Rob's House

I'd imagine this is exactly the kind of case this law was implemented to address. Manufacturing a gun doesn't make one liable to the victim for crimes committed by a 3rd party using that gun anymore than Exxon is liable for the acts of an arsonist who used their gas to start a fire. Unless they can show the harm was caused by some design flaw or wrongful act of the manufacturer there is no action at law. As such, most of these cases are likely to be baseless and could both act as a drain on the court system and serve as a vehicle for activists to hit gun manufacturers in the wallet.

Reading the blurb on Eli reminded me of how many posters said they'd rather have Manuel.

I'll always remember people here arguing we should've given Claybo $10+m/yr.

This is the greatest invention since beer cans that told you if your beer was cold.

Pro-bowl bitches!! 'nuff said.

My undying love for him.

I would prefer if one of these guys apologized to his family, team, fans, etc. for getting caught. I know it wouldn't appease the squares, but the honesty would be refreshing.

He had a pretty respectable completion percentage to our DBs.

Kind of makes me think less of Manning. I guess I should give him something of a pass on account of Letterman being friendly with him, but if he really enjoyed the last decade and change as much as he claims he did, he's gotta be a douche.

Under. I assume Cassel will start and hold on to the job until injured or until the Bills are out of the playoff hunt. If it's the latter I'd be surprised if we get there with more than 2 or 3 games left in the season. If it's the former I give him a 50/50 shot at getting the call over Brakepad, so I think it's more likely than not that he starts less than 4 games.

That guy really hit the nail on the head. The easy going guy in that Brother Theodore bit hasn't been around for some time. He's long since been replaced by the bitter, sarcastic ass hole that came after.

That's the hallmark of most of these liberal "social justice" arguments - a laundry list of "injustices" that don't exist.

I never got the whole Letterman thing. Maybe he was funny when he used to follow the Tonight Show, which I don't have much recollection of, but over the last ten years I just never found him funny or even likeable. He just came off as an angry, arrogant prick using the guise of comedy to take political cheap shots. He was like John Stewart if Stewart were a grumpy old man who was no longer funny.

I've heard crotch rockets referred to as donor-cycles

They want the government to stay out of their reproductive lives. Well, except to provide birth control. And pay for abortions. And pay for prenatal care and the delivery facility. And mandate/pay for maternity leave, day care, etc. But otherwise, yeah.

I think it would be more exciting if the punter had to wear boots. And a blindfold. It would encourage more teams to go for it on fourth down.

The framing of the issues is part of the problem. I mean, WTF is "affordable education," who is being denied it, and how do you fix it? And what is a "living wage?" Who is entitled to it and why? And how do you determine what the living wage should be and how do you stop the market from correcting the skewed valuation to the dollar and nullifying the effects of the increased wage? Being for these things without having answers to those questions is just an exercise in spiritual masturbation.

Because a million little corpses is a small price to pay to lure a few dipshits to your side.

So you're waving the white flag. Hey, at least you have the balls to show up and argue. I respect that about you.

Even if everything you say is true, how does any of it equate to Jesus being a modern day liberal? *And if your argument relies on taxonomy - defining the word "liberal" as being against the status quo so as not to associate it with the tenets of modern liberalism - then you've already admitted defeat.

If Flutie had been our QB in the early 90s do you think we'd have taken at least one of those SBs?

I agree with that. I think the kind of people who think they get actual news from Jon Stewart can't distinguish between pragmatists, neo-cons, libertarians, or socially conservative populists, etc. - to them, all who deviate from the media approved PC path are just a collection of tea baggers. And since most of their strongly held beliefs are based on identity, idealism, popularity, and deference to authority, rather than logic, facts, and reason, they are ill equipped to engage in thoughtful debate.

That's a byproduct of the gutless wonders OC just described being too chicken **** to come here because their beliefs don't hold up under scrutiny. So they resort to the same hit and run tactics John Stewart and the rest of that crowd uses.

That was a pretty stupid piece. He compares the biker shootout to Ferguson and Baltimore protests (as though a feud between rival gangs is in any way analogous to protests), then admits it's not an "apples-to-apples" comparison (ya think?), then proceeds to draw a conclusion (which is not only contrived but also a bit disconnected from the rest of the article) based on the assumption that it is a relevant comparison. I regret giving that (*^*&%^$^#another click.

I'm against this.