Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo
- - - - -

Costas mentions gun control might have saved Kasandra (and Javon) on SNF


39 replies to this topic

#1 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22493 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:50 AM

Fox wants him fired.

Wasn't Rush Limbaugh on MNF for awhile?

#2 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9961 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:55 AM

yawn.

#3 lostjumper

  • 933 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:31 AM

yawn.


It may not be a big deal to some people, but I have an issue with what he said. He used a tragedy to try and advance his political views about gun control. I don't think Sunday night football the day after was the time to do this. Costas has plenty of outlets he could have used at a later time to put out his view on the subject.

Saying Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today if Belcher didn't have a gun is absolutely false. No one knows that. They were having an argument after both had been out partying all night, likely inebriated, and he snapped. With his size and strength, he could have killed her in a number ways. A gun wasn't needed. And it wasn't like he fired one shot and then stopped and realized what he did. He fired nine, so his rage last plenty long enough to kill her with or without a gun.

#4 KiltedFool


  • has a terminal case of creeping sharia


  • 1421 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:40 AM

At work I'm filtered away from most of the sites that have been posting it but there's a pic of Costas with OJ Simpson floating around that has been shopped with some gallows humor captions in the last day or so. A bit V&N, but Costas' sermonizing was way out of line and inappropriate IMO and he should be censured or suspended, though firing would be an overreaction, again IMO.

#5 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9961 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:48 AM

Ummm...since at least 1994, Bob Costas has been a sanctimonious douchetard. Also, every day he takes a disgusting crap in his toilet. Neither is newsworthy.

#6 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 9961 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:49 AM

Bring the fake outrage. Force the fucker to apologize. Get him fired! Barbarians at the gate.

#7 johnmd20


  • voice of soccer


  • 16515 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:06 AM

Seriously, I don't agree with Costas here at all, despite me being a proponent of some gun control. But his comments were out of place. It still shouldn't be something he should be suspended for, let alone fired.

The quick trigger finger(poor choice of words, there) people seem to have anytime someone says something they don't agree with is really weak. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean the person can't say it or that he or she should be fired for it.

#8 Vinho Tinto

  • 3679 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:14 AM

But his comments were out of place.


I'd respect him at least a little bit if he used his own words, but instead he used his forum on national TV to read a paragraph from Jason Whitlock's article to get his point across. Not only did he not say something that was a new or unique opinion, but he was too lazy to actually form the words himself.

#9 brs3


  • sings praises of pinstripes


  • 3567 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:30 AM

I support gun control with regard to illegal guns, but think people should be freely allowed to own guns if they're registered and whatnot. Belcher owned several guns legally, so I'm not sure that this incident is great to use for jumping on the gun control bandwagon. It's a tragedy, no doubt, but prior to this mental snap Belcher didn't do anything illegal with regard to the guns.

After googling to see if the gun was legal, I googled Belcher and 'concussion', and a few articles posed the question of whether he had any history of concussion. It doesn't appear he did, but with the growing number of football players with mental issues caused (in part) by concussions, it certainly is worth asking about.

Bottom line, I think Costas was a bit off-base, but firing him is dumb.

#10 URI


  • stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of life


  • 10125 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:56 AM

I want him fired for reasons completely unrelated to gun control.

#11 SaveBooFerriss


  • twenty foreskins


  • 6100 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:07 AM

I don't agree with Costa's take because I think this incident is more a domestic violence problem than a gun problem.

Advocating firing someone just because you disagree with something they say is beyond stupid. Rather than spending time arguing that they should be fired, why not just counter what was said.

It is interesting that "gun control" has become a dormant political issues. Although some crazy rightwingers would disagree, I don't think there was any substantial daylight between Obama's and Romney's gun control positions. To the extent that this was once a live political issue, the NRA has won the political argument and is doing well in the judicial fight. Since most politicians won't talk about it, it leave the discussion up to people like Whitlock and Costas.

#12 Dehere

  • 2420 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:23 AM

It's an opinion segment. He was delivering a relevant if controversial opinion on what was by far the biggest story related to the NFL this weekend. In a business where people bend over backwards to avoid saying anything substantive about any controversial topic I respect Costas for his willingness to make comments that he obviously knew would draw a lot of sharp criticism.

#13 Bergs

  • 3118 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:32 AM

I don't think he should be fired or sanctioned (over this), but seriously...fuck Bob Costas.

#14 Wingack


  • Yankee Mod


  • 10475 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:59 AM

People make tons of assumptions in cases like this, why can't Costas make an assumption if he wants to?

#15 Doug Beerabelli


  • Killer Threads


  • 7428 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:20 AM

Bob's right. If he didn't have a gun, he only would have yelled at her 9 times.

#16 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 14347 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

Saying Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today if Belcher didn't have a gun is absolutely false. No one knows that. They were having an argument after both had been out partying all night, likely inebriated, and he snapped. With his size and strength, he could have killed her in a number ways. A gun wasn't needed. And it wasn't like he fired one shot and then stopped and realized what he did. He fired nine, so his rage last plenty long enough to kill her with or without a gun.


I don't think Costas is right, necessarily, but this line of attack works both ways. Costas can't say for sure that he wouldn't have killed her some other way, and you can't say for sure that he would have. Your position is simply the mirror image of his, and takes into account just as many (if not more) presumptions as he does.

Edited by drleather2001, 04 December 2012 - 11:23 AM.


#17 Drocca


  • darrell foster wallace


  • 15234 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:44 AM

I don't see any problem with human beings discussing issues.

#18 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 14347 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:47 AM

I don't see any problem with human beings discussing issues.


No, but effective discussion requires each side to acknowledge the weaknesses in it's own argument. Simply spouting your own take as gospel (as both sides to this spat seem to be doing) is just bloviating.

Edited by drleather2001, 04 December 2012 - 11:48 AM.


#19 Drocca


  • darrell foster wallace


  • 15234 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:47 AM

It's also a little silly that Fox wants him fired when he was quoting from their employee's column.

#20 Drocca


  • darrell foster wallace


  • 15234 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:51 AM

No, but effective discussion requires each side to acknowledge the weaknesses in it's own argument. Simply spouting your own side as gospel is just bloviating.


Bob Costas was making an emotional argument/plea in the midst of a tradegy. He wasn't at a fucking deposition.

You can agree with him or disagree with him or agree slightly or whatever but I do not see how it is reasonable to give him shit for his comments. I think we should grant people the freedom to express themselves and give leeway in times of stress and crisis. No, I'm not saying Bob Costas was personally a victim of any tradegy but this is a seering emotional event that existed in the league he was covering that day. To vilify him for stating an emotional opinion about it is to deny his humanity.

#21 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 14347 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:02 PM

Bob Costas was making an emotional argument/plea in the midst of a tradegy. He wasn't at a fucking deposition.

You can agree with him or disagree with him or agree slightly or whatever but I do not see how it is reasonable to give him shit for his comments. I think we should grant people the freedom to express themselves and give leeway in times of stress and crisis. No, I'm not saying Bob Costas was personally a victim of any tradegy but this is a seering emotional event that existed in the league he was covering that day. To vilify him for stating an emotional opinion about it is to deny his humanity.


I, frankly, don't give a shit what he said (nor do I think it's that egregious). My original post was pointing out the hypocrisy of calling Costas out for making an assumption when that poster's critique used a series of related and similar assumptions.

As to the rest of your post, well, I don't care about Bob Costas' opinion. But I think it's naive to think that Bob Costas couldn't rein in his emotions regarding the event. He's as seasoned a sports reporter and TV personality as anyone on TV; if Bob Costas wants to make a point (emotional or not), it is done 100% deliberately and with premeditation. To think that he was somehow overwhelmed by the moment that he decided to shrug off 30 some odd years of reporting experience, is ridiculous.

I don't fault the guy for his opinion, but I might fault him for his lack of professionalism.

Edited by drleather2001, 04 December 2012 - 12:10 PM.


#22 Haunted


  • The Man in the Box


  • 2158 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:09 PM

I think his opinion is silly (for many reasons stated much more eloquently than I could), but the idea that a person should be fired for giving his or her opinion is absurd to me.

Also, as Drocca, I don't see how Fox "wants him fired" at all.

#23 lostjumper

  • 933 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

I don't think Costas is right, necessarily, but this line of attack works both ways. Costas can't say for sure that he wouldn't have killed her some other way, and you can't say for sure that he would have. Your position is simply the mirror image of his, and takes into account just as many (if not more) presumptions as he does.


No, it's not. His position is that the gun is responsible for the deaths. He specifically says that if the gun was not present, Javon and his girlfriend would still be alive. My position is that Javon snapped and he is responsible for the deaths.

Also, I never said I wanted Costas fired. I don't think he should be. He's allowed to say what he wants, even if its a false and stupid statement. What I am saying was that while other networks and the league itself focused on the victim, her child, and the emotional impact on team mates and co-workers, Costas immediately tried to politicize the event. That's a very selfish decision.

#24 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8383884 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:41 PM

I want him fired for reasons completely unrelated to gun control.


This I agree with.

Why does Fox think they have a say in whether he's fired? And why should I care what Ted Nugent thinks about the issue?

#25 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7934 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:44 PM

As to the rest of your post, well, I don't care about Bob Costas' opinion. But I think it's naive to think that Bob Costas couldn't rein in his emotions regarding the event. He's as seasoned a sports reporter and TV personality as anyone on TV; if Bob Costas wants to make a point (emotional or not), it is done 100% deliberately and with premeditation. To think that he was somehow overwhelmed by the moment that he decided to shrug off 30 some odd years of reporting experience, is ridiculous.

I don't fault the guy for his opinion, but I might fault him for his lack of professionalism.


Exactly. I saw a replay, and what I hear is someone taking a tragic event they had no real relation to and bending it to fit something they wanted to say. His approach feels exploitative as a result, and that's why it is drawing a negative reaction. Agreeing with all the "I don't care what Bob Costas really thinks about anything" sentiments as well. The calls for his firing are part of a sick pattern in our culture for sure, though.


I want him fired for reasons completely unrelated to gun control.


This! Ha.

#26 Wilco's Last Fan

  • 385 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:37 PM

While I actually agree with Costas on the issue of gun control in a vacuum, this probably wasn't the right event to politicize.

I think we can all agree that he should stick to doing bit parts in Pootie Tang spinoffs.

#27 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 11500 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:39 PM

I want him fired for assuming we believe that's his real hair color.

#28 Tartan

  • 339 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:44 PM

It doesn't help that the climate around gun politics makes it virtually impossible to discuss the issue at all. Maybe this wasn't the best time or place to bring it up, but we're at a point where there's no time or place to bring it up at all without the discussion spiralling into a hellhole of flinging strawmen and wild political generalizations, so honestly, on live TV was as good a place as any. I don't think his comments were a big deal. If you can't handle hearing an opinion you don't agree with once in a while, create an echo chamber of pundits who agree with you and never leave it. Otherwise, raising hell over something like this is silly.



#29 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7934 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:14 AM

Its not that he brought it up. Its that he was his usual douchebag self about it. "If the world was the way I wanted it to be, the bad thing wouldn't have happened!" I'd rather if it were brought up at all it wasn't at a third-grade level, personally.

I do think this is pretty far down the list of examples of the ways sports programming just aggressively makes people dumber. But still, its there.

#30 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14260 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:49 AM

It may not be a big deal to some people, but I have an issue with what he said. He used a tragedy to try and advance his political views about gun control. I don't think Sunday night football the day after was the time to do this. Costas has plenty of outlets he could have used at a later time to put out his view on the subject.

Saying Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today if Belcher didn't have a gun is absolutely false. No one knows that. They were having an argument after both had been out partying all night, likely inebriated, and he snapped. With his size and strength, he could have killed her in a number ways. A gun wasn't needed. And it wasn't like he fired one shot and then stopped and realized what he did. He fired nine, so his rage last plenty long enough to kill her with or without a gun.


Costas' statement doesn't belong on SNF, in my view, and COULD be wrong (e.g. Belcher COULD have committed the murder a different way)...but it does relate to the actual proximate cause of the tragedy. Your comments are wholly speculative and are not based on the actual cause of death here. There is a level of uncertainty both ways, and agree with several above that should be acknowledged, but that level of uncertainty also is not at all the same.

#31 Drocca


  • darrell foster wallace


  • 15234 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:51 AM

Every time there is a highly publicized murder(s) in this country involving guns we are not allowed to bring up gun control because it would be politicizing that particular murder.

So I guess the NRA has won and we can just stop thinking about it.

#32 Drocca


  • darrell foster wallace


  • 15234 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:52 AM

There's nothing at all to be discussed about professional athletes and guns. Move along, guys.

#33 Stevie1der

  • 446 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:09 AM

Every time there is a highly publicized murder(s) in this country involving guns we are not allowed to bring up gun control because it would be politicizing that particular murder.

So I guess the NRA has won and we can just stop thinking about it.


Posted Image

#34 Tartan

  • 339 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

Its not that he brought it up. Its that he was his usual douchebag self about it. "If the world was the way I wanted it to be, the bad thing wouldn't have happened!" I'd rather if it were brought up at all it wasn't at a third-grade level, personally.

I do think this is pretty far down the list of examples of the ways sports programming just aggressively makes people dumber. But still, its there.


I disagree. The critical response was pretty much exactly the same as the response to anyone who attempts to publically bring up American gun culture after a gun-related tragedy in this country. Douchy or not, the response was going to be the same.

#35 dynomite

  • 4527 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:09 PM

Posted Image


Outstanding.

#36 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7934 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:20 PM

There's nothing at all to be discussed about professional athletes and guns. Move along, guys.


This is the sort of thing I'm referring to. Just stomping your feet at the ground when you're not seeing/ reading what you want, instead to actually engaging a topic.

And Tom Tomorrow is a flaming asshole. I guess that's the kind of take you'd have if you felt Costas knocked his out of the park? Simple is easier...

#37 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 23620 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:13 PM

And Tom Tomorrow is a flaming asshole. I guess that's the kind of take you'd have if you felt Costas knocked his out of the park? Simple is easier...


Dude.

There is so much wrong with this line.

#38 Mo's OBP

  • 108 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:14 PM

Anyone who thinks having gun, or not having a gun, in a domestic situation is not a significant factor in the life or death of the victim is clueless.

#39 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 23620 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:16 PM

Anyone who thinks having gun, or not having a gun, in a domestic situation is not a significant factor in the life or death of the victim is clueless.


Thus far, the most objectionable thing I've found in this thread is this usage of "domestic situation," especially the implication that such necessarily implies a "victim."

Then again, I'm not married. /wakkawakkawakka

#40 Mo's OBP

  • 108 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:33 PM

Thus far, the most objectionable thing I've found in this thread is this usage of "domestic situation," especially the implication that such necessarily implies a "victim."

Then again, I'm not married. /wakkawakkawakka


Implies a victim......



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users