USWNT

Real Deal said:
yeh ok. but fyi: in some parts of THIS country, kids are still killed or bullied into killing themselves because they are gay.
Click to expand...

I think everyone would get onboard with an anti-bullying campaign by US Soccer. Since 1 in 3 children claim they have been bullied, this is not solely an LGBTQIAP+ issue.

Do you think the USWNT would be content to put the slogan "Be Best" on their uniforms to support the fight against bullying, and promote child safety and well-being? I expect they would not, but I will not claim that makes them "pro-bullying".
 
Dos Equis said:
I think everyone would get onboard with an anti-bullying campaign by US Soccer. Since 1 in 3 children claim they have been bullied, this is not solely an LGBTQIAP+ issue.

Do you think the USWNT would be content to put the slogan "Be Best" on their uniforms to support the fight against bullying, and promote child safety and well-being? I expect they would not, but I will not claim that makes them "pro-bullying".
Click to expand...

Is that what that's for? How exactly does "Be Best" fight against bullying? I have seen nothing that would make me think that.

Does being against bullying include being against people who make public lies about others?
 
oh canada said:
Hinkle seems to get along with her club teammates just fine...as well as her former college mates, etc. Are we to assume that there were no lesbians on either team? Every female soccer team in the NWSL has multiple gay players. Your daughter's club team probably has at least one or two right now. The issue isn't Hinkle's disagreement with gay marriage--something the "bigoted" Barack Obama disagreed with until late in his political career. The issue is that she was forced into that personal moral decision because US Soccer (and Nike) decided to try and make money selling politically charged Rainbow jerseys and align politically with a large portion of their fan base. (Certainly doesn't hurt that the head coach is gay and at least 7 of their players are too.)

Decisions like these reinforce the argument that the USWNT is less about being a sporting team/endeavor and more about being a PAC, just like MoveOn or CPAC. I think the US men also wore Rainbow jerseys. But I'm not aware of any other sport that has done so. Never have seen US Swimming require rainbow speedos, or US Skiing require rainbow tights, or US softball (also a high participation lesbian sport) require rainbow uniforms. So, it begs the question, why? Many sports wear pink for cancer awareness, but that's not a political hot potato. Everyone is for cancer awareness and cures. And cancer strikes everyone -- gay, straight, black, white, etc. But everyone is not gay or potentially gay. So it's not an inclusive initiative on its face. Then add the politics and it's just a confounding decision.

As I mentioned previously, Canada was, proudly, way ahead of the US and rest of the world on recognizing gay marriage and rights. Our soccer teams have never donned rainbow jerseys. Maybe we feel that our actions speak louder than a shirt with colorful numbers, and a nike logo of course.
Click to expand...

The Canadian team doesn't need to wear rainbow jerseys because, as you admit, Canada is "way ahead of the US and rest of the world on recognizing gay marriage and rights." USSF forced Hinkle into a "moral decision" no more than Rosa Parks forced Montgomery County to make a "moral decision".

I get it. You don't support LGBT equality and civil rights, and you don't want others to do so either. On behalf of USSF, too bad.
 
espola said:
Is that what that's for? How exactly does "Be Best" fight against bullying? I have seen nothing that would make me think that.

Does being against bullying include being against people who make public lies about others?
Click to expand...

You took the bait, and unwittingly proved my point.
 
End of the Line said:
The Canadian team doesn't need to wear rainbow jerseys because, as you admit, Canada is "way ahead of the US and rest of the world on recognizing gay marriage and rights." USSF forced Hinkle into a "moral decision" no more than Rosa Parks forced Montgomery County to make a "moral decision".

I get it. You don't support LGBT equality and civil rights, and you don't want others to do so either. On behalf of USSF, too bad.
Click to expand...

