Craig James, free to be Craig James.

No longer a broadcaster, no longer running for office, the man is letting his inner batshit self have at it.

When speaking to yet another caller who said Obama “will declare a state of emergency, he will do a third term if that’s what it takes to complete the conversion of this country,” James said the third-term conspiracy is “a concern of mine” and pledged to “pass a note along to Tony Perkins,” the president of the FRC, “on how we could escape that.”

“That would be horrible,” James said of third Obama term. “It’s not like we’d have Ronald Reagan staying in office for another year or so while we’re in a state of emergency. It’s not like we’d have someone who really cares about you and me. We’re talking about someone who is there in that office as the leader of the free world, the United States of America, who doesn’t get it. That’s the concern. It fires me up, the thought that the guy can stick around in that office beyond a year and three-quarters. He’s got to be gone. We will follow up on that.”

Thank Gawd he’s on the mother.

Seriously, how could nobody at the WWL catch on to this?  There’s no way he was keeping that kind of nonsense to himself off the air.  Wouldn’t you be at least a little worried he’d let some crazy slip out during a game?

96 Comments

Filed under The Honorable Craig James

96 responses to “Craig James, free to be Craig James.

  1. SWGADAWG

    Not a Craig James fan AT ALL. But when you get political about a call in show that is designed to produce numbers you are WAY off base. Selectively, you could make a case that everyone is nuts based on their comments. (Yeah, even some in GTP…lol)

    Like

    • I respectfully disagree. Whether his batshit crazy comments are in a call in show designed to get ratings or is an op-ed in the New York Times it is still bat shit crazy and affects whether sane people find him appealing enough to watch the football game is is broadcasting.

      It isn’t a matter of his politics. It is a matter of whether the vast majority of potential viewers out there want to listen to him about anything.

      Like

      • Scorpio Jones, III

        Thusly Gaskill speaks truth. Who in the known world gives a fat rat’s ass what Craig James has to say about anything.

        Unfortunately for his son, he is still a father.

        Like

  2. Mayor

    There is no “state of emergency” exception in the Constitution whereby any President can stay beyond the conclusion of his second term. The 20th Amendment clearly states that the President’s term of office ends on January 20 of the fourth year–so he’s out on that day. The 22nd Amendment prevents the President from serving more than 2 terms. Theoretically, if a President died in office more than 2 years into his term the Vice-President would succeed him and could finish out that term, then run for his own term as President twice, thus serving more than 8 years. That could have happened with LBJ but LBJ chose not to run for a second term. If a President died in office after less than half his term had passed, the VP would take over but the remaining time of that term would count as his first term as President, so he could run for a new term of office as President only once.

    Like

  3. JAX

    If you’re going to call James “batshit crazy” then the term equally applies to the liberal caller who was is actually stupid enough to suggest that this or any president deserves a third term. Another example that liberalism is indeed a mental disease.

    And what did the caller mean by “complete the conversion of this country? Conversion to what? A liberal bastion wasteland where right is perceived as wrong and wrong is celebrated as right?

    Someone tell the caller that November 2014 was America’s answer to Obama’s agenda and that November 2016 can’t get soon enough.

    Like

    • “Barack Obama became the 44th U.S. president today, inheriting the most severe economic crisis since Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn in 76 years ago. The turmoil has dragged the world’s largest economies into recession, caused more than $1 trillion of losses at financial institutions and prompted a sell-off in global stock markets.”

      The Dow closed that day at under 8000. Friday 2/13/15 it closed at over 18,000. There are a lot of things that could be said to those who believe as you but I’ll go with one word: stupid.

      Like

      • Jonathan

        Amen brother. That’s all you needed to say.

        Like

      • A10Penny

        Taking one data point to prove another poster is stupid is smart, then?

        Like

        • I didn’t “prove” he was stupid. He proved that all by himself. I simply called him “stupid.” Does failing to see the difference “prove” you stupid? Probably not but I’m guessing we’re on the right track.

