Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game

As Time magazine recently reported, Republicans, frustrated by their 22-0 loss in last year’s game, sought a new coach to shake things up on the field this year. Some members even appealed to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to fire the coach, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). But Boehner said he wasn’t powerful enough to control the baseball diamond, and Barton refused to walk away after spending 28 years with the game. Instead, he brought on Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), a former professional baseball player and coach at Texas Christian University, to coach while he stayed on as the team’s manager.

In the face of Wednesday’s loss, according to The Washington Post, Republicans are once again asking Boehner to remove Barton from the game. But with multiple pitchers giving up walk after walk, it seems that what the Republicans really need is a pitcher who can better match Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who previously pitched on Morehouse College’s varsity baseball team.

Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 07:53 AM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, winning is fun

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 32 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 >  Last ›
   3101. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4757594)
Can you point out what exactly this lynching entails?


I said he was strung up, not ultimately lynched. He avoided the lynching by issuing his "clarification."

Do you have any direct proof his life or career was in danger


Tee. Hee.

Now you're denying that his career was in danger. Hilarious.

(I never said or implied that his life was in danger. Cool strawman, though.)
   3102. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4757595)
Um, no. According to all the evidence we have seen, there has been more media distraction regarding his statements than he anticipated and less around Sam.


Your "evidence" is, well, a load of bull. Any newspaper that published a "Michael Sam IS, actually a distraction" article would get the same blowback that Dungy is feeling. No editor is that stupid.
   3103. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4757596)
Our media expert doesn't seem to understand that the media is a tool of the Modern Liberal and is owned by the Cathedral, and that it operates solely in favor of the liberal agenda. And so he was surprised that his comment caused an uproar and Michael Sam has seemingly so far not been much distraction for the Rams.

Or is it that the Media is causing some huge uproar for the Rams organization (I am not sure how that supports the liberal agenda, but whatever), but is also causing a huge uproar against Dungy, and only one of those was anticipated by him?

Basically you guys want the media to be a tool of the Liberal Agenda AND want it to be working against the Liberal agenda by being a distraction for the team that drafted the most favored of all things, the openly gay athlete.

Your dumb media theory contradicts itself.
   3104. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4757597)
Your "evidence" is, well, a load of bull. Any newspaper that published a "Michael Sam IS, actually a distraction" article would get the same blowback that Dungy is feeling. No editor is that stupid.


So the same media that is causing the distraction by reporting things can't report there is a distraction, because reasons. Got it.
   3105. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4757598)
Now you're denying that his career was in danger. Hilarious.


I am stating I have seen no evidence of it. If you have such evidence please present it. Or is it your opinion that we should always assume risk of career in absence of any evidence?
   3106. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4757602)
Now you're denying that his career was in danger. Hilarious.

I am stating I have seen no evidence of it.


Well, yeah.
   3107. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4757603)
3100. robinred Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:11 PM (#4757592)

he was savaged
strung up by crazy people
their unhinged lunacy
stake burning by the crazies
so that the crazies don't burn him at the stake and cost him his career
relentless attack by the crazies
facing a media lynch mob
The left succeeds in silencing him
the unhinged rantings and ravings of a bunch of shrill lunatics


Your point?
   3108. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4757609)
Your point?


I would explain it to you, but I don't want to get strung up by BTF's shrill right-wing lynch mob of unhinged lunatics.
   3109. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4757613)
So you have no point. Cool enough. I was wondering what you were up to by presenting a string of words without comment and letting your brilliant presentation speak for itself but I guess we'll never know.
   3110. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4757617)
Your point?

Are you saying you don't understand? Look out, Ray hates when people say that. Oh wait.
   3111. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4757618)
but I guess we'll never know.

no, I think just about everyone else, even the ones on your side of the argument, pretty much figured out what point he was making/ trying to make...

   3112. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4757619)
So you have no point.


The point is pretty obvious, so I will give you the BOTD and assume that even as hyperemotional and ignorant as you are about stuff like this, that you have figured it out and are just trolling.
   3113. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4757620)
he was savaged
strung up by crazy people
their unhinged lunacy
stake burning by the crazies
so that the crazies don't burn him at the stake and cost him his career
relentless attack by the crazies
facing a media lynch mob
The left succeeds in silencing him
the unhinged rantings and ravings of a bunch of shrill lunatics


You forgot the intro --

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night
   3114. The Good Face Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4757622)
Our media expert doesn't seem to understand that the media is a tool of the Modern Liberal and is owned by the Cathedral, and that it operates solely in favor of the liberal agenda. And so he was surprised that his comment caused an uproar and Michael Sam has seemingly so far not been much distraction for the Rams.


No, he correctly pointed out that the media would make it a huge distraction, but he underestimated how crazy they actually were.

Basically you guys want the media to be a tool of the Liberal Agenda AND want it to be working against the Liberal agenda by being a distraction for the team that drafted the most favored of all things, the openly gay athlete.


Since when does the liberal agenda give a rat's ass about how many games the Rams win?
   3115. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4757624)
Since when does the liberal agenda give a rat's ass about how many games the Rams win?

They care about animals?
   3116. JL Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4757625)
"Distraction" sure sounds a whole lot like "chemistry" when it comes to team sports. Any distractions is a huge issue until its not.
   3117. JE (Jason) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4757635)
From a friend who shared the below link:
Leaks have begun to trickle out on what Israeli interrogators are learning from captured Hamas fighters. One plot in particular is getting overwhelming attention. ...

The offensive attack tunnels seem to quite literally have been built for this kind of purpose. The IDF recently published a map of how they were dug to spill out on both sides of nearby communities (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtYjL4mCAAAI6c6.png). Israeli soldiers have been reporting that just inside some of the tunnels were storage units filled with tranquilizers, handcuffs, ropes, and so on.


Hamas Mega-Attack Planned through Gaza Terror Tunnels:
Hamas had apparently been preparing a murderous assault on Israeli civilian targets for the coming Jewish New Year Holiday, Rosh Hashanah, which begins on September 24, according anonymous sources in the Israeli security services, as reported today by the Israeli daily Maariv.

