NFL adopts new Anthem policy

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, csmopar said:

AFTER the fact. Again, the point went right over you

And proud of it

 

  Because I can feel that way

 

 

[NFLfan]

 

11 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Here's what bothers me with this Kaepernick thing.  This was tweeted out the morning of the first "protest kneeling". Copied from espn

 

"Aug. 26

 

Kelly announced Blaine Gabbert will start Week 1 against the Los Angeles Rams, with Colin Kaepernick serving in a backup role.

 

Fox Sports' Jay Glazer said he would be "shocked" if Kaepernick is on the 49ers' 53-man roster at the end of the season (via RotoWorld). Glazer said Kaepernick "may not even be on [the roster] in the next two weeks." 

 

When asked whether the team had considered cutting Kaepernick, Kelly told reporters the 49ers have "never had a conversation about that."

 

It was just hours later, that Kaepernick started his "protest"

 

Two days later, 
 

"Aug. 28 — Kaepernick expands on his reasoning for the protest

Kaepernick met with the media two days after the game and for the first time since the protest gained national attention. He reiterated that he was acting to give a voice to people who didn’t have one."

 

But why does this matter? I could point out how many different reasons that you said you are against what Kaepernick did. Does that mean you were lying or were being disingenuous when you mentioned a different reason?

 

Is it the disrespect to the flag and military, is it because you want to get away from politics when watching a football game, or is it that Kaepernick is bringing attention to himself?

 

I originally thought that you were against it because you believe it is disrespectful. I can respect that and I agree. But this comment above makes me question your actual reasons.  

[SteelCityColt]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If statistically random events started national conversations, all we'd ever do in this country is talk.

 

Then, of course, hand out money at the end of the conversation.   Just like this one..

 

Statistically random.., sure. Actually random, no. Someone chose to pull that trigger, and as people charged with protecting their fellow citizens they better be able to justify it. 

 

That is the issue, end... of. Stop trying to hide it behind you Stalinsque interpretation of “statistics” 

 

 

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

No because our opinions do not matter and it is a waste of time try and make it count

from the one who just yesterday falsely accused me and another poster of saying your opinion didnt matter and that you were offended by it...

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, csmopar said:

from the one who just yesterday falsely accused me and another poster of saying your opinion didnt matter and that you were offended by it...

Stop

 

  

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Lol. You're probably right. Sometimes it depends on how it is said. I tend to speak up if I disagree with something. My speaking out has never got me fired, not even close. But I know how to do it. I am not going to embarrass a boss at a meeting or public place. I will take someone aside or ask to have a meeting alone. I will try to find a compromise that works for both of us. But sometimes there is no room for compromise. 

 

But why does this matter? I could point out how many different reasons that you said you are against what Kaepernick did. Does that mean you were lying or were being disingenuous when you mentioned a different reason?

 

Is it the disrespect to the flag and military, is it because you want to get away from politics when watching a football game, or is it that Kaepernick is bringing attention to himself?

 

I originally thought that you were against it because you believe it is disrespectful. I can respect that and I agree. But this comment above makes me question your actual reasons.  

No no, I'm playing devils advocate. For the sake of discussion, I'm merely examining his actions against a timeline is all.  Ultimately the only part that gets me to say that I have issues with the whole thing is the getting away from politics.  however, for the sake of discussion, I merely examining the timeline posted simply to look at this rationally from all perspectives in order to better understand the conflicting points of view. 

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

But why does this matter? I could point out how many different reasons that you said you are against what Kaepernick did. Does that mean you were lying or were being disingenuous when you mentioned a different reason?

 

Is it the disrespect to the flag and military, is it because you want to get away from politics when watching a football game, or is it that Kaepernick is bringing attention to himself?

 

I originally thought that you were against it because you believe it is disrespectful. I can respect that and I agree. But this comment above makes me question your actual reasons.  

Great statement

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Here's what bothers me with this Kaepernick thing.  This was tweeted out the morning of the first "protest kneeling". Copied from espn

 

"Aug. 26

 

Kelly announced Blaine Gabbert will start Week 1 against the Los Angeles Rams, with Colin Kaepernick serving in a backup role.

 

Fox Sports' Jay Glazer said he would be "shocked" if Kaepernick is on the 49ers' 53-man roster at the end of the season (via RotoWorld). Glazer said Kaepernick "may not even be on [the roster] in the next two weeks." 

 

When asked whether the team had considered cutting Kaepernick, Kelly told reporters the 49ers have "never had a conversation about that."

