StrangeSox

There's gotta be dozens of guys better than podlesh available

Getting ridiculous quickly

Well at least Pittsburg has responded really well

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 22, 2013 -> 05:52 PM) Right, but it's 4th down, so possession doesn't actually have to change for PIT to get the ball. They are still improving their field position. But the penalty was because it was behind the los. If we're going to flip what advancing counts as based on potential possession, then what counts as agreed of or behind the los should change too.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 22, 2013 -> 05:49 PM) Because it was 4th down, it is a potential change of possession. If PIT bats the ball forward out of bounds, it improves their field position when they take over. But the ruling was that possession had yet to change.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 22, 2013 -> 05:43 PM) Couldn't Tomlin challenge that the play was already over? #25 of the Steelers had a knee down as he latereled. No. As far as the refs were concerned, Pittsburg never had possession so nobody could be down by contact. Something else weird about the ruling. It was technically still gb ball at that point, right? So how could Pittsburg have batted it forward? Unless they already had possession, that wouldn't have been advancing the ball. So that's yet another way their ruling made zero sense, this time contradicting itself.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 22, 2013 -> 05:36 PM) They can't challenge to see if the runner is down? Since they can't challenge on possession (which seems weird and dumb), as far as the refs are concerned they never had possession.

And the runner was down. Screwed up two obvious ways.

Wow. Completely, totally botched that one. Not even questionable.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 21, 2013 -> 11:43 PM) If you're going to make an awfully offensive joke, at least make it funny. Sheesh. I can kind of sympathize in a perverse way with a really callous joke if it is fathomably funny. This one's a s***ty joke either way. Was never worth the risk. That's really the key. Someone like Louis ck can be incredibly offensive but hilarious

That's a great way of saying "I've got nothing" edit: also remembered this Guns & Ammo freak-out when one of the editors published an article support some very mild forms of gun control edit2: also, too, the harassment of the "pajama boy" from an OFA ad about Obamacare to the point where the National Review has written at least six articles on it at this point, his name and address have been widely published and he's had to try to delete his entire online presence thanks to the hordes. All because he appeared in an image in an ad. But, hey, liberals. This guy at least worked for OFA. The woman who happened to be in the stock photo that was on healthcare.gov was just some random model who has been heavily harassed. Again, damn liberals.

Just more confused than anything. White people don't get aids?

Regardless it's ridiculous to pretend that conservatives never try to get people fired or send death threats because of what they said. Eta not sure why it took me this long to remember the Dixie chicks fiasco. Also the boycotts of businesses that say happy holidays, all of that ridiculous anti-French stuff, etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:21 PM) I honestly had never heard of Twitchy before your post earlier today, but remind me of a time when a celebrity or TV personality has been suspended/fired from a show for making a remark that can be considered negative towards a conservative or conservative minded person. A school in San Francisco received death threats over a fake story about an atheist teacher suspending a student for saying merry Christmas. Erik Loomis and a professor at Kansas university faced serious pressure and the UK professor might be fired for his comments about the nra. That guy on msnbc was just fired for saying offensive things about Palin.

Oh hey, totally shocked that there's a video of the guy who compared homosexuality to bestiality saying a bunch of other awful things. http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1553737

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 04:04 PM) That's true as far as it goes, but an employee still has to regularly show up for the job he's been hired to perform. The employer has a legal duty to reasonably accommodate, but after awhile, it gets unreasonable to expect the employer to continually endure a series of lengthy absences, as has been the case with Mac. I'm definitely not an employment lawyer, so I don't know the specifics, but based on what he said today, Mac approached management and said he needed to enter rehab. He wasn't just randomly not showing up to work before that.

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. 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.

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. LOL, keep pretending that s*** like Twitchy doesn't exist and that conservatives don't b**** and whine and try to get people fired for saying things. Damn liberals!!! eta: also I could have sworn I've said multiple times that I don't necessarily agree with his suspension.

I think if someone comes to you saying they need to go to rehab, you can't fire them. They have ADA protections.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 02:21 PM) 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. I certainly don't think those things and nothing I said implies that I do. I do think that there are less bigoted people, at least with respect to LGBT, in 2013 than there were just ten years ago. Bigotry isn't static and unchangeable in the aggregate, even if there will always be bigots. 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 02:05 PM) Sex was always linked to bestiality aka beast with two backs from Othello. Literary metaphors are not the same thing as bigots frequently, for decades, comparing LGBT to literal bestiality. 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 02:00 PM) Oh ok, you can take things out of context and focus on only a few words but I can't. Got it. What? No, looking at it in a vacuum as you are is taking it out of context. Looking at it with the background of bigots frequently equating LGBT and bestiality is keeping it in context. When has Pope Francis equated LGBT to bestiality? I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claims that they're saying the exact same things.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) By still maintaining a position that homosexualty is a sin, he's linking it to bestiality and ever other "sin" he and the Church believe in. He doesn't need to expressly say it for it to be true. This only works as an excuse in a vacuum that ignores how LGBT is always linked to bestiality by bigots.

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. Because "I'm not a [racist/homophobe/sexist/etc.] but..." statements don't actually change what you've said. The Pope has been praised for his general move away from the ultra-conservative positions the church has been taking. People are happy to see movement in a positive direction, and that movement should be seen as good. I haven't seen anyone calling the Pope an advocate for LGBT, though. And again, no, they aren't saying the exact same things. Show me the quote where Pope Francis links LGBT to bestiality.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) By saying it was a sin, like adultery and other things, sure. Like comparing the Cubs and Yankees as baseball teams. You know, that analogy sort of proves the point. He's likening being gay to animal f***ing, and let's not all pretend there isn't a lengthy, bigoted history behind that comparison.