The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

An awful lot of your typical bulls*** e.g. weird broadly anti-Christian stuff you're assigning to me, Your whole third point. You seem to be incapable of a good faith understanding of a position you don't agree with.

 

The anti-Christian stuff was called an analogy. You bring those into debates from time to time.

 

The third point is exactly what you told me at the start of this. "imagined issues" I believe is the phrase you used.

 

edit: and repeatedly putting "distractions" in quotes.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

except it isnt a lie about him being a distraction. If it wasnt going to be a distraction, then the Rams wouldnt have told Sam to not do the Oprah documentary. Just like AJ McCarron running around doing a reality show with his girlfriend can be a distraction, especially for a rookie.

But dungy didn't say he wouldn't draft him because he was going to do an I'll-advised reality show that is obvious personal distraction. It was more generally his being gay that was an unacceptable distraction for him.

 

Plenty of players have all sorts of personal distractions, but only "being gay" is a bridge too far for some.

[Jenksismyhero]

But dungy didn't say he wouldn't draft him because he was going to do an I'll-advised reality show that is obvious personal distraction. It was more generally his being gay that was an unacceptable distraction for him.

Plenty of players have all sorts of personal distractions, but only "being gay" is a bridge too far for some.

 

 

And plenty of players are dropped once the distraction overcomes their value on the field.

 

[farmteam]

But dungy didn't say he wouldn't draft him because he was going to do an I'll-advised reality show that is obvious personal distraction. It was more generally his being gay that was an unacceptable distraction for him.

 

Plenty of players have all sorts of personal distractions, but only "being gay" is a bridge too far for some.

Perhaps you should define your definition of "distraction." Is it just other players being uncomfortable in the locker room? Media presence? Any distraction that Sam doesn't personally or intentionally create?

[StrangeSox]

The anti-Christian stuff was called an analogy. You bring those into debates from time to time.

 

The third point is exactly what you told me at the start of this. "imagined issues" I believe is the phrase you used.

 

edit: and repeatedly putting "distractions" in quotes.

It wasn't an analogy, you threw in some weak sarcastic line about all Christians being wackos and bigots or something. That's a way of assigning that dumb position to me.

 

The third point isn't what I've been saying but knock yourself out if that's the interpretation that allows you to keep justifying am argument against drafting gay players.

Edited July 22, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

And what if Sam said no, I'm doing the show?

I'm not sure what level on control a team can exercise over a player, but that'd show a pretty poor decision making process on his part. If it truly was a distraction, it'd show on the field and he'd struggle to make the team.

[zenryan]

But dungy didn't say he wouldn't draft him because he was going to do an I'll-advised reality show that is obvious personal distraction. It was more generally his being gay that was an unacceptable distraction for him.

 

Plenty of players have all sorts of personal distractions, but only "being gay" is a bridge too far for some.

 

 

 

 

"I wouldn't have taken him," said Dungy, now an NFL analyst for NBC. "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."

 

 

Now look who is putting words in other's mouths. Dungy actually said "deal with all of it", which is probably meaning the distractions outside of football(media,reality shows). Nowhere does he say him being gay was the unacceptable distraction yet you dont mind attaching that to him which isnt surprising since you like throwing the bigot card around so easily.

 

[StrangeSox]

Perhaps you should define your definition of "distraction." Is it just other players being uncomfortable in the locker room? Media presence? Any distraction that Sam doesn't personally or intentionally create?

Well in Sam's case it seems to be defined as anything that could be used as am excuse for people who want continue exclude openly gay players.

 

It's not my criteria for discriminating, so it's not mine to define.

[StrangeSox]

"I wouldn't have taken him," said Dungy, now an NFL analyst for NBC. "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."

 

 

Now look who is putting words in other's mouths. Dungy actually said "deal with all of it", which is probably meaning the distractions outside of football(media,reality shows). Nowhere does he say him being gay was the unacceptable distraction yet you dont mind attaching that to him which isnt surprising since you like throwing the bigot card around so easily.

You might be shocked to learn that my comments are informed by knowledge of his earlier, explicit anti-gay statements.

[StrangeSox]

So call the owners that took that on courageous. Don't call the others racist because they didn't. That's bulls*** logic.

This is really the perfect encapsulation of how wrong your position is. Individual Mlb managers and owners weren't racist for propagating a system that deliberately and openly excluded black players.

 

 

[zenryan]

You might be shocked to learn that my comments are informed by knowledge of his earlier, explicit anti-gay statements.

 

 

well your knowledge cant be that great since he told Bob Costas that he'd have a gay player if he was good enough.

 

 

 

[Jake]

well your knowledge cant be that great since he told Bob Costas that he'd have a gay player if he was good enough.

 

Ahh, so the bar is just higher for gay folks. Hey, at least there's a bar!

[farmteam]

We weren't the only ones talking about Tony Dungy last night

[Jenksismyhero]

This is really the perfect encapsulation of how wrong your position is. Individual Mlb managers and owners weren't racist for propagating a system that deliberately and openly excluded black players.

 

This would be a better argument if in the last few years NFL owners were open about not wanting a gay player. I can't think of any that have openly excluded them the same way as MLB owners given that Sam is the first to come out.

 

As it stands you're finding 31 owners guilty (and anyone else who dares consider the consequences of drafting Sam in addition to his football skills) for failing to act in the way you want them to act.

