How were they good calls? They showed the replay of the Bennett play multiple times, and even the commentators acknowledged he was within the 1 yard rule. It was a bad call.

Ah gotcha, any mention of calls equates to “whiny loser”. Why did you even read the article if any mention of poor officiating would equate to whiny loser? They were bad calls, end of story. I don’t think it cost them the game, but they were nonetheless bad calls.

Yea Collinsworth showed us the overhead view of the Bennet play showing he was well within the one yard rule, so not sure what you’re attempting to argue between the two plays. They were literally the exact same play, not to mention the Falcons ran the exact same play right after they flagged Allison for doing exactly…

I figure the Falcons would have still won even if there weren’t the bad calls against the Packers.

Repeating the same statement over and over again doesn’t make it any more true. You’ve said this to at least a dozen commenters, so yes we get what you are trying to say.

If your goal was to have rent and occupancy levels be as high as possible, the rational choice would be to discriminate against black people. You were actually making an economic sacrifice to stop racism if you let black people move in. Many people did this, but not doing so certainly doesn’t make one a “white…

Yup, I too settle when I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. How exactly is it debatable? If it is, please feel free to explain and debate the point.

I might be willing to give one white writer the benefit of the doubt on the “chink in the armor” fuckup.

Oh, stop. She called the President a white supremacist. That’s a pretty terrible accusation, and a response is perfectly reasonable. No actual action has been taken against her.

If you write a headline about an Asian basketball player and “mistakenly” use the word “chink”, then you deserve to be fired. You are either incredibly bad at writing (or the victim of an incredible coincidence), or you’re intentionally using a racial slur.

Funny, if I hang out with or associate frequently with terrorist types, I am labeled a terrorist; but if I associate frequently and surround myself with people who are associated with white supremacy, somehow I’m not associated at all with white supremacy.

How is it not? It’s based entirely on nationality, no? I get that there is likely some sort of legal document allowing them to do this, but it seems like a contradiction of “discrimination based on nationality”.

I guess that’s still a bit confusing. If an American committed an act of “terrorism”, we wouldn’t allow other countries to restrict travel for ALL Americans based on one person, correct? It’s even more confounding that if the SC is looking at just that aspect of it, how countries like Saudia Arabia wouldn’t be…

I’m not an expert by any means, but isn’t it illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, culture, etc? I guess I’m confused how the “travel ban” doesn’t fall under the scope of this protection.

How is she participating in this kind of sport, which requires from its athletes constant super-concentration!

In Bill’s defense, who would’ve ever thought Andy Reid would start running the option with Alex Smith and pitch it multiple times to his TE?

I’m sure the “acting suspicious” part has nothing to do with Bennett being a large black man.

I find it extremely odd that the police union felt the need to bring up a flag protest in their defense of detaining an innocent man. In what way is that related and/or relevant to this entire case?

This was a really long way of saying “stick to football”

Ironically, the Celtics will need to decide in two years if they want to give a max contract to another late 20's undersized, often injured PG who is shitty on defense.