menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Why NFL Ratings Are Sagging
Page: 6 of 11
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/14/2016 10:12 AM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Just as an aside, I've been listening to Dr Kings appearances on Meet the Press from 1965. Many of the issues of civil disobedience were discussed. One point he made is that those who practice non violent civil disobedience must be willing to face the consequences of their actions.
And the players who have participated in this have taken their consequences.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/14/2016 10:13 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Non-Violent, unless you consider the destruction of personal property non-violent. That tea was not the property of the people who looted it.
Breaking the law,yes,but still non-violent.

Also,is it "looting" if you destroy property and don't take and keep it ?

I looked up a couple of definitions and I'm not sure.
Destroying property is destroying property, it's funny how some want to justify the actions of one simply because they believed in the cause, while condemning another because they do not/did not believe in the cause.
mail
person
cbus cat fan
12/14/2016 10:37 AM
I can't imagine anyone of the liberal posters grew up in more impoverished circumstances than my family. Yet, my parents and me didn't blame anyone just worked our way out of it. I mentioned my dad being somewhat of self taught expert on the Tuskegee airmen, and my meeting them and hearing their stories was very illuminating. Never heard one of them engage in the sort of nonsense I have seen posted by some here. There is a reason Eldrige Cleaver left militancy and became a conservative. It just doesn't work. He also said many militants were not only disrespecting Dr. King, but also the Black Church who spawned the Civil Rights Movement. Dr Alveda King, Dr. Ben Carson and Sheriff David Clarke have made similar statements. Check out what they have to say about Colin Kaepernick.

You know one of the more illuminating things about this discussion is not the disagreements, but the arrogance and smugness put out by some directed at me and others. The reason you attack us is that liberalism and your great hope Socialism has and never will work, so you turn your elitist barbs at us trying to show off your smarts. When you are called out on it, you delve into the mantra such as; white middle class person just who doesn't understand, or the Ronald Reagan quotes I have used weren't really originated by Ronald Reagan, and still others claim that I didn't really understand the links I have posted or even the Bill of Rights. Some of you truly are a living parody which brings us to the Saturday Night skit about the Liberal Bubble. Who knows maybe some of you guys may be in there!
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-bubble/3...
mail
person
Bcat2
12/14/2016 10:37 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Just as an aside, I've been listening to Dr Kings appearances on Meet the Press from 1965. Many of the issues of civil disobedience were discussed. One point he made is that those who practice non violent civil disobedience must be willing to face the consequences of their actions.
And the players who have participated in this have taken their consequences.
Non-violent civil disobedience is the calm eye of the storm, with, violent winds circling creating unintended consequences or collateral damage, if you please. In Baltimore after a major pharmaceutical chain, CVS, has to rebuild stores in Baltimore. What does that do to any positive momentum toward new investment in these areas. Businesses, some black owned, looted in Ferguson, MO. ???? How is Ferguson doing today?
mail
person
Robert Fox
12/14/2016 10:47 AM
cbus cat fan wrote:expand_more
Never seen that before. Good stuff!
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/14/2016 10:53 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Non-Violent, unless you consider the destruction of personal property non-violent. That tea was not the property of the people who looted it.
Breaking the law,yes,but still non-violent.

Also,is it "looting" if you destroy property and don't take and keep it ?

I looked up a couple of definitions and I'm not sure.
Destroying property is destroying property, it's funny how some want to justify the actions of one simply because they believed in the cause, while condemning another because they do not/did not believe in the cause.
I don't understand your comment.

I said that the participants in the Boston Tea Party broke the law,but that they did it non-violently.
I never said what they did was,at that time,justified.

I did question whether,by definition,the Boston Tea Party was "looting" since they destroyed and did not take the tea.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/14/2016 11:21 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Non-Violent, unless you consider the destruction of personal property non-violent. That tea was not the property of the people who looted it.
Breaking the law,yes,but still non-violent.

Also,is it "looting" if you destroy property and don't take and keep it ?

I looked up a couple of definitions and I'm not sure.
Destroying property is destroying property, it's funny how some want to justify the actions of one simply because they believed in the cause, while condemning another because they do not/did not believe in the cause.
I don't understand your comment.

I said that the participants in the Boston Tea Party broke the law,but that they did it non-violently.
I never said what they did was,at that time,justified.

