2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Nor should we, 1st amendment, "separation of church and state."

 

Thats not what the first amendment, or anywhere else in the constitution for that matter, says.

3 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Nor should we, 1st amendment, "separation of church and state."

This was originally driven by the Baptists not wanting to finance the "state Church" (Anglicans, the Church of England, which became Episcopalians after the Revolution). And the Founding Fathers' knowledge of the European wars of religion, which for them wasn't the distant past. Keeping government out of religion allowed people to worship as they pleased.

In a secular society composed of people with different religions (including atheists, agnostics, Deists, Wiccans, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, 100 Protestant sects) and beliefs, enforcing one religion's moral code is a nonstarter (Christian sharia is no different than Islamic sharia). 

It is one thing for you to live by that code (though certain limits, we don't allow followers of Baal to conduct child sacrifice), quite another to impose it upon others who don't share your beliefs.

Though I am always amused by Christians who cherry pick the Old Testament for a prohibition against homosexuality. Seems their God is far more concerned with sexual predilections (even though every mammal engages in homosexual behavior) than social justice (helping the poor is a major theme of both the Old and New Testament, and usually the "sin" for which God punishes Israel).

I'd be happy to discuss any of this with you via PM, if you want to have a real discussion about it.

52 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

The performers they have for the Super Bowl half time have made MILLIONS using the exact same language and the NFL is here promoting them and yes, making money from them.

Jim Rome " If you can't tell the difference between a half time performer, and one of the highest profile analysts / head coaches in the NFL, that's on you "

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

I don't see him passing tests in time to return by Thursday.

 

Sorry, 

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

So he’s out Thursday. Rip. 

10 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Thats not what the first amendment, or anywhere else in the constitution for that matter, says.

What does the first amendment say? 

12 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Nor should we, 1st amendment, "separation of church and state."

This was originally driven by the Baptists not wanting to finance the "state Church" (Anglicans, the Church of England, which became Episcopalians after the Revolution). And the Founding Fathers' knowledge of the European wars of religion, which for them wasn't the distant past. Keeping government out of religion allowed people to worship as they pleased.

In a secular society composed of people with different religions (including atheists, agnostics, Deists, Wiccans, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, 100 Protestant sects) and beliefs, enforcing one religion's moral code is a nonstarter (Christian sharia is no different than Islamic sharia). 

It is one thing for you to live by that code (though certain limits, we don't allow followers of Baal to conduct child sacrifice), quite another to impose it upon others who don't share your beliefs.

Though I am always amused by Christians who cherry pick the Old Testament for a prohibition against homosexuality. Seems their God is far more concerned with sexual predilections (even though every mammal engages in homosexual behavior) than social justice (helping the poor is a major theme of both the Old and New Testament, and usually the "sin" for which God punishes Israel).

Keep it up I can gladly show you "New Testament" verses as well. 

Goedert better have one hell of an excuse.  A freakin contract year, unreal....

1 minute ago, WentzFan11 said:

What does the first amendment say? 

Not "separation of church and state"

You can google it any time

3 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

What does the first amendment say? 

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

PreambleArticle IArticle IIArticle IIIArticle IVArticle VArticle VIArticle VIIAmendment IAmendment IIAmendment IIIAmendment IVAmendment VAmendment VIAmendment VIIAmendment VIIIAmendment IXAmendment XAmendment XIAmendment XIIAmendment XIIIAmendment XIVAmendment XVAmendment XVIAmendment XVIIAmendment XVIIIAmendment XIXAmendment XXAmendment XXIAmendment XXIIAmendment XXIIIAmendment XXIVAmendment XXVAmendment XXVIAmendment XXVII

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2 minutes ago, greend said:

Keep it up I can gladly show you "New Testament" verses as well. 

Please do. 

16 minutes ago, downundermike said:

The fact that you think me questioning parts of the story, and actual slander are the same thing says a lot.

Not questioning the story.  So again let me point out the crap you've done. 

2 woman of the 20+ booked a follow up appointment.  When you talked about all of the accusers you talked about them all booking follow up appointments to slander and delegitimize them all. 

1 woman of the 20+ was looked at by the FBI for blackmail. You repeatedly grouped all of the women in int his and repeatedly talked in plurals when's aying the FBI was looking into the accusers for blackmail when it was one.  At every step of the turn when an opportunity to be knowingly dishonest about what was going on purely to slander all of the victims you took it.  All because you wanted/want Watson. 

It was disgusting. Far more morally reprehensible than Gruden talking poorly of Goodell. 

16 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I don't see him passing tests in time to return by Thursday.

 

Sorry, 

Is he vaccinated ??

2 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

Please do. 

Romans 1:27

New Living Translation
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

 

Honestly read the whole chapter.

7 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Goedert better have one hell of an excuse.  A freakin contract year, unreal....

An excuse for being vaccinated and contracting COVID?

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Is he vaccinated ??

Yes

3 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Not questioning the story.  So again let me point out the crap you've done. 

2 woman of the 20+ booked a follow up appointment.  When you talked about all of the accusers you talked about them all booking follow up appointments to slander and delegitimize them all. 

