From what I've heard about being at the bottom of a football pileup, being spit upon seems almost genteel.
posted by kmzh at 11:24 AM on December 13
Since when is distasteful or repugnant not protected by our constitutional right of free speech.
Since when is employment in UFC a constitutional right?
posted by kmzh at 01:40 PM on December 09
Tebow lost all credibility as soon as he shilled for the notoriously bigoted Focus on the Family.
posted by kmzh at 04:54 PM on December 05
I guess they just felt they should give it to me after $7,879,265.00 worth of lessons.
You realize that she's one of the original students of the founder of judo, and she's been teaching judo for decades, right?
posted by kmzh at 10:47 AM on August 09
Big talk there, fella.
(Also, I'm pretty sure martial arts belts aren't given out based on who can beat up whom.)
posted by kmzh at 11:10 AM on August 08
Today we add gay marriage to the marriage fiasco and next Polygamists are fighting for the same right or first cousins or guys who are in love with a sex doll or their pet.
And I don't have a problem with polygamy or incest, assuming equal power relationships. (In other words not cult leaders with underage wives.)
posted by kmzh at 03:11 PM on June 17
A person has the right to say or believe whatever they want, whether that person is an athlete or anyone else. You don't have to agree with them, but I do not believe that is a reason to attack them, even with past actions that have absolutely no bearing on their opinion or their right to express that opinion.
A person has the right to say what they want, just as I have the right to call them a shithead. Bigots of any stripe should get called out for it. Doesn't matter if you're a homophobe, racist, misogynist, etc. They're an asshole, and I'm not going to respect their "opinion".
posted by kmzh at 12:32 PM on June 17
What is a gay marriage? I know what we all think. If you are pro gay marriage, let me ask you this. If two 60 year old heterosexual men want to marry each other after their wives have passed away, because they are good friends, have no wives and need to get a tax break or get one of them covered on medical insurance or allow one to get paid social security death benefits when one dies, or be able to collect on life insurance etc, should they be allowed? Do you want the government to try to determine what is legitimate marriage and what is marriage for profit or convenience? Is a sexual relationship part of the criteria, and how do you prove it? Don't a man and two women who love each other have the same rights as two men or two women or a man and a woman. No matter how you slice it at some point you have the government putting their stamp of approval on personal relationships within some moral or social guideline. Today we add gay marriage to the marriage fiasco and next Polygamists are fighting for the same right or first cousins or guys who are in love with a sex doll or their pet.
Are you fucking serious? This is homophobic bullshit of the highest order. Let me ask you this, if a sixty year old man and a sixty year old woman want to marry each other after their spouses have passed away, because they are good friends, have no spouses, and need to get a tax break or get one of them covered on medical insurance etc, should they be allowed?
And really, bringing bestiality into the mix? Are you a NOM spokesman or something?
posted by kmzh at 12:27 PM on June 17
Copyright © 2013 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.