I did question whether,by definition,the Boston Tea Party was "looting" since they destroyed and did not take the tea.
How is destroying property non-violent? By definition, if I break things, I am being violent. Non-violent is sitting at the lunch counter, taking over a street, sitting down in the Dean's office. By destroying property, I am in effect is violent by legal definition.
mail
person
Robert Fox
12/14/2016 11:24 AM
Does vandalism = violence?
mail
person
bobcatsquared
12/14/2016 11:54 AM
cbus cat fan wrote:expand_more
You know one of the more illuminating things about this discussion is not the disagreements, but the arrogance and smugness put out by some directed at me and others.
A disagreement being discussed between the liberals and cbus cat fan and it's the mean-spirited and ignorant liberals who are being arrogant and smug. An interesting viewpoint, I'd say.
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/14/2016 12:03 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Non-Violent, unless you consider the destruction of personal property non-violent. That tea was not the property of the people who looted it.
Breaking the law,yes,but still non-violent.

Also,is it "looting" if you destroy property and don't take and keep it ?

I looked up a couple of definitions and I'm not sure.
Destroying property is destroying property, it's funny how some want to justify the actions of one simply because they believed in the cause, while condemning another because they do not/did not believe in the cause.
I don't understand your comment.

I said that the participants in the Boston Tea Party broke the law,but that they did it non-violently.
I never said what they did was,at that time,justified.

I did question whether,by definition,the Boston Tea Party was "looting" since they destroyed and did not take the tea.
How is destroying property non-violent? By definition, if I break things, I am being violent. Non-violent is sitting at the lunch counter, taking over a street, sitting down in the Dean's office. By destroying property, I am in effect is violent by legal definition.
The definition of "violent" is,according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Displaying or proceeding from extreme physical force or rough action".

By that definition, the Boston Tea Party was non-violent.

In fact,one book I read about the American Revolution,sorry I don't remember the title, talked about a "jovial" atmosphere.

Another definition of "violent" refers to the use of physical force with the intent to hurt,damage or kill someone or something.

I guess you could stretch "physical force" to picking up a box of tea and throwing it into the water did damage it.

But I don't think most people,including members of the Tea Party,would call that "violent".
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/14/2016 12:08 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Non-Violent, unless you consider the destruction of personal property non-violent. That tea was not the property of the people who looted it.
Breaking the law,yes,but still non-violent.

Also,is it "looting" if you destroy property and don't take and keep it ?

I looked up a couple of definitions and I'm not sure.
Destroying property is destroying property, it's funny how some want to justify the actions of one simply because they believed in the cause, while condemning another because they do not/did not believe in the cause.
I don't understand your comment.

I said that the participants in the Boston Tea Party broke the law,but that they did it non-violently.
I never said what they did was,at that time,justified.

I did question whether,by definition,the Boston Tea Party was "looting" since they destroyed and did not take the tea.
How is destroying property non-violent? By definition, if I break things, I am being violent. Non-violent is sitting at the lunch counter, taking over a street, sitting down in the Dean's office. By destroying property, I am in effect is violent by legal definition.
The definition of "violent" is,according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Displaying or proceeding from extreme physical force or rough action".

By that definition, the Boston Tea Party was non-violent.

In fact,one book I read about the American Revolution,sorry I don't remember the title, talked about a "jovial" atmosphere.

Another definition of "violent" refers to the use of physical force with the intent to hurt,damage or kill someone or something.

I guess you could stretch "physical force" to picking up a box of tea and throwing it into the water did damage it.

But I don't think most people,including members of the Tea Party,would call that "violent".
Try using legal definitions and not Webster's definitions. Destruction can certainly be classified as "violent" in many states, it can also be considered a hate crime.

