Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
You are a pompous, thick-headed idiot. Didn't contradict myself at all. His not being offered a 10 day contract prior to day was related to being gay. For you to suggest that it played no factor at all is disingenuous. If he was hugely talented would he played earlier? Of course. But that's not contradictory. You have no capacity for nuance in a discussion. -
You liberals just can't admit when you wrong even when the numbers prove in black and white that you are. The only pompous thick-headed idiot is you Perspective. The guy had talent enough to play 12 years in the NBA, but at age 35 that talent isn't enough to continue to compete against younger equally talented athletes. Don't you get that, Perspective? It happens to all athletes eventually, but I guess that only Jason Collins is currently able to use his sexual orientation as an excuse for what is a natural decline in athleticism. And only liberals would argue that it is anything but what it is, an age related decline in athleticism.Originally posted by perspective View PostComment
-
How can you be so pathetically blind. I don't care how good or not good he is. I'm not debating that. I'm debating why this is happening NOW. And for you to act like no NBA teams have been sqeaumish about taking a gay player you are just insane. I'm going to tell you exactly what happened and how the timing makes sense. This is coming DIRECTLY on the heels of the Michael Sam story. The NBA does not want the NFL out too far ahead in terms of dealing with the issue. The NBA has a new commissioner. He put out feelers to see what NBA teams might have a need and might be willing to take the step. The league found a willing partner in the Nets, perhaps partly because of what you said earlier (a connection to Kidd). But to act like his sexuality had nothing to do with how the past year has played out is just thick-headed.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
The left has definitely jumped the shark.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the*Journal of Medical Ethics:
[W]hen circumstances occurafter birth*such that they would have justified abortion, what we call*after-birth abortion*should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.
Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service::
Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...anticide_.htmlComment
-
-
Yes we know...abortion...abortion...gays...jayz..SNAP...O bamaphone...contraception.....Comment
-
talking soccer
Note that one cannot discern a point being made in all that....it called word salad....a neurologist might help...Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
can so so much as articulate a point to all that verbal diarrhea in one sentenceComment
-
You are still digging aren't you/ Now you are going to TRY to claim Ted Nugent is a liberal?Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Tee hee. Let's look at words right from his mouth...
The only place THAT sounds liberal is in a deranged teabag brain.Only a Fedzillacrat could possibly think raising taxes on the wealthy could accomplish anything toward restoring sanity in the financial insane asylum known as our federal government.
Dear Nutbag,We can’t keep throwing good money after bad and expect different results. What we need is a wholesale, top-to-bottom assessment of the federal government, and then we need to slash and burn all Fedzilla departments, agencies and offices that are not constitutionally required or deemed vital. This should be fundamental before any deals are cut regarding new taxes.
The three sacred entitlement cows in the room that no politician wants to poke are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A blinding statement of the obvious is that we are never going to get our financial house in order until these sacred entitlement cows are not only poked, but slaughtered. Until the slaughter is over, everything else is just taxation window dressing.
I realize you are cornered like a wounded aninmal but in what parallel universe is the nugent statemnt above "just like a liberal"?
Do you realize how much we laugh at your juvenile nonsense?
Imagine if these statements by Nugent sound "liberal" to the resident teabagger, what does that say about his politics?Let’s also stop the insanity by suspending the right to vote of any American who is on welfare. Once they get off welfare and are self-sustaining, they get their right to vote restored. No American on welfare should have the right to vote for tax increases on those Americans who are working and paying taxes to support them. That’s insane.
Guess we should all be afraid if they were able to thrwo aside their walkers.....Comment
-
Wow. JUst wow. I dont know exactly what you are saying but it seems something like this....Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Jews are very well educated and as a result they are among the wealthiest of Americans.
Ultra rich people support the Democratic party...or at least the ultra rich people that are jews.
Do I have you corr4ect? is there a point to all of that other than giving us all the feeling that if we scratched around we would find you have a lot of issues with Jews...just as you do with blacks and women who have the nonsensical (to you) idea that they should control their own reproductive decisions?
You can't help it...you cannot contain your "issues"Comment
-
Your concern for Oprah is touching...it really is....Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/kobe-br...034826643.html
Apparently someone as close to the game as Kobe Bryant thinks it is a big deal. I guess there are some people who are just doomed to never concede anything and to never appreciate anyone else (unless it is some example they exploit for their own agenda).Comment
-
Actually I think that is an illustration of conservative logic.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
LIBERAL LOGIC Part 2Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
She can't take an aspirin at school without parental permission and a doctor's note, but she can have an abortion on her own.Comment
-
"Let’s confront another inconvenient truth: America’s major political parties aren’t serious about meaningful diversity either.*Democrats have done little for blacks in decades that has resulted ingful and measurable results, all while pocketing their votes. Republicans have fumbled at nearly every opportunity to make significant inroads in communities of color because, with few exceptions, they simply don’t know how to effectively communicate a compelling vision.
Since the 1960s, blacks have clung to the Democratic Party—the same party that imposed segregation and fought passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Democrats have created the myth that Republicans have sought to inhibit the progress of blacks at every turn, a fiction that Republicans have been unable to combat due to their inability to communicate effectively.
Critics will rebut this assertion with the charge that it was Southern Democrats who largely sought to block the civil-rights programs—many of whom would change their allegiance to the Republican Party. Fair enough. This point I will grudgingly concede.However, it was not the Party of Lincoln that illegally wiretapped the phone of Martin Luther King, Jr.; we have then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to thank for that. It was the Party of Lincoln that found enough votes to propel the Great Society programs over the finish line to deliver victory for President Lyndon B. Johnson, who himself a Southern Democrat, infamously declared in regard to these measures: “I’ll have those n-----s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
For all the trillions of dollars spent to ameliorate poverty, provide job training and assistance during economic downturns, the unemployment rate for blacks has remained much the same for the past 50 years. In a powerful report published this year by the Economic Policy Institute, author Algernon Austin notes: “…The average unemployment rate for blacks over the past 50 years, at 11.6 percent, is considerably higher than the average rate during recessions of 6.7 percent.” Even worse, Austin noted that over the last 50 years, the black unemployment rate remained at a level either even or higher*than during a typical recession.The fact that black unemployment in America rose from 13.4 percent to 14.3 percent in October 2012 and President Obama still received 93 percent of the black vote tells you Democrats aren’t worried about losing this key bloc, despite little meaningful progress on unemployment or upward mobility.Decades of programs focused on wealth distribution and government dependency have largely proven ineffective in enacting significant change to the upward mobility of many communities of color.
While Obama’s Department of Justice is busy suing Louisiana in an attempt to deny the ability of largely poor black children to escape failing schools under the rubric of diversity, more than half of black men without a high-school diploma are unemployed today. This situation will not improve until black children are not castigated for “acting white” by trying to learn in school. And in case you were wondering, both the attorney general and the president send their children to private school.
Despite all the cries of Democrats that Republicans are seeking to disenfranchise black voters by imposing strict voter-ID requirements, the number of blacks who voted in states such as Indiana and Georgia after voter-ID laws were imposed*increased, rather than declined.The paternalistic notion that blacks are not capable of obtaining an ID tells you plenty about what many Democrats think of blacks in the 21st*century. Given that one cannot board a train, plane, purchase
alcohol, or enter Eric Holder’s Department of Justice without an ID, I suspect
ulterior motives may be at play, an approach more about keeping and obtaining
power at whatever the cost."
- Ron Christie, The Daily BeastComment
-
Regardless of what Kobe thinks, do you think they'll resign him, Perspective, if he continues with these kinds of stats?Originally posted by perspective View Post
"Jason Collins made his season debut for the Nets on Sunday with no points, two rebounds, one steal and two turnovers in 11 minutes."Comment
Comment