CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 05:58 PM) Exactly. Because when Duke makes a claim that is obviously not true, the way to counter that is to ask him to back up his claim, not to make a counterclaim that is very likely also untrue. My counterclaim (it is more likely that a rabidly anti-gay bigot would favor criminalizing homosexuality than favor marriage equality) is almost certainly true.

Good luck, dude. My resolution is to do more fun, adventurous things. Specifically, I want to do at least the following 2 things in 2014: 1) skydive 2) participate in a Tough Mudder / Zombie Run / gimmicky obstacle course 5k The latter will require me to get into better shape, so that's just a bonus.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 07:22 PM) Why would the UFC pay Lesnar? He's a bad fighter with a glass jaw. His last fight wasn't a big PPV draw either.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 05:43 PM) Yeah, Briggs not Peppers. Briggs didn't just get a piece of Rodgers, he tackled him and Shea comes over and falls on him. The play was right in front of him, he knew it was over. Like I said it wasn't the most vicious hit of all time, but he wanted to get a little extra hit on Rodgers. With the way the NFL protects QBs in this league, he should have known better. I honestly don't know what play you're watching.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 05:27 PM) I'm pretty sure Peppers tackled him and then about 2 seconds later Shea comes over and lands on him. He wasn't going full speed, that's why it wasn't that hard of a hit, but he knew what he was doing. Briggs tackled him and Shea rolled over him a split-second later. There was no 2 seconds. It wasn't a hard hit because he tried to avoid him.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 05:33 PM) What do you call jumping on a player after he has been tackled? He didn't do anything to crazy, but we all know what Shea had in mind when he jumped on Rodgers. He didn't jump on him. He was running in for a tackle and rolled over Rodger's side/butt. There was absolutely nothing dangerous about that play.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 05:02 PM) If you want to make a claim that somebody is in favor of something, yet, it's good to have a quote from somebody stating that they are in favor of it. That's generally how it works. Gotcha. If Duke ever claims that Phil Robertson believes the universe was created by the Hindu god Brahma, I'll be sure to find a direct quote before I respond that it's more likely he believes in Genesis.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 03:48 PM) You still haven't shown me where he said they should go to jail. He can say all kinds of nasty things about them. He hasn't said one damn thing about jail. He's a deranged, gay-hating, Evangelical Christian. I have to give you a direct quote from him about sodomy laws to think there's a good chance he might support them? Where did you get your .0001%, by the way?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) No, nowhere near 50% chance that he thinks gays should go to jail. That's just stupid. The guy isn't just anti-gay; he's DERANGED anti-gay. "They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 04:21 PM) OK, but taking something that he has a 0.0001 percent chance of being in favor of and inserting it into the conversation by saying it's more likely than something he has a 0.0000 percent chance of, while technically true, is misleading and doesn't add anything to the conversation. Given his legit hatred of gay people, I'd say it's a solid 50% vs 0%. It's not misleading and it was a perfectly reasonable response to Duke's claim that he supported marriage equality.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 03:02 PM) Let me be clear--I'm not a fan of what the guy said, but let's stick to what he actually said and not make assumptions that are clearly unfounded. I didn't say he definitively held that position. I was reacting to the ridiculous implication that Robertson supported marriage equality and said it was more likely he supported criminalization of homosexuality than that. It is not unfounded that a strongly anti-gay Evangelical would be more likely to support anti-sodomy laws than marriage equality.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) OK, criminalized was the wrong word. The Texas anti-sodomy law you threw back in my face had a fine as the penalty. Not exactly the "throwing them in jail" attitude you were attributing to Mr. Robertson. That's what the Texas law was at the time, but historically anti-sodomy laws often carried jail sentences. Louisiana, where Phil Robertson is from, still has theirs on the books (though it can't be enforced). The penalty is a $2000 fine or up to 5 years in jail.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 03:31 PM) Millions and millions of people think that homosexuality is a huge moral problem, and I have never heard a single one say that it should be criminalized. Like I said, that is complete, made up bulls***. You're honestly trying to claim that anti-sodomy laws, which 14 states had only a decade ago, are something that no one supports? Rick Perry and Rick Santorum have both expressed that they're in favor of them. These aren't random fringe cooks; they're Presidential Candidates. The American Family Association, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and other Christian organizations also hold that position. Sorry for the "complete, made up bulls***".

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 30, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) No, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but nothing he said gives any hint that he thinks it should be criminalized. That's a bunch of made up self-serving bulls*** on your part. The fact that he views it as basically the number one moral problem in America is a hint. That position isn't that "out there" for an evangelical Christian. It's certainly (as my comment said) more likely than him being in favor of marriage equality.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 29, 2013 -> 06:49 PM) Dude there is no way you could get that from the quotes. During a discussion about how America is going downward, he was asked what he considered sinful, and the first thing he went to was homosexuality. He then compared it to having sex with animals. Yeah, how did I ever conclude that the guy might be against marriage equality? What leads YOU to believe he is in favor of it? QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 29, 2013 -> 06:49 PM) Again, its getting to the point where if you don't openly offer to give some dude a blowjob and extol the virtues of homosexuality you're just labeled a bigot. You're practically an animal rapist, Duke. Hey hey hey, why are you getting upset? Jeez, it's like I can't say ANYTHING! I'm being persecuted here. Free speech is dead. QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 29, 2013 -> 06:49 PM) The whole gay rights movement has abandoned tolerance and even acceptance as the goal and gone big for universal endorsement. Phil Robertson doesn't offer tolerance or acceptance. He offers demonization.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 28, 2013 -> 05:28 PM) IIRC he said "just love em anyways", which I would typically take as a pretty clear sign he doesn't want homos incarcerated. Making an "I'm a Christian and we're supposed to love everybody" comment doesn't mean you don't favor criminalization of things you consider sins. His comment about that also specifically mentioned terrorists, who I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a problem with locking up.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 28, 2013 -> 03:39 AM) Try actually reading what he said and then come back here to contribute. I did read the interview. Why don't you tell me where I'm in error rather than simply say "You're wrong"?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 24, 2013 -> 06:45 PM) One group goes apes*** claiming someone is expressing their beliefs in a way that they feel marginalizes their ability to express their own. And not in a "gays aren't even human" way, just a "I don't understand being gay, but whatever my beliefs tell me to love them anyways" sort of way. No, in a "being gay is like a step away from raping animals" sort of way. Nice whitewashing. QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 24, 2013 -> 06:45 PM) ISNT THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF TOLERANCE? Saying that even s*** that makes no sense to you (and you might even disagree with) but doesn't harm you in any way is just something you have to live with is the actual definition of tolerance. That's being tolerant, if every religious fundie in this country thought like this hilljack you'd be able to get married and do whatever you wanted. The war would be over. I haven't seen any indication that Robertson is supportive of gay marriage. The fact that homosexuality was literally the first thing he named on the topic of how America is becoming morally corrupt would indicate to me that he's the type of guy who opposes equality. I'd say he's more likely to be supportive of throwing gay people in jail than allowing them to marry.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 06:29 PM) in what sense? Are you really comparing 6 rings to 1? Not that I would be ok with not winning additional titles, but for my lifetime, as a bulls fan, I feel like I am playing with house money. 6 championships in a lifetime is a lot more than 90% of fan-bases(in any sport) can hope for. I think he meant in a "we're not going to win squat for a while and everyone is just going to be thinking about the good old days".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 11:30 PM) Yeah that's a good comparison. Hey, whatever works. They became millionaires because of it. I'd grow a beard and dress in camo all day too if I got 200k per episode. That's show business

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 10:27 PM) I mean for sure they're playing up the redneck card. But the beards and all that started well before the TV show. I think it all started when they came out with their first hunting DVD. Fair enough. In any event, it's a manufacturer image, just like Larry the Cable Guy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 10:13 PM) I think every person who has ever interviewed them has basically concluded that they're 100% real. They're smart business people and so they definitely project an image, but I think their beliefs are absolutely genuine. At a minimum, their image is manufactured. There are a lot pictures on the internet of them with clean-shaven faces and yuppie clothes. Once they get a tv show, it's giant beards and camo everything. I'd bet their beliefs and comments and personalities are at the very least exaggerated as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2013 -> 10:46 PM) http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television...-phil-robertson Can't say I disagree. Gotta pander to those redneck viewers who actually think their image is real.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 05:15 PM) I doubt it. Why are the parents responsible? Because the parents said so. The defense's case at trial was basically "this kid is a spoiled moron who gets whatever he wants and has no understanding of consequences because his parents never taught him."

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 06:44 PM) This season wraps up Storm of Swords and apparently is going to pull a couple story lines from FFC/DWD. They'll need at least 2 seasons for FFC/DWD but could easily draw it out over three, especially if WoW comes out in the next 18 months and gives them a little more source info. It's going to be tough for GRRM to beat the tv series but it's still possible. It's really going to depend on how quickly he can get Dream of Spring written. HBO announced last week that FFC/DWD will be represented by 3 seasons of television. However, episodes will be reduced to 30 minutes in length and be followed by a new 30-minute companion series "Dreaming of Daario" starring Emilia Clark. "We felt this was the best way to stay true to the books," stated showrunner D. B. Weiss.