Tony Dungy/Michael Sam
Poll
 | 3 votes (16.66%) | ||
| | 6 votes (33.33%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 5 votes (27.77%) | ||
| | 1 vote (5.55%) | ||
| | 6 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 1 vote (5.55%) | ||
| | 2 votes (11.11%) | ||
| | 8 votes (44.44%) |
18 members have voted
Anyway, what do you think? As always, you can vote for more than one option.
Quote: MrWarmthSo ... Tony Dungy weighed in on Michael Sam. Dungy, a highly respected coach and outspoken Christian, said that he wouldn't have drafted Sam because he "didn't want to deal with it." When asked for clarification, Dungy said the phrase was in reference to the media circus surrounding Sam, and not to Sam's sexual orientation or its effect (if any) inside the locker room. Ironically, he made this clarification to a media circus.
Anyway, what do you think? As always, you can vote for more than one option.
How about that media circus surrounding Michael Vick. Dungy doesn't have a problem with a media circus surrounding the Eagles, he supported Vick.
Quote: terapinedHow about that media circus surrounding Michael Vick. Dungy doesn't have a problem with a media circus surrounding the Eagles, he supported Vick.
I'm not trying to judge Dungy, just asking what folks think.
Is there a media circus around the Eagles? Was there one when Vick returned? Did Dungy comment on it at the time? Any links would be helpful. If Dungy has a problem with Sam and not Vick, that might be interesting to hear why, although from a Christian perspective, Vick admits guilt where Sam doesn't.
NOTE: I'm not saying Sam is guilty of anything. I am saying that Christianity condemns homosexual behavior (not sure what it says about the predilection) and Sam hasn't fessed up to that in the same way Vick has. But again, I'm not saying Sam has to "fess up" at all. Since I've bookended the comment with that, and am now pointing to that bookending, I hope my thinking is unambiguous. I guess we'll see ...
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/blogs/en-fuego/os-tony-dungy-michael-sam-comments-20140721,0,5898078.post
Quote: terapinedTony Dungy's Michael Sam comments reek of hypocrisy
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/blogs/en-fuego/os-tony-dungy-michael-sam-comments-20140721,0,5898078.post
That's an opinion piece which doesn't support what he says Dungy said with any links. Opinion pieces are fine, but they're not expository. Call me cynical, but when opinion pieces talk about someone's behavior in the past, they are rarely telling the whole story.
We have a writer who has an obvious liberal bent (which is fine) pulling from a memory of something that happened five years ago without any research (at least, there's none presented in the column). Whatever it is, it's way, way short of demonstrating hypocrisy. And, as I recall, Falcons owner Arthur Blank said he didn't want Vick back because it would be a distraction ... does that mean Blank would be cleared of hypocrisy/anti-homosexual charges if he also said it about Sam?
I'm not asking for exhaustive hyper-evidence here, just a link or two that reports and doesn't opine.
Quote: MrWarmthThat's an opinion piece which doesn't support what he says Dungy said with any links. Opinion pieces are fine, but they're not expository. Call me cynical, but when opinion pieces talk about someone's behavior in the past, they are rarely telling the whole story.
We have a writer who has an obvious liberal bent (which is fine) pulling from a memory of something that happened five years ago without any research (at least, there's none presented in the column). Whatever it is, it's way, way short of demonstrating hypocrisy. And, as I recall, Falcons owner Arthur Blank said he didn't want Vick back because it would be a distraction ... does that mean Blank would be cleared of hypocrisy/anti-homosexual charges if he also said it about Sam?
I'm not asking for exhaustive hyper-evidence here, just a link or two that reports and doesn't opine.
At work, in a training class but its remote training and boring. Quickly posted 1st thing I found while surfing internet while trainer helping individuals. Your criticism of the link is valid. Sorry.
This is just more liberal nonsense trying to control what anyone says. Pity the poor fool who speaks his mind anymore about something liberals don't agree with.....see Anthony Cumia.
Quote: terapinedAt work, in a training class but its remote training and boring. Quickly posted 1st thing I found while surfing internet while trainer helping individuals. Your criticism of the link is valid. Sorry.
Not a problem, you don't owe me an explanation, and I appreciate the effort. I'm not looking to validate a particular view and it's not like I'm the Final Word and Sole Arbiter of these things anyway (unless your name is LarryS).
Actually, you represent a lot that is good about this forum's members. Ibeatyouraces should have a little more confidence in us!
Quote: Boz
This is just more liberal nonsense trying to control what anyone says. Pity the poor fool who speaks his mind anymore about something liberals don't agree with.....see Anthony Cumia.
Dungy has freedom of speech. Allways had it, allways will. He has the freedom to express his views.
I also have freedom of speech. I have the freedom to critisize his views. Crititicism is not controlling somebody's speech.
(I cant spell :-) )
Quote: terapinedDungy has freedom of speech. Allways had it, allways will. He has the freedom to express his views.
I also have freedom of speech. I have the freedom to critisize his views. Crititicism is not controlling somebody's speech.
(I cant spell :-) )
Neither can I! I appreciate those who accept my spelling mistakes while understanding my point.
That said, you are using an old liberal argument about freedom of speech. Yes it is there, but the pressure put on people they disagree with makes its use something people have to think deeply about before opening their mouths anymore.
And I don't know if you are a liberal or not, its just the consequences can be heavy for those who use "Freedom of Speech" on an issue that liberals don't agree with.
Quote: BozNeither can I! I appreciate those who accept my spelling mistakes while understanding my point.
That said, you are using an old liberal argument about freedom of speech. Yes it is there, but the pressure put on people they disagree with makes its use something people have to think deeply about before opening their mouths anymore.
And I don't know if you are a liberal or not, its just the consequences can be heavy for those who use "Freedom of Speech" on an issue that liberals don't agree with.
I think that both of y'all are right on the facts of things. This "pendulum" has swung back and forth a gazillion times over the course of history. Greeks, Romans, Calvinsists, Reformationists, yada yada yada. Although I can't think of when it was last back on the liberal side, until about the 60s, the pendulum was squarely on the Victorian/prudish/biblical/whatever side. Over the last 50 years or so, it's swung to where it is now, at least in America ... certainly not Russia or Islam where homosexuality is condemned/illegal/punishable-by-death. It will swing again.
The question is, will today's liberals be happy with the "freedom of speech" line when it's their views that are being assaulted by the nominal popular culture?
Quote: MrWarmthThe question is, will today's liberals be happy with the "freedom of speech" line when it's their views that are being assaulted by the nominal popular culture?
Remember the Dixie Chicks (whoever they are)? I think that answers your question.
In politics nothing is wrong, except when the other party does it.
Everyday in the common area there was a young non student that preached the bible every day.
He had freedom of speech.
Everybody in this country has freedom of speech.
Now if this young preacher also sold apples while preaching and depended on this to survive.
His freedom of speech has consequences because people have the freedom not to buy his apples due to his views.
Regardless, he still has freedom of speech.
If you are in a business , yes there may be consequences to freedom of speech but the freedom itself is never taken away.
Most businesses dont want to fail, They have the freedom to take action so they dont fail.
Regardless of consequences, Freedom of speech remains a freedom.
Quote: terapinedI went to the University of Maryland in the late 70's
Everyday in the common area there was a young non student that preached the bible every day.
He had freedom of speech.
Everybody in this country has freedom of speech.
Now if this young preacher also sold apples while preaching and depended on this to survive.
His freedom of speech has consequences because people have the freedom not to buy his apples due to his views.
Regardless, he still has freedom of speech.
If you are in a business , yes there may be consequences to freedom of speech but the freedom itself is never taken away.
Most businesses dont want to fail, They have the freedom to take action so they dont fail.
Regardless of consequences, Freedom of speech remains a freedom.
Fast forward to Colleges today. Apples or no apples he would draw complaints to staff for pushing his religious views in a public area, offending some.
Times have changed and the liberals feel empowered enough to punish anymore who doesn't conform to their view of the world. And far to many have just accepted it, fearful of how they will be viewed by others.
Quote: MrWarmthI think that both of y'all are right on the facts of things. This "pendulum" has swung back and forth a gazillion times over the course of history. Greeks, Romans, Calvinsists, Reformationists, yada yada yada. Although I can't think of when it was last back on the liberal side, until about the 60s, the pendulum was squarely on the Victorian/prudish/biblical/whatever side. Over the last 50 years or so, it's swung to where it is now, at least in America ... certainly not Russia or Islam where homosexuality is condemned/illegal/punishable-by-death. It will swing again.
The question is, will today's liberals be happy with the "freedom of speech" line when it's their views that are being assaulted by the nominal popular culture?
