Credit to tony dungy

[Guest]

i think tony dungy deserves some credit for playing white players.
other white coaches wouldn't play some of the white athletes he
plays.

 

[cxt7]

I disagree stokley has done what he has done because manning likes him, I read somewhere that manning is the reason he is on the team, also they have continued to start pollard over clark while pollard is way past his prime and his stats have declined each of the last three years, also when he took the team over he cut chad cota, who was in the prime of his career and had four straight seasons of 85+ tackles, and ken dilger, then he traded rich coady who was projected to start, to the rams for a 7th round draft pick. He has also ended the career of chad bratzke by signing less talented raheem brock, and gave all the playing time to brock. This last year he released backup qbs brock huard and cory sauter for black qb joe hamilton. He also released adam meadows last year.

 

[white lightning]

I think it is a little bit of both.The bottom line is
that Stokley has a 5 year deal and he is staying!He will
make the Pro Bowl next year.From what I have heard,Pollan
who's in charge wants Brad Pyatt to play recevier.This
will start taking place more next season.I see Reggie
Wayne leaving.They can only afford so many players.You
will have Harrison,Stokley,and Pyatt as the starting
receivers and Dallas Clark as the starting tight end.
This has a very good chance of happening.That would be
2 out of the 3 receivers white,a white te and white qb.
They will be a fun team to watch.Pyatt can flat out fly.
He is even faster than Stokley.They can take the money
they save on Wayne leaving,and shore up the defense.
This will be the team to watch with possibly the
greatest qb ever.

 

[bigunreal]

I actually think Dungy has given white players more opportunities than
his white coaching peers. For instance, in Tampa Bay, he allowed Mike
Alstott to be a lot more than your average blocking fullback. While
it's true that the Caste system didn't ever allow Alstott to be a true
feature back, I can't think of any white coach in recent years who has
let any white RB get as many carries and TDs as Alstott did in Tampa
Bay. Also, while it's true that Manning may be Stokely's biggest
supporter in Indianapolis, Dungy is the coach and has permitted this
white WR to prosper like few others have over the past 25 years. I do
think the Pollard/Clark situation is clearly a case of the Caste system
rearing its ugly head, but overall I have to give Dungy a much
higher grade than virtually all the white coaches in the NFL when it
comes to playing white players, at least at the skill positions.

 

[cxt7]

I think the only coach that deserves credit is jeff fisher. 2 out of 3 qbs on roster are white, starts a white wr, and has another on the roster, 2 out of 3 tight ends are white, 3 of 5 starting o lineman are white, white defensive tackle, 2 white safeties, has rocky boiman, justin ena, brad kassell, robert reynolds, ken amato, cody spencer, peter sirmon and rocky calmus all at lb on the roster. All these players see some playing time.

 

[White Shogun]

Colts' Dungy: 'I embrace' same-sex marriage ban

Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy said he knows some people would rather he steered clear of Indiana's gay marriage debate, but he clearly staked out his position nonetheless.

The Super Bowl-winning coach "embraced" the stance of an Indiana organization supporting an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriages, and he added Tuesday night at a gathering of the Indiana Family Institute that he's "on the Lord's side."

"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," said Dungy, coach of the Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts. "But we're trying to promote the family â€â€￾ family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. "IFI is saying what the Lord says. You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be."

Asked about Dungy's comments, the NFL provided the following response through spokesman Greg Aiello:

"Coach Dungy is speaking for himself and expressing his views, which he is fully entitled to do. No doubt there are people in our league that have a different view. We respect the right of employees to have and express their views and don't regulate the political or religious views of team or league employees."

Local and national gay-rights organizations had criticized Dungy for accepting the invitation to appear at the banquet. The institute, affiliated with Focus on the Family, has been one of the leading supporters of the marriage amendment, currently in the hands of the Indiana House.

The coach said his comments shouldn't be taken as gay bashing, but rather his views on the matter as he sees them from a perspective of faith.

Bil Browning, managing editor of Bilerico.com, a blog that focuses on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues in Indiana, was surprised to learn of Dungy's remarks.

"It is unfortunate that coach Dungy has chosen to align himself with the Indiana Family Institute," he said. "The Colts were supported this season by all of their fans â€â€￾ gay and straight."

Among those not surprised was the Rev. Clarence C. Moore, Dungy's pastor at Northside New Era Baptist Church. Moore said Dungy previously voiced support after Moore's sermons proclaiming the Bible's opposition to homosexuality.

Debbie Huskins of Zionsville, Ind., who attended the speech, said Dungy's comments square with her views of the Bible, and she welcomed the coach's public statement on the topic.

"I guess I just consider him more in this arena as a man and a father and a man of God, not just a coach. That's his job, but who he is, is a man of God. And that's how he was speaking tonight."

