Rob's House

That last line made me chuckle.

My impression of those who support it was a separate musing that has nothing to do with my opposition. I very clearly stated more than once that I've yet to hear anyone offer any remotely plausible reason why I should support it and no one has offered anything. To your credit you at least tried, but all you offered was some contrived hypothetical that will probably never materialize, and you've not made the case for how this would help in that hypothetical scenario even if it were to occur. You don't sound all that different from the guy building a bunker and stockpiling weapons for the impending collapse. That's the weak link. There is no monopoly. In fact, options are becoming more plentiful by the day. Your whole argument is that we need a massive federal power grab over the whole internet because a relative handful of people in rural areas don't currently have multiple ISPs in their area.

My opposition? I'm still waiting for someone to give a halfway plausible explanation for why it's desirable. Until someone, anyone, can do that why would I support it? It seems to me there are 3 groups of people that support this. The first are unabashed statists who want government control over virtually everything. The second are those with a reflexive opposition to anything corporate, they hear this restricts Comcast, who they know to be a corporation that acts all corporationy and makes money, so it must be good. That's really about as deep as their reasoning goes. The third are just lemmings that get on board because their friend invited them to like net neutrality on FB, they did, and now they're invested in it. Anti-trust laws should be sufficient to prevent this theoretical place you speculate we could eventually reach.

The only person on that list I'd have any real interest in is Jahri Evans. The rest either have issues and/or play positions we're set at. I disagree with your premise that we need a WR. Adding someone for depth wouldn't be a bad idea, but we're good with our top 3 WRs - I'd say top 4 emphatically if I thought Goodwin could stay healthy enough to be counted on.

That's probably true now, but Fred 4 years ago could hang with most of those guys.

Kind of like the overwhelming majority of those who support net neutrality.

I've heard of him.

I would love for someone to explain the benefit of net neutrality in plain English.

Whining about obstructionism is pathetic. Argue merits. If it's a good idea and he killed it because his kitty hurt then he's an incompetent POS. Are the Republicans being "obstructionist" (y'all weren't crying about it when the Dems were blocking Bush's judicial appointments) by blocking good legislation for political reasons or are they blocking legislation they disagree with? Because if it's the latter it's called doing their fu©king jobs.

I don't really have a problem with "euthanizing" unwanted dogs (because what else can you do?) but I have a problem with calling it euthanasia. It's euthanasia if you're putting the dog out of its misery, not yours.

Because...why I don't interpret that to mean civilians should be allowed to own rocket launchers. I take it to mean that you don't stop having the right to own a gun just because the prefatory clause no longer applies as it did when it was written. You've still never explained how any of this changes the nature of your generalization.

That's not what he said. He dodged the question.

The article's a bit misleading, but even taken at face value I really don't see how that's any more extreme than any number of justices on any number of issues. And even if it's absolutely nuts I still don't see how that makes your generalization any more accurate or applicable than the alternatives I suggested. That's clearly not what Scalia said. That's the author's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum.

In fairness to them, he is gay.

I assume you're speaking of Scalia? If so I'd be interested to hear your rationale on this. And to a lesser extent how it alters the nature of your generalization.

I'll check it out but I'm not optimistic. Despite being a significant step down from the first season, the second season ended perfectly completing the story of Kevin Spacey's crafty rise to power. It feels to me like the story has been told, but it's a successful show so they feel the need to stretch it beyond it's natural story arc. Forest Gump 2, Big Lebowski 2, and Imaginationland 4 would probably all be entertaining too, but sometimes it's best to leave well enough alone.

I didn't think it was that bad. The story was necessarily a partisan issue given the parties involved and maybe it's because I'm politically minded, but I thought it was relatively civil. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was moved to PPP but I was surprised it was deleted. Any more of this and I may revoke your moderating privileges.

Not to pile on, but I think it's funny how this reads if you replace "gun" with various ethnic, religious, and minority groups. Like "black," "Jewish," or "Muslim." See how it works with "gay" too. Really puts it in perspective.

It wasn't my email, I'm not interested in Semantic arguments, and you are a leftist.

Semantics There's a difference between a subsidy that's forced upon you and one you ask for. And is EITC big with the conservatives? I can't for the life of me figure why. I'm just glad I don't have Tea Partiers in my city clogging up traffic either by "occupying" space or marching and chanting "black lives matter" this week. They weren't 10, 15, 20, or 25 years ago either but that never stopped leftists from saying it ad nausea. Agree on both fronts, but that doesn't mean you should emulate economic policies of countries suffering from over a decade of stagnation. So you support continuing a behavior that you've just stated is the logical equivalent of something you think is absurd? Or are you suggesting the Muslim community at large should be held responsible for the acts of Muslim terrorists? Not sure I follow. Illegals pay very little in taxes and nowhere close to what they consume in services. Sadly, I can't argue with this. As per usual, when the Republicans get power they rarely know what to do with it. But I'll take a guy flailing around futilely over the guy who is very efficiently pouring sugar in my gas tank. Tell 2008 to lose this number.

I don't know that I think It's great, but I stumbled upon an old copy of Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger a few months ago and after a few times playing it back I realized I liked it a lot more than I thought. As an aside, I always liked Counting Crows until I saw them live. The band was good but the singer was awful. I understand singing it differently for the show, but I wouldn't even call what he was doing singing. It was more like speaking over the music without any rhythm, not to any beat, and without any qualities that resembled anything vaguely musical. Pretentious hippy !@#$.

I don't know that there was necessarily a problem with any of the picks aside from picking guys who, for various reasons, didn't stick. Antoine Smith helped carry the Pats to 2 SBs; McGahee carried us to a winning season before going off to Baltimore where he had a very productive career; Lynch carried Seattle to two SBs, winning 1 after he finally got his **** together; and Spiller was outstanding in the offense he was drafted to play in (in that situation it was the coach who didn't stick). I left Henry out b/c he was a late 2nd rounder. I agree the Bills have traditionally overvalued the position, but having to keep replacing those guys who didn't stick has been the bigger problem IMO.

I think they should trade up into the first and take whichever available QB they think is best. That way it'll be a first round QB which makes his odds of success exponentially higher than if we wait to take him in the 2nd or 3rd.

How about this one?

I have no idea what StL would want or what others would offer, but if he could be had for a 2nd & a 4th I do it in a heartbeat & I don't sign him to an extension. I'd rather see how he does this year before committing to him long term.