Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 137

Thread: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

  1. #21

    Default Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunMarineBBK View Post
    The thing that amazes me at least in my area of friends. All of the LSU people who are all of a sudden concerned with the Cajuns they all have opinions now. And none of them contribute here financially.
    very true... and if you want to see an absolute clear view of anti-free speech look no further than their campus, google LSU & Milo!!
    ironically they were in fact too stupid to be successful in their anti-free speech attempt....

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bicky Rustle View Post
    As an RCAF member as time goes on I have less problems with the players in the video. Let's face they are just mimicking a national feeling of blacks everywhere. I can easily forgive and forget that. The real issue here is how the coach handled it saying we are all hypocrites for choosing trump over Hillary. I think we will lose more donors over huds comments than what the young black males in the video did. For someone who is in charge of a program it sure seems like nothing's ever his fault. Except the wins of course he's quick to take credit for those.
    That's not what he said AT ALL.

    He said people were being hypocritical for giving Trump a pass on his "locker room talk" but not giving his players a pass for their "locker room talk."

  3. UL Football Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunRebel View Post
    That's not what he said AT ALL.

    He said people were being hypocritical for giving Trump a pass on his "locker room talk" but not giving his players a pass for their "locker room talk."
    You got a quote on what he said? I don't think that is what has been quoted coming out of his mouth.

  4. #24

    Default Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunEXPRESS View Post
    You got a quote on what he said? I don't think that is what has been quoted coming out of his mouth.
    "But I will say this," he added Thursday. "It's also disappointing that so many people have vilified a few 19-year-olds making some immature decisions, and then they were the same ones that voted for someone that has done much worse by grabbing a female in the private areas for the office of the (President of the) United States of America."

    He never said anything about Hillary or voting for Hillary. He also didn't say anything about Trump voters in general, only the ones who called out these kids for for doing something similar to what Trump has done in the past.

  5. Default Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Yeah, that is what I heard, he would not have had to apologize for the spin Rebel put out.


  6. #26

    Default Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunEXPRESS View Post
    Yeah, that is what I heard, he would not have had to apologize for the spin Rebel put out.
    It was a dumb comment from Hud, you dont bite the hand that feeds you, but not as outrageous as a lot of people are making it out to be. Just my opinion.

  7. UL Football Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunJack55 View Post
    It was a dumb comment from Hud, but not as outrageous as a lot of people are making it out to be. Just my opinion.
    Not dumb? In an interview you insult 90% of your supporters for no reason. That is about as dumb as you get.

  8. #28

    Default Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunEXPRESS View Post
    Not dumb? In an interview you insult 90% of your supporters for no reason. That is about as dumb as you get.
    I said it was dumb

  9. Default Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Right you did. You said not as outrageous I misquoted you.


  10. #30

    Default Re: RCAF looks at effect of profane video

    Quote Originally Posted by CajunEXPRESS View Post
    GEAUX, is everything practical, is ethics nowheres?

    Freedom of speech is not universal. You are limited at work, in class, and yes maybe even in the locker room. As a counterpoint, the US supreme court and the Civil Liberties Union have strongly limited prayers in class, at schools, and in locker rooms because it 'may' be a burden on atheists, and non christians. This song is political regardless of how you look at it, and to allow it may be a burden to Trump supporters on the team.

    Me, personally, think it is not a big deal in the locker room, nor are prayers, but to be consistent if you severely limit and ban one you must do the other. In some things expediency or profit cannot be the the sole measure.

    People quick to limit things should remember more freedom is usually better, and the sword swings and cuts both ways. The best thing for this whole thing is to forget it, but Hud should teach these young men that tolerance and consideration of others in a group setting is very important.

    As for Hud? He gets no pass from me, a man his age should and could have deflected that question without insulting the people who contribute to his salary, and the players comforts. In saying that, I am not calling for his head, only that his sin is forgivable when he truly recants and I doubt he has because we have a book on Hud.
    First of all, prayer by students is not strongly limited in public schools. There are no limits placed on student prayer unless they become disruptive. For example, a Muslim student can pray silently in school at any time. However, a Native American student can't stand up in the middle of a biology lesson and start rain dancing in the middle of class. The fact that a prayer may or may not burden an atheist has nothing to do with anything.

    The type of prayer that is banned in public schools is school-sponsored prayer, and it is banned because it violates the establishment clause. There are three criteria that are used to determine whether religious criteria is constitutional or not:

    - It must have a secular purpose;
    - It must neither advance nor inhibit religion
    - It must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

    I also think it is worth noting that most of these challenges to state-sponsored school prayer came from CATHOLIC and Mormon families who didn't want the state teaching their kids a different religion from theirs. If your kid went to school in Utah, or went to school in a heavily populated jewish or muslim area, I think you would start to appreciate the establishment clause a little more.

    Second, political speech is the most protected form of speech we have, and rightfully so. There are almost no limits to what you can say when you are talking about politics. And again, what few limits there are are not there because someone somewhere might get offended. You have no right to not be offended in this country. I'm not a lawyer, but even if Coach Hud wanted to discipline these kids, as a public employee, he probably still couldn't do so without opening UL up to a slam dunk civil rights lawsuit.

    Third, I do agree with you that Hud should have a discussion with them about having consideration for others. I feel like our fan base would also benefit from such a discussion.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 1st, 2014, 09:50 am
  2. LSU effect on UL recruiting
    By Boomer in forum PlayerDock
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: January 10th, 2010, 11:36 am

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •