Rob's House

Seriously, dude. I don't want to be ugly, but you're starting to get on my nerves. You said drinking and driving was more blameworthy than texting while driving. I gave a logical reason for concluding that the converse was true. That does not equate to a statement that either is blameless. I'm not playing this 1 + 1 = 3.5 game with you anymore.

Trent Edwards

I didn't say it was an excuse. I pointed out the flaw in your logic.

From a moral standpoint that makes it even worse. At least the drunk driver's judgment was potentially impaired when he decided to drive. The person texting while driving has no such excuse. Plus, you're conflating the issues. Claiming that a DUI does not necessarily mean a person has poor character does not equate to a call for the repeal of DUI restrictions. Although a lot of the DUI penalties are idiotic.

And it was a good thing that he did. My sources have informed me that this power was responsible for our ability to avert the apocalypse foretold by the Mayans.

I don't have a problem with a professor having, or even showing, bias as long as they admit where they're coming from. I have a teacher who openly tells us she's an "Old Testament Liberal". She tells us how she thinks things are and how they should be, but it's admittedly from a slanted position rather than being taught as simply the way it is. It leads to great open discussions with no fear of reprisal. It's the gutless, dickless, d-bag professors with their little commie beards and pointy noses who think their academic credentials somehow indemnify them from thinking wrongly and who let their arrogance and bias override any objective critical analysis of their own views, and who are too cowardly to admit to themselves or others who they are, that I really have a problem with.

It's not a magic number that designates anything other than a presumption that someone might be impaired. Most drunk driving fatalaties are a result of BACs 2-3x that limit. It also can't take into account different tolerances. I guarantee my .12 is a lot clearer than the average Joe's .08. And your bit about laws addressing reckless driving is BS because if this guy got charged with reckless driving, which can be just as dangerous ad DUI, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Most adults have driven drunk before. That's just the way it is.

Someone ought to kick that guy in the nuts.

Ask yourself the same question. There are a lot of things people do that could put others in danger. Because someone was over an arbitrarily set BAC that a leglislature set in place does not to my thinking make that person depraved. Are you equally bothered by people looking at their phone or changing a CD or fiddling with their MP3 player when they are driving? Because those things are just as, if not more deadly than someone who's had a few drinks and is driving carefully.

Not all drunk driving is equal. If someone gets too wasted to control his vehicle and drives like a maniac and kills someone I know, that doesn't somehow implicate a guy who had a few beers and drove home carefully.

That's just your opinion. None of the people I know killed families. I know a guy who killed a bicycler b/c he was looking at his cell phone, but he wasn't drunk.

Who are you to judge? You're no saint.

The more I think about this move the less I like it. I just don't see the upside here. We've already got a veteran journeyman QB on the roster, why add another? The QB carousel never works. Paying a guy $4.5 mil to leverage the other guy to restructure is a self-defeating strategy. This forecloses the opportunity of improving the position outside the draft, and if you're going to address it in the draft why pay so much for a 2nd b/u?

We need the idiots to keep reproducing so their kids can finance our debt.

The theft concerns me. I don't know the details of it, but that could potentially be a red flag. This, for me, is not.

This, to me, is a non-issue. I don't see a DUI as a reflection of poor character. I know plenty of people with great character who have gotten DUIs.

Not seeing a lot of value here.

I have a friend who is a con man. This post sounds like the wishful thinking of every girlfriend he's ever had.

I've seen Cougar Town once or twice and remember thinking it was okay. The surprise show that I didn't expect to like but did, after being subjected to it by the wife, was Don't Trust the C in Apt 23. James Vanderbeek playing himself is a great touch.

These reactions bother me. Having a daughter, this is a subject that greatly concerns me, particularly in regards to a future time where she may be in this situation and I've since checked out of this world and am unable to put a gun in his mouth and see to it that he understands reason. But it seems that too often with this topic (like EVERY controversial topic), in an ill-advised but well intentioned attempt, we throw the whole spectrum into the same bucket, put the same label on it, and rubber stamp anything that could be labelled "domestic violence". A lot of overzealous prosecutors do a lot of damage with these cases. When we start blurring the line between a guy that balls up his fist and drills a girl in the face, and a guy who shoves a raving lunatic on the couch because she's up in his face screaming and physically imposing her presence on him, we've not made a step in the right direction.

If we take Ogletree with Werner still on the board, I'll shoot my TV.

My first thought was that hopefully this will cause him to drop to us in the 2nd.

I don't generally approve of political show trials regardless of who's proposing them.

If Marrone doesn't succeed right out of the gate, half the board will hang the last 13 years around his neck.

I don't know his price or interest, but I'd have much rather looked at a guy like Matt Moore if we were going this direction.