Is it acceptable to destroy people for an agenda?

How so? Why don't you offer an explanation?

Do you think these old tweets that were dredged up will enhance Kyler's future prospects? Do you think Kevin Hart's career was advanced by the tweets someone dredged up?

What was the point of dredging up those tweets?

Care to touch on that?

 

Yes, what anyone could face, unless they seek absolution from those who will destroy, unless they properly submit.

No slippery slope there.

Everyone should reject this totalitarian effort promoted by Progressives, who want people to think this is part of enlightenment, while hoping they don't notice it is part of indoctrination and surrender.

 

yep, unless your born rich like Trump... you need to watch what you say as it could hurt you in the future

 

exactly

 

the court of public opinion is part of free speech... Trump on the other hand is using the government via official Presidential statements to attack the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, ect... Sad! Slippery Slope indeed....

 

How is he hurt by this? Do you think he will not make millions in the nfl because of this?

 

It is obvious that you have no desire to discuss the issue and, perhaps, glean a perspective from others. You see a conspiracy - a political agenda. Nothing I or anyone else can say will change that. So have a good day...

 

"Teachable moment"? How silly. Folks should be able to say what they want. We have freedom of speech yanno.

 

He is free to say what he wants. No one is stopping him

 

Except the religious left. That is what should be opposed. Freedom of speech is under assault in our society.

 

Last time I checked, the President is a citizen of the United States, and his opinion if part of free speech.

But confirming free speech is qualified depending on ideological alignment is the point of my thread, so I appreciate you providing another example of this Progressive policy.

 

They can say whatever they want too. We are free to judge it as we please

 

What do you think? Are you suggesting the release of these old tweets to buddies was done to enhance his future career?

 

I completely support freedom of speech. The teachable moment is the responsibility which is inherent in free speech. The world is not a warm and fuzzy place - so why show the world your soft underbelly? And if you choose to do so, you should know that you are not a 'victim'...you were willfully ignorant of the world around you.

 

He will not lose a single dime in the nfl because of this. It was released so he could answer if this is his current views or not. His explanation will be accepted by everyone in the nfl. This is a nothingburger

 

I'm discussing it, and I'm debating the point you are trying to make. It's quite disingenuous to suggest I don't have a desire to discuss the issue, since I created a thread on it. That I'm not agreeing with you doesn't suggest I'm not willing to debate the point.

I guess you don't understand the concept.

There is no perspective, IMO, that would make these tactics acceptable.

Have a good day yourself.​

 

The freedom is not under assault. People are now being held accountable for the speech they are free to use. Nothing wrong with that, in my view. Shouldn't we all be accountable for the words we choose and use?

 

Well then, discussion over. Your mind is made up.

 

Civil suits should be brought. Anyone who suffers monetary loss because of what they say should be compensated.

 

Who hasn't used those kinds of "endearments" when addressing a friend?

He apologized--end of story. His life's not being "ruined", and this isn't part of a trend of "evil libruls" wrecking society. If anything, it's more whining from the professional victim class on the far right.

 

Of course, it is not. First- there is probably not a person alive who has not offended somebody sometime. Nobody is as the same person at 14 as they will be at 21 or 30. Social values change as well; terms that are common (right or not) and used widely 20 years ago may be taboo today- but it is stupid to judge people's actions at that time by the modified standards that have evolved since.

All of this states that we are inventing a new kind of abuse, sort of a "gotcha" game where the objective is to take those around you, especially those who have risen above you down- so that you can see yourself as somehow superior or at least equal. That's a really pitiful and lame way to think, but it's spreading like wildfire, especially across the liberal ideologies.

They would be well to remember that precedents like this invariably wind up coming back on the people who create them.

 

Those who are hurt somehow for what they say or tweet should sue. This is a clear violation of free speech rights. Pretty soon hurting someone financially because of their skin color will be allowed.

 

Except that here we have the case of someone who earns his living by destroying people, who he likely never heard of prior to his name being in the news.

 

So then, you don't believe that we should all be held accountable for our words? If you are brave enough to say them, you should be brave enough to accept the consequences. In this case, I don't think he will suffer, financially, at all.

Professional athletes, sadly, become heroes and role models for the young. If they accept that role, they are responsible to act in a way befitting a role model or hero. I applauded Charles Barkley who encouraged children and parents NOT to look to him as a role model...he knew his behavior was not befitting the mold.

 

Agreed. This story is a big fat nothing. He is moving on to make millions in the nfl