On behalf of the Socal Soccer Forum, can I just say we are sorry and empathize with you. It certainly appears to me that this is a very personal issue to you, as if you were bullied relentlessly in your youth for your orientation or possibly your own child is struggling with the issue and it is painful for you to watch, both as a parent and/or as someone who may be dealing with the emotional pain yourself. Please understand that just because you may or may not be struggling with the issue, that doesn't mean that anyone that disagrees with you, or has a difference of opinion from you, is a bigot. You seem to want to label anyone who differs from you a bigot. Is that bullying? If so, how is that different than what you might have experienced growing up? If words and actions hurt you, consider that your words and actions could be hurting others. Just my perspective anyway.
 
espola said:
What was your point?
Click to expand...

That you need a hobby and it shouldn't be asking circular questions that you are smart enough to understand yourself or that you are capable of Googling the answer to. My 10 year old son asks less questions than you and he is GENUINELY INTERESTED IN THE ANSWER. You are just into being a contrarian and baiting people into circular arguments. It's why I rarely answer questions that you direct to me because they are typically ones that you can answer yourself, and personally I am not around for you to get your rocks off.

Your wife should be for that. Cheers.
 
MakeAPlay said:
That you need a hobby and it shouldn't be asking circular questions that you are smart enough to understand yourself or that you are capable of Googling the answer to. My 10 year old son asks less questions than you and he is GENUINELY INTERESTED IN THE ANSWER. You are just into being a contrarian and baiting people into circular arguments. It's why I rarely answer questions that you direct to me because they are typically ones that you can answer yourself, and personally I am not around for you to get your rocks off.

Your wife should be for that. Cheers.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my questions about Be Best that were addressed to someone else?
 
espola said:
What does that have to do with my questions about Be Best that were addressed to someone else?
Click to expand...

You always insert yourself into other people's conversations. I am returning the favor. Are you really so dense as to not understand what he was saying (@Dos Equis is quite eloquent) or are you just doing your usual? I think that it is the latter. You can't be against an anti-bullying agenda and I am pretty sure that you are smart enough to understand how he was comparing it to the rainbow jersey thing.

That is my direct response to you for the month so you are going to have to wait until the college soccer season to ask me any more circular questions that I might choose to answer.

Have a great day!
 
El Clasico said:
On behalf of the Socal Soccer Forum, can I just say we are sorry and empathize with you. It certainly appears to me that this is a very personal issue to you, as if you were bullied relentlessly in your youth for your orientation or possibly your own child is struggling with the issue and it is painful for you to watch, both as a parent and/or as someone who may be dealing with the emotional pain yourself. Please understand that just because you may or may not be struggling with the issue, that doesn't mean that anyone that disagrees with you, or has a difference of opinion from you, is a bigot. You seem to want to label anyone who differs from you a bigot. Is that bullying? If so, how is that different than what you might have experienced growing up? If words and actions hurt you, consider that your words and actions could be hurting others. Just my perspective anyway.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the misguided empathy, but it is unneeded. The issue is not particularly personal to me, I am not gay and I have never faced any more bullying in my life than the next guy. No one in my family has ever struggled with the issue. I am just a person who supports civil rights and equality and is having fun with the bigots.

If a person opposes civil rights and equality, as Hinkle does, by definition it makes them a bigot. It is that simple. The notion that anyone who stands up to bigotry is a bigot is ludicrous. It is the argument people make when they don't want to face what they really are and are trying desperately to reframe the issue so that they don't have to confront it. Unlike real bigots like Hinkle, no one here believes Hinkle shouldn't be allowed to get married based on her religion. No one here believes she should be entitled to unfavorable tax treatment due to her religion. No one here supports organizations that believe "people like Hinkle" suffer from mental illness and should be either locked up or wiped off the face of the earth due to their religion. No one here is claiming Hinkle shouldn't be allowed to buy a cake or patronize any business because of her religion. The reality is Hinkle and those like her want favorable treatment to others and use their book as an excuse to seek it. The reality is that USSF has every right (legally and morally) to support equality. If you want to support cancer treatment instead of equality, by all means go for it.

