Rob's House

Not necessarily. Most teams already have their established QB. Of teams that didn't, 4 took other QBs in the 1st. Only a small handful of QB needy teams passed on him.

Can you cite any examples of the rights broad intolerance in these areas or is this one of those "come on, we all know you hate poor people and minorities" kind of things?

Bowe might not be as expensive as we think as he's coming off a pretty mediocre season. I wouldn't expect him to come cheap, but I doubt he can command top 5 WR money either. This would make a lot of sense as it potentially addresses two needs with a modestly priced solution. It would be nice to have another well rounded TE, esp if Chandler gets hurt again, & w/ McIntyre entering his golden years it would be nice to have someone else who can play FB.

I don't get your outrage. It seems like your position is that because you ride a bike everyone else should be cool with poor etiquette by other cyclers. If you're not the one holding up traffic & deciding to take long rides on narrow busy roads then it has nothing to do with you, & if you are doing those things you're the !@#$, not the guy honking at you. Please explain a rational objective basis for your position, b/c I'm having trouble seeing it.

You're forgetting that game when Favre got hurt & TJ only threw 3 interceptions in leading his team to victory against a Bills team that won 4 games that year.

Ravens are expected to let Kruger test free agency. He's looking for around $8 mil/yr. He's on OLB in a 46 defense coming off a 9 sack season & he's 26. Thoughts? http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5181/paul-kruger

Me

The issues themselves (at least for me) are not what's important. It's the overall mindset that unquestioningly accepts the growing encroachment of political correctness that is smothering our culture. People claim political correctness is b.s. but then act in accordance with it. It's gotten to the point where not only does truth get sacrificed for the ideal, but it's being taken to such an extent that the initial ills it sought to cure are lost in the freestyle and PC for the sake of PC is taking hold. Maybe I'll write a thesis on this and post a link; it's a topic that's been bugging me for quite a while. Sorry all for dragging this into the depths of the political cauldron.

As to the 1st part: Horseshit. Not mandating gay history doesn't infringe on gay people's rights to celebrate their history and allowing people to make nativity scenes doesn't infringe upon the rights of others not to practice that religion. That's nonsensical. More hypersensitive b.s. As to the 2nd part: The fact that public opinion sways this way and so many acquiesce or even support it is exactly what I have a problem with. Public opinion was in favor of Jim Crow at one time, but I guess that's okay? Anyway, it's been fun, but my work day is almost over, and this thread has gone off the rails, (admittedly of my own doing) and I don't want to stoke the fires on the main board any further. If this thread gets moved to PPP maybe we can resume at a later date, but this is all I got for now.

What's to refute? It's as if you said water's not wet. I'll take an excerpt from his post: Explain how none of these things restricts one's freedom. You can't because, as I said earlier, a mandate or ban is necessarily a restriction of freedom. It dictates that someone do or not do something they otherwise are not under any obligation to comply with. You have no point to argue. Your only point is that people should shut up and eat their peas. I have no respect for people with that kind of mindset. And I apologize if I'm being too forward or demeaning toward you, but that's how I feel about the matter. I honestly believe that people who don't appreciate their freedoms don't deserve them, and I'm speaking much more broadly than just in reference to the specific things listed. And as was stated before, this is a question of the cultural shift, not an argument over federal power.

Thanks for the heads up. I've read this three times now and I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Can you clarify?

Read the previous post. I'm not speaking particularly to the Rooney rule (wasn't even my post). I'm talking about the mindset. You seem like an obedient little lap dog who is happy to take what his master deems him worthy of. For that you deserve a cookie. Good boy. Thanks man. It's good to know there are a few who still get it.

That's a good boy. Here's a cookie. Good boy.

A privilege granted and given by who exactly? The most frustrating aspect of all of this garbage is the servile mindset so many of you seem to have. You shouldn't be asking on whose authority you are entitled to act, but rather question any authority that seeks to restrict you. Damn man. This response is devoid of anything remotely resembling truth or logic.

Now we're conflating principles. The dude's point was that political correctness is incrementally encroaching on freedoms, not necessarily that the Federal government is acting accordingly. If you want to debate the virtues of these limitations of freedom that's another issue, one I'm not currently interested in delving into.

How do you figure? Mandates and bans are by definition limitations on freedom.

Suppose for whatever reason Buffalo still needed a QB in 2014 (situation hasn't changed there) and we've got the choice between Clowney and Manzelli. Who would say to take Clowney and get a QB later?

I've heard this one before. Fool me once...

As a jive turkey cracker honkey not only would I not cry like a kitty and protest, I would cheer for that team....and buy their jersey.

I'm with you. That **** was great in my early 20s when I was just starting to really get into this stuff, but once you get past the surface issues it becomes painfully clear that cable news is little more than pro-wrestling for political junkies.

It's a fair point. I could draw some distinctions, but I get where you're going. However if you were to name a team the Visigoths I doubt there'd be much uproar.

Dude, most of the Indian tribes that were here were pretty savage. That's just how it was. This Disney image we have of peaceloving agrarian saints being at one with the land ignores the brutal reality that existed. If you're arguing that it's unfair to the modern day decendents of those tribes (although most of us have some Indian blood in us) I suppose that's a fair argument, but the image isn't necessarily a false one when taken in an historical context.

Completely agree, particularly on D. With the trend towards mobile quarterbacks it helps to have DL that can run.

Fair enough. My main point was just that the people I hear complain the most vehemently about this are white people. I don't mean to denigrate anyone for simply disagreeing with the name, it's the people that get really indignant about it that I find most annoying.

I get that, and if your niece told me she was offended I'd be a little more receptive to her concerns than I am to the white uptight PC guy who feels some deep spiritual connection to "Native Americans" (I hate that term because it already meant something else) because he watched Sun Chaser and knows someone who's 1/16 American Indian that digs Indian lore and refers to them as "my people". Knowing several American Indians, some intimately as it were, many of whom like the name or are indifferent to it and none who have a strong opposition to it, I'm less inclined to entertain the gripes of those vicariously offended on their behalf. Plus, I'm kind of tired of the hypersensitivity of our culture generally. This is just another facet of it. I generally find those who are easily offended to be pussies. That's not particular to people who have strong feelings about this particular subject. That's not to say I'm a tough guy; just not so easily offended. That's all. Also, I'm not offended by political correctness, I'm annoyed by it. There is a subtle difference.