Eagles not going to whitehouse

[Shive]

Malcolm Jenkins' response:

 

[Buck Showalter]

Interesting, reports are saying that apparently Fox news has been using pictutes/images of Eagles players in pre-game prayer to look like they were participating in anthem protests...

Lol... 

Am I the only one who is flummoxed by the irony?

[DougDew]

9 hours ago, TheMarine said:

Except its not about disrespecting the anthem.

Not sure what action you're specifically referring to. 

 

But just because disrespect is not the intent, doesn't mean disrespect doesn't happen.  Words explaining the meaning are rather hollow compared to the action.

  

If you choose to go to Catholic mass and participate in the mass, but don't stand because of your own personally righteous reasons, you're still disrespecting the religion.

If you choose to go to Yankees Stadium wearing full Boston Red Sox gear and choose to do the opposite of what Yankees fans are doing, you're disrespecting the Yankees.

If you choose to use your traditional slang terms in front of people who are sensitive to your slang terms, despite the fact you didn't intend to disrepecting them, its still disrespectful. 

 

If you're a Crip and go into the Blood's turf wearing Crip's tribal (um, I mean gang) colors, you're disrespecting the Bloods.  The Crip doesn't get the chance to say that he wore the colors on their turf for some personal reason that only makes sense to him.

 

I would fully expect the leaders of the Church, Yankees, Bloods, etc. to point out the disrespectful nature of the action.....all the while never even addressing the issue the person is protesting.

 

To my knowledge, POTUS explained about how not standing disrespects the flag, how we should support our police, and how murdering police officers is terrible....but has never criticized the issue at the root of the protest.  He has never criticized the protester's personal beliefs on the issue, or said the issue itself was bogus, iIRC.  He has criticized the action, and I wouldn't expect any person in his position not to.

[Nadine]

19 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

Only in their minds.  What they think doesn't matter, since its not a matter of opinion.  Just because it's not the intent, doesn't mean disrespect doesn't happen. 

  

If you choose to go to Catholic mass and participate in the mass, but don't stand because of your own personally righteous reasons, you're still disrespecting the religion.

If you choose to go to Yankees Stadium wearing full Boston Red Sox gear and choose to do the opposite of what Yankees fans are doing, you're disrespecting the Yankees.

If you choose to use your traditional slang terms in front of people who are sensitive to your slang terms, despite the fact you didn't intend to disrepecting them, its still disrespectful. 

 

Wait, I'll downshift into a culture that's better understood.

 

If you're a Crip and go into the Blood's turf wearing Crip's tribal (um, I mean gang) colors, you're disrespecting the Bloods.  The Crip doesn't get the chance to say that he wore the colors on their turf for some other reason.

 

 

No, it is literally NOT about the anthem.  The anthem is NOT the issue in this white house visit incident.  The issue is that the Eagles at the last minute told the white house that only 1 or 2 people would be attending and the white house cancelled because of that.  At least that's my understanding

 

 

[DaveA1102]

1 minute ago, Nadine said:

No, it is literally NOT about the anthem.  The anthem is NOT the issue in this white house visit incident.  The issue is that the Eagles at the last minute told the white house that only 1 or 2 people would be attending and the white house cancelled because of that.  At least that's my understanding

 

 

Living outwith the US, this is the issue that baffles me.  The protests started as a way to silently and respectfully protest the treatment of minorities in America by taking a knee during the anthem which states how great the country is (seems a reasonable way to protest to me). 

 

I still have no idea how this translated into the narrative of these players disrespecting the flag and, for some reason, the military.  I am sure I remember Darius Butler taking issue with this last year as sure he has relatives in the military, and I am sure plenty others said the same, but this narrative has somehow stuck?!

 

Ian Rappoport mentioned that his sources told him it was Nick Foles and just one other player who would have attended, not a good look for the President.

 

I would also say that Trump may have ended up with the worst team possible for this to happen with as some of the Eagles in particular are true pillars of the community and do some incredible work in their community and further afield.  Difficult to paint them as the villains in this scenario.

[Nadine]

5 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Interesting, reports are saying that apparently Fox news has been using pictutes/images of Eagles players in pre-game prayer to look like they were participating in anthem protests...

Lol... 

Am I the only one who is flummoxed by the irony?

Indeed,quite embarrassing.

 

they've apologized for that. 

Quote

Philadelphia Eagles tight end Zach Ertz called out Fox News for using photos of players kneeling in pregame prayer during a segment about the team’s canceled Super Bowl visit to the White House, calling it “propaganda.” The network later apologized for showing the footage, which was unrelated to the NFL’s national anthem demonstrations, during its report on the rescinded visit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/06/05/fox-news-shows-eagles-kneeling-in-a-story-about-canceled-white-house-trip-they-were-praying/

 

 

I think it happened because Trump tweeted this, bringing the national anthem into the situation when it never was about that.

 

 

I had thought that Trump was pleased with the NFL decision about the anthem but, apparently not.

 

Looks like we'll be hearing a lot more about it

 

Quote

 

A recent report from the Wall Street Journal noted that when Trump spoke with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones last year, he argued that he was “winning” by publicly railing against the NFL protests.

“This is a very winning, strong issue for me,” Trump said. “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

The new rules about the protests haven’t caused Trump to stop his attacks. Instead, he’s simply charged ahead, using his victory to push further. The NFL gave Trump exactly what he wanted — but it seems clear that he’s still not satisfied.

 

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/6/5/17430500/trump-nfl-eagles-white-house-kneel-national-anthem-protest

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, Nadine said:

 

No, it is literally NOT about the anthem.  The anthem is NOT the issue in this white house visit incident.  The issue is that the Eagles at the last minute told the white house that only 1 or 2 people would be attending and the white house cancelled because of that.  At least that's my understanding

 

 

Ok.  I didn't know what MARINE was responding to.  Yes, I understand that this particular event was cancelled because only one or two people were going to attend, which is what I said myself upstream, and I thought was appropriate.

 

Of course, the issue here, the root of why this invite is different than years past is the fact that the Eagles have chosen to do something different than all other teams in the past, and only send 1 or 2 players.  So we'd have to understand the driver of that decision to understand what's going on.

 

But yes, in the bigger picture, I would expect the leader of the NATION to defend the ritual that celebrates the NATIONAL anthem.  So I'm hoping the Eagles aren't upset at the fact that a POTUS would do that and use that as the reason to only send 1 or 2 people.

[DougDew]

9 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Indeed,quite embarrassing.

 

they've apologized for that. 

 

 

I think it happened because Trump tweeted this, bringing the national anthem into the situation when it never was about that.

 

 

I had thought that Trump was pleased with the NFL decision about the anthem but, apparently not.

 

Looks like we'll be hearing a lot more about it

 

Yes, the sentence..."Staying in the Locker Room for the playing of our National Anthem is as disrespectful to our country as kneeling.  Sorry!....is commenting upon the recent decision going forward, not accusing the Eagles of kneeling last season.  He said he cancelled because only a few were showing up, not because the Eagles knelt.

 

I was disappointed in his original decision to say that he was happy about the policy next season.  It looks like he slept on it and realized that staying in the locker room was just a cowardly way to protest, so I'm glad he apparently changed his mind.

 

But, you'd have to ask why this year's SB team decided to only send 1 or 2 players to the WH.  Maybe staying home is the same sort of protest as staying in the locker room.

 

So I'm glad to see that the POTUS is smart enough to see a few steps beyond the words and has the fortitude to not be bound by what someone's words want him to believe.

[Nadine]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Ok.  I didn't know what MARINE was responding to.  Yes, I understand that this particular event was cancelled because only one or two people were going to attend, which is what I said myself upstream, and I thought was appropriate.

 

Of course, the issue here, the root of why this invite is different than years past is the fact that the Eagles have chosen to do something different than all other teams in the past, and only send 1 or 2 players.  So we'd have to understand the driver of that decision to understand what's going on.

 

But yes, in the bigger picture, I would expect the leader of the NATION to defend the ritual that celebrates the NATIONAL anthem.  So I'm hoping the Eagles aren't upset at the fact that a POTUS would do that and use that as the reason to only send 1 or 2 people.

Yeah, I suspect that the sudden increase in the number of players deciding not to attend was unexpected by the Eagles FO and would have been a terrible photo for Trump.  I think it was a protest or at least a statement on the part of the players. I doubt they are upset.

 

I also think that Trump bringing the national anthem into it was intentional. He likes the way the issue plays, see above.

 

 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Yeah, I suspect that the sudden increase in the number of players deciding not to attend was unexpected by the Eagles FO and would have been a terrible photo for Trump.  I think it was a protest or at least a statement on the part of the players. I doubt they are upset.

 

I also think that Trump bringing the national anthem into it was intentional. He likes the was the issue plays, see above.

 

 

I've edited my post above.  What I said there is that he perceives the Eagles staying home from the WH is the same thing as the NFL protesting by staying in the locker room, so I can see where it is all related together and understand the basis of the tweet.

 

That the NFL's new policy basically says that "being absent" is the new way to protest.

[Nadine]

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I've edited my post above.  What I said there is that he perceives the Eagles staying home from the WH is the same thing as the NFL protesting by staying in the locker room, so I can see where it is all related together and understand the basis of the tweet.

 

That the NFL's new policy basically says that "being absent" is the new way to protest.

hmmmm

 

The way I understood fans is that they didn't want football politicized and they didn't want anyone kneeling during the national anthem.  What I heard was that the players should protest off the field and that fans were happy with the NFL compromise

 

If I'm hearing you correctly now, that' shifting and now a visit to Trump is equal to the national anthem being played at NFL games and that for both everyone must attend and stand.

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, Nadine said:

hmmmm

 

The way I understood fans is that they didn't want football politicized and they didn't want anyone kneeling during the national anthem.  What I heard was that the players should protest off the field and that fans were happy with the NFL compromise

 

If I'm hearing you correctly now, that' shifting and now a visit to Trump is equal to the national anthem being played at NFL games and that for both everyone must attend and stand.

No no.  Given the circumstances of how this evolved, its obvious that being absent is protesting in the same manner as kneeling.  (You may have a circumstance whereby players now just want the whole anthem to go away, which leads to another discussion about whether that is the real goal here, to sort of do away with the entire concept of nationalism.)

 

I don't know for sure what "protesting off the field" means.  But my issue is that the players are choosing to make a personal social statement on someone else's time to enhance its visibility.

 

What I would call for is that "off the field" means "on their own time".  Make their social statements on their off days during the week.  Go to a public speaking event, or stand on a podium in a park for all I care, but don't use the visibility of your employer to make your personal social statements....no matter how righteous and correct they are.

 

BTW, as far as the FoxNews report about showing Eagles praying.  Just curious, did the players choose to kneel and "pray" during the National Anthem, or was that some other time?  Just making sure as many facts are accounted for here.

[Buck Showalter]

Lol...

Not sure what is worse, or more disrespectful to the American flag? Kneeling as a form of peaceful protest, (an action that in this case literally can not be discerned from the act of prayer) or using the national anthem & name of fallen vererans as a propaganda piece in a clearly divisive piece of culture war.

[Nadine]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

No no.  Given the circumstances of how this evolved, its obvious that being absent is protesting in the same manner as knealing.  (You may have a circumstance whereby players now just want the whole anthem to go away, which leads to another discussion about whether that is the real goal here, to sort of do away with the entire concept of nationalism.)

 

I don't know for sure what "protesting off the field" means.  But my issue is that the players are choosing to make a personal social statement on someone else's time to enhance its visibility.

 

What I would call for is that "off the field" means "on their own time".  Make their social statements on their off days during the week.  Go to a public speaking event, or stand on a podium in a park for all I care, but don't use the visibility of your employer to make your personal social statements....no matter how righteous and correct they are.

 

BTW, as far as the FoxNews report about showing Eagles praying.  Just curious, did the players choose to kneel and "pray" during the National Anthem, or was that some other time?  Just making sure as many facts are accounted for here.

That's a pretty significant shift Doug. This was their own time and it wasn't on the field or affecting anyone's enjoyment of the game.

 

It was an intersection between politics and the NFL. It wasn't somebody elses time, it was a  time for both. I'm not surprised that both sides acted as they did.  It's politics.

 

But, I don't think that the players have any less right to not attend than you or I do to decide what we want to do.

