User Profile: RajCaj

RajCaj

Member Since: March 02, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • July 23, 2014 at 4:51pm

    The reason some teams take a chance on players with potentially distracting qualities usually has something to do with the talent level, and how much they cost the team.

    Plaxico Burres was a great talent, until his poor decision making caught up with him and got 2yrs in jail for getting caught with an unregistered firearm in NYC

    Aaron Hernandez could have been an incredible TE talent in the NFL, but he went off and murdered someone

    Ray Lewis (allegedly) killed someone, but was held on to because he is one of the best LBs to play the game, and he put butts in seats & sold jerseys

    Point is, Michael Sam is a marginal talent (according to the NFL scouts), and that is why teams were not stepping up to roll the dice on him….like they have for many other more talented players.

  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 4:38pm

    @ModernRepublican

    I don’t disagree with anything you said…given the known population in the US that identify themselves as homosexual, and given that likely there will only be a small subset of that number that will make it in professional sports…it’s entirely possible that you could end up with a few percent of professional football players as openly gay. Maybe one day, sports media will treat people according to their character & athleticism, not their sexual preference.

    That said, why should Tony be punished for highlighting a potential risk to the success of his ball club (media distraction, acceptance in the locker room), and ultimately deciding that a 7th round draft pick isn’t worth the liability….particularly when it’s his job (and livelihood) on the line?

    If Sam were a phenomenal talent, his calculus might be different….and may be willing to accept that risk…but that is not who Michael Sam is.

    If people want to take issue with Tony not sacrificing his employment & ability to manage a football team of man children, in effort of being a “social justice warrior”, fine….but that’s an entirely different accusation than him being characterized as an anti-gay bigot over his analysis of a hypothetical.

  • July 23, 2014 at 4:27pm

    @HarryPotter

    Tony was being real & honest in his analysis, given his understanding of the “mood” regarding homosexuality in a NFL locker room and the tact & approach sports news media would take.

    Given his experience as a coach, I’ll defer to his expertise & understanding of how important a drama free locker room to winning, and how hard it is to keep players focused on football.

    A NFL head coaches job is educate & train your players on your particular football system, which includes minimizing distractions. In some cases, coaches will roll the dice on players with backgrounds that could be a distraction, but possess phenomenal talent….which often times doesn’t work out.

    DeSean Jackson is an incredible Wide Receiver, but was let go by the Eagles because he was getting involved with gang activity. (distraction)

    New York Giants took a chance on Plaxico Burras, but ended up letting him go after he served his prison term for shooting himself in the foot, with an unregistered firearm in NY because he was a distraction.

    Terrel Owens, who was a prolific WR, bounced from team to team because where ever he went, the media made it the TO Show (distraction)

    A coach turning down a player (particularly a marginal talent) because of personal issues is nothing new…but because its about someone’s sexuality, it’s a BFD.

    Tony shouldn’t be indicted as being anti-gay over that hypothetical.

  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 3:45pm

    Agreed cjrock86, but we have a significant number of Americans, and a majority of our federal politicians, that are of the mindset that gov officials aren’t able to actually do anything good (IE, develop laws that provision money to special groups) until they’ve had time to build some clout & influence among their peers.

    The politicians in Washington have erected an inner circle (establishment types) that requires any freshman legislators to “play ball” in order to be put on select committees & other intra governmental groups, where they then have power & influence to bring home the bacon….that their state has now become dependent on.

    Look at the Mississippi GOP primary. Aside from pandering to democrat voters, Thad ran on the fact that he’s brought home his share of the pork barrel spending, and that the state would lose an influential member of Congress if his opponent were elected.

    I’ve heard Republicans in Louisiana rationalize voting for Mary Landreau because she brings money back from Washington to fund projects in their industry…which is how they put food on the table for their family.

    We’ve reached a tipping point, in terms of being dependent on this kind of government, that pits self interests with principles…and they know that.

  • [3] July 23, 2014 at 8:29am

    Nail on the head.

    Tony’s analysis, and ultimate hypothetical decision, was based on what he knows of the mood of the NFL players toward the subject, and his understanding of what distractions in the locker room do to your ability to stay focused on football & win games.

    People, in their blind rage, are pegging these comments on Tony, as if he came out and said I wouldn’t have drafted him because I’m personally against homosexuality.

    At the very worst, people could be upset with Tony for not being willing to jeopardize his job & his team’s chances of winning football games, so that he can go out and be a warrior for “social justice”.

    That is a VERY different charge than being accused of hating gays

  • [7] July 22, 2014 at 5:16pm

    True, and folks seem to be confusing Dungy’s analysis with his personal views. Dungy never said he wouldn’t have taken Michael Sam because he disagrees with Sam’s lifestyle & sexual preference. He said he wouldn’t have taken him because he felt he would have been a distraction in the locker room.