 

It was just hours later, that Kaepernick started his "protest"

 

Two days later, 
 

"Aug. 28 — Kaepernick expands on his reasoning for the protest

Kaepernick met with the media two days after the game and for the first time since the protest gained national attention. He reiterated that he was acting to give a voice to people who didn’t have one."

 

 

 

Yes.  I was correct.  And I didn't need to look it up.

 

He protested the day he was benched.  His excuse was some generic "greater good"

 

Others took the incident and piggybacked their cause onto it, supported by stats that anybody could right off as being random occurrences.  And now they get $90 mill.

 

The plan, the scheme, was obvious once nobody could rationally explain what kneeling for the national anthem had to do with it.  Its takes real wimps to cough up $90 mill.

 

I can't believe so many are so naive.

 

And this entire thing Saints social issues that are real, philanthropic issue that have merit.  What a joke. 

 

BTW I guess saints with a T cant go through the filter?  LOL

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Stop

 

  

I'm not going to sugar the truth man.

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  I was correct.  And I didn't need to look it up.

 

He protested the day he was benched.  His excuse was some generic "greater good"

 

Others took the incident and piggybacked their cause onto it, supported by stats that anybody could right off as being random occurrences.  And now they get $90 mill.

 

The plan, the scheme, was obvious once nobody could rationally explain what kneeling for the national anthem had to do with it.  Its takes real wimps to cough up $90 mill.

 

I can't believe so many are so naive.

 

And this entire thing Saints social issues that are real, philanthropic issue that have merit.  What a joke. 

I think it is entirely plausible he was solely protesting for the reasons stated. That said, I think his case would have been much stronger against his critics if he'd not done it the very day he was benched.  

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, csmopar said:

I'm not going to sugar the truth man.

I don’t need it sugared

   That went away in childhood

  

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

I think it is entirely plausible he was solely protesting for the reasons stated. That said, I think his case would have been much stronger against his critics if he'd not done it the very day he was benched.  

It not plausible at all. The reason changed three times before someone decided to call it a protest to draw attention to police shootings.

 

Again, nobody could rationally explain what kneeling for the anthem has to do with Kaep's original reason.  "Giving people a voice that don't have one".

 

Has Kaep explained it, ever?  Explained why kneeling for the anthem gave a voice to people who didn't have one?  Its all phony.

[csmopar]

Just now, DougDew said:

It not plausible at all. The reason changed three times before someone decided to call it a protest to draw attention to police shootings.

 

Again, nobody could rationally explain what kneeling for the anthem has to do with Kaep's original reason.  "Giving people a voice that don't have one".

 

Has Kaep explained it, ever?  Explained why kneeling for the anthem gave a voice to people who didn't have one?  Its all phony.

That's why I said there's holes in the timeline. As an investigator, that's what I'm trained to look for, inconsistencies with statements vs factual timelines. But that doesn't mean that he original goal was something over than what he stated.  It just makes a quite compelling circumstantial argument that there MAY be more to it than he's letting on or let on.

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

But why does this matter? I could point out how many different reasons that you said you are against what Kaepernick did. Does that mean you were lying or were being disingenuous when you mentioned a different reason?

 

Is it the disrespect to the flag and military, is it because you want to get away from politics when watching a football game, or is it that Kaepernick is bringing attention to himself?

 

I originally thought that you were against it because you believe it is disrespectful. I can respect that and I agree. But this comment above makes me question your actual reasons.  

No one outside of his inner circle does know or should they

[NFLfan]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

No no, I'm playing devils advocate. For the sake of discussion, I'm merely examining his actions against a timeline is all.  Ultimately the only part that gets me to say that I have issues with the whole thing is the getting away from politics.  however, for the sake of discussion, I merely examining the timeline posted simply to look at this rationally from all perspectives. 

 

Would it have changed your point of view if the timeline was different?

 

Just trying to understand where everyone is coming from. I think you should sit down with Kaepernick and talk these through. 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

That's why I said there's holes in the timeline. As an investigator, that's what I'm trained to look for, inconsistencies with statements vs factual timelines. But that doesn't mean that he original goal was something over than what he stated.  It just makes a quite compelling circumstantial argument that there MAY be more to it than he's letting on or let on.

You have to look at what happened at the time.  He's benched for Gabbert after struggling to earn his big salary.  And on that morning, he decides to be in a generous mood and do something for the people who have no voice....by hacking-off 75% of the people?  I'd say he knelt to hack-off 75% of the people in the stands because he was angry and they booed him for weeks anyway.

