Rob's House

I'll take your accusations one at a time: 1. You can call it whining if you want. I'm expressing how I feel. I used to be a huge baseball fan, but in the late 90s it stopped being fun so I stopped watching. They never got me back. Boxing lost me about a decade ago. I'm not suggesting you stop watching football; just expressing why I'm finding that I no longer enjoy something that was once, and recently, one of my favorite hobbies. If that means I'm whining then so be it. 2. You're conflating the issue. On one hand you argue it's a PR issue, on the other you're arguing morality, and you're weaving in between the two without a distinction. Which is it? I happen to think your take on the "reality" of the NFL's PR position is flat wrong. I think the equivocation made it worse. They caved to the pressure and in doing so validated all the criticisms cast their way. There was a better way. You can disagree. That's not the part I take issue with. It's your mischaracterization of an argument you don't understand that is most disappointing. You claim that people such as myself who have a problem with ad hoc punishment being handed out willy nilly by the commissioner to appease the perceived thirst of the mob are lying about our position and are really just concerned with whether Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, etc. play football. That's not even close to accurate, and quite frankly, it's insulting. If you understood the argument you wouldn't say that. If you feel offended for being told that bluntly that's too bad.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/205482-9-new-stewart-smells-something-fishy-emperor-obamas-latest-words-extent-powers/ John Stewart takes a shot at the king.

You don't get it. I mean, you really don't get it. That's kind of sad because it's been explained many times in great detail. But stick to your simple narrative if it makes you feel good. You lack the depth to see beneath the surface of the issue. This is not about crime & punishment. It's about a cultural move by which we as a society see fit to exact "punishment" for unpopular conduct by any means necessary. If you think any of this is about child abuse or DV you're sadly mistaken.

If deportation were a punishment you (and they) may not come off as completely retarded. Too bad for you. Better luck next time, junior.

Even Obama would chuckle at this rationale. Keep talking though. You're doing your side justice.

From Article 2 Section 1:(The one that talks about the executive - for FF, that's the President) 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” From Article 2 Section 3: "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

So all these things would be addressed if this guy weren't hoarding all the money? What's your idea for fixing it?

And what article of the constitution is that from? And which branch of government is outlined in that article?

That's not at all what I was saying. You asked the mind numbing question, where does the constitution deny this power. I'm showing you where the constitution denies the government all power not delegated to it by the constitution. Rather than wave the white flag you could have looked for where the constitution addresses such matters, which is what I was hoping for, but predictably you outdid yourself.

10th amendment- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Burden's on you.

You don't know the first thing about the constitution. You've adequately demonstrated that tonight.

I can claim auto correct and you can't disprove it.

Limitations on power are there to prevent the executive from doing this very thing. Gridlock is there by design. He overreacted his power, unilaterally enacted law as an executive, and your response is King (*^*&%^$^#has constitutional lawyers advising him so it must be kosher. It's all way over your head, which is sad because it's not that complicated, and you sit here like a naive little twit, ignorant of all applicable history, with the nerve to condescend. This displays your ignorance of even the most basic and fundamental aspects of the constitution. The constitution gives the government specific enumerated powers. Those powers not granted to the government are reserved to the people and the states. This is very basic. Your second question doesn't even deserve a response.

Can you share with us where the constitution grants this power to the President?

Axle Rose

Our President fancies himself a king and morons such as yourself yawn completely oblivious to the issue. If you father wasn't a complete pu$$y he'd have raised you to have a spine. Instead he raised a gutless coward who would sign away his freedom because he had a man crush on a politician.

You worry too much about deciding what people "deserve". People like you whine a lot but never offer any realistic or practical solutions. But you take great pride in your economic ignorance.

My favorite part of Glory was watching that Yankee die.

He's not saying that. He's exploring possible interpretations. That's an argument others have advanced.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

I hope that's not what he means. That's Bird dog territory. Not only does it ignore the real reason people are upset about this ad hoc method of "punishment," it also pretends the victims are somehow served by said "punishment."

What do you mean?

The NFL did what a lot of otherwise intelligent people do when they find themselves in the media crosshairs: they panicked. The public fury is always short-lived and was barked about loudest by people who don't give much of a !@#$ about football anyway. FC's right. If they'd stuck to their guns, said it's up to the team to decide, and said this is the policy we agreed to, all this would have gone away much more quickly. By caving to the pressure they validated the outrage. They told the raging morons that they were not morons (even though they were) and that their rage was justified (even though it wasn't) and now they're stuck in that position.

Don't judge me.

When I bought the album I'd only heard two of her songs. They had kind of a darkness to them that I liked and I thought there might be more to her. After hearing the whole album I was no longer impressed. And she may be a great person, but the whole concept of Lilith Fair was pretty contrived. There was a big to do about how women were finally breaking through after being kept off the charts because of misogyny and now they were finally being acknowledged as musicians rather than *female musicians. So what do they do? They put every major female act that was popular at the time on one tour in some cheesy feminine celebration of music. They went from being independent musical artists to an adolescent girl power thing. They immediately put the female asterisk back into their collective image. I don't think it's a coincidence that every one of them fell off the map after that tour.