Rob's House

I'd say to take a shot every time they mention Swiss bank accounts, but I don't want anyone getting alcohol poisoning.

Clinton speaks tomorrow. Do you guys think Clinton really wants Obama to win? He has an ad running in VA where he says deregulation & tax cuts "got us into this mess in the first place." He doesn't sound like he believes it, & I thought it was interesting b/c Glass-Steagal was repealed during his Presidency. If Obama loses Hillary arguably has a better shot in '16, Clinton remains the Dem hero as the only Dem since Truman to be elected twice, & Clinton was pissed that Obama pulled the race card on him. So do y'all think he's really pulling for Obama or just staying in the good graces of the party?

I didn't buy it; I just thought it was the most likely to have a positive effect on moderates.

I didn't catch the early one's, but the old blonde with the bad accent wasn't very good, the MA gov wasn't very good - terrible inflection; Obama could have given the same speech MUCH more convincingly, Castro was ok but mostly just rattled off Dem cliches & stereotypes - His inflection was good at times but too often came off as phony when he tried to come off as passionate. Michelle was the only one that didn't have glaring and obvious weaknesses.

I gotta say, I think Michelle's speech was the most effective of the night. It's hard for me to gauge what will sway those who don't know (or don't want to know) what I do, but in my estimation of the sensibilities of moderates, I assume her speech had the most impact. It wasn't great, but for a 1st lady speech it was pretty good.

? What does my title of nobility have to do with it?

The keynote guy reminded me of a timeshare pitch man I saw a few years back. Loved the NBC split-screen of guys family. Now NBC is doing a friends & family endorsement of Michelle. This is so shameless that it would be infuriating were the brazen nature of it all not so amusing. They're actually pumping up & priming the crowd for her speech.

Holy ****! Every network is televising this. Perhaps I missed it, but did the networks cover day 1 of the RNC?

Watching this MA gov speak makes me realize how good a speech reader Obama is. This guy's terrible.

PBS.just called her his "baby" sister.

This coverage is great. The same PBS commentators that were skeptically calling into question every Republican assertion are asking Dems tough questions like "why isn't Obama getting more credit for the jobs that have been created?" :lol: :lol: With a straight face! :lol:

Dog, I dig you man. You're a straight up lib with no qualifiers or pre-text & that makes it fun. But I'm going to have to abstain from taking it to you any more on this issue b/c I'm already worried about you bringing a 13th amendment suit against me for my earlier post.

The lack of humanity in others has always disturbed me. I once was researching a street gang and to make a long story short, I ended up on a website that's devoted primarily to posting video of people being severely beaten, killed, and/or tortured. I didn't watch the videos, but reading the comments I realized that a lot of people frequent that site daily to get off watching people suffer unspeakable agony. And half of them think it's funny. There's a lot of twisted people out there.

Glad to see you're back. I was starting to worry you'd fallen off the planet. BTW, you can't receive PMs.

I'm interested to see this, not because I care what any of the speakers have to say, but because I'm interested at how the "media watchdogs" who zealously played "devil's advocate" throughout the RNC cover this. Somehow I'm guessing there will be a lot of smiles and optimism rather than stone faces and skepticism.

Not sure about streaming Sunday Ticket, but last year I had NFL Rewind, plugged it up to the 50" plasma via HDMI, and the picture was good, but it was a little choppy. I'd assume the PS3 stream would be cleaner. Also, does anyone know if you can stream the online package through an iphone?

All this theoretical nonsense is interesting in a classroom setting, but ignores the reality of most small business owners. Take, for instance, my friend who started a restaurant. Now, whether you think his profits should be evenly distributed among those he hired to perform unskilled labor or not is irrelevant to the risk he took. He put his money on the line. If it failed, he's out the thousands of dollars and countless hours he put into it and is left with nothing but a mountain of debt to show for his efforts. He could have waited tables, or taken a job managing someone else's store, made enough to get by, and risked nothing by doing so. No one guaranteed him success and now many people have a better option than they had before to get food, more people now have jobs than did before, and he has a lot more money than he did before. And while someone may find his take disproportionate, he's the one with all the stress who has to keep the place running and who eats it if the place fails. You can dress it up in whatever Marxist or Anarchist theory impresses you, but none of that changes the plain and simple fact that he's the one who put his time and money on the line and stood to take a loss. As it pertains to the rant the moron in the OP clip made, his risk is not in any way similar to the "risk" of being poor. The analogy is !@#$ing stupid. And as far as the whole theory that the state enables him to steal the product of others labor, who would you suggest gets to determine how his profits are allocated?

