Rob's House

One of the more eye opening aspects of the Trump presidency that Schlichter touches on, is how many so-called conservative commentators have been exposed as grifters. I'd had some reservations about the Weekly Standard crowd in the few years leading up to 2016, but I had no idea their convictions only ran as deep as their revenue stream. Now the establishment conservatives (Conservative Inc., as they're being called by many) seem more interested in ousting the outsider than accomplishing any of their stated goals. Now Conservative Inc. is trying to cancel Michelle Malkin, SJW style, for refusing to disavow a group of young conservatives who have apparently engaged in wrong think. - I don't know the full story here, but it sounds like young guys who are tired of being shamed for being white and have pushed back against that movement, not always in politically correct terms, and are thus called white supremacists and Holocaust deniers. The Trump Presidency, and the witch hunts it has inspired, continues to expose the dirty, corrupt scum that have taken over DC and the DC media.

I didn't wade through to see if this was already posted, but this is absolutely terrific.

The division is still in play. The Pats are looking a lot more vulnerable and could realistically take a loss to the Eagles today, putting us only one game back. Pats are beat up, and 42 year old Brady's arm is going to continue to decline as he throws more passes and the weather gets colder. I'm not calling it, but it really could happen.

That doesn't even make sense, but whatever. I didn't expect anything resembling a coherent thought from the likes of you. Enjoy the game.

What was the bet?

Your argument undermines your credibility on this issue. All you've communicated is that you are incapable of forming an objective and impartial opinion because of your extreme bias against one side due to factors that are immaterial to the discussion.

Or too big a pu$$y to deal with the fact that he was wrong about a trivial matter so doubles down on dumbass instead.

This reminds me of when Maker's Mark reduced its whiskey to 80 proof so they could spread it out further. They ended up with more bottles, but of an inferior product.

Yeah, I hate it when some dipsh!t uses an arbitrary level of abstraction for the purpose of obscuring the truth.

That has the exact hallmark of a Tibs post. I can't tell if you're trolling or if you're serious. If the latter, you are quite literally saying that there is no distinction between the actions of any two people who have ever been involved in a fight. That's ****ing stupid.

Whitlock mentioned that the other day. He said people have told him that Garrett doesn't really fit in, particularly with the brothers, and he suggested this type of behavior might be his attempt to build street cred.

Ugh. The left REALLY can't meme.

Have you been studying at the Tibs school of semantic bull *****? I'll try to break this down into simple terms: 1. You are the one who said the "unprecedented" suspension on Garrett was the reason Rudolph should receive an unprecedented penalty. It wasn't a terribly logical argument, but it was your argument. 2. Suspending Rudolph would be unprecedented. You cannot name ONE example of anyone in the history of the league who has ever been suspended for behavior similar to Rudolph's. You proved that by citing an example that is not remotely similar. You knew it wasn't similar which is why you intentionally obscured the facts by broadening the scope to the blatantly dishonest "been involved in fights" standard. I'm honestly surprised. I thought you were better than that. Actually, I still do. 3. No one has claimed that Rudolph had no fault in the incident. I am claiming that his level of culpability does not rise to the level of suspension. I support that claim with historical precedent. You've offered no evidence suggesting that a suspension is the standard outcome in this situation, and no rational argument to explain why the league should deviate from the standard. 4. Your argument that Garrett's suspension is longer than that of other players in similar cases, does not logically lead to the conclusion that Rudolph should suffer additional punishment. It could be offered as a rational argument for reducing the length of Garrett's suspension, but that's about it. 5. I really don't care that much that you hold this opinion. As far as I'm concerned it's an interesting topic to discuss, but a fairly trivial matter overall, and the opinions of anyone on this board are wholly inconsequential. I do, however, find the dishonest approach to a straightforward discussion irritating.

The argument that Rudolph started the whole thing is pretty weak in itself, but even if we take that as a given the rest of your argument still makes no sense. You're arguing that because Garrett's penalty is slightly harsher in length, although identical in nature, to previous penalties for similar behavior, Rudolph should face a penalty of a nature never before imposed for such behavior because ???. Saying the penalty for one particular behavior is "unprecedented" does not necessitate imposing an "unprecedented" penalty for completely different behavior. To even get to that point you're saying that even though nothing Rudolph did is suspension worthy in itself, the fact that Garrett responded to it the way he did renders it suspension worthy. That's also nonsensical. If I've somehow misrepresented your position please explain exactly what principle it is you're espousing.

Can we also agree that the Trump is Hitler cult doesn't give half a sh!t whether the President squeezed Ukraine for info on Biden, and that all the impeachment nonsense is political theater?

So you have no example of anyone ever being suspended for anything similar to what Rudolph did. There are examples of people being suspended multiple games for actions similar to those of Garrett, but not for 6 games (but 5 for Haynesworth a decade ago). Do I have that right?

Do you have any rational basis for this opinion, or is it just a purely subjective feeling? I've asked on a few different platforms if anyone can provide an example of anyone EVER being suspended for anything similar to what Rudolph did. So far no one can come up with anything.

I agree with you. I don't want him charged criminally. In fact, I'd probably be defending Garrett if he were facing the repercussions the law would impose upon him in most states if he had connected cleanly in a real world setting. But it could happen if the proper parties felt so inclined. The point is that being in the midst of a contact sport doesn't prevent one from being charged if the act of violence is not within the course and scope of the sport itself. Also, you can consent to a battery but not to malicious wounding* (this didn't rise to that level, but could have). * Laws vary by state and I don't know exactly what the equivalent of Mal wounding is in OH.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/01/19/Eagles-Heller-sues-over-poke-in-the-eye/1061632725200/

You'd think this point would be self-evident. It's kind of sad that some people need it spelled out for them.

He doesn't have one. That's the point. It's like if you caught your girlfriend lying about being at her mom's house when she was really out wh0ring around with her friends, and rather than admit she was wrong and apologize she says "what about that time last year when you got drunk at your friend's house and didn't come home until 3 a.m." **The language filter around here has gotten a little extreme.

It doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's the equivalent of Johnny Cochran telling the jury "look at the little monkey" at the conclusion of the Chewbacca defense.

^This is why Tibs is worth keeping around. He is our own personal illustration of fraudulent left-wing media tactics. And we don't even have to pay him. Here he demonstrates the classic change of subject tactic with a failed attempt to work in a twist of what the left likes to call "whataboutism." Tibs doesn't realize that what they call a "whataboutism" is usually an accurate example that illustrates a disingenuous double standard. That does not exist in his post. This is just a desperate measure to avoid admitting humiliating defeat. And this is what we'll see across mass media over the next week.