Rob's House

People talk about us being set at RB as though they are interchangeable. We haven't had a battering ram since Mcgahee left town. If we had a solid 230 lb power back, and a powerful O-lineman to open holes we'd have almost certainly won at least 2 more games last year. And if you're a run first team, it's not a bad thing to have 3 solid RBS, all with different specialties.

I'd prefer nothing to the current law. Doing something is only desirable if it improves the situation, which this does not. I could go through plenty of proposals to improve health insurance (which I may do later), but it's immaterial to the point I was making. Something doesn't become constitutional just because people can't agree on the alternative.

If you understand anything about politics you should understand why it makes a difference who drafts a bill and who gets to vote yes or no on it. The fact that this bill was strategically originated in the body less accountable to the people and only made it through by the slimmest of margins and only on account of political bribery that would be punishable by imprisonment if done in the public sector is what demonstrates clearly that this is the type of maneuvering that provision was meant to prevent. Plus, of all the schools of thought regarding constitutional interpretation, I've yet to hear of one that calls for the blatant disregard of express, unambiguous provisions on the grounds that it really doesn't seem that important.

Actually what he's saying is that following unambiguous constitutional procedures is more important to the long term legitimacy of government than maintaining a politician's so-called legacy.

There is a reasonable intermediate position, but lately our society has assumed a mindlessly rabid mob mentality whenever something like this happens, and many defend that not only as acceptable, but desirable, or even admirable. Worse, the outrage is selectively applied based on the race of those involved, thus making the outrage itself inherently racist. Just as a comment that could rightfully be called an idiotic comparison by this Bundy character is being characterized as a call for the reinstatement of slavery. Or how a 60 year old woman (who was a big Obama supporter no less) has to be widely boycotted and destroyed when it comes out that she'd used the dreaded "N-word" in years past; her tears, apologies, and pleas for forgiveness ignored, even scoffed at by the callous mob. Or the national outrage and widespread calls and support for the most severe "punishment" for an 80 year old man for having a politically incorrect personal opinion, when the so-called offense was more deserving of public condemnation by the league (and maybe some "sensitivity training" ). Basically, what I'm saying is that culturally we respond to situations that call for a "hey ass hole..." response with a baseball bat and a Molotov cocktail, and a few around here think that's just fine. I'd like to know why.

I know a kid who was convicted of a felony and spent 4 months in jail for putting a possum in his school.

I don't know if I'm following you entirely, but I take it that you or someone close to you (maybe more than 1) was somehow negatively affected by someone with a racist motive, and as a result you've made this your signature issue to help you cope. And just so we're clear, I don't claim we're in a post-racial America; I claim we can't get anywhere near a post-racial America because people like you (no offense, I'm sure you're well intentioned) are obsessed with, and hypersensitive regarding, anything indicative of racism. To me it's a matter of proportionality, and the level of outrage seems grossly disproportionate to the problem. I don't see a return to slavery, segregation, or anything close to that occurring if we fail to respond to every potentially racist comment (by anyone not black) like it's a national tragedy. And I understand to an extent the asymmetry between tolerating the racism of blacks as opposed to whites (Or white Hispanics) due to the history there, but it's gotten a bit ridiculous. If we're to be an enlightened society that doesn't base treatment on race that has to apply across the board, otherwise it's lacking any principle. But going back to the original question, are you disproportionately sensitive to this issue because of something that affected you personally, or is there more to This issue that makes your level of concern objectively rational?

I'll be shocked if anyone besides Birddog even attempts to explain their position, because they know there's no objectively reasonable rationale underlying their self-serving sanctimony.

I'm always curious why so many white people get off on being outraged about anyone falling short of taking a mouthful of black dick. Why don't you guys relax a bit. I know a whole lot of black folks, and few, if any, are as genuinely uptight about racism as the Lilly white crowd that so desperately try to constantly prove that they're among the good ones. I'd like for one of the racially outraged to explain the logical basis of their impassioned position on this issue.

This ****'s lazy. Basically just listed teams in order of how they finished last year with a couple of token deviations to seem thoughtful. Anyone with access to last year's standings could come up with this.

I'd still hit it.

I haven't followed that story or thread, so this is the first I've heard, but based on the last few posts it sounds more like the guy was ripping the effects of the welfare state on the black community than any endorsement of slavery. I hope he knew he was being hyperbolic (absurdly so IMO) but I don't see how you could logically construct that statement to be a call to reinstate slavery...at all...even a little bit...even if you really really wanted it to be so.

But being a victim of physical violence is nowhere near as bad as being reminded that people like you were once discriminated against.

I wouldn't equate not wanting to abolish with wildly popular. I forget who it was, but a healthcare executive said at the time that if they had wanted to craft a system to achieve Medicare's goals they couldn't have devised one so contrived if they tried. We try to boil it down to a question of to cover or not to cover, but too often we come up with unnecessarily inefficient systems that become entrenched and then you can't get out from under them. The problem with these plans is their complexity. Once a plan becomes too complex everything can go wrong.

Because anyone left of me is a communist and anyone right of me is a facist.

Tom's a little off today, probably because of JA's presence. He doesn't take well to being the second smartest poster on the board.

I got it, but not until after you cited it.

My first thought was "Oh HELL No!" but then I realized that if we took them in reverse order I'd be okay with it. Not happy, but okay.

Turns out they detained him and when they looked in his pants they found he had crabs.

On a side note, do you know if there's a way to tell if you have permanent lung damage without consulting with your doctor?

The only thing you hear are the voices in your head. You'll bend anyway you can to lead to your conclusion rather than let logic lead you where it may. So now your ideal socialized medicine model will prevent heavy drinking, smoking, and enforce seatbelt use (beyond the seatbelt laws that the cops already enforce)? You have to want to believe pretty badly to stretch that far.

I'm not sure if you're addressing Birddog's point, but if you are you should know that anyone who tells you life expectancy is a meaninful indication of healthcare outputs is either an idiot or takes you for one. Let me list a few other variables besides diet and healthcare: Exercise, murder rate, drinking, smoking, drug use, and car accidents to name a few. Not to mention differences in demographics that can contribute to that number due to varying genetic factors. All of these factors and more contribute to differences in life expectancy, but Birddog conveniently ignores them and arbitrarily attributes the lion's share of the variation to the one variable that fits his prejudice.

So are a multitude of factors which are not held constant in arriving at that number. You're doing what you accuse others of doing. It's not possible that you don't understand why that's a horribly inaccurate indicator.

Or a QB that could execute one.

Because it presupposes healthcare is the only relevant variable to explain the difference, which is patently retarded.