Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 16, 2017, 11:38:54 pm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 on: Today at 11:27:51 pm 
Started by MyGodWearsAHoodie - Last post by EKnight

This country was built on people standing up for freedoms ... not on what offends them ... least we forget.

Actually, this country was built by wealthy, white, land-holding, slave-owning men, who proclaimed, "All men are created equal... unless you're illiterate, poor, female, or of any race other than white."

200+ years and not much seems to have changed for some folks.

 on: Today at 07:58:38 pm 
Started by Dolfanalyst - Last post by Baba Booey
The only rankings I care about are at the end of the year. 


 on: Today at 06:51:52 pm 
Started by MyGodWearsAHoodie - Last post by Spider-Dan
I understand your point about armed misunderstandings, and as you well know I am in favor of gun control.  But in a society where the following three things are true:

1) every non-criminal has a right to have as many guns as they want
2) political activists have the right to arm themselves
3) even the most heinous political ideologies are protected speech

... political violence is the expected result.  I don't really see how one could conclude otherwise.

So up until now, I would encourage disarmament and de-escalation.  But with actual armed Nazis in play, all bets are off.  I'm not going to buy a gun and start going to rallies, but I'm also not going to tell Anti-fa they should stay home.  If the choice is between:

a) armed Nazis attacking unarmed protesters (while the police may or may not intervene), or
b) armed Nazis violently clashing with armed protesters, forcing the police to violently crack down on both sides

I choose the latter, and it's an easy decision.

P.S. One more thing.  You mentioned that the synagogue story did not show any instance of actual violence, and that's true.  It showed something that I believe is worse: terrorizing the vulnerable with an implicit threat of violence.  It's opening your front door to find a noose on your porch or "GO HOME N------" spraypainted on your car.  This cannot be permitted to continue.

 on: Today at 06:39:03 pm 
Started by Dolfanalyst - Last post by Dolfanalyst
they probably ranked us lower last year this time and how did that turn out?!

One spot lower:


So if the stars align like they did last year, the team will finish 10-6. Wink

 on: Today at 06:35:28 pm 
Started by DaLittle B - Last post by Dolfanalyst
It isn't about Maualuga, whether they sign him or not , who cares. Point is they are already looking to replace Hull and upgrade the position with a LB. If it's Maualuga or someone else is the bigger picture point I was making

But that's my point, that we don't yet know the meaning of Maualuga or any other linebacker's workout with the team.  Their attempt to "upgrade" the position may consist of Maualuga's (or some other player's) looking very good in his workout, coupled with his accepting a relatively low salary, while readily reverting to Hull as the starter if those conditions aren't met.

If that's the case, then their threshold for upgrading the position is much higher than you appear to think it is, and they're in fact much more comfortable with Hull than you appear to think they are.

And here's the initial news BTW:


 on: Today at 06:26:10 pm 
Started by MyGodWearsAHoodie - Last post by Phishfan
Armed Nazis merit an armed (not necessarily violent, but definitely armed) response.  The right has been insisting for years that arming themselves for political rallies isn't dangerous, right?  The participation of armed Nazis in this philosophy means the time has come to put theory into practice.

I'll start this by saying that I hope I am not being misunderstood in any way. I abhor what their demonstration stands for. The one issue I have with your response is this, being armed for a rally is not dangerous (and is limited where it can happen). The arming of a group for a face to face counter-rally is absolutely dangerous. I'd love to hear about how much violence started without that face to face. You posted an article about a synagogue that clearly showed fear. What it failed to mention was any actionable demonstration of violence against them.

Here is a parable (sorry the after work drinks got to me with that one) from when I was in West Virginia. I was working at a ski resort and we had just gotten fresh snow one evening. I worked the closing shift and came home between 11:30 and midnight. The first thing I noticed as I pulled up to the house was fresh tracks that went up to every window and door of my place. I gave the outside a look and everything was still locked and nothing broken. I was scared to death and was on point. What I didn't do was follow the tracks away from my house and confront whoever left them. I immediately went inside and locked up behind me (not something always done in WV, even when not home) and heard a knock within 20 seconds. At that point I went to the door (without opening) to see who it was with my gun in hand. The situation turned out to be nothing and was a just drunk freshman trying to find someone but I hope we can both let our imagination wonder to a point where I had taken the gun and followed the tracks looking for whoever "scared" me.

 on: Today at 05:44:41 pm 
Started by MyGodWearsAHoodie - Last post by Spider-Dan
I have said it multiple times: I am in favor of armed resistance in the explicit case of Nazis.  Prior to the 45th president, everyone seemed to be in agreement that Nazis are a thing that is bad, to the point where if your opponent in a discussion brings up the Nazis, they aren't playing fair.  That line in the sand has been comically obliterated.