Link posted for authorship, the full text has already been posted. USA today article</font>

 

[guest301]

Colts' Dungy: 'I embrace' same-sex marriage ban

Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy said he knows some people would rather he steered clear of Indiana's gay marriage debate, but he clearly staked out his position nonetheless.

The Super Bowl-winning coach "embraced" the stance of an Indiana organization supporting an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriages, and he added Tuesday night at a gathering of the Indiana Family Institute that he's "on the Lord's side."

"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," said Dungy, coach of the Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts. "But we're trying to promote the family â€â€￾ family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. "IFI is saying what the Lord says. You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be."

Asked about Dungy's comments, the NFL provided the following response through spokesman Greg Aiello:

"Coach Dungy is speaking for himself and expressing his views, which he is fully entitled to do. No doubt there are people in our league that have a different view. We respect the right of employees to have and express their views and don't regulate the political or religious views of team or league employees."

Local and national gay-rights organizations had criticized Dungy for accepting the invitation to appear at the banquet. The institute, affiliated with Focus on the Family, has been one of the leading supporters of the marriage amendment, currently in the hands of the Indiana House.

The coach said his comments shouldn't be taken as gay bashing, but rather his views on the matter as he sees them from a perspective of faith.

Bil Browning, managing editor of Bilerico.com, a blog that focuses on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues in Indiana, was surprised to learn of Dungy's remarks.

"It is unfortunate that coach Dungy has chosen to align himself with the Indiana Family Institute," he said. "The Colts were supported this season by all of their fans â€â€￾ gay and straight."

Among those not surprised was the Rev. Clarence C. Moore, Dungy's pastor at Northside New Era Baptist Church. Moore said Dungy previously voiced support after Moore's sermons proclaiming the Bible's opposition to homosexuality.

Debbie Huskins of Zionsville, Ind., who attended the speech, said Dungy's comments square with her views of the Bible, and she welcomed the coach's public statement on the topic.

"I guess I just consider him more in this arena as a man and a father and a man of God, not just a coach. That's his job, but who he is, is a man of God. And that's how he was speaking tonight."

Link posted for authorship, the full text has already been posted. USA today article</font>

Way to go Tony Dungy! I briefly met him and had the opportunity to hear him speak when I won a trip to the Pro Bowl a few years ago and I came away impressed then and I still am impressed now. Makes you wonder why his deceased son turned out to be such a disappointment.
The only reason the NFL didn't come down on Dungy for his anti-gay marriage stance is because he's a black icon in the league and because gay marriage is still very unpopular with most of the country. However, if he had come against having a out of the closet gay player on his football team, he would have been thrown under the bus just like Tim Hardaway.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

I'm glad he's on the right side of this issue. Edited by: Colonel_Reb

 

[Matt_Bowen_Fan]

Eh, honestly, I don't think gov't should have anything to do with marriage, a religious institution. Save that for the churches to decide. Gov't ought to issue(for a fee, of course) a civil union certificate that allows any two consenting adults to have the legal benefits of marriage. I don't care about what a lot of people do in their private lives, unless I can get tax money for it, like with smokes and booze. I want drug tax money!

 

[White Shogun]

What are the legal benefits of marriage?

If government shouldn't legislate marriage, why should they then issue 'certificates of civil union?' What would be the difference between legislating marriage and defining it, and issuing civil union certs? Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Good points Shogun. Marriage is one of the civil and religious institutionsthat has defined our society. If you do away with it (aka change what it means) you will also help destroy our society. Its not like the churches in the U.S. can decide anything for this country anyway, maybe in England 500 years ago, but not here.

 

[White Shogun]

Thanks, Reb.

I don't understand the logic behind the argument posited by those who want government to stay out of defining marriage, but yet want that same government to legalize same-sex unions. This isn't to pick on Matt and his post, it's a very common argument in the debate.

What kind of government do we want? Most businesses already offer health and other benefits to same-sex couples anyway. If the government legalizes same-sex marriage, it will force 'mom and pop' style and other small businesses to offer the same benefits to gays as they do other married couples. Some people don't see anything wrong with this. But it robs others who disagree of their right to freedom of association and violates their right to practice their religion as they see fit.

In my opinion the legalization of same-sex marriage and the recognition of homosexuality as a civil right *is* the government establishment of a state religion, which is against the Constitution. That religion is humanism. Once speaking out against immoral behaviors becomes illegal, as is the case in some hate crimes legislation, any religion that stands against such behavior is essentially outlawed.

The slippery slope argument is often ridiculed and mocked, but in this case it is self-evident that those who want to legalize polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia will certainly seek the same 'civil' rights as homosexuals.

