Ooo, yuck

by Brad Nelson   5/13/14

Andrew Johnson has an article over at NRO on the homosexual NFL wannabe (Michael Sam) and the current NFL player (Don Jones) who had a less-than-politically-correct reaction to a video of Sam kissing his queer mate. He advised Sam and his boyfriend to “get a room.”

In response, “The Dolphins organization quickly responded by fining Jones an undisclosed amount and banning him from team activities until he completes sensitivity training.”

As usual, it takes one of the commenters (Redemption Searcher) to get to the meat of it.

“Banning him from team activities until he completes sensitivity training”

Read that sentence twice to yourself. It’s like we’re living in a science fiction movie when the Gaystapo has this kind of influence on the NFL for crying out loud. I’d bet a million bucks the overwhelming majority of people felt Jones’ reaction seeing that photo-GROSS. But you’re not allowed to say so. This is seriously Stalinistic craziness-Jones should publicly RIP the Dolphins a new one, and call out the fascism of this publicly. He would instantly become one of the most popular players in the league.

ESPN’s staff has become a bunch of feminized weasels as has NFL management. Why the cave? I guess the Gaystapo (great word, by the way) is a powerful force these days.

But if an NFL player (or anyone) can’t say, in essence, “Ooo, yuck” when seeing two men kissing, then I wonder if the days of the NFL (what Rush often calls the “No Fun League”) are over. Trying to integrate not just passive homosexual acceptance but open promotion in the NFL might not be such a good marketing strategy for what is one of the last bastions of masculinity in our culture.

But given the propensity of today’s male to gladly eat an excrement sandwich rather than manning-up, I may be wrong about that. Maybe the ball grab will soon replace the high five.
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1260 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Ooo, yuck

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Basically, as the Braves did around 2000 with John Rocker, the Dolphins have sentenced Jones to be re-educated. An item in HotAir by Ed Morrissey noted this and contrasted it with a recent case of a player who beat up his girlfriend and was given no punishment by his team or the NFL. But after all, Orwellian liberalism (If you’ll pardon the redundancy) punishes wrong thoughts, not wrong behavior.

    Incidentally, Thomas Sowell has an article available on TownHall today discussing the problem of campus rapes — and in particular the way colleges respond not by reporting this violent crime to the police, but by handling it themselves without such trivialities as due process of law. Since rape is a politically incorrect crime (unless committed by a very politically correct individual, of course), liberals who used to prate of their support for civil liberties have no objection. But I wonder: if this is done by a private school, how would libertarians such as John Stossel react? (I wonder similarly how they’d react to the Jones/Sam incident, which is why the one leads me to the other.)

    And then imagine what happens if Sam, chosen in the 7th round, proves not to be quite good enough to make the Rams. Would they feel free to let him go, as they would any other such player? We know that the Lavender Thought Police would immediately cry “homophobia”; would the Rams be willing to face that? Or will they pre-emptively (as the Dolphins did — they didn’t even wait for the Thought Police to demand action, knowing that this would inevitably happen) act by keeping him no matter his performance?

  2. steve lancaster says:

    I don’t need to see men kiss in public just as much as I don’t need to see women and men kiss in public; get a room seems the sane thing to say.

    Why do these people have so much power, why do we need to be afraid of them, their not even Muslim?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Steve, I’m of the general “live and let live” demeanor. And that means living with some guy who says, “Get a room” when he sees two homosexuals kissing.

      In my book, “acceptance” of homosexuals does not have to include denying one’s innermost squeamishness at seeing two guys kiss. The essence of Orwellianism is looking to the state for what to believe and think and denying what is inside — that one must deny what is inside, or else.

      I love the term “Gaystapo.” I wonder if Timothy had that one already. But the side that keeps telling us that homosexual people should not have to “deny what is inside” expect everyone else to.

