LakersGround.net :: View topic - Disappointing News: Tony Dungy is a Spineless Tool

Disappointing News: Tony Dungy is a Spineless Tool
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

1hu2ren3dui4
Franchise Player

Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 15403
Location: Oak Park

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:32 pm Post subject:

And has anybody ever heard this god fella actually come out and say that he's against homosexuality. I wouldn't want to hold bigotry against him if he never said it in the first place. I mean isn't the bible like 3rd hand at best so id try to give him the benefit of the doubt before calling him a bigot.

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:41 pm Post subject:

1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:

And has anybody ever heard this god fella actually come out and say that he's against homosexuality. I wouldn't want to hold bigotry against him if he never said it in the first place.

I mean isn't the bible like 3rd hand at best so id try to give him the benefit of the doubt before calling him a bigot.

I'm still working on existence before I get to opinions...

_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:52 pm Post subject:

24 wrote:

1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:

I'm still working on existence before I get to opinions...

postandpivot
Retired Number

Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:09 pm Post subject:

frijolero01 wrote:

postandpivot wrote:

frijolero01 wrote:

postandpivot wrote:

poppajons wrote:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:

poppajons wrote:

The personal attacks need to stop. Being from a Christian background, I do believe what the bible teaches and if someone attacks me because of it, that is their perogative.

I think it is universally known that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. The issue here is people fall into one of two categories: Those that believe homosexuality is a choice or those that believe it is uncontrollable.

Regardless, Christians put too much emphasis on homosexuality itself and not on Sam, the person. Christians are called to love people, and that means everyone.

I apologize if this sounds preachy, that is not my intention.

I appreciate what you're saying... People are judging Sam and that is not Christian like.. True?

Yes, very true.

actually its true for some and not for all.

see what is this thing we call"judging people"
who even knows what that means?
can you define that phrase as its defined in the bible?

people throw that phrase around all the time. some are correct when they say people are judging others. but at the same time its not always judging thats going on. but the reason others dont like to HEAR what these people have to say is because some people refuse to go ALONG with that idea. there's a difference.

if the book, says all sin is sin.
if the book says pre-marital sex is a sin
if the book says having a homosexual relationship is a sin
then pre-marital sex = homosexuality = a sin
if the book says we should do what we can to correct our sins even though being sinful is a natural temptation. should we not do our best to correct said sins?

if the book says dont judge. but also says am i my brothers keeper. how can i approach my brother(fellow citizen/fellow christian/ friend/family member) about his or her sin if he/she does not see what he/she is doing is a sin? what should I do per the book? should i turn a blind eye and act like i dont see what i see? some say <YES. its non of your business.
Others say dont judge me.

Well here's the thing. its how i handle the situation will tell you if i judged you or if i just brought it up to you out of love.

some even christians like to say"god is love" and leave it at that. as if there are no rights and wrongs. as if there are no rules and regs. as if we can all just live our life like whatever and god would be just fine with that. thats not what that bible says now is it? No.

at what point can you address your brother if he has not addressed his sinful ways himself? and what point are you going to far and then Judging him?

at what point do you address what your brother is doing to the masses because he's also addressing what he's doing to the masses as if what he's doing is not a sin. therefore CONFUSING those that do not yet understand(children in the flesh and children in the spiritual since)

what the OP forgot when he made that statement about dungy is this.

If you know a person is a "man of god" so they say. and lets say you see them as a stand up guy/gal. The reason Tony D doesnt curse in the locker room is because of christ. at least so he says. no telling what dungy is doing behind closed doors. so lets just assume for arguments sake what he says is legit.

if you really like dungy. understand you cant take away the God fearing man part of dungy and still come up with the same man you like.

if he's a tool today. he was a tool the other day pre-sam.

that goes for anyone you look up to or think is a stand up person but they say they are christians and truly believe in the bible. part of the reason they are stand up. is because of their morals. their morals are coming from that book you hate or dont agree with. it say in that book that homosexuality is a sin. So dont even ask a bible lover the question. because you should already have know where they stand based on that book.

