Rob's House

Wouldn't surprise me. I recall an incident where kids were blowing up 2-liter bottles that way (popping them is probably a more accurate description) in their parent's driveway. The cops sent out the ****ing bomb squad and charged them with manufacturing explosives.

Even though I hate every team that isn't the Braves, especially NL East teams like the Nats, it would be somewhat satisfying to watch Golden boy Bryce Harper's former team win the series the first year after his departure.

This is probably to protect Rosen from shell shock. If we played that kid like we did Brady he'd probably go home, burn his playbook, shave his head, and join a monastery.

You must see this

One of the most popular screen names among teabaggers is Deplorable Me.

Is this our new theme music?

The difference is deplorables own the name and wear it proudly. Snowflakes get upset and say you're the snowflake.

How would anyone know if he was being blackballed? It's entirely possible that there is not a single owner in the league that wants to deal with the headache over a borderline starter/backup. See Tim Tebow

And there's the rub. I think you're more consistent than most on this, but this is a fuzzy line between an objective principle and a subjective opinion, because we have different ideas of what is hateful or evil. I don't know that I feel that strongly about it (I'm more glad to be American than proud), but some people have very strong feelings about the flag and the anthem and the country, culture, people, and principles it represents. They see this peaceful protest as a hateful indictment of everything they love and stand for. To them, the implication that America, and specifically white America, is racist and oppressive doesn't sound all that different from how a white nationalist sounds to you. I know you don't share that point of view, and I don't expect you to, but I want you to understand it, because it illustrates just how difficult it is to draw the lines objectively.

That's a consistent position because your principle is not content-based. Too many people let their bias override reasoned principle. Personally, I'm okay with bucking trends and fighting management to a point, but I generally err on the side of the freedom of private parties to (or not to) enter into contracts voluntarily. Of course, there are some exceptions, and I have to consider my bias as someone who didn't appreciate his protest. That said, I would have a problem with an organized effort to boycott a potential employer.

I'll accept that you believe everything you said in your first paragraph and simply state that I disagree and leave it at that. We don't need to debate that now. It still sounds to me like you support him because you like him and agree with him. What I want to know is, if a player you liked orchestrated a peaceful protest where he spoke up for people who he thought needed a voice by doing and saying things you found both wrong and highly offensive, would you still want someone to hire him?

I'm with you. I sometimes go months without watching the news. It does a world of good for my mental health.

So you support him because you agree with him. I can respect that. Are you suggesting that if you disagreed with his cause you'd be okay with his employment situation?

I'd have a lot more respect for Kaepernick supporters if they were honest about why they support him, and applied that principle consistently.

If an NFL team wants to hire him then more power to them. If not, he's entitled to nothing.

I've never suggested they're not a threat. How do you propose to combat them?

That's one of their most insidious ploys. They exploit the way we process information by association to manipulate morals and belief. Take racism for example. As a child you hear stories of people being beaten, subjugated, killed, etc. due to racism. That strong feeling of injustice becomes anchored to the word "racism." Now to convince you that someone or something is awful they just have to associate it with the word "racism." Now a harmless joke or innocuous comment is a capital offense, not because there is a rational explanation for why it's wrong, but because there is a subconscious connection between that and all the horrors associated with that word.

It's worse than that. They're advocating for the judicial implementation of ex post facto laws. The definition of extortion is “the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person.” This bozo is seriously arguing that President Trump threatened the Ukrainian President with injury as it pertains to the statute. Forgetting Trump, or politicians generally for a moment, that is a terrifying precedent. It means if someone with power doesn't like you, they can redefine words to convict you of felonies for acts that are not criminal, were never considered criminal, and we're not contemplated by the statute under which they are being charged.

Notice how Tibs refers to those who reject his faith as "cultists." I'll be honest here, I don't know that this is out of the playbook. This just looks like good old fashioned projection. They've accused the President of racism, collusion, and extortion (among other things) and when the evidence fails to support their theories they become even more convinced, and their resentment toward those who refuse to believe on faith grows. Then they ironically call those people "cultists."

Notice Tibs going to the well. When they've backed themselves into a corner and have no argument, they cry racism. It doesn't matter how tenuous the connection between race and the topic is. It's their version of throwing the gun at the monster. And if you're not on their team, you are the monster.

Whataboutism roughly translates to "stop pointing out how full of ***** I am."

Notice what Tibs does here. He States the exact opposite of the truth so that others who didn't read the article, or don't understand the issue, will take it at face value. This is exactly what msm does. They would look foolish, even to the minimally informed, if they discussed the substance of the allegation, so they make an absurd statement, then reframe the issue as a discussion of whether the President is above the law, which implies he violated it, when the allegation is incontrovertibly preposterous.

Sorry. I try not to pick on the disabled, but sometimes I can't help it.

So he's committed extortion as long as we completely redefine extortion? Cool story, bro.