1 woman of the 20+ was looked at by the FBI for blackmail. You repeatedly grouped all of the women in int his and repeatedly talked in plurals when's aying the FBI was looking into the accusers for blackmail when it was one.  At every step of the turn when an opportunity to be knowingly dishonest about what was going on purely to slander all of the victims you took it.  All because you wanted/want Watson. 

It was disgusting. Far more morally reprehensible than Gruden talking poorly of Goodell. 

I said that it seems suspect that multiple accusers booked multiple appointments, some, up to 4.

I said the FBI is investigating the accusers for potential bribery.  As the Gruden case proved, they will investigate all, not just 1.  Do you not know how criminal investigations work ??

I am not sure how any of this could be construed as slander.  

Gruden did not only talk poorly of Goodell.  He used racial slurs, homophobic slurs, misogynistic slurs about multiple NFL and ESPN employees.

As @TorontoEagle said, I am just a nobody on a message board.  Gruden is one of the highest profile employees of the NFL and formerly of ESPN.

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yet you keep only bringing up Gruden talking poorly about Goodell, as if that’s all he said in the emails.  You’re thick.   

You know that for sure?

It's what has been tweeted. 

 

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yet you keep only bringing up Gruden talking poorly about Goodell, as if that’s all he said in the emails.  You’re thick.   

You know that for sure?

3 minutes ago, downundermike said:

I said that it seems suspect that multiple accusers booked multiple appointments, some, up to 4.

I said the FBI is investigating the accusers for potential bribery.  As the Gruden case proved, they will investigate all, not just 1.  Do you not know how criminal investigations work ??

I am not sure how any of this could be construed as slander.  

Gruden did not only talk poorly of Goodell.  He used racial slurs, homophobic slurs, misogynistic slurs about multiple NFL and ESPN employees.

As @TorontoEagle said, I am just a nobody on a message board.  Gruden is one of the highest profile employees of the NFL and formerly of ESPN.

 

See you did it again.  You can't help yourself.  Incorrectly saying that the FBI is investigating mulitpple accusers for blackmail.  They aren't. They investigated/are investigating 1 girl. Solo, one, singular. 

. 

You're a classic case of a very low character person that loves to sling mud on others in our woke cancel culuture to make yourself feel like you are some morally superior person when you are just as reprehensible. 

9 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Slandering sexual assault victims is certainly worse than Gruden talking badly of Goodell when he was not employed by the NFL. 

First slander means an oral statement vs. libel which is a written statement.  No one has done either here with respect to the alleged sexual assault victims.   People have question the alleged victims motives based on the same objections raised by Watson's defense.  In any event, Gruden didn't libel anyone.  What he did was use language that was vulgar and not acceptable about people that work in the same organization.  People get fired for that all of the time.  It's not that big of a deal.  

On 9/23/2021 at 12:30 PM, RememberTheKoy said:

Hate it.  Just don't enjoy female announcers of men's sports.  Have yet to hear one that I liked. 

They should have gotten Tom McGinnis from the radio broadcast. 

rtk HATING female announcers, and then giving Gruden a pass for hate speech against women, POC and those who live an alternative lifestyle. 

Says a lot.

13 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Goedert better have one hell of an excuse.  A freakin contract year, unreal....

Not "separation of church and state"

You can google it any time

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That is, no state religion, and all are free to worship as they please (within reasonable constraints,  implied by other government powers).

The Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by both the French and Scottish Enlightenment, including that notorious atheist, David Hume.

2 minutes ago, DireWolf said:

So wait now you're all tied up in Gruden also did something to other ESPN anchors? 

What the heck are you doing? Jockeying for a harassment lawsuit ?  No clue what I'm reading at this point. 

We know the feeling... 

11 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

See you did it again.  You can't help yourself.  Incorrectly saying that the FBI is investigating mulitpple accusers for blackmail.  They aren't. They investigated/are investigating 1 girl. Solo, one, singular. 

You are really f'ing dense.  If you really believe that the FBI would not investigate all as part of the purview of the investigation, you are either a moron, or being intellectually dishonest.

For the 3rd time, how did the Gruden stuff come to light ???  AS PART OF A SEPERATE INVESTIGATION YOU FREAKING DOLT.

I am sure even though we are not on the best of terms, even @Allhaildawk will back up that the investigation into Watson's accusers for bribery / blackmail will extend to all accusers.

2 minutes ago, greend said:

I have been asked not to "share in here" and I'm trying to honor that. If I remember you are one of the ones that asked me not to. I will however answer if I feel that things are not being portrayed properly.

Actually that isn’t what I asked but I can understand you seeing it that way, which is fine.

I certainly wasn’t trying to portray all of the New Testament but rather referencing something from it that I admire (forgiveness and inclusion) and how I thought they might apply as to how we view Gruden’s transgressions (forgiveness) and the derogatory terminology he used (a wrong that he might have learned from)and how some slid to deteriorating society because of inclusion and acceptance in a comic book, which seemed like a real stretch to me.   No offense meant as I thought I put those teachings I referenced in a positive light.