Brooks post finals interview

[flyingcement]

2 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i dont agree with what he said..not b/c it's not true... but b/c its inflammatory to a group or a dig at a group of people

i do agree with his right to say it..

i still ask the question...why is he in danger?

He had a right to say it as a person, but when he is representing his public school funded by tax payers, some of whom are Muslim, it shows a lack of understanding.  The school should make a follow up statement if Brooks won't, to remind Muslims and members of all ideologies are welcome at PSU.

[Scouts Honor]

wear the shirt!!!

bake the cake!!!!! 

[Scouts Honor]

did brooks say they couldn't go to school there?

did he throw anybody off a building? 

[Caveira]

22 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

Let's imagine he said he owes it all to his mother instead of God.  Now imagine he says, because my mother is the best mother out there, including better than [insert your favorite wrestler]'s mother.  The second part would rightfully be deemed unnecessary even though he is expected to love his own mother the most.

I don't blame Aaron too much since he was running on adrenaline when he said that, but there has been sober minded support for what he said among those who should know better.  Though it doesn't surprise me.  Those people have a lot of growing up to do 

He wore that gaudy head band all day through all the post action pics.   I’ll bet u this was 100% pre-planned.  

[TylerDurden]

This thread is wild. 

Lots of victims. Lots of deflection. 

 

 

[TylerDurden]

18 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i have been told repeatedly that b/c Im a conservative that i am a terrorist.

yet, brooks is in danger from a group that has been embraced by the correct ppl here (media) ...

 

and that group has beliefs and ACTIONS which go way beyond most conservative views

Do you see the irony in this post? 

[Gus]

19 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

He had a right to say it as a person, but when he is representing his public school funded by tax payers, some of whom are Muslim, it shows a lack of understanding.  The school should make a follow up statement if Brooks won't, to remind Muslims and members of all ideologies are welcome at PSU.

So an athlete is not allowed to have a view that is contrary to anyone that attends his college or pays taxes in the state where the college resides? LOL. This is a strange take. 

[flyingcement]

Just now, Gus said:

So an athlete is not allowed to have a view that is contrary to anyone that attends his college or pays taxes in the state where the college resides? LOL. This is a strange take. 

That's a poor bit of comprehension on your part unless you are intentionally arguing in bad faith 

[BerniePragle]

25 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

Who is feeding and who is eating [..a lot...] (other than Glory)

Probably about everybody except maybe Parris.  Maybe Parris too, he's gotta be close to 285, or more.  Maybe not Hilger.  He probably wants a break from eating.

[Gus]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

...which is far less direct than "no false prophets, no Muhammed no anyone else."

 

Actually since you are the expert, can you explain what his quote even means? 

“Christ resurrections everything.  Not just his life, but his death and resurrection.  You can only get that though him, the Holy Spirit only through him, no false prophets, no Muhammad, no anyone else, only Jesus Christ himself.”

First of all is “resurrections” even a verb?  He resurrections resurrection?  What does that even mean? He resurrections death?  That seems like an oxymoron. You can only be resurrected by Jesus?  Do people believe they will be resurrected instead of going to Heaven?

He said Christs' resurrection's everything. So "resurrection's" as in Christs' resurrection is everything.

To summarize.....

Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world on the cross. His blood was the sin payment which allowed the entire world to be reconciled to God the father and have eternal salvation. His resurrection from the dead was proof of his divine authority and a completion of old testament prophecy. A couple of horizontal truths found in the book of Hebrews are 1 - Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins & 2 - Without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, faith in the finished work of the cross provides believers with an eternal security and salvation. 

[BigRedFan]

(deleted)

Edited March 20, 2023 by BigRedFan

[BigRedFan]

42 minutes ago, Gus said:

So an athlete is not allowed to have a view that is contrary to anyone that attends his college or pays taxes in the state where the college resides? LOL. This is a strange take. 

That's how you interpret this?  Really?  How about "When he's wearing his school's uniform and therefore representing his school, he should be held responsible for what he says?"  Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of that speech.

[swoopdown]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

[mspart]

46 minutes ago, swoopdown said:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That does not apply anymore.   It is a great ideal.  It was all the rage in the 90s.   A mere 20 years from then and we are on the other side where what you say can get you banned from Twitter and Facebook and have lasting consequences from one of the intolerant sides of the political debate. 

mspart

[Le duke]

That does not apply anymore.   It is a great ideal.  It was all the rage in the 90s.   A mere 20 years from then and we are on the other side where what you say can get you banned from Twitter and Facebook and have lasting consequences from one of the intolerant sides of the political debate. 
mspart

Who has been denied their first amendment rights here? Who was denied their first amendment rights by being banned from using a social media company?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mspart]

7 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Who has been denied their first amendment rights here? Who was denied their first amendment rights by being banned from using a social media company?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said nothing about first amendment rights.   Why derail with a baseless accusatory question.   Who do you know that defends to the death someone's right to free speech these days?  Are you denying that Twitter and Facebook banned and censored?  If so you are living in dream world. 

Look at college campuses.   Protests are one thing but what happened at UC Davis just recently does not constitute a protest.   Egg throwing, pepper spraying, cop beating, these are not people willing to defend your right to say what is on your mind.   And this is not isolated to UC Davis.  You can google it and find examples of excessive protests that move to assault based on who is speaking.  

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article273154315.html

The ideal of stating your opinion and that being the end of it is no longer valid.   You have people on this board who slammed Pres Trump from attending the NCAAs, who vociferously wanted Brooks not to say what he said and think he should be expelled for breaking PSU code of conduct rules.   Are they these saints you think who protect free speech?

You can state your opinion on Twitter or Facebook as long as it doesn't contradict what the monitors and algorithms want you to say.   If you disagree with that statement, you are not paying attention.   NYPost was a big loser with their Hunter Biden story.   It was cleared out of Twitter and every post defending it was erased as well.   The subject could not be discussed.   It was Russia disinformation except it wasn't.   FBI has acknowledged that the laptop belonged to Hunter and Hunter is even suing about it, acknowledging that it is his laptop.  Else why would he sue?   But you could not say that on Twitter or Facebook after the NY Post story broke.  Wasn't allowed.   But they will fight to the death to protect your right to speak your mind.   Yeah right.   And the last of the Twitter files from Taibi show that the Federal Government was in on the censoring.   By understood law, that is not allowed.   Yet it was and is.   Where do you find the reporting on this from Taibi?  You will not find it on Mainstream media because they don't want to discuss it.  You can find it at Fox, NY Post, Twitter and not much else. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/latest-twitter-files-tackle-great-covid-19-lie-machine-flagging-true-content-disinformation

https://nypost.com/2023/03/17/private-federal-censorship-machine-targeted-true-misinformation/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/17/twitter-files-vast-censor-project-unleashed-agains/

As for the Hunter Biden laptop issue, please see the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/hunter-biden-lawsuit-computer-repairman/

mspart

[Le duke]

I said nothing about first amendment rights.   Why derail with a baseless accusatory question.   Who do you know that defends to the death someone's right to free speech these days?  Are you denying that Twitter and Facebook banned and censored?  If so you are living in dream world. 
Look at college campuses.   Protests are one thing but what happened at UC Davis just recently does not constitute a protest.   Egg throwing, pepper spraying, cop beating, these are not people willing to defend your right to say what is on your mind.   And this is not isolated to UC Davis.  You can google it and find examples of excessive protests that move to assault based on who is speaking.  
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article273154315.html
The ideal of stating your opinion and that being the end of it is no longer valid.   You have people on this board who slammed Pres Trump from attending the NCAAs, who vociferously wanted Brooks not to say what he said and think he should be expelled for breaking PSU code of conduct rules.   Are they these saints you think who protect free speech?
You can state your opinion on Twitter or Facebook as long as it doesn't contradict what the monitors and algorithms want you to say.   If you disagree with that statement, you are not paying attention.   NYPost was a big loser with their Hunter Biden story.   It was cleared out of Twitter and every post defending it was erased as well.   The subject could not be discussed.   It was Russia disinformation except it wasn't.   FBI has acknowledged that the laptop belonged to Hunter and Hunter is even suing about it, acknowledging that it is his laptop.  Else why would he sue?   But you could not say that on Twitter or Facebook after the NY Post story broke.  Wasn't allowed.   But they will fight to the death to protect your right to speak your mind.   Yeah right.   And the last of the Twitter files from Taibi show that the Federal Government was in on the censoring.   By understood law, that is not allowed.   Yet it was and is.   Where do you find the reporting on this from Taibi?  You will not find it on Mainstream media because they don't want to discuss it.  You can find it at Fox, NY Post, Twitter and not much else. 
https://www.foxnews.com/media/latest-twitter-files-tackle-great-covid-19-lie-machine-flagging-true-content-disinformation
https://nypost.com/2023/03/17/private-federal-censorship-machine-targeted-true-misinformation/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/17/twitter-files-vast-censor-project-unleashed-agains/
As for the Hunter Biden laptop issue, please see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/hunter-biden-lawsuit-computer-repairman/
mspart

Because the person you quoted, was quoting an English woman’s defense of others’ freedom of speech.

And, holy shit man, FaceBook, Twitter and InterMat are not the US government. None of those three guarantees your right to free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[russelscout]

I’m wondering what the response would be if a wrestler after the match just said “God isn’t real and people who believe in him are stupid.”

[Le duke]

I’m wondering what the response would be if a wrestler after the match just said “God isn’t real and people who believe in him are stupid.”

The same. No reason to say stupid shit on camera. Don’t alienate people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mspart]

4 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Because the person you quoted, was quoting an English woman’s defense of others’ freedom of speech.

And, holy shit man, FaceBook, Twitter and InterMat are not the US government. None of those three guarantees your right to free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might read the first sentence I wrote to you in rebuttal.  Again, I never addressed free speech, I addressed censorship by Twitter and Facebook at the behest of the US Federal Government.   If you don't want to acknowledge it happened as I described, that is your prerogative.  But that does not mean it is untrue. 

The US government getting Twitter and Facebook,  to censor items that are true but inconvenient, is not the role the US government should be taking.  Do you agree?  

mspart

[AgaveMaria]

10 minutes ago, russelscout said:

I’m wondering what the response would be if a wrestler after the match just said “God isn’t real and people who believe in him are stupid.”

Deluded, maybe? Need a crutch to help them since apparently they can't rely on their own strength and judgment?

From Caels brand of Jesus was a polygamist & Garden of Eden in Missouri & Indians are actually Hebrews to Pentecostal Snake Handlers & speaking in tongues to Islam's minority who teach any non believer should die. Religion is toxic even as some may be helped by faith.

[TylerDurden]

Everyone thinks everyone else is wrong about everything. Folks don't trust the media, except when it confirms their bias. Religion is great, as long as it's yours. My side good, your side bad. Social media censors, or does it amplify? Person X is lying, or are they? What is true? Do you even need something to be true? Facts are facts, unless you have alternative facts. 2+2=5

Everyone is a victim. We're all stuck in an algorithm. 

Can we lock this thread now? 

[swoopdown]

3 hours ago, mspart said:

That does not apply anymore.   It is a great ideal.  It was all the rage in the 90s.   A mere 20 years from then and we are on the other side where what you say can get you banned from Twitter and Facebook and have lasting consequences from one of the intolerant sides of the political debate. 

mspart

Isn't it great that we live in a country where Brooks was free to say what he did, network wasn't afraid to broadcast what he said, and we can therefore exchange opinions regarding what he said.  Free speech and freedom of the press in action.

I love it when a plan comes together

Edited March 21, 2023 by swoopdown