Rob's House

That reminds me, does anyone still watch SNL? Are they spoofing Holder at all? God knows the material is there, but I suspect good humor at the expense of the administration has to take a back-seat to their primary function - campaigning for Obama.

This, I hadn't thought of, but it is disturbing. At first I thought I could off-set this w/ Obama being a Chicago fan, but 1) I don't really have the visceral hate for Chicago teams I do for Boston teams, and 2) despite his love for "Cominsky Field", I don't think Obama really cares for sports - Maybe basketball. This throws a monkey wrench into everything.

I'm not a big Romney guy, but so far I've yet to hear anyone present any valid criticisms of him. As a hunch there are some out there, I just haven't heard them. I've heard a bunch of inane chatter about his negative campaigning (which makes me long for a jerk off emoticon) and I've heard a bunch of idiotic analysis about Mitt not being a Jesus Christ/Santa Clause hybrid at Bain Capital, but really that just sounds like the desperate attempts of entrenched leftists grasping at straws. What's the real knock on this guy?

Has Romney actually lied about Obama, or is this one of those things where we just say everyone's the same so we can pretend to be independent?

Brilliant!

If you think it's bad now just wait.

OK. In short, the only way it could be considered a poll tax would be if a specific voter registration card was required. But any legit photo ID (DL, passport, DMV ID), which you're generally expected to have anyway is a different story. Requiring ID in & of itself isn't a tax at all. To claim any requirement that at some point incurs cost is somehow a tax is absurd. To draw that out you could claim the requirement of pants to go to the polls is a poll tax; I mean ****, there are people who can't afford a pair of pants, you don't want to know about them, dude. ****, I can have a pantless vagrant here by 4:00. You could argue (and perhaps you do) that people should be able to vote by phone b/c some people can't get to the polls. Furthermore, for an ID requirement to be struck down you would have to show the intent of the legislature was to discriminate against people based on suspect classifications.

No, you're wrong in so many ways I don't have time to explain it all right now. I'll get back to you on this.

With this court I'm not going to rule anything out, but unless it was intended as a barrier to keep people out, or the price was so high as to be discriminatory, it would not be a poll tax. And with a DMV ID available everywhere for $10 +/- it would be hard to make the argument with a straight face.

This must be a joke or a MDP imitation. You can't possibly be dumb enough to seriously equate ID requirements to a poll tax. You just can't. Uh, maybe you didn't get the memo, but some guy at NYU wrote a paper saying there's no voter fraud. So that settles it.

Speaking of inheritance tax, I think we said it all in this thread, the one that brought me unsuspectingly to PPP. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/114434-heartlessevil-post/

You're conflating the concept of voting districts with ID requirements.

No, that was four years ago.

The title of the article is the most interesting and unnoticed aspect of this whole thing. Stating that Romney was booed in the article, which even if factually true is somewhat misleading, has a purpose. It's a tricky and effective way to send the message to the average black person who reads the title and not the article that other black people don't like Romney and reject his message. People are hard wired to get with the program.

I'm actually plagiarizing my brother. His ex used to get mad and tell him he was a horrible bf, to which he would respond in his most innocent and sincere voice that she was wrong because his mom told him any girl would be lucky to have him and his mom doesn't lie to him. You can imagine the reaction that got.

I don't get this. If you're going to tell a crowd they should choose you over their "Golden Boy" (and that gold's not so shiney any more) then it seems sensible to explain why you're policies will be better for them than his. Am I wrong?

I can't speak for all conservative twits, but I'm actually concerned about you guys transferring power from the many to the few.

drags committed libel against me. He said I was the biggest ass hole on the board. But my mom says I'm a nice boy and my mom doesn't lie to me.

I'm guessing that's not all it would raise.

While the corporations will often want to avoid the short run burden of excessive regulatory requirements, in the long run it's largely irrelevant to their profit structure b/c it applies to their competitors as well so they just add it into the price structure. This benefits the biggest corporations for the reasons TYTT stated, & the burden of regulatory compliance is paid for by those who consume the output of the industry, usually the general public. Just as a corporate tax isn't so much transferring money from big corporations to the government but is in practice a relatively flat tax on the public, regulatory compliance drains resources out of the economy and is lost like harnessed energy being lost as heat. The question is whether the value added by that regulation is greater than the value of production lost as a result of that burden. And most, if able to fully comprehend the impact, would be shocked to know how much of our resources are burned in the furnace of regulatory compliance.

Specifically, which measurables are you basing your conclusion on?

Dude, half the fields you just mentioned are ideal for risk averse people who want income security.

You obviously don't know Lybob.

I'll give you a level of deference because you generally know what you're talking about, but I'm skeptical as to whether that is legitimate economic growth or just the appearance of economic growth due to an infusion of paper money, which is usually negated by an ensuing recession. Although, you did say temporary growth so I don't know that I'm necessarily contradicting you.

I'll give money to the panhandlers with obvious disabilities, like the lady in the wheelchair with no feet - somehow I think she's on the level - but the young able-bodied guys aren't getting a dime out of me. I've got too many stories to count. There was a guy who used to stand on Monument Ave every day with a cane and a sign. One day my friend said something from his car that offended the bums sensibilities so enraged him that he charged the car and smacked it with his cane. Not one to be !@#$ed with, my friend got out and confronted him at which point the bum pulled out his cell phone and threatened to call the cops. Now that the jig was up (cane's a prop, guy has a cell phone) my friend couldn't help but laugh at him and got back in his car. He ran into the bum weeks later at a Subway. After getting his sub he hopped in his Isuzu Trooper and drove off. Same friend ran into a guy who told him he ran out of gas, yada, yada, yada, and he's trying to get home. My friend gave him $20 bucks only to see him 30 minutes later with a pizza and a 6 pack of Sam Adams. And this was after the first incident. That guy was good. But my favorite bum story was of a guy with a "Will work for food" sign. A friend of mine and his boss were driving to work and pulled over and said "all right, let's go." "Go where," he asked. "To work." The guy stutters something about how he's waiting for his friend. I know these are just anecdotes, but now a days you have to be missing a limb or have crazy eyes to get a buck out of me.