Soxbadger

Wisconsin is really leaving a lot of points on the field with some strange play calling.

If he leads Austin that could have been a really interesting play.

It just was a strange game, even the roughing the passer was pretty weak and that led to an early field goal for GB. If salary wasnt a concern you probably bring back Cutler and see what happens. But if he wants to get paid serious money it may just be better to diversify the spending because injuries always happen in football.

How are those type of things not reviewable?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) Because 60-70% of the party is religious and they vote based on that? No one is going to win the ticket on a "let everyone do whatever they want so long as they don't hurt anyone" platform. Then the Republican party is dead and someone should come up with a new party.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:33 PM) Why do you keep saying that? I don't care if you care. I don't care if you don't care that I care. That's not adding anything to this discussion. Obviously people DO care, so that's what we're debating. And what Im debating is why do you care? Why do you care if time says something and some stupid magazine says something, and whatever else? They are just publications to make money, thats all they are about. They arent about the truth, they arent about helping people, they are to sell magazines and make money for a group of rich people that are completely disconnected from real life. So the point is, maybe instead of fixating on that s***, maybe we can get past it. But we never will if half of the arguments are: Republicans did something bad. Democrats did something bad. Yours was worse Nuh huh yours was worse. Well look no one said anything bad about yours. yes they did. Well not as bad. --------- Its just circular bulls*** nonsense to waste our time. Why not get to the bottom of all of this. If the law gave gay people equal rights, it wouldnt matter what people say. So lets all get together and give them equal rights, and then we can talk s*** about them just like everyone else.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:29 PM) They're probably DOA anyway. I'd imagine they'll accept gay marriage. But you'll still have to play the "I think it's a sin based on my religious beliefs but no one should be denied rights" card like Obama. Why even get into the latter? Why not just say: Republicans are small govt and we want to treat everyone equal and we want to restrict govt intrusion into peoples lives. And when they ask about gay marriage/sex, why not just answer: Thats not my concern. Because really its not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) Yes, "by some" like the oldest gay magazine in existence. And Time magazine. You know that, barely known publication. Why do I care? Time called Hitler the man of the year, and Stalin too.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:21 PM) LOL. Wouldn't be surprised... via Keynote of what? AMC's greatest hits? If by 2016 the Republican party hasnt accepted gay rights, they are doa. They need to accept that, because otherwise democrats are going to go out of control and there wont be a balance. For the sake of the US, please get it together, please remember that you are the party of "SMALL GOVT" and small govt includes not regulating who I have sex with or what drugs I take.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:03 PM) The Pope is getting lauded by some for changing the church's direction and message. It was a notable change, and people generally like to encourage positive movement even if it's not the full measure they want. That said, not everyone in the LGBT community or people who support LGBT rights is embracing the Pope. Phil Robertson didn't do anything like that. He followed the long line of explicit, anti-gay bigotry of lumping it in with bestiality. That's not quibbling, that's just recognizing very common anti-gay bigotry. Pope Francis would not have been lauded by The Advocate had he mentioned bestiality along with homosexuality. At the end of the day, the words people actually use and the history behind them actually matter. And all the b****ing/moaning does more to undo all of the hard work people like me have put in to get gay people treated equally. But c'est la vie, I can only begrudgingly drag people along, I cant force them to be clever.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 03:44 PM) Not sure if it's a choice. I tend to think it's not. That's why I don't judge people or treat them differently for it. It's up to God to do that eventually, if he chooses to. I hope that all of life is a choice. I like brunettes better than blondes, i feel some sort of inherent draw to dark haired girls with lighter skin. Is that a choice or is that something thats hardwired into my dna for whatever scientific reason. Who knows, and more importantly, who cares. Is it a choice to marry a white or black girl? Should it be illegal just because its a choice? Saying I dont judge people would be the biggest lie. I judge people on their wife, I judge people on their boyfriend, I judge them on a million things. You could be gay and a horrific person, you could be gay and the best person. The reality is it wasnt you being gay, it was something else that made me judge you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) I agree with you, but the problem is people like SS and organizations like GLAAD b**** and whine and call people pretty awful things and then eventually get them fired or in trouble for it. All in the name of tolerance and acceptance mind you. I dont have an answer for this. Im just tired of the b****ing and moaning. There are people in the world with real problems, there are real things to want to fix, yet we fixate on words.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 02:59 PM) Well that's a whole other animal. Why do people get pissy about what Christians believe when they don't care to be Christian? That's why I don't understand why I'm a bigot and hateful person for believing homosexuals are sinners (just like me for the various sins i've committed) according to MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, but don't think they should be treated as second class citizens, denied rights, etc.? Well I just accept that to certain people I am a bigot, because well its just easier to believe that Im a monster than try and prove that Im not. But the point is, what does it matter if Im a monster if Im right? Isnt that what this is really all about, what is right, versus what is wrong. I think that what is right is that all humans deserve to be treated equal, regardless of sex, rage, religion whatever. I think that I am right that there is no god and that none of this matters, and that the only point may be to have fun/joy and try for our millisecond brief existence to make a better millisecond existence for the next human. But I dont care if someone else disagrees. I just am going to keep doing my thing and trying to improve that millisecond for everyone.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 02:50 PM) I can't help it if you don't read what I posted with regard to the Pope. The Pope and Church still consider homosexuality a sin and yet he's being praised for his "modern" view of "acceptance" instead of condemnation. You're quibbling over the fact that Robertson gave examples of certain sins in discussing sinful behavior (of which you keep keying in on bestiality despite the fact he gave several other examples). What difference does it make if the Pope says homosexuality is a sin or that homosexuality is a sin just like X, Y and Z? There is none. At the end of the day they're both saying homosexuality is a sin but we should still love sinners, teach them about Jesus and let God judge them later. It's not "our" job to do that. There are a certain group of LGBT who strive for acceptance from the Church and mainstream. So they pander to the Pope in hopes that it will curry favor and hopefully carry the day. Its stupidity. But most people want to be in the club that rejects them, not the one who wants them. Go figure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) But as we can see in this thread, we've got people who don't find what he said to be hateful or bigoted at all. So what? All I can do is present the argument for why things arent likely what people believe, after that its up to them. It would be extremely hypocritical for me to get upset with Phil, because while he is wrong, he just is stating his opinion. And I state mine all the time, I just happen to be right. But thats the thing, there are probably millions of people who think the type of things I say and believe are just as bad as Phil. They happen to be wrong, but thats the reality. The reality is that to some people I am the Phil. (edit) The only real difference is that I would fight to the death for their right to be wrong, because everyone is entitled to have a stupid opinion and be dumb.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 02:10 PM) We've gone from anti-gay measures being a big political win to majority support for LGBT marriage and I think 18 states having legalized it and DOMA struck down in less than a decade. If you think this means that there is no more bigotry in those 18 states, I still have bridges to sell you. If you think that just because of the civil rights movement there is no bigotry against minorities, I have bridges to sell you. You cant legislate nor force people to be good humans who are respectful and kind to others regardless of skin, sex, age, whatever. What I can do is make sure that everyone knows just how pathetically stupid bigots are. What I can do is show why that Phil guy is just a dumb f*** who might be entertaining to a certain subset of people. Not my cup of tea, but cant argue taste.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) This only works as an excuse in a vacuum that ignores how LGBT is always linked to bestiality by bigots. Sex was always linked to bestiality aka beast with two backs from Othello. Although maybe that was racist because it was white on black sex. Or is that black on white. Who the f*** cares? If you think you can stop people from being bigots, I have a few bridges that Id like to sell you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 01:53 PM) I'm clearly speaking in general terms here, but you really disagree with me that conservative/religious groups that have dominated western culture for centuries have wanted a certain level of decorum with society whereas liberals/progressives have wanted to break free from those constraints? We still fight over that crap with nipples at the Superbowl. I think that true liberals like me could care less about a nipple slip or any of that bulls*** noise. I think that many people who say they are liberals are not even close to it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 01:49 PM) I don't know why you keep ignoring the other half of what he said which was everyone is a sinner, we don't judge, we love and respect everyone and let God judge later on. I still want to know why the Pope is an advocate for gay people and Phil is some awful, hateful human being. They believe and say the exact same things. Neither one is the extreme anti-gay groups that tell people they'll be burning in hell. I still want to know why I care what the Pope or Phil think... They are just humans and like every human they have an opinion, and more importantly like most humans, their opinions are stupid and irrelevant.

Who are these liberals that you speak of? I have to imagine that Im (by the historical definition) the most liberal and I dont care what this guy says. I always attribute the quote to Voltaire (there is some historical debate), but I think he said it best: I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

I just dont see why people care what idiots say. If I spent all day worrying about what dumb people said Id have no time to enjoy life.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) Let your kid play football, but don't make this stupid argument. It isn't let kid play football OR Lock kid up in handcuffs and not let them do anything, since they can't play football. You can let them do a lot of things. Football is probably one of, if not the, most dangerous thing you can let your kid do as far as future brain damage when considering a sport or hobby. Me, I don't know how anyone can watch that PBS special, or read a lot of the research done, or even the stories out there, and let their kid play football. It's all about risk involved. Is there the same risk getting on a plane as there is playing a lifetime of football? Of course not. Just because life is filled with tragedy, doesn't mean you can't take steps to try to minimize it. Do you wear our seat belt? Im not sure that I am the best comparison for what people should do. But I do wear my seat belt, I try and avoid completely unnecessary risks, but I dont find sports to be a completely unnecessary risk. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) Getting in a car is a pretty necessary part of daily life for most people, but playing football isn't. There's quite a bit of excluded middle between "football may be too dangerous for children to play" and "no child should ever do anything with any risk ever" Its the same theory. You either run the numbers and create a baseline that is unacceptable risk. If football is above that threshold any non-necessary activity that is more risky than football should also be. IE You may need to drive a car to get to work. But do you really need to take your kid in a car for a ride to a baseball game, if there is a higher risk your child will die in the car getting there than playing football? I cant answer that question for you, I can only say that I accept a certain level of risk in life and I will allow my child the same.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) You draw lines with your kids every day. Do you plan on letting them play with bleach and knives? If you think that football is as dangerous as playing with bleach and knives that is your choice. I dont. I find football to be closer to getting in car. http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) Well Jim McMahon has such bad short-term memory that he will go from one room to the other to do something and forget what he was going to do by the time he reaches his destination on a regular basis. How much of that is CTE and how much is from drug use? And I believe he drank his fair share.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 10:16 AM) No one said football isn't fun. As a parent, it's about are those fun experiences worth it after all the evidence and research you've seen? Fun outweighs the possible outcomes? Do you want to take that risk with your child? That's the decision you have to make. No one's a bad parent because they don't let their kid play football. I'd say they're a good parent for protecting them, given everything we're seen and read. Im not sure that whether you let your kid play football is indication of good or bad parenting. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but my opinion (which you are not going to change) is that life is filled with terrible terrible tragedy. That life is very very sad and many times there is no reason. Good kids die due to random flukes that are entirely unpredictable. I will not deny my kid joy just because there is a chance that he may get injured and it could possibly hurt him in the future. Otherwise where do I draw the line? I dont let him outside when Im not there to watch? I dont let him drive a car, I dont let him go in his friends car, I dont let him get on a plane, I make him wear gloves to school, etc etc. To each their own.