Those who seek to legalize same-sex unions have to be honest and admit that, using their argument, there is no reason that the government should proscribe marriage between several men and women, a woman and her horse, or a willing 12-year old and her 30-year old lover.

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Colonel_Reb]

I agree totally. I am opposed to any extension of Big Brother type behavior, and this issue is certainly in that category to me. The humanism argument is a good one too.

 

[White Shogun]

It's also ironic to me that homosexuals are fighting for the right to be 'married,' at a time when most heterosexual couples just live together anyway. Or practice 'serial monogamy' without even living together. They don't seem too concerned with having their relationships recognized, or worry about getting the same 'benefits of marriage' that gays are so worried about. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Don Wassall]

I have lots of respect for Dungy for taking a public stand on this issue, in large part because things have reached such a sad state of affairs in America that Dungy's common sense, moral viewpoint, one that has been shared by over 98 percent of Americans throughout this country's history and still is by the large majority today, has become "dangerous" for a public figure to advocate.


Dungy is fortunate in that being black will shield him frommuch of the hatred and intolerance that would rain down upon a white coach publicly opposing homosexual marriage, but it certainly is not an easy or cost-free position for himto take.

 

[Matt_Bowen_Fan]

What are the legal benefits of marriage?

If government shouldn't legislate marriage, why should they then issue 'certificates of civil union?' What would be the difference between legislating marriage and defining it, and issuing civil union certs?

Are you being devil's advocate, or do you really not know? Just to name a few: tax breaks for the married, not being compelled to testify against a spouse, getting the spouse's medical care. Tell me that wouldn't be valuable. Moreover, I take Kinky Friedman's stance: 'gays have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us[married folk]'.

As for why issue civil unions, it neatly sidesteps the issue of marriage that the religious right defends. Everyone gets what they want: gays get the legal bennies, the fundies get to keep 'marriage' for the churches, and the gov't gets the tax money. Now if they'd only spend it right...

Its a complete non-issue to me, and it only really serves two purposes: 1)anytime that gay marriage is on the ballots, conservatives vote in droves, and 2) ensures that people continue to elect idiots due to their stance on 5-10 issues, and nothing else.

There is no longer any difference between the GOP and Dems, aside from their stances on:

1) abortion
2) gun control
3) gay marriage
4) nat'l healthcare
5) taxes
6) housing market
7) education(only in an ideological sense; they both want it nationalized)
8) welfare

Everything else, they exactly the same, and I don't feel like electing people based on the above. Congress is plenty bi-partisan when it comes to selling out the American people, after all.

 

[Matt_Bowen_Fan]

Thanks, Reb.

I don't understand the logic behind the argument posited by those who want government to stay out of defining marriage, but yet want that same government to legalize same-sex unions. This isn't to pick on Matt and his post, it's a very common argument in the debate.

I don't feel picked on. I just want the tax dollars.

What kind of government do we want? Most businesses already offer health and other benefits to same-sex couples anyway. If the government legalizes same-sex marriage, it will force 'mom and pop' style and other small businesses to offer the same benefits to gays as they do other married couples. Some people don't see anything wrong with this. But it robs others who disagree of their right to freedom of association and violates their right to practice their religion as they see fit.

By that same argument, should Sikhs be allowed knives on school grounds or planes? Legal rights of all trump the religion of some. What's next? Someone opposing my mixed-race marriage because they interpret the Bible as being against it, so it should be banned too?

In my opinion the legalization of same-sex marriage and the recognition of homosexuality as a civil right *is* the government establishment of a state religion, which is against the Constitution. That religion is humanism. Once speaking out against immoral behaviors becomes illegal, as is the case in some hate crimes legislation, any religion that stands against such behavior is essentially outlawed.

Establishment of it is not, IMO, but merely to speak against it is not a so-called hate crime. Hate crimes need to be done away with anyway. But, while I might disagree with what a lot of people say, they have a right to say it. Its only when its advocating violence that I feel they go too far.

The slippery slope argument is often ridiculed and mocked, but in this case it is self-evident that those who want to legalize polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia will certainly seek the same 'civil' rights as homosexuals.

Hence my 'two consenting adults'. Gov't can and does have the power to define what a civil union is, and they already do so by defining marriage. Which doesn't mean I have to agree with that, either.

Those who seek to legalize same-sex unions have to be honest and admit that, using their argument, there is no reason that the government should proscribe marriage between several men and women, a woman and her horse, or a willing 12-year old and her 30-year old lover.

Hardly. 'Two consenting adults' precludes that. Polygamy? Sorry, said two. Bestiality? Consent implies humanity. Twelve year old? Adult.