If we're talking America, rather than world-wide, I would say it was right on the liberal side up until 1981, when R. Reagan took office and AIDS first became widely known, along with the lead-up of the Iranian hostage crisis from 1979-81 and how that affected the elections . That changed the financial focus and the moral compass all at once; we needed a patriarch in charge, and the days of open marriage/free love/mary jane went very underground, if not almost extinguished. So did expense accounts, kids walking to school and playing outdoors til dark, a hundred other things. We went dark and paranoid, and we haven't come back out yet.
Quote: BozPity the poor fool who speaks his mind anymore about something liberals don't agree with.....see Anthony Cumia.
Oh please. The conservatives are far better at being the thought police than liberals could ever hope to be. See: The Dixie Chicks. See: Linda Ronstadt. See: Anyone who opposed the Iraq War during Bush's first term. See: Gay marriage as the boogeyman of the 2004 election and "moral values" trumping 9/11, Iraq, and a sinking economy as the number one issue - ALL because of the GOP's campaign.
In the 90s, anyone who didn't outright hate gays was judged to be gay and a pariah. No different from the 50s and 60s demand for whites to hate blacks. The right wing forces its agenda down the nation's throats, and when they lose, they cry out "Oppression!" and "Freedom!" and claim that the people whose rights they denied are now denying their rights. It's straight out of the playbooks of the hypocrites.
This is not to say that liberals - or any person on Earth - are without hypocrisy. The excessively PC crowd that faults all men for rape, all whites for poverty, etc. is just as much of a problem. However, hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Quote: BozTimes have changed and the liberals feel empowered enough to punish anymore who doesn't conform to their view of the world. And far to many have just accepted it, fearful of how they will be viewed by others.
I love how liberals all have the exact same world view... which we don't, by the way...
Quote: thecesspitI love how liberals all have the exact same world view... which we don't, by the way...
Huh, where does this come from?
We are a country of individuals, Some lean far left, some generally left, some slightly left, some in the middle, some slightly right, some generally right, some extreme right.
Cmon, have some common sense, your statement is absurd.
The reality is that most individuals have a mixture of right and left views.
Take me, I support gay marriage, I don't support raising the min wage to 15/hr.
I voted for Bob Dole, I voted for Obama.
I like John Mccain, I cant stand Sara Palin.
I don't like MSNBC, I don't like Foxnews.
Cant stand Al Sharpton, Cant stand Hannity.
Quote: terapinedHuh, where does this come from?
We are a country of individuals, Some lean far left, some generally left, some slightly left, some in the middle, some slightly right, some generally right, some extreme right.
Cmon, have some common sense, your statement is absurd.
The reality is that most individuals have a mixture of right and left views.
Take me, I support gay marriage, I don't support raising the min wage to 15/hr.
I voted for Bob Dole, I voted for Obama.
I like John Mccain, I cant stand Sara Palin.
I don't like MSNBC, I don't like Foxnews.
Cant stand Al Sharpton, Cant stand Hannity.
I think that's what cess meant; we're not cookie-cutter lockstep in agreement about everything, or even in opposition to every conservative idea.
I don't feel the need to discuss my political journey, but it is fair to say these last six years have seen me move to the right. That being said, and insofar as I can be the Sole Arbiter and Final Word for the right even though I've not always hung my hat there ... I don't see thecesspit's assumption play out at all in those circles. (Yes, I am part of those mysterious "circles" now and then!)
What I think they mean is, the liberal extreme vocal minority exercises a very disproportional amount of influence over the movement/philosophy/Democrat party as a whole. They (people on the right) don't think all liberals are foaming-at-the-mouth Maddow/Ayers/Alinski/Olbermann/Sarandon/Penn weirdos. They know that these things come in a continuum like terapined describes. They do think, though, that the sane majority (for lack of a better term) of liberals - Joe Lieberman, for example - are way too silent and don't stand up to the Libtard Bluenecks out there that exercise the influence.
FWIW, yes, some of my "friends" have dropped me since I moved right, but those people weren't really friends anyway. But for the most part, life has just gone on with a few more interesting dinner conversations!
Quote: MrWarmthWhat I think they mean is, the liberal extreme vocal minority exercises a very disproportional amount of influence over the movement/philosophy/Democrat party as a whole.
That sounds curiously similar to the situation on the conservative side.
Must be an astonishing coincidence.
I always find this amusing.
