Rob's House

Krugman said 9/11 would help the economy. I think that says it all right there. (cue Fjl2nd to come in and defend that)

I don't suppose you know any tricks for bypassing your tyrannical comrades so I can stream Sunday Ticket and save my data plan?

My company employs IT Nazis to restrict my computer fun. No Solitaire, no Minesweeper, no streaming video. Hell, I can't even get IMDB. It's a wonder they haven't figured a way to block this site yet.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8564085/mario-williams-texted-buffalo-bills-surgery-sources Expects to play v Houston

No, no. I felt no obligation. I'm just bored at work, it's early, and Duck volunteered to get smacked around for my amusement. I feel no more obligation to address him than I do to rub one out in the bathroom stall.

As dumb as your routine normally comes off, it's even dumber this time.

Then I'd say joe is liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. That being said, I'll take 3-5 over 1-20.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot.

It's funny how the same people wringing their hands screaming over the great scandal of replacing a half dozen U.S. attorneys, yawn at the idea that our diplomats were left to die by our President. And the same conscientious libs who saturated tampons over Abu Grahib, couldn't give too ***** if the President lies and covers it up as long as he's their guy. I'm curious who, other than Duck Luckers (his idiocy is a given) subscribe to this same brand of retardation.

We're talking about vastly different concepts. I'm referencing a previous conversation where Fjl2nd said deficit spending for the sake of creating demand is desirable. Which is fundamentally different from a supply-side theory (which doesn't necessarily require deficit spending to be implemented.) The theory behind supply side has more to do with freeing up capital and allowing incentives to work so the economy can grow organically. His Neo-Keynesian theory is more like a long-term priming of the pump, by which an increase in money supply is supposed to magically translate into an increase in production because more people are spending money - this theory kind of makes sense and long as you don't think about it. All this talk about propping up the millionaires and billionaires is a red herring. Not that politicians aren't in the pockets of their contributors, but rich people making money is not what has our economy hamstrung.

I'm sold.

Yea, but you also think defecit spending for the sake of creating demand leads to prosperity, so...

That's only when you don't like the guy being discussed. When you decided he was awesome prior to the draft, it's never his fault.

Corporate tax rates are a problem. Anyone who can't see that is trying really hard not to. Of course, just as important as taxes are other burdens put on employers such as EPA regulations (if you just see EPA = good and discount the reality that they are averse to cost benefit analysis you might as well join the Flat Earth Society), health care costs, etc. In a global economy you can't impose whateve you want on business & only sacrifice productivity. At some point business will GTFO or choose to set up shop elsewhere from the outset. But instead of a realistic approach to the problem, we get a bunch of hot air about outsourcing and a bunch of lies (laughably by the incumbent this time around) about stopping outsourcing with taxes; which even the Dems know is bull ****, but they throw as a lifeline to their loyal followers who want to believe so bad they'll buy anything. You should know better. The problem with spending is structural, and will increase exponentially and indefinitely until the entitlement system is reformed. But it's not going to happen because when you reform entitlements someone stops getting a check, everyone wants to cut spending w/o losing their goodies, & as long as we have a significant contingency in the population that thinks money grows on printing presses, & "compassion" is a viable alternative to common sense, we'll continue with this political culture of Santa Clause government. But Santa's bag is getting light.

Sorry. Yall's theories don't fit & here's why: There's no "come to Jesus" moment- & save me the part about how he discovered he was "misled" b/c that's full of holes also. If he knew in 04 that Bush lied & people died, why didn't he support John Kerry? And why would he hold John McCain responsible for the Bush lies? It doesn't make sense. What also doesn't make sense is HIS explanation in an interview, 4 years ago, when he explained his new found liberalism is a result of "the people" (whoever the !@#$ that may be) suddenly wanting government to provide "services" (whatever those might be?); which if taken at face value pretty clearly translates to "I Believe in and support whatever I perceive to be the popular trend at the moment." Too bad he didn't have you guys to remind him that the reason he's abandoned 30+ years of conservative & free market values to adopt a philosophy of economic interventionism, collectivism, & redistribution, is b/c he was the most naive Sec of State in the history of the Republic & got snowed by the administration putting too much weight on the word of an unreliable source. Good story.

Terro will take care of them.

Careful. Simple Jack thinks you're making fun of Delta Force. I don't mind. When I can elicit negative responses from 3 libs w/ no explanation as to why I'm wrong I know I just hit the nail on the head.

I didn't even know where Buffalo was when I became a fan. My city/state doesn't have a team so I picked the Bills. I find the city representation fairly arbitrary. It's not like the players, coaches, or owners necessarily have any affiliation to the city other than that team uses the name. Half the teams don't even play in the city. I still hope the Bills don't move, but I'd probably still cheer for the franchise anyway. If I was from the area it would bother me more, but we're ultimately cheering mindlessly for a bunch of grown men we don't know to win a game that has no bearing on our real lives at all, anyway, so I'm not going to let a label change ruin my fun.

Powell's a mouth whore who traded his credibility for acceptance among liberals & the black community when he endorsed Obama last time. The attempt to paint his departure as a principled matter is either born of ignorance or dishonesty. His own words betray that assumption. He basically said he jumped b/c "the people" have decided "they" now want government to provide "these services". That's his pathetic excuse for why he abandoned the principles he's espoused his entire career.

Ditto

From Justin to Kelly

From Moses to Sandy Koufax.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284051/real-prison-industry-jonah-goldberg#

I wouldn't hate the idea if we had a good defense. He reminds me in some ways of Flutie, in that me minimizes negative plays & picks up crucial 3rd downs with his legs, which grinds out the clock, keeps the other team's offense off the field, & usually puts the D in good field position. AND even if he hasn't had a great game, can usually come through in the clutch. Of course, when your D's specialty is 3rd down conversions that's not a great strategy.

This is why it's impossible to reason with liberals. You present a real and egregious example of government run awry and they either excuse it, rationalize it, or resort to relativism. If the average liberal didn't view his government like a baby views his mom's tit we wouldn't have half the problems we do. But when the men in the society stop acting like men & start acting like a bunch of soft overly-emotional idealistic 13-year old girls on their period, & then take pride in being such a kitty by hiding under the false cloak of compassion (which is the exact opposite of what they exude) it's not long before the society collapses.