Rob's House

This may or may not be true, I don't know b/c, unlike you, I wasn't there & haven't met the guy. But wouldn't it be poetic justice for someone such as yourself to come home to find your wife and child the victims of a predator and later find out someone saw the perp lurking around but remembered this case & decided to mind his own business?

1/10 of our GDP goes to regulatory compliance. And that's not counting the indirect costs.

From the perspective of a kid growing up in VA in 1992 I was blown away by the OJ accusations. We read about him in 3rd grade overcoming a disability and going on to break records; He was Nordberg, the likeable guy from Naked Gun; He was that seemingly friendly guy on the SB pregame show and the guy running through the airport in commercials. My parents couldn't tell you who Joe Montana was but they knew who OJ was. By contrast, I'd never even heard of Robert Blake or Phil Specter. The point is, OJ was someone that people felt like they knew. Not just a name and a face, but his personality, and he was widely known across the country and across generations. Those other guys were just guys a lot of people had heard of.

Wow, you took my post really personally. Maybe you should have a smoke. My post wasn't necessarily a knock on you, but rather an explanation of why dredging up moral culpability and "everyone is to blame" garbage, doesn't add a lot of value. As far as "outrage at Wall Street" I have yet to identify who the !@#$ Wall Street is. And saying people on Wall Street are (fill in the blank) is both simple and useless. If the system hadn't been rigged by the Feds the way it was it wouldn't matter if the guys on Wall Street were boyscouts or not because they wouldn't have been able to do it in the first place. And why are you posting under a new screen name?

A lot of the blame is of little value to analyze. Bankers and "Wall Street" are not monolithic and weren't comprised of people with different moral character in the 2000s than at any other time. The problem was structural. Without Government policies and entities (FDIC, GSEs, CRA, ETC.)none of this would have even been possible. You can argue that some of these other factors might have made a difference, but there's no certainty. Anyone denying this or trying to say "Yeah, but..." might as well be defending Trent Edwards and blaming everyone around him trying ignore the fact that if he didn't suck we wouldn't be having the conversation. The liberal take on this is no different from their approach to the Trayvon Martin incident in that they treat their preconceptions as factual. They take their paradigm (business, banks, corporations, and rich people are evil, fleece the poor, and run the world), solidify their stereotypes as hard laws of science, then apply it to another paradigm (government is good and does the will of the people to make things better) and based on two faulty premises come to the logical conclusion that: If only the pure and righteous government regulators had their fingers a little deeper in this pie everything would have been perfect.

I can't believe I missed this post. This is fantastic. So you are conceding that he had a right to self-defense?

Based on what you've said I can say with 100% certainty that if you were black you'd be under the jail right now. I'm smart like that.

You need to learn the difference between not regulated and misregulated. Posting at work is the only way to post. I'm "working" right now. I thought your generation was supposed to all about "multi-tasking." You're drinking what they're selling.

In all seriousness, I obviously don't want Janicks to actually commit suicide (although somehow I think I could get over it). However, I do sincerely hope that one day you guys find yourselves in George Zimmerman's shoes and people who know nothing about you or the facts of your case project their prejudices on you, the way all of you have him, without even considering the possibility that they could be wrong.

And rumor has it in the late 70s someone once dropped the N-bomb who wasn't a CNN anchor.

Great, so you're still a presumptuous dipshit. Thanks for stopping by. And I have yet to see one of you give any explanation for why it would go to trial. Prosecutors don't take cases to trial unless they believe they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't just do it to see what comes out in the wash. DUMB ASS

Why is it every time I try to lure BFMF into backing his own words someone has to bail him out. As for you, you should know better than I how much more involved it was than that. Posting articles absolving GSEs and The fair housing policies that grew out of the CRA just tells me you're starting with the conclusion and working back from there. Can you explain how all this plays out without FDIC and GSEs?

Which deregulations, specifically, were to blame? Which sectors in the economy are/were under-regulated? That's kind of like saying the earthquake had nothing to do with the devastation of Japan, it was the tsunami that did it.

Tardfest 2012 continues. Why am I not surprised. You libs haven't had one intelligent comment to make in this entire thread, I don't expect you to start now. I'd love for just one of you to give some explanation of events that would lead to an indictment or invoke "stand your ground" that didn't come directly out of your asses. Until then I'm through with this thread. And that's cute that you have my quote in you sig line. I notice the guy it was directed at has changed his tune a bit since learning the facts and thus relieved himself of the burden of hari kari. I really do appreciate your faux outrage, but let's be real. When you guys are willing to jump in head first with the lynch mob who is actively destroying a man's real life based on a whim and an assumption, without the slightest concern for collateral violence that may grow out of it, let's not pretend some hyperbolic rhetoric on my part is somehow offensive. You've lost the moral high ground from which to cast down your righteous indignation. And get your own !@#$ing avatar

I'd start reading and think "is this guy serious?" then I scroll up to see the screen name & without fail...

I liked you better when you were mpl6876.

I liked her better when she was the lead singer from Def Leppard.

That's what I was thinking. If the draft order went: Stevie Bell McKelvin Corner and then the scrubs I think we'd view this a lot differently in retrospect. That said, it's still pretty sorry for McKelvin to be the best pick through 6 rounds.

That piece did not contain one legal argument. Just a bunch of fuming rhetoric.

The old "they all do it" argument; nice way to perpetuate the problem. Just for ***** and giggles can you tell me which promises from his first capaign Bush failed to make good on?

While not in the letter of the constitution, it is within the spirit of the constitution, which John Marshall assured us is just as good. The problem is, we're not all privy to the whims of this spirit. Fortunately we can call on John Edwards to channel the spirit and tell us what it says.

I saw this article the other day and didn't think it even deserved comment, I'm surprised it's picked up steam. This would be weak for a HS newspaper story; this is amateur hour from the word go. First, the samples on all of these are less than 100. Anyone who's taken statistics knows that's far too small to draw any kind of reasonable conclusion from. Secondly, the conclusion drawn from the results is somewhat arbitrary. Maybe people who have been drinking are more inclined to turn off their politically correct filter and tell you how they really feel. Third, they presume none of the people surveyed have ever contemplated these matters prior to having some (*^*&%^$^#taking a survey pose the question. These are just the three biggest flaws that jumped out at me. The way they define conservatism and the questions they ask leave something to be desired as well.

To be fair, Newt and Santorum get stung by the hits, but Romney lets that **** roll off his shoulders. This to him is the next step in a life of ambitious goals set and reached. For Newt, Santorum, and Obama it's the next step in the never-ending quest for validation.

I don't get this. The CEO of the Federal Government can throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled child and everyone else needs to STFU? As far as the history of the court with the President, if Obama thinks he can go back to the days of Jefferson canceling a session of the court for a year and threatening impeachment if he doesn't get away, this guy's more deluded than anyone's given him credit for. Which would be more plausible were it not coming from the same guy who said the Warren court didn't go far enough.

It's not a question of economics, but one of constitutionality. Social Security, Medicare, etc. derive their authority from the power of congress to tax and spend. It's a provision that's been raped by the legislature and the courts, but for all practical purposes is considered constitutional. The mandate derives its authority from the commerce clause, and forcing people to buy insurance is not regulating commerce, but rather, it is creating commerce. I'm almost certain this is a trolling post, but I'll respond for anyone who doesn't already know the distinction here. The constitution is one of enumerated powers. The congress is empowered only to make laws necessary and proper to effectuate the powers enumerated in article 1 sec 8 and in the amendments. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. To make it easy for you, when the Federal government tries to pass a law you ask where in the constitution is that power granted to the government. When a state passes a law you ask where in the constitution is it prohibited.