Trump’s Attack On Black Athletes May Bring a League to Its Feet

[ArgoEagle 1,798]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, I've made my point, but you get to keep making yours.  

If you are annoyed, please leave. 

We won't miss you.  Neither will the NFL.

 

I don't think you're qualified to speak for the NFL. When they make you their national spokesperson, you let me know. Never mind,, I know that will never happen.

[homersapien 11,453]

5 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

I don't think you're qualified to speak for the NFL. When they make you their national spokesperson, you let me know. Never mind,, I know that will never happen.

weak  

[homersapien 11,453]

28 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I was talking to Brother Argo. Having a good morning and don't want to talk to you Homer. Maybe this afternoon.

Just trying to help you out.  

[alexava 6,973]

18 hours ago, japantiger said:

I am absolutely loving all this...America at it's best.  Overpaid children with the greatest gig on the planet feel oppressed and try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg in the name of free speech.  Naturally, their fan base reacts and said children's product starts taking a hit and athletes start losing endorsements....this is how the system is supposed to work...Free speech at it's best...complete with the consequences of adult actions....why is it that liberals only understand the speech part of that equation and not the consequences part?

It got pretty heavy on here pretty quick...idolatry; really?  this seems a lot simpler than that....football is entertainment... an escape for the fanbase...don't **** up their escape with your childish political horse***t....do that on your own time...not on the time that they pay for...simple....hard to understand where idolatry fits in... 

But, just in case, why is it only idolatry for those that "idolize" the flag and what it symbolizes; but it's not idolatry for the left that "idolize" the gods of racism or pick-a-phobia in every action of those that disagree with them...this is all pretty tiresome...

I love free speech....I love that we are a free society where you get to live with the consequences of your free exercise of those freedoms....another good reason to spend Sunday at church, family dinner, running the dogs and ......well, anything but pro football....

Phil Robertson gave us a dose of free speech fairly recently. I don't recall anyone threatened with jail. Free speech has not been compromised in a while. 

[DKW 86 7,441]

Free Speech should never cost you your career.

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

I don't think you're qualified to speak for the NFL. When they make you their national spokesperson, you let me know. Never mind,, I know that will never happen.

Apparently the NFL isn’t missing Kaepernick either. 

[PUB78 1,363]

11 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

PT, I think Homer tried to answer that earlier... something like nobody knows plus cats and dogs living in perfect harmony.

BTW, anyone actually play football in the NFL this past weekend? Have not heard a thing about an actual game.

IDK. Didn't watch NFL this weekend, or the previous weekends.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Well, they caved in quick. 

 

[Mims44 1,890]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Free Speech should never cost you your career.

That's an odd statement.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Let me try to do it better. Free Speech should never cost you your career.

1. I would hope that anyone could engage in discourse in a fair and open manner that would never be so outrageous that it cost them their career.

2. As long as you do #1, you should feel safe in your career. I would hope that you would feel safe in your job because you didnt not engage in violence or go so overboard as to get fired AND that your employer should back you as long as you are reasonable and rational in your conduct and statements.

[japantiger 4,051]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Free Speech should never cost you your career.

I don't think you thought that through....

[japantiger 4,051]

On 9/25/2017 at 10:13 PM, homersapien said:

That's pretty good.  I'd give it a 7.9 on the outrage scale - only a little south of foaming-at-the-math.

As far as content, players are engaged in a dangerous and highly competitive profession.  They earn their money. They aren't just fortunate, they are talented and committed. It's a highly competitive profession  Ain't capitalism great!   

More importantly, it might be just remotely possible there are some reasoned, well-intentioned, players who are concerned about racism in this country and feel like they should do something to bring attention to it, given the means and opportunity, which they have.  Apparently the NFL recognizes their American right to do so and at least respects their message.

But carry on......  

 

P.S.: 

The idolatry discussion related to the discussion of the flag.  It had to do with equating a symbol of our country with a sanctified object (in itself).  Obviously, there is a mixed opinion. 

