[My Sad Farewell as a Bills Fan]

You probably say this every year.

[NFL had tapes in April]

Poking what hornets nest. The words are what the words are. If one believes in the 2nd amendment and one also insists on a literal reading of the words, the Constitution calls for regulation of militias.

 

The words of the Constitution makes this an essential element to exist before stating Congress shall make no law. The words are clear that anyone who insists on adherence to the clear words of the Constitution is also endorsing a well-regulated militia.

Honestly, I think it's a humorous change of subject on this thread. Carry on. (but, without me.)

[NFL had tapes in April]

Look, groups routinely pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to emphasize and then build whole ethos of thinking and alleged ways of life around their partial reading. For example, if the NRA truly based its thinking and actions on the words of the Constitution, a real adherence to the second amendment would start with making sure that we had a well-regulated militia. NRA seems to emphasize the later parts of the amendment without a focus on the fact that as best as I can judge we do not have the well-regulated militia in this country that all of the later clauses in the second amendment clearly are dependent upon existing before the later clauses are even relevant.

 

Even the biggest proponents of close adherence to the words of the Constitution seem happy to ignore the words in the Constitution which they find inconvenient. Ultimately it is this adherence to convenience which tends to undermine the faith of normal folk in what I think is one of the greatest written documents in human history.

Wow! You're going to poke that hornet's nest??? Good luck to you!

[NFL had tapes in April]

There is usually only one mob. It's the one that's the loudest.

So, could you be a mob of one?

[NFL had tapes in April]

No, there's usually one mob. Mob mentality is a real thing and historically a primary concern for keeping domestic order was subduing mobs. One of the primary reasons why we have criminal trials with set procedures and protections was to avoid mob justice. Because the mob is not rational.

 

You can scoff at it all you want, but just because you agree with or are part of the mob doesn't make it any less real. Now it's tweets, emails, and blogs rather than pitchforks and torches, but it's still a group of irrational people calling for someone's head. And you not worrying about it doesn't change the fact that one day it could be you or someone you care about in those crosshairs.

 

And yes, people have always had their words held against them, but the situation as it exists today where everything is public, narcissism is at an all time high and growing, and political correctness has become de facto law (and a strict one at that) where saying something mildly controversial off hand, in public or private, can bring a media firestorm down upon he who dares question convention, that's relatively new in America.

 

Galileo would probably chuckle at western society and say we've come full circle.

If you're equating social media consensus with "mob mentality," and tweets, emails (who emails anymore?), and blogs with "pitchforks and torches," then you are patently wrong that there is "usually one mob." This debate is evidence. I'm not even sure which mob you represent.

 

And stop trying to pigeon-hole me into agreeing with some cross-section of some mob. I'm not even sure who you're defending. Honestly, there is so much that is hypocritical in your posts, that it matters little. I haven't been defending, or attacking anyone on this issue.

 

And that is about all I have for you. If you would like the last word, feel free to take it.

[NFL had tapes in April]

That's not what he said, nor is it what I'm doing. In regards to the story about the announcer, I'm not taking the unpopular stance. That would be to support the substance of his words. I'm simply pointing out how calling for the heads of everyone you disagree with is irresponsible and foolish. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

 

And you shouldn't take for granted that the mob will always be on your side. But perhaps you prefer a world where a segment of society has unwritten speech codes that you must not run afoul of lest you be destroyed.

I'm not so interested in how my views stack up to those of "the mob" (whomever they may be). Usually, there is more than one mob. But I would submit that we have always lived in a world where your words may be held against you.

[NFL had tapes in April]

The problem I have with the "independent" investigation by Mueller is that it is being overseen by two Goodell loyalists in the persons of Mara and Rooney.

I think another way of saying "loyalists," would be "businessmen who are happy with Goodell's job performance." I don't know, but I assume, that most owners want to keep Goodell around. At any rate, I would consider this investigation, regardless of its independence, or transparency, to be little more than a dog and pony show. If it deflects the focus away from his office, as I suspect it will, he will have done his job as far as the owners are concerned.

[NFL had tapes in April]

What we're talking about in the context of speech is that the media has exploited this reality to ban unpopular speech. The only reason it has this power is because enough useful idiots jump on board with it. If the public didn't dutifully take up the outrage as instructed when someone says something unpopular we wouldn't be dealing with this on such an obnoxious level.

I think what MDH was pointing out was that just because you are taking the opposite, or "unpopular" stance, doesn't exclude you from fueling the very thing you are decrying. The media is certainly not "banning" unpopular speech. On the contrary, it relies on opposition to give what you refer to as "exploitation" its legs. The media needs useful idiots on both sides of the fence for there to be anything to exploit. And, thanks for participating.

 

Well, they've done a pretty good job keeping it there with a promised investigation due to their terrible statements on the videos release.

I disagree with this. Handing off the investigation to an outside entity, headed by a Mueller, no less, is a pretty good way of diffusing the situation as it is. Goodell doesn't have to answer another question for as long as the investigation takes. They have handed the ball off. And, by the time the investigation is through, which will likely be a long while, and assuming there aren't any particularly damaging revelations, there will likely be little interest in its findings.

