Page 1 of 1

Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 11 May 2014 11:32:38
by Mindflayer
According to CNN, "President Barack Obama congratulated Michael Sam on Saturday for being the first openly gay football player taken in the National Football League draft, the White House said in a statement."

Now, I am one of those folks that thinks people should be allowed to live as adults. I think discrimination is a Bad Thing™. That all said, why such a focus when...

Kim Rhode became the only American to win in FIVE CONSECUTIVE OLYMPICS? Where was her congrats? You know, women face discrimination as well. #hypocrisy

On July 29 at the 2012 London Olympics, Rhode won the gold medal in skeet shooting with an Olympic record score of 99, tying the world record in this event.[8] With this medal, Rhode is the only American competitor to win medals for an individual event in five consecutive Olympics. She also became one of the three competitors (and the only woman) to win three Olympic individual gold medals for shooting, along with Ralf Schumann of Germany and Jin Jong-oh of Korea.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 11 May 2014 13:10:31
by ShotgunBlast
Mindflayer wrote: Kim Rhode became the only American to win in FIVE CONSECUTIVE OLYMPICS? Where was her congrats? You know, women face discrimination as well. #hypocrisy
You obviously don't know how the War-on-Women Radar operates. Per the instruction manual, it only detects discrimination and hypocrisy of the subject in question has a "R" next to their name.

As far as Michael Sam, I'm surprised there isn't outrage that he got picked in the last round and that he should have gone in the first or second round as not to offend gay people. :shrug:

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 11 May 2014 15:41:08
by dusterdude
Give it time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 11 May 2014 20:18:22
by OakRidgeStars
ShotgunBlast wrote:As far as Michael Sam, I'm surprised there isn't outrage that he got picked in the last round and that he should have gone in the first or second round as not to offend gay people. :shrug:
He was drafted 249 out of 256 total. Not only that, he went to the Rams for Christ's sake. That pretty much says it all.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 11 May 2014 22:32:21
by Mindflayer
Haha! Leave it to ORS to put it all in the most important perspective. ;)

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:46:39
by dusterdude
Stephen a smith cried about it like a little bitch this morning,oh the poot gay man


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:51:35
by Reverenddel
"...he went to the RAMS!" :hysterical:

And LOOOOVVVEESS TIGHT ENDS!

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:14:54
by SHMIV
I don't pay much attention to football, so I guess that Sam will be easy to recognize, as he'll be the player with mud on his helmet?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:52:43
by FiremanBob
I won't be surprised if he washes out in the pre-season.

The difference between the way this pervert is being "celebrated" and Tim Tebow, a player of genuine ability and accomplishment, was smeared, is enough for me to turn off the entire NFL season this year. Better to go out and play my own sport in the real world than to watch some manipulation by a bunch of "Progressive" propagandists who are trying to destroy the iconic American team sport.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:59:45
by mamabearCali
They are pandering to the wrong demographic. The demographic that gave two cents for Michael Sam's announcement and subsequent draft is the same demographic that wants to emasculate the sport as a whole. Most of the NFL's demographic is either disgusted or apathetic to the whole thing.

Keep it up NFL there are other shows on town.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:10:51
by Kreutz
Maybe it's due to the long-term gay couple in my family I've known since birth, but I've always been really put off by anti-gay discrimination. However, I'm finding this downright aggressive elevation of gay men and women to be equally off-putting of late.

I'll call it homophilia for lack of a better word.

The individual's sexual identity now trumps all it seems in popular opinion; a cut rate pro athlete should be beneath the attention of a sitting POTUS (who incidentally should have vastly more important things to devote attention to but I digress), but here we are since the guy in question is gay.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:42:41
by FiremanBob
And this POTUS would rather pander to a special interest group that bolsters his narcissism than face the real world.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Tue, 13 May 2014 18:17:30
by OakRidgeStars
All this to prepare the voting public for when Hillary comes out of the closet just in time to announce her POTUS run.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:44:16
by Bags30
SHMIV wrote:I don't pay much attention to football, so I guess that Sam will be easy to recognize, as he'll be the player with mud on his helmet?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Funniest thing I have heard this week. big thanks for the laugh.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:42:05
by OakRidgeStars
Looks like Michael Sam wasn't even good enough to play for the St Louis Rams. Maybe the President can use his pen and phone to get him back on the team.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:37:04
by Mindflayer
"It was a football decision and it was no different than any other decision that we make," Rams Coach Jeff Fisher said Saturday in a news conference to announce the final roster trims. "It was a football decision back in May to draft Mike. And once again, it's been about football."

And that's how it should be.

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:46:55
by dusterdude
At least so far,michael sam has carried himself with a lot of class,i can respect that

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:14:48
by mamabearCali
He was very gracious in his response.

That was very grown up of him and I hope he continues in that level of maturity. That will take him much father than any media ginned up nonsense.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: Why Michael Sam but not Kim Rhode?

Posted: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:52:30
by andykim
FiremanBob wrote:And this POTUS would rather pander to a special interest group that bolsters his narcissism than face the real world.

SPOT ON BOB..SPOT ON!