The NBA and fining players for social commentary

[NameLess Scrub 6]

Really? I mean, I could quote you, but it's on this very page and the last, not like it's buried within this thread.

 

Anything I said of what you would do comes from how I see myself as a person. I didn't mean to create an issue off that.

 

But if that's still offensive, bigoted, hateful, and ignorant to you then I'm sorry.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Anything I said of what you would do comes from how I see myself as a person. I didn't mean to create an issue off that.

 

But if that's still offensive, bigoted, hateful, and ignorant to you then I'm sorry.

 

Don't confuse the two. How you see me interacting with you is not bigoted, hateful, or ignorant. That, however, is a different issue than the overall topic being discussed. It's your views on the overall topic that I find to be bigoted and/or ignorant (the hateful was directed elsewhere), and I don't leave a lot of room in my life for associations with people who I deem to hold on to those types or perspectives.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

Don't confuse the two. How you see me interacting with you is not bigoted, hateful, or ignorant. That, however, is a different issue than the overall topic being discussed. It's your views on the overall topic that I find to be bigoted and/or ignorant (the hateful was directed elsewhere), and I don't leave a lot of room in my life for associations with people who I deem to hold on to those types or perspectives.

 

Sure. I got your point

[kukluxClam 16]

Correct. That is also natural. You're picking up on this stuff pretty quick.

 

I guess animals and gays do have lot in common.

[Emory889 353]

I guess animals and gays do have lot in common.

 

You know, I remember you commenting on my religious preference in another thread. Fortunately, I know enough Christians to know that you don't represent them. You are a horrible excuse for a Christian and a human being.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I guess animals and gays do have lot in common.

 

I suppose it's nice that you're no longer even pretending that you're doing anything other than trolling, which violates the TOS, or posting unapologetic hate speech, which is also against the TOS.

 

Strong work.

[kukluxClam 16]

I suppose it's nice that you're no longer even pretending that you're doing anything other than trolling, which violates the TOS, or posting unapologetic hate speech, which is also against the TOS.

 

Strong work.

 

Typical liberal wanting to jump to conclusions and get me banned just to silence the opposition. I was merely responding to the wikipedia page given to me which says that animals also engage in homosexual activities. So like I said, I guess animals and the gays have something in common after all. If you don't like what I said, don't give me evidence comparing animal behavior to human homosexual behavior.

[ML6 520]

Typical liberal wanting to jump to conclusions and get me banned just to silence the opposition. I was merely responding to the wikipedia page given to me which says that animals also engage in homosexual activities. So like I said, I guess animals and the gays have something in common after all. If you don't like what I said, don't give me evidence comparing animals to homosexual behavior.

 

Animals and humans also engage in heterosexual behavior. I guess straight people have things in common with animals too. Your point makes no sense.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Typical liberal wanting to jump to conclusions and get me banned just to silence the opposition. I was merely responding to the wikipedia page given to me which says that animals also engage in homosexual activities. So like I said, I guess animals and the gays have something in common after all. If you don't like what I said, don't give me evidence comparing animal behavior to human homosexual behavior.

 

Oh yeah? I once saw a video of a horse having heterosexual sex with a human female. Explain that.

[Osprey 199]

I just wanted to comment on the 5/8ths thing.

 

The Founders didn't implement that as a means of denigrating black slaves. They put that in because if they were to count them each as full people, the South would have had MASSIVELY disproportionate representation in Congress, considering that they were getting to count slaves as full in their census and not allowing them rights of citizens.

 

MANY of the Founders were entirely against Slavery at the founding, but they knew they would never be able to create a document uniting the nation if they drew their line in the sand on the issue. The more important thing was creating the Constitution and having it be ratified by the States on what they thought were the most important issues at the time. Abolishing slavery at that time (or at least attempting to) would have made the Constitution's ratification an impossibility.

[Marc Acres 3:16 418]

Typical liberal wanting to jump to conclusions and get me banned just to silence the opposition. I was merely responding to the wikipedia page given to me which says that animals also engage in homosexual activities. So like I said, I guess animals and the gays have something in common after all. If you don't like what I said, don't give me evidence comparing animal behavior to human homosexual behavior.

 

No, you are getting banned because you are a bigot and that has no place on this board. I let the username slide because I figured it was just a Simpson's reference, now that I'm actually paying attention to you I'm noticing things like your oh so subtle play on words in your signature. Your latest response was in response to a statement about animals eating their own excrement and since you were called out on it you are now trying to twist that around so I guess we can add coward to the list of words to describe you.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I just wanted to comment on the 5/8ths thing.

 

The Founders didn't implement that as a means of denigrating black slaves. They put that in because if they were to count them each as full people, the South would have had MASSIVELY disproportionate representation in Congress, considering that they were getting to count slaves as full in their census and not allowing them rights of citizens.

 

MANY of the Founders were entirely against Slavery at the founding, but they knew they would never be able to create a document uniting the nation if they drew their line in the sand on the issue. The more important thing was creating the Constitution and having it be ratified by the States on what they thought were the most important issues at the time. Abolishing slavery at that time (or at least attempting to) would have made the Constitution's ratification an impossibility.

 

I thought it was 3/5ths, not 5/8ths.