But back to the subject, why do you keep trying to state that players do NOT have the right to social protest by not standing for the National Anthem? Because you keep trying to argue a point that has been proven by the SCOTUS and the lower courts across the country.
Last Edited: 12/14/2016 12:13:41 PM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/14/2016 12:09 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
You know one of the more illuminating things about this discussion is not the disagreements, but the arrogance and smugness put out by some directed at me and others.
A disagreement being discussed between the liberals and cbus cat fan and it's the mean-spirited and ignorant liberals who are being arrogant and smug. An interesting viewpoint, I'd say.
And what's even more amazing is that by upholding ones rights to peacefully protest you are a liberal? Isn't it the conservatives that want the Constitution to be upheld? Or does that only apply to when they feel its in their best interest?
mail
OhioCatFan
12/14/2016 12:31 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
You know one of the more illuminating things about this discussion is not the disagreements, but the arrogance and smugness put out by some directed at me and others.
A disagreement being discussed between the liberals and cbus cat fan and it's the mean-spirited and ignorant liberals who are being arrogant and smug. An interesting viewpoint, I'd say.
And what's even more amazing is that by upholding ones rights to peacefully protest you are a liberal? Isn't it the conservatives that want the Constitution to be upheld? Or does that only apply to when they feel its in their best interest?
I don't recall cbus saying that one did not have a right to a peaceful protest, but I think he questioned the propriety of it and its effectiveness. Also, there is the question of the rights of the NFL owners to prohibit protests "on their dime." I do agree with cbus that to equate these protests with those of the 1960's Civil Rights movement border on the ludicrous. But, the Bill of Rights gives you the right to make an ass out of yourself in public. So go at it!
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/14/2016 12:42 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
You know one of the more illuminating things about this discussion is not the disagreements, but the arrogance and smugness put out by some directed at me and others.
A disagreement being discussed between the liberals and cbus cat fan and it's the mean-spirited and ignorant liberals who are being arrogant and smug. An interesting viewpoint, I'd say.
And what's even more amazing is that by upholding ones rights to peacefully protest you are a liberal? Isn't it the conservatives that want the Constitution to be upheld? Or does that only apply to when they feel its in their best interest?
I don't recall cbus saying that one did not have a right to a peaceful protest, but I think he questioned the propriety of it and its effectiveness. Also, there is the question of the rights of the NFL owners to prohibit protests "on their dime." I do agree with cbus that to equate these protests with those of the 1960's Civil Rights movement border on the ludicrous. But, the Bill of Rights gives you the right to make an ass out of yourself in public. So go at it!
There is no question regarding the owners ability to prohibit protest, they are private entities and have the right to set codes of conduct and standards as defined by the courts. So that is not the question, and the effectiveness and cost? well that is for the practitioner to decide.
mail
person
Alan Swank
12/14/2016 2:16 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
You know one of the more illuminating things about this discussion is not the disagreements, but the arrogance and smugness put out by some directed at me and others.
A disagreement being discussed between the liberals and cbus cat fan and it's the mean-spirited and ignorant liberals who are being arrogant and smug. An interesting viewpoint, I'd say.
Like I said, I would hate to be a student at his school or the parent of one who has to attend it. My suggestion is that he look in mirror before further posts like his most recent one.
Last Edited: 12/14/2016 2:22:16 PM by Alan Swank
mail
person
giacomo
12/14/2016 2:18 PM
Cbus, you threw the Molotov Cocktail into the crowd with your insults and insinuations about "liberals", Archie Bunker style. You continue to do so. No one here said they support Castro and all the other silly things you want to piggyback onto Kaepernick taking a knee. Most of us support his right to do so, nothing more. L.C. made some good points about what the NFL owners can do if it is hurting their product. It is really a private club and they can do what they want legally. Recall Donald Sterling getting forced to sell the Clippers. That could not happen in any other business. So, even though the 49ers owner may support him, the league could step in if they feel it's hurting their product.
mail
person
Alan Swank
12/14/2016 2:28 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
Cbus, you threw the Molotov Cocktail into the crowd with your insults and insinuations about "liberals", Archie Bunker style. You continue to do so. No one here said they support Castro and all the other silly things you want to piggyback onto Kaepernick taking a knee. Most of us support his right to do so, nothing more. L.C. made some good points about what the NFL owners can do if it is hurting their product. It is really a private club and they can do what they want legally. Recall Donald Sterling getting forced to sell the Clippers. That could not happen in any other business. So, even though the 49ers owner may support him, the league could step in if they feel it's hurting their product.
But the bigger question for this discussion - was throwing that Molotov Cocktail an act of conservative or liberal violence?
mail
DelBobcat
12/14/2016 2:29 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=rpbobcat] [QUOTE=DelBobcat] [QUOTE=rpbobcat] [QUOTE=shabamon]

Well you probably should pay attention, because BLM did condemn the violence. And how many BLM protest have you attended? How many people in this community do you converse with daily? And please do not equate BLM with those who want to loot and steal, they are not part of the same group, and the dismissal of the BLM message by falsely claiming they are inciting violence is too convenient.
DB :

1.What I said was BLM didn't condemn the chants to kill police.I never said anything about them not condemning violence.

