Rob's House

Nuh-uh

I'd like to see the full video from the beginning and know the back story before passing judgment. I read that the girl attacked his sister and he was trying to break it up and the other girl wouldn't stop. My opinion would hinge largely on what started the fight and what this girl did to his sister. He clearly didn't unload on her because she got up a few seconds later. If he was throwing with full force she'd have been out. It's noteworthy that immediately after that he stopped the other girl (his sister?) from continuing to punch her. There's a huge distinction between hitting a girl who's attacking your sister & laying out your wife for mouthing off. And if recent events have taught us anything, it's that context matters.

It's noteworthy that they changed it from "must" to "shall" because VA case law has inexplicably given the word "shall" some wiggle room.

Here's the full version: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491

That's the key inquiry. Some are claiming that this is only being proposed for cases of medical necessity, but there is already a procedure in place should that highly unlikely scenario occur. There would be no reason to change the language unless you wanted to expand the right to kill the baby beyond cases of medical necessity.

I don't really see how it makes any difference whether it's before or after birth. There is no difference in the nature of the child from labor to delivery. Just because there is a clearly defined demarcation point doesn't make it a meaningful one.

Democrats: Smirking at an activist is inexcusable, but killing a baby is cool.

The practical effect is to legalize the killing of a fully developed, viable, living baby, on demand, for any reason whatsoever. It is not difficult to find a doctor who shares the radical pro-abortion platform to sign off on this. The modified language makes the threshold requirement so low that it's hard to conceive of a situation that couldn't qualify.

Just to be clear, if the baby had just been delivered alive and well, and the parents threw it in a woodchipper, would you be ok with that?

You don't need religion to understand why it's wrong to kill a child. We're not talking about the first trimester where you can plausibly argue it's not a child (not my view, but I understand how others rationalize it.) Or even the second trimester, for that matter. We're talking about a law that allows for the legal killing of a fully developed, healthy baby for what in practice amounts to any reason. If you're ok with that, what, if anything, are you not ok with?

I like it in theory but not in practice. I think we need less college, not more. Too many people graduate with massive debt and no marketable job skills. Making it free just exacerbates the problem. We as a society will still pour tremendous resources into an investment with an increasingly poor ROI. The cost is just hidden. We'd be better off if all education was streamlined and geared more towards learning practical and profitable skills. There are career paths for which certain college programs make a lot of sense, but for most it's really unnecessary. It would make more sense for the standard form of higher education to be a part-time program that you do while you're working in your chosen career path.

I feel that way, not just with the Super Bowl, but football in general. I still like it, but I don't feel the magic I used to. I attribute it to getting older.

That was very telling. I don't think President Trump has been terribly unpredictable with economic policy. People get the idea that he's whimsical because of his personality and off the cuff style, but when it comes to policy he's been pretty consistent.

She's really not my type, but I wouldn't tell her no.

Schumer said the shutdown cost $11 billion. That means he spent $11 billion to save $5.5 billion. That's Democrat economics for you.

I'm talking about a lot more than a couple of posts by the Dude. But I'd be willing to bet you could make that statement about christians or conservatives on any major platform without fear of getting banned.

Snowflakes.

I went through an anti-religion phase in college where I got off on ripping catholocism (and christianity generally) to shreds, often in classroom discussions. Christians didn't care for it, but no one ever cried "bigot" or demanded I be silenced. I no longer trash Christianity (for various reasons) but I find it both troublesome and puzzling that you can't criticize an ideology without being accused of bigotry. I don't approve of blanket condemnation of Muslims anymore than I approve of blanket condemnation of any group of people, but it's perfectly reasonable to criticize aspects of any ideology you find problematic. I expect this from far-left intersectionalist social justice a$$holes, but it's disturbing that many otherwise rational people have jumped on this bandwagon of bullcrap.

I watched his speech with a left-leaning coworker who has backed the Dems thus far. She thought everything he said today sounded perfectly reasonable and doesn't understand what all the fuss is about.

They're Gillette guys.

What did he say? I thumbed through a few of his recent posts and didn't find anything that struck me as overtly racist.

Don't leave us in suspense.

It's an interesting thought, but if the team that gets him is only on the hook for $6.5 mil they might be able to find a team with an uncertain QB situation that would trade a late round pick for him straight up. Someone might see him as a viable b/u or reclamation project.

When you join a mob you are guilty of the mob's crimes.