      I must say, my views on homosexuality have changed in the past couple of years. I don’t at all have the same unflinching “acceptance” that I used to. I’m really tired of all this PC crap and the Gaystapo.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        No, I didn’t have “Gaystapo”. Note that I never use “gay” as a euphemism for “homosexual”. (I may sometime have repeated the term “gay mafia” just as I might “Gaystapo”.) My favorite is the one I used above, the Lavender Thought Police.

        Incidentally, there’s an article by Frank Turek available on TownHall that deals with homosexual marriage, and concludes that conservatives adjust behavior to reality, whereas liberals try to adjust reality to behavior. (I’ve seen something similar said about liberal religion: Conservatives try to fit their behavior to the Bible, whereas liberals try to fit their Bible to their behavior.)

        One might note that this liberal attempt to deny reality is a major reason why they’re so intolerant of dissent. When reality fails to go along with their wishes, they must either sacrifice their wishes (which liberals are emotionally unable to do) or denounce those who see reality instead of their fantasy world.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          One might note that this liberal attempt to deny reality is a major reason why they’re so intolerant of dissent. When reality fails to go along with their wishes, they must either sacrifice their wishes (which liberals are emotionally unable to do) or denounce those who see reality instead of their fantasy world.

          How does homosexual marriage fit in with the Left’s worship of evolution? It serves no biological function for the species. By its very nature, the genes are not passed on.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            That would only be true if the Left really paid any serious attention to science. Evolution, like global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption, is simply dogma, accepted without any genuine comprehension. After all, the Prophet Darwin and the Prophet Dawkins have proclaimed the Truth of Evolution, just as the Prophet Hansen, the Prophet Gore, and the Prophet Mann have proclaimed the Truth of global warming/climate change/climate disruption.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Didn’t another Miami player make inflammatory statements about “whites” after the Zimmerman trial? As I recall, nothing happened to him.

    This is whole episode is a disgusting joke. Sams is a mediocre player who figured out the best way to raise his profile was to come out as a queer. He received as much media attention as top draft prospects such as Johnny Manziel. This was not because he was a great player, but because he represented the latest special interest group promoted and glorified by the Left.

    Sams is now in a position where he will be a media curiosity regardless of his performance on the field. Once his football career is over, he will be able to milk his perversity for years to come, because he was the “first”. You know, something like Charles Lindberg’s first.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, Chad Felix Green has an article at American Thinker that basically says, “If this homosexual football player guy can get praise from Obama, how brave is it to come out”? (And that’s the gist of the article, so don’t waste our time reading it, in my opinion.)

      I can’t speak for low-information voters or useful idiots. But I’ve never had a prejudice against gays or blacks (which is not to say that I will not tell an off-color joke or use “bad” words occasionally). The fact is, if you want to join the American pantheon of pluralism, you have to expect a certain amount of ribbing, especially if you (language alert) like to suck c*ck or butt f***. And does anyone really want to create the kind of acid chill that it would take so that macho football players aren’t event allowed to giggle when some burly black guy kisses his white bitch?

      Yes, the totalitarian “caring” Left would do exactly that. I would gladly publish fair and reasonable articles from a homosexual person if they wanted to give their side of the story. I’m not anti-homosexual. But I am anti-thought-police. And to the extent that homosexuals are aligned with the thought police (and I assume that most of them are, like most “moderate” Muslims feel that their movement is aided and abetted by violent arms of Islam), they are not my friends. I am not generally a cheerleader for thugs and Orwellian Commissars, no matter what hole they use for sexual pleasure.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Yes, the atrocious behavior of the Lavender Thought Police, and the lack of adequate pushback by homosexuals (a few, such as Andrew Sullivan, have complained, but they haven’t made a serious effort to defang the vipers), have turned me strongly against the homosexual movement. Thomas Jefferson once swore eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind (I think that’s close to the exact quote, but I don’t have it quite handy and don’t feel like hunting it up somewhere), and that certainly is an important credo of mine, and a major aspect of my politics. (I will add that another major aspect is the “forgotten man” argument of William Graham Sumner, which was one of my major motivations long before I ever encountered the specific argument.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *