Tuesday, January 03, 2006
LYNN SWANN IS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR!
And sur-prise, sur-prise, he's a conservative!
Funny how athletes are most always Conservative...
I guess all that hard work makes them blind to their luck in life.
I guess anyone can be a pro-football star!
Last word he's down only 13 points...; God help us all.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference LYNN SWANN IS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR!:
Jersey you should be ashamed of yourself.
This is a free country and people are allowed to pick and choose which party they are going to belong to. It's morally reprehensible for you to make the statement:
"I guess all that hard work makes them blind to their luck in life."
What the fuck is that? Hardwork makes them blind to their luck? Well which is it dipshit? Was he lucky to be a football player? I'll tell you what, go ask a football player that just makes the team and ask him if he feels lucky. Forget football, go ask someone who develops a talent and is deemed successful for it if it was all luck. Luck is buying lottery tickets and actually winning. That's fucking luck! Being a pro football player is luck? What an idiotic thought process there Jersey! You almost sound like a bigot. And you almost leave the implication that he's dumb for being a Conservative. Way to post his photo right next to those statements as well. We wouldn't want to think you were a bigot now do we!
Posted by: Steve | Jan 3, 2006 8:22:57 PM
Of course he was lucky. That's why most pro-athletes also thank "God" and "Jesus" for their lots in life. Luck is the omnipresent factor in all things we do - especially really, really big things (Take Bush, for example - do YOU think he'd be president today were it not for his being born into that specific family?).
A star pro football player has to have lots of luck:
1: Certain physical attributes
2: A family and community background that instilled the necessary work ethic and confidence.
3: Some scout actually noticing you in high school or at some obscure college.
4: The luck not to get seriously hurt on any given Sunday.
You don't get that, though. YOu think that life is only what an individual makes of it. Real life is not like that.
Do you decide to whom you were born to? Where? When? Under what circumstances? With what physical traits?
No, you don't. To think so would be silly. It flys in the face of probability and chance - logic.
As for the "bigot" comment - nice try at the ol' sleazy con bait 'n switch!
Posted by: Jersey McJones | Jan 3, 2006 9:15:42 PM
Yeah Jersey, his response seems to have come right out of the playbook itself.
Posted by: The Bastard | Jan 3, 2006 10:15:29 PM
So an athlete needs "intelligent design". I see.
When Michael Jordan was in high school he was cut from his basketball team because at the time, he sucked. So is he lucky that he became one of the greatest players to ever live? If your answer is yes, I promise to stop reading anything you write again because you are full of shit!!
And with that you can take me for an example. My mother made me join band in 4th grade. I fucking hated it. It was embarassing playing a trumpet, I was virtually tone deaf and hated being forced to practice. So explain to me how the fuck I got a Music Degree from being forced into playing music? So yeah, I ended up liking it but I still lack the natural ability that so many others have. Yet, can you explain to me why the 99th track, called "Suck" on the Nine Inch Nails Broken album, that's currently playing on my iPod, is in the key of E? In fact, I just had to walk across the room and strum a guitar to prove it to myself. Is it lucky to have that ability? Nope. I developed that ability. It wasn't because I had physical attributes, a family or community background that instilled the necessary work ethic, some scout noticing me or lucky I was not hurt. It all came from me wanting to learn how to do that. Skills are NOT always a gift. They have to be taught. They have to be worked on. They have to be acquired and developed. There is no luck..
You struck a chord here (no pun intended) with your luck rhetoric that is beyond the normal political ramblings on this blog. I think you are belittling Mr. Swan because he was a successful athlete and now a politician. I hope someday Jersey, I hope you grow the balls to run for office. Let's see how you take your criticism without running to a blog to whine about it. You are a bigot sir. You belittled Mr. Swann by poking fun of his
everyone of his attributes and you obviously cannot take the criticism for doing so. By definition, you are a bigot!
Posted by: steve | Jan 3, 2006 10:30:24 PM
So Swan is one of the 2% of black who support Bush.
Down here in Georgia the "good Ol' Boys" from Forsyth County and sane black people both have their own terms for black people like Lynn Swan.
The "Ol Boys" would call Swan a, "Good Nigger"!
And black people would call Swan an "Oreo".
Not a lot of win win in that reality is there?
Ever So Sincerely,
Posted by: Michael D. Adams | Jan 4, 2006 4:08:02 PM
Most star athletes work their asses off but to say they aren't lucky to be given certain physical gifts is insane. No athlete as great as Michael simply wills himself to the Hall of Fame. The man is 6'5" and had a vertical leap over 40". You think if he was 5'9" and glued to the floor he would have been Michael Jordan -basketball star or Michael Jordan - middle management wage slave?
Lynn Swann didn't become as fast as a wide receiver through practice. He might have ticked a hundredth of a second or two off his 40 time through technique and no doubt worked hard on his catching skills etc... But if he weren't born with certain athletic skills and of a certain size, all the work in the world wouldn't have done him a damn bit of good.
