Claude_Verret

Keep wallowing my friend. Until you manage to read even a blog or article or heaven forbid the actual book then you'll never have a clue as to where I'm coming from on Haidt, and you'll just be spewing more of this all too predictable nonsense.

Oh really? I've been very consistent saying that both teams do it, and both teams are hypocrites when they only get offended or worked up when the other side does it. I have a good understanding as to why ALL of us are hypocrites on some level when it comes to these moral arguments (cough...Haidt..cough), but we ALL can strive to be less hypocritical if we gain a better understanding of the root causes.

It has nothing to do with justifying the banning, otherwise I'd be advocating for DeLuca and bobis getting banned already for similar posts, which I've never done. Honestly I never saw the post originally and only read it when PA drew attention to it so I took the opportunity to comment on the post content. Here's my overall problem with this rise in popularity of branding individuals or large swaths of people as racists, bigots, homophobes etc. in such a cavalier manner. I see trying to brand any individual with such labels as a very serious charge, a charge that you better have rock solid irrefutable evidence to present before making such a claim. To even imply that 1%, 5% or 50% of any group fit any of those awful labels is ridiculous and should be called out as such. Yet we see it done everyday by our candidates for President and people in our everyday lives as a way to shut down those we disagree with. It's a disturbing trend.

Ahhh, so you agree with the content of the post then. Gotcha.

How so? I'm commenting on the content of the post as not ban worthy, yet still ridiculous in its hypocrisy.

Ill agree that on its own that PAs post doesn't seem to me to be a bannable offense, but it does rise to bobis/deluca levels of ridiculous hypocrisy and partisanship.

Maybe I didn't answer clearly. My understanding of your question was that you were asking if the cries against Obama, presumably by conservatives, and over regulation stifling the economy are unfounded. My answer was yes I think that those politically motivated cries are unfounded, and that I say that as someone who in general thinks we are already over regulated by government in general. edit for further clarity: I do not believe that the regulatory policies of the Obama administration have any great effect on the economy.

To the bolded, not saying Presidents don't matter, but rather they are a small part of the much larger equation. To answer your question then I'd say yes in terms of any great effect on the economy at large, and I despise more regulation from government in general.

The stock market and the economy are not one in the same.

First all the griping at the NHL draft, now Uber calls out Buffalo as the only NFL city to not offer its service.

That's right, so if/when the economy nosedives under HRC it will undoubtedly be Bush's fault.

Clearly they have an influence, but economists largely agree that credit/blame should not be given to Presidents for good/bad economies.

But the President controls the economy! Well when he's from my team and it's going well that is, otherwise it's out of his hands and the blame clearly lays at the feet of the last guy from the other team who held the office of President Round and round we go. Weeeeeee!

I have a very strong suspicion that the Bills win on Thursday. In fact if it didn't violate my long time stance of not betting on Buffalo sports, I'd be tempted to wager a fairly large sum of money on them. This is a classic spot for an early season impressive win to re-stoke the optimism that will ultimately get crushed by late October.

Absolutely. Dug myself out of a huge hole with the bookie betting NE in the first half. Huuuuge hole....the Pats are my go to.

I thought you were going for the weed man? Lol. Getting worked up over the bills just isn't worth it for us old codgers.

Joe Dufek. Vince Ferragamo. If these names mean anything to you, then you know what the Bills did on offense today was spectacular in comparison.

They were in Greensboro a few weeks ago and I thought about it, but didn't end up going. A few young coworkers went and I told them tales of Axl with guns n roses and Metallica in the early 90s. Rich stadium and CNE in Toronto. Then I felt old.

My expert armchair analysis...the Bills are the same Bills we've come to know the past 16 years. To be proven wrong would make me beyond ecstatic, but I'm not holding my breath.

Bills are generally impressive in September, Baltimore is meh. Bills 24-17.

Nope. He has every right to do what he's doing, it's just an awful way to go about it if his true intention is to foster a reasonable national discussion on race and the police. Doing things like this that are deemed disrespectful to the nation, flag, military etc. are always going to cause a furor much greater than the issue you're trying to draw attention to. Get ready for more gas on the inferno if he chooses to kneel today on 9/11. Edit: I guess the niners play tomorrow 9/12.

I'm thinking of it more as a non-vote for either of the uber corrupt teams, but I can get behind a lot of his platform as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If we keep voting the two teams into power then we get the government we deserve.

Mitt wants Gary in debates.

Going to this craft beer festival tomorrow on Saturday, stumbling distance from my front door... http://www.beericana.com/breweries/

Fixed. :P