He caught an unwarranted amount of crap the following two or three seasons because the team had a sudden decline in talent and coaching starting with the 2010 season that coincided with his elevation to the starting QB job. It's not like things were much better with those teams with David Ash or Case McCoy or Tyrone Swoopes under center. Like I said, he got something of a raw deal, and I was happy to see him do well after he transferred to SMU, and in 2014, when Texas had not a single player drafted for the first time in decades, he was drafted. Hopefully, this stint playing for the HBC in Orlando will get him another chance in the NFL.
But what if it was a guy and he said "******** that Son of a Bitch"? Considering the context, I don't see it as how he thinks about women as much as how he thinks about a specific woman.
Again, would you say the same thing in a racist situation? If we had another blackface issue, and 15 years later that same person called someone a racist slur in a meeting where they were mad, would you not say that goes towards character? As long as he called someone a c*** and not a n***** what's the big deal?
I don't think character is the issue. Character, or how you perceive it, will determine whether you ever vote for him in the future, but the issue now is whether he raped those women, which should determine whether he gets removed from office now. Name calling doesn't shed any light on whether he is guilty.
You really think calling the woman a b is evidence that he raped her? Or just using that word is grounds for removing him from office?
I think the adding of an adjective (bitch, n-word, etc.) that has a loaded meaning that is perceived as derogatory of their social categorization(?) (woman/POC/LGBTQ+ etc.) is the issue. I don't think we want to stop being able to call someone an ass, 'motherfather', or other negative term, it's just more keeping from smearing a whole group identity as well. And no, it's not evidence of guilt - more speaking to their character in general.
Do you not see the irony of your post? The reason that Son of a Bitch is an insult is because of the word Bitch, not the word Son. Son of a Bitch is not the masculine equivalent of Bitch. On the contrary, it is an extension of the original insult.
If the reflexive is to use the slur in anger, that shows the character of thought at the base line. Why use such a derogatory word when angry if that is not intended as an insult? Why not "F' her?" or "She full of shit?" Same idea, but without being derogatory.
Sorry that's probably your life. And what is JAQ? Y'all were talking about it the other day and I still don't know what it means.
But you are not answering the question I asked. Is calling a woman a bitch grounds for removing an elected official from public office? I don't think so. If the dems go down this road - anyone who ever used a naughty word is out - there won't be anyone left. If AOC (or any other woman) calls Trump a dick during a staff meeting, will you want them to resign? Personally, I think the rape allegation is much, much, more serious. Hyperventilating over name calling is a distraction.
No no no. No one here ever said he should resign for calling someone a b. We are saying that doing that should be under consideration of character when believing/disbelieving the allegations against him. If he raped someone, yes, he should resign. How many other ways can we say it?
Just reread this. The bolded: I don't know if TAMU would have run the Big XII table- they did beat Bama that year but had already lost to Florida and LSU. Notre Dame was undefeated and Bama had the one loss (to TAMU). If TAMU stays in the Big XII, Bama and ND both are undefeated. It's very possible that an undefeated Aggie team watches the B(C)S title game at home after beating up on somebody else for their last game.
If Bama and ND are undefeated, I guess that you're right that an undefeated A&M sits at home because the gatekeepers would've likely bent over backwards to put those two in the championship game, while dressing it up in bullshit rationalizations like "the eye test." And who's to say that either Bama or A&M would've gone undefeated? Bama has a bad habit of slipping on a banana peel most years. It's worth noting that they've never run the table under Nick Saban to the national championship. Whenever they've won the national championship, they've had one loss. Meanwhile, A&M would've been facing lesser defenses in the Big 12, but they would've also been facing defenses that were a little more accustomed to their offense than most of the SEC, and they would've been facing more teams that weren't averse to getting into a shootout with them.
The "eye test" is the reason I finally gave up watching reg season cfb along with any NFL at all. It's the fallback any time someone wants to elevate an SEC team over whoever. I called in several editions of the cfb threads here for an all-conference champs playoff. But that's not gonna happen because the Power 5 (actually, the Power 4 plus the Academic 1) doesn't want to share that $$. They ran the table in 2009, his first natty in T-Town. But they do seem to stumble somewhere along the way most of the time. I really don't think they should have been allowed to play LSU in 2011 or Georgia last season, but that's what happens when the decision is left up in the air. Now, a 2017 all-conference + 5 at-large would have had Bama in it anyway, division non-champ or not. Yeah, pretty much. What I really want is for someone to just stand up and say to the rest of cfb that they may as well walk on at some SEC program because they have no shot at being selected for a title hunt. Say it plain. Boise State, TCU, Eastern Illinois, Central Florida, you don't matter. The only guys who should be wearing your uniforms are guys who can maybe get into the NFL but can't get to the top of the depth chart at Bama (where, it seems, everybody goes to Sunday ball). What I saw about ten years ago with TCU running around the stadium after their last reg season game, undefeated, seemingly happy about going nowhere but the Rose Bowl, made me sick.
That had occurred to me after I posted it, LOL But I’m not going to get my shorts all in a wad over it.
That question is confusing to begin with because I don't know anybody who has asserted that anywhere. In addition, most (all?) of us are saying he should resign before the Republican legislature has an opportunity to start impeachment proceedings. And as far as I can tell, we are saying that the issue about the use of words is suggestive of his character in a way that is more like to affirm his actions - how he is responding to the allegations is much more along the lines of Kavanaugh than Franken.
Or, you gotta keep focus on the things that matter. Which deserves more scrutiny 1) A 30-year old photo that the person has desperately tried to atone for, OR 2) A corrupt puppet of bankers and mobsters