 

side note: I'm reading that around 80 had requested security clearance to attend but that number dwindled after the NFL policy on the anthem was announced. So, in a way, perhaps it is about the anthem but, it wasn't on the field, it wasn't on employer time. At least that's what the white house is saying

 

Quote

A senior White House official told the Times that more than 80 members of the Eagles team had requested security clearance to attend the event, but after the NFL announced its new policy, that number dwindled to less than a dozen. Trump found the meager turnout unacceptable, according to aides.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-disinvites-eagles-from-white-house-to-avoid-boycott.html

[Buck Showalter]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

BTW, as far as the FoxNews report about showing Eagles praying.  Just curious, did the players choose to kneel and "pray" during the National Anthem, or was that some other time?  Just making sure as many facts are accounted for here.

Chris Long is pretty vocally upset about his image being used & is on record as saying it was "well before the anthem, praying during pregame activities." He has also stated that he was one of the many players who had decided not to attend the White House event prior to the NFLs decision, because he, like some of the other players (Torrey Smith has also given interviews) did not want to visit a president with the personal history that the current president has...

 

[Nadine]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

BTW, as far as the FoxNews report about showing Eagles praying.  Just curious, did the players choose to kneel and "pray" during the National Anthem, or was that some other time?  Just making sure as many facts are accounted for here.

 

Zach Ertz says the picture was of praying before the game.  Must not have been during the anthem or fox would not have apologized I wouldn't think

 

[NFLfan]

17 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Lol...

Not sure what is worse, or more disrespectful to the American flag? Kneeling as a form of peaceful protest, (an action that in this case literally can not be discerned from the act of prayer) or using the national anthem & name of fallen vererans as a propaganda piece in a clearly divisive piece of culture war.

 

Yep. All that needed to be announced was that the visit was canceled. Period. Nothing else. Everything else that was added (the anthem protests or the quote "abandon(ing) their fans") was done for propaganda. It is pretty sad that so many are being influenced by such propaganda. 

 

7 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Interesting, reports are saying that apparently Fox news has been using pictutes/images of Eagles players in pre-game prayer to look like they were participating in anthem protests...

Lol... 

 

As Nadine wrote, Fox News apologized on Twitter after Zach Ertz and Chris Long called them out on it. I wonder if they apologized on TV, as many don't read the news or follow Twitter but do watch Fox News on TV?

[dynasty13]

The problem is that this White House, and by extension FoxNews, is so incredibly disingenuous when it comes to 'judging' Patriotism. The guy didn't even know the words to God Bless America yesterday, and he sure does go out of his way to praise Roseanne despite her stirring performance of the National Anthem all those years ago. The President is using the protests as a way to stir up those he knows he can...they are the ones creating these big scenes and stories and creating these false narratives in order to instigate...everything from calling out the players, to the staged 'Pence leaving the Colts game after the anthem' situation, to straight up lying about the reason he cancelled this event.

 

He creates issues where there aren't any...it's sort of his M.O.

 

...and his fans love him for it.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Lol...

Not sure what is worse, or more disrespectful to the American flag? Kneeling as a form of peaceful protest, (an action that in this case literally can not be discerned from the act of prayer) or using the national anthem & name of fallen vererans as a propaganda piece in a clearly divisive piece of culture war.

This isn't a political ploy on the part of POTUS. There is a bigger play here you know.  And I haven't started this debate, I'm merely illustrating what I think is going on in the larger scheme of this otherwise stupid NFL anthem protest issue.

 

Many of the political class despise Trump because he basically ran on the concept of defending Nationalism.  NAFTA, Immigration, Wall, breaking down the uniform trade agreements to negotiate with individual countries.  He ran on the concepts of individual countries remaining meaningful and their governments still representing their citizens.   He ran against the concepts of open borders, economic consolidation, EU, UN etc. which is favored by both established parties.  If you dissolve borders, eventually the country itself goes away and then who represents the people?  A few tyrants who control speech and thought?  A few corporate CEOs who run every global business?

 

So part of this issue leads to the election itself and what he stands for and his opponents stand for.  Anything that helps to tear down or minimize any representation of an individual country is seen as a personal attack on his campaign motive, so I understand his idea to defend the flag.

 

That's why its my belief the protests are misplaced.  They are choosing to protest some inherently local, and for the most part urban, issues by attacking the very concept of nationalism.  I don't think the players realize the current political environment and how their actions are actually making a statement about the broader political and corporate attack on nationalism it and not just the issue they say its about.  

