Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It has nothing to do with the frequency of such homilies but rather the possible impact that the perceived legitimacy his position--a position solely based on spectator sports--affords the content of his message.

 

I don't blame the sport or the spectator.

I blame the big headed self important ass hole behind the microphone. Costas obviously believes his position gives his words weight regardless of the subject.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't believe he used his halftime commentary a few minutes ago as a gun control stump instead of talking about the Kansas City tragedy from a purely sports angle, which is his job. I don't have the

Hey guys! I haven't been commenting on here for a while. I guess I have anger issues or something like that!   I hope that a few of you will feel compelled enough to do what I did. My wife and I ju

You need to send your complaints to the NBC advertisers. NBC doesn't care about you, but they certainly care about them.   Tony

Posted Images

Hey, Costas is just trying to help out his boss - GE. General Electric could potentially profit wildly from any large-scale weapon confiscation operation. GE manufacturers much of the equipment that would be required to forcefully collect firearms in all corners of the US - helicopter turbines, infrared cameras, magnetic anomaly detectors, etc. I'm sure they could also work up a contract to provide infrastructure for collections inventory management for the ATF or whoever else. I mean you would need to implement a distributed system for serial number inventorying at all collections points. Why not GE, who also has a history of developing large datasystems for the government?

 

Real tinfoil stuff, but had to throw it out there.

 

Maybe if GE made civilian firearms they would care. Oh, they don't. But they do make miniguns in various calibers designed to shred light armor and passenger vehicles alike.

Edited by mancat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Chris Cox says it well;

 

When celebrities and media personalities attempt to plumb the depths of our social consciousness, the result is rarely pretty. Such was the case Sunday night when NBC sportscaster Bob Costas shamelessly tried to capitalize on the recent and tragic murder-suicide involving the NFL’s Jovan Belcher to score personal political points against law-abiding gun owners.

 

For anyone who missed it, in his halftime segment during Sunday night's NFL game between the Dallas Cowboy and the Philadelphia Eagles, Costas hit his captive audience of football fans over the head with this absurd rant:

 

You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree, but who today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article...

 

Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher's actions, and their possible connection to football, will be analyzed. Who knows?

 

But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

 

Only a media elitist, living a cloistered life inside the NBC newsroom, could let loose with such a woefully ignorant, ill-timed and irresponsible statement. Furthermore, the fact that Costas tried to partially hide behind a fellow journalist borders on cowardice.

 

According to criminologist Gary Kleck, 2.5 million Americans use firearms to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones each year. The obvious truth is that if Bob Costas and his gun-ban buddies at NBC had their way, many of these innocent men and women would not be alive today.

 

Seemingly, Costas has absolutely no knowledge of the fact that good men and women — and oftentimes, the physically weakest among us — rely on firearms as the only reasonable means of protecting themselves from would-be murderers, rapists and thugs.

 

Take the case of the elderly woman in Sarasota, Florida, who, earlier this year, used a handgun to fend off an attacker who broke through her kitchen window. "I was fearful of my life," the grandmother tearfully told a 911 operator after she fired two shots at the intruder, causing him to flee.

 

Or the case of a young Oklahoma mother, who used a firearm to successfully defend herself and her three-month-old baby this past New Year's Eve from a man armed with a 12-inch hunting knife who kicked in her door and came straight for her and her child.

 

On the other hand, consider the tragic reality of Bob Costas' and Jason Whitlock's gun-ban utopia.

 

In 2007, Amanda Collins was a student at the University of Nevada, Reno. Although she possessed a legal permit to carry a handgun, the university prohibited her from doing so on campus property.

 

Late one night, after taking a mid-term exam, Collins was attacked and brutally raped in a campus parking garage located just 100 yards from a police station. And although she escaped with her life that night, another young woman abducted near the same campus would not be so lucky.

 

Brianna Denison had been staying with a friend during winter break when she went missing in the middle of the night. After a frantic, four-week search, authorities finally found Brianna’s naked, frozen body, crudely hidden underneath a discarded Christmas tree. She had been kidnapped, raped and strangled to death — savaged by the same monster who attacked Amanda in the parking garage just a few months earlier.

 

As is often the case with media talking heads, it’s doubtful that Bob Costas has any real understanding of the recklessness of his statements. However, ignorance is never a good excuse, and that’s especially true for someone like Bob Costas, who prides himself on being a responsible journalist.

 

Bob Costas offended millions of law-abiding, gun-owning football fans with his gun-ban rant. He not only owes every one of us an apology, but also a promise that, in the future, he’ll stick to doing what he’s paid very well to do: talk about sports.

 

Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.

 

This article originally appeared as an Op-Ed on The Daily Caller.

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2E1MF3Bgp

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never, ever, watch any broad cast that, that stupid idiot head is on, ever. FUCK Bob Cotex

 

That asshat is always a commentator during the Olympics, so. . . I guess no more watching the U.S. winter or summer Olympics on television.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe he used his halftime commentary a few minutes ago as a gun control stump

 

He works for NBC. Open your eyes.