 

Oh Homey, only a 7.9?  Really, I thought it was better than that....foaming starts at 13 by the way....let's take these one at a time:

• the players play a game...granted they play it well; and yes, they earn their $$ because someone is willing to pay for that entertainment (capitalism at it's best as you point out)... but, it's still a game and thus entertainment....is there anyone on this forum that has ever gone to a football game hoping to hear the political POV of any of the participants?  Yeah, didn't think so.....classic case of not understanding your audience.  If you want political discourse, go to Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity....not a football game...I was going to say go to a debate on a college campus, but that seems to be out of fashion these days.
• as for being well reasoned or well intentioned; in this case, I would say probably neither....
  • this all started with CK doing this nonsense for BLM, hands up don't shoot and as far as I can tell a protest over not being happy with his lot as a backup QB and ultimately self inflicted free-agent and then self-proclaimed victim of racism.  BLM, you know them...the same folks that gave us the burning of Ferguson....hands up don't shoot; just an outright lie...etc...so, if this is what these others are doing it for; then they are just ass clowns like CK.
  • now, if they are doing this to protest "racism" in general...you know, racism, that very real and pernicious condition where some very small part of the population hates other people just because of the color of their skin ...and not just a trendy knee jerk #driven fashion statement built on a lie (see lie references above); then "good on them"...I think just about anyone (well, other than the Klan, Reverend Wright, Farrakhan, Nazi's, BLM etc.). could get on board with that....but not sure that is clear in any of this...start by distancing yourself from CK on this and people might actually listen to them.
  • as for well reasoned; seriously?  do you see what is happening?  what about what they are doing is well reasoned?  This is a classic case of "s***ting in your mess kit".
• If they really want to make a difference; and enlist the nation in support of their efforts, then there are about 50 other approaches that would be more effective and might in the end draw in a larger audience to their cause...but that would take actually setting down and talking to people about how to do it....and it seems no one has an interest in that.   For years the NFL supported the United Way....why not take an approach like that...get a mission, a great ad campaign and go do some real good by working in communities and get your audience involved in it and supporting it...nah, what am I thinking...it's a lot more fun to just throw bombs and scream racism....
• last point, where was all this concern for "causes" when the league scorched Tebow  for bringing attention to a cause?  How about the effort by the Cowboys to support the 5 slain police officers?  In the words of Big Daddy, "I smell the powerful odor of mandacity"...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 hours ago, japantiger said:

Oh Homey, only a 7.9?  Really, I thought it was better than that....foaming starts at 13 by the way....let's take these one at a time:

• the players play a game...granted they play it well; and yes, they earn their $$ because someone is willing to pay for that entertainment (capitalism at it's best as you point out)... but, it's still a game and thus entertainment....is there anyone on this forum that has ever gone to a football game hoping to hear the political POV of any of the participants?  Yeah, didn't think so.....classic case of not understanding your audience.  If you want political discourse, go to Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity....not a football game...I was going to say go to a debate on a college campus, but that seems to be out of fashion these days.

No one has to "hear" anything.  They aren't giving speeches or interrupting the anthem. 

 

 

[japantiger 4,051]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No one has to "hear" anything.  They aren't giving speeches or interrupting the anthem. 

 

 

Wow, that's splitting hairs...how about this...who goes to an evening of entertainment to "listen to or look at" spoiled brats trot out their latest faux outrage?  Football is a sight and sound sensory experience ...mostly sight.

[ArgoEagle 1,798]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No one has to "hear" anything.  They aren't giving speeches or interrupting the anthem. 

 

 

Disagree with you here. They are definitely interrupting the anthem. They are bringing attention to themselves and taking it away from the anthem. When the fans boo these people for kneeling they are saying we did not spend hundreds of dollars today to see you kneel during our national anthem, we paid to see you play football.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Just now, japantiger said:

Wow, that's splitting hairs...how about this...who goes to an evening of entertainment to "listen to or look at" spoiled brats trot out their latest faux outrage?  Football is a sight and sound sensory experience ...mostly sight.

How about this...as far as this country's history of protests go...such as dumping about $1.7 million worth (in today's money) of tea into Boston Harbor, sit-ins at lunch counters and restaurants all across the South, massive marches that clogged up several city blocks in various cities...kneeling down during the national anthem has to be one of the least obtrusive or disruptive forms of protest ever attempted.  They aren't shouting or using noisemakers to drown out the anthem.  They aren't running around on the field demanding attention.  They aren't unfurling huge banners to block anyone's view of the flag.  They aren't preventing anyone from doing anything.  It's a rather easy thing to ignore if you choose to do so.  

[ArgoEagle 1,798]

4 minutes ago, japantiger said:

Wow, that's splitting hairs...how about this...who goes to an evening of entertainment to "listen to or look at" spoiled brats trot out their latest faux outrage?  Football is a sight and sound sensory experience ...mostly sight.

You beat me to it. I said basically the same thing while you were posting, just used different words to express the same idea.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

4 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

Disagree with you here. They are definitely interrupting the anthem. They are bringing attention to themselves and taking it away from the anthem. When the fans boo these people for kneeling they are saying we did not spend hundreds of dollars today to see you kneel during our national anthem, we paid to see you play football.

No they aren't.  Interrupting the anthem would mean doing something to prevent you or the performer from singing it.  They aren't being noisy.  They aren't messing with the sound system.  They aren't running around in front of the singer.  If fans boo and that interrupts the anthem, that's on them.  Those fans are interrupting themselves.

[aujeff11 6,243]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No one has to "hear" anything.  They aren't giving speeches or interrupting the anthem. 

 

 

Neither were the cowboys when they wanted to wear the stickers. Or Tebow for that matter. You may be factually correct but it utterly stinks that we have people disrespecting the flag over a Trump comment. 

In a couple years, it will evolve to people saying “what’s the big deal, it’s only the Anthem they are interrupting. They should’ve stopped playing the Anthem years ago” 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Neither were the cowboys when they wanted to wear the stickers. Or Tebow for that matter. You may be factually correct but it utterly stinks that we have people disrespecting the flag over a Trump comment. 

In a couple years, it will evolve to people saying “what’s the big deal, it’s only the Anthem they are interrupting. They should’ve stopped playing the Anthem years ago” 

I'm not getting into slippery slope arguments.  I doubt these protests are even happening in a couple of years.

I'm not telling anyone they have to agree with their reasoning.  I'm not even saying you have to love the chosen form of protest.  But the reaction is hyperbolic nonsense IMO when it really comes down to it.  Complete overreaction.  Everyone just makes up their mind and starts ranting these days and never bothers to have a real conversation with someone they have disagreements with anymore.  It just all plays out on Twitter and Facebook, organizing idiotic boycotts, and a president with diarrhea of the mouth making things worse.  Everyone needs to calm the **** down.

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

How about this...as far as this country's history of protests go...such as dumping about $1.7 million worth (in today's money) of tea into Boston Harbor, sit-ins at lunch counters and restaurants all across the South, massive marches that clogged up several city blocks in various cities...kneeling down during the national anthem has to be one of the least obtrusive or disruptive forms of protest ever attempted.  They aren't shouting or using noisemakers to drown out the anthem.  They aren't running around on the field demanding attention.  They aren't unfurling huge banners to block anyone's view of the flag.  They aren't preventing anyone from doing anything.  It's a rather easy thing to ignore if you choose to do so.  

They are demanding attention. Kaepernick, in particular, was demanding attention well over a year ago when the protests started. And those protests that you mentioned were in response to overt racism and independence with clear objectives and goals in mind.

Maybe you’s like to explain their objective to me since you’re all for their “peaceful” protests.

[DKW 86 7,441]

There are a reported 508 Dead African Americans in Chicago this year. Nobody protesting that. Nobody cares about that. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But the reaction is hyperbolic nonsense IMO when it really comes down to it.

Yeah, if you mean the reaction to Trumps comment, I’d agree with this. But you didn’t mean this reaction of faux outrage now did you?

One day the “owners are blacklisting Kaepernick,” the next, “they lock arms in unity.”

Give me a break.

[ArgoEagle 1,798]

4 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

There are a reported 508 Dead African Americans in Chicago this year. Nobody protesting that. Nobody cares about that. 

Probably b/c there is no avenue for someone like Kaepernick to stir up controversy over these lives or no way to gain publicity. Anybody who thinks he started this whole kneeling crap for a good cause I got some swamp land in the desert I'll sell you cheap.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

13 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

They are demanding attention. Kaepernick, in particular, was demanding attention well over a year ago when the protests started. And those protests that you mentioned were in response to overt racism and independence with clear objectives and goals in mind.

Maybe you’s like to explain their objective to me since you’re all for their “peaceful” protests.

Kneeling on the sideline is not "demanding" anything.  If he gets attention, it's because people choose to give it to him of their own free will.

I don't need to explain their objective.  I don't even have to agree with their objective.  The point is, the protests are not "peaceful", they are actually peaceful (sans scare quotes)...as well as unobtrusive and non-disruptive.  So I support their right to do it without people losing their damn minds over symbols and trying to get their bosses to force them to stop or call for them to be fired for it.  I support the right of free speech, free from coercion to quit, even for those I don't agree with.  

Are there limits?  Sure - most obviously when a protest is violent, threatening or abusive to others.  This protest is none of those things.  So I in that sense, I support it.  There may come a day where an issue becomes of such paramount importance that I feel the need to protest in some way that may upset people who have perhaps become too heavily invested in symbols and things over people.  I want my rights to be respected as well.  But it's not a one way street.  To have those rights myself, I must afford them to others without threatening them or their livelihood over it.  I can't get angry that a bunch of far left wackos pressured the Firefox to force their former CEO out over his views on gay marriage while simultaneously reveling in calls for the NFL or the owners to shut down peaceful protest.  That's hypocrisy.