    That’s an analysis of what the mood is, among the avg NFL player in the locker room, with an understanding of how important it is to be focused on football, and only football.

    What people are upset about is that Tony didn’t take the opportunity to be a warrior for the cause, and forego results on the football field, in the name of “social justice”.

    If people want to get upset with Tony over something, it should be about that….not assuming that Tony personally hates gays.

  • [1] July 21, 2014 at 5:30pm

    You don’t have to wonder….it’s just not true. (If you take Glenn on his word)

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say he was doing this for media protection, and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him rail against Republicans supporting amnesty on the idea that it will buy them favor.

    I think he was trying to pay by the rules he thinks we all should live by (Government takes care of justice, and PEOPLE take care of mercy….given limited gov folks keep talking about Government reducing its role in our lives…particularly in the “mercy” market)

    I happen to not agree with Beck sending toys for the kids (food / cloths, yes), but I get where he is coming from. People ask for limited governments, but stop at the edge of taking the responsibilities seized by the government back.

  • [1] July 21, 2014 at 5:21pm

    Sorry, but I can’t stand when people say that liberalism is a mental disorder, a form of insanity, a mental disease, etc…

    Liberalism is not bi-polar disease. Liberalism is not a mental condition, dictated by some imbalance of chemicals, or hormones.

    To suggest as much does a disservice to what MODERN liberalism is, and how its addressed.

    It’s an ideology, just like conservatism, and it’s one that is particularly appealing to those who are out of touch with reality, or particularly predisposed to emotionally rationalizing thought processes.

    It’s why the young typically identify as liberals, and why academic centers are perfect breeding grounds for that thought process. It all sounds good on paper, until it actually goes into practice….and then it doesn’t work, and others are blamed, using arguments that tug at heart strings & tap into your fears.

  • [2] July 18, 2014 at 3:06pm

    Unless Julian Castro has something to say about it……in the event he doesn’t want to wait another 8yrs to improve his bonafides first.

  • [7] July 18, 2014 at 11:39am

    @love the kids

    You can divide up the entire modern liberal progressive movement into 2 camps….the leaders & the followers.

    The leaders, who are the ones participating in the modern liberal think tanks & setting policy, are the ones that have developed the thought process described by Muravchik.

    The followers are the ones you describe, that blindly follow hash-tag social media blasts, and what’s fed to them in Main Stream Media.

    You need to be aware of both to address them

  • [5] July 17, 2014 at 8:25am

    Agreed….but how does he hold people accountable?

    The White House defies previous judicial ruling and declares that their inner circle be immune from testifying in front of congressional oversight committees.

    The DOJ stonewalls & outright refuses to investigate & prosecute criminal activity within the Democrat ranks.

    And a complicit media hides it all from the citizenry

  • [1] July 16, 2014 at 4:30pm

    @Wyldman

    “…his integrity among the Democrat base voter”

    I get what you’re saying, but I’d wager > than 50% of voting Democrats will twist & contort ways of defining “secure” such that they can tend to agree with this statement, or they will just flat out apply a little cognitive dissonance to that particular statement because of ALL the other great work he does for their party.

    If the Democrat political strategic powers that be honestly believed that Harry’s bomb throwing would cause likely Democrat voters to second guess their party affiliation, they would have muzzled him by now.

  • [13] July 16, 2014 at 4:14pm

    I understand the guy was emotional, but (as the guys on the Beck radio show pointed out yesterday) there was probably a more articulate way of getting his point across. Probably still would have resulted in him getting fired / forced out….but fatherless black children don’t account for the same mentality that exists with the poor inner city Hispanics, Asians & whites.

    The common denominator is ultimately education & lacking instruction on how to be a decent human being. Having 2 well adjusted parents sure as heck helps with the uptake of those both.

    Just saying, a lack of black Dads (any guy can father a child, takes something more to be a Dad) is a symptom of the problem, not the end-all be-all….and I think that is where this reporter messed up.

  • [2] July 16, 2014 at 4:08pm

    It doesn’t matter what percent of the population they are, everyone should be treated equally.

    The minority rule over the majority transcends race, and could also be said for every other social construct, or special interest, that finds itself NOT in the majority in this nation. THAT idea is born out of modern liberal politics……that equal treatment is not truly equal, and that special privileges / considerations are required to make up for systemic, or inherent biases, in effort to reach to reach TRUE equality.

    Then, enter the spin machine that says FBI data, regarding the crime rate among blacks, is not indicative of a disproportionate amount of crime in the black community, but that the legal system applies an unfair standard to blacks…resulting in elevated crime stats. And then when you corner them on admitting there are more instances of anti-social behavior within the black community, the psychologists step in and say that it’s only because they are displaying acts of internalized oppression, or forced into that lifestyle because of oppressive forces that prevent them from escaping poverty

    It’s all politically driven

  • [5] July 16, 2014 at 10:58am

    I respectfully disagree. I think you could insert any other lifetime Democrat politician in the senate majority seat, for a senate controlled by Democrats, and they would do the same thing.

    The root cause is not Harry Reid, it’s a hyper politicized climate, coupled with a dishonest media that is in bed with a corrupt government apparatus.

    I’m not saying that Harry’s age hasn’t dulled the crayon, so to speak, but I don’t think he is a senile old man, or has some sort of dementia like condition.

    He is just a lame duck Democrat hack that has nothing to loose, and all to gain. His voter base is so politically charged that they will gladly look past the Bagdad Bob act, if it means that Harry Reid gets the Koch Brothers in the news headlines, and lobs grenades every day at Republican politicians & media.

    And since he draws heat from the White House, and does all their mud slinging for them, he is allowed by the Democrat party to continue with this lunacy.

  • [4] July 16, 2014 at 9:00am

    This….all this senile / off the meds diagnosis for Harry Reid’s bold face lies excuses the real tragedy in all of this…..the fact that a federally elected politician can go on air and be Bagdad Bob without the main stream media or Democrat base voter batting an eye.

    We have become so partisan in our politics that someone can go on air and say our border is secure, after we’ve allowed over 15 million illegal immigrants in the country, with a recent rising tide of unaccompanied children & drugs coming across….without a single clarifying question asked by mainstream media & his voters.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] July 16, 2014 at 8:54am

    I disagree…..I think he makes all this crap up because he knows he can get away with it.

    Who’s going to hold him accountable?

    Fellow Democrats in Congress? He’s protecting their future elections by preventing them from having to on record with votes on legislation.

    Fellow Democrats in the WH? He goes out there and throws all the bombs the President could never get away with, and is rewarded as such.

    Republicans? Sure, but the Democrats have done such a good job (aided by the media) to characterize the Republican party (and republican leaning media) as being evil / loony SOBs that anything they say is immediately discredited because of their party affiliation.

    Main Stream Media? They (for reasons beyond my understanding) are in the tank for Democrats, and will never run that comment in proper context, or challenge him on the border comment (Please Mr. Reid, define what “secure” means) You won’t see that comment ridiculed on the Colbert Report or Daily Show….even though it’s ripe with comedic potential.

    The Democrats have too much invested in image control for this to not be intentional Bagdad Bob work.

  • [5] July 16, 2014 at 8:44am

    Rrrright…..the only cameras that will put these Republican legislators on will be conservative media, which immediately discredits the message because of how well the Democrat party & sympathetic media have characterized conservative news outlets.

    Meanwhile, the Main Stream Media will put on folks like Debbie Wasterman Shultz & Harry Reid…that will go on to tear down the Republican plan by minimizing the money going to where they are asking it to go, and focus on the Republicans attempting to hold our national security (NSA), our clean water & air (EPA), and government funding (IRS) HOSTAGE by trying to leverage the border crisis to persecute enemies in public office.

    If we had an honest media, I’d be right there with you….but the Democrats have become so predictable, I have no doubt in my mind the above scenario as I’ve described would be the likely outcome.

  • [17] July 16, 2014 at 8:36am

    He is not stupid, or senile…he is just a bold face partisan that’s acting as cannon fodder / flack jacket for those Democrats that DO have several potential terms in office ahead of them.

    He knows his leadership will reward him for playing the Bagdad Bob role. He also knows the Democrat base is as Left wing & partisan than it’s ever been, and that loyal Democrats (particularly the ones in his state) will not apply too much critical thought to outrageous statements like this, so long as he protects Democrat Senators from votes & blocks any & all Republican efforts in the Senate & House (Ends justifies the Means)

    Even if Harry Reid’s statements like this were caused by some mental or age related disorder….don’t you think all the handlers & image / message consultants the Democrat party has would have shut him up by now if they REALLY thought these comments discredited his integrity among the Democrat base voter?

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] July 15, 2014 at 8:42am

    @Chloe

    Simple…you have a stooge leading the DOJ that feigns insult in that all of this is about racism.

    There are only 2 ways out of this….the media put pressure on the political officials to do their job (and by media, I mean the main stream alphabet letter soup organizations) or the people vote these jokers out of office.

    That may be difficult, however, given the reciprocal relationship our politicians hold with the media & pop entertainment industry….and the growing dependence on the government…which puts people in the position to either vote for their next meal ticket, or vote with their conscious. (See Mississippi)

123 To page: Go