The kind of "free America" you describe is one where armed Nazis are marching in the street shouting "Sieg Heil" and "Blood and soil," and the proper course of action is... for us to silently stay indoors lest we provoke a confrontation.  Hell no.  I have no desire to relearn the lessons of 1930s Germany under the cover of protecting vigorous political debate.  The very fact that armed Nazis are comfortable marching in American streets (and that the people who opposed them are being attacked politically!) shows that the system has failed, and needs drastic action to fix it.

Armed Nazis merit an armed (not necessarily violent, but definitely armed) response.  The right has been insisting for years that arming themselves for political rallies isn't dangerous, right?  The participation of armed Nazis in this philosophy means the time has come to put theory into practice.

As for what I expect from these confrontations: I expect that the ultimate outcome of all Nazi uprisings will be violence.  They are Nazis, after all.  The question is whether that violence will consolidate their power or disperse it.  In any sane version of America, observers would see a violent conflict between Nazis and [almost literally anyone else] and determine that the problem is the Nazis.  If we devolve to the point where a majority of people can't figure out which side is in the wrong, and one of the sides is the Nazis, USA has outlived its usefulness as a world leader and WW3 is just a matter of time.

 on: Today at 05:29:35 pm 
Started by MyGodWearsAHoodie - Last post by Phishfan
Not even close to what I have said Spider. Your stance has been to support meeting them in the street. That is what I have said should not be done. If there is so much concern about their building and their congregation why wasn't the call to simply have a "sleep in" (please don't over analyze this term and let's stay on topic) and stay on site to protect themselves and property. You do not meet legally armed people head on (especially under-armed) without the expectation of violence expediting. Just so you know, I'm glad their property and congregation appear to be safe from this last weekend's event and hope for their best in the future.

Believe me Spider, I am not a back down and cower guy. I'm one of the few liberal leaning posters on this forum who admit to sleeping with a gun inches from reach. I do understand though that if violence is perceived, standing up and confronting at that very moment is only for one reason and that is to encourage violence. A person does not have to strike a first blow in order to create a situation that can violently explode.

I am all for meeting force with force but until someone exerts that force upon me, marching in the streets and saying obnoxious things does not count, I am going to pick my time for retort.

I'm curious Spider, as this seems to be an particular area where you have very extremist views (Hoodie has even been on board with their freedom of speech), at what point do you say a demonstration from the left is too far? I'm a leftist gun owner. Should people similar to me have brought our legally obtained and free to carry guns to stand down against them? Are we OK to strike a first blow because of their speech? Can we use non-harmful antagonizing items, such as feathers to tickle their nose, and provoke them into a first blow?

You seem to want to fight them in the street but in many other conversations you have been against unprovoked violence so I really want to understand where you draw the line.

Taking this group on head on is not the way to handle the situation. You have already said they don't need to be at the table for discussion so I think I understand where you are but I really want you to go ahead and state the alternatives. I you don't want a debate, what do you want from meeting them face to face?

 on: Today at 05:29:18 pm 
Started by Spider-Dan - Last post by MyGodWearsAHoodie

 on: Today at 04:56:59 pm 
Started by Phishfan - Last post by Phishfan
You're exact quote was "Of course there are football related reasons for a suspension but Zeke was suspended for allegedly committing a crime without law enforcement charging him."

How is that not defending him?

Because I said it is not. You are just being argumentative now. I said twice I am not defending him (he should be suspended based on what I think has happened and on NFL history). If that is not enough for you then the problem is on you and not me. At this point I think it might be a little ridiculous to continue with you because you cannot comprehend when I explicitly explained once (and stated twice) that I am not defending Zeke. But I will continue and spell it out even more in case it can get through after three attempts.  BuccaneerBrad made a statement about a suspension not being NFL game play related but lawfully related (not his exact words but definitely implied and understood given the topic at hand) and a few responses came back regarding NFL game play related suspensions. I was simply pointing out that those comparisons are not comparable (the Roethlisberger one is). I hope you can understand at this point the difference between defending a member's position (whether I agree or not) and defending an action that was the topic of the thread.

If you can't understand that, I can't make it any clearer and will redirect your complaints about the subject to Buccaneer because it is actually his position and not mine.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC