Rob's House

If a black player is caught on tape telling his daughter he doesn't want her posing on instagrams with white boys and bringing them to games I wonder how quickly he'll receive his lifetime ban.

Which runs counter to the argument that anti-black racism is a serious problem today, with significant tangible detriment to minorities, that needs to be heavily scrutinized, sniffed out, and dealt with swiftly and severely.

If I'm Sterling I'm spending large sums of money to uncover any and every skeleton in every closet of anyone and everyone that played a role in this.

Lifetime ban for expressing controversial personal views in a private conversation?

Not as quickly as they are now. But that's just one example. Speaking more broadly, and without getting too detailed, when you increase the regulations with which people must comply you're necessarily creating hurdles to the free flow of commerce. Those hurdles increase costs, whether that is the cost of lawyers to figure out how you must navigate the new regulations, modifications you must make, etc. The pertinent analysis with regards to efficiency is whether the added safeguards you get from the increase in regulation justifies the increase in cost. The problem is that I've described the way an economist (or rational human) would look at the situation. Politicians don't care about efficiency.

One of the problems is that they did the exact opposite of what would bring costs down by mandating coverage of wide ranging non-essential services for a plan to qualify. If my insurance policy covers all manner of services that I might use but don't really need, the risk of incurring expenses increases for my insurance company, and thus the price of premiums goes up. It's not possible that the architects of this legislation didn't understand this. They just lied through their teeth about the effect it would have on costs. This could also drive up the cost of those services because there is now more money available to chase those services. When demand increases and supply remains constant the price goes up.

I'm ok. I just wanted to play on my pan pipes and drink some wine. I actually found your last paragraph somewhat amusing, and I don't take issue with you being of the opinion that they should have tagged him. I just don't like the bold assertion that they weren't willing to pay when we really don't know if that's the case.

Once they violated my right to indulge in hookers and blow everything else just kind of faded into the background.

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I'll not join in other than to suggest that the distinction between zoning laws and nuisance laws has been blurred here.

I should really ignore this garbage, but I've been drinking and idiocy pisses me off and I feel compelled to address it. But you can prove me the idiot by answering a few questions: How much did the Bills offer Byrd, how much would they have had to pay to get him to sign before testing free agency, and did he give the Bills a chance to match the Saints offer? My point isn't to defend the FO. It's just that if you can't answer these questions you're just whining like a small child. If you can answer, please do, because I'm very curious, as are many Bills fans who I'm sure will read your response. Thanks.

I still have yet to see anyone give any reliable info suggesting what the Bills offered Byrd.

Says the food snob. Go eat your foi gras, ass hole.

Big Macs smell pretty good when they're being cooked. Just sayin.

You must be joking?

Funny, I took the exact opposite away from all this.

The constitutional basis for the ability to enforce these laws is pretty flimsy. The true need and value of such laws in this day and age are highly questionable as well.

He seems to have a lot of minority millionaires on his payroll, and up until about 10 minutes ago he was slated to receive his 2nd NAACP award, so I'm skeptical of that.

Part of why it's hard for me to take all the hand wringing seriously is that I know damn good and we'll that every one feigning outrage has a friend, cousin, grandparent, or someone close to them that shares similar, if not more extreme, views that they tolerate.

I think I was pretty clear.

It sounds like they weren't an employer at all and more like a volunteer dance squad, but I'll wait to learn more about the internal dynamics of the operation before going any further down that road.

If I was part of a semi-pro football team, and our player materials included instructions on how to avoid and treat fungal infections like jock itch I don't think I'd give a **** and I'm pretty sure I'd make fun of anyone who was offended by it.

No, not really.

Again, what's offensive about it? It's not a mandate. They're not doing tampon inspections. It's nothing more than a guideline on proper hygiene maintenance that could just as easily be printed on the side of a box of tampons. So what are you complaining about?