Thank you. That's so profoundly enlightening.

 

I'm sorry you act surprised with NBC's puppets' actons?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72zJvVQWutA

 

Make no mistake about it, the libs are very active in their mass manipulation, and they control every TV media outlet except fox news, and even then there are aholes like O'rielly who are anti-gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

Then there's this gem, where the libs fail to mention the guy carrying the AR was black..

Edited by S12KS-K
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never, ever, watch any broad cast that, that stupid idiot head is on, ever. FUCK Bob Cotex

 

That asshat is always a commentator during the Olympics, so. . . I guess no more watching the U.S. winter or summer Olympics on television.

 

I will never, ever watch any broadcast he's on, ever. Hopefully, he'll buy the big one before the next Olympics. Maybe he'll get lucky and be mugged by a guy with a carpet knive that gives him a new smiley face ear to ear, so he won't be killed by a firearm.

Edited by liberty -r- death
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe he used his halftime commentary a few minutes ago as a gun control stump

 

He works for NBC. Open your eyes.

Thank you. That's so profoundly enlightening.

 

I'm sorry you act surprised with NBC's puppets' actons?

 

 

 

Make no mistake about it, the libs are very active in their mass manipulation, and they control every TV media outlet except fox news, and even then there are aholes like O'rielly who are anti-gun.

 

Then there's this gem, where the libs fail to mention the guy carrying the AR was black..

First of all, let me start by paying proper homage to your total lack of surprise. You're a real Rock of Gibraltar, man. OK, now that we've got that out of the way...... Sometimes when somebody starts out by saying "I can't believe ......" well, he may not mean that literally. I do actually believe it. I hate to break it to you though, pushing gun control during halftime of a nationally televised NFL football game goes far beyond the norm, even for NBC, and it's pretty obvious by the nationwide reaction that it's worthy of a raised eyebrow or two. I'm well aware of the media's liberal slant and bias and have been for quite some time so you're latest posts aren't exactly "surprising", either.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently now the moron can not even speak for himself due to his mild case of "left my brain in my underpants this morning" so a "spokesperson" is responding for him.

 

 

Costas, said an NBC spokesman, "feels an unfortunate leap was taken that he was advocating taking away Second Amendment rights. He was not." NBC spokesman Greg Hughes noted, "In a short (on-air) time period he can cover only one aspect of a complicated issue. So he quoted (Whitlock) about the gun culture and an almost Wild West attitude in parts of this country. He is pro-sensible gun reform and pro-attitude adjustment on guns." Hughes further added that Costas is "in favor of people owning guns to hunt and carrying them in reasonably controlled circumstances."

 

 

There is only one thing I hate than an idiot and thats and idiot that cant even speak for himself.

Edited by Chevyman097
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of his ill advised remarks aside they show an utter lack of respect for a large segment of the viewing audience, arguably at least 50% and since it was pro football probably more. I have the same feeling when actors, musicians and other so called entertainers do the same. They forget that it is patrons of all political persuasions who have made them what they are, given them fame, fortune and most of all, freedom.

 

So to spout their often uninformed, mistaken and outright wrong take on a subject they know a great number of people are passionate about is like saying "I'll pander to some of you and the rest of you can go to hell". I do think some of them purposely keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves because they know they owe their success to people across the board.

 

Some say it's a tempest in a teacup but IMO holy hell should be raised so Costas and his ilk will at least know when do such things there will be consequences and repercussions. When it gets to the point they can spout such shit and hear nothing but crickets chirping the game will indeed be over.

 

Btw, who were some of the sponsors, I didn't see this game.

Edited by Squishy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MT- Thank you for posting that link. Her essay needs to be on the front page of every newspaper in the World!

There are a lot of people defending Bob Costas by referring to the 1st amendment. And I agree that he has the right to say whatever he wants. However, the Constitution doesn't give him immunity from the reaction to his words. If NBC is so fond of the first amendment, I wonder how they would react if someone else quoted Jen Engel's comments on the air during halftime of the top rated television show in the U.S. Something tells me that person would be fired for making inappropriate remarks. The name of their show is "Football Night in AMERICA", but apparently they now want to make it into their version of America.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with the frequency of such homilies but rather the possible impact that the perceived legitimacy his position--a position solely based on spectator sports--affords the content of his message.

 

I don't blame the sport or the spectator.

I blame the big headed self important ass hole behind the microphone. Costas obviously believes his position gives his words weight regardless of the subject.

I think my position as some guy on the Internet gives my words some weight. That doesn't mean anything though, because, unlike television, the Internet is an interactive medium and I'm not the only "some guy". Unwarranted self-importance is a personal problem. Unwarranted actual importance is a much larger problem. Bob Costas would just be some jerk banging away at a keyboard, probably working on his blog, if he had not been seen as profitable for providing a face and voice of something seen as profitable through its popularity. I don't blame fans for liking football, but they contribute to the problem of encouraging programming directors to set the bar for journalism (if it can be called this) low enough that it matches the baseness and emphasis on spectacle of the subject matter. Costas climbed a ladder of low expectations and now enjoys a premier place in a pile of pointless punditry.

