Bill from NYC
-
Posts
21,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bill from NYC
-
-
And I was thinking maybe later on
We could get together for a while
It's been such a long time
And I really do miss your smile
I'm not talking about moving in
And I don't wanna change your life
But, there's a warm wind blowing the stars around
And I'd really love to see you tonight -
-
3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
For the record if a policeman is killed in the line of duty I strongly favor the death penalty for the offender.
And may God bless you.
-
You know I've been called a dreamer
Dreams that never come true
But I've been called so many things before
Tell you what I'm gonna doI'll take a melody and see what I can do about it.
I'll take a simple C and G and feel brand now about it.I understand why the old fisherman
Sail along, sail along, sail along. sail along, sail along,
Someday he'll be gone -
29 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
I just addressed this.
The post was in no way directed at, nor meant to be demeaning to you in any way. I was just complinenting his post and nothing else. 👍
-
1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:
You expressed concerns that what Butker said would encourage violence against LBGT people but did not seem concerned about Kaep’s comments having similar impact on cops.
Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
How you gonna do it if you really don't wanna dance
By standing on the wall?
(Get your back up off the wall) tell me
How you gonna do it if you really won't take a chance
By standing on the wall?
(Get your back up off the wall)
'Cause I heard all the people sayin'Get down on it, get down on it, get down on it
Get down on it, when you're dancin'
Get down on it, get down on it
Get down on it
Get down on it, sha-baba-daba-doo -
Shoes ran out of gas
I got a hole in my sole
Bread ain't gonna pass
Livin' off coffee and rolls
It's gettin' kind of thin
But I'll keep hangin' in
So I'll send out for sunshine
Put a smile on my face, spread it around the place
Send out for sunshine
Get that good ol' sun on the case
-
2 minutes ago, boyst said:
Kaep polarized people.
Butker is being shoved in people faces because the same people who cheered for Kaep want us to be upset about Butker having an opinion which is ironic because it's not different than Kaep having one.
Kaeps polarization was entirely different. He wanted to be a little B word victim as a well paid millionaire athlete who lost his starting position. If he was still the starter or going to be he would have never done it. If at the height of his career he chose to speak out it'd be entirely different. But he's not LeBron or Gretzky. He is a footnote to a decades worth of football not because of his play.
The thing is, I don't care about either one of them. I'm not going to shed a tear for Kapernick who received millions of dollars, nor do I care about the kicker. They will both be fine. The difference is that the kicker still has to work.
-
14 hours ago, Beck Water said:
You lose.
But it's not the question of who is "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant, just as it wasn't the question of who was "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant. Both have the right to speak their minds. Both don't have the right to expect freedom from consequences to accompany their freedom of speech.Kaepernick provided enough credible evidence that he'd been blackballed due to his protests to obtain a settlement from the NFL. I don't expect Butker to suffer any actual consequences.
But the issue is the same for both: both have the right to freedom of speech, and in both cases people can support free speech AND object to what they said.
But I don't expect you to see that.
I do expect you to not put words in my mouth or imagine you know what does or does not offend me. (I don't think you understand it, but you do know it's imposing and unreasonable)
Why do I "lose?" Because you say I do? Still lording over conversations and dictating terms are we? How presumptuous and silly!!!
Hey, the police officer in Buffalo that you so vilified for pushing away an old nut for running up face to face with him and breathing all over him during the height of covid was found NOT GUILTY. Do you now side with the cop because he was vindicated in some way?
I don't care that Kapernick got a settlement. Do I think that he deserved one? No, for the reason you cited. Speech can have consequences. This kicker said some things; let's see what happens with him.
And btw, Kapernick did what he did on National TV. It offended and alienated more viewers/fans than some place kicker making a speech as an invited guest at a school. But I don't expect you to see that.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
And better GMs (our GMing was arguably even worse than our coaching in the drought).
Agreed and the Levy/Jauron combo was about as bad as I have ever seen on any team in any sport.
-
8 hours ago, Beck Water said:
To your "even if the bolded is true, so what?" the "so what?" is the apparent hypocrisy of the same people who are up in arms about attempts to "cancel" Butker when they found {*reasons*} why the same attempts towards Kaepernick were OK or even well justified.
Ok, I'll play.....
Of the people who fully supported the actions of Kaepernik and his right to free speech, how many of these folks are now butt hurt by the remarks of this other football player? I suspect almost all of them but that doesn't seem to bother you. It appears that you are only offended by those who do not adhere to your own specific credo which is imposing and unreasonable.
