BIGOT OR NOT?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    BIGOT OR NOT?

    Remember Michael Sam? The NFL's first openly gay player.


    Well Tony Dungy has stirred some controversy with an interview he gave concerning remarks he made about the St. Louis Rams player.


    Dungy said, "“I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. “It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”.


    ESPN host Keith Olbermann pointed out the holes in Dungy's argument.


    Most importantly, he pointed out, "I wouldn't want to deal with all of it" is pretty close to what was said until 1946 about having players who looked like Dungy in the NFL and until 1989 about having head coaches who looked liked Dungy in the NFL.


    So...given this, the other points made and your own thoughts, is Tony Dungy a bigot/homophobe or...?


     


    Read whole story below.


     


     


     


    Keith Olbermann’s Takedown of Tony Dungy is Perfect


    By Gary Dzen
    Boston.com Staff
    JULY 22, 2014 

    Former NFL head coach and current NBC analyst Tony Dungy spoke up recently about the league’s first openly gay player, telling the Tampa Bay Tribune he wouldn’t have selected Michael Sam like the St. Louis Rams did in this year’s NFL Draft.


    “I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. “It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”
    What Dungy said isn’t necessarily controversial. It won’t get him fired, and he shouldn’t have to apologize for it. The political correctness police demanding apologies from our public figures for every little statement or opinion is one of the worst trends to emerge in the last few years. Dungy is entitled to his opinions.


    But he’s also being disingenous when he points to unnamed “distractions” with Sam, which to this point have been nonexistent. Whatever Dungy’s opinions on Sam are, he’s hiding them behind the safety net of “it’s too much trouble”, without specifying what kind of trouble and for who. How much of a distraction was Jason Collins to the Brooklyn Nets this year?


     


    Sports Share
    ESPN host Keith Olberman calls Dungy’s bluff perfectly in the clip below, pointing out the hypocrisy of a black former coach painting all homosexual athletes with the same brush. Olbermann points out Dungy receiving an award from a group advocating against gay marriage several years ago, and Dungy’s unwavering support for Michael Vick to be given a second chance after the revelation that Vick ran a dog-fighting ring.


    “I have a problem believing Tony Dungy’s sincerity in this one,” says Olbermann. “To Mr. Dungy, whatever the distractions Michael Vick presented were nothing compared to the distractions Michael Sam might present.
    “I wouldn’t want to deal with it, things will happen,’ is remarkably similar to what football coaches and owners said until 1946 about players who looked like Tony Dungy. And it’s remarkably similar to what NFL owners said until 1989 about guys who wanted to become NFL head coaches who look like Tony Dungy.”


    Olbermann’s takedown is brilliant because he points out the holes in Dungy’s argument without calling him a bigot or attacking his morals. When Collins came out as gay last year, ESPN’s Chris Broussard gave a much harsher take , espousing his religious beliefs as a reason he didnt agree with Collins’ liftestyle.


    “Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”
    Broussard took a lot of heat for his beliefs, but you have to wonder what’s worse: coming out and declaring your beliefs or hiding behind them. In Dungy’s case, his lack of declaration will ensure he keeps his job. It should also be a warning sign for the rest of us not to view him as some kind of moral arbiter.


    Dungy issued a statement Tuesday in an attempt to clarify his comments, saying in part:


    “I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team.
    “I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does. I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.”
    Further down in the statement, Dungy says, “I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.”


     


     


    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/2014/07/22/keith-olbermann-takedown-tony-dungy-perfect/9GVQMAgrGEbhkxw08W0k5J/story.html


     


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    I've never seen diversity described as strick adherence to progressive ideals.


    If you stray off the liberal plantation, you get "taken out".


    the progressive idea of celebrating diversity applies only to the diversity progressives deem worthy.


    so, no.  Leave Dungee alone, and celebrate his DIVERISTY.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    As Dungy said, the very predictable attacks on him by the likes of leftist attention hound Keith Olberman, just  prove Dungy right.  

    The massive media presence will be overwhelming and it will definitely be a distraction to the Rams team. Nothing negative about Michael Sam or a gay football player, it is a fact. Players will and should be very worried about being interviewed and saying anything that remotely can be construed in the wrong manner....

    "Dungy receiving an award from a group advocating against gay marriage"....this is irrelevant but thrown in by Olberman as "McCarthyism",  smearing a Christian as a bigot for having the same belief as the President  prior to 2012....

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    Bigotry would be bad, but taking actions that help perpetuate the bigotry of others is fine?

    I dunno. One may be worse than the other (is it?) but refusing to do something in pandering to other bigots doesn't exactly mean you smell like roses.

     

     

    "I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.”

    vs

    "I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. 'It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.'"

     

     

    Uhuh buddy. His being gay should not play a role in the evaluation process, but you admit that it would play a role in your evaluation process. Better yet you're free from charges of bigotry because you're blaming the fact that you considering his gayness in the evaluation process on other peoples' bigotted reactions.

     

     

     

    (And hey, when you've got knee jerk straw man defenders like RRF and CLC watching your back, what can go wrong?)

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    Bigotry would be bad, but taking actions that help perpetuate the bigotry of others is fine?

    I dunno. One may be worse than the other (is it?) but refusing to do something in pandering to other bigots doesn't exactly mean you smell like roses.

     

     

    "I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.”

    vs

    "I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. 'It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.'"

     

     

    Uhuh buddy. His being gay should not play a role in the evaluation process, but you admit that it would play a role in your evaluation process. Better yet you're free from charges of bigotry because you're blaming the fact that you considering his gayness in the evaluation process on other peoples' bigotted reactions.

     

     

     

    (And hey, when you've got knee jerk straw man defenders like RRF and CLC watching your back, what can go wrong?)




    You are just making up stuff to fit your narrative. Dungy did not say Sam's being gay would play a role in his evaluation process. He said the first gay player in camp would be a distraction; and he has already been proven right, by the ridiculous reaction to his innocuous comments.

    Imagine being a player in camp being interviewed on this issue, being on pins and needles, awaiting the moronic Keith Olberman waiting to pounce if you say one thing that could be twisted or misinterpreted...you will have to be coached on what PC thing to say, otherwise you will be attacked by modern McCarthyism, the PC progressives...

    Dungy is a devout Christian,  that is why Olberman and that crowd is going after him so rabidly....

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    I've never seen diversity described as strick adherence to progressive ideals.

     

    If you stray off the liberal plantation, you get "taken out".

     

    the progressive idea of celebrating diversity applies only to the diversity progressives deem worthy.

     

    so, no.  Leave Dungee alone, and celebrate his DIVERISTY.



    ron,

    Does celebrating diversity include accepting an award from an anti-same-sex marriage group?

    "Dungy receiving an award from a group advocating against gay marriage several years ago."

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    Bigotry would be bad, but taking actions that help perpetuate the bigotry of others is fine?

    I dunno. One may be worse than the other (is it?) but refusing to do something in pandering to other bigots doesn't exactly mean you smell like roses.

     

     

    "I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.”

    vs

    "I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. 'It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.'"

     

     

    Uhuh buddy. His being gay should not play a role in the evaluation process, but you admit that it would play a role in your evaluation process. Better yet you're free from charges of bigotry because you're blaming the fact that you considering his gayness in the evaluation process on other peoples' bigotted reactions.

     

     

     

    (And hey, when you've got knee jerk straw man defenders like RRF and CLC watching your back, what can go wrong?)




    You are just making up stuff to fit your narrative. Dungy did not say Sam's being gay would play a role in his evaluation process. He said the first gay player in camp would be a distraction; and he has already been proven right, by the ridiculous reaction to his innocuous comments.

    Imagine being a player in camp being interviewed on this issue, being on pins and needles, awaiting the moronic Keith Olberman waiting to pounce if you say one thing that could be twisted or misinterpreted...you will have to be coached on what PC thing to say, otherwise you will be attacked by modern McCarthyism, the PC progressives...

    Dungy is a devout Christian,  that is why Olberman and that crowd is going after him so rabidly....



    CLC,

    He has not been proven right, if you read the article.

    "But he’s also being disingenous when he points to unnamed “distractions” with Sam, which to this point have been nonexistent. Whatever Dungy’s opinions on Sam are, he’s hiding them behind the safety net of “it’s too much trouble”, without specifying what kind of trouble and for who. How much of a distraction was Jason Collins to the Brooklyn Nets this year?".

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    As near as I can tell Dungy is thinking like a football coach. I wouldn't toss 'bigot' at him until I had more information.


    And no, being opposed to gay marriage doesn't automatically make one a bigot.


     


    --


    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    I've never seen diversity described as strick adherence to progressive ideals.

     

    If you stray off the liberal plantation, you get "taken out".

     

    the progressive idea of celebrating diversity applies only to the diversity progressives deem worthy.

     

    so, no.  Leave Dungee alone, and celebrate his DIVERISTY.



    Dungy just showed himself to either be gutless or a liar.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    As near as I can tell Dungy is thinking like a football coach. I wouldn't toss 'bigot' at him until I had more information.