The Hamas plan consisted of what was to be a surprise attack in which 200 fighters would be dispatched through each of dozens of tunnels dug by Hamas under the border from Gaza to Israel, and seize kibbutzim and other communities while killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians.
   3118. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4757637)
The offensive attack tunnels seem to quite literally have been built for this kind of purpose. The IDF recently published a map of how they were dug to spill out on both sides of nearby communities (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtYjL4mCAAAI6c6.png). Israeli soldiers have been reporting that just inside some of the tunnels were storage units filled with tranquilizers, handcuffs, ropes, and so on.


Isn't that kind of old news in the sense that Hamas used tunnels a few years ago when they kidnapped Gilad Shalit?

   3119. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4757639)
The Hamas plan consisted of what was to be a surprise attack in which 200 fighters would be dispatched through each of dozens of tunnels dug by Hamas under the border from Gaza to Israel, and seize kibbutzim and other communities while killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians.


IS there anyone in Hamas to realize that IF they successfully pulled that off, that the gloves really would come off, the IDF would invade GAZA in force and literally raze it to the ground?
   3120. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4757641)
So the media throws Sam's name out there constantly like they did with Tebow and someone on a rival network who used to be a coach says that he wouldn't have drafted Sam because of the distraction. When did it become a crime in America to have an opinion? Last I checked Dungy's opinion had no bearing on whether or not Sam makes the team.
   3121. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:49 PM (#4757646)

IS there anyone in Hamas to realize that IF they successfully pulled that off, that the gloves really would come off, the IDF would invade GAZA in force and literally raze it to the ground?


That's what Hamas wants. For some reason, Israel keeps giving it to them.
   3122. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4757648)
When did it become a crime in America to have an opinion? Last I checked Dungy's opinion had no bearing on whether or not Sam makes the team.

Dungy's opinion is not a crime, and neither is the response to his opinion. Dungy's opinion has no more or less bearing than anyone else's opinion on anything that happens in anyone's camp, yet someone certainly cares because an entire army of of people are paid well to offer endless opinions on these camps.
   3123. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4757650)
Our media expert doesn't seem to understand that the media is a tool of the Modern Liberal and is owned by the Cathedral,

No, he does and rightly realized that because of it, the media would be a massive distraction.

And so he was surprised that his comment caused an uproar

Because like a lot of people, he underestimated the shrillness and lunacy of the modern left, their media allies, and those they've threatened into going along to get along. People of sound mind can't always fully process the hysteria of the hysterical -- the same has happened from time to time even to this observer.

Basically you guys want the media to be a tool of the Liberal Agenda AND want it to be working against the Liberal agenda by being a distraction for the team that drafted the most favored of all things, the openly gay athlete.

It's not what we "want," it's that the media and modern liberals are distractions AND threaten and lie about and attempt to quiet those who point out what distractions they are.
   3124. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4757651)
Dungy's opinion is not a crime, and neither is the response to his opinion.

Of course the response isn't a crime. It is, however, shrill, vitriolic, antisocial, and highly illiberal.
   3125. JE (Jason) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4757653)
Isn't that kind of old news in the sense that Hamas used tunnels a few years ago when they kidnapped Gilad Shalit?

What's significant, JSLF, is the scope and size of the planned attack. Actually, you seem to point that out in the subsequent post.
   3126. JE (Jason) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4757654)
That's what Hamas wants. For some reason, Israel keeps giving it to them.

Israel keeps giving them ... what exactly?

The Israeli ground operation was launched to find and destroy the tunnels. Any cease-fire plan that saves them will be rejected.
   3127. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4757658)
Are you saying you don't understand? Look out, Ray hates when people say that. Oh wait.


I am just glad he has come off the "off course it doesn't matter how big a distraction it it" nonsense. That we have moved on to other nonsense is, however sadly, expected.

For example:

It is, however, shrill, vitriolic, antisocial, and highly illiberal.


Because that is totally unlike many posts on the subject here on the other side, which are calm, soothing, and well adjusted. As shown by robinred.
   3128. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4757660)

Israel keeps giving them ... what exactly?


Indiscriminate civilian deaths.
   3129. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4757662)
it's that the media and modern liberals are distractions AND threaten and lie about and attempt to quiet those who point out what distractions they are.


Because they are to blame for everything. They are the universal generic excuse. Dungy, noted expert in the sports media, did not say anything unwise, it was pure truth, distorted and made a big deal of by the media he works for. The same media which refuses to report that there are distractions happening for the Rams, but is also constantly asking if Sam will be a distraction. And of course was OK with Dungy saying what he did originally (since he IS part of that media), but now has cowed him through there pure and raw threats. But of course those threats can't be reporting in the media. All because of reasons that have nothing to do with the media trying to make money, no it is instead all Liberal Agenda, all the time.

And who can forget it is a new world of social media where information is totally free and is not under anyone's control, except the monolithic media controls it all and marches to the beat of the Modern Liberals.

/sarcasm

Sometimes I think you are idiots for believing this nonsense and other times I think it is performance art.
   3130. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4757665)
Because that is totally unlike many posts on the subject here on the other side, which are calm, soothing, and well adjusted.

You misspelled "truthful" and "insightful."

There's a group of people on the board who have properly deconstructed the modern liberal agenda and methods. It is what it is.
   3131. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4757667)
Because they are to blame for everything.

I wouldn't say "everything." But certainly for the lies and shrill suppression of dissent that obtain in today's public square.

And who can forget it is a new world of social media where information is totally free and is not under anyone's control,

... unless it's a gay guy at an SEC football school telling a 100-man football team and a dozen-plus coaches that he's gay. It's amazing that you're still repeating these absurd trope.
   3132. JE (Jason) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4757670)
Indiscriminate civilian deaths.

Well, we now know who's faithfully been watching Al-Jazeera.
   3133. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4757671)
It is what it is.


And your whole analysis rests on the awesome media expertise of someone working in the industry for many years who nevertheless made a huge mistake is realizing the terrible ferocity of the lynching-mad-media, a mistake some yahoos on the internet had spied out years ago and realize how much of societies problems are the fault of the Modern Liberal and its puppet media.

Like I said before, your media expert needs more expertise and spine, seeing as how even he is not backing up your theory.
   3134. The Good Face Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4757678)
Dungy's opinion is not a crime, and neither is the response to his opinion. Dungy's opinion has no more or less bearing than anyone else's opinion on anything that happens in anyone's camp, yet someone certainly cares because an entire army of of people are paid well to offer endless opinions on these camps.


Considering it could have cost him his job and career, it's close enough to a crime.
   3135. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4757679)
But certainly for the lies and shrill suppression of dissent that obtain in today's public square.

And which liberals were saying that questioning Bush's actions were both treasonous AND aiding the terrorists, exactly?


Considering it could have cost him his job and career, it's close enough to a crime.

Close enough for what?
   3136. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4757682)
Considering it could have cost him his job and career, it's close enough to a crime.


The word "could", as unsubstantiated as it is is doing a bunch of work here. By why should you or SBB or Ray substantiate any of your "Modern Liberal Lynch Party" assertions.
   3137. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4757684)
So the same media that is causing the distraction by reporting things can't report there is a distraction, because reasons. Got it.


Exactly. It's a catch-22. You may be familiar with the concept, though I doubt you'd admit it given your increasingly shrill defenses of your dogma.
   3138. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4757685)
Indiscriminate civilian deaths.
Well, we now know who's faithfully been watching Al-Jazeera.


As a definition and propaganda exercise, this is kind of a puzzle, actually. There have been civilian deaths, so isn't it better that they are indiscriminate? Because if they were discriminate civilian deaths, that would mean Israel was specifically targeting civilians, which is a pretty big reach. I might feel at a certain point enough is enough, but I certainly don't think Israel is lobbing bombs at shopping malls.
   3139. The Good Face Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4757686)
Considering it could have cost him his job and career, it's close enough to a crime.

Close enough for what?


Lassus, what are your thoughts on the Hollywood blacklistings during the Cold War?
   3140. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4757687)
The catch-22 is exactly what trapped Dungy. He knows there will be distractions from the media and the loudmouths, says so, and the same distracting media and loudmouths shrilly denounce him for saying there will be distractions.

It's simple to see; you'd have to be wilfully blinding yourself not to see it. It's hilarious that someone would think the inherent contradictions within a catch-22 are actually a "gotcha" to those pointing out the catch-22.

Or maybe that's a catch-222.
   3141. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4757688)
Lassus, what are your thoughts on the Hollywood blacklistings during the Cold War?

That Dalton Trumbo would find your comparison stupid. Although, the dude was anti-war, so you can't really care what he thought anyway.
   3142. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4757690)
This is the reality you guys see in the Dungy situation that we don't? Crazies? Stake-burning? Okey-doke.

You have to remember that these are the same folks who likely think that Clarence Thomas was lynched by Anita Hill. This is simply who they are and what they do.

----------------------------------------------------

Had Dungy doubled down he'd have lost his job.

Yes, just like we've seen mass firings of all the media people who agreed with him.

----------------------------------------------------

Now you're denying that his career was in danger. Hilarious.


I am stating I have seen no evidence of it.

"Evidence? We don't have to show you no stinkin' evidence!"
   3143. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4757691)
The catch-22 is exactly what trapped Dungy. He knows there will be distractions from the media and the loudmouths, says so, and the same distracting media and loudmouths shrilly denounce him for saying there will be distractions.


You would think someone with his media expertise wold never have made such a simple mistake. You must really think he is dumb I guess.
   3144. The Good Face Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4757692)
Lassus, what are your thoughts on the Hollywood blacklistings during the Cold War?

That Dalton Trumbo would find your comparison stupid.


Wonder why you're afraid to answer the question?

Although, the dude was anti-war, so you can't really care what he thought anyway.


This is simply odd. I'm one of the most anti-war posters here.
   3145. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4757694)
You would think someone with his media expertise wold never have made such a simple mistake.

The only "mistake" he made was underestimating the hysteria of modern liberals. As I noted above and can attest to from experience, given the magnitude thereof, this happens to people of sound mind from time to time. It's hard for the rational and fair-minded among us to get our minds around such relentless bitterness and irrationality.
   3146. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4757696)
More bad news for Democrats - perhaps not as bad as in #3024, but pretty bad - Gallup: Obama Down To 39% Job Approval (Again). Not seeing any issues that are likely to improve that rating much, either. Ukraine? Middle East? Iraq? The Economy? ObamaCare? Obama was at around 45% Job Approval in 2010, but doesn't seem likely to regain that level any time soon. Except in the Rasmussen Poll - which could be right, although that doesn't seem likely since it is the clear outlier.

EDIt : Added Rasmussen.
   3147. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4757697)
Wonder why you're afraid to answer the question?

Not answering a question based on a false analogy is intelligence, not fear.


This is simply odd. I'm one of the most anti-war posters here.

If I have mixed you in with those many conservatives decrying the surrender Primates during BTF's re-enactment of WARGAMES pages ago, and beating the pacifists with sticks on other issues, I stand corrected and apologize.
   3148. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4757698)
The only "mistake" he made was underestimating the hysteria of modern liberals.


But that is exactly the expertise of his you want to reference in terms of the impact of Sam, the distraction factor. It is the very subject you hold him in esteem on, and he clearly made a mistake regarding it.

Or it could be, as many of us believe, he made an offhand comment and on further examination walked it back. But that doesn't further your narrative, so a big no to that I guess.
   3149. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4757699)
But that is exactly the expertise of his you want to reference in terms of the impact of Sam, the distraction factor. It is the very subject you hold him in esteem on, and he clearly made a mistake regarding it.

No, he didn't make a mistake. He knew there would be distractions, but he underestimated how big they would or could be.

His error was akin to a CIA analyst saying al-Qaeda is going to detonate a suitcase bomb in New York City, and al-Qaeda detonating two suitcase bombs in New York City.

   3150. zenbitz Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4757701)
Basically, if someone in sports says "X will be a distraction" it's double speak - as pointed out above it's analogous to "bad for clubhouse chemistry". That's not to say that distractions don't exist or Michael Sam isn't a "distraction" - it's that I don't think distractions mean anything. Pointing out that something is a distraction is just an excuse for some other feeling (perhaps best left unsaid). This is true whether it's Tebow, Sam, Johnny Football, Barry Bonds, whomever.

I find it highly ironic that the media is calling out Dungy for calling Sam a distraction, since they are the worst when it comes to "manufacturing distractions". Which they then pretend have an effect because story.

