NFL Football

I went on the Las Vegas betting line and I bet $100 that Baltimore will keep San Francisco from beating them by 4 points

Watch the Super Bowl live online here:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/superbowl/live/player

Watch all the Super Bowl Commercials here:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/superbowl/commercials

That was a good game even with the 49ers trying to cheat by having someone pull the electric plug and causing a power outage just when the momentum was on the Baltimore's side.

I won! I won! I won!

wow what a game...the second half was amazing!

Gotta love them 69ers.

Control wrote:

Gotta love them 69ers.

They always make sure to have a great tight end on the roster.

Jack Wade wrote:

Good thing he was talking about gays and not, I dunno, white people. If he had to take sensitivity training classes for that ... well, totalitarianism, I hate this country, etc.

If Culliver had said he hated whitey I would have given him a pat on the back for his honesty. Problem is, so would all the fascists who have remanded him to reeducation camp for insulting our new Leftist overlords. .

The sissification of the NFL continues.

Pretty soon they will be playing powder puff flag football.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/17/matt-forte-rips-helmet-rule-change/

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/use_your_head_53tFGaq7jOZ0Fi4W7P00mL

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/15/tuck-rule-raiders-patriots-game-eliminated-nfl-competition-committee/

American Football is rugby for sissies to begin with.

CJB wrote:

American Football is rugby for sissies to begin with.

As someone who plays for his local rugby team, I endorse this comment.

[quote="j7wild"]The sissification of the NFL continues.

Pretty soon they will be playing powder puff flag football.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/17/matt-forte-rips-helmet-rule-change/

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/use_your_head_53tFGaq7jOZ0Fi4W7P00mL

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/15/tuck-rule-raiders-patriots-game-eliminated-nfl-competition-committee/[/quote]
Best to watch the Lingerie League then, maybe.

tiffanywint wrote:

Best to watch the Lingerie League then, maybe.

I do hope that no lesbians are allowed to play openly. No one wants to see a sexy, good looking lesbian in her panties and bra writhing around on a dirty, muddy field with other equally hot, sexy, sweaty, scantily-clad women. Right?

By the way, it's no longer the Lingerie Football League. It's been renamed Legends Football League. That way nobody looks at women on the field in their panties and bra and sexualizes them. This is a legit football league, and these women deserve our professional respect.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

By the way, it's no longer the Lingerie Football League. It's been renamed Legends Football League.

Thanks, must try and keep up.

Quote :

That way nobody looks at women on the field in their panties and bra and
sexualizes them. This is a legit football league, and these women deserve our
professional respect.

We have our very own team, the Triumph!! These girls do compete hard. They are legit athletes. I'd hazard the LFL is a lot tougher than, say Euro rugby or footie.
Triumph deep threat in action! Very nice form!

j7wild wrote:

The sissification of the NFL continues.

Pretty soon they will be playing powder puff flag football.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/17/matt-forte-rips-helmet-rule-change/

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/use_your_head_53tFGaq7jOZ0Fi4W7P00mL

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/15/tuck-rule-raiders-patriots-game-eliminated-nfl-competition-committee/

Indeed. If it were up to me, let all these players with brain injuries keep committing suicide. All that really matters is that they look cool hitting each other on the foosball field.

How much cap space does your team have? (as of today)


Bengals: $28.9 million.

Browns: $28.7 million.

Buccaneers: $28.8 million.

Jaguars: $26.6 million.

Eagles: $26.3 million.

Packers: $18.3 million.

Bills: $16.8 million.

Dolphins: $15.7 million.

Cardinals: $14.0 million.

Patriots: $13.4 million.

Jets: $13.0 million.

Colts: $11.7 million.

Titans: $10.7 million.

Broncos: $8.8 million.

Lions: $7.2 million.

Ravens: $7.2 million.

Chargers: $7.0 million.

Seahawks: $6.8 million.

Falcons: $6.2 million.

Bears: $5.3 million.

Vikings: $5.1 million.

Texans: $4.9 million.

Giants: $4.5 million.

49ers: $4.5 million.

Saints: $3.3 million.

Redskins: $3.2 million.

Chiefs: $3.1 million.

Raiders: $2.8 million.

Steelers: $2.5 million.

Rams: $1.0 million.

Panthers: $936,000.

Cowboys: $51,000.

I wonder: if the Cowboys sold a player, would their cap-space go up?

$51,000 probably wouldn't purchase an extra cheerleader.