I think that folks are allowed to have opinions and speak their minds, even if you morally object or even just plain disagree. This is why I don't care what this place kicker says as an invited guest of a religious school. I think that many who are not so demanding, self rightous, and dictatorial might agree.
Wait.....you? Dictatorial? Brings back memories. 😯😂
-
The jip-jam-jump is a jumpin' jive
Makes you like your eggs on the jersey side
The jip-jam-jumpin' jive
Makes you hip hip on the mellow side
The jip-jam-jump is a solid jive
Makes you nine foot tall when you're four foot five
The jip-jam-jumpin' jive
';Makes you hip hip on the mellow side
-
22 hours ago, Beck Water said:
Bill, you and I think some others keep referring to Benedictine College as a "parochial school".
Why? It is literally not a parochial school.
I agree with defending his right to speak his mind, and that is, after all, what he was invited to do. But freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences arising from that speech, from editorials and social media posts objecting to it, to extra income from jersey sales (I think the players get a %?), to people who want him zapped out of the league.
I don't agree with the latter, but it happened with Colin Kaepernick and I have an inkling that some of the same people who wanted Kaepernick kicked to the curb permanently are the same ones objecting to anyone wanting likewise for Butker.
Even if the bold is true, so what? It would appear to be another example of free speech, and Kaepernik suffered the consequences that you mentioned above for his actions (in addition to being a lousy quarterback). Some people wanted Kaepernik to be lauded. Others wanted him banned. Personally I think that in retrospect, things worked out well.
And as far as Benedictine not having religious connotations, see below:
What does being Benedictine mean?
Benedictine, member of any of the confederated congregations of monks, lay brothers, and nuns who follow the rule of life of St. Benedict (c. 480–c. 547) and who are spiritual descendants of the traditional monastics of the early medieval centuries in Italy and Gaul.
Ya see, a frequent problem with you intelectuals is that you sometimes have a habit of too often splitting hairs.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Great center on what was either the best, or second best OL of all time.
-
4
-
-
My friends are so distressed
They're standing on the brink of emptiness
No words I know of to express
This emptinessI love all of you
Hurt by the cold
So hard and lonely, too
When you don't know yoursel -
3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
I defend his right to say it too. But I can do that and still object totally to what he said.
Of course GB, and that is my point!
-
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
But I don't think there is a defence of his comments.
I defend his right to say what he thinks as an invited guest at a parochial school. Is there something wrong with that?
-
14 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:
Roger Goodell has his insta-kill eyes right now.
Odds these two get a bigger punishment than Ray Rice?
I respectfully disagree. The only thing that would make Goodell not kiss KC's a$$ would be if (when) Kelce and Swift break up. Then they are just another team.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Beck Water said:
That's a really fair question, Bill, and I think it deserves a thoughtful answer so I'll try. I'll also try to be uncharacteristically brief about it.
In part, it comes down to the so-called "paradox of tolerance", in which people who speak out against prejudiced, intolerant speech have it pointed out that they are being themselves intolerant of another person's opinions. Why not just "live and let live", why should you care? To me, one of the best responses is Yonatan Zunger's essay "Tolerance is not a Moral Precept", in which he frames tolerance not as a moral imperative, but as a "peace treaty" which allows different people of different views to live side by side and not be at each other's throats with the belief "that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business." (I think that's what you're expressing above). I recommend it as reading; it will come up with a demand to join Medium, just click on the X and it will let you read.
Zunger points out that when viewed as a peace treaty, the limits of tolerance become obvious: a peace treaty applies only to those who are willing to abide by its terms; it is not "a suicide pact" where we are obliged to tolerate people's stated opposition to our lives and safety, or our neighbors’ lives and safety. (It's fundamentally the same principle as "your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose")
So if someone says "I wouldn't want to be friends with a gay person because I don't think it's right" (or "I don't think it's moral to sleep around and drink and I don't associate with people who do"), they may be living by the terms of the treaty. They're talking about how they choose to live their life, whatever. If they refer to an LGBTQ person as an "abomination", they're using dehumanizing language - abominations aren't people with the same fundamentally human feelings and experiences we all share, right?. IMHO not only a gay person, but all people should care then, because historically, dehumanizing language has accompanied systematic discrimination and even systematic atrocities.Where Butker went, referencing "dangerous gender ideologies" and "the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it", he is verging close to dehumanizing language. If a person lives their life with "dangerous gender ideologies" or "deadly sin", are they a person with the same human feelings and experiences and right to live their lives and talk about their experiences? If something is dangerous and deadly and I live by it, do I have the same rights to live in our communities peacefully? I dunno, but that's why my ears pricked up.