The truth is Ashlyn Harris doesn't oppose Hinkle's right to get married or her right to be taxed equally. She doesn't want to prevent Hinkle from marrying men. She doesn't oppose any of Hinkle's civil rights. She only opposes Hinkle's opposition to her civil rights. Harris understands that it wasn't ok when Bob Jones pointed to the bible to justify the mistreatment of minorities, and it's not ok to justify the mistreatment of gays either. Standing up for equality is not bigotry. The only bigots here are Hinkle and those who think they're entitled to preferential treatment.
 
MakeAPlay said:
You always insert yourself into other people's conversations. I am returning the favor. Are you really so dense as to not understand what he was saying (@Dos Equis is quite eloquent) or are you just doing your usual? I think that it is the latter. You can't be against an anti-bullying agenda and I am pretty sure that you are smart enough to understand how he was comparing it to the rainbow jersey thing.

That is my direct response to you for the month so you are going to have to wait until the college soccer season to ask me any more circular questions that I might choose to answer.

Have a great day!
Click to expand...

It looks like you are having a bad day. Was it because I didn't believe your misconceptions about how RPI is calculated and then used by the NCAA selection committee?

BTW, over on the men's side, there is a frequent poster to bigsoccer.com mens soccer forum named gauchodan who every year publishes a thorough analysis of every mens soccer game, and keeps it up to date at least once a day, including up-to-the-minute RPI calcualtions. He also explains in messages to the forum how he does it and how he has determined the extra bonuses and penalties that the NCAA uses to tweak the RPI scores before the selections are made. (For example, a bonus can be earned by beating a highly-ranked team on the road, and a penalty by losing to a lowly-ranked team at home. The amount of the bonuses and penalties is subject to speculation, which makes for richer conversations on the forum.)

http://rpiupdatemenssoccer.blogspot.com/

Is there a similar site for the womens side?

And I now pray for gouchodan's good health and continuing ingerest in the sport, even though I am not really all that religious.

All hail gouchodan!
 
Alright @espola I have finally gotten tired of you and blocked you. I am having a great day and I don't want somebody with nothing to do to ruin it.

I suggest that you pop a Cialis and give your old lady a good day to!
 
MakeAPlay said:
Alright @espola I have finally gotten tired of you and blocked you. I am having a great day and I don't want somebody with nothing to do to ruin it.

I suggest that you pop a Cialis and give your old lady a good day to!
Click to expand...

I have never had a need for any of those types of medications, even at my tender age of 72. My great-grandfather had his last child at almost this age, in fact, long before anyone thought of such a possibility. How is it working out for you?
 
End of the Line said:
Thank you for the misguided empathy, but it is unneeded. The issue is not particularly personal to me, I am not gay and I have never faced any more bullying in my life than the next guy. No one in my family has ever struggled with the issue. I am just a person who supports civil rights and equality and is having fun with the bigots.

If a person opposes civil rights and equality, as Hinkle does, by definition it makes them a bigot. It is that simple. The notion that anyone who stands up to bigotry is a bigot is ludicrous. It is the argument people make when they don't want to face what they really are and are trying desperately to reframe the issue so that they don't have to confront it. Unlike real bigots like Hinkle, no one here believes Hinkle shouldn't be allowed to get married based on her religion. No one here believes she should be entitled to unfavorable tax treatment due to her religion. No one here supports organizations that believe "people like Hinkle" suffer from mental illness and should be either locked up or wiped off the face of the earth due to their religion. No one here is claiming Hinkle shouldn't be allowed to buy a cake or patronize any business because of her religion. The reality is Hinkle and those like her want favorable treatment to others and use their book as an excuse to seek it. The reality is that USSF has every right (legally and morally) to support equality. If you want to support cancer treatment instead of equality, by all means go for it.