          Like

      • Glad the Dow is up… maybe all that will translate and trickle down.
        The federal government hit a new milestone Friday: The total federal debt now tallies more than $18 trillion. Just six years ago when President Obama took office, total debt stood at $10.6 trillion, which means it now has increased by almost $8 trillion—roughly 70 percent—during his tenure as president.

        Like

        • How would one go about paying off government debt? Hmmm…. How about raising taxes on those who have made the money in those markets? Nope can’t do that, that’s communism. I guess we can just bitch, aimlessly and pointlessly.

          Debt is high because the main beneficiaries of our economy don’t pay their fair share. Why? That would on be the presidents’ opposition. My point isn’t that everything is great, it’s that it could be (and was) a lot worse and that the shrill opponents of “Obama’s liberal agenda” are just plain dumb.

          Like

          • Cosmic Dawg

            Derek, it’s telling when you suggest the only way to pay off debt is to raise taxes and you don’t even mention cutting spending. A jaw-dropping percentage of millionaires got their wealth not from having a high income (the equivalent of taxes for a government) but by consistently living below their means (spending restraint). This is what creates wealth – see Thomas Stanley’s The Millionaire Next Door or Dave Ramsey.

            Exact same principles for anyone in debt, whether it’s a country, a high-income earner or a low-income earner.

            Additionally, I’m sad that you think of other people’s resources or gains as something you may appropriate at will because they are part of “our economy” – what is to prevent your neighbor from taking the TV you bought with sweat expended in “our” economy = “his” TV? Some loose framework of geography and printing of money has little to do with trade or one’s work habits or contribution.

            The fact is, the fewer incentives you give for people to keep their own money, the less work and investment you will get. Incent any behavior and you get more of it; discourage any behavior and you will get less. That’s why capitalism has – relative to where humankind was just 300 years ago – has created a utopia on earth, especially for the poorest among us. Erode or degrade the profit mechanism past a certain point and you destroy the very thing that (purely by chance) improves the lives of the least inventive and most challenged in our society.

            I agree that big business makes every effort to rig the tax code and skew the system to get benefits for themselves, but voting blocs representing Democratic party interests do exactly the same thing, and they are certainly no stranger to big business interests. It should be alarming and interesting to you that neither party is interested in promoting even very progressive-but-neutral tax plans like the Fair Tax.

            Like

            • Derek

              where did I say “only”? I didn’t. There is something very unseemly about living in a country where the secretaries of CEO’s pay a higher share of their incomes in taxes than the CEO’s themselves. As long as that is the state of things, I’m not terribly interested in hearing complaints about debt. As fair as a flat tax, when Mitt Romney’s kids are as likely to end up returning from Afghanistan with no legs, PTSD and a deep desire to commit suicide, then I’ll think about sharing the economic burdens of the country “equally” with a so-called flat tax. Simple economics would suggest that the people with the most to lose should bear the greatest burden. Sure would be nice if things played out that way. Unfortunately we treat success as either deserved or God-given. Both are BS. Guys like Romney, Bush and Trump are heirs not self made men. If you want all kids to start off at the same level and without the benefits of their parent’s wealth, then I’ll think about your libertarian perspective where the government plays no role in evening things out. The rich will never let that happen though because their soft ass kids would lose to the poor kids almost ever time. That’s why they hammer into us that the poor deserve to be poor. Its not true, but it makes people feel good about treating them like shit while kissing some rich guys ass who inherited his money. You have to look around and see what our system really is: rule of the jungle for the bottom and socialism for those at the top. If you think that the rich will give up that privilege you are as naïve as a code pink recruiting office protester in Berkeley, CA preaching non-violence.

              Like

              • I have to dutifully tip my prodigious 10-gallon sombrero to that screed. No matter how disturbing it is for some to come to grips with the foundational inequity of the U.S. market system, it be there.

                But it’s like They say: the winners of War write its history & those with the gold make the rules.

                Like

            • JAX

              Well said Cosmic and I appreciate you taking time to mention this. Derek and many, many other parasitic liberals think that those that work hard and prosper fail to pay their fair share. If they would simply take the time to do a little research they’d realize that the wealthiest ($250k annual income) and up pay the vast majority of the income taxes collected. Nearly 50%, of which Derek is probably a club member, pay nothing. NOTHING, and yet they believe they are entitled to more.

              This is why I try to avoid the conversations in any forum. You cannot convince someone with a mental disease that they are incorrect.

              Like

              • Derek

                I’m well above the 250k level actually, but thanks for guessing. I did come from jack shit however. Single mother raising two sons working as a bar maid. I just see the bullshit for what it is. Been on both sides. This side is far better I can tell you that. Those idiots who act like the poor are coddled in this country don’t have a damn clue. Its brutal out there if you ain’t got nothing. Just because I came out all right means I’m the exception, not the rule.

                Like

        • ASEF

          You can’t discuss Obama’s debt without acknowledging that the previous President left behind an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion. You also have to acknowledge that even right-wing economists were saying Obama’s choice was 15% unemployment or maintaining massive deficits for a few years. You also have to acknowledge that most of that $10 trillion starting point came courtesy of Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2. You also have to acknowledge that the last 2 President to leave the annual deficit lower than they found it were Carter and Clinton. Obama will be the 3rd.

          And yes, the federal govt spends way too much money, I believe it was Dick Cheney who said that Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.

          And finally, the next Republican I hear willing to admit any of this will be the first.

          Like

      • JAX

        Derek is a typical liberal — smart enough to read the paper and dumb enough to miss the context. The consummate simpleton.

        Take some finance classes and read the journal son. Perhaps start with learning about the role of the Federal Reserve.

        Like

        • Please share with us “context.” Im sure in their appropriate “context” that Herbert Hoover and George bush were awesome while FDR and Obama are “libtards.” Unfortunately for you most of us prefer the “reality” of everyday life over an undefined “context,” but hey be the typical conserva-genius and bring us all into you glorious “context.” After all God forbid that you affirm your moniker “stupid” by failing to bring us all of the “context” we typical liberals can’t handle. Of course I’ll get what expect which is silence or more unsupported platitudes.

          Btw: not that you care but I’m an anti-idealogue. I just happen to think that the dick Cheney’s of the world are far more dangerous than the code pinks of the world. Naive and harmless are better than powerful and malicious.

          Like

        • Spence

          If you want to do conservatives a favor you could stop being a jerk and stop blanketly calling liberals mentally diseased.

          As a liberal that reads, I go out of my way not to make blanket assumptions about conservatives or to talk down. Sometimes I learn things from my friends on the other side, and vice versa. You should try it.

          Like

      • Noonan

        Remember all of the liberals cheerleading the stock market gains during the Reagan administration? I don’t.

        Like

        • Didn’t Black Monday take place during Reagan’s second term? I don’t remember liberals cheering that, either.

          Generally speaking, it’s dumb to link stock market performance to the POTUS. The reason Obama’s suppporters do it now is because people like Hannity were insistent that it was Obama’s fault the market performed badly in ’08 and ’09.

          Like

          • Derek

            and to rebut the “socialism” nonsense. I do tend to believe the markets track what is and isn’t working as far as economic policy is concerned. At bottom the stock market numbers do a good job of tracking how people are faring economically(do people have money available to invest?) and their collective confidence that things will get either better or worse in the future (if they have money are they willing to place a bet on future performance?). At the end of the day, its better that the markets do well. Tripled under Clinton. Almost the same under Obama (2 years left) and cut nearly in half during Bush. Its really hard to listen to the idiots that voted for that idiot twice and would gladly do it again.

