bullets13

    again, it's cool that people disagree with them, protest them, discriminate against them, fight to deny them individual rights. but when they protest back, they're "The Gay Mafia".

    Huh? I'm saying that the article written was long on opinion and short on verifiable fact. I have no idea what you are talking about.

    ok. i read it. it did exactly what i said it did.

Oh cool, i didn't know you'd changed your stance on them getting married, couples insurance rights, etc... or being substitute teachers in lumberton, for that matter.  but i'm glad to hear you've come around.  and i know you'll never be convinced to believe this, but if Gays and Lesbians were treated the same as everyone else, they wouldn't have the need to gang up on their opponents and "bully" those who have been discriminating against them for decades. All in all, though, i'm not surprised that you think these guys protesting about things you disagree with is fine and dandy, but others who disagree with THEM is just "typical liberal bully gay mafia" stuff.

I'm going to call at least some bit of BS here.  I'm reading it (the fox article, only, of course), and this looks more like something Western Journalism would come up with.     The justice department is supposedly encouraged to add Boko Haram to a list of terrorist groups in 2011 (no month named, so could even be late in the year) but the first documented encouragement in the article comes closer to halfway through 2012.  after some research by the justice department, in June 2012 they add three high ranking members of the group to the list.   They then did some research and some consultation with the Nigerian government, and added the entire group in 2013.    After all of the 2011 claims at the beginning of the article, a letter is cited, but it wasn't written until March 30, 2012.  and less than 2 1/2 months later the designation had been made on leaders of the group.  That's a far cry from all of the "resisting and blocking" that the article claims.  There's also another link to another letter, but it too was written in 2012.   The only "evidence" that there was a push back in 2011 by conservatives offered up in the article is a quote from Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pen.  That's it.  No links, no documents.  No nothing.  Just a weak quote about a delay, that doesn't even mention blocking or resisting, as the strong opening of this piece claims.   Another source for this piece:  An unnamed former US official, VIA the daily beast.  Wow, I'd take that to the bank for sure.   The final source: Timothy Furnish, who in this piece is referred to as "an author and an islamic scholar".  while both of those are true, they fail to mention he's an author for a site called "Family Security Matters", which would be akin to Huffington Post using a source as an expert because he's an author and a scholar, but they you find out the author is an author for Right Wing Watch.      I have no doubt that there was some delay in getting this thing done, but when does the government, right OR left, act quickly on anything?

I love how when the right gets criticized for being intolerant, their only response is "but they're not being tolerant of us being intolerant!"

were you the one i made the bet on about tebow?

I just don't care for the guy. All of the flaunting of public partying, the legal problems, taunting opponents, cockiness, blatant rule breaking and subsequent lack of a punishment, etc. add to that all of the fans that act like he's a choirboy and it gets a little old. His personality, or at least the one he's chosen to show on TV and social media just rubs me the wrong way. Add to that his sometimes questionable decision making and fly by the seat of his pants play on the field, combined with his fairly small stature, and I don't think he's the sure bet that everyone thinks he is. None of that takes away from the fact that he's an electrifying playmaker, and a polarizing figure that by merely being in it has made the nfl draft, which is usually a fairly boring affair, the biggest news story of the week.

He definitely has the "it" factor. Heck, he's the reason this is the first draft I've taken more than just a passing interest in in years.

I'd put him in the same category as Manziel. Could be a home run, could be a bust.

I've seen how he carries himself on and off the field. I'm sure he's a real likeable guy, but that doesn't change the perception of him that his own actions and behavior has created. If he'd been picked first they probably would've had to let him wear the big blowup helmet that the players run through before the game. ;)

And there you have it.

I'll say this... A little bit of humble pie might go a long way to making JFF a better football player. Am I the only one that could see him having trouble fitting his huge head into a helmet if his ego got further inflated by being drafted in the top three? Immediately learning that he's not the best thing out there might help ensure that he works hard to try and fit into whatever scheme on whatever team he ends up on.

Heard an nfl insider talking about him being possibly the best of them all, able to play anywhere on the line. Good value pick for the boys

God I hope not

Heard on Mike and Mike today that in the seven Dallas losses that romo started last year he had 17 TDs and 3 INTs. I would say that he's not the problem.

I guess if the National Republican Congressional Comittee is made up of rogue republicans...

And NOTB, there's a difference between firing and NOT HIRING someone. It's a lot tougher once someone has a job and proves they can perform it. Before you hire you can use the old "there was someone else I felt was more qualified" argument.

Is this gay mafia thing a real term the right is using?

To get back on topic, I know nothing of Gowdy, but i like that this quote is attributed to him:  Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, who has been named as the chairman of a special committee to investigate Benghazi, said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Wednesday that Republicans should stop using the attacks in asks for cash. “I have never sought to raise a single penny on the backs of four murdered Americans,” he said.   IMO it's in extremely poor taste that some on the far right are using Benghazi as a rallying cry to solicit donations.

it's all good, bud.  BTW, i am pro-gay rights.  And while i respect these guy's rights to protest homosexuality and abortion, i also respect HGTV's right to protest their protests by not giving them a contract.  It's kind of a twisted issue when you really dig into it. 

it's a tough issue.  it doesn't feel the same to me.  maybe not comparing apples to oranges, but at least comparing green apples to red apples.    let me put another hypothetical to you... if i am a white boss, i should not discriminate against someone because they are black in the hiring process.  but that being said, shouldn't i still be alright discriminating against someone who openly supported white supremacist groups?  or the same black guy, if he says he hates white people?  can i then not hire him, even though it's his right to hate white people? 

Nope, i don't.  But had the show been airing on foxnews, and they were a part of Occupy Wall Street, i think the same result would've taken place.  Hollywood is very liberal.  It should come as no surprise that their views and actions were considered offensive by enough of the higher ups at HGTV that they lost their show. 

because their views clearly don't align with HGTV, who then chose to let them go.  HGTV's choice.  Being a member of the militant right (my term for the farthest outer fringes) isn't near the positive career move that it used to be.

I doubt it.  HGTV has a right to hire whoever they want and run which ever TV shows they want.  If it was found that the brothers had their "rights" violated by this, then you and I could tape a show in Smitty's garage and then start suing networks for violating our rights by not playing it.