texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

DakotaT,

A lot people chalk up the type of diatribes like TexasPackerBacker and his ilk to “old white man” talk.

But I disagree, "old white man" is no defense for bigotry.
A bigot is a bigot, and age is no excuse.

These guys may be old coots now, but they didn’t grow up in the antebellum South.
They grew up in an America that was changing by the decade, even by the day, moving fitfully to a broader acceptance of civil rights and human liberties.
They may be creaky old men now, but they were young men or mere children in the 60's & 70's

When today’s old bigots were young, they failed to listen, failed to learn.

Originally Posted by: Gilligan 



OK, Little Buddie, I'm finally getting around to you.

Diatribe? Kindly explain where you see a "diatribe". Bigotry? I would also really appreciate you explaining, other than in the deranged fantasies of Dakota where you ever saw any bigotry from me.

On the actual thread topic, gay marriage and the homosexual agenda in general, first and foremost, I don't consider this to be a very important issue one way or the other. Secondly, I simply haven't ever said anything bad about homosexual people - Bart Simpson defense here hahaha. The perversions and abominations they like to practice? Hell yeah - hate the sin, not the sinner - how many times do I have to say that hahahaha? Do you really dispute the idea that homosexuals just want to be left alone to do what they like to do? Do you really dispute the idea that it ain't the gays pushing this shit, but the non-homosexual leftists? What part of this do you see as a "diatribe" hahahaha? Now I'll give you something that could be contrued as diatribe: I think maybe 60% or so of those non-homosexual leftists have an agenda of dragging down the basic morality and traditions of America as well as spitting on and disrespecting our Judeo-Christian religions - ooooh, does that shock you? Are you part of that 60%? Or are you just a naive do-gooder like the other 40% who just want to legislate something most homosexuals probably don't care about anyway?

Regarding the rest of the shit - "bigotry", "beating down" minorities or whoever, again, other than the pathetic rantings of Dakota, where do you see any of that - from me or the vast majority of others of the conservative persuasion? Your side gets about 94% of the black vote - dutifully delivered by the overseers of the liberal plantation - black "leaders". Then your side turns around and supports a whole variety of CRAP which blacks and hispanics - predominantly good Catholics - strongly OPPOSE, including but certainly not limited to gay marriage. Could you possibly DISPUTE this?

In fairness, you haven't expressed overtly anti-American viewpoints like your mentor, Dakota, has, so no accusations until you do. However, Dakota, and the great majority on your side actually sink so low blame America for the tyranny, depravity, terrorism, etc. put forth by Muslims and other enemies of America. Would you dispute THAT? America is the great force for pretty much all that is good in the world - preserving and enhancing freedom, prosperity, and quality of life in general for people all over the world. Would you dispute THAT? So here's your chance to take a stand, one way or the other. I think I know what that will be, but as I said, no accusations until you take that stand. Come on hahahaha; Surprise me - one Dakota in the forum is enough.

As for "age", how old are you anyway? Are you a product of the leftist brainwashing of a generation or more of school children? Or did you by chance resist it? I guess we will find out in the '14 and '16 elections just how successful or not the left has been at increasing its constituency. I'm feeling pretty good about OUR chances - the pro-America/pro-status quo crowd - us "good normal Americans.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
mi_keys
10 years ago
So I've not had much time to post of late between work and personal travel, so here goes a delayed response.

It seems like you are reaching the bottom of your barrel of arguments hahahaha. This is pretty weak stuff - just kinda a "is not/is so" sort of thing.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



This coming from a guy that's only source of authority on his position in this thread is a book he otherwise, at best, knows nothing about and, at worst, blatantly ignores.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Perhaps I over-emphasized my niceness - NOT denigrating homosexuals/NOT hating the sinners, but merely the sin. It seems that a large part of your position is like "oh, you'll hurt their feelings if you identify their behavior as an abomination or a perversion or whatever". To that, I say, "frankly, I don't give a damn".