2.I never attended a BLM event.But I have worked with blacks of my entire adult life.
Maybe its different in Philly, but, for the most part,around here,the police, a number of whom are minorities themselves,seem to work pretty well with "the community".There are exceptions of course.
Overall,there really hasn't been BLM activity,including, as I said,protesting the large number of black on black shootings in cities like Paterson.

3.If you read my post,I never dismissed the BLM based on looting and starting fires.
My comment about considering looting and starting fires as a legitimate form of protest was intentionally separated from the rest of my post because I can't say if BLM was involved or not. Don't want to paint any group with a broad brush.

I don't think anyone can say with certainty whether members of BLM were involved or not.
Again,as I said, there are bad apples in every group.

Whether any members of BLM were involved or not, doesn't change the fact that there are individuals/groups who feel that violence,including looting and burning down buildings are legitimate forms of protest.
Same with marching without permits,blocking streets,bridges and tunnels.
Breaking the law doesn't do much to generate support for a cause.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/0...

1 again. https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosebuchanan/black-lives-matter-...

1 again, again. http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-matter-protesters-chant... /

2. You should attend one. It would certainly change your perception, that I can guarantee. And there have been protests in Philly protesting the violence in city neighborhoods. I've been to them. I'm absolutely sure that is the case elsewhere too. I've seen coverage of them. I'm not sure why you think there haven't been? Isn't it more likely that you're not paying attention?

3. The efficacy of violent protest is a bigger issue than can be tackled on this board, but like you said there are always going to be bad apples taking advantage of situations. I attended Palmer Fest at OU all four years I was there. One of those years a sizable group of students decided to "riot" and start fires in the street. I can promise you that most of the people that were at Palmer Fest that year thought it was downright stupid. Those students didn't even have a cause to attach themselves to in order to justify their actions, they just let mob mentality overtake them. Yet when some (small groups) of oppressed people turn to violence we condemn it to the point that we are judging an entire movement based on the actions of the few. That's painting with a broad brush if I ever saw one. I just hope you're intellectually consistent and also condemn those criminals that took part in the Boston Tea Party.
1.The Washington Post article was written after the murder of police in New Orleans.
It doesn't change the fact that there was no condemnation of the people making the kill police chants.
In fact,there were concerns that those chants and others like them,could embolden people to attack police officers.

2."Buzzfeed" and "Snope" could hardly be considered reliable news sources.

3.If you read my posts,I never condemned the entire BLM or any other movement for the violence which took place in Baltimore and other places.
What I said was there are those who consider violence,and breaking other laws legitimate forms of protest.

4.I presume your comment about "oppressed people" refers to a specific segment of the black population,not that community as a whole.
In 2016,with a black President,black Atty.General,a former black Sec. of State,doctors,lawyers,executives, etc.I don't think "oppressed" in an appropriate term for blacks as a whole.

5.If I remember my history correctly,the Boston Tea Party was non violent.
1. The Post article shows the BLM leaders comdemn violence toward police. No BLM protestors participated in the kill the police chants so I'm not sure why BLM would renounce that? But either way they have, and continue to, denounce violence in all forms.

2. Why? The Buzzfeed article is just a compilation of tweets. Do you think they forged them? The Snopes article has links to all of the sources and, again, a compilation of tweets and primary source material. All of the stuff in both articles can be independently verified. You can't make a claim, be presented with evidence to the contrary, and then just write it off without any real reason other than it doesn't support the narrative you believe.

3. You are trying to say those people are associated with BLM. I'm merely saying they are not and they have been denounced by BLM.