But their cap-space would definitely go up if they sold Romo and Jones!

:roll:

Well Cowboys Fans!

Enjoy 6 more years of pain and misery and disappointments and no playoffs and no Superbowl!!

Nothing will ever change in Dallas until Jerry Jones dies and someone else runs the Cowboys organization!

I FUCKING LOVE IT!

THIS IS FUCKING HILARIOUS!

BEST NEWS I READ ALL WEEK!

This weekend appeared to be the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month at the NFL.

http://www.nfl.com/qs/hispanicheritage/index.jsp

What I'm curious to understand is: how is celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month any less racist than being a supporter of keeping the name "Redskins" associated with the Washington D.C. team? I read one "critic" of the Redskins name claim that the name is offensive because it diminishes an entire group of people to nothing more than a skin color, but yet doesn't celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month do pretty much the same thing? Does not singling out an entire group of people based on color or geography or lineage (nothing that a person can control, but was merely born into) and giving them an entire month to be "celebrated" have the same effect?

This is what happens when accomplishment and merit are no longer celebrated, but instead, factors beyond a person's control are. Positive-discrimination is just as offensive and negative discrimination. It is patronizing. Tony Gonzales, Victor Cruz and Ron Rivera should be celebrated because of their accomplishments, not because of their last name...their skin color...or where their grandparents came from.

2013-14 was Brian McKaig Heritage Year at BaBs. That was a most successful period for the forum, it went from strength to strength.

Proof that 'positive discrimination' works.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

This weekend appeared to be the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month at the NFL.

http://www.nfl.com/qs/hispanicheritage/index.jsp

What I'm curious to understand is: how is celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month any less racist than being a supporter of keeping the name "Redskins" associated with the Washington D.C. team? I read one "critic" of the Redskins name claim that the name is offensive because it diminishes an entire group of people to nothing more than a skin color, but yet doesn't celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month do pretty much the same thing? Does not singling out an entire group of people based on color or geography or lineage (nothing that a person can control, but was merely born into) and giving them an entire month to be "celebrated" have the same effect?

This is what happens when accomplishment and merit are no longer celebrated, but instead, factors beyond a person's control are. Positive-discrimination is just as offensive and negative discrimination. It is patronizing. Tony Gonzales, Victor Cruz and Ron Rivera should be celebrated because of their accomplishments, not because of their last name...their skin color...or where their grandparents came from.

Redskins is a slur. Whether or not they should change the name is not something I concern myself with. But that would be the biggest difference from my perspective.

Erica Ambler wrote:

2013-14 was Brian McKaig Heritage Year at BaBs. That was a most successful period for the forum, it went from strength to strength.

Proof that 'positive discrimination' works.

At the risk of appearing to be making light dinner conversation, can I ask exactly who Brian McKaig is/was?

Salomé wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

This weekend appeared to be the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month at the NFL.

http://www.nfl.com/qs/hispanicheritage/index.jsp

What I'm curious to understand is: how is celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month any less racist than being a supporter of keeping the name "Redskins" associated with the Washington D.C. team? I read one "critic" of the Redskins name claim that the name is offensive because it diminishes an entire group of people to nothing more than a skin color, but yet doesn't celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month do pretty much the same thing? Does not singling out an entire group of people based on color or geography or lineage (nothing that a person can control, but was merely born into) and giving them an entire month to be "celebrated" have the same effect?

This is what happens when accomplishment and merit are no longer celebrated, but instead, factors beyond a person's control are. Positive-discrimination is just as offensive and negative discrimination. It is patronizing. Tony Gonzales, Victor Cruz and Ron Rivera should be celebrated because of their accomplishments, not because of their last name...their skin color...or where their grandparents came from.

Redskins is a slur. Whether or not they should change the name is not something I concern myself with. But that would be the biggest difference from my perspective.

Well, you see, I don't think it's a slur. I don't think an entire city/region of people have adopted that name, wear the logo with pride, sing "Hail To The Redskins", etc...because they think Native Americans are/were somehow inferior or "less than". Maybe it started off as a slur back in the 1800's, but it no longer has that same sort of connotation. I'll tell you where I think all this got started....

I think it all got started when Robert Griffith the 3rd became the quarterback for the Redskins, and activists who had been trying to get this issue noticed saw an opportunity to put an up-and-coming, star-in-the-making (at the time) black quarterback on the spot by essentially forcing him to take a stand on the "controversy". Shirley he, as a black man, would be sensitive to their concerns, no?