Posted by: tarzan wallis | Jan 4, 2006 4:47:54 PM
Steve spare us the Horatio Alger crap! A more important question is what qualifies Lynn Swann to be a governor. Is it his ability to catch a ball or his fame as a football player. Has he held a lower office? has he studied political science or economics. Has he studied the law? Has he studied ethics? Has he been an involved in the community in a civic minded way. Has he prior to this run as governor addressed any of the problems facing Texas. Has he read a book? Has he written any position papers or articles? Other than face time on Sunday football games and athletic prowess what qualifies this man for the office of governor?
Maybe you are of the belief that a governorship doesn't require anything of an individual other than a desire for power and the means to get it. I have no doubt that in practice that is true. We have had to pay for that dynamic in the persons of George W. Bush and Arnold Swarzeneggar and countless other unqualified politicians.
What Jersey said about athletes tending toward conservatism is true. Professional sport teams are top down authoritarian and autocratic organizations driven by money. He is also correct to state that circumstance plays a greater role in determining individual wealth than does personal effort. Innate ability, gender, appearance, national origin, skin color and most importantly what class you were born into have way more to do with social and economic status than does personal drive. There are exceptions but they are not the rule.
Posted by: yeranalyst | Jan 4, 2006 4:50:52 PM
Wow Steve. You sure do curse good! I hope you become a big time musician so you can forget about the hard work you did and pimp your shit out on the top 40 station you trumpet playing asshatted fucktard.
Posted by: Nerf | Jan 4, 2006 4:51:48 PM
Success at Lynn Swann's level is a combination of physical gifts and hard work. Does this make him lucky? Without a doubt. Did he work hard to get where he is in the world of football? Most likely.
Posted by: Booder98 | Jan 4, 2006 5:12:22 PM
You people are unbelievable. What qualified Kerry to run for President? His C plus average at Yale? C'mon! What qualifies anyone to run for office? I didn't think the Constitution says anyone had to be qualified for anything to be freely elected last I checked. Are you all making shit up again? Inventing stuff that is not in the Constitution, you know, like the words "separation of church and state?"
And Nerf as far as you are concerned, bite me.
"Wow Steve. You sure do curse good! I hope you become a big time musician so you can forget about the hard work you did and pimp your shit out on the top 40 station you trumpet playing asshatted fucktard."
Did ya come up with that yourself or are you always a beligerent fool to strangers you meet on the street? Asshat? Isn't that a Democrat/Donkey/Ass?
Posted by: Steve | Jan 4, 2006 6:02:32 PM
"Professional sports teams are top down authoritarian and autocratic organizations driven by money"...
Not to mention sexist.
We all know how "conservatives" like to keep women in their place.
By the way, what's up with all those coaches with those 1950's hairdos?
Posted by: Lori | Jan 4, 2006 6:30:45 PM
I think you hit dead on. Regardless of his luck as a player what makes him qualified to run for office? Sadly a majority of Americans don't think of those qualifications when looking at their candidates!
Posted by: The Bastard | Jan 4, 2006 6:51:16 PM
Wow, talk about being a belligerant ass, Steve. You certainly fit the bill.
By the way, Kerry has been a senator for over 20 years, in case you didn't know. Is that qualification enough there Steve?
And so what if the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution. Neither are the words "God" or "Jesus", yet people like you want to make Christianity practically a state religion.
Posted by: Mark | Jan 4, 2006 8:00:13 PM
All this hate because [another] athlete believes all the sycophants he has surrounding him.
First, everyone's allowed to make free political choices. Second, everyone's allowed to make stupid political choices.
That said, Swann IS a very lucky person, and seems to have, by professing his "conservative" politics, turned his back on allowing others the breaks he [possibly] got.
The obvious is physical attributes. That's just the luck of the draw. Does anyone think that if Micahel Jordan had done all he did, after being cut from his high school team, but was 5-6, not 6-6, that he'd ever made it to the NBA?
More to the point, Swann needs to look at what conservatives [Democrats and Republicans] have done for him in his lifetime. Conservatives did all they could to keep him from attending the school[s] of his choice. Would he have been in the NFL if he attended Lacakawana Community College instead of USC? Would he have gotten to USC - even with his abilities - if he attended an underfunded, second-class "colored" high school? He certainly wouldn't be in a segregated NFl.
Would Swann have ever gotten a chance to be a Television Analyst if it were not for affirmative action pressures? He has proven he has more than minimal talent [see: Simpson, O.J.], but he'd probably not be given a chance in the "conservative" 50's. And a number of just as talented white analysts were not afforded the chance to develop their skills on network broadcasts.
Swann should not apologize for anything. But he does need to take a closer look at how he got where he is today, and to repudiate those who still work to deny that today's young Lynn Swann's don't face many of the same obstacles to success he needed help overcoming.
And a lot of you need to take a deep breath, think about what your going to say, and then keep it to yourself.
Posted by: Joe Bob | Jan 4, 2006 8:54:48 PM
I can't believe a Bush supporter would bring up something like GPA to take a shot at the other candidate. Not to mention how the same argument brings to mind something like military records... you know, one guy in 'Nam, the other in... where was he again? Let's check the service records, if we can find them all.