4. I'm not touching this one. There is no way we'd come to any sort of understanding on this.

5. You specifically mentioned blocking traffic as unacceptable criminal behavior. All I'm saying is that if you believe that, then it is hard not to believe that the destruction of property is also unacceptable criminal behavior.
Last Edited: 12/14/2016 2:35:59 PM by DelBobcat
mail
DelBobcat
12/14/2016 2:34 PM
cbus cat fan wrote:expand_more
I can't imagine anyone of the liberal posters grew up in more impoverished circumstances than my family. Yet, my parents and me didn't blame anyone just worked our way out of it.
There you go making broad assumptions again. I grew up pretty darn poor. I'm not sure if you were more poor than me or not, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
mail
C Money
12/14/2016 2:39 PM
Soooooo, how about that bowl game coming up, huh? Ought to be a pretty good game. I see the line's moved about a point our direction since opening.

Oh hey, Toledo/App State is this Saturday. That's probably one worth watching too. Go Rockets.
mail
person
Alan Swank
12/14/2016 2:52 PM
cbus cat fan wrote:expand_more
This whole thread should be a case study in liberal nonsense run amok. It started out logically deducing the NFL's sagging ratings and then it devolved into the liberal mantra of everyone who doesn't support their views are the usual words they use to describe people who don't believe in their failing ideology. Even quotes I took from Ronald Reagan were somehow not really his quotes they were some one else's of course. Logic has always been the foe of this failed ideology.

Think about it; every quote we use in modern English could somehow be explained away as some Old English saying or old German saying which of course came from Latin which sprung from ancient Greek. The same thing happens in music, Led Zeppelin was sued for "Stairway to Heaven" and Men at Work were sued claiming they also stole the lyrics from "Down Under." Both from bands Led Zeppelin and Men at Work probably never even heard of, but forget facts these other bands had grievances. It wasn't fair that they didn't hit the big time, so in classic liberal ideology they had to take from those who have.

Some here are offended by members of the military and police being honored at football games. Yet their hero Colin Kaepernick lauded his hero Fidel Castro, who when he wasn't busy killing, torturing and jailing tens of thousands of people, took military parades and hours long speeches to a new level. When Castro took over there were more doctors in Cuba per capita than the United States, many left they saw what was coming. Now the Cuban health care system is lauded by the Left as a model for the United States when in reality it is akin to 1959 standards like so many of those old US vehicles still on the road in Havana.

This is why so many in middle America get upset about Kaepernick and those in the NFL who laud his "free speech," However, when it comes back to haunt them, the problem isn't their failed ideology it is everyone else, and they go to amazing extremes to defend their failed ideas even calling into question "quotes" so as not to keep their eyes on the failed ideology which they espouse.
Now you're delving into territory where you are clearly in over your head. The Led Zeppelin suit wasn't over lyrics but a chord progression they were alleged to have copied from the band Spirit, a group with which they shared a bill on at least one occasion. Listening to the two songs, Stairway to Heaven and Taurus, one can make a pretty good case that it was copied material although the jury after hearing expert testimony ruled otherwise.

Check it out starting at the 45 second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFHLO_2_THg
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/14/2016 3:45 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
The Post article shows the BLM leaders comdemn violence toward police. No BLM protestors participated in the kill the police chants so I'm not sure why BLM would renounce that? But either way they have, and continue to, denounce violence in all forms.

2. Why? The Buzzfeed article is just a compilation of tweets. Do you think they forged them? The Snopes article has links to all of the sources and, again, a compilation of tweets and primary source material. All of the stuff in both articles can be independently verified. You can't make a claim, be presented with evidence to the contrary, and then just write it off without any real reason other than it doesn't support the narrative you believe.

3. You are trying to say those people are associated with BLM. I'm merely saying they are not and they have been denounced by BLM.

4. I'm not touching this one. There is no way we'd come to any sort of understanding on this.

5. You specifically mentioned blocking traffic as unacceptable criminal behavior. All I'm saying is that if you believe that, then it is hard not to believe that the destruction of property is also unacceptable criminal behavior.
1.As I said,the condemnation only came after the murder of the New Orleans police officers.
There was no condemnation of the "kill police" chants when they happened.

2.Buzzfeed and Snope have an agenda,just like Brietbart.
It isn't hard to present a compilation of selective information to try to make a point.
For example,were only sympathetic Tweets shown ?
As far as buzzfeed,I never mentioned when the "pigs in a blanket" chants took place.
I only said they weren't condemned at the time.
Also,if the Buzfeed timeline is accurate,it reinforces my comment that there was no condemning of the chants anywhere near the time they took place.