 

A person can believe him if it makes them feel good.  But I'd hope an investigator would start with the notion he was lying.

 

And now that he's a shill for a group of folks who's constituents just got $90 mill, I'm sure he'll take the truth to his death bed.

[NFLfan]

10 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I'm not going to sugar the truth man.

 

7 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

I don’t need it sugared

   That went away in childhood

  

 

You two are arguing against each other and not listening. Try to understand where the other is coming from. It is very hard, I know. 

 

Can you find any common ground?

[Cynjin]

34 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Or, the lawsuit sheds more light on the issue that he started with

 

How is a lawsuit about possible collusion in the NFL going to shed light on police brutality?

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

 

Would it have changed your point of view if the timeline was different?

 

Just trying to understand where everyone is coming from. I think you should sit down with Kaepernick and talk these through. 

IMO the timeline means little since he could protest at anytime 

 

 

    If his protest was invalid so was every anti-Protest and therefore those leaders should be raked through the coals

  

Just now, Cynjin said:

 

How is a lawsuit about possible collusion in the NFL going to shed light on police brutality?

 

People are talking about it

[Nadine]

Just now, Cynjin said:

 

How is a lawsuit about possible collusion in the NFL going to shed light on police brutality?

 

It publicizes the protest against police brutality.

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Would it have changed your point of view if the timeline was different?

 

Just trying to understand where everyone is coming from. I think you should sit down with Kaepernick and talk these through. 

Honestly, not one bit.  Because I still feel it's something where he could have chosen a better platform other than his job. That said, I will give him credit for this, it has gotten the discussion going, problem is, things such as the timeline theories, disrespectful stuff etc all combined to muddy whatever the message he was trying to get out was.

 

I do think though, had the timeline been different, I think the outcome and discussion would have been better received and the fallout less damaging, not only to the league but to himself as well.

 

I'd love to talk it over with him one on one. Anytime, any place. But im not high enough in the food chain to get that

[PrincetonTiger]

6 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

You two are arguing against each other and not listening. Try to understand where the other is coming from. It is very hard, I know. 

 

Can you find any common ground?

I have stated multiple times where and why my views are coming from

 

  I also am learn early on to be successful in a debate you must know both sides 

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You have to look at what happened at the time.  He's benched for Gabbert after struggling to earn his big salary.  And on that morning, he decides to be in a generous mood and do something for the people who have no voice....by hacking-off 75% of the people?  I'd say he knelt to hack-off 75% of the people in the stands because he was angry and they booed him for weeks anyway.

 

A person can believe him if it makes them feel good.  But I'd hope an investigator would start with the notion he was lying.

 

And now that he's a shill for a group of folks who's constituents just got $90 mill, I'm sure he'll take the truth to his death bed.

No, a good investigator goes in blank. No pre-conceived notions or conclusions. Trust me, you do not want an investigator that has already made his/her mind up about you prior to hearing what you have to say and then comparing it to the evidence.

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

IMO the timeline means little since he could protest at anytime 

 

That's exactly my point... Why did he chose the very day, mere hours after getting publicly benched to start his protest when he could have started it at any other point?

[Cynjin]

24 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

But why does this matter? I could point out how many different reasons that you said you are against what Kaepernick did. Does that mean you were lying or were being disingenuous when you mentioned a different reason?

 

Is it the disrespect to the flag and military, is it because you want to get away from politics when watching a football game, or is it that Kaepernick is bringing attention to himself?

 

I originally thought that you were against it because you believe it is disrespectful. I can respect that and I agree. But this comment above makes me question your actual reasons.  

 

Why can't it be both?  

 

My larger argument about the protests has to do with what I perceive as the disrespect.  I did not know about the timeline until I saw it here.  It seems very coincidental that his protest occurs right after he was benched.  Could it be a coincidence?  Sure, but it is also plausible that he just got mad about getting benched and decided to essentially throw a figurative fit.

[csmopar]

5 minutes ago, Nadine said:

It publicizes the protest against police brutality.

Eh, maybe in a round about way.

 

7 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

You two are arguing against each other and not listening. Try to understand where the other is coming from. It is very hard, I know. 

 

Can you find any common ground?

I hold no grudges and I'm trying to do the very thing you suggest.  But false accusations and lies make that much more difficult. 

[Cynjin]

6 minutes ago, Nadine said:

It publicizes the protest against police brutality.

 

I think it will mainly publicize his protesting as a reason for not having a job.  Again taking the focus away from the issue of police brutality, just like the kneeling did.

[Nadine]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Eh, maybe in a round about way.