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



If I boil down my opinion and force feed it to you down a tube like you're a goose I'm prepping for foie gras, I'm really saying two things on homosexuality:
[list=1]
  • You have a bigoted, utterly baseless, indefensible position.
  • The fact that a material segment of the population in this country holds that same, or a similar opinion, is the only reason why we still deny gay marriage rights or otherwise damage the segment of the US population that is gay; which, damages that segment of the population without any benefit to anyone else in society.[/list]

  • The fact that I have noticed a portion of that group who were fairly nice people (kinda a "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" scenario) does not diminish the larger fact that they practice what the great majority of people, relgions, and cultures regard as evil and abominable and unnatural.

    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    You've asserted--repeatedly--that basically everyone else in history agrees with you. You were given a couple examples that show a different take on the matter. You essentially ignored them. Other than the Abrahamic religions, can you name another religion or culture that was as harsh on homosexuality? I don't get the sense you can or you would've shut this line of questioning up the first time I brought it up.

    Secondly, it really doesn't matter if everyone thought this if, at the end of the day, they are all wrong. Again, most everyone once thought the world was flat. That was wrong. Most societies treated women like second class citizens for eons. That was wrong. Societies used to approve of slavery. That was wrong. People used to think the sun orbited the earth. That was wrong. There have been countless times the vast majority of people have been wrong about something. IF your assertion above is correct, this would just be another in that long line of human failures. Thankfully, we usually learn and get better as a species.

    Thus, IMNHO, leaving them alone to practice their abomination (which is all most homosexuals want anyway) should be plenty. It is YOUR kind - non-homosexual change-mongers who don't see merely leaving the poor bastards alone as being enough

    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    Leaving the poor bastards alone? How fucking daft are you? If you want them left alone, tell the religious right to fuck off and let them have their marriage rights.

    I support them being just as free as everyone else to do as they please. If a gay individual or couple wants to keep that private and not tell anyone. Good for them. If they want to enshrine it in a public ceremony amongst friends and family. Good for them.

    - you want to mess with the lives and attitudes of good normal people, teach crap in schools that homosexuality is somehow just a normal alternative life style, etc. THAT - and the dragging down of American and Judeo-Christian values that it brings - is what I am most opposed to.

    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    In the words of Chris Kluwe: they won't magically turn you into lustful cock monsters. I'm not messing with shit other than your side's insistence on forcing its worldview on everyone else. You can start bitching to me when there is legislation banning Christians from having the right to marry other Christians or adopt children; or movements to allow someone to deny you service for being a Christian. Until then, you're just a petulant child throwing his toys out the pram because you can't get your way at every turn and force your values down everyone else's throats.

    And within that paragraph lies the answer to you ending question: because it is seen as an abomination/a perversion/unnatural by the great majority of cultures, religions, and people in general throughout the history of the world - THAT is why the behavior (not the practicers of the behavior) should be condemned.

    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    Again, you've neither proven this assertion nor is it even relevant. You have nothing.

    As for those camps and conversion therapies you mentioned, I hadn't even heard of that until recently. I guess my position is they are pretty naive if they really think they can have much of an effect. However, their heart is in the right place, and I don't think they should be judged for their point of view. How about you hahahaha? Been doing any judging in that area?

    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    No, forcing your worldview down someone's throat in an environment where you've been shown to cause psychological damage is not having your heart in the right place; it's being a cunt.

    Ridiculing: I ask you, are you so humorless and stuffy that you've never told or laughed at a good fag joke? Who among us hasn't? (Who hasn't referred to that team we hate in Minnesota as the "Viqueens"?) I've even heard homosexuals themselves joke around that way - just as Irish and Italians, etc. are the biggest ridiculers of their own kind. Are you really gonna JUDGE those of us doing that ridiculing?

    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    The humor is gone when the person wholeheartedly believes it.

    One last word about the "hate the sin, not the sinners" concept: As you are so fond of pointing out, people aren't supposed to judge people - that's God's realm - thus, NOT hating the sinners. The SINS, however, have ALREADY been judged by God, and if you believe as most Christians do (yeah, maybe you don't, but whatever hahahaha) that the Bible is God's inspired word. And as for "cherry-picking", yeah, I plead guilty to some of that, but I ask you, how is that any different from YOUR own cherry-picking - casually assuming that rapists (which I don't think I even mentioned) or practicers of bestiality, prostitution, pedophilia, etc. are higher on the hierarchy of sins than the abomination known as homosexuality. THAT is exactly what you are doing when you brazenly claim that homsexuality is not on the "same level" as those.