            Like

  4. Keith Olbermann=Craig James.
    The fringe is scary. ESPN doesn’t care.

    Like

  5. The Beast

    Craig James is a complete ass-hat, but his distrust and dislike of Obama is shared by over 50% of the populus according to polls for the better part of a year now. Keep this blog about football, not your liberal fantasies.

    Like

  6. After a brief hiatus Bluto is back! Am I glad! Our first song is dedicated to today’s post. 😉

    Like

  7. Hogbody Spradlin

    I dunno. I kinda think Craig and Barack counterbalance each other.

    Like

  8. Senator, it was predictable. Post the words “union” or “Obama ” and a significant portion of your followers lose their reading comprehension skills and miss your point.

    Like

    • sj

      Gashat: Is there a daily prize for being a smug, know-it-all, arrogant, leg-humper with genius fantasies and a small carbon foot-print?
      You win! Pick the trophy up at the trophy store where your messiah got his Nobel Peace prize for being black.

      Like

      • Mike Cooley

        Lol. Odd that nobody is supposed to do anything but agree when it gets political around here. And if you come down on the wrong side of the line you have lost your reading comprehension skills or are getting loud.

        Like

        • C’mon, Mike. Nobody is supposed to do anything but agree? Have I ever enforced a party line here?

          Like

          • Mike Cooley

            Not officially. Just made comments that suggest that you don’t like it when you make posts like these and get challenged in the comments.

            Like

            • I have a thicker skin than you give me credit for, Mike. Especially when it comes to politics.

              You are more than welcome to embrace whatever politics you prefer and opine away about them here. Just like everyone else has the right to argue about their correctness.

              There is nothing more boring than a blog where everyone agrees about everything. And I would hate for GTP to be boring.

              Like

        • Come on, Mike, the point of the post was not whether one agrees with James it was why the hell ESPN trotted out a polarizing figure asking all viewers to allow him in the living room for three hours. It does not matter whether James is liberal or conservative. It would be odd for ESPN to hire Bill Maher as a member of its broadcasting team since a lot of potential viewers would not want him in their living room, too.

          That is what I am referring to when I said that certain buzz words affects the reading comprehension of some folks.

          Like

          • The Beast

            Don’t remeber the unelected “senator” throwing a hissy fit about Olbermann. You can’t have it both ways and claim that the post was about ESPN hiring a “polarizing” figure and the. Bailing on the Olbermann example and say, “yeah, but he was good on sportscenter”…that’s weak sauce and a pile of bullshit. Disagree with the “senator” and his patheitic group of kiss-ass followers and prepare to be called, uncivilized, stupid, illiterate, etc. just like all liberals. That’s why this blog and its followers are so over board about paying players…it’s the populism that liberals all of the sudden love. Pay the players, but dare raise my ticket prices. Pathetic.

            Like

            • You left out bed wetters.

              Like

            • You put my handle in scare quotes – twice – so I can only presume that you think it’s necessary to warn everyone I’m not really an elected official. Awesome.

              If it helps, I’m not a movie character, either.

              Like

              • The Beast

                Way to avoid the complete contradiction I’ve pointed out. Maybe you can block me like you do to pretty much everyone that disagrees with you.

                Like

                • Ooh, a dare!

                  You got a recent comment from Olbermann that qualifies? Let’s hear it.

                  The difference between the two is that Olbermann actually has a track record as a good sportscaster, albeit not one calling CFB (like James) and that he doesn’t have anything on his resume like James’ Texas Tech situation. Now I know for someone like you for whom all that matters is lefty-righty, this doesn’t mean much, but if you think James carries a lot of baggage, like I do, that’s why he gets the attention he does here.

                  Now, again, I doubt you care about my thoughts on this. The great thing is that the feeling is mutual here.

                  By the way, are you really a beast? I mean, your handle and all… 😉

                  Like

                • The Beast

                  You can’t be serious. You’re truly not aware of anything outrageous Olbermann said between his time at ESPN and NBC while on MSNBC?

