Rob's House

Wow, I haven't seen this side of you. The irony is you don't really get the argument you're denigrating others for making. The truth is that there is nothing about guns or ammo that makes them terribly difficult for an amateur to construct with relatively inexpensive materials. You can't make them go away.

What is an assault weapon & what is the benefit of banning it?

My friend's coworkers were in a motel when 3 guys kicked down their door & started shooting. One of his coworkers was locked and loaded and helped two of them fill their reservations in hell before the third ran away. Those guys had been going up & down the east coast killing people before running into someone who was ready for them. Somehow I think the perps could still get guns or strong-arm the weak regardless of gun laws. My friend's coworkers? Probably not.

I like the VA tech approach. They banned all guns on campus after that shooting massacre a few years back. Too bad they didn't have that policy before. They could have saved a lot of lives if the shooter wasn't allowed to bring his gun that day. How much gang violence do they have in Norway?

I won't go so far as to say categorically that all government grants to fund research are bad, but I'd say that they should be VERY conservatively handed out and even then are inherently inefficient. When in doubt we should err on the side of caution (caution being no grant). Especially with the current regime's track record on investing public funds.

So now you're a Scalia guy? Scalia, right? The guy who said the ACA is unconstitutional any way you play it? Just to clarify, I'm not saying it's unconstitutional. I'd have to read the bill and review the case law to give you a definitive opinion on the ultimate decision. But the fact that they're discussing it shows that it's not a foregone conclusion.

No, I can't see them getting that worked up about it. A catchy slogan? Sure. The idea that Republicans want to restrict the vote to those who have the right to vote? No, I'm just not seeing it.

I don't thing "we" should do anything, if by "we" you mean the government. Oil may well run out some day centuries down the road, but as an Econ majore you should already know how that plays out. As oil gets increasingly scarce the price will rise, making substitute goods more profitable and raise the incentive for the experts in the field motivated to efficiently develop alternatives. Giving some scientist a government grant to study alternatives is not an efficient way of developing alternatives. I heard the CEO of Duke energy (who was introduced by and endorsed Tim Kaine) discuss the future of his company. They are invested in all forms of energy production and are constantly working to develop alternate and more efficient sources. Since they're using their own money they are very careful how it is spent. All these solar companies and the way the stimulus money was distributed gives you an idea of how carefully and efficiently government spends your money.

Whenever I hear one side declare what the other side should do to further its political interests I automatically assume the opposite is true.

Why do we need to do this NOW, and why do we need government, rather than markets, to facilitate it?

No, just letting it play out. I'm more curious on this issue than trying to make a point. It sounds like an imminent disaster but I guess I'm looking for some way to rationalize it so I can believe it might be okay. So far I can't say my biggest concerns have been addressed. Some things I just disagree with: Young people being forced to disproportionately compensate for the cost of old people. It sounds good rhetorically (the how "we" treat our old people bit) but I'm already concerned about my daughter having to pay for the retirement of old people, now she'll have to pay for their health care also. I'm also troubled by the way we're essentially abolishing insurance. When I was a kid my parents paid for check-ups and dental appointments out of pocket, and the prices weren't so absurd as they are today. Insurance was in case you got sick or injured. Now we're essentially socializing medicine incrmentally. Insurance is now just your health care payment plan. That's consistent with the forced coverage of pre-existing conditions. It sounds noble, but that's not what insurance is, that's what collectivism is. They're not the same. On the more fundamental issues, I still don't see a great deal of value here. A good portion of this alleged 30 million newly insured are hypothetical based on a temporary medicaid inclusion that is at the discretion of the state as to whether it should cover them. If this is so desireable why didn't we just expand medicaid? That way you cover the people who can't afford insurance without infringing upon the rights of others. Plus, due to the temporary nature of it, this is essentially a request of the states to allow the government to pass the buck to them. If that's a desirable outcome why not let the states handle the issue on their own? I'm also of the understanding, and I'm hoping those in the industry can shed more light on this, that doctors make far less treating those on Medicaid despite the cost of treatment being held constant - more on this later. So this basically leaves us with the mandate which I see little value in. I get the "freeloader" argument, but it doesn't hold water. Prevention of "freeloading" does little to address the harm this bill purports to cure, that is provide access to health care for those who can't afford it. It actually does nothing to address this. And while I don't have the numbers, I'm of the understanding that the cost of services rendered by those uninsured who are subject to the mandate is relatively negligible. So the only new money pumped into the system is from those not currently insured, who will not be on Medicaid. In the meantime, Dr.'s compensation per visit will drop, more people will have more access to non-essential health care treatment, and "insurance" companies have their premiums capped. Here's where it all falls apart. You have more people consuming more health care services without a corresponding increase in money coming in, a decrease in doctor compensation (which necessarily results in a decrease in the supply of doctors/supply of health care services), and a cap on prices. How can this work? Less Supply + More Demand = Higher Prices If you have higher prices, how do you not have higher premiums? And if you don't have higher premiums how do the insurance companies stay in business? What keeps the whole system from collapsing? Please, I really want someone to explain this in a way that makes sense because so far, including in this thread, no one has.

Birddog's already got his. If the rest of us have to forego our opportunity for upward mobility to further his ideology it's an acceptable sacrifice.

I doubt it would have much impact on the black vote or female vote. Anyone casting a vote for those reasons is going to vote D anyway. I think it would be treated (and I can't say unfairly) the way the Michael Steele thing was. Being neither black nor female I can't say for sure, but I think I'd be insulted that the campaign thought I'd be swayed by that. None of the black women I know, & I know quite a few, would change their vote on account of her. It's a shame too because she'd probably be as good a pick as any based on qualifications as well as her ability to keep it classy and rise above the fray.

Good God! I caught a glimpse of this show & I'm stunned. I expected it to be an election year campaign vehicle for Obama but I thought they'd be at leat a little bit subtle about it. Apparently the writers trained at the Randy Marsh school of subtext. This is like watching Keith Olberman's daydreams on TV.

No internship this year, I need to maintain a cash flow. Hope I don't regret that decision. As far as the case goes, the key to all of this is that the bolded section only empowers congress to regulate commerce. No mention is made of activity that might have an indirect effect on the commerce to be regulated. They're essentially regulating abstention from commerce. It doesn't seem so controversial to us now, but for the roughly 150 years preceding these decisions the text was well understood to include only commerce. At this point it's academic because no court will or can side with logic & reason over a SC decision. My point is simply that the court usurped the constitution and essentially wrote a transformative amendment into the constitution without going through the proper channels. BTW, do you like your new gig better than your last?

Well, it was in a movie theater, and movie theaters do sell candy. Is it not possible that some of the victims were in possession of Skittles?

No one's claiming it doesn't exist. I'm thankful for it. It's prevented us from some truly disastrous legislation, like Cap & Trade. The reason it sounds like a bunch of whiny little bitches throwing a temper tantrum is largely due to the context. Beloved Leader didn't come into office with a message of restoring the American system & working together for shared goals. He said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the country, which is by definition radical. He then, in an unprecedented display of political class reminded the Republicans "but I won" and let them know they could come along for the ride, but they were riding "in the back". So after telling the Republicans that he could do whatever he wants because he has the power & they can't stop him, they do the one & only thing they can to block his radical agenda and you guy cry foul. Give me a !@#$ing break.

He has. I read an op/ed of his a few years back. I don't recall the subject but I remember being pleasantly surprised.

EVERYONE avoids paying as much in taxes as they can. That goes for all the douche bag libs begging to have their taxes raised. For a guy who supports low taxes you can't even get a legitimate claim of hypocrisy against him. Claiming that his tax shelters are indicative of what tax policy would be under him is irrelevant b/c he's had no hand in writing the current tax code. This is purely for the sake of distorting the facts (the way libs speak of cap gains & income interchangeably when it suits their agenda) so the Ring-a-Ding kid (who despite espousing a belief that your wealth was facilitated by everyone & that the wealth should be spread around, and despite being well within the resources, gives dick **** to charity) can stand up there with that stupid smirk and tell everyone (most of whom won't pay in a lifetime the taxes Romney pays in a year) that Mitt Romney pays less taxes than they do.

That's fair. I thought you were referring to AKs in general, many of which are semi-auto.

Why is that?

As someone who, for fiscal reasons, votes almost exclusively Republican, & never Democrat, I am concerned that the Dems will steal elections through voter fraud. However, having seen that unchecked Republicans begin acting like Democrats, I would never want to insulate Republicans from the ballot. The purpose is to protect us from overreaching government, not overreaching Democrats.

The premise (it's actually a question) is a direct response to those who credit Obama with helping the economy. So far, other than the auto fiasco (Ford somehow managed on its own) the only other answer given is that the stimulus might have helped. Of course the projections of how bad it would have been are brought to you bybthe same geniuses that said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, so forgive me if I give that all the weight of a fart in the ocean. And if you guys knew how pathetic it sounds whining about the obstructionist congress you'd stop. Stimulus spending takes money out of the economy, not the other way around. That you've somehow "earned" a B.S. in Econ & don't understand that is sad. Hint: Money =/= currency

?

I do somewhat, but it wasn't until the third or fourth time I heard it that I caught it. And it's not necessarily inconsistent with his message.