The truth is Ashlyn Harris doesn't oppose Hinkle's right to get married or her right to be taxed equally. She doesn't want to prevent Hinkle from marrying men. She doesn't oppose any of Hinkle's civil rights. She only opposes Hinkle's opposition to her civil rights. Harris understands that it wasn't ok when Bob Jones pointed to the bible to justify the mistreatment of minorities, and it's not ok to justify the mistreatment of gays either. Standing up for equality is not bigotry. The only bigots here are Hinkle and those who think they're entitled to preferential treatment.
Click to expand...
You keep bringing up Hinkle and Civil Rights. What Civil Rights does she want to deny the lesbians on the USWNT?
 
End of the Line said:
Thank you for the misguided empathy, but it is unneeded. The issue is not particularly personal to me, I am not gay and I have never faced any more bullying in my life than the next guy. No one in my family has ever struggled with the issue. I am just a person who supports civil rights and equality and is having fun with the bigots.

If a person opposes civil rights and equality, as Hinkle does, by definition it makes them a bigot. It is that simple. The notion that anyone who stands up to bigotry is a bigot is ludicrous. It is the argument people make when they don't want to face what they really are and are trying desperately to reframe the issue so that they don't have to confront it. Unlike real bigots like Hinkle, no one here believes Hinkle shouldn't be allowed to get married based on her religion. No one here believes she should be entitled to unfavorable tax treatment due to her religion. No one here supports organizations that believe "people like Hinkle" suffer from mental illness and should be either locked up or wiped off the face of the earth due to their religion. No one here is claiming Hinkle shouldn't be allowed to buy a cake or patronize any business because of her religion. The reality is Hinkle and those like her want favorable treatment to others and use their book as an excuse to seek it. The reality is that USSF has every right (legally and morally) to support equality. If you want to support cancer treatment instead of equality, by all means go for it.

The truth is Ashlyn Harris doesn't oppose Hinkle's right to get married or her right to be taxed equally. She doesn't want to prevent Hinkle from marrying men. She doesn't oppose any of Hinkle's civil rights. She only opposes Hinkle's opposition to her civil rights. Harris understands that it wasn't ok when Bob Jones pointed to the bible to justify the mistreatment of minorities, and it's not ok to justify the mistreatment of gays either. Standing up for equality is not bigotry. The only bigots here are Hinkle and those who think they're entitled to preferential treatment.
Click to expand...

Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Unfortunately only you are defining Hinkle as a bigot. She is neither intolerant or hates as much as you believe. Her words and actions are based on her faith. Your rant on mental illness can be easily be hypocritical for not agreeing with your point of view.

As for preferential treatment, and bigotry. I get your position, but defending Harris who is more intolerant of Hinkle by definition makes her a bigot, and anyone that supports Harris is a bigot, by your definition. SMH
 
ChargerPride said:
Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Unfortunately only you are defining Hinkle as a bigot. She is neither intolerant or hates as much as you believe. Her words and actions are based on her faith. Your rant on mental illness can be easily be hypocritical for not agreeing with your point of view.

As for preferential treatment, and bigotry. I get your position, but defending Harris who is more intolerant of Hinkle by definition makes her a bigot, and anyone that supports Harris is a bigot, by your definition. SMH
Click to expand...
ChargerPride said:
Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Unfortunately only you are defining Hinkle as a bigot. She is neither intolerant or hates as much as you believe. Her words and actions are based on her faith. Your rant on mental illness can be easily be hypocritical for not agreeing with your point of view.

As for preferential treatment, and bigotry. I get your position, but defending Harris who is more intolerant of Hinkle by definition makes her a bigot, and anyone that supports Harris is a bigot, by your definition. SMH
Click to expand...

Did you get dizzy standing on your head while you were typing that?
 
ChargerPride said:
Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Unfortunately only you are defining Hinkle as a bigot. She is neither intolerant or hates as much as you believe. Her words and actions are based on her faith. Your rant on mental illness can be easily be hypocritical for not agreeing with your point of view.

As for preferential treatment, and bigotry. I get your position, but defending Harris who is more intolerant of Hinkle by definition makes her a bigot, and anyone that supports Harris is a bigot, by your definition. SMH
Click to expand...
You probably didn’t read the whole definition of bigot. Just found a few words that he agreed with and used those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top