should be calling bullsh!t on, not catering to.

It's not disingenuous, it's just an overstatement. But it's kind of hard to cast someone in a positive light who's not paying any income tax while claiming some other guy isn't paying enough. What's disingenuous is calling for increases to top marginal income tax rates & claiming it's targeted at "millionaires & billionaires".

I agree with this. I thought, for a loss, the team showed signs of life. The D held a high powered offense to 21 pts, which is much improved from the guys that gave up 35 to TN, 45 to SF, & 31 to NE in one quarter. The O wasn't too bad either, all things considered. They moved the ball well against an elite defense. Were it not for a missed FG and a few dropped passes this could have gone the other way. I'm not saying it was a moral victory, just saying I saw some things I'm encouraged by. I don't think 8-8 is an impossibility.

I do. I think we watch these games with Bills vision. Sure, Fitz has had a couple of bad games, but he's had his share of good ones too. A lot of QBs out there have Fitz-like performances any given Sunday, but we'd take them in a heartbeat b/c the grass is greener. TJ is proof of the old adage about the backup QB being the most popular guy when the team struggles. Fitz's shortcomings does not negate TJ's inherent mediocrity. MN went from a pretty good team to a dominant force when they replaced him. And he was okay in Seattle, but if Fitz had Seattle's defense the last two years and TJ were playing here during that time, I have no doubt the current Fitzbashers would welcome that trade.

They got him because they expected to be good & wanted more security at the position in case Fitz got hurt. He's not playing b/c Fitz is still the better QB.

He never really explained his position. "We need jobs, I know how to create jobs, I've done it before" is a great line, but it's subject to the law of diminishing returns. George Allen had the same strategy - basically said "I'm for creating jobs." it's garbage. Tell me how you'll do it & why the other guy won't. Plus, In trying to appeal to elements of the base Romney got himself in trouble, particularly with Hispanics, but also with women. In VA they ran a very dishonest (probably THE most dishonest campaign I've ever seen) painting him as a pro-life extremist. That hurt him with simple-minded women who vote with their vaginas, and he never effectively countered it. He needed to address it, flip it, and say "he's trying to distract you...". Instead we got rehashed talking points.

Where are they going to go? I wouldn't alienate those people outright, just back up off the issues that don't matter & focus on the ones that do.

Of course interstate commerce is different now. That's not the point. The reason for that power was to ... wait for it ... regulate interstate commerce. It was primarily to address concerns of states enacting protectionist policies. Much of what passes under this rationale has virtually no connection to that. Federal drug laws are justified under the commerce clause. Your tomatoe garden is subject to regulation under the commerce clause even if you're the only one eating them. It's absurd. And while A few cases have put some limitations on the abusive use of it, it's use is still broader than anything that could be considered a reasonable interpretation. And don't pull that bit where you misquote me and say it's overly dramatic. Do you really think our politics would be this divisive if the Federal government didn't have such a pervasive impact on our everyday lives?

Republican party, this is what you need to do: 1. Grow a collective set of nuts - Stop being the Conservative version of the John Kerry. Distinguish yourselves on the most imprtant issues and take them head on. Particularly on economic issues. Our economic model is unsustainable, impossible to defend, and easy to explain. Stop dancing around the issue and dive in and hammer it in common sense terms. Talk to people straight, and assume they're not retarded. A lot are, but you'll win more with logic than gimmicks and talking points. And read Milton Friedman. 2. Stop alienating women - Don't get sucked in to these stupid birth control debates (thank you Rick Santorum). And damn it, STOP TALKING ABOUT RAPE!!! What are you trying to accomplish here? How about acknowledging that although abortion is morally abhorrent, regulation of abortion is not an essential function of the federal government. That doesn't mean go pro-choice, it means talk about abortion reduction through methods other than prohibition. You'll pick up 2 voters for every 1 you lose and ironically, you'll do a lot more to reduce the number of babies snuffed out in the womb. 3. Stop demonizing Hispanics. They're actually a lot more conservative than you think. An effective immigration policy involves securing the border and making legal immigration significantly more streamlined. Cracking down on immigrants who are working is pointless. And cracking down on their employers isn't much better. If we could get them documented so they pay taxes and so we can process them w/n our criminal justice system, we eliminate most of the problems associated with illegal immigration. And stop worrying about them taking jobs. People who work help the economy. You sound like liberals talking about outsourcing. 4. Explain to blacks why free market principles are in their best interest. And talk straight; don't be patronizing or handle them with kid gloves. You'd be amazed what you can say to a black guy if you just cut through the BS and talik to him like a man. He'll respect you for it. Don't think it will work? How's your current strategy working? 5. Put your bible away. You can be as religious as you want to be, and you don't have to be shy about it, but make it damn clear that you understand the value of separation of church and state. You can acknowledge that our country was largely built on judeo-christian values, but make it clear you don't want to impose your will on others. Honestly, the most important values you derive from your religion are universal. You'd be surprised how many people have an irrational fear of a conservative theocracy. 6. Stop talking about gays. The family unit has survived across the globe and across virtually all cultures from the dawn of civilization. It's not going to collapse b/c gays get to have federally sanctioned monogamous relationships. You don't have to like it. Hell, you don't even have to support it. Just let it go. Follow this recipe, find some politicians who are halfway cool to communicate it, and not only will the party rise from the ashes, you might actually do some wonderful things to help the country.

