HomeskillitMoorman

And the Christian/Conservative religion literally to this day still push for laws to not allow homosexuals to get married because they personally believe it is wrong after already doing it for hundreds of years. Is that better? I've just never understood the whole obsession with either side to impose their beliefs onto other people. There is a simple solution of letting people do what they want as long as they are not hurting someone.

This is the same guy that went on Twitter and ripped a flight attendant for "making" him and his wife clean up popcorn that their child spilled. He's an entitled prick. I've been reading some of the Politics forum today and it doesn't surprise me that you would fall in line behind him. I don't care about what he posts, I believe in the freedom for people to be able to do that. But there's also a freedom people have to call out those that make public statements. Isn't that exactly what Bud Light had to face from it's largely Conservative consumer base that still enjoyed pisswater to this day even with so many great beer options available? And take a second to think about this...he is trying to rally people to boycott companies that think differently than he does...and people basically rallied against him because he thinks differently than they do. What's the difference? I think both sides are at fault but people like you try to present it as being one-sided. There is also a high level of hypocrisy when Conservatives were outraged at players for kneeling during the anthem even if they were just expressing their beliefs and said they shouldn't be able to do that if the teams owners objected to it because that's who they work for. Why is this different if the Blue Jays object to it when he works for them? I'm on neither side, I just find it so amazing that both sides don't see that they are complaining and demonizing the other side for literally the same exact nonsense.

The only thing the Bud Light thing meant is that Conservatives have horrible taste in beer and were actually still drinking that piss water instead of all of the incredible beer options that exist today. Everyone else moved on from that horrible beer a long time ago.

This is so all so dumb. Basically a head-to-head battle of fake religions that both mock each other but both think they're in the right and the other is in the wrong.

Haha that's what I was going to say. How is this any different than cancel culture? So many of those same people have become just as reactive and petty as the people they complained for so long about.

Reminds me of this:

The debates on how many 1st rounders we traded for Watkins were some of the boards finest moments

Kinda gross that he did an interview with someone like Tomi Lahren but for the most part he took the high road. I though Beanes comments when they cut him though were supportive. He hinted that he believed Matt and that he needed to put his full focus into dealing with the accusations. The ugly parts are the false accusations and what men go through when it comes to them. On the flip side, it can also unfairly make a woman who’s actually been abused or raped look like she’s crying wolf because of frauds like this one. It sucks all around.

This stuff is so frustrating. My dad is old and it's hard helping him from out of state to get all of these different apps and streaming sites to be able to even just watch all the Bills games. You should be able to watch everything if you pay for Sunday Ticket, this is all just so stupid.

Yeah, there's a very toxic Politics section people can find here for that to get it all out. I'm glad it exists because it probably lessens what we see on the football forums. But unless you're influenced by characters in the media on either side, I probably wouldn't recommend.

He had 2 catches for 29 yards against Florida...

I like the player but like others here I don't really have faith that Dorsey will effectively use him. He didn't even utilize 1 good TE, I'm not sure how there are expectation that he's going to utilize 2.

Right, and I think some of it is this classification that you have to be part of one side. You can be someone that has both liberal and conservative views. In fact, that's what MOST people probably are. Both parties have always wanted this, to make people choose a side or classify other people as being something. I might have a conversation with a woman whose conservative and we would probably find a good amount of common ground. Same would go the other way. I'm weary of anyone who chooses a side because you don't have to.

No, but I also think those toxic apps are not a good source of information or judge of women in general. Most people I interact with don't care about politics and it mostly doesn't come up in our conversations when we hang out. If people are making their politics outwardly known in their profiles, they're probably the extremes. Also, if someone is only seeking a partner that shares all of their political beliefs on either side, they want to live in an echo chamber, that wouldn't be someone I'd be interested in anyways. I see you added this part: I see plenty of attractive women that identify as liberal, but they’re really not. They just think they are. I know this because I won’t date someone who’s belief system is antithetical to mine, and when it comes up .. we usually have a ton of common ground. I think a lot of people would find common ground because most people are moderates of each side. The extremes on both sides are a small percentage and are weaponized by the media and political people on both sides to make you believe the other side is evil.

