primetime
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 13,627
- Reaction score
- 15,375
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Is it dark chocolate? Then the kid can have it. Milk chocolate though... game on!We’re all just reaching for that last piece of Lindt candy while knocking down little children and old ladies.
Is that a statement or a question?Why does anyone care
Interesting conclusionThat one is kinda on the NFL, he was apparently told it wasn't going to leave the room. Somebody leaked it.
That one is kinda on the NFL, he was apparently told it wasn't going to leave the room. Somebody leaked it.
Well if it is reveled to have happened, what should the punishment be for Rudolph?Interesting conclusion
We think differently
Because Garrett’s appeal was rejected, The question becomes “who benefits from the leak”
To me, this is a diversionary tactic by Garrett and his people to muddy up the narrative.
NFL gains nothing by offering out this racial component
Is that a statement or a question?
Well if it is reveled to have happened, what should the punishment be for Rudolph?
So lying should have a punishment but using a racial slur shouldn’t have one...?Nothing. One adult calling another adult a name should not be resulting in punishment from a sports league. But we'd need to live in an intelligent world for that to be how it would go down, and Lord knows that we're leaving in a stupid world ruled by stupid people.
So lying should have a punishment but using a racial slur shouldn’t have one...?
I’m saying if you don’t view the name calling as significant, why would lying about it be significant? I feel like I’m missing something.You're kidding me with this, right? I mean, you're not really insane enough to try equating the two, are you?
I applaud your courage going out on this limb as the SJW morals loggers are hard at work trying to chainsaw you out of existence...only a matter of time before Rev Al pimps this absurdity into another "Justice For Tawana!" crusade...expect to see Garrett tweeting all over the "Free Jusse Smollett!" account...
I’m saying if you don’t view the name calling as significant, why would lying about it be significant? I feel like I’m missing something.
NFL simply doesn't want any more controversy on their precious 100th, it took them a nanosecond to investigate, didn't even interview Browns players. There is no precedent for indefinitely suspending Garrett for an on field incident. Zero.
I see everyone runs to their corner on this, white boys sticking up for the white QB and against the black DE. You can see that little punk Rudolph calling the guy that pushed him from behind a biatch. Rudolph started this mess, then once Garrett was being manhandled by DeCastro tried to go after him, and got slapped again with the helmet. DiCastro throws him to the ground and that punk Punsy hits him and kicks him while he's being held. So you had 3 Steelers beating up (or trying to) Garrett as he was being held. Nice. Reminded me of Rodney King, lol. Of course, nobody sees anything wrong with it. Beat up the black dude. Too bad he missed that rascist little sh$%t. Rudolph is a punk, f$%k him.
Oh and f%$k you all, thats my opinion and you guys can't prove sh%$t about what was said or not said based on your lame theories. Only Rudolph and Garrett know. Nobody else including the lying NFL can say if it did or didn't happen. I believe Garrett, you don't. So what.
Why does anyone care
Garret's late hit is what started itRudolf started it. He gives of the impression that he is a punk.
Rudolf grabbed Garrett's facemask first.
Garrett does not have a history of this type of behavior. Garrett said that he cracked. Something was building up all game. The other Browns DL jumped in and pushed baby face Rudolf to the turf. Rather odd thing to do on a whim unless Rudolf was mouthy to him too.
I want to know more if it ever gets out that the Steelers did something wrong.
I am not saying using a racial slur shouldn't be punished but geez, this is a tough row to hoe. If you are going to punish one guy for using a racial slur (which any intelligent thinking individual knows didn't happen in this case but I am speaking hypothetically) then you have to punish everyone who uses racial slurs. However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that some black people use racial slurs against other black people somewhat regularly and, if we are being honest with ourselves, we would admit such things likely occur on the football field.So lying should have a punishment but using a racial slur shouldn’t have one...?
Because one is slander. It can ruin a person's reputation and lifeI’m saying if you don’t view the name calling as significant, why would lying about it be significant? I feel like I’m missing something.
If that is the case, then it must be a pretty bad word, no?Because one is slander. It can ruin a person's reputation and life
If that is the case, then it must be a pretty bad word, no?
I'm not even disagreeing that it would be a horrible thing to lie about it. It's the same thing with lying about rape, the rare cases that it happen make it that much worse for the real victims.