Quote: aceofspadesI love when heterosexual men believe every homosexual man in a locker room is out to sleep with them LOL
I always find this amusing.
I'm not sure if a gay man in a locker room does a quick evaluation of "hot or not" the way straight men often do with women. That said, gay men, just like straight men, have standards, preferences, and definite turn-offs, so even if they do that evaluation, there's a good chance the insecure man would be a reject anyway. Which, in my opinion, is kind of funny.
Insecure straight man: "Eeeew, he's checking me out in the locker room!"
Gay man: "Oh please, with that back hair?"
Quote: ahiromuI believe that he brings up a fair point, why would you risk a media circus over a 7th rounder, someone who might not even make your roster come September? People get passed up for a bunch of reasons that aren't football-related. It's a reasonable explanation and it's not my place to judge his motives.
This.
The rarer your skill or talent at doing a job, the more leniency you're going to get regarding any screw ups or baggage in your personal life. It's that way in every profession. The reason pro athletes get so many second, third and fourth chances is because there are so few people who can do what they do. With Sam, he's a fringe NFL player. May not even make the roster this season. Dungy doesn't think a marginal player is worth the additional media scrutiny. I agree with him. I wouldn't have drafted him, either. If he were a 1st round talent, though, that would be a different story. He would be worth tolerating a few more cameras and media members around. But he's not J. Clowney.
NFL teams have put up with all kinds of legal issues, baggage, and poor public behavior from star players that would have gotten a normal person in a normal job fired. There are tons of people with a college degree who can do John Doe's job at the local bank if he fails a drug test or makes a fool of himself in a public venue. But when you're an athletic freak of nature and a top-tier NFL player and there are only a couple of people in the entire country who can do your job as well as you can and there are millions of dollars at stake, you're pretty much always going to keep your job as long as you are not in prison.
Sam's sexual orientation may not be a crime or any kind of bad thing to most people, but it could be considered too much of a distraction for a player with limited ability.
Quote: NareedThat sounds curiously similar to the situation on the conservative side.
Must be an astonishing coincidence.
Careful! You may be revealing that thecesspit was projecting a liberal trait on conservatives that conservatives don't actually have!
Maybe, but the difference lies in what we see out there. I see all sorts of visceral judgment and criticism leveled at those who support, say, traditional marriage ... see also Brendan Eich. I do not see a similar response to those who support abortion ... at least, I have not heard of a CEO forced to resign for donating to, say, Planned Parenthood.
On the other hand, I see conservatives across the board condemn things like limiting free speech where I do not see the silent liberal majority condemning the IRS targeting.
The thinking that those positions aren't attacked in society because they're "correct" is the manifestation of this disproportional influence, right up there with "Only a sith speaks in absolutes." In other words, it's making a point using rhetoric that the point itself condemns.
Quote: MrWarmthI do not see a similar response to those who support abortion ...
You mean you have never seen op-ed pieces about the great American holocaust as a result of abortion? What kind of policies do you suppose such poeple would ennact?
You should read up on immigration, too. I love it how conservatives say they favor legal immigration, while ignoring the fact that it's almost impossible to legally immigrate any more (unless you have family in the US or loads of money).
Not to say liberals are any kind of great bargain either. Really, the only question is which side is worse. The only answer, most of the time, is: both are.
Quote: terapinedBabs and Mr W are right, I misunderstood Cess's post. sorry Cess.
It wasn't the clearest statement I have ever written :)
Quote: MrWarmthCareful! You may be revealing that thecesspit was projecting a liberal trait on conservatives that conservatives don't actually have!
Laugh... fair point, I know not all conservatives think the same either.
I just find it amusing that many cons label 'liberals' as one huge mass. But the term 'con' and 'lib' are either labels to be proud off or insults, depending on your political hue, that divide into absolutes something that really isn't absolute at all, as we all know. And when we do group en mass, we aren't progressing anything forwards, really. Plus, I have raged against the American abuse of the word liberal before, anyways, and I'm sure folks are bored or don't care.
So I shall learn from my own point too.
Quote: thecesspitLaugh... fair point, I know not all conservatives think the same either.
I just find it amusing that many cons label 'liberals' as one huge mass. But the term 'con' and 'lib' are either labels to be proud off or insults, depending on your political hue, that divide into absolutes something that really isn't absolute at all, as we all know. And when we do group en mass, we aren't progressing anything forwards, really. Plus, I have raged against the American abuse of the word liberal before, anyways, and I'm sure folks are bored or don't care.