All publicity is publicity.  Nothing roundabout about it

[NFLfan]

8 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I'd love to talk it over with him one on one

 

I would pay to see that. Lol. I would love to see the two sides talk to one another. I see both sides. I see why it upsets you and I see why Kaepernick wants some issues addressed. 

 

I think we have had a good discussion going. We just have to show more empathy to all sides which I know is hard to do. 

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Why can't it be both?  

 

My larger argument about the protests has to do with what I perceive as the disrespect.  I did not know about the timeline until I saw it here.  It seems very coincidental that his protest occurs right after he was benched.  Could it be a coincidence?  Sure, but it is also plausible that he just got mad about getting benched and decided to essentially throw a figurative fit.

Exactly what I was trying to say, thank you.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

That's exactly my point... Why did he chose the very day, mere hours after getting publicly benched to start his protest when he could have started it at any other point?

It doesn’t matter when it started or even why

 

  People can boycott and protest al kinds of things 

   

Just now, Nadine said:

All publicity is publicity.  Nothing roundabout about it

The only negative publicity is no publicity 

[Myles]

It really only started bothering me when he did it during the Veterans Day celebration when there were hundreds of veterans in attendance.  Many who have lost friends and family in war.  That was a crappy move by him and it was very disrespectful.  He should have chosen to skip that week.  

Wearing the pig police socks was also a crappy move. 

[Nadine]

Just now, Cynjin said:

 

I think it will mainly publicize his protesting as a reason for not having a job.  Again taking the focus away from the issue of police brutality, just like the kneeling did.

How does it take focus away?  His protest was about police brutality, he's saying he wasn't hired because of the protest = Publicity for the protest

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Myles said:

It really only started bothering me when he did it during the Veterans Day celebration when there were hundreds of veterans in attendance.  Many who have lost friends and family in war.  That was a crappy move by him and it was very disrespectful.  He should have chosen to skip that week.  

Wearing the pig police socks was also a crappy move. 

He didn’t see it that way

1 minute ago, Nadine said:

How does it take focus away?  His protest was about police brutality, he's saying he wasn't hired because of the protest = Publicity for the protest

Nicely put

[csmopar]

Just now, Nadine said:

All publicity is publicity.  Nothing roundabout about it

Very true. Sadly though, I think the impact is going to be less than desired.  

 

Look, we all know there is cases of police brutality and that officers get off way too often when they shouldn't.  There's been several in recent times that really should be on death row for their actions. But a lawsuit stating collusion for losing a performance based job PRIOR to starting the protest, but saying the protest caused the job loss just stinks of the whole goal of the protest being fabricated. 

 

Either way, my feelings are the same regardless of his reason(s). Never should have done it on the field. 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

No, a good investigator goes in blank. No pre-conceived notions or conclusions. Trust me, you do not want an investigator that has already made his/her mind up about you prior to hearing what you have to say and then comparing it to the evidence.

I understand.  Nobody is really conducting an investigation here  over his comments. 

 

It just seems obvious to me that kneeling for the anthem the day you're benched for Blaine Gabbert reeks of a tantrum rather than a lucid plot to bring attention to some social issue.  

 

Combine that with the idea that he's suing the NFL over collusion. 

 

I think resistance is at the core.  Not lucid at all.  No particular rational reason.  If someone demands one, just make one up.  The real driver of his actions of resistance seem to be that he's just a useless baby.

[NFLfan]

5 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Why can't it be both?  

 

My larger argument about the protests has to do with what I perceive as the disrespect.  I did not know about the timeline until I saw it here.  It seems very coincidental that his protest occurs right after he was benched.  Could it be a coincidence?  Sure, but it is also plausible that he just got mad about getting benched and decided to essentially throw a figurative fit.

 

I don't have the time to check but I think he had that in mind a while back. I don't think the timeline changes that. 

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, Nadine said:

How does it take focus away?  His protest was about police brutality, he's saying he wasn't hired because of the protest = Publicity for the protest

IMO it provides even more light to it

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, Nadine said:

How does it take focus away?  His protest was about police brutality, he's saying he wasn't hired because of the protest = Publicity for the protest

see my above post. He lost that job in December of the previous season and couldnt win it back, all due to performance, which had been suffering for quite some time.  What's next, an age discrimination law suit by TO when no one brings back a 40+ yr old WR?

[NFLfan]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Exactly what I was trying to say, thank you.

 

In your timeline, do you have when we learned of the protest or when the protest actually began? From what I have read, he started his protest well before the media publicized it.