In the specific case - if Dungy says "I wouldn't draft Sam because it would be a media distraction" - I flat out don't believe him. But it has nothing to do with Sam. I don't believe anyone who says they didn't draft Manziel because of the *distraction*. Now -- it's that what they are simply saying is that off field baggage makes him less desirable, or they think it reflects on his work ethic or something... well OK. But it's not the DISTRACTION. Haven't you guys ever listened to a weekly NFL presser? IT'S ALL DISTRACTION. Basically - reporter ask a leading question - hoping for a slip or simply getting a raging response from over worked head coach. Head Coach says "no comment", or jabs at media member. Next Question.

The kindest thing I can say about Dungy is that he may just not be being honest with himself, either.
   3151. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4757703)
In the specific case - if Dungy says "I wouldn't draft Sam because it would be a media distraction" - I flat out don't believe him.


Despite the fact that his opinion was validated when his opinion itself became a distraction.

As to the crazies/lunatics classification, that is obviously warranted. When a person makes a reasonable, non-bigoted statement and is roundly attacked, the words crazies/lunatics readily apply.

Of course, speaking of cowards... you folks (Andy et al) won't actually come right out and call Dungy a bigot, despite the fact that that's what you're all thinking. Instead he is called a "coward."
   3152. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4757704)

The kindest thing I can say about Dungy is that he may just not be being honest with himself, either.


Overall he is a really good guy (and coach), but based on his history he clearly has issues with teh gay. I have followed him since he was a coach for the Vikings (and wanted them to promote him), and like I said overall he is admirable, but regarding gays he clearly has baggage. I think it it that baggage that got him in trouble.
   3153. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4757706)
regarding gays he clearly has baggage. I think it it that baggage that got him in trouble.


See? Hysterical, vitriolic hate speech; you're clearly doing everything short of measuring the rope for the lynching (which is what comes next, no doubt).
   3154. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4757708)
There is a movie called "THE CRAZIES" with Timothy Olyphant that makes me giggle when I keep hearing Ray's description of Michael Wilbon.
   3155. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4757711)
See? Hysterical, vitriolic hate speech; you're clearly doing everything short of measuring the rope for the lynching (which is what comes next, no doubt).


Unlike what you and Mr. Not-Religious-But-Always-Holier-Than-Thou Mouse would like to think, it's not the words that count, it's the sentiment behind them. It doesn't matter if you say someone "clearly has baggage [with gays]" in lieu of calling him a bigot. They are synonymous.
   3156. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4757713)
There is a movie called "THE CRAZIES" with Timothy Olyphant


Please. That's a (pretty solid) remake of a George Romero film.

You might as well say "there's a movie called The Day the Earth Stood Still with Keanu Reeves." Technically, it's correct, but ...
   3157. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4757715)
It doesn't matter if you say someone "clearly has baggage [with gays]" in lieu of calling him a bigot. They are synonymous.



Maybe so, but -- without pretending to read Mouse's mind -- I don't get that from him as regards Dungy. Is it possible for someone to "have baggage" with regard to a certain category of people without being full-on bigoted toward them? Honest question.
   3158. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4757717)
It doesn't matter if you say someone "clearly has baggage [with gays]" in lieu of calling him a bigot. They are synonymous.

No. Words. They matter.


Please. That's a (pretty solid) remake of a George Romero film.

I haven't seen either. I'm just going from clips and trailers. I've read it compares rather favorably to the original amongst the non-grumpy non-cult-film public. :-D
   3159. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4757718)
Of course, speaking of cowards... you folks (Andy et al) won't actually come right out and call Dungy a bigot, despite the fact that that's what you're all thinking. Instead he is called a "coward."

Andy's fallback specialty, on eminent passive-aggressive display here, is "X is making the same types of arguments or saying the same types of things the bigots were making and saying in 1964."

This allows him a convenient retreat, still atop his mind's moral high ground, in situations like this where someone is making completely unrelated arguments and saying completely different things for entirely different reasons and aims as the bigots of 1964 -- yet he still wants to insist that they are bigoted, or the closely synonymous "cowardly."

So irrespective of the copious substantive deficiencies, one can't help but give kudos for the creativity.

   3160. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4757719)
There is a movie called "THE CRAZIES" with Timothy Olyphant that makes me giggle when I keep hearing Ray's description of Michael Wilbon.

Michael Wilbon is going along to get along.
   3161. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4757721)
Maybe so, but -- without pretending to read Mouse's mind -- I don't get that from him as regards Dungy. Is it possible for someone to "have baggage" with regard to a certain category of people without being full-on bigoted toward them? Honest question.


Well, it's an interesting rhetorical trick. Generally, "has baggage" is sort of an intransitive adjective (a fake concept, but roll with it) - it describes a person, but not a thing towards which the person is. "Sally 'has baggage'" = Sally is screwed up, with the connotation that she carries a burden from something that happened to her in the past. Generally, describing someone as "having baggage" also is ever-so-slightly excusing them from responsibility - an abused dog that bites "has baggage", a dog that was vicious from birth doesn't.

So then, what to make of "has baggage regarding the gays"? I think what it means to imply is that Dungy is somehow not culpable of his homophobia - that he's a good guy that somehow in life was corrupted by homophobic beliefs, and with a warm home and lots of scratches behind the ears, he might one day stop biting. Contra a "bigot", which I guess is Mouse's concept of the innately prejudiced person that is beyond redemption.

Of course, there's no way to distinguish whether Dungy is innately a bigot or made that way, and its a false dichotmy in the first place because every form of bigotry and phobias is informed part by who you are and part by the culture in which you're immersed. What it allows Mouse to do is to call Dungy a homophobe but with rhetoric that he can plausibly deny as invective - he's simply saying Dungy is a puppy who was hit a little too hard (by a floppy penis, perhaps?). This preserves Mouse's self-image as a moral superior to all others, including those in this thread.
   3162. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4757725)
Michael Wilbon is going along to get along.

Soooo you're going with "Michael Wilbon is either a lunatic or a liar"? Unless, of course, that's a reference to the film.
   3163. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4757729)
Soooo you're going with "Michael Wilbon is either a lunatic or a liar"?

