Reply With Quote
Okay, we've established that. Now, do you think that players should be allowed to have their immediate 'loved ones' be allowed to talk the organization with impunity?
I don't know why billionaires would give a , honestly. Seems petty for a real G.
Okay, we've established that. Now, do you think that players should be allowed to have their immediate 'loved ones' be allowed to talk the organization with impunity?
I just said I don't know why billionaires should give a , especially this one. If his BFF is and face of the franchise a guy who was convicted of lying about a killing and snitched on his friends, I don't see how a tweet could mean anything.
IIRC, Ray was charged with obstruction, not perjury. There's a difference. I don't recall if he was even convicted (IIRC, he wasn't on the condition that he testified against his friend). But that aside, do you think that a player should be allowed to have his 'loved ones' attack the organization for which he plays or desires to play for in this case?
The obstruction was lying.Dude confessed, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in exchange for his snitching.I don't recall if he was even convicted."attack"But that aside, do you think that a player should be allowed to have his 'loved ones' attack the organization for which he plays or desires to play for in this case?
"abuse"
Snowflake talk.
I think billionaires shouldn't give a about twitter. Sad!
So, at this point you're basically arguing that because Ray Lewis is a bad guy, then CK should be allowed to have his woman talk about the owner, and he should be rewarded with a contract despite that.
CK had nothing to do with it and billionaires shouldn't be snowflakes about twitter, period.
Unless your name is Donald Trump, right?
Billionaires shouldn't be snowflakes about twitter, but they are.
And how do you know that CK had nothing to do with it?
But the left can be snowflakes about it if it's a billionaire tweeting.
So financial status dictates whether or not you should be a "snowflake" about twitter.
There is no evidence he did.
It's his girlfriend who did it so yeah, in the eyes of the franchise, it was enough to tip the scales against him (obviously he was teetering already, probably some kind of marketing plan caused them to consider him in the first place).
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily. We're just talking about billionaires here.So financial status dictates whether or not you should be a "snowflake" about twitter.
If you want to make a little list, you go right ahead.
So, you think that players should be allowed to have their gfs or wives talk about the owner so long as he can't prove that the player was directly involved?
He is free to be a snowflake about twitter, as is anyone.
Billionaire is a financial status.
Call him and let him know he can proceed.
And we were only talking about one, not others.
If you want to make a little list of them, you go right ahead.
No one needs approval to be a snowflake. They are free to be snowflakes.
You're really trying to shift the term "snowflake" to someone other than the SJWs.
It is funny you need these things explained to you.
Says the person who needs "We the People" explained.
You could never do it though.Says the person who needs "We the People" explained.
Astute observation.
You're really trying to shift the term "snowflake" to someone other than the SJWs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