If dungy had a completely different stance on homosexuality. You(the fan of dungy the stand up guy) should no longer be a fan of dungy. because that would mean he will bend what he believes in just so he can fit in with the masses. people do this all the time. They change with the wind. Which means they are not grounded on principles. Remember. you liked dungy because you thought he was grounded on principles. those principles were biblical principles. So either hate him from the start, or love him because he's keeping it real with you when he says per the book he has loved and has made him the standup guy he is. he does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. you can disagree with the book itself. but at least tell yourself "i cant be mad at dungy for standing his grown on his principles."

and for those that love to compare apples to crackers. with homosexuality and race relations.

just know this. there is no biblical principle that says intentionally disenfranchise people of color and make sure all the other people are then given a higher status. So not the same at all

and this my friends, is why this topic will be locked, and why most of us have gone away from religion.

if thats why you ran away from religion. you didnt truly understand what you were involved in to begin with. odds are you never really understood it. or if you did, you made a conscious choice. "this is too difficult to deal with. so i'll pass."

Nobody, including you does either. 99% of churchies pick and choose from the bible whatever they hell fits their narrative.

how would you know what 99% of the churchies do? have you met 99% of them?
probably not .
you said Nobody. nobody what? understands the bible? thats false as well. just because you may not understand it, or some churchies that you have seen on TV or in your neighborhood dont understand it. doesnt mean NO ONE understands it.
_________________
LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:11 pm Post subject:

1hu2ren3dui4 wrote:

Actually, he spoke from the heavens and said that he was against Hobozekshalls. People here just had no idea that it was really just the name of the Celtics basketball team in heaven. They have weird team names there.

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:33 pm Post subject:

The term "spineless" is what came to mind for me as well. I completely understand where Dungy is coming from, but I still think he's a weenie. Sam is a fringe talent whose peripheral attributes cause undesirable attention. Simply put, he's not talented enough to justify the distraction. Ironically, Michael Sam and Tim Tebow are a lot alike in this respect. This is why Branch Rickey chose Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier. Much is made of his personality, and ability to show restraint in the face of ignorance, but I think people forget that he was also a really good freaking baseball player. No one could hide their bigotry behind a valid argument regarding his abilities. If you didn't think Jackie Robinson belonged in MLB, you couldn't possibly argue it on any other basis aside from blatant racism. In that respect, Michael Sam is an imperfect ambassador for gay rights in sports, but it doesn't justify Dungy's position. Denying a player...even a fringe one...a spot on your team based on something that is a function of his sexuality is still a loathsome form of discrimination. As a country, we implicitly pride ourselves on being a meritocracy. It doesn't matter what social class you come from, what color you are, what your parents did for a living...if you can get the job done, that's all that matters. That's all that should matter. If Michael Sam isn't one of the best 4 or 5 OLBs on the team, they should cut him, without any regard for his social impact. It cuts both ways. Lastly, I share 24's disappointment with how many African-Americans are completely okay with (bleep) on other human beings. The most common argument is, "It's not the same! Being gay is a choice, and being black isn't!" Aside from the very debatable premise that being gay is a choice, it implies that they would be something other than black if they were given a choice, insinuating that it's less desirable than other options. If you got to choose to be black, would it then be valid to discriminate against you? Of course not.

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67773
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:35 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

jodeke wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

jodeke wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

Quote:

A lot of people (including Dungy) are not opposed to the idea of people unionizing. They just don't want the term "marriage" being applied to a union that involves anything other than a man or woman. It's just a lame religious thing.

That's my position concerning Dungy.

You say that as if it is an OK position (Dungy's position that is).

That's your interpretation of my position not mine. But that's par the DMR course. Show me where I said Dungy's position is OK.

I simply said that's how it sounded. You've said it several times, and each time there's no comment in regards to the substance of that position. You just said it in agreement with ringfinger who clearly believes that such a bizarre and falsely veiled distinction makes it OK. I'm really not sure how else you would think it sounds.

Quote:

My horse in this race is not agreeing or disagreeing with Tony, my position is my interpretation of Dungy's statement. He's not against gay union he's against gay marriage.