 

Some others in the public space who defend them, know perfectly well that the protests might help the playing of the anthem go away all together, which is yet another step towards destroying the concept of nations.  So they don't have a problem with the protests at all.

 

BTW, I hope I've stayed away from choosing political sides and simply explained that nationalism itself is under attack by some, and that's why this stupid NFL anthem issue is so vibrant.  It wouldn't be otherwise.

 

Which is actually kind of weird on a football forum because the entire concept of uniting around "our team" and "our symbols" to out perform our rivals is sort of the whole point of sports itself.  It seems uniting around a national symbol that represents freedom and independence from a system of Nobles and Commoners is a logical extension of that.   Conflicting that concept with a few police brutality issues is small potatoes that has no business being injected into the broader struggle.

[Reality Check]

20 hours ago, dynasty13 said:

 

He's a baby, it's as simple as that...he can't help but make it about him and he didn't want to look bad by having a smaller crowd there. His obsession with crowd size and how he thinks it reflects on him is well-documented. Regardless of how people feel about him and his policies, there is no denying that this issue is about him, not the team. Players from previous championship teams have elected not to go in the past, whether a democrat or republican was in office, and it's never been a big deal.

I remember when Tim Thomas chose NOT to go to the WH after the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 2011, based on his political beliefs...

 

IT WAS A BIG DEAL!

 

He was blistered by many, including his team/teammates, the media, and politicos.  The Washington Post, NY Times, and ESPN (among many others) ran articles very similar to this one...

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/fallout-tim-thomas-decision-skip-white-house-boston-bruins-goalie-spotlight-article-1.1011712

 

Few excerpts ...

 

Playing Thomas in the nation's capital one day after he refused to visit the White House with his Boston teammates would have created a stir, though none equal to the controversy Thomas sparked with his snub of President Obama and his subsequent explanation on his Facebook page.

 

The goaltender failed to recognize that in his absence, he was demonstrating a lack of support for his teammates – not just making an individual political statement. If he wasn't anticipating such a harsh reaction from the hockey community and beyond, he should have taken another look at the game he plays – one that steadfastly adheres to team-first values, known for its selfless and approachable personalities and commitment to a workmanlike mentality.

 

Let's not sugar coat the Eagles' players individual decisions not to attend as "it happens all the time".  Their decision was as politically motivated as Tim Thomas' decision to do the same thing.

 

Instead, maybe we should as why The Eagle's are looked at differently?   IMO, it is the definition of "Political Hypocrisy" no matter which side you see it from.

[Coffeedrinker]

20 hours ago, The Fish said:

 

Capitalism isn't the uber rich in sum total and it doesn't force anyone's hand at the ballot box (in the most direct sense).

Capitalism is why we have jobs, transportation, modern housing, medicine, food in abundance ect. When the collective "we" go and vote for someone, there's a system of hierarchies that our leaders more often than not pass through to become elected leaders. That they possess wealth (sometimes, Bernie Sanders wasn't wealthy UNTIL he got to Congress-which speaks volumes about when and how a majority of politicians get theirs) or not doesn't bind anyone subverting the nature of our "true democracy".  There's lot's of people to pick and choose from. The issue with our democracy has less to do with money and more to do with the quality of information people use when they go to vote. A big red flag for me is when people complain about "Capitalism". People are surrounded with opportunity and wealth and all those people can do is think "that's not fair" and when they start voting that way is when we start to get into the true undermining of the intent of our democracy (that's not a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic..). Equal Opportunities, not equal outcomes.

 

 

I wish I could like this post more than once.  The country was founded on the idea of capitalism as the best for everyone.  It was capitalism NOT the government that created the american dream.  The more government gets involved the harder it becomes to obtain the american dream.

 

The idea of the founding fathers being that people are the best ones to make decisions for themselves and government officials were there to represent their constituency in matter on how the government can best help them.  What we have morphed into is a republic where elected officials rarely represent the people in their districts but try to tell us what we should believe and what we should tolerate.

 

Whether you like Trump or not the reason he is not liked by politicians and the news media is because he doesn't play their games, he says what he is going to do, he says what he believes and then he does it.  That is unheard of in modern politics.  Most politicians think a sound byte is all they need and then they can do whatever they want.  Trump calls them on it regularly and shows the politicians to be the hypocrites they are.