I'm going with "Michael Wilbon has modern liberal baggage."
   3164. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4757732)
There is a movie called "THE CRAZIES" with Timothy Olyphant that makes me giggle when I keep hearing Ray's description of Michael Wilbon.


Michael Wilbon is going along to get along.


Yeah, I specifically said on the last page that I guessed Wilbon was a non-crazy who was simply toeing the party line. I said:

"There's only one acceptable viewpoint on this. The crazies have seen to that, and have shown the non-crazies like Dungy (and possibly Wilbon) what happens when you don't toe the party line."

But of course Lassus ignores that and pretends I didn't say it so he could keep painting me as someone who is calling Wilbon a crazy.

Intellectual dishonesty abounds.
   3165. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 25, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4757734)
You know what the federal government shouldn't be doing? Probably lots of things, but perhaps we can start with regulating school bake sales:
Twelve states have established their own policies to circumvent regulations in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 that apply to "competitive snacks," or any foods and beverages sold to students on school grounds that are not part of the Agriculture Department's school meal programs, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. Competitive snacks appear in vending machines, school stores, and food and beverages, including items sold at bake sales.

Maybe I didn't pay enough attention during the last election or two, but I missed the outcry over unregulated bake sales.
   3166. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4757750)
"There's only one acceptable viewpoint on this. The crazies have seen to that, and have shown the non-crazies like Dungy (and possibly Wilbon) what happens when you don't toe the party line."

But of course Lassus ignores that and pretends I didn't say it so he could keep painting me as someone who is calling Wilbon a crazy.


Actually, I missed that parenthetical (I assume it wasn't an edit, but that I just missed it), but thanks for the benefit of the doubt and calling me a liar. Your goodwill is noted.

Anyhow, I see you are also calling Wilbon a liar, so. Either way, there are many examples of moderate opinions on this issue, but moderate, to you, constitutes lying or crazy. Is that closer to what you mean?
   3167. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4757752)
Considering it could have cost him his job and career, it's close enough to a crime.


Nah. One of your problems here, other than being angry and overly emotional about this type of thing, is that you don't have a knowledge base about Dungy. Worst-case for Dungy here is that he gets canned by NBC. But NBC is not his only off-field endeavor. Dungy has leveraged his NFL success into a mini-media empire focused on family and Christian issues. He has written several books, can command huge speaking fees, etc. You can check it out for yourself:

http://www.coachdungy.com/

And, of course, if NBC axes him, he will be an immediate darling on the Christian and right-wing talk show circuits, (he will be anyway, just because this happened) it would probably help book sales, and he might well get hired by another network, probably FOX, to do NFL work. You can argue that NBC shouldn't can him on principle, and I would agree. I don't think they should, either. But if the suits at NBC decided that Dungy was too much of a distraction to warrant paying him to be a talking head, that would be their call to make, and it would not kill Dungy either financially or in any other way.

Another amusing thing is this stuff with you, SBB, and Ray selling the idea that we should listen to Dungy on this because he is an "expert." If you and your buddies are suddenly into deferring to experts, you might want to start with some issues more important than Tony Dungy, such as climate change, race relations, and rape. But, that aside, SBB argued that we should listen to Dungy instead of Jeff Fisher because Dungy's career winning percentage is higher, ignoring the fact that Dungy had Peyton Manning at QB for his entire run in Indy. Fisher, meanwhile, made it to the SB with Steve McNair at QB. You talked about the need to be "narrow" in areas of where we defer to experts. So, even if we assume that Fisher is just an average NFL coach, and Dungy was a great one, we have the following issues to consider:

1. Fisher knows infinitely more than Dungy does about the Rams, their personnel, their team leaders, their needs on defense, and their locker room dynamics.
2. Fisher, the Rams' scouts and the Rams' analytical people decided that Sam was worth picking.
3. Dungy has been out of the game since 2009. He never coached or played in St. Louis. Dungy assumed that Sam would be a distraction, but he missed the other side: that Sam might be a rallying point, that having him could help bring the team together, attract new fans, and grow the Rams brand. Why Dungy ignored this possibility and instead focused on the negative can be, as Ray likes to say, an exercise left to the reader.
4. Since no NFL coach until now has ever coached an openly gay player, no one has experience with it.
5. The needle has moved pretty fast on LGBT issues since 2009, as Dungy well knows, since he took the time to express his "disappointment" with Obama on Twitter when Obama "evolved" on gay marriage. So maybe it was actually Dungy who needed some input from experts here.

So, if you guys want to defer to an expert with knowledge of the immediate situation on this issue, I think you and SBB would be better off going with Fisher rather than with Dungy, unless you want to argue that The Cathedral ran the Rams' draft room.

Finally, of course, Dungy wasn't picked at random for his input on this issue and this wasn't an accident. Bill Cowher, like Dungy, is a well-known Super Bowl champion coach with a network studio gig. If Cowher has been asked about Sam, I haven't heard about it, and if he was asked and answered, his answer didn't stir up any dust. So, media people went to Dungy on this because they knew that Dungy has gone out of his way in the past to speak out against gay marriage, so they probably figured that Dungy would not be able to avoid saying something that would get people on both sides amped up. And they were right.


   3168. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4757755)
Also, if you guys want to rage on about your witch hunts that liberals don't care about, there's always today's quote from Stephen A. Smith on deck. Have at it.
   3169. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4757764)
And, of course, if NBC axes him, he will be an immediate darling on the Christian and right-wing talk show circuits, (he will be anyway, just because this happened) it would probably help book sales, and he might well get hired by another network, probably FOX, to do NFL work. You can argue that NBC shouldn't can him on principle, and I would agree. I don't think they should, either. But if the suits at NBC decided that Dungy was too much of a distraction to warrant paying him to be a talking head, that would be their call to make, and it would not kill Dungy either financially or in any other way.

Yeah, but he doesn't want a right-wing sectarian career, he wants a career as a network commentator and expert on NFL football. He's overqualified for the job, has proven to be so, and nothing he said about this situation should remotely be threatening that job. Bottom line -- nothing he said about this situation should be remotely threatening that job. Period, end of story. I will continue to protest such an absurd state of affairs, and I don't give two shits how many people laughingly call me a bigot for doing so. The rest is noise.

