Rob's House

You mean you want to confiscate that which capitalism produced, distribute it as you see fit, and hope your intrusion into the market doesn't disrupt its function.

Why? Will he be working with kids? My impression was that he'd be coaching 300+ pound linemen. Who are you worried about him getting violent with?

Homerism? Because we'd call for the professional ruination of a man over a potential misdemeanor if he wasn't employed by the Bills? ok. And I was a giant Strawman guy even though I'm a Braves fan, but I don't know what that has to do with this discussion. But it's nice to meet you too.

So you're the self-righteous guy who looks at everything from the most damming perspective possible, passes extreme judgments, and advocates for disproportionately harsh penalties, yet fancies himself a swell guy.

I once read a review of Appcalypto written by some kitty that was concerned that descendants of the Mayans may be offended by their portrayal.

I don't really get that offended by "black and brown" people who are racist against whites, but I truly detest the self-loathing white ethnomassachists who get off on decrying the evil and racism of white people.

Are you white?

Just remember, if you or your friends or family are killed or beaten for being white it doesn't matter because their assailants don't have power.

If you think about it, the fact that the race baiters had to develop the concept of "white privilege" disprove's the theory itself. Things have gotten so good that they could no longer plausibly sell the story of how prevalent white racism is or how much it sucks to be black so they had to modify the theory to one that highlights the subtle "privileges" that are inherent in being in the majority. Like seeing people who look like you more often on TV and not having to wonder whether you got pulled because you were speeding or because you're black.

It's an interesting case study for full on indoctrination. You convince these kids to buy in through peer pressure and deference to authority, along with the fact that buying in absolved them of their guilt while simultaneously implying their superior social status. From a mind control perspective it's brilliant.

It's a football team. What prism would you prefer we look at it through?

This "white privilege" bull **** is what the millenials coming out of college are preaching. It's disturbing how resolute they are in their narrow mindedness.

This business about "our" wealth, etc. being built on the backs of "people of color" is exponentially overstated. I've never inherited or been given a dime gained by slave labor, so how am I reaping this supposed benefit?

Are you white?

I don't think your presumption that it's the younger generation that likes it is correct. I'd think it's more likely politically correct millenials that are all worked up about it. And I'm not moved by your sanctimonious ploy to invoke some hypothetical Indian whose "pain" is to somehow outweigh the majority of Indians who disagree with him. If that's your angle you'd be going after Braves, Indians, Seminoles, etc. The crux of your argument is that "redskin" is offensive.

We know extremely little about the case. It could have been self-defense or defense of another. For all I know his son and one of the others got to scuffling and in the dark he turns quickly, hands out and clips the kid's eye. I doubt it, but I once inadvertently smacked the **** out of a guy playing soccer once, but lacked intent.It's also possible that he punched a Kid over a beach chair. You don't know, but as usually you make a presumption and have absolute faith in its accuracy. In addition to that, I have a problem with the attitude that his livelihood should be destroyed if he's guilty. There's an age old principle called "let the punishment for the crime" that modern day keyboard moralists seem to have forgotten.

Principles of sovereignty can be. You just choose not to because conflating the issues is advantageous to your political ideology.

Nobody is.

Isn't it great that Bills fans, whether Flutie or Johnson supporters, EJ lovers or haters, or Fred Jackson or Tashard Choice guys, can all agree that Marrone sucks.

So their position is based on something separate and distinct from slavery? Who knew?

I heard this guy make the very valid point that GWB's "compassionate conservatism" implies conservatism itself is not compassionate, but that's wrong. Conservative economic policies (free market) have pulled 2 billion people out of poverty over the last few decades. Conservative economics is about freedom and opportunity for all. There's no lack of compassion, just a reluctance to look to the government to dole out "compassion." People who disagree should read his book with an open mind. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0062319752/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1437048976&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&keywords=arthur+brooks+conservative+heart

Yeah, the details and circumstances don't matter. Based on a blurb it's pretty clear that he's guilty, both of state law and God's law. In a just world he'd be stoned to death this afternoon, but unfortunately we'll have to settle for possible jail time and the destruction of a career he spent a quarter of a century building. It just doesn't seem like enough for a black eye.

I think the value and quality of cars generally is inversely related to the likelihood of seeing stickers and flags of any kind on them.

I thought I already addressed this. It's not that I don't think they exist, I'm just not inclined to lend all deference to anyone who decides to feel offended. If I knew people like that I'd probably ridicule them for trying so hard to find something to get upset about. I have about as much respect for their position as I do for midgets who arbitrarily decided to become offended by the term midget; or cripples who arbitrarily decided to be offended by the term cripple. Taking something that's not intended to offend, was never considered offensive, then twisting it to make a contrived argument that it is offensive, and then becoming highly offended by it, is not something I have any respect for. But like I said before, since I know there are a lot of Indians who like the name, why should I dismiss their opinion and side with a group who's begging for grievances? Why should the offended always get top priority? P.S. I'm sure many of these groups capitalize on this issue the same way Al Sharpton capitalizes on racial tension.

You keep saying "listen to them" but you seem to suggest I should ignore those of "them" who like it and only listen to those of "them" who are offended. I don't have a lot of respect for people looking for new and creative ways of being offended and jumping on the aggrieved minority bandwagon. So I'll err on the side of Indians I actually know who either like, or are indifferent to, the name.