[NFL had tapes in April]

I'm probably going to sound a bit boorish in this sentiment, but I don't believe it is the NFL's responsibility to "punish" athletes for their off-field issues. It is their responsibility to protect the image of the NFL, and the interests of shareholder's, fans, and other stakeholders. Rice screwed up in this regard, and he is gone as a result. When, and if, public opinion sways enough to let him back in, and a team wants him, he will be back in. Just Like Michael Vick. This is not about justice-- that is up to the legal system. This is about football, and the NFL's image. I'm not going to waste any emotional energy on how the NFL handled this, and I'm not going to feel any "outrage" over how well the NFL, or Goodell, managed the NFL's image in this one case. It's just not that important.

[NFL had tapes in April]

Greybeard, the problem is, the NFL has publically stated they did not see the tapes until last Monday and their stated justification for going from 2 games to "indefinately" is the tape inside the elevator, which they publically stated they didn't see until Monday.

 

If they, in fact, had the tapes months ago and either didn't bother to look at all the evidence before deciding what action to take, or they lied about not having seen them, either way, that's a credibility problem now.

"A credibility problem..." Yes. I'm just not sure how important such credibility is to the NFL, especially when there is this... you know... season going on to distract everybody.

 

Paterno went down and the frenzy is becoming similar. I wonder if penn st and paterno will get those wins back ever

I'm sorry, but I don't see much of a similarity.

[NFL had tapes in April]

I have a hard time believing that this is going to bring Goodell down. Does anyone have a clue who would replace him? Maybe Jon Bon Jovi?

[Ridiculous Pegula fracking assertion made by Bulldog.]

Well, now that this thread has been moved, I have to express my frustration that all issues related to conservation are "liberal-only" issues. It's foolish. I will admit that I know little about fracking issues as they relate to NYS (and I assume that the relevance varies between states), but I can say that fracking in California, where I live, is quickly becoming an unmitigated disaster. And, when I say "unmitigated," I mean that literally. The oil industry recently spent $1.5 million in less than three months in lobbying efforts to squash a moratorium bill (which had close to 70% public approval). It is clearly exacerbating the drought, and damaging agriculture. Many almond trees, for example, will be lost this year. It pumps millions of gallons of chemically tainted water (chemicals that the oil companies will not disclose under the guise of proprietary secrecy) into the ground, threatening the water supply. There is also mounting evidence that it is contributing to increased seismic activity. And when anything like this is brought up, it is received by a chorus from the right of "environmental extremists!" "liberal bias!" or "leftist hacks!"

 

Why? When did conservation (a word that shares the same root as conservative) become anathema to the conservative movement? Is the conservative movement that married to corporate entitlement that all environmental concerns must be dismissed off hand?

[Ridiculous Pegula fracking assertion made by Bulldog.]

No need to use the dictionary that much for one post.

Which word did you have trouble with?

[Ridiculous Pegula fracking assertion made by Bulldog.]

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

 

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

 

-George Washington on Political Parties

Wow, Mark80. This is an outstanding post-- germane, compelling, and adroit. And, it answers OC's unhinged rant perfectly, although, by his standards, George Washington was likely a bleeding-heart lib. I doubt he will bother to answer it-- or understand it, for that matter. Again, well done.

 

My mod responsibilities aside, as my head is spinning as to wtf to do about this thread, I for one am glad you resurfaced. Welcome back to the insanity.

 

I will return to moderation duties as i mull over what to do with this mess.

I would like to suggest that if it is germane to the discussion regarding the next owner of the Bills, then it is a valid thread.

[Decide Mrags fate on TBD]

You know, Andy Kaufman tried something like this when he was on Saturday Night Live, and it didn't work out too well for him...

[Should we request a name change?]

I think all players should change their first name to Bill

And their last name to Williams.

[UK ObamaCare--HAha]

Thought this was a football forum.

[Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?]

 

A random Google search isn't proof of anything.

 

Googling a subject is not a meaningless endeavor. Along with all the insipid, drivel, insidious advertising, partisan demagoguery, and rule #34 pornography, a Google search can find reliable news sources, peer reviewed journals, statistics, definitions, and even well thought out, coherent opinion. It is one of the most amazing educational tools ever invented.

 

The internet is like a giant library, on top of a news stand, on top of a festering trash heap with a toxic sewage moat. You just have to wade through the excrement, climb over the trash, ignore the tabloid material, and find what you're looking for.

 

Is it that hard not to click? It's not like its 14 threads on the same topic gumming up the front page, its just a lone thread that seems to have interest. I'd say you should advocate keeping it so it doesn't pop up with new threads every time any article comes out. It's pretty impressively self contained minus a couple small spillovers

CAN'T... NOT... CLICK...

[Poll: Should the "Redskins" name be changed?]

Forgive me if this link has already been posted (I really couldn't bother with 33 pages on this subject), but here is a pretty good link on the subject by an extremely well-informed, reliable, and prestigious news source- The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-redskins-name-only-offensive-if-you-think-a,33449/

[Steroids should be allowed and encouraged in sports]

 

I live in Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester), and I don't get to go back home too often. So, just judging by the various threads that I've seen posted today, I was wondering: is there a huge wave of Stupid moving through Upstate New York today?