The constructive abolition of the 10th amendment is pretty significant. The entire bill of rights was thought to be superfluous b/c it was self evident from the document itself that the Federal government lacked the power to infringe upon those rights b/c it was a government of enumerated powers. The powers are no longer enumerated. The massive expansions of the commerce clause as well as the tax and spend powers have all but eliminated the constraints on federal power. The rights of the individual states have been relegated to little more than ministerial functions. We've all but abolished the system of dual Federalism. I don't get why people don't understand how making different people with different values all live under the same laws is harmful. Doesn't it make sense that CA and KY should be able to govern differently? And isn't it easy to see how making one live according to the will of the other is oppressive? And don't think I'm laying this all off on liberal justices. The conservatives are often just as bad on 4th amendment issues as the liberals are on states' rights.

Promo's great. He, like me, follows the Bills with blind optimism and loyalty to the team & players he cheers for. Even if we're wrong, it makes it more fun. Unfortunately, he applies that same blind faith and loyalty to the Democratic party.

??? I don't know what you mean. If you're cutting taxes to promote growth one of the major components of that equation is the long-run effects on incentives. Some growth will result from small businesses that pay taxes under the personal income tax rates having more capital to reinvest. But a tax cut with a pre-determined expiration isn't going to do much to inrease long-run incentives. For the record, I think personal income tax rates are just fine where they are. I don't think further short-term cuts would lead to appreciable growth. I do think a tax hike big enough to make a significant impact on our budget deficits would be crippling. I'm not sure if this addresses your point, because I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but I think we put too much emphasis on tax policy as it relates to our economy overall. Sure, the power to tax is the power to destroy, & when taxes are high enough to create disincentives or comparative disadvantages (like our corporate rate) the can cause a lot of harm, but a few % points one way or the other in the margins doesn't make or break an economy.

If I have to put myself in a box I'd go with neo-textualist. I'm not so naive to think an 18th century code is without flaws, but the fundamental structure of separating & limiting powers of branches of government as well as a system of dual federalism are as relevant today as they were then. And if something is so clear that it requires an alteration to the underlying structure and very foundation of our system of government, I find the amendment process preferable to changes made willy nilly by political appointees. And the reason congress couldn't impose the Medicaid expansion on the states is because it exceeded its tax & spend power.

I'll reserve further comment on Obama's bogus stimulus until after I read your book, b/c I want to be fair. What do you find disengenuous about my take on the Bush tax cuts?

I don't entirely disagree, but that's not to agree that it's constitutional under either the letter or "spirit" of the constitution. We've just stopped following it for the most part. We've selectively retained a handful of principles from it, but by & large the court rules that it says whatever the court at the time wishes it said. The consolidation of these powers is the primary cause of our political unrest b/c there are a wide range of issues that must now be fit under the "one size fits all" blanket policies of the Feds, & it's unnecessary. Edit: The ACA case actually put new limits on the commerce clause & taxing power. John Roberts fancies himself a modern day John Marshall. Conceded one point so that he could set up new limitations under the radar a la Marbury. I'm not a fan. I think he should have taken a firm stand & weathered the storm, but it is what it is.

Bush destroyed the economy by expanding Medicare & helping to pump up the housing bubble. The problem for liberals is they were every bit, if not more complicit in the housing bubble, & their only complaint of the Medicare expansion is it wasn't big enough. The "Bush Tax Cuts" were largely a sham b/c they have an expiration date & can therefore only be counted on for the short-term, which compromises the growth effect they were supposed to have. To be fair, they are helpful to small business, and are more sensible than his bogus stimulus or Obama's bogus stimulus, but due to the temporary nature of the cuts I'd categorize them in some bastardized middle ground between Reaganesque supply-side cuts and neo-Keynesian stimulus. Add this to the fact that discretionary spending continually increased under his Presidency, & as mentioned before, he expanded already unsustainable entitlement programs when he should have been streamlining them. Also to his credit, he tried to diversify SS to allow people to move a portion of it to private investments which was a good idea that was mischaracterized by the left, but it didn't pass, & if you're the leader & can't sell your idea then you failed. Blaming the opposition (which he never did) just makes you a big pu$$y. Not to mention that the regulators ran wild under the watchful eye of W. The "deregulation under the Bush administration" is kind of like the militaristic aggression of the Carter administration - It didn't exist. I like his personality - comes off as humbled & dignified; stayed above the fray with a simple every man kind of quality about him - but when it comes to fiscal policy he was basically a liberal.