Rob's House

It drives me up a wall when they overenunciate "tour" in the word. Kind of like how the English language had the word "normality" before it became cute to switch to "normalcy".

Let's be honest, Chef. What good is a growing economy & a thriving nation if you can't even kill your own kids?

I wonder what he learned that changed his heart.

Brady & Rogers aren't even in that conversation. I'd throw Newton & Stafford into the mix, though. +1 If you've ever killed a spider where do you get off demonizing someone for stealing a little kid's puppy & throwing it to vicious pitbulls to be ripped to pieces for his enjoyment. It's practically the same thing. The hypocrisy on this board is ridiculous. Besides, the tears of a child whose dog disappeared are yummy.

Actually, you've been presented with several legitimate questions in respone to your assertions, which you refuse to answer. Then when pressed you accuse others of deflecting. And just because I like to give credit where it's due I will say you have balls. It takes a lot of balls to declare AARP a right-wing group & then accuse others of trolling.

Yeah, because isolating data from a single year is the same as the aggregate over a Presidential term. And if you want to talk policy, what's the break from Bush policies that Obama's implemented to create jobs?

It was an intentional Biden reference

I realize as a simpleton it's hard for you to consider more than one variable at a time, but did it ever occur to you that while a President doesn't control the price of oil, that policy restrictions on energy production could have an impact on it? Only an idiot would ask this. First, there is a lot more that effects growth & expansion than tax rates, but again, I don't expect you to be able to understand the effects of multiple variables. And businesses take loans to expand business to meet expected demand. Why would you hire more people & invest in more capital when you expect both would be idle? At least Obama probably knows this "solution" is just a bogus talking point he can throw out to give the lemmings something they can cite as something he's done to fix things. You're one of the lemmings that actually buys it. There's a word for people like you. One word that sums you up: Useful Idiot.

yawn

Holy ****. I should have read on before I replied. I now see the crazy train was just getting warmed up. So in your mind Obama admitting that the ad his campaign coordinated to blame Romney for a woman's death is complete bull ****, after it blew up in his face, somehow absolves him of any blame for the initial lie; & by supporting individual gun ownership rights one effectively seeks repeal of laws against homicide? You're a sharp one.

I see logic isn't your strong suit. Well, at least you're trying. But if you fu€k like you think I feel sorry for your woman.

Several years ago I was buying wine at Kroger but my 19 yr old gf was with me & they carded both of us and refused to sell to me. I sent her out to the car, walked back to the wine section, went to a register at the other end, and bought my bottle. The store cop saw me walking out with a bag after seeing me get shot down at the first register and followed me out asking to see what was in the bag. I thought he was trying to make me bring the bottle back so I politely told him to piss off. After a few minutes of negotiating (for lack of a better word) I realized this guy didn't give a **** if my gf had ID, he thought I stole the bottle. I showed him the receipt, he checked it over, and told me to have a good night. Of course if I'd tried to drive off he could have detained me under suspicion of shoplifting. But by assessing the situation I realized that rather than being an over-zealous !@#$ he was just a guy doing his job.

Consider who we're discussing and take it in that context. I was expecting the Vick apologists to jump on me for that one.

Was it something I said?

I'd be so happy I'd torture a puppy in celebration.

Not a rehash of the debate. You made reference to all these male "neanderthals" so rather than insulting you for something that on the surface seems absurd I asked for clarification, because I'm in a good mood and don't feel like ripping in to anyone.

No offense, but it was a really bad analogy. And are you suggesting that anyone concerned with potentially killing innocent babies is a neanderthal?

As a courtesy to a fellow rider I try not to be too hard on you, but you have to admit your point was really weak.

If I could draw I'd make a cartoon with Obama working a concession stand with "Vote Obama" campaign materials posted about and a big sign in the middle that says "Free Lunch for Sale".

Can we decide on a case by case basis?

I suppose you didn't deserve the insult, it's just frustratitng to see the same arguments after I thought we'd covered that territory and moved to a higher level of discourse, but whatever. My example was not to illustrate the success rate of raising unplanned children, but merely to illustrate that it is not an exlusively female issue. Sure, she has the burden of being pregnant, but when discussing issues of life and death, that's really not a relevant concern IMO. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if the child that's going to be born to irresponsible parents were already born not many would advocate killing it to save it from a hard life. All this being said, keep in mind that I'm a nihilist and given the ultimate futility of life I don't have an answer as to what the ethical implications of killing the unwanted baby are, born or otherwise. On a visceral level it offends my sensibilities (I get teary watching Savannah Smiles - don't tell anyone), but on a cerebral level...eh?

But basically, at the end of the day, it is what it is, ya know? It's a quarterback driven league.

I'm not getting back into the abortion debate because we spelled that out pretty clearly last night. It either went over your head or you just get satisfaction in the simplicity that is your thought process. As to your second point, the consequences aren't specific to women. I'm proof that you're dead wrong as I am raising a child I didn't plan for and wasn't convenient at the time and I've never for half a second had the slightest regret - quite the opposite actually. And to your third point (which is quite honestly the dumbest point yet made in this thread - and that's a HUGE !@#$ing statement), I don't know what kind of women you hang out with, but most who are old enough to "make the beast" without requiring someone to commit a felony, have knowledge of and access to very effective and convenient methods of birth control... well, except for 30 year old Columbia Law students.

Those consequences are natural, but you again stick with your "group of cells" theory that precludes a possibility that you can't eliminate and suggest that the potential killing of a kid is an appropriate means to ensuring the ability to have irresponsible pleasure sex and let someone else (i.e. the baby who didn't ask to be conceived) suffer the consequences.

As far as politics go, I agree any GOP politicians and pundits should steer clear of this. It's all fine and good for us to kick it around here, but changing the subject to abortion and letting that become the narrative is a bad move. Not because it's a winning issue for the left, which I don't believe it is, but because the momentum and ammo on the economy is so strong for them that it would be foolish to allow the campaign to get bogged down in this. It's just like in sports; if you let your opponent hang around long enough it's probably going to come back to bite you in the ass. When you've got him up against the ropes knock him out, don't switch it up to show how versatile you can be.