NFLfan
-
Posts
21,107 -
Joined
-
Days Won
45
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by NFLfan
-
-
2 minutes ago, csmopar said:
I doubt Kaepernick gets signed at all. Not until he drops his lawsuit against all 32 owners. Legally, they can't even contact him or his agent to even attempt to bring him in for a tryout
I know. That is what I tell folks who want him signed. He won't play again in the NFL. But my question remains: how does the NFL get those fans back?
-
16 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:
I see 3 groups instead of two
Which is the 3rd group? The one that will support the NFL regardless of the protests?
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, csmopar said:
By moving on from this and preventing the use of the game to promote individual social platforms DURING on field activities.
I was referring to those people who want to see Kaepernick signed.
The others who don't want to see protests will be back, I agree with that.
-
42 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Of course they are. They are an entertainment and business entity. Thus they are a reactionary body. Witness how they have had to change their practice of handling misconduct off the field. Behind at every step, and missteps along the way. This is no different. And protecting their interests (continued profits) will be a priority in any action taken to 'help the cause'.
You're right.
(To what I put in bold) Do you think the NFL would force a team to sign Kaepernick or Eric Reid? There seems to be two sets of people upset about the kneeling. The new Anthem policy appeases one group. The other group of fans are those who say they will not support the NFL until Kaepernick is signed. We know that won't happen (meaning that he won't get signed). How does the NFL get those fans back?
-
11 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:
I think you told me to get a refund on my degree(personal attack). And you do know me or my life
That was not right. I don't think he thought about it before posting it. As @Cynjin said yesterday, we should aim not to offend others when we post something or with our actions in general. Sometimes we all need to read what we write a few times before pressing "submit reply".
-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, csmopar said:
relating to, affecting, or acting according to the interests of status or authority within an organization rather than matters of principle.
That is the definition of "political".
One can say that this new Anthem policy was created for political reasons. We all may disagree on what is the "principle" but instituting this new policy is clearly a political move to appease those who are angry about the kneeling. I am not saying it is wrong -- just pointing out that it is "political".
(I know you did not say it wasn't. I am just commenting.)
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:
IMO These protests have everything to do with Civil Disobedience of men and women like MLK and Gandhi
If you don’t understand(learn from) history you tend to make the same mistakes
You're wasting your time with DD. I have not read one of his posts
2 hours ago, Nadine said:It's not a bunch of bunk and it's not a few police forces
It's also not just the police, it's every day people
In the past month, I've seen videos of people being accosted for speaking spanish, bar be queing in an area where it's always been allowed, sleeping in a dorm common area, walking a baby, inspecting a house (ie doing your job), checking out of an air b n b and on and on and on.
These are every day people living their lives
A good first step toward building consensus would be to acknowledge that this is not isolated and not just a few people and victims are just that, victimized by people who are racist.
I'm not saying that all people are racist or that all police are bad. That's just not true
But it's far more pervasive that you are willing to see
Thank you! I was going to mention a couple of those examples earlier. My sister told me about the Yale University dorm incident. Having been a student living in a dorm, I can't imagine my reaction if police approached and questioned me just for sleeping in a common room. I would be shaken for hours.
I appreciate your sharing these examples; unfortunately, some just are not willing to acknowledge that this happens to innocent people.
-
5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:
Nicely Put
Not sure if they were fired but the leaders were punished
Sadly there has been several cases were people went unpunished
Earlier today, you mentioned a case in Montana. What was that one? I had not heard of that one.
-
35 minutes ago, Four2itus said:
Thank you for this post. My ex was in Florida about 10 years ago at a conference for her work. The room she was in was back to back with another conference room and a 20' opening existed between the two large rooms for service help to get in and out. She was in the back of her room and could hear the large table at the back of the other room. It was a police conference. To be clear, I cannot even begin to say even some of the things that this table of about 24 policemen were saying. It was so hate filled, so angry, and so lacking in human respect....that she was crying in complete disbelief. A smaller table in that same conference room could see the effect it was having on her and one of the men came over and apologized, saying, "We are not all like that".