    An no, being opposed to gay marriage doesn't automatically make one a bigot.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    A football coach can't handle the distraction of a gay player, then how could he handle all of the distractions of a Super Bowl.  And yes, being against gay marriage does make someone a bigot.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    Nice black and white world you're living in there. So much easier than having to think.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to sprague1953's comment:

    Remember Michael Sam? The NFL's first openly gay player.

     

    Well Tony Dungy has stirred some controversy with an interview he gave concerning remarks he made about the St. Louis Rams player.

     

    Dungy said, "“I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. “It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”.

     

    ESPN host Keith Olbermann pointed out the holes in Dungy's argument.

     

    Most importantly, he pointed out, "I wouldn't want to deal with all of it" is pretty close to what was said until 1946 about having players who looked like Dungy in the NFL and until 1989 about having head coaches who looked liked Dungy in the NFL.

     

    So...given this, the other points made and your own thoughts, is Tony Dungy a bigot/homophobe or...?

     

     

     

    Read whole story below.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Keith Olbermann’s Takedown of Tony Dungy is Perfect

     

    By Gary Dzen
    Boston.com Staff
    JULY 22, 2014 

    Former NFL head coach and current NBC analyst Tony Dungy spoke up recently about the league’s first openly gay player, telling the Tampa Bay Tribune he wouldn’t have selected Michael Sam like the St. Louis Rams did in this year’s NFL Draft.

     

    “I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. “It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”
    What Dungy said isn’t necessarily controversial. It won’t get him fired, and he shouldn’t have to apologize for it. The political correctness police demanding apologies from our public figures for every little statement or opinion is one of the worst trends to emerge in the last few years. Dungy is entitled to his opinions.

     

    But he’s also being disingenous when he points to unnamed “distractions” with Sam, which to this point have been nonexistent. Whatever Dungy’s opinions on Sam are, he’s hiding them behind the safety net of “it’s too much trouble”, without specifying what kind of trouble and for who. How much of a distraction was Jason Collins to the Brooklyn Nets this year?

     

     

     

    Sports Share
    ESPN host Keith Olberman calls Dungy’s bluff perfectly in the clip below, pointing out the hypocrisy of a black former coach painting all homosexual athletes with the same brush. Olbermann points out Dungy receiving an award from a group advocating against gay marriage several years ago, and Dungy’s unwavering support for Michael Vick to be given a second chance after the revelation that Vick ran a dog-fighting ring.

     

    “I have a problem believing Tony Dungy’s sincerity in this one,” says Olbermann. “To Mr. Dungy, whatever the distractions Michael Vick presented were nothing compared to the distractions Michael Sam might present.
    “I wouldn’t want to deal with it, things will happen,’ is remarkably similar to what football coaches and owners said until 1946 about players who looked like Tony Dungy. And it’s remarkably similar to what NFL owners said until 1989 about guys who wanted to become NFL head coaches who look like Tony Dungy.”

     

    Olbermann’s takedown is brilliant because he points out the holes in Dungy’s argument without calling him a bigot or attacking his morals. When Collins came out as gay last year, ESPN’s Chris Broussard gave a much harsher take , espousing his religious beliefs as a reason he didnt agree with Collins’ liftestyle.

     

    “Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”
    Broussard took a lot of heat for his beliefs, but you have to wonder what’s worse: coming out and declaring your beliefs or hiding behind them. In Dungy’s case, his lack of declaration will ensure he keeps his job. It should also be a warning sign for the rest of us not to view him as some kind of moral arbiter.

     

    Dungy issued a statement Tuesday in an attempt to clarify his comments, saying in part:

     

    “I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team.
    “I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does. I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.”
    Further down in the statement, Dungy says, “I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.”

     

     

     

     

     

    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/2014/07/22/keith-olbermann-takedown-tony-dungy-perfect/9GVQMAgrGEbhkxw08W0k5J/story.html

     

     

     

     



    So Dungy would be ok with being passed over for job because of the media reaction to hiring a Black man.  

    Would he also avoid winning the AFC or NFC championship game because of the media coverage associated with the Super Bowl?  He's either lying or gutless. He's ok with the media circus around having a guy on the team that was convicted of torturing animals but doesn't feel having a gay guy on the team worth the media circus.  So in Dungy's mind guys who torture dogs rank higher than gays.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    You are just making up stuff to fit your narrative. Dungy did not say Sam's being gay would play a role in his evaluation process.



