bullets13

    Should the media be held to the same standards as Christians? I would hardly think so, unless we're going to require members of the media to all be Christians, or have a religion-run media.

I read PAMs post after I wrote mine, and obviously I agree with it

While I don't agree with Obama singling out a player to congratulate him, I do not take this as Obama not calling tebow because of religious reasons. I'd guess that probably 75% of NFL players profess to be Christians, and while few if any are as outspoken about it as Tebow (there are likely as some as serious about it as him who just don't get the exposure tebow does), to call him for that reason would not make sense. Whether you agree with it or not, Sam is a pioneer in the sport. I clearly believe this is a publicity gimmick by Obama, but I don't see it as anything more malicious than that.

I do feel that if the banning ever starts, it will be difficult to enforce. What with the majority of military and law enforcement sharing your and my views on the subject and all...

I agreed with you until the last line. I feel that Tebow was much more the media darling. Regardless of how you feel about Sam, what's happening with him IS big news, whether you support him or disagree with him. Tebow got lots of coverage when he wasn't doing anything, when he was, when he lost, when he won. Sam was brief news when he said he was gay, and will be brief news now. There will be coverage about him, but nothing to the magnitude that tebow got. I also believe that if Sam sucks, but if he still gets playing time, he'll have the same detractors that Tebow did. Part of what made tebow so polarizing was that he sucked, but still had a large core group of supporters who insisted he could do no wrong. While Sam will also get a similar support, albeit from a very different group, if he doesn't perform the pundits will criticise him, just like they did tebow.

Not since one innocent person was accidently hit with the "high capacity" can. That one poor guy is proof we need cans capable of holding no more than 10 ounces.

    I'll be happy to own that. I'll also point out that Tebow was a major news story for like 8 months. Sam was major for about a week when he came out of the closet, and has pretty much been an afterthought since, and now has been back in the spotlight for a couple of days... if he's still the lead on EVERY episode of Sportscenter in 6 months, I'll agree that his amount of unwarranted attention will have matched Tebow's. It's also worth noting that Sam was the SEC (you know the defense capital of the world) Defensive MVP this past season. So I'm curious about something... Tebow clearly got drafted earlier than he should've because of his squeakly clean image. Did Michael Sam fall because of his issues? In your reply that I quoted here, you mention that some said Tebow got too much attention for being a Christian (which I agree that this happened, and i also agree it was true). But Aledo said that Tebow was "constantly bashed for being a Christian", which is a total laugher, considering had he not had the image he had he never would've been a story (or a starter) to begin with, and while being the least talented QB in the league, was the most popular and most reported-upon. You replied "Good point" to Aledo's post, which is why i quoted your reply when disputing the accusation that Tebow was "constantly bashed for being a Christian". There were some apologists for Tebow, who, when the Bronco's defense was going nuts against an amazingly fortuitous schedule of backup after backup QB and RB, would give him all the credit for completing 7-17 passes for 89 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT, and rushing 25 times for 60 yards, in what would somehow end up a 10-7 win for the Broncos. Name any other player in the league that has gotten that sort of leeway. To compare Sam to Tebow is not fair at all, at least until he attains the status of being a player who can underperform incredibly and still get all the credit for his team's success and be the lead on sportcenter every evening.

    I'm not shocked at all that this is how you remember that whole issue going. It's completely inaccurate, but it fits the fairy tale better than the truth. Tebow was bashed on here by a few of us because of his play. Then others would claim we were doing so because he was a Christian. Then he'd have another 72-yard passing day, and we'd bash him again. Then more accusations would come out about us bashing him for being a Christian. what a crock.

    i think it's funny that people are still pretending that Tebow got bashed for being Christian. Obviously there were a few nutters, but nothing like what his biggest supporters pretend happened ever even came close to actually happening. The criticism Sam has gotten from many people is what Tebow's fans pretend that he got. Tebow got criticized as a QB, and his fans blamed it on his Christianity, not his 150 yards a game of total offense. Let Tebow go. There's a reason he's not on a roster right now, and it's not his Christian views. He was terrible. Great guy, awful quarterback.

I just keep wasp spray by the bed. the chain email i read said it was definitely effective against attackers... ;) but i hear they're banning the spray that travels 20 ft. Too dangerous. Obama is pushing through legislation that will limit us to only purchasing wasp spray that will shoot out ten feet.

    having read through this thread, I'm SHOCKED you and Big Girl weren't called by the prosecution with all of the facts you apparently know in this case.

Damning numbers. Hopefully the republicans can find someone to beat Hillary or it will keep going in the same direction.

I'll say this, I agree that it should not be sensationalized. But it's also important to remember that Michael Sam is not being filmed on hundreds of different occasions kissing his boyfriend. He did so once, in what was probably the happiest moment of his life, just as hundreds if not thousands of young men have done before in the exact same situation. The media, and not the young man, have chosen to plaster this all over the news. This is not an "in your face" act by Sam. He did something we all do with our significant others when we get great news. The media has chosen to show it over and over, not Michael Sam.

    I always thought race played a big part of his initial suspicion. which still doesn't change the fact that there is ZERO evidence of him attacking Martin, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence showing that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman. So if you have ZERO evidence contradicting what Zimmerman said, plus circumstantial evidence that appears to coincide with what Zimmerman said, you cannot find him guilty.

   i guess he wanted 15 more...

    on top of that, many more rifle murders are committed with rifles made for hunting than the rifles that some people claim are made "only for killing".

You still haven't given a realistic reason to ban them. Stats have been given as to why banning them will have no effect. You also have not addressed those stats.

A semi-auto pistol and a semi-auto rifle both fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Theoretically, you should be able to pull the trigger at the same speed on either. That being said, it is much easier to rapidly and accurately fire a pistol at close range than a rifle. Yes, a rifle magazine holds more rounds, but I'm no expert marksman and I can change a pistol magazine in under 3 seconds and it's much easier to reaquire a target with a pistol than a rifle when your target is close. The whole "assault rifle" argument is completely off the mark, with tvc's stats on murders with semi-auto high capacity rifles being all any sane person should need to see to understand this. There are MILLIONS of them in the US, but they kill an average of less than 50 people a year. 99.6% of gun murders occur from other types of guns. I'm still having trouble understanding what you think an "assault rifle" (made up term, by the way) ban will actually accomplish.

I'm not a big fan of his on any particular issues with the exception of a couple of social issues. But I prefer to see factual articles, especially from legitimate news sources. This story was full of holes and misdirection.

    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!"