Rob's House

When my liver goes I'm suing Miller Brewing Co.

Judging on pure athletic ability I'd consider Barry Sanders, Michael Vick, and Allen Iverson.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=i75mw7jE1ug New(er) country with an old flavor

Reminds me of my Dad's first computer, pre-Windows 95. He had a flow chart to help him; it went like this: Type: WIN Hit: ENTER He kept this taped to his desk for two years.

WTF does this have to do withe the Dude's statement? Or are you trying to say that this 1857 incident is an indictment against Romney, is somehow relevant to the topic, and he's "ignorant" for not tying that all together?

I'm noticing EII's debate rarely breaks the surface. He either references a generality or deflects by attacking someone on the right. Case in point: - It looks like Obama joined a far left extremist party in the 90s EII: Oh yeah, well Mitt Romney's a Mormon. You just can't argue with that logic.

This theory may be logical but it isn't sound because it's based on a faulty premise. The way you see the TEA Baggers is not how they see it. They're not trying to destroy the government, that's just silly. Almost as silly as claiming a bunch of people who think the government shouldn't take more than 1/3 of people's income are extremists. Another myth propagated by the left is that TEA Baggers and right wingers love corporations and have a deep desire to empower them. Conservatives don't really give a !@#$ about corporations per se. They simply believe in freedom & property rights, & people don't surrender their property rights when they organize. Conservatives would rather have the government police the businesses to prevent fraud & the like while libs want the government to more or less run the whole damn economy. What's lost in the lesson of the whole financial crisis is that when one entity exerts too much control, the natural checks and balances that occur in economies are negated and if someone forgets to properly install a release valve on this highly experimental economic machine, everything can go wrong. But it shouldn't be surprising that people who support convenience killings of innocent babies but steadfastly defending the right to life for the most brutal criminals society has to offer, while ironically laughing at the contradiction of those who would save a child but kill child murderer, would also find it extreme to stand up to massive government takeovers of private industry/property, but perfectly sensible to give untold power to a virtually unchecked monolithic power.

I don't think "Stonewalling", at least used as a pejorative, is a fair criticism. When the other side has an aggressive agenda you are opposed to the only way to check that is by standing together; to do otherwise is to roll over. It has an essential functional value purposefully written into the structure of the constitution to prevent too much from happening too fast. And it worked. The other side got plenty of its agenda through but the Republicans holding ground kept it from getting passed through as haphazardly, aggressively, or rapidly as it otherwise would have. If the shoe were on the other foot the Dems would, and should, do the same thing.

I think this is where the disconnect comes in. I don't understand why you have to tear someone down to build someone else up. The hate part sounds like projection. I see people, most of whom have looked at the evidence and drawn a logical conclusion that generally freer markets create the best standard of living for the most people. You look at the evidence and draw a different, but possibly also logical conclusion (I'd have to hear your theory & reasoning to be sure). But why do these people have to be fueled by hate? Why do they have to be villified? Why can't you simply point out the flaws in their economic theory instead of going after their presumed character & motives?

I'll be posting in this thread often. We'll start with some of the greatest songs of the early 90s era: Doug Stone - Everything this guy did was great but to name a few: Different Light, Why Didn't I Think of That, Faith in Me. Mark Chestnut - I Just Wanted You to Know Garth Brooks - Shameless. I'm not a big fan of Garth, but this song, written by Billy Joel, is his best and the steel guitar tickles the soul. Shenandoah - Two Dozen Roses; Somewhere in the Vicinity of the Heart ( w/ Alison Krauss) Wynona Judd - Tell Me Why, To Be Loved by You, ... Sammy Kershaw - I Can't Reach Her Anymore Joe Diffie - John Deere Green Kathy Mattea - 455 Rocket, 18 Wheels & a Dozen Roses Nitty Gritty Dirt Band - Fishin in the Dark. Diamond Rio - Meet in the Middle Lari White - That's How You Know

As much as Clinton takes flack for his tax hike, and although he did have the good fortune to preside over the internet explosion, he also facilitated that economic growth with market friendly policies. From Arthur Laffer: Read more: http://business.time.com/2007/12/07/talking_to_arthur_laffer_about/#ixzz1x3roDt4z

Come on, Pooj. What would Jerry say?

I don't think Garnett gets enough credit. He doesn't put up the big #s like Lebron, but that's largely because he is more of a team player, and he brings a lot of emotion to the game. As much as I hate to cheer for any Boston team, I'll be pulling for your boys to close out this series.

Are you looking for songs from a particular era or just great country songs from all eras?

I'd throw in Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" speech, but truth is, no one really knows what exactly he said in that speech.

I haven't felt this despondent since I found out Dorris Day wasn't a virgin. Flutie took a team that couldn't get out of its own way and made it a top NFL team. Tom, this time you're the idiot.

