Rob's House

I'd say the second half of the 20th century.

Gatorman's either a troll, so not even a real person, or he's a complete waste of skin. In any case, he talks enough **** to warrant anything that comes his way. Plus, BBC is an inside board joke from before your time. And I'm sure if faced with you in person everyone would be shitting themselves with fear.

But at the time they hired Kromer they thought he was the best OL coach they could get.

When they hired him they thought he was the best OL coach they could get. What has happened to change that?

Isn't that a circular argument? And isn't any point set by law necessarily legislating morality?

They need to make sure they're both on the same page.

Nothing I could say to Gatorboy is beyond the pale.

A friend of mine knows a guy who's into big game hunting who justifies it by saying that the only thing keeping half these animals from going extinct is guys like him dropping large sums of money to "hunt" which incentivises the locals to protect the populations. I haven't studied the issue so I can't definitively say whether he's right, but it makes sense.

Imagine a puppy that was born halfway through the gestation period being kept alive in an incubator. Now imagine someone picking up that puppy and cutting it up with a pair of scissors while it writhes in pain. Now imagine it being caught on video and played on the news. Now imagine the liberal reaction.

Not that I'm necessarily looking for a governmental solution to liberals voluntarily reducing their contribution to the gene pool, but for argument's sake, at what point does it become actionable? Before/during/after birth?

That's not what manslaughter is.

If you're talking day after pill, sure. First trimester, maybe. At some point it's pretty hard to deny it's a baby and that point comes long before birth. I can't give you a great scientific point where it becomes murder, but the more important point is they can't tell you when it isn't. And they're erring on the side of killing a baby. If you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between erring on the side of killing or not killing a baby when you're really not 100% sure whether to classify the living being that is growing into a person as a baby, then we're just going to have to disagree on that one.

That's debateable. In any case, the decision to err on the side of life hardly carries the moral implications chopping up a baby does, regardless of whether you want to call the baby a fetus.

Morally speaking, there's a vast chasm between killing a baby for convenience and trying to stop someone from murdering that baby.

The part that really gets me about the liberal position on abortion is that it's so often accompanied by self-righteous indignation. It seems to me that when you're murdering a baby for the sake of convenience you've kind of lost the moral high ground.

I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt on account of all the scrutiny he's under, but if they haven't mysteriously disappeared by the start of preseason you won't see me defending him.

Because despite all the millions of dollars, livelihoods, careers, and fan satisfaction that hinge on winning, none of it means anything if you employ a guy who committed a misdemeanor.

Last night I saw a satire piece on FB with the headline that Sarah Palin endorsed reinstituting slavery on a voluntary basis. Dumbass liberals were fuming over her audacity and claiming this is the new Republican party. One superlib pointed out that it was a satire piece and said "I'm no fan of Palin, but since she didn't really say it I think we can let this one slide." His fellow libs did not agree.

And Incognito never made a teammate quit the team and run home to mommy in tears until he played with Jonathan kitty Martin.

Sometimes you just have to let those hard to reach chips go.

Never said he had a sterling resume. There's a reason courts don't allow evidence of prior bad acts to show the defendant is guilty. Because people like you will decide that if the guy's an !@#$ he must have done whatever he's accused of. The flip side of your thought process is that without Incognito's reputation he probably doesn't get scapegoated for this. With the benefit of hindsight we now know that Martin was a delicate flower. At the time no one cared to question how much of this was bullying and how much of this was Martin.

I agree with that. I'm just tired of false claims of vindication by people who didn't predict injuries would derail his stint here.

He was a staunch defender of Martin and Incognito's greatest detractor. Once something goes from opinion to belief It's hard to shake.

The casual fan saw his PFF rating from the prior year and knew nothing more. Plus, he was derailed by injury, which wasn't part of the casual fan's assessment. The casual fan didn't know ****.

Except Fox actually reports and discusses news stories, albeit from a conservative POV, while Stewart presents satire as reality. Half his audience thinks the bull **** he puts up is real, and that's by design. It's only when he's exposed that he falls back on the fake news cop out, then goes right back to peddling his misinformation campaign. It's not that he's partial; it's that he's intentionally deceptive. I remember a story where some politician was asking rhetorically if someone could get impregnated by oral sex (or something along those lines) clearly doing a reductio ad absurdum, and Stewart runs with it like the guy genuinely didn't know. That kind of dishonest ****'s the hallmark of his whole career. I can handle bias, and I can certainly tolerate difference of opinion. What I can't stand is a lying sack of **** who can't support his position with the truth so he lies to make you believe his ideology. He probably figured he's right anyway and thus the ends justify the means because he used his lies to help you see "the truth."