That's why I care, and feel concern for things like this being said. If no one speaks up, it can become normalized. And if it becomes normalized, then historically, too often, it doesn't end with words but with actual impacts on people's lives and safety.
As far as Butker's comments about the true vocation of wives and mothers towards which ladies should feel most excitement: the same principle applies. Is this an indication that the speaker is expressing his personal beliefs, which I should tolerate? If I were one of the young women who just worked my ass off for 8 semesters to earn a degree only to hear from my college's chosen and endorsed commencement speaker that my true vocation is as a wife and mother, I would feel PISSED because it would seem to be devaluing my efforts. But whatever.My daughter, and likely your daughters, have been able to pursue whatever career or vocation and hobbies they freely chose. They have been able to receive whatever health care they choose, including reproductive health care. The real concern I feel is, are these beliefs part of an organized attempt to impose a set of restrictions on me, my daughter, your daughters? And there are documented cases where they are.
Brief as I can be, Peace Out!Your post is an interesting one. I can understand the point that you make. I am going to break down my response for the sake of clarity.
1) I like the word "respect" more than the word "tolerance." If I "tolerate" you, it would appear (at least to me) that I feel like I am better than you, but willing to put up with you and what I perceive to be your shortcomings. I can respect transexuals and whether it fits the woke mode or not, I will add that I pity them.
2) My respect ends when people encourage children, young children to make life altering decisions when they are too young to do so. Recently, a Long Island teacher continued to tell a young female student that she was a "boy." She did this in class, in front of her classmates. The girl expressed suicidal ideations and the mother is suing the teacher and the district. I hope she receives millions of dollars. Oh, and also in terms of transexuals; I am 100% against biological males competing with women. As I said earlier, it took centuries for women to be able to compete in sports, and I resent the fact that after all they went through, MEN want to steal even this.
3) It could very well be me, but I sense that you may be overlooking the concept of free speech at least to some degree. The above example (#2) is NOT free speech. It is child abuse. An invited speaker at a parochial school stating his views is great imo, even though I don't necessarily agree with him on some issues. I don't have to send my kids there, nor am I forced to agree OR disagree with him.
4) Imo, too many people want to dictate the speech, or even the thoughts of others. Abortion is a prime example. I'm not necessarily proud of my stance on abortion. What I do find abhorrent and cannot comprehend is folks who take a stance that it should be legal 10 minutes or so before natural birth. Some will say I'm some sort of right wing radical for feeling this way but I am ENTITLED to do so and unlike others, I am not trying to silence those who disagree with my stance(s).
In any event, thanks for you intelligent post.
-
2
-
-
I don't need a whole lots of money
I don't need a big fine car
I got everything that a man could want
I got more than I could ask forAnd I don't have to run around
I don't have to stay out all night
'Cause I got me a sweet, a sweet loving woman
And she know just how to treat me rightBut my baby, she's alright
Oh, my baby's clean out of sight
Don't you know that she's-She's some kind of wonderful?
She's some kind of wonderful (yes, she is, she is)
She's some kind of wonderful (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) -
1 minute ago, ImpactCorey said:
Bad actors should not vilify an entire group. Sticking with your overly simplistic dog analogy, because some Pit Bulls have been trained to be dangerous and there are many reports of them attacking children, should we wipe out the existence of Pit Bulls?
Not necessarily but these are dangerous animals, and I think that owners should be held civily, or even at times criminally responsible for their attacks on innocent people.
And btw, YOU not I made the analogy to dogs and transexuals.
-
29 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
What about the LG and B. Would you not want gay men using bathrooms with your son?
That is different. They are not living under a false premise so no, it would not bother me. There have been instances of bad acts involving men pretending to be women. I even read a story about an inmate who "identified" as a woman impregnating female prisoners.
If I claim to "identify" as a German Shepherd, will you send me a box of dog treats?
-
4 minutes ago, ImpactCorey said:
It is dangerous because people like Butker exist that don't accept their existence.
Do you recognize any limits to acceptance?
For instance:
I have no ill will at all toward transexuals. Now, do I want them to use bathrooms with my daughters and/or other women? No, I do not.
Do I want them to compete in women's sports? Absolutely not. It took women decades if not centuries to be properly recognized wrt sports. Now, men are trying to take back sports from women, dominate them, and sometimes injure women in the process.
In your world, does this make me a "hater?"
-
3
-
1
-
Dewayne Carter involved lawsuit against NCAA to pay players.
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
This is an interesting point of view.