    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    How is your cherry-picking different than mine? Well, I draw no authority from the bible. None. I don't think of it as anything other than a series of fairy tales (and out of respect for the other religious posters here that's where I'll leave it). So when I cite lines from the bible, it's knowing full well you won't agree with them, for the purpose of illustrating how full of shit you are. You, on the other hand, are claiming the bible as an authority for your position, which is ludicrous when you don't buy into half of what's in the rest of it. When you do that, you make it clear it's just an excuse for your bigoted views.

    Also, you're constant resorting to bringing up all those other topics is indicative of how little you have to stand on. If you actually had a point to make about homosexuality, you'd fucking make it.

    Finally, I underlined a bit in your last paragraph to spoon feed you one last time: bestiality and pedophilia are rape. You've mentioned them. Repeatedly. They don't have the capacity to consent to sex. This has been explained to you... repeatedly.
    Born and bred a cheesehead
    texaspackerbacker
    10 years ago

    So I've not had much time to post of late between work and personal travel, so here goes a delayed response.



    This coming from a guy that's only source of authority on his position in this thread is a book he otherwise, at best, knows nothing about and, at worst, blatantly ignores.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.



    If I boil down my opinion and force feed it to you down a tube like you're a goose I'm prepping for foie gras, I'm really saying two things on homosexuality:
    [list=1]

  • You have a bigoted, utterly baseless, indefensible position.
  • The fact that a material segment of the population in this country holds that same, or a similar opinion, is the only reason why we still deny gay marriage rights or otherwise damage the segment of the US population that is gay; which, damages that segment of the population without any benefit to anyone else in society.[/list]



  • You've asserted--repeatedly--that basically everyone else in history agrees with you. You were given a couple examples that show a different take on the matter. You essentially ignored them. Other than the Abrahamic religions, can you name another religion or culture that was as harsh on homosexuality? I don't get the sense you can or you would've shut this line of questioning up the first time I brought it up.

    Secondly, it really doesn't matter if everyone thought this if, at the end of the day, they are all wrong. Again, most everyone once thought the world was flat. That was wrong. Most societies treated women like second class citizens for eons. That was wrong. Societies used to approve of slavery. That was wrong. People used to think the sun orbited the earth. That was wrong. There have been countless times the vast majority of people have been wrong about something. IF your assertion above is correct, this would just be another in that long line of human failures. Thankfully, we usually learn and get better as a species.



    Leaving the poor bastards alone? How f*cking daft are you? If you want them left alone, tell the religious right to f*ck off and let them have their marriage rights.

    I support them being just as free as everyone else to do as they please. If a gay individual or couple wants to keep that private and not tell anyone. Good for them. If they want to enshrine it in a public ceremony amongst friends and family. Good for them.



    In the words of Chris Kluwe: they won't magically turn you into lustful cock monsters. I'm not messing with shit other than your side's insistence on forcing its worldview on everyone else. You can start bitching to me when there is legislation banning Christians from having the right to marry other Christians or adopt children; or movements to allow someone to deny you service for being a Christian. Until then, you're just a petulant child throwing his toys out the pram because you can't get your way at every turn and force your values down everyone else's throats.



    Again, you've neither proven this assertion nor is it even relevant. You have nothing.



    No, forcing your worldview down someone's throat in an environment where you've been shown to cause psychological damage is not having your heart in the right place; it's being a cunt.



    The humor is gone when the person wholeheartedly believes it.



    How is your cherry-picking different than mine? Well, I draw no authority from the bible. None. I don't think of it as anything other than a series of fairy tales (and out of respect for the other religious posters here that's where I'll leave it). So when I cite lines from the bible, it's knowing full well you won't agree with them, for the purpose of illustrating how full of shit you are. You, on the other hand, are claiming the bible as an authority for your position, which is ludicrous when you don't buy into half of what's in the rest of it. When you do that, you make it clear it's just an excuse for your bigoted views.

