Funkytown wrote:Context? What, was he practicing for his audition for Last Comic Standing? Seems like an excuse to me. Before people were all, "Oh, he probably didn't even say it. Kluwe is a liar." Now it is, "Okay well, he did say it, but let's learn the context." Really? What will the next excuse/justification be? Considering their relationship, I don't think it was a "funny haha" type moment. And even if it was, according to Priefer, isn't it up to Kluwe how he feels about it? Don't say stupid things unless you are prepared for the consequences. I know I'd take a comment from a friend a lot differently than from some pr!ck at my job. How's that for context? Regardless, if it wasn't a big deal to Priefer, and the context was okay in his mind, why lie about it multiple times?! Seems suspicious to me. I'd think it should be suspicious to anyone. He's a lying coward. Doesn't fess up until multiple witnesses come forward? Wow, what a great man. He has a lot of integrity, doesn't he? Whew! I'm blown away!
Lol that's exactly what I was thinking. There sure is a lot of goalpost shifting going on here. The initial defense by everyone in the Priefer camp was, "well I'm not just going to take Kluwe's word for it, so I'm giving Priefer the benefit of the doubt". And now no shock to ANYONE, they're still trying to defend him after it comes out he's a big fat liar lol. Color me surprised.
Well gee Beave, I don't know what he meant by "the", and was he mad or happy when he said it? It's embarrassing. What's next? Ok he's been caught in a lie, and he admits to being a big homophobe, and it comes out he drowned a boy puppy who tried to hump another boy puppy when he was 13 ... but were his pupils dilated, and was he sweating profusely when he said it? Because maybe Kluwe spiked his beverage with a ruffie, and slurs made under hallucinogenic influence shouldn't be taken seriously. You got nothing left when you start trying to argue word meaning and context. Hello! One of these guys has already been exposed as a liar, and you're trying to argue context? SMH
Mothman wrote:I don't know Priefer. He could be a dirtbag of a human being or a good guy who said something he shouldn't have said and now has an ex-player gunning for him because that player needs someone to blame for the demise of his punting career. However, I don't know Kluwe either and given the nature of his behavior, I'm certainly not willing to just take him at his word on this matter, to assume he's a righteous champion doing the right thing. Maybe he is or maybe he's just a nasty narcissist. For someone who was supposedly discriminated against, pummeled with hurtful language and driven out of Minnesota, he sure did a good job of keeping his mouth shut about all of it until it became clear that no NFL team wanted him as a punter and he had a book to promote. Then he let fly with the accusations and painted a picture of himself as victim.
Right! You know so very little about both these guys, oh except that one is a known liar, so you're just going to go ahead and keep defending the known liar? Makes sense, said nobody. Kluwe has just been a well known champion for the LGBT community for years, which apparently you didn't know, but it was all just a ruse? So he knew years in advance that he was going to need someone to blame for the demise of his punting career? He is far more clever than I realized. And to keep up the ruse he's going to donate the entire settlement to the LGBT community. Man what a shifty scumbag. But it's funny how you claim not to know him, but in the very next breath you mention how well you know the nature of his behavior. Which is it? And you know the nature of his behavior but you're completely unaware of him being a well known LGBT activist? You keep on pretending to straddle the fence with the rest of them though my friend. I'm getting my money's worth sitting back and continuing to watch you guys spin your tires xD. I hear if you spin them long enough, eventually you find some traction
.
Valhalla wrote:Kluwe was sending out public letters and addressing a congressman with profanities, that is very high-profile. He did other things that are very high profile. Those kinds of acts are a bad reflection on the team. He could have sent that congressman a letter without that kind of arrogance displayed.
What if he addressed a letter such as that to the Governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota or Iowa?? That was an error in judgement, it looks like Kluwe was out of control.
What if we caught him repeated lying about making homophobic slurs? Would he then be worthy of your defense. Oh wait.
Mothman wrote:It's a complex situation with almost no evidence available for us to consider. There are certainly legitimate 'football" reasons the Vikings could provide to explain why he was released so if he's going to make a case that he was discriminated against and essentially railroaded out of the league because of his personal beliefs, he'd better have some compelling evidence and eyewitness testimony to back it all up.
Wow man, are you on Priefers defense team, and do you think you're talking to the Casey Anthony jury here? You almost have me convinced you're on the defense payroll. xD. You keep at it though, I think you've almost found some traction
.
Just Me wrote:I don't think atheism is considered a religion (legally speaking anyway-if it were, lawsuits to remove Christian symbols could be construed as "discrimination" by Christians with the government endorsing the "religion" of atheism.)
Ahhh not just legally speaking, but just speaking. Atheism is not a religion. The word literally means "without theism". A rejection of the belief in any god(s). About as far as you can get from religion. This being a secular nation, our government is not allowed to endorse any religion. Displaying religious symbols of any kind on public property, like the 10 commandments is unconstitutional. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. And secularism is not atheism.
Cliff wrote:Atheism is not a religion, but it ends up falling into that category of discrimination because an atheist has the right to their lack of belief just as a Christian or Muslim has a right to their beliefs - and employers aren't allowed to discriminate against either.
As far as removing Christian symbols from government buildings ... that has less to do with atheists and more to do with religious freedom overall. It's not just Christian vs. Atheist ... it's Christian Vs. All Other Religions (and non-religions). Our government isn't supposed to favor one religion over another and representing Christianity in a government building is a clear violation of that. Just as Christians probably wouldn't want the Ten Commandments equivalent of the Quran posted in a court house.
Thank you!
Just Me wrote:
Thanks - I can see your point. (And I believe you are correct). The legal issue with affording athiests/agnostics that protection, however, is that I see it opening a door for lawsuits claiming that atheism/agnosticism is the "unofficial state sponsored" 'religion' when lawsuits are filed against schools etc. for having prayers, pledge of allegiance, etc. recited at governmental functions. Not saying I agree (or disagree) with either stance, I just see it opening a 'Pandora's box' of legal issues where I believe (on a strictly legal basis) Athiesm/Agnosticism is not considered a 'religion.' It makes the legal distinction a little 'cleaner' in that the 'no religion' position of the government can't be argued as 'supporting the 'religion' of agnosticism/atheism.' (There is no such animal. At least, I think. Any attorneys, feel free to address my misperception on this.
)
I don't think you see Cliffs point at all. Atheism is not some invented legal term as I pointed out above. Lets try this from a different angle. Lets pretend they changed the pledge of allegiance to "under Allah", or tried to. Or put "In Allah We Trust" on the money, how fast do you suppose the christians would protest? Don't worry, the atheists would be protesting right along side you on that one too xD. This isn't a christian nation like some want to believe. It's secular. There are lots of non christian kids attending public school, so why should they be forced to pledge to a god they don't believe in? Why should they trust a government that endorses a different religion than theirs? The real question we should be asking is, why was god added to the pledge and our money to begin with? They weren't there originally.
"Our playoff loss to the Vikings in '87 was probably the most traumatic experience I had in sports." -- Bill Walsh
)). This certainly would go against the 'children of the 60s' beliefs. 