We can't trust Jeff Fisher's opinion on the matter, since he's been boxed in by the modern liberal edifice. He, too, could be going along to get along. He might not be, but we can't know for sure.

And in any event, Tony Dungy was asked his opinion of whether he'd draft Michael Sam. He answered. There would be no reason for someone asked their opinion on something to go check with someone else for someone else's opinion. If people wanted Jeff Fisher's opinion on it, they can ask Jeff Fisher.
   3170. The Good Face Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4757770)
Nah. One of your problems here, other than being angry and overly emotional about this type of thing, is that you don't have a knowledge base about Dungy. Worst-case for Dungy here is that he gets canned by NBC. But NBC is not his only off-field endeavor. Dungy has leveraged his NFL success into a mini-media empire focused on family and Christian issues. He has written several books, can command huge speaking fees, etc. You can check it out for yourself:

http://www.coachdungy.com/

And, of course, if NBC axes him, he will be an immediate darling on the Christian and right-wing talk show circuits, (he will be anyway, just because this happened) it would probably help book sales, and he might well get hired by another network, probably FOX, to do NFL work. You can argue that NBC shouldn't can him on principle, and I would agree. I don't think they should, either. But if the suits at NBC decided that Dungy was too much of a distraction to warrant paying him to be a talking head, that would be their call to make, and it would not kill Dungy either financially or in any other way.


Silly RR. So eager to score points you don't READ. The fact that Dungy could move into another career doesn't mean he wouldn't lose his current one. You know, the blacklisted Hollywood writers could have easily gone and done something else with their lives, so they didn't lose their careers, right?

If you and your buddies are suddenly into deferring to experts, you might want to start with some issues more important than Tony Dungy, such as climate change, race relations, and rape.


Ideology isn't expertise.

1. Fisher knows infinitely more than Dungy does about the Rams, their personnel, their team leaders, their needs on defense, and their locker room dynamics.


Infinitely? No. Anyway, Dungy knows more about how to build and sustain a consistently winning NFL team, since he's actually done it.

2. Fisher, the Rams' scouts and the Rams' analytical people decided that Sam was worth picking.


Almost dead last in the draft.

3. Dungy has been out of the game since 2009. He never coached or played in St. Louis. Dungy assumed that Sam would be a distraction, but he missed the other side: that Sam might be a rallying point, that having him could help bring the team together, attract new fans, and grow the Rams brand.


Maybe. Or Sam may create distractions that make the team less effective while offering nothing on the field because he's a borderline talent. Dungy believes the latter. He might be wrong, but he wound up vilified for even suggesting it.

4. Since no NFL coach until now has ever coached an openly gay player, no one has experience with it.


So then between two coaches who've never had the experience, I'm going with the guy who had a record-setting career and won a superbowl over the coaching journeyman.

5. The needle has moved pretty fast on LGBT issues since 2009, as Dungy well knows, since he took the time to express his "disappointment" with Obama on Twitter when Obama "evolved" on gay marriage. So maybe it was actually Dungy who needed some input from experts here.


Except Dungy was absolutely correct WRT his prediction; it has been and is a media circus and a distraction. Has nothing to do with societal attitudes about teh gay.

PS - You're projecting.
   3171. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4757775)
If you and your buddies are suddenly into deferring to experts, you might want to start with some issues more important than Tony Dungy, such as climate change, race relations, and rape.


The key distinction, at least with respect to race relations and rape, is that passing an ideological litmus test is a prerequisite for becoming an "expert" in rape or race relations. Whereas having a certain ideology with respect to gay rights is not a condition to becoming an NFL coach.
   3172. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4757776)
Unlike what you and Mr. Not-Religious-But-Always-Holier-Than-Thou Mouse would like to think, it's not the words that count, it's the sentiment behind them. It doesn't matter if you say someone "clearly has baggage [with gays]" in lieu of calling him a bigot. They are synonymous.


I was off playing disc golf - won by 6 strokes, go me - and soon I must leave to head out for a date with the GF (not Good Face), but no. Seriously.

I spent a whole thread a while back defending people against gay marriage from the charge of bigotry. I didn't call Dungy a bigot, because I don't think he is one. One hint is me calling him a generally good guy.

I think someone can be really against gay rights and still not be a bigot, especially since up until recently being against gay rights was the majority opinion in the US, and it still very much is the majority opinion in Coach Dungy's demographic. I refuse to tag a majority of people with the word Bigot. I refuse to think "bigotry" is disappearing at 1%+ a year. That is a way overly generous use of the word and concept bigotry. Following a mainstream opinion is not bigotry IMO.

I think he has baggage; he has an previously expressed opinion strongly against gay marriage and other gay rights issues and his personal feelings on the topic are colored by those opinions.

I do love the fact that if I call him a bigot I am hateful and if I don't I am cowardly - that is quite the straw prison you are trying to build. But sorry guys it does not fit. If I want to call someone a bigot I will, but I really don't think he is one - though I have never met him, so I suppose it is possible, but I am certainly not going to recklessly throw that accusation around.

I will leave reckless accusations to your side of the fight.
   3173. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4757782)
Add: Obviously, how easy it would be for NBC to can Dungy,and whether he would have legal recourse if they did, would hinge on contractual language, and the circumstances of the firing, as well as other things. And again, I don't think they should fire him for this. But I do think that the argument that he used against drafting Sam--talent not worth the hassle--could also apply to Dungy himself in his role as studio guy.
   3174. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:29 PM (#4757784)
I do love the fact that if I call him a bigot I am hateful and if I don't I am cowardly - that is quite the straw prison you are trying to build. But sorry guys it does not fit. If I want to call someone a bigot I will, but I really don't think he is one - though I have never met him, so I suppose it is possible, but I am certainly not going to recklessly throw that accusation around.


It's not a straw prison, its real life. You can't hide behind weasel words and tell the Teacher you were just minding your own business.
I'm fascinated watching you contort to avoid any connotation of judging or attacking others, all the while judging and attacking others. Your perverse obsession with maintaining ostenisbly clean hands (while all the while slinging mud) probably has some super cool underlying pathology, but I'm not sure what it is.
   3175. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4757787)
I refuse to tag a majority of people with the word Bigot.