To be clear, this was not a few bad guys....it was a very real display of shared police community hatred. It is not a small issue.
This is not to indict all police...far from it. But to say the issue is being overblown is absolutely false.
Thank you for sharing that. That is very disturbing but not surprising. I have heard many similar stories. I believe one problem is that the public tends to believe the police and not civilians. Even when mistreatment is clear, the public will not prosecute the cops. It just emboldens the bad cops to continue mistreating others.Those cops involved in the incident with the Bucks player should be fired. Video showed the player did nothing and the police lied.
-
3
-
-
30 minutes ago, Cynjin said:
You know, thank you for saying that and I am not being sarcastic. I have often wondered if my posting style has come across as angry or being mad, which in all honesty I'm not. I apologize for that, it is not my intent, but I fear that my message is being lost because I am coming across as angry. I am then in the same boat as the players kneeling. I need to try to be better about that, I am not sure I know how, but I will try to make some changes.
I am the same way. On the Vikings site that I follow, one guy told me yesterday that he finds that I seem to always find fault with him. I told him that I appreciated his telling me that so that I could be more mindful of that. I had not realize that.
I do sound angry at times, when I really am not. I wish my posting style was more like that of @2006Coltsbestever. Did you see his comment in that Anthem thread? He has a way of making his point without upsetting either side (at least on the threads I have seen). I don't think that is easy to do.
I commend you. I think the forum had some good discussions today. Thank you.
-
3
-
-
Just now, PrincetonTiger said:
I see them as a direct result
What do you mean? Do you mean that if Parks had not staged her own form of protest, football players may not feel empowered to protest?
-
@Nadine and everyone else:
I think it has been fantastic discussion. For the most part, posters have been civil. This is a good way for people to learn from others. We all have different experiences and different perspectives. This is a great way to share our views. Thanks.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, csmopar said:
I am curious, I'm not disagreeing or agreeing but how do you come to the conclusion/connection between Rosa Parks and the anthem protests?
Both defied societal norms.
-
3 minutes ago, csmopar said:
Hardly. I've said all along my issue with this whole thing was injecting politics into a passtime. my comment about the above is looking at one of the things that makes Kapernick's "protest" questionable. Personally, I feel he was trying to shift the talk off of his performance drop to something else to hide the fact he sucked on the field. He did not start protesting until his benching, so it opens his protest reasons up for questioning. That does not change the fact that regardless, it is a political stance that should stay out of the game of football. By Game, I referring to everything from warms up thru end of the game comments.
I think that's just what the NFL is trying. To limit a divisive action yet still provide a way to protest..
I disagree about the reason Kaepernick did it. He has invested a lot of money into many causes since he has been out of the NFL. If he did not care he would not be as involved. From what I have read, he seems very invested in what he is doing and it is impacted many people.
And some change has occurred. Some police departments are working better with the community since the protests started. It made other players want to get involved in their communities in ways they never have. What Doug Baldwin and others are doing is impressive.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:
No he felt he was passed over because of his color not talent
The protest brings to light incidents like what happened in Milwaukee and Montana
What happened in Montana? Is that recent? I saw Nadine's post about that Milwaukee Bucks player. I had not heard of that incident before this. What a terrible thing! Video clearly shows the player did nothing but police said he was menacing them.
-
1 hour ago, csmopar said:
he was benched because he sucked. Yet another case of someone trying to exploit their race for gain. Personally, I wish we'd stop labeling people by their race.
Ah. This was your Colonel Jessup moment (A Few Good Men). I knew you were rationalizing before. This right here is why many don't like the kneeling.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Cynjin said:
I believe as a matter of courtesy that people should try not to offend other people. However, I am not telling them to stop if they want to keep doing it. I am not going to act like I approve of those choices though and if there are negative consequences for their actions then that is the choice that they made. One of the consequences of the protest is less public support and a loss of the message. If they want to continue on that path fine, I just believe that it is shortsighted and counterproductive, just like I believe gambling too much is.
