Rob's House

Where the hell did that come from? Where did I say anything remotely similar to that? And how is that even related to anything I said or responded to? At all? Even a little a bit?

How do you know that kid wasn't talking ****? People who want to wait for the facts are such a buzz kill. You'll never rally a good lynch mob with that attitude.

All jokes aside, I am curious what the liberal position is on the right of an artist to refuse to paint a picture because it depicts homosexuality (or anything else, for that matter).

Easier said than done.

So what if an artist refuses to paint a picture of a dude sucking a dick?

Who does the liberal side with?

From FB: The only difference between people in The North and people in The South is that down here, at least people are honest about being racist. ... New York State is one of the most segregated states in the country. Buffalo, New York where my aunt lives is one of the 10 most segregated school systems in the country. The racial inequality of the area she inhabits is so bad that it has been the subject of reports by the Civil Rights Action Network and the NAACP.

I'm tempted to buy a Kid Rock album.

That's one reason I'm always skeptical of extreme judgments on these issues. If it's that hard to decipher the situation when we can watch, rewind, and watch again, just think how hard it can be to get an accurate picture when we've just got testimonial versions of the story to go on.

The politically correct Dukes of Hazard.

Why would you think that? It's a truism; not even really debateable. Memory is notoriously unreliable. Words, faces, colors, all change. Countless studies confirm this. Think about it in terms of deciding a case. For example, look at the difference between Ray Rice and Greg Hardy. With Rice, we know what happened. We may not know what led up to it, but we know he clocked that girl hard without much, if any physical provocation. With Hardy, we have two competing versions of events based on the memories of intoxicated people with adverse interests that we characterize and envision in our own minds based on our imaginations and ideas about how the world works. Which one are you more confident of knowing what really happened?

Video evidence is far more reliable. Testimony is notoriously unreliable. Memories are inexact; motives, trustworthiness, and bias can come into play. But the camera doesn't lie.

What's ironic is that you and the rest of the liberal, guilty white ethnomassachists talk about trying to "fix the illness" when your efforts do more to keep the "illness" lingering than the KKK could ever dream of.

Well if she's a decendant of Jefferson Davis she must be the authority on the matter. Maybe we can get Elizabeth Warren to speak on behalf of the Indians with respect to the Redskins.

And you're a narrow minded bigot, but what does either have to do with the church shooting? Both

And that has what, exactly, to do with the topic.

From the confederate flag thread on the main board with a Redsjins heading: Jonah Goldberg on northern anti-South bigotry. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420204/charleston-shooting-response-south-left-condescension Pretty tenuous connection to the shooting, but bigoted yankees don't typically require a reasonable argument to reinforce their bias.

Jonah Goldberg on northern anti-South bigotry. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420204/charleston-shooting-response-south-left-condescension

I'm not asking for your opinion on what the state of the law is. I'm asking if you see a moral distinction between the leniency you allow a woman and that which you allow a similarly situated male, and if so why.

Thanks man. I can disagree with someone without slandering him or passing judgment on his soul. I can also be fair with my criticism.

Why you give a female more leniency than you would a similarly situated male.

You have no explanation either. Don't feel bad, no one does. Actually, I take that back. I do, but I want to see if anyone else can get there without my help.

And if people want to criticize him as such that's fine, but this media wide effort to smear him for racist remarks about Mexicans is bull ****.

That's because some people mistake their feelings for thoughts.

I'm kind of with you on the trade thing, but I think you're being unfair about the other part. I could be mistaken, but I think he clarified that it wasn't just Mexicans. And while I agree, the failed drug policy is largely to blame, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of drugs are coming across the Mexican border and routed through networks comprised largely of illegal aliens. And the fact that a lot of illegals come to the US to work doesn't change the fact that a lot of illegals commit violent crimes, nor does it change the fact that immigration law and undocumented status makes it difficult if not impossible for the criminal justice system to effectively address the problem. But even if everything you say is correct, it doesn't change the fact that this smear campaign is based on saying racist things about Mexicans, not conflating border issues.