    Also, you're constant resorting to bringing up all those other topics is indicative of how little you have to stand on. If you actually had a point to make about homosexuality, you'd f*cking make it.

    Finally, I underlined a bit in your last paragraph to spoon feed you one last time: bestiality and pedophilia are rape. You've mentioned them. Repeatedly. They don't have the capacity to consent to sex. This has been explained to you... repeatedly.

    Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



    Welcome back, mi_keys. It looks like the pro-homosexual army is dipping into its reserves and really calling out the big guns now hahahahaha. I need to learn how to do that computer thing where you break a quoted post down into segments. It has a nice style to it. I expended a lot of energy combatting the 3 musketeers or whatever of your side last night. I will try to do justice to your large and interesting post also. Forgive me if I take kinda a scattershot approach. I will try to get around to hitting all the targets.

    First of all, a lot of what you said falls under the umbrella of I don't really care that much about this whole topic - however, it really seems to provoke a response from your side - a lot more than other stuff I consider more interesting, so whatever, I'll go where the action is. Secondly, I referred to the others posting on your side in here as "non-homosexual leftists"; Somehow, I get a different impression of you - more passion/possibly from a personal perspective? So I'll ask you straight out, are you merely a "non-homosexual" posting for that cause? Or are you actually one of them hahahaha? Don't worry, it won't make me hate you - I only hate the SIN, not the SINNER hahaha.

    Bestiality: do you think beasts don't have the capacity to consent to being killed and eaten also? If so, you'd about have to be a vegetarian hahaha. Pedophilia: I tend to agree with you, below a certain age, it's rape. There is an organization on YOUR side, however, known as NAMBLA that apparently does not. Are you gonna defend them too? All I said about these two sins and a few others is that homosexuality is no lower on the hierarchy of sins than they are, Biblically speaking. You admitted to rejecting the Bible - even though you are quite good at citing it; Well, if it's YOUR opinion that homosexuality is not as bad as the other stuff, even though the Bible calls it an abomination, then you ought to call it YOUR opinion. MY opinion was and is that it IS as bad or worse than those other things.

    "Leaving the poor bastards alone" - that line came from Dakota - like a blind squirrel, even he finds an acorn once in a while. My position was and is that the homosexuals don't really care about legislation and pushing that agenda in schools, inflicting their perversion on the general public (if you have some FIRST HAND perspective contradicting that, let's hear it hahahaha). I really don't give a damn what they practice; Even the whole marriage mess kinda falls under my "first of all" above.

    A lot of what you say comes under the heading of you saying to me "you don't have any proof". Probably that's true in some cases, BUT ...... I would suggest that YOU are the one taking the weird/radical/non-traditional position here - homosexuality is just fine and natural, etc.; Therefore the burden of proof is on YOU and of course, you don't provide any proof either. I stand by what I said, THE HUGE MAJORITY OF THE SOCIETIES, CULTURES, AND RELIGIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE ONE TRUE AND CORRECT ONE, ABHOR HOMOSEXUALITY! Indeed, most of them did and do go way beyond merely hating the sin. I hope you join in next time we have a discussion of Muslims and Sharia Law hahahahaha. I'll be interested to see how liberal you are on THAT topic.
    Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
    If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
    dfosterf
    10 years ago

    Have to disagree with you in this one Wade.

    You seem to put John McCain on a pedestal, however that pedestal has a rotten foundation.
    You might start with asking his first wife Carol, her friends and family about John McCain's so called moral-fiber.

    McCain is just another in a long line of "family values" politician hypocrites.
    Dumping a spouse for a younger trophy wife is bad enough, but dumping a spouse who has suffered severe injuries in an accident and is physically changed because of it is the mark of true pond scum.

    And he might have been a "maverick" politician at one time.
    However after the 2000 Republican primary where the Bush/Cheney/Rove dirty tricksters ruined McCain, McCain then changed and sold his soul to the religious far-right.
    Since then, McCain has given new definition to hypocrisy.

    As to his moral-fiber, it is a seriously flawed facade he portrays and in reality it has always been sorely lacking.

    Originally Posted by: Gilligan 


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain  Take a moment, seriously. This will require reading. For that, I apologize.

    Pond scum. Hanoi Hilton. Opted against early release. Embraced and survived the "Code of Conduct" while a Prisoner of War in a place that did not recognize the Geneva Conventions. A code of conduct that all of you would find amazing in it's restrictions to a prisoner of war, at that time. Man, you must have some kind of pedigree to determine the moral fiber of a true war hero based on his reported personal life. John McCain, pond scum. The arrogance of such a thing is beyond my comprehension. If all said is true, (which little of it is) I have heard that many men have opted for better pussy when available, and as a personal aside, unfortunately for me none seems to avail itself to me this personal moment. You two are true brothers. Gilligan and Dakota. You two guys ought to be artists. Impressionists.

    I don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage, plus or minus, for what it's worth, btw. They want to marry, go ahead.
    Gilligan
    10 years ago

    Man, you must have some kind of pedigree to determine the moral fiber of a true war hero based on his reported personal life

    Originally Posted by: dfosterf 



    Well Gunner, looks like you suffer from blind patriotism.
    I do not denigrate what McCain went through as a POW, that is a fact and for that I respect him.
    But that is where it stops with McCain.

    But since you are fixated on McCain's military service, let's take a further look at McCain's military record.

    Prior to being shot down in 1967, John McCain destroyed three other Navy planes during his lackluster career as a pilot.
    1. McCain lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings.
    2. McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines."
    3. McCain's third crash three occurred when he was flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia.

    Now, it may have been that the Navy gave John McCain a fourth plane because he was the son of an admiral.
    I would not think it good practice to give a plane to a man that has previously wrecked three very expensive airplanes.

    McCain has a long, long history of unethical behavior both personal and political.
    But he was a POW once.
    That means he is currently a former POW.
    He's a former POW who couldn't fly an airplane worth a crap.
    But he's a former POW, so you can't criticize him, eh Gunner?
    I am chosen by many but taken by no one.
    texaspackerbacker
    10 years ago

    Well Gunner, looks like you suffer from blind patriotism.
    I do not denigrate what McCain went through as a POW, that is a fact and for that I respect him.
    But that is where it stops with McCain.

    But since you are fixated on McCain's military service, let's take a further look at McCain's military record.

    Prior to being shot down in 1967, John McCain destroyed three other Navy planes during his lackluster career as a pilot.
    1. McCain lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings.
    2. McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines."
    3. McCain's third crash three occurred when he was flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia.

    Now, it may have been that the Navy gave John McCain a fourth plane because he was the son of an admiral.
    I would not think it good practice to give a plane to a man that has previously wrecked three very expensive airplanes.

    McCain has a long, long history of unethical behavior both personal and political.
    But he was a POW once.
    That means he is currently a former POW.
    He's a former POW who couldn't fly an airplane worth a crap.
    But he's a former POW, so you can't criticize him, eh Gunner?

    Originally Posted by: Gilligan 



    Gunner? What kind of an ex-marine is not familiar with the idea of nicknaming a Gunnery Seargeant "Gunny"?

    I thought it was weird for somebody claiming to have been a marine to be so ridiculously leftist and hateful of America as you are.



    Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
    If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
    Pack93z
    10 years ago

    Gunner? What kind of an ex-marine is not familiar with the idea of nicknaming a Gunnery Seargeant "Gunny"?

    I thought it was weird for somebody claiming to have been a marine to be so ridiculously leftist and hateful of America as you are.


    Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



    He could be speaking to a couple of different things..


    Urban Dictionary: 
    A person who is competitive,overly-ambitious and substantially exceeds minimum requirements. A gunner will compromise his/her peer relationships and/or reputation among peers in order to obtain recognition and praise from his/her superiors.

    Or maybe he believe Foster is a Warrant Officer from the Marines..

    Or maybe, considering this is the back alley.. it may be an attempt at a sly insult to Foster.

    Either way.. I like how you jumped to another conclusion forthright. Might explain many of your idiosyncrasies in terms of others. [grin1]


    "The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
    DakotaT
    10 years ago

    DakotaT,

    A lot people chalk up the type of diatribes like TexasPackerBacker and his ilk to “old white man” talk.

