bullets13

Smitty, this isn't a court case. Common sense and tons of circumstantial evidence is MORE than enough to suspend him with. Surely you don't think he's innocent here?

TrueBlue is Smitty? Smitty is TrueBlue? Many things make sense now!

plain old common sense. along with a ton of evidence, and this all despite the fact that Brady refused to cooperate (sure sign of innocence right there).

Finally playing a little baseball

TRUEBLUE is probably looking for a new job after getting suspended indefinitely from his dream job as a Patriots ball boy.

I'm just a short way into a long process, but I've got it started at least.

What's funny is when I tell people I just tested for PAPD, they can't believe I'd rather work there because it's "so much more dangerous out there in Port Arthur!" I try to tell them they're wrong, but they still don't believe me.

in the overall scheme of things, this isn't that big of a deal. players cheat every game in one way or another to gain an advantage. that being said, Brady and the Pats brought this on themselves by lying, denying, and refusing to cooperate. Things would've been totally different in this scenario: The colts go to the league and tell them that they think the balls are underinflated. The pats get caught with under inflated balls that very game. the media finds, out, and the $%^#storm erupts, just like it did. but when asked about it, Brady answers as follows: "Yeah, I like to have the balls a little softer, and I asked the ball guys to let a little air out. I didn't really have any idea what PSI they were supposed to have, and I thought these were still legal. Sorry guys, I wasn't intentionally trying to gain an unfair advantage. Most quarterbacks like their footballs to feel a certain way, and I've always liked mine softer. I apologize." 3 days later, $25K fine for Brady, maybe $50K for the Pats, and we never talk about it again.

the problem he has is that he completely and totally was involved in this. there's more than enough evidence to show it. I completely agree with you that it would not stand up in court, but neither would not cooperating with the investigation, which Brady and the Patriots refused to do. If he wants to take it to court, he can, but then you're going to get a lot of information come out that did not originally due to their lack of cooperation.

like I said earlier in the thread, go express it then! but don't criticize those who think it's stupid to intentionally anger terrorists just to prove a point.

No doubt Westboro is a cult, and it's members are cuckoo. which doesn't change the fact that they're following parts of the bible "to the letter" as well. I'm not sure what knowledge you think I'm lacking. I've had ten pages of this crap with you guys imparting all the wisdom i'll never need on the subject.

Murder #8 in Beaumont this year.

Since the extremists have shown a propensity to fly airplanes into buildings, it actually seems like a pretty dumb idea. But it's certainly her right to do so.

For a 36th time, I'm not comparing the two based on their crimes. I'm comparing the two based on their incorrect interpretations of their holy book. It's two different issues entirely. The point that you're making (which I've agreed with about 6 times), has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. This guy misinterpreted the book and discriminated against someone. The other guy misinterpreted and killed somebody. Yes, one did something WAAAAAY worse than the other, but it's still a valid point to say that they both interpreted a book wrong. and to say so is not to say that their actions after their interpretation are equal. I'm not sure what your inability to make rational inferences from easily understandable passages of texts has to do with me having an inability to be honest with myself.

Reading comprehension... it's FUNdamental.

oughta be pretty soon.

Please tell me this is directed at me :) Also, please answer the question that I posed to you in my last post. it's a very straightforward question, and I know you have the answer because you know the truth.

Since you know the truth, help me sort this out: Here are a couple of truths I've learned from Muslim haters: A ) All muslims are either terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. B ) The Quran demands that Muslims attack Westerners. And here are a couple of facts I know from research: A ) the event in Garland was designed as a direct insult to terroristic muslims. B ) Approximately 500,000 muslims live in texas, with 100,000 or more within 50 or so miles of Garland. So since so many on here have taught me that all muslims are either terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and since many on here have taught me that the Quran basically demands that Muslims kill us, and since you guys all know a whole, whole lot more than the Quran and muslims than I do, please answer this question that I asked earlier in the thread that everyone ignored: WHY DID NONE OF THE 500,000 terrorist Muslims in Texas feel the need or religious call to attack this event that was meant as a direct provocation to terrorist Muslims? Since you know the truth, surely you can answer that.

And yet the old testament is still part of the bible, and some groups of people still use the Old Testament as an excuse for various discriminations and bigotry. Heck, every time we talk about homosexuality Smitty busts out Leviticus.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. But I am suggesting that the attack was exactly what the host anticipated, and was the outcome she hoped for the most. A point I've already made a couple of times in this thread: If you want to wear a sign that says "DEATH TO ALL N*****" and go walk around Harlem at midnight, is anyone really surprised when you get shot? Someone is still responsible for shooting you, but it's more than reasonable for you to expect that that outcome would be the result of your actions.

Did you eat paint chips as a kid? I AM NOT SAYING THAT WESTBORO'S ACTS OF HATRED ARE IN ANYWAY COMPARABLE TO ACTS OF TERROR.  I repeat, the WBC DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE.  KILLING PEOPLE IS WORSE THAN BEING A GIANT BIGOT. The point, and only comparison I'm making between the WBC and terrorists is that BOTH GROUPS MISUSE RELIGIOUS TEXTS TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTS, and THAT THEIR ACTS DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS AND BELIEFS OF THE RELIGION AS A WHOLE.  I've stated this at least a half dozen times in this thread. Clearly YOU are the one who does not get it.  

I'm not comparing the severity of their acts, merely showing that Muslim terrorists using passages out of their holy book to justify their acts does not mean that their acts are justified through their religion, or supported by most Muslims. you guys like to get on here and say "It comes right out of the Quran!" well, WBC uses passages right out of the bible to justify their acts, but the vast majority of Christians have a problem with what they're doing. If someone with no knowledge of Christianity looked at what WBC was doing, they might say "They're quoting the Bible. Christianity must be horrible!" Would that be correct to lump all Christians in with the nutters at WBC? of course not.

the whole premise of the article is insane.

My use of "Muslim haters" is directed at those who blame all of the religion for the acts of a few.

Pathetic. Glad they fired her.