So I shall learn from my own point too.
Having spent time on both sides of the aisle now, what I can say is that this kind of thing (reduction-by-classification) occurs on both sides. I don't think it's a political trait as much as it is a human trait manifested in the political arena. I doubt that understanding that would stop the rancor, but a guy can dream. Meanwhile, a guy can spend time in internet forums where flaming is not the norm.
It is my perception, though, that the contemporary pop culture is geared way against conservatives. Nareed mentions the "abortion = holocaust" faction, and while that faction exists, I can't see an example of an abortion supporter being vilified in the media and ousted from, say, a CEO position like Brenden Eich was.
Nareed wonders what kind of policies the "abortion = holocaust" faction would implement. I think we can all have nightmares about that. The parallel, though, would be what the reaction of the not-"abortion = holocaust" faction on the right ... would they sit silently by and watch a draconian policy be played out in government and pop culture, or would they stand up where they think it should stop?
The answer is not knowable, but I would like to think they/we would. At least, I see pretty universal condemnation of the KKK on the right where I'm not seeing condemnation of "criticizing Obama/Holder = racist" on the left.
Quote: Lemieux66It's possible that Dungy thinks Sam isn't worth the circus because he's a marginal player. Vick is a star and is worth it. It's logical when you think of it that way.
Exactly!
Dungy voiced what a lot of other teams already thought when they dropped a projected 4th or 5th round pick to the bottom of the 6th round. All things being relatively equal, the distraction isn't worth picking Sam up. Now, once the you reach a level where Sam's talent is clearly better than the remaining picks then he'll get drafted because at the end of the day, talent and/or potential will take hold.
As or the criticism Dungy is receiving for his 'hypocrisy' between this and the Vick case, please stop. As Lemieux pointed out, Sam is a marginal player who will fight to make the team. Vick was third in the Heisman voting, drafted number one, and a three time pro-bowler in the most coveted position in American sports for the Falcons before he was convicted on the dog charges. With credentials like this, media distractions are of relatively little concern compared to the qb you may be getting. The more important concern in this situation is how advertisers may react considering his dog fighting activities.
I actually have more respect for Dungy now than I did before he made this statement. He was truthful rather than just reciting the same old PC bs that you get from so many other media people.
Are you kidding me. These are professional football players.
If they cant perform due to a media circus, gee, maybe that player should be cut.
Problems for a team due to a media circus? cmon. The whole league is a media circus.
Biggest game, super bowl, and the NFL actually encourages a media circus days before the big game.
THE NFL loves the media circus surrounding the entire league.
Quote: terapinedMedia circus hurting a team?
Are you kidding me. These are professional football players.
If they cant perform due to a media circus, gee, maybe that player should be cut.
Problems for a team due to a media circus? cmon. The whole league is a media circus.
Biggest game, super bowl, and the NFL actually encourages a media circus days before the big game.
THE NFL loves the media circus surrounding the entire league.
Bad argument. Not every player can deal with it. In that case it brings the team down as a whole.
Quote: Lemieux66Bad argument. Not every player can deal with it. In that case it brings the team down as a whole.
If you make it to the super bowl, you better deal with it. Media day prior to the super bowl requires mandatory attendance to the NFL's biggest media circus of the year.
Quote: terapinedMedia circus hurting a team?
Are you kidding me. These are professional football players.
If they cant perform due to a media circus, gee, maybe that player should be cut.
Problems for a team due to a media circus? cmon. The whole league is a media circus.
Biggest game, super bowl, and the NFL actually encourages a media circus days before the big game.
THE NFL loves the media circus surrounding the entire league.
Agreed that the NFL not only likes, but absolutely needs the media to report on, talk about, and cover the league in all sorts of different ways to keep the machine strong.
That same sentiment doesn't apply to the coaching mentality. Coaches by their nature are controlling and many loathe the media and the distractions (real or perceived) that it creates. Dungy is speaking from a coaching background so his views shouldn't be too surprising.
Quote: terapinedIf you make it to the super bowl, you better deal with it. Media day prior to the super bowl requires mandatory attendance to the NFL's biggest media circus of the year.
That's different. Both teams go through that AND at least it's in the big game and not potentially sabotaging your season before it even starts.
What needs to happen is a really good gay player needs to be drafted. It'll be a minor circus and he will be worth it. Next time it won't be a big deal for the average drafted gay player.
