OT: Paul Shirley is a dick

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BrianFromWA said:
So wait, you're a total douchebag if you don't contribute time, money and energy to help people get on their feet from a natural disaster....but if you're helping people get out from under a corrupt regime,
Click to expand...

A natural disaster is an objective problem. Everyone agrees that it's a problem. A government that criticizes the US, like Iraq was, is a subjective problem. It depends upon your point of view as to whether it's a problem. Most of the world interprets our invasions as forcing our power upon countries which won't accept subordination to the mighty imperial superpower. For domestic purposes, the story spread here is that the other country is oppressed. Yet the people there fight us for many years, showing that they think the oppressor is us, not their own government.

And I think it's terrible that Shirley was fired. I don't believe in firing people just because I disagree with them. That's like invading a country just because I disagree with their system. But the US government disagrees with Shirley's position, so in this case, the conservative gets the same treatment that leftists usually get. Beware of disagreeing with the foreign policy of the big bad US government.
 
Did Haiti help me out when I got layed off from my job? Nope. Did the US government? Nope. Fuck it, I'm movin to Monaco.
 
ehizzy3 said:
you wont be missed
Click to expand...

ok "ehizzy3". You don't have to post again to jerk off to your avatar, you can just look at your last pizzy, homeboy. Keep it gangsta yo!

normal_internet-seriousbusiness.jpg
 
PHXBlazer1 said:
ESPN canned him, eh? I guess there is no such thing as freedom of speech. God bless Paul Shirley. I'm not donating a cent to that cesspool either. Flame away.
Click to expand...

Why is it always the people who bring up the 1st amendment in these issues don't know what the fuck they are talking about?

The 1st amendment prevents government censorship of individual speech. There is no government censorship here. The government is not preventing Paul Shirley from saying whatever the hell he wants. ESPN is not a government agency. Being employed by ESPN is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Paul Shirley can say what he wants. That's his right. ESPN can decide whether or not they want to employ him. That's their right. No one's civil rights have been violated here. Both party's are simply exercising their rights.

BNM
 
PHXBlazer1 said:
Did Haiti help me out when I got layed off from my job? Nope. Did the US government?
Click to expand...

Did you not collect unemployment? If you were laid off or fired from your job, you should have been eligible.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Why is it always the people who bring up the 1st amendment in these issues don't know what the fuck they are talking about?

The 1st amendment prevents government censorship of individual speech. There is no government censorship here. The government is not preventing Paul Shirley from saying whatever the hell he wants. ESPN is not a government agency. Being employed by ESPN is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Paul Shirley can say what he wants. That's his right. ESPN can decide whether or not they want to employ him. That's their right. No one's civil rights have been violated here. Both party's are simply exercising their rights.

BNM
Click to expand...


Thanks Mom. If I call Paul Shirley "Ley", will you put me on ignore?
 
Boob-No-More said:
Good luck with that. At least you finally made the show. You're well on your way.
Click to expand...

Haha! Honestly I didn't even notice that! Guess it's better than "little league all star" right? But back on topic, how did two unseeded Chinese women make the semis at the Aussie Open? PED's I'm tellin you!
 
How do they know they've never been seeded? Do they just take their word for it?
 
Boob-No-More said:
Did you not collect unemployment? If you were laid off or fired from your job, you should have been eligible.

BNM
Click to expand...

the govt doesnt provide that, no, its a magical fund provided by the benevolent industrialists in the teabagger movement.
 
hoojacks said:
Please tell me you can tell the difference between invading Iraq... and World War Fucking Two.

No, it's not our job to invade sovereign nations, even if their dictator is corrupt and/or insane... or even a democratically elected communist.
Click to expand...

I do. Amazingly enough, I'm not sure you do. While the history is fascinating, it's a bit much to distill into a couple lines. I'll recommend this, however. Read more. Save the spewing for someone you'll actually get a rise out of. There's a pretty large body of historical scholarship on 20th century military matters--I'd recommend reading some of the pure history (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Churchill's The Second World War; Biographies on Stalin, Mao, Chiang Kai-Shek, Churchill, Roosevelt are good starts to WWII) and then look back on some of the outcomes of our isolationist movements (Jones' "Crucible of Power" is decent, if not pretty long).

To answer a bit: Hitler was democratically "elected" and all of his powers were "voted for". Why the hell did those WWII clowns keep marching to invade Germany and take Berlin? They should've just stopped at the borders of Germany and not "invaded" a "democratically elected" fascist...even if he's corrupt/insane--is that right? And in Korea, we should've stopped at the 38th parallel in 1950 after the recapture of Seoul and said "Eff this...we can't invade a sovereign nation, even if their dictator is insane and going on orders from another "corrupt, insane" dictator. Do you have the same opinion of the invasion of Panama in 1989? That leader wasn't democratically elected, though he was a dictator who the US had paid off in the past.

If you try to divorce military might from moral right, you get the UN. Who passed no fewer than 60 resolutions against Iraq after their surrender in 1991 that they didn't heed. Each of which was a violation of their surrender (especially of sections 8 and 12) and the question you have to ask yourself is: why didn't the UN (who had the unquestioned right and willing backing of multiple countries) enforce the surrender treaty? (Much like, say, asking the question why France and Britain didn't enforce the Treaty of Versailles in 1934-39?).
 
maxiep said:
Strike another blow for political correctness.
Click to expand...

Strike another blow for FREEDOM. Paul Shirley has the FREEDOM to say and write whatever he wants. ESPN has the FREEDOM to employ, or not employ whoever they want. Long live the American way!

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Strike another blow for FREEDOM. Paul Shirley has the FREEDOM to say and write whatever he wants. ESPN has the FREEDOM to employ, or not employ whoever they want. Long live the American way!

BNM
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree.
 
maxiep said:
Strike another blow for political correctness.
Click to expand...

or maybe they didnt want to lose ad dollars protecting the stupidity of paul "fuckin" shirley. ever read "can i keep my jersey"? half of his journal style entries are him bitching about his shoulder and contemplating giving up basketball.
 
Honestly, I don't see a huge difference b/w Tiger losing sponsors (no one's complaining much about that) and Shirley losing sponsors. Neither did anything criminal. Neither's "work" suffered due to their actions, thoughts or opinions. But, just as Tiger's sponsors didn't want their name attached to an admitted adulterer, ESPN didn't want to have their name attached to Shirley b/c of the Haiti sensitivity. PC? You bet. But unwarranted? imho, I don't think so.
 
Brian, I will respond to some of your posts maybe tomorrow. It is my birthday today, so I'm going to be doing stuff now that i'm out of school for the weekend.
 
Happy Birthday! Look forward to it.
 
maxiep said:
We'll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree about what? You don't think ESPN (or any other employer) should have the right to choose who the do, and don't employ?

ESPN is a brand. The company has spent BILLIONS of dollars promoting that brand and making it a household name. They have every right to terminate the employment of any employee who they think has damaged that brand. In fact, they have an obligation to their share holders to take corrective action against an employee who makes comments that could diminish the value of the stock they own.

You can trot out the political correctness card all you want, but it's just basic business. If an employee makes you money, you continue to employ him. If he's costing you money, you don't. It's as simple s that. In ESPN's view, Paul Shirley's statements about Haiti damaged the value of their brand and cost them money. They are well within their rights to terminate his employment. Even if they are wrong, it doesn't matter. It's THEIR choice. THEY are the ones signing his paychecks. If they are no longer happy with his job performance, they have every right to stop giving him those paychecks.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Agree to disagree about what? You don't think ESPN (or any other employer) should have the right to choose who the do, and don't employ?

ESPN is a brand. The company has spent BILLIONS of dollars promoting that brand and making it a household name. They have every right to terminate the employment of any employee who they think has damaged that brand. In fact, they have an obligation to their share holders to take corrective action against an employee who makes comments that could diminish the value of the stock they own.

You can trot out the political correctness card all you want, but it's just basic business. If an employee makes you money, you continue to employ him. If he's costing you money, you don't. It's as simple s that. In ESPN's view, Paul Shirley's statements about Haiti damaged the value of their brand and cost them money. They are well within their rights to terminate his employment. Even if they are wrong, it doesn't matter. It's THEIR choice. THEY are the ones signing his paychecks. If they are no longer happy with his job performance, they have every right to stop giving him those paychecks.

BNM
Click to expand...

Like I said, political correctness strikes again.
 