As I said before in response to ringfinger, that is an entirely meaningless "position". It's a cop out. It's a condescending approach that attempts to mask it as reasonable:

"Oh I have nothing against gay people. They can date all they want as long as they don't try to do anything meaningful like get married."

There are no varying degrees of acceptance. You either do or you don't. There's no middle ground - as convenient as that would be to those who mask their bigotry with pretenses of acceptance.

Quote:

I'm still waiting for you to point me to something definitively saying he's anti gay. Not it's been linked in the thread. If it is I missed it. I'll ask again will you please show me?

I'm not sure why you would be waiting. I've explained it several times. You either get it or you don't.

Well your're simply wrong. Show me where I said his position was OK.

Meaningless to you because it doesn't fit your agenda. If you deem it meaningless, so be it.

Talking about a cop out. You're really funny DMR. You won't show me because it's not there.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

There are no varying degrees of acceptance. You either do or you don't. There's no middle ground - as convenient as that would be to those who mask their bigotry with pretenses of acceptance.

Now this is a closed minded viewpoint I can't possibly get on board with. It's as ignorant and intolerant a perspective that is no different than saying anyone in favor of any form of immigration control is a racist because there is no middle ground.

Perhaps I just can't articulate it, or maybe some people aren't able to see the distinction. In either case, please read this very well written article by Brandon Ambrosino, a gay writer for The Atlantic and other publications.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-against-gay-marriage-doesnt-make-you-a-homophobe/282333/

A preview:

Quote:

In other words, I think it’s quite possible for marriage-equality opponents to have flawed reasoning without necessarily having flawed character. When we hastily label our opposition with terms like “anti-gay,” we make an unwarranted leap from the first description to the second.

City_Dawg
Retired Number

Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 46882
Location: Coming soon and striking at your borders.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:48 pm Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

There are no varying degrees of acceptance. You either do or you don't. There's no middle ground - as convenient as that would be to those who mask their bigotry with pretenses of acceptance.

Quote:

Oh, so it's a "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." kind of thing?
_________________
*sighs*

!...

ringfinger
Retired Number

Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:53 pm Post subject:

City_Dawg wrote:

ringfinger wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

There are no varying degrees of acceptance. You either do or you don't. There's no middle ground - as convenient as that would be to those who mask their bigotry with pretenses of acceptance.

Quote:

Oh, so it's a "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." kind of thing?

I'm not a church goer myself, but I don't think they talk like that anymore.

ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player

Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:33 pm Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

The term "spineless" is what came to mind for me as well.

The most common argument is, "It's not the same! Being gay is a choice, and being black isn't!" Aside from the very debatable premise that being gay is a choice, it implies that they would be something other than black if they were given a choice, insinuating that it's less desirable than other options. If you got to choose to be black, would it then be valid to discriminate against you? Of course not.

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:34 pm Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

The term "spineless" is what came to mind for me as well.

I completely understand where Dungy is coming from, but I still think he's a weenie. Sam is a fringe talent whose peripheral attributes cause undesirable attention. Simply put, he's not talented enough to justify the distraction. Ironically, Michael Sam and Tim Tebow are a lot alike in this respect. This is why Branch Rickey chose Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier. Much is made of his personality, and ability to show restraint in the face of ignorance, but I think people forget that he was also a really good freaking baseball player. No one could hide their bigotry behind a valid argument regarding his abilities. If you didn't think Jackie Robinson belonged in MLB, you couldn't possibly argue it on any other basis aside from blatant racism.

In that respect, Michael Sam is an imperfect ambassador for gay rights in sports, but it doesn't justify Dungy's position. Denying a player...even a fringe one...a spot on your team based on something that is a function of his sexuality is still a loathsome form of discrimination. As a country, we implicitly pride ourselves on being a meritocracy. It doesn't matter what social class you come from, what color you are, what your parents did for a living...if you can get the job done, that's all that matters. That's all that should matter. If Michael Sam isn't one of the best 4 or 5 OLBs on the team, they should cut him, without any regard for his social impact. It cuts both ways.

Lastly, I share 24's disappointment with how many African-Americans are completely okay with (bleep) on other human beings. The most common argument is, "It's not the same! Being gay is a choice, and being black isn't!" Aside from the very debatable premise that being gay is a choice, it implies that they would be something other than black if they were given a choice, insinuating that it's less desirable than other options. If you got to choose to be black, would it then be valid to discriminate against you? Of course not.

That is a most excellent point. And apparently, if I choose to believe you could stop being black if you really wanted to (or in the even more insidious version, stop acting on being black), then it would be ok for me to think my god doesn't approve of you. Brilliant!
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel

KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player

Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:58 pm Post subject:

24 wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

I agree with everything GT wrote except for the analogy part. The argument isn't that being black would be something that people would choose to not be if given the chance. It's that generally one can be gay and should they decide to remain closeted, they won't suffer nearly as much from the discrimination that comes with that sexual orientation. OTOH, Most blacks, except for those who actually COULD pass can't avoid the discrimination on a phenotypical basis.

IMO, either argument is specious and disappointing as well.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays

Wilt
LG Contributor

Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13733

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:54 pm Post subject:

I think African-Americans have evolved on the issue as well, if I remember correctly from some polling I read. Heck, the whole country has evolved since 2008 and each subsequent poll confirms that gay marriage is getting more support. However, black Democrats are less likely to support gay marriage than other Democrats. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!

ComputerBlue
Star Player

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 1872

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:04 am Post subject:

nickuku wrote:

jodeke wrote:

postandpivot wrote:

jodeke wrote:

C'mon PnP stay on point. your posts are half page long and they have nothing to do with the topic.

stop it. they have everything to do with the topic and the direction this thread has traveled.

we're talking dungy. football, sam. and how it all relates to religious beliefs, marriages,unions, and homosexuality.

Will you at least shorten your responses. I confess to not reading them because of their length.

No offense PnP but this echoes my exact feelings about your posts and I've mentioned it in the past. Even if you make decent points it is very hard to read your posts because they are long winded, have terrible grammar, and worst of all are extremely disorganized in that you jump from one topic to another in the blink of an eye without a proper transition.

I have enjoyed reading PnPs posts in this thread. They are on topic and on point. Go ahead and call me a PnP fanboy, but I have not heard any valid follow up to his posts - just more topic shifting and name calling.
_________________
One man's trash is another man's treasure.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:51 am Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

There are no varying degrees of acceptance. You either do or you don't. There's no middle ground - as convenient as that would be to those who mask their bigotry with pretenses of acceptance.

Quote:

It's not closed minded at all. One can't be a proponent of disallowing the same legal rights to one group that are afforded to others and then claim that they are not against that group. It's not a question of closed minded or open minded. It's just basic logic.

As for Mr. Ambrosino's comment, the status of his sexual orientation doesn't mean his opinions on the matter must be inherently correct. The idea that one having an otherwise decent character somehow negates a bigoted position on a particular matter is nonsense. The behavior is still wrong and unacceptable, it matters not that someone may be a decent person on other issues.

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:53 am Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

I don't entirely agree with this. Somehow gay marriage has become viewed as coextensive with gay rights, but that is not necessarily accurate. In the end, my attitude is that, if marriage is really all that important to gay people, what the heck. Let them have it. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

However, I can see another side to the argument, albeit not the argument that is usually presented by the bigots and homophobes. What is the purpose of marriage in the first place? Why did society create this legal relationship? It wasn't some romantic or hedonistic construct. Heck, a high percentage of marriages were arranged until modern times, and arranged marriages are still common in much of the world. Marriage was a socially enforced institution to insure social order and the welfare of children. In the modern era, when we have birth control and women are part of the workforce, a lot of heterosexuals have started to question the purpose of marriage. The divorce rate has skyrocketed.

So what is the societal purpose of creating a legal relationship between two gay people? If you had asked me 20 years ago, I would have said that gay marriage was an oxymoron. I've warmed up to the idea because it seems to be really important to a lot of gay people, but that doesn't mean that it makes a lot of sense to me.

You say that everyone should have the same legal rights. That's a fine principle in theory, but legal rights don't exist in the abstract. They are created due to concrete circumstances. I have my doubts about whether there is a legal right to marriage between two gay people, but again, if it is really all that important to gay people, I'll say "what the heck" and go along with it. It costs me nothing.

Obviously, the bigots and homophobes have deeper issues with gay marriage. I make this point just to clarify that opposing gay marriage is not automatically a sign of bigotry and homophobia.

jodeke
Retired Number

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67773
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:21 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

Quote:

Obviously, the bigots and homophobes have deeper issues with gay marriage. I make this point just to clarify that opposing gay marriage is not automatically a sign of bigotry and homophobia.

This is the point on which I base my stance that Tony may not be anti gay, he's opposed to gay marriage.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:31 am Post subject:

24 wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

There's another aspect to the ridiculous concept that being gay is a choice - if it were simply a matter of choice, why would people choose to become derided by a society and subject themselves to bigotry and discrimination for something that was simply a choice. As if when provided the convenience of a "choice" in the matter they would choose the most inconvenient of the choices?

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:41 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

I agree completely with the history portion of this, which is why I tend to be with OLG on just getting rid of the legal marriage statutes altogether, and let adults contract how they like in terms if who can share their bank account, see them in the hospital, make decisions for them when they are incapacitated, etc.

But of course, that isn't on the immediate horizon, and while giving groups the same benefits as marriage with a different name mitigates a lot of the practical discriminations, I agree with the folks in my state who decided that wasn't enough, that it in fact instituted discrimination into the law. It said you get the same benefits as we do, but you are not us. You are different. You are less, and undeserving of the word we use.

And therein lies the crux of the argument of civil unions but not marriage. At its core, even if well meaning, it is based on the simple premise that there is something unequal about the unions, requiring different nomenclature. No one would stand for civil unions for African Americans, or for interracial couples. And atheists get marriage, not civil unions.it matters. It tells the next generation something important.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:43 am Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

It has nothing to do with the issue. If you want to debate the merits and meaning of marriage fine. But that's not the discussion here. Marriage as a legal concept exists and there are still states that don't grant the same rights to that marriage to gay people as they do to straight people and there are still people who believe that is fair and appropriate. THAT is the discussion.

If you want to dispel the whole idea of legal marriage, fine, It certainly erases the legal issue in regards to gays being afforded the same status as the rest of the population. But as a lawyer you are certainly aware what a big can of worms that would open.

Quote:

You say that everyone should have the same legal rights. That's a fine principle in theory, but legal rights don't exist in the abstract. They are created due to concrete circumstances. I have my doubts about whether there is a legal right to marriage between two gay people, but again, if it is really all that important to gay people, I'll say "what the heck" and go along with it. It costs me nothing.

Obviously, the bigots and homophobes have deeper issues with gay marriage. I make this point just to clarify that opposing gay marriage is not automatically a sign of bigotry and homophobia.

It's not a sign of the extremes of those, but once you deny a legal right to something for one group of people you are engaging in discrimination.

You can't espouse discrimination for a specific group and then claim you are not opposed to that specific group.

You may not be a full blown homophobe, but clearly you have thoughts that indicate you find them less deserving. That's an inherently dismissive stance of opposition to them.

ComputerBlue
Star Player

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 1872

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:01 am Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

DaMuleRules(and anyone else that supports gay marriage), I can assume you also support plural marriage?

How about marriage between siblings?

If not, how can you discriminate these groups but not to homosexuals?
_________________
One man's trash is another man's treasure.

ChefLinda
Moderator

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:06 am Post subject:

ComputerBlue wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

You are equating same-sex unions between consenting adults (legal) to incest and polygamy which are illegal crimes. These types of arguments constitute a particularly insidious form of gay bashing and are not acceptable on this site. Continued use of such arguments will subject posters to suspension just as surely as if you had used a more obvious gay slur.

yinoma2001
Retired Number

Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:09 am Post subject:

Hasn't enough been said on the matter? Do we need another 100 pages for people to trade insults and be banned from a LAKERS BASKETBALL board? Is this kind of the execution line for certain posters? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals

KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player

Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:14 am Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

24 wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

Why would blacks who could "pass" choose to stay in the South before Brown?
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays

Display posts from previous:

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23

Page 23 of 23

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.

We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.