But I digress. I've been through this exact same thing with The Atlanta Braves. Picture it: Atlanta....October of 1991. Atlanta is going to its first ever World Series. Atlanta is going to its first national sports championship game of any of the major sports. Suddenly, out of the woodwork, come "Indian rights activists" protesting the name "Braves", the "tomahawk chop" (which I think we stole from the Florida State Seminoles), the tomahawk chant, and, IIRC, the laughing brave. We, the city of Atlanta, the city "Too Busy To Hate", were essentially accused of all being racists because we had a Native American as our mascot.

But I digress. You see, I think there IS a good debate and discussion to be had about cultural appropriation i.e. people dressing up and celebrating the culture of others for which they were not born into or raised with. But I think if you go down that ideological avenue, it leads to a dead end. How many of us could root for The Fighting Irish or The Boston Celtics if we're not Irish? Could we partake of St. Patricks Day festivals in places like Boston or Savannah if we're not Irish? Can we support the San Diego Padres or The New Orleans Saints if we're not Catholic? Does the term Padres trivialize the faith of a billion people worldwide by reducing them all to nothing more than the mascot of a baseball team? If you're an atheist, are you offended by the term Los Angeles Angels? If you're a person of faith, does it offend you that The Angels, God's spirit creatures, are nothing more than emblems and logos for multilbillion dollar sports companies? If you read the Old Testament, one angel alone killed over 185,000 enemies of God, and yet today they are used to sell cotton candy and peanuts at Anaheim Stadium.

Should Milwaukee change the name of their baseball team from The Brewers, because that name could potentially offend people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers? Does the name encourage people to drink more beer? Or what about the Minnesota Vikings? If we're going to toe an ideological line and not allow anybody from other cultures to celebrate our culture, then we can't have any non-white players playing for the Vikings. They should all be white, mostly blonde-haired, just like their logo, and like the real Vikings were.

What I'm saying here is that once the genie is out of the bottle (changing the Redskins name), the floodgates will open to everyone else with an ideological axe to grind, and there's no bigger or better stage to air all your social activism than to get on board with the NFL. This month we're discussing Hispanic Heritage Month....next month is Tits Cancer Awareness....we've also got our first openly gay player in the NFL (even  though he's on the Cowboy's practice squad; Goodell and The Rooney Family fought really hard to find him a place in the NFL;) and one of the elite quarterbacks in the NFL right now is gay (and has a SuperBowl ring).

But I stand with Dan Snyder and The Redskins on this issue. It's not a slur. It's a celebration. And if nobody is allowed to crossover and enjoy someone else's culture,it'll be a much sadder, lonlier, poorer world for it.

Well I don't necessarily think the name should be changed, but at the same time, I don't see the need to deny the fact that within the modern context, Redskins should be deemed a slur.

I feel the same way about the idiocy of banning "Tintin in Africa" from bookshops. Sure, parts of it are certainly racists to modern eyes, but it was a product of its time. Its first print was back in 1931!

Or whatever Christie's "Ten little niggers" is called nowadays. I don't see why history should be whitewashed. Certainly not by retroactively censoring art.

Another such instance: the uneasiness about H.P. Lovecrafts racism. I doubt it's his bigotry that has kept hims relevant 100 years on.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

2013-14 was Brian McKaig Heritage Year at BaBs. That was a most successful period for the forum, it went from strength to strength.

Proof that 'positive discrimination' works.

At the risk of appearing to be making light dinner conversation, can I ask exactly who Brian McKaig is/was?

Brian McKaig was:

SILHOUETTE MAN
General Yuskovich
Carruthers
Toilet Duck
Daylight Assassin
Alec Hume
Brian Flagg
Hallam
Drillingcourt
Zamfir Aquator
Scary Shiny Glasses Man
Pitchfork100
Dandy Lion
Olaf
DrunkIrishPoet

And many more that have since had their accounts deleted.

He was also the author of this blog:

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/

How is it that nobody is talking about The New England Patriots and whether they cheated or not?

As much as I respect the Patriots and their astonishing accomplishments (at least I thought I did), I absolutely believe both Belicheck and Brady are lying. Bald face lying. They should both be suspended from the Super Bowl....immediately.


I remember when Pete Rose swore he never bet on baseball, and I remember when Lance Armstrong swore he never took steroids, and we see how that turned out, right? Oh........