 

I've said I can understand why Dungy is being criticized for his comments given his history, but I still think you can be an LGBT/Sam supporter and still not want to draft him because of everything that comes with it. That doesn't make you a bigot, coward, or a terrible person. It makes you someone who just doesn't want to deal with something that you have absolutely no obligation to deal with if you don't want to.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/...l-sam-comments/

 

[Editor's note: In response to quotes that appeared in Monday's Tampa Tribune, Tony Dungy has released a statement. The full content of it appears below.]

 

On Monday afternoon while on vacation with my family, I was quite surprised to read excerpts from an interview I gave several weeks ago related to this year’s NFL Draft, and I feel compelled to clarify those remarks.

 

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. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.

 

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.

 

I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.

 

I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.

 

The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.

 

What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

 

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.

 

I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.

 

My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.

[StrangeSox]

Because of the 'personal' nature of it. Unfortunately even some republicans get in on that now, although I think more from a 'they do it, we should too' aspect. Clinton's took this mode into turbo. Remember the 'bimbo squads'? Bill wasn't at fault because these bimbos fell on his dick, no. They must be destroyed! Just look at any conservative politician that even looks like they might be interested in running for higher office. The media starts digging then. How many days were spent in the media cycles on 'bridgegate'? more than Bengazi, for sure. Doesn't make either right. This guy is an asshole for trying to make this personal, to destroy her, to make her a 'target' as he says. Seriously dude, he didn't f*** your wife, kill your mom and piss on your dog. She legally hunted a lion. I get that you don't like that. I don't get the level of hatred towards her from him especially, as he wants to be a representative of a group of people in this country.

Another example of the personal nature of liberal politics!!!

 

http://centraloregoncoastnow.com/2014/07/2...ned-parenthood/

[Jenksismyhero]

So SS, are you a bigot, terrible person, coward, etc. if you feel uncomfortable kissing another man?

 

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26104240/true...play-a-gay-part

 

“It’s unfortunate that an actor today would feel uncomfortable playing gay, especially on a program that has always put LGBT characters front and center,” Stacy Lambe, Associate Editor for the gay and lesbian-focused OUT Magazine said. “But Nelsan Ellis and Nathan Parsons are proof that Luke Grimes is not the norm. Grimes is the exception.”

 

According to some media and entertainment industryexperts, being an exception not willing to have a same-sex escapades on the screen may have career consequences. Larry Gross, a professor specializing in LGBT and TV issues at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism said that in today’s climate “refusing to play a bisexual role is not a good career move.”

 

“It’s pretty clear Luke will suffer as a result. Hollywood will either say he was unprofessional or a phobe of some sort,” added Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center. “It is his prerogative, but he will suffer for it.”

[Jake]

Feeling uncomfortable and not refusing to do it are two different things. I had to kiss a girl who I found profoundly...icky...for a school play. I felt highly uncomfortable. I did it, though

[StrangeSox]

I'm more curious how jenks thinks he can get from what I've said about Dungy to that question he's asking me.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm more curious how jenks thinks he can get from what I've said about Dungy to that question he's asking me.

 

I just want to know where you draw the line.

[Jenksismyhero]

Feeling uncomfortable and not refusing to do it are two different things. I had to kiss a girl who I found profoundly...icky...for a school play. I felt highly uncomfortable. I did it, though

 

I just want to know if it's "wrong" to be uncomfortable playing a gay character and not wanting to kiss another guy. It seems like the people quoted in the article DID think that was wrong and not "normal," and there's clearly going to be a mark on his resume because of it. To me, that's pretty f***ed up that an actor is uncomfortable doing something and his career is now worse off because of it.

 

[Balta1701]

I just want to know if it's "wrong" to be uncomfortable playing a gay character and not wanting to kiss another guy. It seems like the people quoted in the article DID think that was wrong and not "normal," and there's clearly going to be a mark on his resume because of it. To me, that's pretty f***ed up that an actor is uncomfortable doing something and his career is now worse off because of it.

If a guy auditioned for a role and then refused to do the things required of that role after being offered the role...that would be a good reason to have a career black mark, because why are you auditioning for a role if you won't do the role?

[Jenksismyhero]

If a guy auditioned for a role and then refused to do the things required of that role after being offered the role...that would be a good reason to have a career black mark, because why are you auditioning for a role if you won't do the role?

 

That would make sense, although it doesn't sound like he was aware what he had to do. I'm sure a porn actress realizes she's about to do porn but she could reasonably quit if she doesn't feel comfortable doing something that she wasn't told about when she agreed to do it. We wouldn't say she's "not normal" and that she's going to have difficulty finding work in the future because she didn't want to do a DP scene. It'd be one thing if she would find difficulty doing that particular type of porn in the future, but not porn altogether.

 

 

 

 

[Jake]

Except he's not getting f***ed by somebody, he's being asked to kiss somebody. It's his right to not do it, but given how small of a request it is and the iffy reasoning for feeling weird about it, it's going to be difficult to sign him up to a series in the future. Maybe movies where he can know the ins and outs of his role and not jump ship as his character develops and he starts to feel weird

[Jake]

And nobody seems to bat an eye when women's careers are harmed by their unwillingness to be sexualized on screen