                  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/01/24/worst-worst-look-back-keith-olbermanns-most-outrageous-quotes

                  Could you have a little meme here? Hmmmm.

                  Like

                • I didn’t post a history lesson about James’ greatest hits. I reacted to something crazy he just said. Hence, I asked you for something recent that Olbermann uttered that’s in the same ballpark.

                  Yeah, there’s a meme here. Craig James is crazy.

                  Like

      • You kind of proved my point. You would never, because of my comments, watch me talk on television for three and one half hours. The point of the post was that ESPN had a talking head on its second string broadcasting crew that makes comments that a large number of viewers would find polarizing, so why did ESPN keep him around?

        The post was not whether one approved of Obama’s job performance or not, but almost all the comments were about commentators’ irrelevant approval of or disapproval of Obama’s performance and few about why ESPN would keep a polarizing figure with little talent on the air.

        Now, are there more than one prize daily?

        Like

  9. Walt

    How in the hell can anyone worry about Obama when we have real political crises going on right here in the state of Georgia! http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2015/02/12/state-lawmaker-scared-of-glow-in-the-dark-human-jellyfish-creatures-pushes-bill-to-curb-hybrid-embryos

    Like

    • HirsuiteDawg

      According to Kirby, research on the mixing of human and animal hybrid embryos has occurred in other states. The lawmaker told WSB-TV that he’s “had people tell me it is [happening in Georgia] but I have not verified that for sure,” adding “[i]t’s time we either get in front of it or we’re going to be chasing our tails.”

      I’m worried about Kirby’s DNA background – but I suspect that a lot of Georgia politicians have a tail – (Gov. Dean’s is pointed).

      Like

      • Cojones

        Harry, why don’t you and Walt inquire of those against hybridization and gene transfer if they approve of human genes placed in the lowest forms of life to be used as a factory to churn out enough of the gene product to treat the world? It’s been happening since the early 80s and , if you are on insulin, you probably had it injected into your system.

        Or, if you are the religious sort, you could inquire about the pork pancreas insulin that served us well as injection for so many years, but a tiny portion of the insulin had an analysis tail with a bump of impurity that couldn’t be cleaned up and the bump size varied from manufacturer to manufacturer. The yeast or bacterial insulin made from an implanted human gene has no bump of impurity and it all comes from the human gene, not pork as in the past.

        And we have people worried about genes supplanted in higher forms than bacteria or fungi? Too late. BTW, we have been consuming hybrid corn since the 1940s. Scientists are concerned about hybrid corn since the tassels spread the genes to all other purer forms of corn. Scientists have banked the corn of the pre-Columbian days after scouring all of SA for years in order to go back to the resistant genes of long ago before a fungal or microbial pandemic occurs in corn that wipes all with hybrid genes from this earth and causes world-wide famine. From that same reasoning, some people think scientist are against hybrid corn.

        I won’t go into all the safeguards that scientists put together to prevent aholes from wiping out the earth’s living systems using shotgun experimentation; those safeguards were begun in the 1970s when we realized that a breakthrough was coming soon in isolating and transferring purified genes into other living systems and a Kennedy submitted them to Congress to put the safeguards into law. You have been protected for over 40yrs.

        Mid 1960s, a UGA professor, Dr Eugene Odum, taught a basic course in Ecology to Georgia lawmakers so that they might understand future legislation that may be requested to help preserve nature from human’s ugly paw. He regularly taught in the statehouse in Atlanta. Looks like we should extend those classes to new legislators and throw in a course on the morality of gene splicing.

        Like

        • I took a Eco 350. Used his book. I had two dif profs. Scored a B. That grade does not reflect my effort. But it was a great class. I graft Heirloom tomatoes on resistant rootstock. Still do. It was once a garden project with my sons. Kids grown. One last summer project. 1941 Chevy truck. Shit. We’re getting old Cojones. Summer projects are almost done. Pretty soon they will be doing their own projects. But what a ride huh?

