Rob's House

If that's true it's a far greater injustice than the worst case scenario of what he's charged with.

This racism needs to end.

The point is that being a team mascot is not a disparagement. No one gives their team a name that they find disparaging. And I've never in my life ever heard anyone use "redskin" as a slur, nor have I ever known of anyone who's ever heard it used as such. 20 years ago no one thought it was disparaging, but now it's a slur?

Is "Houston Texans" disparaging to Texans?

Is that a now or is this like a Trayvon Martin 140?

My father in law is from the "rez" and he doesn't give a !@#$. I want to know why white people are so offended, or why the world has to stop in its axis every time a relative handful of people decide to feel offended by something. I also want to know when anyone's ever heard someone use the term "redskin" as a slur. Ever.

That depends on what color the kid was.

Why, what happened?

Huh, I think we're pretty close to agreeing on this. I don't agree that a misdemeanor costs most people their jobs, and I think you are sanctimonious, but otherwise...

What's your point? That you shouldn't concern yourself with an injustice if you can find an historical instance of greater injustice?

He did. It was awesome.

Did I ever tell you guys about the time I saw Emilio Estevez?

I wonder if all those guys put their heads together if they could put together a vaguely coherent and objectively rational defense of their position. I'm incined to doubt it.

Even if it turns out that Kromer was just a complete dick, kids were average sized teenagers whose only crime was sitting in an occupied chair, and Kroner just decked him because it seemed like fun (in which case I might support giving him some jail time), why would you fire him? Does this reflect that substantially on his coaching ability? I get the PR aspect, but is anyone honestly going to boycott the Bills because they have a position coach who's an !@#$? Unless they think replacing him = more wins I think it would be !@#$ing stupid to do so.

Nothing to worry about. I have it on the authority of one of our more prolific and empowered posters that political correctness is just doing the right thing and the solution to the systematic destruction of those who step out of line is to just not let it bother you.

There is no in between. You're either a squeaky clean Eagle scout or you're a scumbag who needs his livelihood destroyed. There is no middle ground. Mercy is for the weak.

This is true, but it's a slow outrage week and this is the best we got.

I'm curious where the hell people come from where a black eye is a national outrage. I get that it's a minor, but that doesn't mean much. When I was 16 we sent a 15 year old to buy beer because he wouldn't get carded. I had a friend who looked 25 at 16 and had the kind of mouth on him where if he showed up with a black eye from a middle aged guy you'd naturally assume he had it coming. My mom's bridge group would probably be horrified, but no one I'd watch football with would be.

Sometimes reading these threads is like listening to my mom's bridge group.

It's another thing that lacks context. If he's holding the kid by the throat and slowly and calmly threatens to kill his family, it's a lot different than shouting "I'll kill your whole family" as they're running off, and there's a whole lot of room in between. It would have to be really really close to the former for me to take it seriously.

Why is it hard to defend?

I could envision a scenario where Kroner tosses the kid's rod in the water, kid charges him thinking his buddies have his back, Kroner drops him, and his friends don't do ****. If I can envision it then that's what happened. FTR, Absolutely zero !@#$s given about anything he SAID after the fact. Zero.

What does that matter? Hate to break it to you, but there are 16 year old kids who could beat you to a pulp, and I don't need to know what you look like to say that.

I don't go quite that far. At that point I think it's petty not to, but I see no justification for compelling him to do so. I don't see any legitimate legal foundation, particularly at the federal level, for legislation to such effect.

I agree with that, but I don't think most liberals do.