Rob's House

I'm a Bills fan and I'm not going to believe it until we notch our 9th win. We've been down this road before.

:lol: Nice

I wasted five minutes reading that thinly veiled propaganda piece. All I got out of it is that the author really likes Obama. Using his methods I could make a strong case that Fitz outperformed Jim Kelly. Interesting how they picked 6.1 as an arbitrary stopping point for unemployment. Had they used 7.1 Reagan got there far faster. Trying to explain away the diminished work force as aging baby boomers was a shameless attempt to exploit the assumed ignorance of the reader, as though that accounts for the massive and immediate downturn in employment. Worst of all was the way they treated recovery from the day Obama took office, completely ignoring the fact that he came in at the bottoming out of a recession. There was nowhere to go but up. If you're actually trying to do a meaningful analysis to understand how policy changes effected growth you would take into consideration the natural cyclical bounce that historically follows a recession. Instead they treat it as though it were the norm and all progress made since was the result of fiscal policy. Nanker's post is far more telling than anything that article had to offer, and he didn't drone on with multiple paragraphs of puffery and horse ****. In the face!

If you're looking for sympathy you've come to the wrong place. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/142403-have-i-mentioned-recently-how-much-i-hate-bicyclists/page__hl__%22how+much+i+hate+bicyclists%22

That's kind of what I'm getting at. IMO he SHOULD do everything he can to minimize public outcry. That's his job. I'm curious if people think he should be fired because his miscalculation caused a media firestorm that could damage the league, or whether it's on moral grounds.

I agree with that. I actually said pretty much the same thing earlier. I just meant that he's likely to get fired in this immediate incident for protecting the league's interest. Completely agree about his idiotic penalty system putting him in this situation. Is it possible for you to be any dumber?

I'm still curious whether people think he should be fired for only giving a 2 game suspension or for lying. And if for lying, why? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just curious as to the rationale behind it.

Yes, because I'm the one seeking to impose my morality on others.

The kicker is I won't mind seeing Goodell go. It's just a shame that it will likely be for doing his job.

If I were Goodell I'd deny it up to the point where they produce a video of me watching the video.

In a way it makes sense. He's suspended for conduct detrimental to the league. After the video came out his conduct became much more detrimental to the league.

I prefer the edible variety. They're more fun.

BTW, where did you get your law degree from?

I guess I see your point. It's easier to get mob justice when you can pressure the employer to enforce it. That way you can get around all those unnecessary trial procedures the courts require.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to separate the role of the criminal justice system from that of the employer/employee relationship. Plus, when a crime is committed and we as a society look not to the courts, but rather to the employer of the accused for justice, I think we've moved past mass hysteria and into mass retardation.

2 things: 1. No, I don't think it would have the slightest impact on the occurrences of domestic violence throughout society. 2. Even if it did, it would still not be the responsibility of the NFL to do such a thing. Let me clarify: I'm not saying the NFL doesn't have a right to do this sort of thing, but I think the attitude of the fans that they have a duty to do so is unfounded and ill conceived.

Shouldn't you be excoriating the prosecutors in this case instead of the NFL? Plus, a moralistic cop/prosecutor is a dangerous thing. A man's got to know his limitations. Based on what you've said in this thread I'm pretty sure we'd disagree on your assessment of your moral duty. I'd guess it would be more aptly defined as imposing your self-righteous will.

No offense dude, b/c IIRC correctly you've struck me as reasonably intelligent at some point in PPP, but I've got to call you on this mindless garbage. All you're saying here is that you're angry because if that was your sister you'd want the guy to fry. You've not really given any real explanation of how and why this becomes Goodell or NFL's responsibility other than you'd like to send some abstract message that you believe will presumably provide some poorly defined benefit to someone somewhere. I'll take them one by one. So you're saying that because the NFL has high ratings it is now responsible for determining the standards of crime and punishment for its employees acts that are unrelated to the sport. I'm not seeing the cause and effect here. What about this case gives the league responsibility above the courts for determining decency and punishment? The domestic violence didn't happen in the NFL. As far as the message to the fans, now you're talking about effectiveness of PR management which is a far cry from moral responsibility. Why is it the moral responsibility of the NFL to undertake the activist role of every cause one of its many employees happens to run afoul of? The standard cop out response. If you don't have an argument appeal to emotion. Whether or not it was my sister has no bearing on anything. If anything it would make me biased and irrational. Despite my bias and irrationality I'd still have the sense to blame the court system for not meting out justice and not the offender's employer. Which gets back to the point you've still yet to address: who does he have a duty to? As far as I can see his duty is to the league. His job is to minimize the impact to the league. This high and mighty grandstanding by which you claim you're so morally outraged that he put the league ahead of your sense of justice is nauseatingly naive, and quite frankly childish. If anyone failed that girl (or whoever this is supposed to serve - don't try to pretend any of you give half a !@#$ about the victim in this case) it was the court system which is tasked with the business of crime and punishment. Not the NFL which is a private football league which deals with these matters only out of necessity to avoid harming its brand. Was a bit of ribbing there, but I'll let people judge for themselves. None of this was ever about convincing you of anything. I'm pretty sure that melon of yours is too hardened to accept any new information or perspective to seep through its pores. Edit: by virtue of the fact that you addressed that part of my post and not the rest I'll assume you have little, if anything, to offer.

So you're basically making the spider man argument. Because the NFL arguably has the power to influence social issues it has the responsibility to advance whatever social issues the public mob mentality believes it should advance at the moment. Further, you think is somehow comparable to Jackie Robinson (I'm not going to get into whether MLB was trying to influence the culture for the greater social good or was making a business decision) and the NFL has a moral obligation to ??? because if the NFL shows that it doesn't tolerate domestic abuse by it's employees it will have some greater social good? Is that the gist of it? No offense, it sounds like goofy head in the clouds idiocy to me, but perhaps you're right. BTW, It's not moral superiority that drips from my posts, it's intellectual superiority. Try to keep up.

Notice how not one of the moral crusaders can answer the very simple questions I asked. Not one.

His moral obligation? How is it Goodell's moral obligation and to who does he owe this obligation? Edit: I notice you glossed over the part about sending a message.

You're still out of your element. I pose the same questions until someone answers them. You don't even understand the discussion well enough to take a meaningful part in it.

Unlike the rest of the peanut gallery I don't much care for the conclusion of this post. You're essentially saying that the NFL should take a dual role between being a football league and also a political action group that must engineer broad social policy and enforce perceived opinions of morality. This is as short-sighted as Goodell's silly little drug suspension policy. There is no defining line that separates this from any other perceived misdeed. So you're essentially calling for the league to be these guy's school master. But why? What this really comes down to is you're upset because you see an injustice and you want the NFL yo punish him to satisfy your sense of justice. That's the gist of all of this. The problem is that you've not explained why penalizing domestic violence should be the responsibility of the NFL. So it's Goodell's job to send a message to men who beat women? Really? Are you suggesting our society is currently tolerant of domestic violence? Is that based on anything other than a feeling of moral superiority that wells up in your chest when you say that? Why do you say?

If you're not going to answer my question please don't respond to my post. I asked why it's the NFL's responsibility to punish bad behavior and who they owed that duty to. You responded by telling me they have a right and mismanaged the execution of said right. That's not remotely close to addressing the questions I posed.

You're both wrong. It's toad the company line, like Toad the Wet Sprocket.