          Like

        • Walt

          Cojones

          I can’t figure out if you think I agree with Rep. Kirby. I don’t. I was being sarcastic.

          Like

          • Cojones

            No. I didn’t think you agreed with the legislators. I placed honest info in to back up your reference. Sorry, but sometimes my sarcasm toward political twits is buried in serious statements and I generally eschew the smiley face. I will use it to cause question marks in a poster’s head because it’s misused as a rueful smile by some. Just try to get someone’s goat because mine is got often. How do you like the “is got” used correctly? In many cases it’s fun to begin and end sentences with prepositions to begin with. When the usage police come on, it’s fun to tweak some noses. Don’t get me wrong since their advice is also taken to heart.and sometimes it’s difficult finding someone to give credit to 🙂

            Like

  10. JAX

    Never argue with an idiot (or liberal). They will only drag you down to their level and win every time.

    Like

  11. W Cobb Dawg

    Appears James’s son wasn’t the only one who spent some time in the box.

    Like

  12. SWGADAWG

    First time I’ve posted in ages on this blog was the first comment on this post.. This is a political discussion….plain and simple. No one cares but not reading political commentary from people who write about or talk about sports. I shall go back to ignoring the comments. Didn’t remember them being so political.

    Like

    • I agree with you that bringing politics into what should be a nonpartisan, broad based topic is offputting to a lot of folks. That is the point of the post. James is a political figure. Whether you agree with him or not it was an odd decision for ESPN to make him the face of the Thursday night programming, just as you would think it odd for ESPN to hire Nancy Pelosi as the Thursday night play by play talking head.

      The Senator didn’t make a post about the president. He made a post about an odd WWL decision. The readers made this thread political.

      Like

  13. Mike Cooley

    Since we are doing this semi regularly now and I really like this blog when it’s focused on UGA sports, I’ll dive in. If you can’t beat em…

    I personally loathe Obama and the rest of the left wing bed wetters that now control the Democratic Party. But I agree that Craig James is a jackass. However, this seems like looking for something for which to slam him. Why do we care what his political views are? I agree that he’s a jerk. But I don’t understand why this matters. He’s allowed to have whatever views he wants right? He’s allowed to talk about them even though that is annoying right? I don’t really need to hear what he thinks about politics but I don’t come here for politics either. Yet I still get it. But to me, the most bizzare part of this post is the last part. Why is ESPN supposed to be in the business of policing the political views of their employees? Seems doubtful that anybody would go on a political rant during a broadcast no matter what their views are. Yet they were supposed to be aware of his and take some sort of action accordingly? That’s not really where we are now is it? Seems like this is less about Craig James and more about something else.

    Like

    • Why is ESPN supposed to be in the business of policing the political views of their employees?

      Because it’s not good business to alienate your audience for non-sports reasons.

      I really have to chuckle at this, coming from you, Mike, as you’ve been one of the loudest here to complain whenever I post something that intersects sports and politics. And at least I make the effort to make sure there’s some sort of connection.

      But if you want specifics, here you go.

      Like

  14. Mike Cooley

    Right but he never said anything like this at ESPN did he? So what do you think they should have done about it? Fired him because he has political views that you think are weird? I can’t believe that’s really what you mean? So what else was there for them to have done? Put some sort of scare into him to dissuade him from ever expressing these views on the air? You would think that would be in their contracts and made clear. I have no problem with this making you chuckle. I know that was supposed to insult me but it doesn’t bother me. I guess I chuckle some at your apparent lack of self awareness that you accuse others of having. This wouldn’t be a problem for you if Craig James was saying things that you agree with I have a feeling. This seems to be more about that than about him being an asshat. As for my being “loud” you seem pretty sensitive for a guy who chooses to put his opinions on the Internet. I love your blog. You have the best UGA sports blog that I know of and I visit here everyday. That isnt supposed to matter to you I’m just saying that because you seem to get sarcastic and condescending when a commentor criticizes something like this post. It’s nothing personal. What else is a comments section for? Opinions I thought, but chuckle away if you like.

