Rob's House

This one's for Tom. Seven a.m. waking up in the morning

Goodell should be fired.

2 points for Torrey Smith. 2 !@#$ing points. Joe Fucco didn't so much as look at him all night. Apparently he's got some kind of Bon Joviesque man crush on Scumbag Steve Smith. I didn't know I could hate another man as much as I hate Joe Fucco, except for TGregg. Joe Fucco should be burned alive and left to die on an ant hill. !@#$ing piece of monkey ****.

Would ya?

What's the difference between a bird dog and Jon Bon Jovi? A bird dog can sick my duck.

Come to think of it, this is the first line of the second verse. The first is "... the same one's that I'm drowning in" which I still like, but not as much as two others from the same album: Jesus wrote a blank check, one I haven't cashed quite yet. And my favorite: Birds fall from the window ledge above mine then they flap their wings at the last second.

Magic "Suck My" Johnson has now called for Danny Ferry to be fired for stating that an African-born player had "a little Africa" in him. Personally I think Ferry should be shot. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/us/atlanta-hawks-racism-claims/index.html

Whoever runs the track & field athletic association should be fired. !@#$. Beat me to it.

The only conclusion I saw was that Obama gives the author a boner. The recovery isn't the only thing around here that's slow.

Ohh Oh Ohhh Ohh Oh, Hangin tough

Nothing? Didn't think so. In my mind a guy that writes a check his ass can't cash is a !@#$ing kitty.

If you really don't get the difference between a group of people calling for one's proverbial head, and those calling for thoughtful rationality you deserve about as much consideration as our colorful wax troll here.

How many do you have, and who were you before?

I'd like you to point out one, just one thing I've said that's hypocritical. And you can't figure out who I'm defending because I'm not defending anyone. I'm appealing to logic. Whenever one of these outrage incidents arises I encourage people to think and act logically. That this offends you says a lot more about you than it does me.

No, Crayonz already came out and denied any affiliation. He reminds me of gatorboy. Similar style.

So far you've said the preamble makes the constitution inconsistent with Tom's statement. That strikes me as laughably retarded, but out of fairness (and my own personal amusement) I thought I'd give you a chance to explain.

The preamble isn't controlling law, but please explain your point. This should be amusing.

So you're claiming to be a lawyer and you're citing the preamble as the primary authority to support the notion that the constitution calls for direct democracy rather than a republic? Did I get that right? And is WM William and Mary?

Which portion contradicts what he was saying? And you still haven't told me where you got your law degree from.

No, there's usually one mob. Mob mentality is a real thing and historically a primary concern for keeping domestic order was subduing mobs. One of the primary reasons why we have criminal trials with set procedures and protections was to avoid mob justice. Because the mob is not rational. You can scoff at it all you want, but just because you agree with or are part of the mob doesn't make it any less real. Now it's tweets, emails, and blogs rather than pitchforks and torches, but it's still a group of irrational people calling for someone's head. And you not worrying about it doesn't change the fact that one day it could be you or someone you care about in those crosshairs. And yes, people have always had their words held against them, but the situation as it exists today where everything is public, narcissism is at an all time high and growing, and political correctness has become de facto law (and a strict one at that) where saying something mildly controversial off hand, in public or private, can bring a media firestorm down upon he who dares question convention, that's relatively new in America. Galileo would probably chuckle at western society and say we've come full circle.

Reminds me of a completely OT story. My friend recently got back together with his degenerate ex because he's lonely living out in the country. She told my wife about how the guy she just broke up with was a registered sex offender, but it wasn't a big deal because the girl was 17 and he was 21. I'm guessing she didn't know that in VA the age of consent is 16, meaning the girl had to have been 15 or younger at the time.

That's one thing I liked about Simon. He kept that **** off the main board and relegated to PPP where it belongs. If the penalty for possession is 6 months, and petty theft is 3 months, and we agree the latter is worse than the former, should we increase the penalty for theft, or maybe decrease the penalty for possession? He said she was 17 and beautiful. I was curious. Is that wrong? I mean, I realize her daddy says she's too young, but she's old enough for me.

That's not what he said, nor is it what I'm doing. In regards to the story about the announcer, I'm not taking the unpopular stance. That would be to support the substance of his words. I'm simply pointing out how calling for the heads of everyone you disagree with is irresponsible and foolish. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. And you shouldn't take for granted that the mob will always be on your side. But perhaps you prefer a world where a segment of society has unwritten speech codes that you must not run afoul of lest you be destroyed.

What we're talking about in the context of speech is that the media has exploited this reality to ban unpopular speech. The only reason it has this power is because enough useful idiots jump on board with it. If the public didn't dutifully take up the outrage as instructed when someone says something unpopular we wouldn't be dealing with this on such an obnoxious level.

You're like a tick hanging off my scrotum. What in God's name are you blathering about?