    But I disagree, "old white man" is no defense for bigotry.
    A bigot is a bigot, and age is no excuse.

    These guys may be old coots now, but they didn’t grow up in the antebellum South.
    They grew up in an America that was changing by the decade, even by the day, moving fitfully to a broader acceptance of civil rights and human liberties.
    They may be creaky old men now, but they were young men or mere children in the 60's & 70's

    When today’s old bigots were young, they failed to listen, failed to learn.

    Originally Posted by: Gilligan 



    Funny how Texas replied to this comment for me. But he asks you to show him where he can be considered a bigot. You weren't around then, but Texas made an infamous, disgustingly vile post about our Native American brothers, where he revealed his true self. I've been calling him a bigot since. Still think he should have been removed from the presence of our company, but my opinion doesn't matter.

    So when Texas asks you to prove something, you can use the "Injun Joe" reference of disgrace. As for Gunny, well he's a much better man who somehow hasn't figured out the kind of douchebags he's been defending his entire life. The real humor in it all is that these old white coots consider themselves "wise men"! 😂 😂 😂
    UserPostedImage
    texaspackerbacker
    10 years ago

    He could be speaking to a couple of different things..


    Urban Dictionary: 
    A person who is competitive,overly-ambitious and substantially exceeds minimum requirements. A gunner will compromise his/her peer relationships and/or reputation among peers in order to obtain recognition and praise from his/her superiors.

    Or maybe he believe Foster is a Warrant Officer from the Marines..

    Or maybe, considering this is the back alley.. it may be an attempt at a sly insult to Foster.

    Either way.. I like how you jumped to another conclusion forthright. Might explain many of your idiosyncrasies in terms of others. [grin1]

    Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



    Uh, yeah right. You do like to grasp straws, don't you hahahahaha. I think the only landing craft Gilligan has been on was "The Minnow".


    Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
    If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
    texaspackerbacker
    10 years ago

    Funny how Texas replied to this comment for me. But he asks you to show him where he can be considered a bigot. You weren't around then, but Texas made an infamous, disgustingly vile post about our Native American brothers, where he revealed his true self. I've been calling him a bigot since. Still think he should have been removed from the presence of our company, but my opinion doesn't matter.

    So when Texas asks you to prove something, you can use the "Injun Joe" reference of disgrace. As for Gunny, well he's a much better man who somehow hasn't figured out the kind of douchebags he's been defending his entire life. The real humor in it all is that these old white coots consider themselves "wise men"! 😂 😂 😂

    Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



    Funny how this left wing newby parrots your crap ...... but occasionally messes up the details.

    Dakota, you whine and throw around the word "bigotry" all the time. The local storekeeper is a bigot; Doctors are bigots; Corporate America is bigoted; Our military is bigoted; Fox News is bigoted hahahahaha. I guess I'm in pretty good company.

    It seems like you mess up a few details yourself. "Injun Joe"? That's the character in Huckleberry Finn, isn't it? I don't remember ever making that reference. Now if you want to talk about the famous quote from General Phil Sheridan, yeah, I'll cop to that one hahahaha. Anyway, you wouldn't know a bigot if one stung you in the ass. The leftists keeping minorities down on the liberal plantation, conning them for about 94% their votes, then supporting crap you won't find as much as 10% of blacks and hispanics favoring - including but not limited to the topic of this thread - which you keep diverting and running and hiding from.

    The Indians, to their credit, have moved beyond being used by the left. Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Arizona, Alaska - the states with the largest Indian populations - are the most conservative/Republican in their voting. Gradually, hispanics and blacks will go that way too - their culture and core values being vastly different from the shit pushed by leftist politicians - the TRUE racist bigots.

    Some Dem/libs are scared shitless by this trend; Some are too damn dumb - as undoubtedly will be manifested in their replies in this and other forums.
    Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
    If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Merry Christmas!
    beast (11h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
    beast (19h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
    Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
    Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
    Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
    beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
    beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
    Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
    beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
    packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
    Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
    Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
    beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
    packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
    beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
    beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
    beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
    beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
    beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    30m / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    43m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    15h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

    21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22h / Random Babble / beast

    24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

    19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.