    Like

    • How would any of us know what James said off the air while he was employed by Mickey?

      I’m not advocating that anyone be fired for political speech. Don’t know where you got that from. I just wonder if anyone at ESPN held his/her breath. (Plus, it’s not like James didn’t have any other baggage while there.)

      As for the rest of your comment, I wasn’t insulting you and I wasn’t being sarcastic. You seem to be offended about my political references only when they involve someone of conservative bent. And you complain pretty consistently about it. I don’t have a problem with that, but it’s amusing to me that you can feel that way and yet be critical.

      If you think there’s some kind of agenda on my part going on here beyond James’ idiocy, then why don’t I make it in a more broadbased manner? Or, for that matter, why not just start a purely political blog?

      The funniest thing about this comment thread has been all those criticizing me, but not defending Craig James. I think that says more about your guys’ politics than the post does about mine.

      Like

  15. Mike Cooley

    Well sure. That’s not off base. I’m actually a libertarian in terms of how I vote but as far as how I live my own life I’m a conservative. Makes sense that I would get tired of coming to my favorite sports blog and seeing conservatives getting the business. So I don’t think it is surprising that I would speak up about it. If you think I speak up about it too frequently then perhaps you get on your soap box more often than you realize. Just a thought. I didn’t accuse you of calling for his firing on political grounds. I asked if that was what you were doing. As for your final point and the fact that you think it’s funny, not exactly a revalation Senator. Doesn’t square with your denial of of condescension either. Make digs at conservatives and conservatives will react to it. You said something earlier about alienating an audience vis a vis ESPN, James, and politics so it would seem that you understood that. It’s your blog. I realize that you can say what you want. But you set this thing up with a comments section. So you shouldn’t be surprised if you are going to wander Into politics, take a fairly obvious position in terms of ideology, and then have people disagree with you and voice their opinion about not caring for it. Your denial of being sarcastic and condescending toward those who don’t just agree with you on these topics doesn’t ring true after your telling me that I was being loud by disagreeing and that it made you chuckle but it’s your story and you can tell it like you want to.

    Like

    • I didn’t make a dig at conservatives. I made a dig at Craig James.

      There is a difference, although I’m not sure you see it.

      As for loud, that’s a point about how much you object to political observations at the blog, not the politics you adhere to. Again, there is a difference, but I’m not sure you see it.

      Like

  16. Mike Cooley

    Lol. I wasn’t talking about just this one post but I think you knew that. You can have the blog you want to have. If you want one where people tell you what they really think then you can. If you want one where you make a post and then act like a smart ass when anyone does anything other than tell you that you are right then you can have that too. But don’t try to act as if the problem here is a lack of understanding on my part. I understand it just fine. I see how you want this thing to go so going forward I’m not going to open up anything here that isn’t obviously strictly football related. I’ll enjoy it more and you’ll have nothing but people telling you how right you are. Everybody wins.

    Like

    • Your choice, sir. As long as you get something out of the place…

      Like

      • Cojones

        But, but, I was just about to bust out in a political attack on all conservatives here (and you know who you are 🙂 ). What am I going to do now with you guys hanging it up?

        I think your “chuckle” did it, Bluto. That’s like calling him a commie.
        Do you mind if, every time a conservative twit blogs on here, I write “Chuckle”? It’s much more derogatory than “LOL”. It won’t be plagiarism if I use the “chuckle” word, will it?

        Like

    • Spence

      I love it when people say they’re not going to do political talk anymore. Let’s see how long that lasts.

      And dude, you’re so far off base about the senator it’s just funny. And I find it funny that on the rare occasions someone is such a smart ass to him with criticism and goads him into a reply, you get upset and say he can’t handle it. He handles it fine and I’ve never seen him out of line. not that he needs anyone to defend him, but anyone still bothering to read this thread knows who it is thats being unreasonable.

      Like