     


     


    "I wouldn’t have taken him. Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it,” said Dungy. 'It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.'"

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Imagine being a player in camp being interviewed on this issue, being on pins and needles, awaiting the moronic Keith Olberman waiting to pounce if you say one thing that could be twisted or misinterpreted...you will have to be coached on what PC thing to say, otherwise you will be attacked by modern McCarthyism, the PC progressives...


    Oh, dear, dear God. Imagine how hard it would be for a football player to answer a question about whether or not they have a problem with having a gay person on their team.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    being opposed to gay marriage doesn't automatically make one a bigot.


    Another knee jerk defense from the supposed self-thinker.


     


     


     


    big·ot·ry


    bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.


     


     


    So.....what are you saying?


    Having the opinion that gay people should not marry + not tolerating policies that allow gay people to marry = not having intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself?


    Gay marriage thoroughly "tolerate" peoples' belief that gay people should be allowed to marry - the belief - but there's some magic difference when they oppose any effort to allow gay people to marry?


     


    How is it not bigotry? Surely, since you see so many shades of grey, you can explain to us black and white folks.


     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    being opposed to gay marriage doesn't automatically make one a bigot.

     

     

    Another knee jerk defense from the supposed self-thinker.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    big·ot·ry

     

    bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

     

     

     

     

     

    So.....what are you saying?

     

    Having the opinion that gay people should not marry + not tolerating policies that allow gay people to marry = not having intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself?

     

    Gay marriage thoroughly "tolerate" peoples' belief that gay people should be allowed to marry - the belief - but there's some magic difference when they oppose any effort to allow gay people to marry?

     

     

     

    How is it not bigotry? Surely, since you see so many shades of grey, you can explain to us black and white folks.

     

     



    President Barack Obama, BIGOT !   and once a bigot, always a bigot...right?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [[]]


    In response to StalkingButler's comment:


    being opposed to gay marriage doesn't automatically make one a bigot.


     


     


    Another knee jerk defense from the supposed self-thinker.


    big·ot·ry


    bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.


    So.....what are you saying?


     Having the opinion that gay people should not marry + not tolerating policies that allow gay people to marry = not having intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself?


    Gay marriage thoroughly "tolerate" peoples' belief that gay people should be allowed to marry - the belief - but there's some magic difference when they oppose any effort to allow gay people to marry?


    How is it not bigotry? Surely, since you see so many shades of grey, you can explain to us black and white folks.


    [[]]
    President Barack Obama, BIGOT !  


    When Obama opposed gay marriage, he held a bigotted opinion. If he still believes gay people shouldn't marry despite his words to the contrary, he is a liar and a bigot.


     


     


     


     


    What.....


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    .....was that supposed to "get" me?


     


     


    and once a bigot, always a bigot...right?


    Huh?


    Are you trying to change the subject twice in one post?





     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    Why is homosexual and lesbian sex the go to sin for so many who call  themselves christians? Rarely do we hear the same type of religious objections to other sins such as adultery, drug and alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, criminal activity. I think I know why. Because they know that sexual preference is a permanent state, and not something that can be repented and turned away from like the other sins mentioined. The  real deabte is about the actual sinfullness of same sex attraction between consenting adults. They are stubbornly holding onto this particular sin, waiting for a day that obviously will never come. The day when gays and lesbians admit to their sinful ways and repent. Liars, cheaters, crooks, dog fight operators, alcoholics, drug addicts, adulterers can all make phony sobbing confessions about their sinful ways and how they found god, but this will never happen with consenting gay adults. Because obviously they can't see the sin in expressing physical affection for each other. So christians clamp down like bulldogs on this sin knowing full well nothing will ever change and pretend to take a moral high ground. Then they cry when their christian beliefs are questioned because they keep harping on this one pet sin of theirs. C'mon christians, you can do better than that. There is a laundry list of sins and the sinners who commit them who are daily tearing apart the moral fabric of society. Sex sins aren't the be-all end-all of sins. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    Doesn't the discussion in this thread sort of mimic the media cluster fork that goes on within the sports media (more liberal than NPR without any clue of what is going on in the real world). It would certainly be a possible distraction for most teams. 

    Except with Belichick. All it would take is a few boring answers like, "we are all here to play football. The players are all evaluated on how they do their job. If one of them decides to take it up the you know what, that is no concern for us". We'll maybe it wouldn't be exactly like that but you know how Belichick deals with stuff like that.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:


    Doesn't the discussion in this thread sort of mimic the media cluster fork that goes on within the sports media (more liberal than NPR without any clue of what is going on in the real world). It would certainly be a possible distraction for most teams. 


    Except with Belichick. All it would take is a few boring answers like, "we are all here to play football. The players are all evaluated on how they do their job. If one of them decides to take it up the you know what, that is no concern for us". We'll maybe it wouldn't be exactly like that but you know how Belichick deals with stuff like that.





    Yes, Belichick was so confident , he even took on the distraction of Tim Tebo...


    Speaking of which, many teams passed on Tim Tebo precisely because of the distraction of his deep religious faith...so by the logic we see here, all these NFL teams were 'anti-Christian' bigots.


    Michael Sam was not drafted till the 7th round...even though his talent was probably 4th or 5th round...were the other NFL teams bigots? Or perhaps, like Tony Dungy, they were concerned about the distractions...


    Most 7th round picks get cut in training camp...can you imagine the Circus at camp if Sam gets cut from the team?


    Michael Sam's worst enemies are leftist idiot partisan idiots like Olberman, who want to flog this issue for political reasons...let the guy play football !

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

    Doesn't the discussion in this thread sort of mimic the media cluster fork that goes on within the sports media (more liberal than NPR without any clue of what is going on in the real world). It would certainly be a possible distraction for most teams. 

     

    Except with Belichick. All it would take is a few boring answers like, "we are all here to play football. The players are all evaluated on how they do their job. If one of them decides to take it up the you know what, that is no concern for us". We'll maybe it wouldn't be exactly like that but you know how Belichick deals with stuff like that.

     

     




    Yes, Belichick was so confident , he even took on the distraction of Tim Tebo...

     

     

    Speaking of which, many teams passed on Tim Tebo precisely because of the distraction of his deep religious faith...so by the logic we see here, all these NFL teams were 'anti-Christian' bigots.

     

    Michael Sam was not drafted till the 7th round...even though his talent was probably 4th or 5th round...were the other NFL teams bigots? Or perhaps, like Tony Dungy, they were concerned about the distractions...

     

    Most 7th round picks get cut in training camp...can you imagine the Circus at camp if Sam gets cut from the team?

     

    Michael Sam's worst enemies are leftist idiot partisan idiots like Olberman, who want to flog this issue for political reasons...let the guy play football !



    Remember Kordell Stewart, horrible Steelers QB? If he happened to be white they'd have cut his a55 in no time because he was HORRID. thankfully they held on to him a couple of years too long. Why did they do that? Could be because they were stupid, could be because they were fearful of the backlash for cutting a black QB until it was indisputable that he sucked.

    the libs create politically correct speech to intimidate and then they want to deny that people react to it?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    Most teams passed on Tebow because he is a terrible pro quarterback. If anything, it was Belichick's arrogance that made him take a chance on Tebow, the religious showboat. The deeply religious don't need to pose to prove it. Their everday behavioir is proof enough. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to sprague1953's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    I've never seen diversity described as strick adherence to progressive ideals.

     

    If you stray off the liberal plantation, you get "taken out".

     

    the progressive idea of celebrating diversity applies only to the diversity progressives deem worthy.

     

    so, no.  Leave Dungee alone, and celebrate his DIVERISTY.



    ron,

    Does celebrating diversity include accepting an award from an anti-same-sex marriage group?

    "Dungy receiving an award from a group advocating against gay marriage several years ago."



    I guess so.  Diversity means variety, not just politically correct variety.

    i would think the progressives would welcome fighting it out on these issues, on the merits.  Instead, they act like bullies and thugs, unsure of the true strength of their own point of view.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Most teams passed on Tebow because he is a terrible pro quarterback. If anything, it was Belichick's arrogance that made him take a chance on Tebow, the religious showboat. The deeply religious don't need to pose to prove it. Their everday behavioir is proof enough. 



    Umm...ok. If you say so.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: BIGOT OR NOT?

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Most teams passed on Tebow because he is a terrible pro quarterback. If anything, it was Belichick's arrogance that made him take a chance on Tebow, the religious showboat. The deeply religious don't need to pose to prove it. Their everday behavioir is proof enough. 



    So you similarly must think Michael Sam is a "gay showboat", right?

    If Tebow has to keep his religious belief in the closet, then Michael Sam shouldnt express his belief as a gay man, either, right?

    Just as Tebow shouldnt have demonstrated his religious belief by posing , bowing and praying, Michael Sam shouldnt have  'posed' by kissing his boyfriend on cable TV. If Tebow's everyday behavior is proof enough, then Michael Sam should just live his everyday life silently as a gay man, that is proof enough...

    Got it, thanks.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share