Also, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, however, it is used by Constitutional scholars to discuss the amendment. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is just as much a vote for religious tolerance as well as the basic right of people of one faith NOT to be governed by the principles of another. You know, the words "the right to a fair trial" don't appear in the Constitution either, so I guess we know where Bush is getting his "mandate" for torture and illegal detention, wiretapping, etc.
Posted by: Monkeywright | Jan 4, 2006 9:03:27 PM
Steve, I'm getting this feeling that you are the guy at the bottom of a pile on. You know the guy, the one that only has his feet showing?
Posted by: The Bastard | Jan 4, 2006 9:15:06 PM
Now, now... let's not all pile on Steve. The argument that he is making is not new, and it's not without merit. Take a look at all the great athletes who lacked the physiques, or the speed, or the flexibility, or the black paint under the eyes (say, that is genetic, right?).
Wayne Chrebet is my personal favorite... but I'm biased.
The point is that life is roughly half luck and half what you make of it - and the key word there is "roughly." Some people have no luck, but yet, with enough gumption, they make it to the top. Some people have it all, and just plain blow it. It's too complicated an equation for all us mere mortals to pin down. And so, we have to understand that everyone is different, and, with that understood, we understand that a healthy society makes opportunity for us all.
Posted by: Jersey McJones | Jan 4, 2006 10:15:07 PM
Yeah y'all go find Lance Armstrong and tell him he was lucky to win all those Tour De Frances, God damn hippies!
Bastard, somebody has to be on the bottom of the pile. Once you all come to that conclusion maybe you all would stop worrying and forming blogs to bitch about politics!
"And so what if the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution. Neither are the words "God" or "Jesus", yet people like you want to make Christianity practically a state religion."
Typical liberal, making shit up to argue a cause. What gave you the impression that I want there to be a state religion? I thought you were a party of tolerance not this vindictive crowd who wants to but down people that may be different from them. Describing what you just did would be a violation of the Constitution. That's pretty funny. A liberal making up a scenario about the Constitution, yet can't even read it for themselves.Keep trying though, I found your spite very entertaining, which leads me to the next person:
Where oh where do I begin on this one? Did you actually say:
"You know, the words "the right to a fair trial" don't appear in the Constitution either, so I guess we know where Bush is getting his "mandate" for torture and illegal detention, wiretapping, etc."
Hmmm... but he has the right to a trial and so does ANYONE HE TAPPED!!! It's called the 7th Amendment. (and the 14th but we'll touch on that a bit later in the broadcast) As Bush getting his mandate, he actually is getting from the Constitution. Read Now by now you have read the link and are all enthusiastic about your impeachment prospects but first things first. First the President has 7th Amendment rights which means he has to have a trial. All of you are arguing the 4th amendment violations and what not, yet there is only one group that can decide that and that's found here in section 2. Yes Constitutional Law is ONLY decided by the Supreme Court. But what will probably happen if it all got to the Supreme Court is that they would defer to what I call the Liberal's Second Amendment, the 14th Amendment because Bush was most likely conducting his wire taps on NON CITIZEN ACTIVITIES!!! Yet even if one of those people he tapped was tried for a crime, they themselves could invoke the 14th Amendment.
So mokeywright, stop the armchair wanna be conservative basher and leave it to the experts! Like Bastard, pia, Dr. Forbush, Cranky, BYOC and the others!
Jersey, you don't count yet! :)
Posted by: steve | Jan 4, 2006 11:20:22 PM
Y'know Steve, your argument has just proven why Bush should have gotten warrants in the first place. Because now, even if he did find something through spying on an al-Qaeda linked American citizen, they can claim that a warrantless search violated their rights and possibly get the charges thrown out.
Also, at no point in my post did I bash conservatives. By and large, conservatives care as much about our country as liberals do. I consider myself more of a pragmatist. A pragmatist who is a Bush-basher, yes. But let's not drag the whole Republican party down with him...(although he's starting to do a good job of that too). The problem with the whole left wing/right wing argument is that nobody seems to notice there's a bird in the middle who'd rather pluck out all those few annoying feathers on both sides that are trying to think for the whole.
PS: Luck was defined last night by every player from Texas getting carried to a championship by one man.
Posted by: Monkeywright | Jan 5, 2006 12:01:29 PM
Lynn Swann is not qualified to run for any office. I wuld not vote for him. Democrats in New Orleans run unqualified people too. Its a "who you know" mentality. It is hurting our country.
Posted by: Sgt D | Jan 5, 2006 8:00:45 PM
For anyone to think that luck is not a factor in almost all things is pretty dense. Some of Swann's luck was that he was the second best receiver on one of the greatest teams in football history. He was not the best, but he is the best remembered because of a couple of incredible catches in Super Bowls. Check it out. John Stallworth was the other receiver and he held the record for most receptions by a Pittsburgh Steeler until this year when the record was broken by Hines Ward. Swanny was very lucky, or if you like fortunate, that he made these big catches in the biggest games. I am not a Steeler fan, just a vast source of sports knowledge in my head. The guy is very lacking in the charisma department, but that name and the memories he conjures up will go a long way, unfortunately. But, again any putz that thinks luck did not play a part in Swann's career is ignorant.
Posted by: Dan | Jan 7, 2006 5:24:13 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.