Whoa there. I ain't never heard of either of them. If one is a coach, the other must be a sports player, so I have no respect for either and if someone is religious that is bad enough unto itself, but if they are outspoken about it, I don't want to hear any of it.Quote: MrWarmthSo ... Tony Dungy weighed in on Michael Sam. Dungy, a highly respected coach and outspoken Christian.
Quote: FleaStiffsomeone is religious that is bad enough unto itself, but if they are outspoken about it, I don't want to hear any of it.
I agree, If someone wants to be religious, thats fine, keep it in your home, keep it in your church. Believe whatever you want.
Outspoken, please, dont push religious views on me, I dont want to hear it. Shouldn't have to here it.
(been posting alot lately from work last few days due to being in remote training at work and its boring. Teacher trainer is at home in San Antonio and me the student is in Tampa and other students at home in various cities around the country. Its all over the computer and phone)
Quote: FleaStiffWhoa there. I ain't never heard of either of them. If one is a coach, the other must be a sports player, so I have no respect for either and if someone is religious that is bad enough unto itself, but if they are outspoken about it, I don't want to hear any of it.
Where in Dungy's comments about Sam was he pushing his religious views? I don't believe there was a hidden agenda here, he was stating that there can be a distraction because Sam is the first openly gay football player in the NFL. I think he would have the same point of view for anything that creates extra attention and the resulting distractions. Anything that is new or different gets attention, look at Danica Patrick in NASCAR, and she isn't even the first nor is the story 'new' anymore, yet she gets extra media attention because it's different.
I don't blame the media, they have a job to do and if it's newsworthy they should cover it. I bet the NFL is embracing this story because it paints a picture of sexual orientation tolerance in a league full of testosterone. But that doesn't translate to the way coach's feel, not because they have a religious bias against gays, but because it creates an on-going distraction until more players come out and it isn't 'different' any longer.
Quote: terapinedI agree, If someone wants to be religious, thats fine, keep it in your home, keep it in your church. Believe whatever you want.
Outspoken, please, dont push religious views on me, I dont want to hear it. Shouldn't have to here it.
I agree. Kind of like liberal views on the debt, gay rights, abortion, minimum wage and such. Just like Religion, they are fantasies that can never be proven that they are real, but they still have their believers out there wishing and dreaming of something they are unwilling to work for. I dont want to hear about them, but you cant turn on the TV or have a conversation without hearing about them or meeting someone living in Disney World.
Quote: terapinedOutspoken, please, dont push religious views on me, I dont want to hear it. Shouldn't have to here it.
Shouldn't have to where it?
So, free speech only for those that agree with you then?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceShouldn't have to where it?
So, free speech only for those that agree with you then?
If I am walking in a airport or sitting in a airport and somebody approaches me preaching the bible or a Hari Krishna (happenned to me at a airport) preaches his stuff.
I say leave me alone.
Then leave me alone, I dont want to hear it.
I shouldn't have to deal with any of this religious crap at the airport.
I live near Clearwater, I cant stand it when walking down the street in Clearwater, scientologists constantly badger people, sheesh, leave me alone, its not like I am walking into your place interested. NO INTEREST.
I've had Mormon recruiters actually knock on my front door. I DONT WANT TO HEAR IT.
Quote: terapinedI've had Mormon recruiters actually knock on my front door. I DONT WANT TO HEAR IT.
Put some padding ont he door and you won't ;)
Seriously, unless they come in very early on a Weekend morning, think of this as an opportunity.
Mormon: Would you like to hear about Jesus?
You: No, thanks. Would you like to hear abour Satan? No? Why not?
If they leave a card or a pamphlet with a number, then you can give that out for when you know it will end up on telemarketing lists.
You should make a list of things that you want to hear and things that you don't, and then lobby to have the government limit free speech to only those things that you are ok hearing.
The fact is, whether you like it or not, everyone has the right to get up on his soapbox in a public area.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo, free speech only for the opinions that you want to hear?
You should make a list of things that you want to hear and things that you don't, and then lobby to have the government limit free speech to only those things that you are ok hearing.
The fact is, whether you like it or not, everyone has the right to get up on his soapbox in a public area.
I dont have a problem with a soapbox in a public area.
I have a problem with Mormons coming to my front door.
So you consider somebody coming to my front door to push religion on me a free speech issue?
A community that has a "no soliciting sign"