In school, we learn of a bunch of freedoms we have. When older, we learn that this pertains only in matters involving the federal government. We don't have the same freedoms when state governments, private industry, or the media take a dislike to us. This motivates us psychologically to work harder for the national good. Our sweet tooth of idealism is satisfied, while in actuality, we have no more freedom than anyplace else.

"Totalitarianism" is where all government, private industry, media, religion, and any other force you can name are merged into one. Its supposed antithesis, separation of powers, creates the illusion of them being separated, to create plausible deniability. For example, half of American forces in Iraq are hired American civilians, to get around Congress' rules on what the military can do. Blackwater, for example, can kill freely, and civilians can torture more freely.

In our system, the government doesn't go after Tiger Woods, private industry and the media do. In a monolithic totalitarian system, the government would do the job. What's the difference in results?
 
jlprk said:
In school, we learn of a bunch of freedoms we have. When older, we learn that this pertains only in matters involving the federal government. We don't have the same freedoms when state governments, private industry, or the media take a dislike to us. This motivates us psychologically to work harder for the national good. Our sweet tooth of idealism is satisfied, while in actuality, we have no more freedom than anyplace else.

"Totalitarianism" is where all government, private industry, media, religion, and any other force you can name are merged into one. Its supposed antithesis, separation of powers, creates the illusion of them being separated, to create plausible deniability. For example, half of American forces in Iraq are hired American civilians, to get around Congress' rules on what the military can do. Blackwater, for example, can kill freely, and civilians can torture more freely.

In our system, the government doesn't go after Tiger Woods, private industry and the media do. In a monolithic totalitarian system, the government would do the job. What's the difference in results?
Click to expand...

last time i checked- tiger woods wasnt stoned in public for his transgressions.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I do. Amazingly enough, I'm not sure you do. While the history is fascinating, it's a bit much to distill into a couple lines. I'll recommend this, however. Read more. Save the spewing for someone you'll actually get a rise out of. There's a pretty large body of historical scholarship on 20th century military matters--I'd recommend reading some of the pure history (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Churchill's The Second World War; Biographies on Stalin, Mao, Chiang Kai-Shek, Churchill, Roosevelt are good starts to WWII) and then look back on some of the outcomes of our isolationist movements (Jones' "Crucible of Power" is decent, if not pretty long).
Click to expand...

No, I'm not going to read the biographies of politicians and dictators. Just because there are bad people doesn't mean it's our job to dispose of them.

Unless you think it is. I have a feeling you do.


To answer a bit: Hitler was democratically "elected" and all of his powers were "voted for". Why the hell did those WWII clowns keep marching to invade Germany and take Berlin? They should've just stopped at the borders of Germany and not "invaded" a "democratically elected" fascist...even if he's corrupt/insane--is that right? And in Korea, we should've stopped at the 38th parallel in 1950 after the recapture of Seoul and said "Eff this...we can't invade a sovereign nation, even if their dictator is insane and going on orders from another "corrupt, insane" dictator. Do you have the same opinion of the invasion of Panama in 1989? That leader wasn't democratically elected, though he was a dictator who the US had paid off in the past.
Click to expand...

Again, you're comparing WW2 and invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein with Hitler (I know Bush compared the two, but that doesn't make him right.) Wartime with peace. There is a large difference between fighting back an army who is legitimately attempting to conquer the planet, and starting a small war in order to dispose a dictator.

Korea and Panama I don't know much about.

If you try to divorce military might from moral right, you get the UN. Who passed no fewer than 60 resolutions against Iraq after their surrender in 1991 that they didn't heed. Each of which was a violation of their surrender (especially of sections 8 and 12) and the question you have to ask yourself is: why didn't the UN (who had the unquestioned right and willing backing of multiple countries) enforce the surrender treaty? (Much like, say, asking the question why France and Britain didn't enforce the Treaty of Versailles in 1934-39?).
Click to expand...

Blah.

When you "divorce military might from moral right" (did you write that yourself?) you can get many things. One could be the UN, another could be a country who doesn't selectively police the world based on their economic interests.
 
maxiep said:
Like I said, political correctness strikes again.
Click to expand...

What you label as political correctness sounds an awful lot like freedom of choice to me. Paul Shirley made his choice. ESPN made theirs.

BNM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top