3.I've never said anyone associated with BLM was involved in the violence in Baltimore and other places.
I said I don't know if any member was.
I just said that there are people who feel that violence,including burning and looting are legitimate forms of protest.

4.

5.I want to make sure I'm not misreading your post.
Do you believe that the destruction of someone else's property can be acceptable behavior when protesting something ?
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/14/2016 3:49 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
This whole thread should be a case study in liberal nonsense run amok. It started out logically deducing the NFL's sagging ratings and then it devolved into the liberal mantra of everyone who doesn't support their views are the usual words they use to describe people who don't believe in their failing ideology. Even quotes I took from Ronald Reagan were somehow not really his quotes they were some one else's of course. Logic has always been the foe of this failed ideology.

Think about it; every quote we use in modern English could somehow be explained away as some Old English saying or old German saying which of course came from Latin which sprung from ancient Greek. The same thing happens in music, Led Zeppelin was sued for "Stairway to Heaven" and Men at Work were sued claiming they also stole the lyrics from "Down Under." Both from bands Led Zeppelin and Men at Work probably never even heard of, but forget facts these other bands had grievances. It wasn't fair that they didn't hit the big time, so in classic liberal ideology they had to take from those who have.

Some here are offended by members of the military and police being honored at football games. Yet their hero Colin Kaepernick lauded his hero Fidel Castro, who when he wasn't busy killing, torturing and jailing tens of thousands of people, took military parades and hours long speeches to a new level. When Castro took over there were more doctors in Cuba per capita than the United States, many left they saw what was coming. Now the Cuban health care system is lauded by the Left as a model for the United States when in reality it is akin to 1959 standards like so many of those old US vehicles still on the road in Havana.

This is why so many in middle America get upset about Kaepernick and those in the NFL who laud his "free speech," However, when it comes back to haunt them, the problem isn't their failed ideology it is everyone else, and they go to amazing extremes to defend their failed ideas even calling into question "quotes" so as not to keep their eyes on the failed ideology which they espouse.
Now you're delving into territory where you are clearly in over your head. The Led Zeppelin suit wasn't over lyrics but a chord progression they were alleged to have copied from the band Spirit, a group with which they shared a bill on at least one occasion. Listening to the two songs, Stairway to Heaven and Taurus, one can make a pretty good case that it was copied material although the jury after hearing expert testimony ruled otherwise.

Check it out starting at the 45 second mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFHLO_2_THg
There were talking about this on one of the radio stations out her.

I doesn't seem to make any sense,but apparently the jury wasn't allowed to hear the two songs during the trial.
mail
person
Alan Swank
12/14/2016 5:22 PM
Hadn't heard that about the case RP. Back when this was about to go to the jury, I was sharing the story over dinner with my wife and played both songs back to back for her. She voted in favor of Spirit. Yes, it is a very common chord progression that even Bach used but in this case it's just too darn close if you ask me.
mail
person
cbus cat fan
12/14/2016 5:25 PM
Alan and Giacomo I came to Athens as a moderate Democrat. I lean conservative GOP now, but don't consider myself ideological, just practical looking what works and what doesn't. I feel fortunate that I have friends in the different cities I have lived and from all races, religions and social strata. It kind of comes with the territory in my business. We agree on some issues, disagree on others.

Alan, the Saturday Night Bubble guy is you, which is what seems to have set you off. No one is as smart as you when it comes to the Bill of Rights, Education and even Led Zeppelin. I am sure you think you are smartest man in Athens. Why are you depriving the good citizens of Ohio and the United States for that matter of your intellect? Hillary and Bernie needed you. However, you had bigger fish to fry correcting people on sports boards about the Bill of Rights, Education policy, Led Zeppelin and God knows what else. You talk about looking in the mirror which in Freudian terms means your projecting. We all have our views on life on this board, but you have to correct people. I hate to break it to you Alan, but you are not smarter than me or anyone else here. Look in the mirror Alan you are bubble guy seen at the very start of the Saturday Live skit and all throughout. You should sue them for character infringement.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-bubble/3...
Showing Messages: 126 - 150 of 255
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)