FYI, everyone is bigoted. It's just a question of against who and what, and whether or not they're honest about it with themselves.
   3176. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:33 PM (#4757788)
Except Dungy was absolutely correct WRT his prediction; it has been and is a media circus and a distraction. Has nothing to do with societal attitudes about teh gay.

While on the job, Michael Sam was asked his opinion of Tony Dungy's remarks and gave his opinion. That's a distraction.
   3177. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:33 PM (#4757789)
Following a mainstream opinion is not bigotry IMO.


There were no bigots in the Jim Crow South?
   3178. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4757791)
I think someone can be really against gay rights and still not be a bigot, especially since up until recently being against gay rights was the majority opinion in the US, and it still very much is the majority opinion in Coach Dungy's demographic. I refuse to tag a majority of people with the word Bigot. I refuse to think "bigotry" is disappearing at 1%+ a year. That is a way overly generous use of the word and concept bigotry. Following a mainstream opinion is not bigotry IMO.

This is yet another indicator of your aversion to truth and where truth might lead, and the racial hue to your vision of truth. If a majority of people are bigots why would you refuse to say so?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Coach Dungy's demographic" but if it's true that a majority of blacks don't support gay rights and you think not supporting gay rights makes you a bigot, why would you not call a majority of blacks bigoted?
   3179. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:38 PM (#4757793)
An ESPN Host Suggested That Women Provoke Domestic Violence


And the wheel keeps turning.......


Also as far as Dungy goes it was way below what Campanis said and not in the same ballpark of Jimmy the Greek either so I don't think he should be fired.
   3180. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4757796)
I think someone can be really against gay rights and still not be a bigot, especially since up until recently being against gay rights was the majority opinion in the US, and it still very much is the majority opinion in Coach Dungy's demographic. I refuse to tag a majority of people with the word Bigot. I refuse to think "bigotry" is disappearing at 1%+ a year. That is a way overly generous use of the word and concept bigotry. Following a mainstream opinion is not bigotry IMO.

This is yet another indicator of your aversion to truth and where truth might lead. If a majority of people are bigots why would you refuse to say so?


Exactly. The problem with having these obsessively strong, quasi-religious convictions that your views aren't just opinions, they're Moral Truth, is that it leads inevitably to the conclusion that those who disagree with your Morally True Opinions are immoral. And then half the country are bigots. Except they can't be, so you hem and haw . . .
   3181. formerly dp Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:46 PM (#4757800)
Ideology isn't expertise.
Epistemic closure's such a beautiful thing to watch in action.
   3182. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4757802)
Epistemic closure's such a beautiful thing to watch in action.

Translated into English:

Tony Dungy isn't an expert on NFL football and the day-to-day lives of NFL organizations.

A far left loon at the Clayman Institute of Gender Studies at Stanford is an expert on rape.

EDIT: And you don't even understand "epistemic closure." Tony Dungy in fact knows and is an expert in exactly what he was asked about. OTOH, asking the far left loons at the Clayman Institute to opine on rape (*) is a textbook example of epistemic closure.

(*) Or anything, really, since they possess nothing properly termed expertise (or even knowledge).
   3183. formerly dp Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:11 PM (#4757809)
EDIT: And you don't even understand "epistemic closure."
I get it perfectly well. What you've done is built a wall around your knowledge-base that discredits and disallows anything you find inconvenient to your position as ideology. It's a neat mix of cute and sad.
   3184. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4757817)
Also as far as Dungy goes it was way below what Campanis said and not in the same ballpark of Jimmy the Greek either so I don't think he should be fired.

Has a single person here said that Dungy should be fired for his comments on Sam?

I didn't think so.

But to some folks here, simply responding to Dungy's comments is apparently considered to be an act of lynching. These are the same folks like to talk about "hysteria" and "hyperbole"!

"Can't criticize the coach! He won a Super Bowl and you didn't!"
   3185. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:28 PM (#4757818)
Has a single person here said that Dungy should be fired for his comments on Sam?

I didn't think so.


Perhaps not (I don't remember), but those who perpetuate the lies that fan the flames that may get him fired, are equally -- if not more -- culpable. You called him a coward and compared him to bigots and racists. You expect people to believe you believe NBC should be giving a prominent TV position to a coward, bigot, and racist?

But to some folks here, simply responding to Dungy's comments

You didn't respond to them, you lied about them and you compared them to the comments of racists and bigots facing the same questions. You also constructed a moral universe in which someone who believes that drafting a meh prospect would cause detrimental distractions, but doesn't say, "I don't believe that drafting a meh prospect would cause detrimental distractions" is a "coward" -- your words.

   3186. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4757819)
Has a single person here said that Dungy should be fired for his comments on Sam?

I didn't think so.


There has been mention of "if" NBC should fire Dungy what would the reasons be and what might happen if NBC let him go so I gave my opinion to those scenarios.
   3187. formerly dp Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:36 PM (#4757822)
(*) Or anything, really, since they possess nothing properly termed expertise (or even knowledge).
This encapsulates your bubble quite nicely. They clearly do possess expertise and knowledge, but it is knowledge and expertise that begins from a starting point you find disagreeable, so you categorically rule it out. Ignorance in action.
   3188. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:40 PM (#4757823)
Has a single person here said that Dungy should be fired for his comments on Sam?

I didn't think so.


Perhaps not (I don't remember),


It won't be the first thing you don't remember.

but those who perpetuate the lies that fan the flames that may get him fired, are equally -- if not more -- culpable.

What "lies" have I written about Dungy?

You called him a coward and compared him to bigots and racists.

I called him a coward for the specific reason that he chose not to lead when given the opportunity. I compared his reasoning to many non-bigots in the Robinson era who were also using side issues to criticize Rickey for signing him.

You expect people to believe you believe NBC should be giving a prominent TV position to a coward, bigot, and racist?

Networks hire cowards all the time. Dungy's one of many. He's not a bigot or a racist, and I don't think he should be fired for his comments. Hell, I didn't even think that Don Imus should have been fired back when "nappy headed hos" was the controversy du jour, and as a general rule I think that when you hire people to be "controversial" you should have to take the bad with the good. NBC knew Dungy's attitudes about gays when they hired him, and if his remarks were truly beyond the pale (which I've never said that they were), then the NBC execs who hired him should be the first ones to be axed, because they could have seen it coming.
   3189. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:41 PM (#4757824)
And, of course, if NBC axes him, he will be an immediate darling on the Christian and right-wing talk show circuits, (he will be anyway, just because this happened) it would probably help book sales, and he might well get hired by another network, probably FOX, to do NFL work.