Your tone in this thread is very different than the one in the other. In the other thread you sound angry and disrespected while here it is like "No big deal. They want to gamble, go right ahead."
-
1 hour ago, Cynjin said:
You're missing the point. There were better ways for the players to garner support for their cause and isn't that the goal to gain support for their cause in order to facilitate change?
No matter how the players chose to address the issues, most fans would not find them acceptable. I remember a long time ago (more than 20 years ago, I think), Tony Dungy was making a plea for the hiring of more black coaches. That was when there were very few. Several fans said that Dungy should "just shut up and coach". Others called him racist. What he said did not seem disrespectful or wrong but fans did not like it. Some were offended. Should he not have said something to avoid offending these fans??
As @csmopar and others have intimated, a segment of the fans do not want to see players engaged in anything that can be perceived as political or as complaining.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Cynjin said:
In the other thread, I am not saying they can't protest, I am saying they would have been better off protesting in a different way. They can make those choices all they want, it doesn't mean I approve of them, I do not believe the government should step in and stop them. I do believe that the private entity of the NFL has every right to dictate how they behave while at work.
In this thread, I do not approve of compulsive gambling, but I am not going to tell people to stop, that is their choice. I would be against the government forcing them to stop gambling, but I would have no problem if a private company had a policy against gambling.
(See bolded.) In the other thread, you wrote several times that people should not do anything that will offend others (like kneeling, leaving hat on, taking socks off, etc.) You basically told them "to stop", but here you write that you won't tell someone to stop gambling (in bold).I am just pointing out the double standard. I agree 100% that I myself should try to minimize offending others. That includes doing what is generally socially accepted (not always though). It shows good manners. However, I cannot dictate how others behave.
-
On 5/15/2018 at 7:55 PM, Cynjin said:
It's not "not my problem", it's not my business.
On 5/15/2018 at 8:08 PM, NFLfan said:Do you feel the same way about all personal choices as long as it is legal?
On 5/15/2018 at 9:39 PM, Cynjin said:Pretty much, yes.
Your comments on the other thread don't seem to show that you have no problem with other peoples' personal choices.
-
10 minutes ago, csmopar said:
No one is saying that at all...
That is what I heard from that fan and you applauded it.
-
29 minutes ago, csmopar said:
See what? It goes back to what you claimed was not so. You and others believe this: "Shut up and play. It is your problem, not mine. I am trying to watch a football game. I couldn't care less what is happening to you or folks who are not in my family."
I think that is a very sad commentary on our society. But it is just my opinion.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, stitches said:
You are already embroiled with a political topic when you go and watch dramatic anthem performances and elaborate staged military displays. So it's not really about being embroiled with politics at the game. It's about being embroiled with the 'wrong' type of politics.
Good point. Someone somewhere wrote that if kneeling is a political statement, then standing is too.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, csmopar said:
Maybe not at the games, but the media zooms the cameras in on those kneeling. Can't miss it. And the "pre game" ceremonies are part of the game. It's still being viewed in mass by the public.
Okay, my response was to your asking why would you spend hundreds to go to a game and have to see a form of protest.
If it is the television stations that are putting this out there for millions to see, why isn't your anger directed at the stations? There is a lot more that the stations could cover. It is because they know that showing it will evoke feelings of anger and contempt from folks. In the beginning, no one knew Kaepernick and others were protesting because the stations had not yet picked up on it and therefore no one had a problem with it.
I am not saying that this is the right way to address these problems. I actually don't think so. I prefer what Doug Baldwin and some others are doing.
NFL adopts new Anthem policy
in NFL General
Posted
What would you like to see them do? (Serious question.)