Gov't does not have to be fair. Its patently not. If it were, why should a twelve year old genius or a felon be disenfrachised, while an 18 year old idiot has the vote? Its proven not to be fair, and can and does set limits. Some groups can't cross those, merely because others can.


edit: didn't mean to get on a soapbox the last two posts. Just a bit tired and my politics are decidely unpopular at work.
Edited by: Matt_Bowen_Fan

 

[C Darwin]

There is no longer any difference
between the GOP and Dems, aside from their stances on:

1) abortion
2) gun control
3) gay marriage
4) nat'l healthcare
5) taxes
6) housing market
7) education(only in an ideological sense; they both want it
nationalized)
8) welfare

Everything else, they exactly the same, and I don't feel like electing
people based on the above. Congress is plenty bi-partisan when it
comes to selling out the American people, after all.

Speaking of politics and pillow biting, the one good thing about GW
Bush was the stand he took against affirmative action. Before the U
Michigan case went before the Supreme Court, Georgie boy came on
the tube and spoke out against racial quotas. I would at least like to
imagine that the Republican Party is the anti-affirmative action party.

 

[White Shogun]

Considering the candidates that the GOP is offering as it's 'front runners' for the 2008 elections, there is *no* difference between the GOP and the Dems. There are several threads in Happy Hour that discuss this problem in greater detail.

The real problem with the issue of gay marriage is that it is just a smoke screen for their real agenda, which is societal acceptance of their behavior. They're not fighting for tax benefits and access to their partner's health care, they want everyone else to have to accept what they're doing. They don't want to keep it between 'two consenting adults,' and 'what they do in their bedroom.' They want it taught to your children as an 'alternative lifestyle.' They want their 'civil rights' protected to the extent that people cannot even speak out publicly against them.

If they genuinely wanted to keep it in the bedroom, between consenting adults, then I'd say more power to them. But it's their desire to force everyone else to accept their behavior which I find objectionable.

Where is 'two consenting adults' written into law as a principle by which to determine the legality of an issue? I might agree with the idea, but that doesn't mean that the courts will decide it that way - and there are already groups like NAMBLA who wish to do away with that idea altogether. The age of consent in Canada and in places in Europe is already ridiculously low - we shouldn't believe that the grand ole' USA is somehow exempt such idiocy.

Taking the slippery slope argument a bit further - pro-life advocates have long held that legalized abortion is a slippery slope, the end of which will find humankind murdering children they do not want, for whatever reason, even after birth. Sounds crazy, right? Well, it was that way in ancient societies, and here we are in the 21st century with modern day biologists and 'ethicists' proposing the same thing, even so far as suggesting that a child's life can be 'terminated' at up to 12 days outside the womb, with the parent's consent, of course. Of course!

And speaking of soap boxes! Whew!

In the interests of bringing this thread back on topic, let me say that I agree with Don. I find it admirable that Dungy has taken a public stand in accordance with his beliefs, in an era when such a stand can cost one dearly. Like Don said though, I think Dungy will be spared a lot of the criticism he might have received had he been a white person.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Grandmothers are already being arrested for just speaking against homosexuality in Canada. It could happen here very soon if their sickagenda is allowed to go through.

 

[White Shogun]

Grandmothers are already being arrested for just speaking against homosexuality in Canada. It could happen here very soon if their sick agenda is allowed to go through.

It isn't just Canada and Europe, Reb:

Grandmas arrested in Pennsylvania under hate crimes law

This is happening everywhere, even in the (former) land of the free. I could post links to stories like that all day.

As to the true purpose behind 'gay marriage:'

Civil unions not enough for NJ gays

Persecution of Christianity is part and parcel of the New World Order, in my opinion. It's interesting that the free speech of Muslims is not limited in this way under hate crimes legislation, despite their views on women and homosexuals, which is worse than that of Christians.

 

[Deus Vult]

...the one good thing about GW
Bush was the stand he took against affirmative action. Before the U
Michigan case went before the Supreme Court, Georgie boy came on
the tube and spoke out against racial quotas. I would at least like to
imagine that the Republican Party is the anti-affirmative action party.

If you think the GOP leadership opposes affirmative action, you do indeed "imagine" this!

The last time DC Republicans made a move to lessen or end racial discrimination against white males, Rep. Canady's bill died in the House of Reprehensibles, as most "conservative" Republicans voted it down in deference to their moral overlord, alleged "conservatve" J.C. Watts.

If you thought you saw Dumbya speak against affirmative action, it may have been a bit of bait and switch. Certainly, his adminstration defended affirmative action before the high court. Dumbya even praised Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the Court's majority opinion.

Don't be fooled by Dumbya or the corrupt Republican Party. Read the Nationalist Times!

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Oops, I got the article from Pennsylvania confused with another one I read. Yes, Shogun it is already happening here. Before long, if things go unabated, pastors won't even be able to preach against sin. Then we will be no different than the Canadians. Their pastors can't preach against homosexuality.