You're basically just a product of Fox News. There is no real measured difference in women who are liberal or conservative, most people in general aren't even heavily political. You're just going off of the extreme TikTok "liberals" that you're told to look at. Just like I don't think most Conservative women are fat hillbillies. All that stuff is just so silly and childish.

I agree on the first part but if you go back and some of this thread...lotta victims here.

I believe most politicians from both sides are protected by the elites, historical evidence would probably side with me on that one, and Trump in the past himself has been protected as well. Was he targeted in this case? I would agree, yes. But are you willing to agree that it's the same exact thing he wanted to do to his competitors? Because it is. The only difference is it didn't work when he wanted it. The intent was the exact same.

This is an interesting victimhood thread comprised of a lot of people who probably go around saying you shouldn't have a victimhood mentality.

That's actually EXACTLY what I'm saying! Trump wanted the same exact thing to happen to his competitors that is happening to him right now. The only difference is the other side leveraged more power to get it done against him. So the difference is an imbalance of power, the levels of insidious corruption are the exact same, one just wasn't able to execute on it.

So you're basically validating what I'm saying...Trump wanted the same exact thing that's happening to him right now to happen to his competitors from the other side in the past...the outrage from Republicans is only there because it "worked" in terms of the indictment (I don't think anything's really going to come out of it). But in principle, it's what Trump was calling for to happen to his competitors in the past. I'm not saying I side with anyone because I don't side with any political party, I'm saying it's hypocritical that people are making Trump out to be some kind of martyr when he would've laughed if the same thing happened to Hillary or Biden, as would probably every Republican. It's selective outrage, it's the same exact thing conservatives complain about from the radical side of the Left. It's literally no different. What you're arguing much more is an imbalance of power than actual intent or level of corruption. Trump DID want for his competitors to get indicted just the way he did now, the only difference is he didn't have the connections to make it happen. The level of corruption is the same, you're basically giving him credit because his corruption didn't happen to manifest into the same results. From purely a morality standpoint, if the Bills tried to record the practices of other teams but couldn't get their hands on the right technology to do it, would that make them more virtuous than the Patriots who were able to accomplish it? The Republican party is no better than the Democrat party, that's the part where you're still heavily brainwashed. They're all the same.

Lot of hypocrisy here. Trump has literally wanted other former Presidents or candidates to get indicted for very similar things in the past. Why is that somehow different? I think all of these politicians on both sides are shady that have done all of these things and think they should all be thrown in jail. Then we might actually get somewhere. Acting like one party is virtuous and honest is beyond absurd.

Isn't it problematic though that you're already tuning out everyone else and voting for one side automatically? I think that's part of the dysfunction of politics. I try to pick the best person regardless of party affiliation. When I lived in New Hampshire I voted for Chris Sununu even though he's Republican because he's closer to the Center and has done positive work. Those people are few and far between, I wouldn't disagree with that, but they are out there.

I'm Independent but my beliefs lean more liberal. I don't believe the Democrat Party reflects classical liberal values. I also don't believe the Republican Party reflects actual classical conservative values. I'm honestly weary of anyone who pledges some kind of allegiance to either party. Both are incredibly corrupt and do not care about the people.

I haven't really seen that pattern with sports because the POTUS usually go to sporting events in cities that are more favorable to them. Trump got booed pretty heavily at a Washington Nationals World Series game if I remember correctly and Obama would get ovations to the more liberal cities he'd go to. I don't think sports fans in general lean one way, it really just depends on the region it's in.

I'm looking for consistency. For the drag shows that are "X-rated", I agree parents should not take their kids to those shows. But a lot of those people are the same exact people that support indoctrinating their kids into religious with harmful messages such as Christianity's about Hell and what certain supposed sins are with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. I can take it a lot more seriously if you're against indoctrination of that kind as well and let children be educated and think for themselves instead of grooming them to fit one destructive model and have those people rail against other people grooming children to fit theirs.