This is an absolute riot coming from a liberal. Let's apply it to traditional discrimination: "Hey, black person/gay person/woman/minority, who cares if you were discriminated against? You can get another job!!!"

Where are we, robinred, with the Vikings punter who has sued the NFL claiming that he was cut because of his outspoken views in support of gay marriage? (His case has turned into a mess, by the way.) He can just get a new job, ay? Hell, his comments if anything, per your logic, HELP him to get hired by a left wing employer!

Woo.
   3190. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:46 PM (#4757827)
Has a single person here said that Dungy should be fired for his comments on Sam?

I didn't think so.


There has been mention of "if" NBC should fire Dungy what would the reasons be and what might happen if NBC let him go so I gave my opinion to those scenarios.


You shouldn't have had to clarify your position. I should have spelled it out that I didn't mean that you were saying that anyone had said that Dungy should be fired. My apologies for any confusion there.
   3191. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:48 PM (#4757828)
FYI, everyone is bigoted. It's just a question of against who and what, and whether or not they're honest about it with themselves.

Say what you will about the lack of an ethos, but there are benefits to being a nihilist.
   3192. formerly dp Posted: July 25, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4757833)
This is an absolute riot coming from a liberal. Let's apply it to traditional discrimination: "Hey, black person/gay person/woman/minority, who cares if you were discriminated against? You can get another job!!!"
I know this is an issue you're hyperemotional about (evidenced by your post count-- no one has commented more on the subject of gay athletes than RDP), but it's clouding your thinking: Firing a paid commentator for making comments that attract negative attention to a company's brand is not the same as being discriminated against because of race or sexual preference. Your analogy skills are really failing in this thread.
   3193. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 25, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4757852)
SugarBear reminds me of nothing so much than an aging college prof who is pissed that he can't grope the freshmen at will any more.
   3194. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 25, 2014 at 07:48 PM (#4757855)
Where are we, robinred, with the Vikings punter who has sued the NFL claiming that he was cut because of his outspoken views in support of gay marriage? (His case has turned into a mess, by the way.)


Chris Kluwe will almost certainly lose that suit, because it's hard to argue that his case, minus the obvious personal animus and hatred directed at him by his direct superior for issues utterly unrelated to football, isn't still essentially identical to other cases where marginal player types in the NFL are replaced for marginal cost benefit. (This is particularly the case with kickers.)

Nonetheless, the coach in question has been suspended for six games by the NFL for being a vicious, virulent homophobe, because Kluwe's accusations about his conduct and statements were validated by his former teammates.
   3195. zenbitz Posted: July 25, 2014 at 07:58 PM (#4757863)
@3151. Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but yes I don't believe that "media distraction" level is a legitimate reason to not draft some one. It's like saying I won't draft them because they have long hair.

I believe that Dungy wouldn't draft Sam. I don't think that it has anything to do with the "distraction". I will not speculate on the real reason.
   3196. Lassus Posted: July 25, 2014 at 08:00 PM (#4757865)
We can't trust Jeff Fisher's opinion on the matter, since he's been boxed in by the modern liberal edifice. He, too, could be going along to get along. He might not be, but we can't know for sure.

This is just too awesome for words.
   3197. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 25, 2014 at 08:02 PM (#4757866)
I think that Dungy means exactly what he said; that he thinks drafting a gay man would be a "distraction to the team," and that he believes that rather than make his other players behave like men and get past their homophobia he would opt to blame the guy being marginalized for his sexual orientation. The "media" angle is just cover for the rest.
   3198. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 08:10 PM (#4757872)
@3151. Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but yes I don't believe that "media distraction" level is a legitimate reason to not draft some one. It's like saying I won't draft them because they have long hair.

That's an interesting proposal, in that it hints that employers and private capital shouldn't have full sovereignty over who they hire and fire, even if the people they employ somehow "bring negative attention to their brand."

We've already eliminated some of that power -- e.g., with full modern liberal support, we didn't let restaurants serve only white people in 1964 even if the presence of blacks would cost them brand goodwill and money. The question becomes: Why stop there? Given the cravenness of most employers and the vapidness of the "brand" concept, there's no reason to.

With exceptions and details to be worked out, I'm becoming less opposed and maybe could even support a law outlawing employment discrimination based on non-business-related expression. The idea that Tony Dungy's job could be in danger because of this episode is an utterly appalling state of affairs, and if he's fired, the laws permitting his employment to be terminated for something so vapid should be changed.

The private-public distinction once made sense, but is clearly no longer tenable in the 21st century media/communications environment.
   3199. BDC Posted: July 25, 2014 at 08:10 PM (#4757873)
I think the most charitable construction you can put on Dungy's remarks is that he doesn't like the idea of some rookie Nth on the depth chart having a more numerous entourage than the head coach :)

The less charitable constructions … I dunno. Like zenbitz, I'm feeling charitable today. I will say that zenbitz up in #3150 made a great point. Every flipping moment of an NFL coach's or player's existence is a hyperactive distraction. At least in the DFW media; I don't know about St Louis or Indianapolis or Tampa/St. Pete.
   3200. zenbitz Posted: July 25, 2014 at 08:18 PM (#4757876)
The thing is, SBB YOU DONT ACTUALLY NEED A REASON to not hire someone.

Page 32 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPablo Sandoval leaning toward Red Sox, to decide next week — Padres have highest offer, all offers on table (including SF Giants’) - John Shea
(5 - 10:28am, Nov 23)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(13 - 10:24am, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(135 - 10:04am, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4171 - 10:04am, Nov 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(554 - 9:48am, Nov 23)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(21 - 9:10am, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(19 - 9:05am, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(5 - 8:55am, Nov 23)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(13 - 8:53am, Nov 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(101 - 8:37am, Nov 23)
Last: Scott Lange

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(29 - 8:20am, Nov 23)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(13 - 3:52am, Nov 23)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(966 - 2:27am, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

Page rendered in 0.9633 seconds
53 querie(s) executed