Rob's House

Isn't that reason enough?

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=Yrx2bv_LoG0 NSFW

If I could draw I'd make a cartoon of Romney pulling into a gas station with his dog strapped to the roof & Obama at the adjacent pump looking at the dog with a thought bubble that says "Lunch!"

It gets worse. Romney once made his dog eat dry food without any gravy. Worse, he once had a dinner party where he served wine that is best enjoyed slightly chilled, and he served it at room temperature. Is this the kind of man you want as your President?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for her husband. He's about as low as they come. If you're cool with being taken for a fool & just going with it because it feels good then I don't know what to tell you.

Someone's updated the language filter.

I just saw a clip, so it might me more absurd than what I saw, but it looked like he was making a point. He obviously can't rely on the media to tell the truth about his plan so he seers it in the minds of people by presenting it so simply that even a caveman could understand.

Ah ha. I see what you did there. You called him Wednesday so we'd think of Monday (which a handful of people are aware is an obscure code word for a racial slur) and associate him with it. You're trying to "!@#$ize" him!!!

Both are an attempt to insert the race card. Biden's comment required no decoding; everyone knew what he was saying. Equating angry with race required the discerning eye of a race obsessed pundit trying to desperately to support his theory that all Republicans are racist.

I just heard Obama's campaign extended an olive branch and offered to stop accusing Romney of not releasing his tax returns if he releases the last five years of his tax returns. When they got through rolling around on the floor laughing, the Romney campaign responded by asking: are you scared to talk about the issues, tough guy?

This is idiotic.

He was intercepted three times in that game.

I always get a chuckle at libs whining about outsourcing. Even if it weren't a manufactured issue from 04 to give Democrats something to talk about even though they can't, won't, & haven't done anything about it, the best part is your argument contradicts the core of your ideology. And most of you don't even know it. You just march to the piper's tune as though it were your own. and the best part is, you feel morally superior for being your master's tool.

It's hard to say, especially since we don't know how good he'll be. I don't expect him to bust, but what if he becomes the next Matt Ryan instead of the next Peyton Manning? In hindsight I'd trade our top 3 guys for a 23 year old Manning, but not for Matt Ryan. Granted, a great QB can mask a lot of flaws, but outside of Manning, Marino, and Favre, (maybe Elway) who in the modern era has made their team a perennial contender based solely on QB play? And don't say Montana, Brady, or Rogers b/c all of those guys were/are surrounded by talent.

What issue do you take with the dude's speech?

What irritates the **** out of me is that you're probably right that someone could argue the case and have a chance of getting a SC justice to go along with it. The landmark case that covers this is South Carolina v. Katzenbach where the court held that congress could outlaw literacy tests as a barrier to the ballot if it was determined that it had a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether it was neutral on its face. This is a far cry from claiming that even a literacy test is inherrently unconstitutional; it simply states that congress iss empowered under the 15th to make that call. It would be quite a leap from that to say that the constitution itself bars a state from requiring an ID to vote, but hey, with the intellectual level of political discourse in the country and the absense of any meaningful measure of judicial restraint by the court, nothing would surprise me at this point. Edit - This is the case most pertinent to the 15th amendment argument. I came back to address the 24th but B-Man beat me to it.

I see what you did there. You changed it up from saying it's "charging" $15 to vote to saying it "costs" $15 to vote. These are not necessarily the same thing, but I suspect you already know that, hence the change of phrase. It's all academic anyway b/c as you said the issue is easily resolved by comping the ID for indigents. Although I would maintain the same requirements necessary to get a DL regardless of financial situation. "c-a-t" spells cat regardless of whether 5 stooges in robes say it really spells dog. Sorry, I tend to look to the plain meaning of words before parsing them & here the distinction is fairly clear. Of course, you may be right. I've been meaning to look up my con law notes to compare this but it keeps slippingmy mind. I'll try to get around to it.

Are you kidding me? Romney's a !@#$ing maniac. I've got insiders and from what I hear this campaign is coming apart at the seams. Piles of blow, hookers, all night benders in high-dollar no-tell rooms. The guy's losing his mind; he thinks he's a Goddamn rock star.

Yeah, except you're not charging anyone to vote. You're not clever for twisting it that way either. Any of the lefty stooges could (and have) come up with that one. It's incidental which is a material difference.

Don't worry Greg, I'm not trying to beat up on you. I too have an interest in the subject. My concern is "overcorrection" as you put it. I just stumbled across a prime example just now. http://news.cincinna...S0107/308150032 In this case 6 black kids jumped a white guy because they were bored. By their own admission he'd done nothing to provoke the attack. However, this is what the cop had to say: When was the last time the racial element was immediately dismissed in a similar situation when the shoe was on the other foot? I don't like the idea of a black guy getting the shaft on account of race. By the same token, I don't like the idea of white individuals having to suffer at the hands of those who see us not as individuals but as separate racial groups (teams, if you will) and see some sort of cosmic justice in telling young white people today that it's their turn to suffer because other white people who aren't them did something wrong.

I'm well aware of this. My sister-in-law is about to have a black child and we were discussing names today and I suggested she use a normal sounding name for this very reason. That being said, I'm always hesitant to make absolute declarations based on one study or one statistic because there are other variables to consider. Would a hiring manager call back Sherry before he called Shaquanda if he knew both were black? I don't know. When picking between candidates who are already known to the company (or otherwise) does minority status ever give one candidate a leg up over another? You bet your ass. Does this happen more often than the inverse? I don't know. I've seen it go both ways where I knew with 100% certainty superficial distinctions were the basis of the decision. The bigger point is, we need to be careful about empowering government to provide disparate treatment based on race and sex and especially careful when allowing government to impose disparate treatment on other entities, because the law of unintended consequences is a mother!@#$er. The problem is very likely to be overstated, the solution overreaching, and the consequences more detrimental than beneficial. And often times it !@#$s the person it's supposed to help - I have known of people who avoided certain hires due to high risk of litigation.

I doubt there's any empirical evidence to support this. At times I've even seen the opposite occur. These blanket statements are so outdated I feel like I'm listening to the guy in your avatar.

It's purely subjective so I can't say you're wrong, but I don't think I'd like him at all. I could see Clinton or Biden that way, but not Obama. The depth of his depravity transcends politics.

I know the Brits had a 99 year lease on the place but I don't know all the details.