People Are Upset Tim Tebow Is Back In The NFL Instead Of Colin Kaepernick

Yeah that’s what he said liberal politics.

 

Kaepernick did not cause a single death. You are violating the rule of law - one person not responsible for the actions of another.

Second - any fool can foretell the past.

 

People Are Upset Tim Tebow Is Back In The NFL Instead Of Colin Kaepernick

As I've said many times...there are people who just need something to be upset about. What a sad existence.

 

Mental illness vs acknowledging issues in society

 

You can claim he did not cause a single death. However, a young black who died because he resisted because of Kaepernick's actions, would still be alive if it were not for Kaepernick.

 

Tebows “mental illness” is hurting no one.

Colin Kaepernick’s “acknowledgement” is getting more black people killed by other black people

get your priorities straight

 

Which one is a mental illness?

 

That mental illness causes millions to be murdered, controlled or subjugated around the globe yearly.

Saying there is an issue that needs to be addressed in society does not cause blacks to kill other blacks.

How absurd

 

Believing an all powerful deity — the creator of all things good and evil — cares about men playing fetch. Especially one that believes in a book written by man, edited by kings and translated by a church looking to profit.

 

Do you think all belief in a deity is a mental illness?

 

No hypocrisy.

I could possibly see people being upset if Tebow came back as a QB, but he isn't. He also played for the Jags' new head coach when they were at Florida.

 

I repeat: Tim Tebow has hurt no one. His faith has nothing to do with what other people do with their faith. You not wanting him to have a job because of it is pure bigotry and is disgusting.

And clowns like kaepernick making up systemic racism out of your butts with zero facts in order to destroy our law enforcement resulting in more black people dying is and should be a fireable offense for doing it on the job which Kaep was.

good for that POS, hope he never finds work again.

 

And this conclusion is backed by science, correct? Or are you pulling more things out of your butt? Quite talented you be at that

 

I don’t think it’s fair to say believing in god is a mental illness. Gullible? Sure. Sheep-like mentality? Yup. But mental illness? No.

 

I’d love to see when these religion hating liberals plan on marching in the streets for all the people subjugated and oppressed by Islam, the worlds leading religious oppressor.

But for that they’d actually have to stand up and turn around to face them.

 

TT seems to be a nice guy, but not a QB who is sufficiently good for the NFL.
I hope for his sake that he does well as a TE. I wish him luck.
This said, I suspect the Jaguars are signing him for 3 reasons:
1. Potential use for play-action
2. To distract the media/fans from the rookie QB
3. To sell tickets and merchandise
I suspect that the above reasons are the real ones, rather than a tribute to TT's unproven football talent as a TE.
By the way, it is not excluded that he will be cut. We don't know yet if he'll make the roster.
I'm not upset at the Jaguars signing him. Being upset at that is ridiculous. The Jaguars are free to sign whoever they want.
As for Kaepernick, he is another one who doesn't seem to be good enough for a starter NFL job. He could be a decent back-up though, better than some who are in activity, so none of the 32 teams signing him (despite the fact that some do need a back-up QB) does smell of a boycott that is politically motivated. Roger Goodell has acknowledged as much (in not as many words) but the teams still don't want him, so, yes, it doesn't really pass the smell test.
However, him not being signed doesn't upset me either.
Just like teams are free to sign whoever they want, they are also free to not sign whoever they don't want.

 

I do not view this as a mental illness. If this were the case then the vast majority of people whom ever lived were all mentally ill.

 

Why gullible? I've never heard a decent logical argument from an atheist.

 

You have heard a decent logical argument, you just choose to act like you haven't.

There are about 3,000 gods to choose from. But I'm guessing you only believe in one god. Therefore you deny one less god than I do. You don't believe in 2,999 and I don't believe in just one more. In other words, you know how you don't believe in all those other gods? That's how I don't believe in yours too.

How about the fact that science has proven the earth to be quite a bit older than religion believes it to be.

How about the fact that where you are born pretty much dictates which religion you follow. Think about it. If you're born in India you're probably Hindu. If you're born in America you're probably Christian. If you're born in Pakistan you're probably Muslim. Do you think that's just a mere coincidence? You were born into the right god but all those others weren't? Isn't that lucky.

 

No — maybe I should have used delusion instead. A higher power(s) might exist, believing that yours is the correct one and billions of other people are wrong when there is zero evidence of any is absolutely a delusion. Arrogance at the minimum.

 

I don’t care if either of them have a job. Try again

That you prefer one kneeling for their beliefs but not the other shows your bias however.

 

That wins the irony of the day award.

Congratulations

 

We can show the Bible was written generations after Jesus was supposed to have existed.

We can show how the Bible has been amended and altered and that portions have been left out.

We can show that much of the Bible was taken from other religions, mostly pagan.

While there are some things that we have yet to explain there is zero evidence for there being a creator.

Maybe that is your issue, you want others to disprove something that you cannot prove.

 

We can adopt glowingly liberal definition of "Cause" - and don't think they do not try to justify it - and have fooled most of the people most of the time with these sophisticated justifications, near all under the guise of "Utilitarianism"

Kudo's for recognizing the obvious btw - that obviously this does not meet scientific definition for cause - but what of these other arguments ?

Utilitarianism is a justification for law which looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective" .. These arguments present themselves as "Harm Reduction" "If it saves one life"

While these sound good on the surface - "Who does not want to save one life" - "Don't you .. What's wrong with you - you evil person"

Sound familiar ? Dig a little deeper and this turns out to be horrible "Evil" justification for law - if "Solely" on this basis.

1) Utilitarianism is an anathema to the founding principles - "essential liberty" - as the rights of the individual is not factored into the calculation - thus allowing for an end run around the safeguards put in place to protect essential liberty - and thus constitutes "illegitimacy of authority" from a legal /constitutional perspective.

2) Who gets to decide ? - one person's poison is another Person's passion.

3) Gives Gov't huge amounts of power -near unrestricted

4) If "If it saves one life is indeed valid justification for law" - we should best be banning skiing tomorrow - would that not save one life ? and if there is any doubt .as soon as the next person dies on the hill - we can point to that person and say "Look Look" I told you so.

what about boating ? - that is really dangerous - one could drown, Driving a car ? - forget it - one of the most dangerous things one can do. Speaking up for one's principles - calling out perceived un-justice in society verboten.

In fact - one should probably not rise from bed in the morning - as one might fall and break neck - did you know that the risk of harm from a terrorist attack to a US citizen is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "Walking" - better ban that as well.

in a free society an individual has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm - both to themselves and others - so long as you are not directly harming someone else .. where direct cause can be attributed .. this whole "Foretelling the past nonsense" has a legal term which escapes me at the moment but, doesn't count as direct harm .. and good thing to .. as this would violate the rule of law .. "One person is not to be punished for the actions of another."

Someone getting out of hand at a protest is not the fault of the leader of that protest - if the leader said "Go out and protest peacefully". and in fact unless the leader actively and directly told these folks to engage in violence and property damage - you can't legitimately assign fault.

 

Not 100% true.

Our experiences show us that everything comes from something. If you walked out your front door and found a box, you would never assume it just appeared there out of thin air.