Jump to content

Mets uniform changes


SPORTSDOCTOR

Recommended Posts

^There was some talk recently about shortening the official Rhode Island name. Not sure if it ever got anywhere. Sorry for the random tangent.

Regarding the T'Wolves, I used to associate that with them more when they wore their original 'WOLVES' unis, rather than the ones now that spell out 'TIMBERWOLVES.'

The A's are called that far more often than the Athletics.

Along those lines are the D-Backs, who actually write that on their unis.

Seems like the Mavs and Cavs are called that more often too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I realize we are all joking here but I find it interesting that the first thing I think about when I hear a phrase like "Black be Gone" is the color black not the race. Yet other people go right to race. I've often wondered who the racist people really are in this world, those who act as such or those who's minds are always on the topic and read into everything as if it points to race and call everyone else out for it. Hmmmmmm.

Again, I'm not pointing any fingers at you JQK because its obvious this is all in jest (or at least I hope it is :) ) I'm just, making a point. But it really makes you wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seriously went off on a tanget off of what i said? I obviously know he was talking about the color black in the Mets uniform. There's no reason to sit here and honestly think that i saw that remark, in a Mets uniform thread, and thought to myself "Oh, he ment black people".

Seriously, man?

You are Buzz Killington, Destroyer of Jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew the meaning then why even bring something so stupid up to begin with?

Rush Limbaugh has nothing against any ethnic group by the way - the attachment of his name to such a blasphemous allegation is the epitome of reckless and irresponsible...perhaps you're a disciple of St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist, Bryan Burwell?

In this case: BLACK ISN'T beautiful.

Oh, and just because you brought up his name, Rush Limbaugh is the man.

To reiterate: BLACK BE GONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew the meaning then why even bring something so stupid up to begin with?

Rush Limbaugh has nothing against any ethnic group by the way - the attachment of his name to such a blasphemous allegation is the epitome of reckless and irresponsible...perhaps you're a disciple of St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist, Bryan Burwell?

In this case: BLACK ISN'T beautiful.

Oh, and just because you brought up his name, Rush Limbaugh is the man.

To reiterate: BLACK BE GONE.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! 100% lies!

Not only is the aforementioned man (Limbaugh, obviously) a complete bigot, the Mets aren't getting rid of any of the black that was seen in 2009.

Congrats! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh is a real man with the stones to state his opinions freely expressed through the constitution that grants him that opportunity to do so.

Beyond what the purpose of this thread is all about, but to be sure, the smear tactics and the reckless disregarding of facts in lieu of the Limbaugh-NFL issue were beyond repulsive, exposed massive triple and quadruple standards, and generally was another defeat for a country that has undergone multiple castrations on its way to hell as a sissified and Utopian world you only dream is in existence.

Rush Limbaugh only had a few things going against him in his minority bid to become one of the Rams owners:

1-He never ran a dog fighting ring

2-He never rained money down in a topless joint and then helped to paralyze a man before the evening was over.

3-He never killed anyone drunk driving.

4-He never had to beat down one of his girlfriends or wives.

5-He never packed illegal heat in a Midtown night club.

Lastly however, and this is where the rubber meets the road, Limbaugh was junked because he doesn't like Obama and because he wants Obama to fail.

In THIS America?

The one where the country has more of its nuts cut off each day that passes?

That's a BIG no-no.

I believe that Washington Times columnist, Tom Knott, stated it the best: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/16/tom-knott-limbaugh-rejection-is-simply-hypocrisy/

I'd prefer to stick to uniforms and logos instead of waxing some of you poetic.

P.S. The humorous irony in all of this political correcting? Someone please tell me who Roger Goodell's wife is?

>80% of all NFL Owners are Socially Conservative individuals.

>Rush also could have used some street cred with some hard as nails nickname.

>He never spoke about D-McNab - he spoke about the media's coverage of McNabb.

>Play that tape back by the way and watch as Tom Jackson nods his head in affirmation while Michael Irvin says over and over; "Rush is right...Rush is right..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh only had a few things going against him in his minority bid to become one of the Rams owners:

(crimes committed by football players)

I wonder which is rarer: athletes who can play at an NFL level, or guys who can chip in a few million bucks for a team. Apparently the prospective owners felt Limbaugh was more expendable. These should be moved to the Rams thread, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seriously went off on a tanget off of what i said? I obviously know he was talking about the color black in the Mets uniform. There's no reason to sit here and honestly think that i saw that remark, in a Mets uniform thread, and thought to myself "Oh, he ment black people".

Seriously, man?

You are Buzz Killington, Destroyer of Jokes.

As I stated in my post, I realized that you were joking. I found it interesting that even in jest thats where people tend to go with it. Wasn't trying rile you up or accuse you of anything. But regardless of the intent my comments still hold true, thats exactly the first place people go.

Not to mention your joke wasn't really that great so it wasn't like I was killing some big thing.

I think we are far off topic so I will end here so we can all get back on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limbaugh was junked because he doesn't like Obama and because he wants Obama to fail.

In THIS America?

The one where the country has more of its nuts cut off each day that passes?

That's a BIG no-no.

I believe that Washington Times columnist, Tom Knott, stated it the best: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/16/tom-knott-limbaugh-rejection-is-simply-hypocrisy/

I'd prefer to stick to uniforms and logos instead of waxing some of you poetic.

P.S. The humorous irony in all of this political correcting? Someone please tell me who Roger Goodell's wife is?

Actually Limbaugh was junked because he has said far tooo many controversial statements, and because NFL owners did not feel they could risk the reputation of there sport by having an owner who has a nationally synidcated political talk show on air every day.

You point out that Goodell is married to a Fox News correspondent, his dad was a Republican Senator, its not like Goodell comes from the kind of stock who could really give two thoughts as to how succesful Barack Obama is as President. Neither could most of the NFLs owners, I would imagine.

And besides, people seem to think Limbaugh has the right to be an NFL owner. Why doesn't the NFL have the right to refuse someone as an owner, should they choose to? (Not that that is what happened in this case, what happened was that a businessman decided that the presence of Limbaugh was putting a risk the opportunity to buy a team he wanted to buy, and dropped him. Does he not have that right either?)

Anyways on topic-

Personally I would much prefer the Mets get rid of the black, as I would prefer the Knicks did as well. In both cases it seems to me historically shameful, and design wise unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limbaugh was junked because he doesn't like Obama and because he wants Obama to fail.

In THIS America?

The one where the country has more of its nuts cut off each day that passes?

That's a BIG no-no.

I believe that Washington Times columnist, Tom Knott, stated it the best: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/16/tom-knott-limbaugh-rejection-is-simply-hypocrisy/

I'd prefer to stick to uniforms and logos instead of waxing some of you poetic.

P.S. The humorous irony in all of this political correcting? Someone please tell me who Roger Goodell's wife is?

Actually Limbaugh was junked because he has said far tooo many controversial statements, and because NFL owners did not feel they could risk the reputation of there sport by having an owner who has a nationally synidcated political talk show on air every day.

You point out that Goodell is married to a Fox News correspondent, his dad was a Republican Senator, its not like Goodell comes from the kind of stock who could really give two thoughts as to how succesful Barack Obama is as President. Neither could most of the NFLs owners, I would imagine.

And besides, people seem to think Limbaugh has the right to be an NFL owner. Why doesn't the NFL have the right to refuse someone as an owner, should they choose to? (Not that that is what happened in this case, what happened was that a businessman decided that the presence of Limbaugh was putting a risk the opportunity to buy a team he wanted to buy, and dropped him. Does he not have that right either?)

Anyways on topic-

Personally I would much prefer the Mets get rid of the black, as I would prefer the Knicks did as well. In both cases it seems to me historically shameful, and design wise unnecessary.

Yeah I agree, I don't like Black on the Mets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477021697942920.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.