 

Consider, would Eric Holder be Attorney General if Barack Obama had not been elected? Conspiracy theories aside, whose fault was it that Obama was elected? Now, when Holder authorizes an ill-advised sting that gets Americans killed, who should shoulder the blame? Holder certainly should take the biggest share. Obama, assuming ignorance, would vicariously take a handy portion as well. But it should not be denied that people who voted for Obama, insulated as they are from the decision-making that lead to gunwalking, gave the keys to the kingdom to a man who sought political point-scoring and the lowest common denominator. They couldn't know exactly what was in store from the man for whom they gladly voted, but they might've--perhaps should've--suspected that disappointment would be the order of the day. Now, comparing Costas' editorializing to Holder's wanton disregard to life, limb, and law is not fair for a number of reasons, but the message is the same: vote smart.

 

Barely apropos of the preceding, I am also skeptical about the efficacy of people's efforts to get Costas sacked. Advertisers and programming execs know they have a willfully captive audience for sporting events, and, unlike gun-related media and the advertisers therein, the producers and advertisers' wares typically have broader market appeal.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with the frequency of such homilies but rather the possible impact that the perceived legitimacy his position--a position solely based on spectator sports--affords the content of his message.

 

I don't blame the sport or the spectator.

I blame the big headed self important ass hole behind the microphone. Costas obviously believes his position gives his words weight regardless of the subject.

I think my position as some guy on the Internet gives my words some weight. That doesn't mean anything though, because, unlike television, the Internet is an interactive medium and I'm not the only "some guy". Unwarranted self-importance is a personal problem. Unwarranted actual importance is a much larger problem. Bob Costas would just be some jerk banging away at a keyboard, probably working on his blog, if he had not been seen as profitable for providing a face and voice of something seen as profitable through its popularity. I don't blame fans for liking football, but they contribute to the problem of encouraging programming directors to set the bar for journalism (if it can be called this) low enough that it matches the baseness and emphasis on spectacle of the subject matter. Costas climbed a ladder of low expectations and now enjoys a premier place in a pile of pointless punditry.

 

Consider, would Eric Holder be Attorney General if Barack Obama had not been elected? Conspiracy theories aside, whose fault was it that Obama was elected? Now, when Holder authorizes an ill-advised sting that gets Americans killed, who should shoulder the blame? Holder certainly should take the biggest share. Obama, assuming ignorance, would vicariously take a handy portion as well. But it should not be denied that people who voted for Obama, insulated as they are from the decision-making that lead to gunwalking, gave the keys to the kingdom to a man who sought political point-scoring and the lowest common denominator. They couldn't know exactly what was in store from the man for whom they gladly voted, but they might've--perhaps should've--suspected that disappointment would be the order of the day. Now, comparing Costas' editorializing to Holder's wanton disregard to life, limb, and law is not fair for a number of reasons, but the message is the same: vote smart.

 

Barely apropos of the preceding, I am also skeptical about the efficacy of people's efforts to get Costas sacked. Advertisers and programming execs know they have a willfully captive audience for sporting events, and, unlike gun-related media and the advertisers therein, the producers and advertisers' wares typically have broader market appeal.

 

You are a truly deep thinker sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick asked Costas for his exact stance on gun control. Costas obliged:

"Here's where I stand: I do not want to see the second amendment repealed. ... People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. ... Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don't see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia (bought by) mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? ... Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That's what I was focusing on (in the halftime segment)."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/12/04/how-bob-costas-really-feels-about-guns-jovan-belcher-suicide-kansas-city-chiefs/1745491/

Yes the guy is an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, based off what he is saying, that he is one of the fools who believe "semi-auto" means one pull, many rounds. Since he states hunters having guns, and many hunters use semi's, not just bolt action

 

Don't make excuses for him, he is a liberal elitist piece of shit. I think I might add him to the list of people who I hopefully someday have a chance to piss on their grave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick asked Costas for his exact stance on gun control. Costas obliged:

"Here's where I stand: I do not want to see the second amendment repealed. ... People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. ... Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don't see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia (bought by) mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? ... Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That's what I was focusing on (in the halftime segment)."

http://www.usatoday....chiefs/1745491/

Yes the guy is an idiot.

1. Access to guns is too easy?....Why should it be difficult to get a gun if you are legally allowed to have one?

2.Why shouldn't people arm themselves like the police? We are up against the exact same criminals as they are, and a few of those criminals ARE the police.

3.Why not have a virtual militia (I think he meant to say arsenal)? You could probably kill as many people as you wanted with one or two guns anyway, so having more than that isn't going to make any difference.

4. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? Because criminals have them and I am not obliged to be at a disadvantage.

5. People involved in the so-called "gun culture" are usually law abiding. Criminals belong to other cultures. Drugs, gangs, crime etc. Guns are not a culture to them, most can barely shoot straight or even know how to field strip or clean a gun properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...