Rob's House

ESPN has really devolved into a sports-related social justice platform. Half their content would be relegated to PPP if posted here.

I don't view it as taking anything away, but rather as ceasing to provide it, but I doubt that does much to alleviate your concerns. Part of the problem with entitlements is people become dependent on them and societal institutions adapt to their existence. As such it's not as easy as just eliminating them with the stroke of a pen. That's why I'd do it gradually. I attribute the rapid growth in health care costs over the last few decades to the intrusion of the Federal government into the market. If we followed my plan the cost of basic medical services would plummet. There would be some painful adjustments along the way, and it's likely that a small minority of people may be slightly worse off as a result, but in the long run it would be a great benefit to the overwhelming majority of people, both wrt access to affordable healthcare and economic prosperity.

In short, tear it down. Gut the bureacracy and regulations and get the Federal government out of the health care business. It would have to be done gradually but it would be the most humane approach. It would make better medical services more affordable and accessible to more people. Simultaneously it would cut the chain to an economic anchor that's dragging us down. The results would be amazing. It would be a medical and economic miracle.

How is that remotely responsive to the post you quoted?

That's the problem. The plane's about to crash into the mountain and we're more concerned with who's sitting in the pilot's seat than with changing course.

What's sad is everyone is focusing on the political implications with virtually no discussion of the substance.

It's not the muslims that are the problem so much as it is Islam and the backwards culture that has developed over centuries in the middle east. I don't hear people saying they want to boot existing muslims so much as they don't want mass importation of a culture that is largely incompatible with, and often hostile to our own. I have yet to hear an even minimally persuasive argument as to why Americans should want this. If they're that easy to radicalize I think that's a good argument for keeping all of them out.

This isn't a domestic violence case.

One of the more interesting aspects of confirmation bias is how often people who understand the concept are unable to recognize it in themselves.

This really misses the point in a very obvious way. The argument isn't that he did a bad thing and that makes him so morally bad that he can't be on the team. That would be a very childish argument. The problem is that he's a walking billboard for beliefs that many people find abhorrent that he unilaterally pushes on the audience IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. This last line cannot be overstated. There is a world of difference between being an activist on your own time and forcing it on your employer, colleagues, and customers.

Remember when they painted Dylan Roof as a lone wolf? Me neither.

If we were importing tens of thousands of people from a place where Nazi style white supremacy was the dominant culture would you be cool with it?

Those are partisans that swing both ways.

I kind of want them to keep on. The hole's getting deeper.

Your argument is that past discrimination is proof of current discrimination. No amount of progress will ever change the past even were the roles to reverse. As such, the argument doesn't support the conclusion If you compare any society to your ideal it will always come up short. The proper comparison is to both the past as well as the rest of the world's civilizations. There are inherent flaws in any system that has people policing people. It's one thing to work to identify and eliminate those flaws. It is quite another to condemn the society at large because you perceive imperfection. As to Kaepernick, by grossly overstating his case he has damaged his credibility. He may have drawn attention to the issue, but it's mostly negative attention that has done little to advance his cause but done much to build stronger sentiments against it and him. You and Boyst should kiss and make up.

Where are blacks treated well?

Honestly, I think the 2 main components are disrespecting the flag (and by extension America) and declaring America a racist country. You're always going to invoke the deep resentment of the flag waving patriotic crowd with the former, and a lot more people are sick and damn tired of being called racist. And there is a lot of overlap in those groups. The young, entitled, half-black, multi-millionaire celebrity whining about being oppressed is always going to turn people off, but guys get away with that all the time. The wholesale slander of the country generally took this to another level. That he dragged it onto the football field hits the fuktard trifecta. On a slightly different note, I'm all for freedom of speech and I think demanding firings, organizing boycotts, and going after sponsors is grimy. I call it cultural fascism. But this is different. This isn't a guy who posted something on twitter, made a controversial statement in an interview, or got drunk and dropped a slur at a concert. This guy went on the field, in uniform, at game time and did this. Now I still wouldn't threaten to boycott a team that signed him, but I don't blame teams for avoiding him like the plague. He did this to himself.

I take him just to piss off the Kaepernick fan club.

There's nothing wrong with having a reasonable discussion about police procedures, use of force, and racial disparities related to that topic. Any time the government (or anyone for that matter) is permitted to use force against another it's not only appropriate to scrutinize and hold them accountable, it would be inappropriate not to. The problem here is not the topic, it's the message AND its delivery. Let me give an example to illustrate my point. There's nothing wrong with discussing the problems of disproportionate levels of crime, poverty, and illegitimacy in the black community. But if <insert white celebrity> "started a conversation" by wiping his feet on the flag and denouncing America as a whole for being an ungodly country on the grounds that we tolerate and subsidize an irresponsible people I don't think it would go over well. I also think many of the people in this thread who aren't concerned about "politics" would suddenly find themselves much more politically sensitive in that scenario. Empirical evidence is for quakers.

Both

I have the utmost disdain for those who resort to mischaracterization to advance their narratives.

Do you remember which 3?

I was going toss up between Manuel and Losman but you convinced me. I don't know how bad the pick was at the time (I read somewhere that the Bills thought Losman was the best QB in that draft) but that selection, given all the alternate scenarios that could have played out, probably set the franchise back more than any other single pick.

That's a bad comparison. No one would give a soft **** if Kaepernick stumped for Obama, Hillary, or whoever. This isn't about politics per se. It's about a simple minded scumbag who gave the proverbial finger to the country at large and most of us gave it back to him. I have friends that vote Democrat that have no more use for that piece of **** than I do.

Thanks He was about as helpful as a second ass hole. I'll get back to yall after I do some more research, but based on what I know now I'd say slavery was a primary cause of secession, but empire was the primary cause of the war.