The government has absorbed all the corporations through bailouts/buyouts and is now the majority shareholder of all corporations, esentially becoming one massive corporation. The cities look kind of like London - Unkept and shwag. Poor scavengers overrun the cities and big buildings remain from the long long ago but are falling into decay. America is now a 3rd world country. The military is omnipresent, facilitates most government action, like bringing in trucks of supplies on pallets to distribute to the deprived masses in the streets when they're lucky enough to get it, and military units have replaced local police divisions. Most are scavengers, many others are exploited and pressed into labor by street gangs who operate on the black market. The countryside is littered with survivalists who live off the land. Many have banded together and built compounds. Some have formed gangs of marauding bandits that pillage the rural towns. Some pay a protection "tax". Those who are lucky enough to have government jobs are at the mercy of their employers and if they fall out of favor with those who have power their fate will be that of the scavengers and survivalists. Keeping one's family safe, fed, and in tact is an ongoing struggle for most. Except for those in the entitled class who live well and have others at their disposal.

I'm tired of people shitting on Rush. He's a conservative guy having fun talking about politics on the radio. He's not a mean spirited guy like Olbermann or Lawrence O'donnell, he's not a phony like Bashir and Andrea Mitchell, he's not vulgar like Bill Maher, he's not an !@#$ off the record like Al Franken, & he's not half the blow-hard Tingles is. Yet he's far more demonized than all of them put together. If people were honest they'd either say they don't like him b/c he's conservative & they're libs or they'd admit they don't listen to him & base their opinions on reputation. The demonization of him is straight up bull ****.

I'm not sure he got the sarcasm in the OP.

That's a little over the top. No need to be so malicious.

That was !@#$ing hilarious

It would be better to link to material like that. Especially for people using their phone, it's a real pain in the ass to have to scroll through all that to get to the next post.

I don't think you guys understand what a lie is. It's not something you disagree with, or something that you can twist to find some perceived inconsistency in. It's a statement of fact that the speaker knows is false. Whether Ryan supported the "Simpson-Bowles" provisions has no bearing on the truthfulness of Obama's inaction. If I point out that Obama hasn't advanced legislation on Cap & Trade, the fact that I oppose the measure in no way makes my statement false. And as far as the article you linked titled "A Not Very Truthful Speech in a Not Very Truthful Campaign", the irony is thick. Not a Very Truthful Article. You have to be pretty simple or try really hard to construe most of his examples as lies. Let's analyze a few: You've got to be quite the literalist to claim a falsity here. That "deficit reduction plan" is a !@#$ing joke. That's like my wife calling me a liar for saying she hasn't done anything for me all day when she actually turned up the volume on the TV at my request earlier. If he promised to keep it open and it closed, he broke his promise. The fact that the decision had been made in advance may give him a plausible excuse for not making good on it, but doesn't change the fact that what he promised didn't materialize. I'm not sure if this guy's trying to be clever or if he's just stupid, but many liberals have admitted that the long-run goal of ACA is to sink the current system so as to force a single-payer system. And he's being dishonest referencing his docs current status when most of the bills provisions haven't gone into effect. As though an effective President has no power to negotiate through gridlock? Reagan and Clinton did. But I suppose if you look through the prism of the liberal idealogue where Obama is the poor innocent victim of Republican obstructionism, through no fault of his own, that this downgrade is in no way attributable to him, despite having a supermajority for 2 years, then yeah, in that narrow prism you could kinda sorta call Ryan's statement a lie. Horseshit! This whole paragraph is dishonest. He's taking a statement referencing hierarchy of priority and misrepresenting it as a statement of chronology. Obama absolutely declared health care his primary signature issue. You guys are pathetic.

This is like when you break up with a girl because you don't like her, she starts dating someone else right away, & NOW you're upset about the good thing you lost.