That one might be the other way around. When the rest of the work picks up on wall to wall Bush bashing in the US media it definitely fuels the fire of international outrage.

I wouldn't say he's been mislabeled. Econ dude characterizes the stimulus as a minor nothing. As far as the socialist domineering, let's not forget he passed Obamacare which is only a step and a half away from nationally socialized medicine, and the signature legislation he's pushing right now is the "Buffet" rule tax hikes (which, interestingly enough, wouldn't apply to Buffet) which serve only as a political wedge to play on class warfare (a lynchpin of socialist theory). While has hasn't pushed or passed as much of a socialist agenda as I had assumed, from what I see he's pushed as much as he thinks he can while staying politically viable.

Just play it cool. I've dipped my pen in the company ink on a few occasions and never had a problem. Why? Because I let them know up front that discretion was important and I didn't get weird afterward. I even ended up marrying one of them. I say go for it, but be smart about it.

!@#$in NARC

You should peruse the thread. Pretty much everything you could want to know about the case, the media coverage, and relevant law is in there.

Juaranimo summed it up pretty well. For the most part, if you come in discussing issues someone might beat up your argument (and Tom will call you an idiot) but it's mostly all in good fun. But if you come in right off the bat talking **** (like I believe you admitted to doing) it rubs people the wrong way and they're going to let you have it. Maybe if you show the level of civility here that you show on the main board you'll find you're received with a lot less hostility.

Normally I'd say no, but I've watched enough seasons of 24 to know how this stuff works. Citizen McCain was right that you don't say you're going to bomb an ally (unless you want to scare them straight). The problem is, Pakistani leadership can't afford to help us take out OBL b/c it will cause great strife among its people. So Obama gets his wife to call Gilani's wife to convince him that he needs to cooperate. So as not to compromise his position with his people Gilani agrees to help as long as Obama agrees to pretend it was unauthorized. Unbeknownst to Obama, his chief of staff had been running intel to Osama because as a patriot he believed Osama served as a necessary boogie man to keep Americans vigilant in the "war on terror". Because Obama went through back channels the Navy Seals were able to get the drop on him and sent in their units. Obama wisely reinstated a rogue agent wanted for war crimes to execute the mission (a ballsy move Citizen McCain would likely have been too yellow to make) which proved to be the right move when Bin Laden was able to escape to the roof by taking out the reinforcements blocking the way and was just about to escape in his helicopter when the rogue agent brained him. Say what you will about Obama; sure, he's a chilly, narcissistic man-child who has blind faith in discredited economic policies, but he let his balls hang low and made the call to off OBL and if nothing else he deserves credit for that.

I don't think this was worthy of a dissertation, but whatever. Your theory is flawed on several grounds ( not the least of which is completely ignoring that Harry got to keep 3/4 of his earnings), but most importantly you seem to suffer from what I call "Loser's Dilema". This is characterized by an illogicalobsession with how hard one works rather than how much one produces. It's like the fast food worker performing unskilled labor & believing he's entitled to the bosses profits because he's doing all the work. Problem is, his work is of little value. You can throw a dart into a crowd and hit someone who can do the job. The owner provides an ongoing service by continuing to operate the service which is exponentially more valuable to society than the kid flipping burgers. His service is essentially the same as labor, it just doesn't require as much physical assertion. You also are failing to consider opportunity cost (what he could be doing with his resources were they not tied up in his current endeavor). The part about when the capital is paid off is arbitrary as well. Procuring equipment and renting it out is labor. Why is one not allowed to profit from it? When Home Depot makes money by allowing me to use its tiller for a fraction of its cost because my need is temporary, thus giving me a substantial benefit, are they to cease charging once they get back their capital investment? And why is that value providing service not worthy of compensation? And if in the hypo it's still my mower why can't I sell it? Obviously I can't keep the money b/c I've already gotten my money back and in this strange world you've described it is effort rather than production that is rewarded. And don't come back saying labor creates the production b/c I guarantee Harry's a lot more productive with my mower than with a pair of scissors. And finally, you absurd argument attempting to redefine ownership by claiming any receipt of rent after the capital investment is paid off is legally protected theft doesn't work either if you give it any thought. You're basically saying that no one can ever sell anything for a profit. It's also arbitrary because since you are retaining ownership and the labor is the only thing of value, you could argue just as consistently that receiving rent for the use of capital before you got back the capital investment. In short, you've concocted a scheme that gums up the gears providing less efficiency = less production = lower standard of living, all so that unskilled labor doesn't feel sad that the guy who channelled his energy into something productive gets a cut. It's a system that seeks more equal outcomes by pulling some people down rather than lifting others up.

You didn't explain how it differs. Nor did you explain how or why this would qualify as manslaughter.