[DougDew]

35 minutes ago, Nadine said:

That's a pretty significant shift Doug. This was their own time and it wasn't on the field or affecting anyone's enjoyment of the game.

 

It was an intersection between politics and the NFL. It wasn't somebody elses time, it was a  time for both. I'm not surprised that both sides acted as they did.  It's politics.

 

But, I don't think that the players have any less right to not attend than you or I do to decide what we want to do.

 

side note: I'm reading that around 80 had requested security clearance to attend but that number dwindled after the NFL policy on the anthem was announced. So, in a way, perhaps it is about the anthem but, it wasn't on the field, it wasn't on employer time. At least that's what the white house is saying

 

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-disinvites-eagles-from-white-house-to-avoid-boycott.html

Not for me.  And I think that's what is meant by "off the field".  It means "on their own time".

 

The anthem is not the game itself but its part of the event.  Being at the stadium at a particular time makes it the employers time, not their personal time. And being absent itself is not the issue.  Its the REASON why people are absent that matters.  

 

Many fans could be absent from the event because they are in the restroom, getting a beer, or simply walking around the stadium.  But if someone is absent BECAUSE they don't want to stand, then its a protest, i.e. making a personal statement.

 

I simply advocate that an employee should make a personal statement on their own personal time.  What's so odd about that?

[Myles]

Lots of pettiness on both sides of this.  

 

Players should suck it up and go to the White House no matter who is the president.   You are not endorsing anything.   I'm fairly certain that past teams did not agree on everything the administration at the time did.  Show a sign of unity and go.

 

Trump should back off.  There are people with various views in the country you run.   This doesn't have to be about the anthem disrespect. 

[Nadine]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not for me.  And I think that's what is meant by "off the field".  It means "on their own time".

 

The anthem is not the game itself but its part of the event.  And being absent itself is not the issue.  Its the REASON why people are absent that matters.  

 

Many fans could be absent from the event because they are in the restroom, getting a beer, or simply walking around the stadium.  But if someone is absent BECAUSE they don't want to stand, then its a protest, i.e. making a personal statement.

 

I simply advocate making a personal statement on your own personal time.  What's so odd about that?

 

It was on their own time. 

[Buck Showalter]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This isn't a political ploy on the part of POTUS.

Lol... O.k.

[Nadine]

9 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

What we have morphed into is a republic where elected officials rarely represent the people in their districts but try to tell us what we should believe and what we should tolerate.

 

I agree with this part of what you said

[Buck Showalter]

11 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Let's not sugar coat the Eagles' players individual decisions not to attend as "it happens all the time".  Their decision was as politically motivated as Tim Thomas' decision to do the same thing.

Right because there is no other reason why someone wouldn't want to associate with, or have their picture taken with the President.

[Chrisaaron1023]

This is comical.. NBA players don't want to go either.. any and everybody on TV is against the President we get it already..

[dynasty13]

What I don't like is that Trump has managed to totally change the perception of what the kneeling was supposed to represent...and as a result he has riled up the masses and cause further division in the country.

 

I don't blame the players for not wanting to attend, I don't think it's as much to do with them disagreeing politically as it is the way they felt attacked with the way Trump has and continues to talk about how these protests should be handled. As has been brought up, many teams in the past had players that disagreed politically, and yes in some cases it was a big deal but it never got to this extent. That alone is very telling, it's his own doing.

 

When the players kneel, they aren't disrespecting soldiers and demonstrating that they hate America and aren't thankful for what they have here...but unfortunately that is the narrative that Trump has created. Think of it this way: At sporting events, there is always a moment where the stadium honors a soldier who is home and the entire place stands and cheers and thanks them for their service...the players stand and clap as well. If they legit knelt at THAT point...well then the narrative Trump is trying to create would hold some merit. But it's simply not the message they are giving during the anthem and the way he is portraying the players for doing it flat out sucks. And then on top of that to straight up LIE about the reason the even was cancelled...I don't see how anyone can defend that.

[pgt_rob]

7 hours ago, Shive said:

Malcolm Jenkins' response:

 

 

It's hard to meet with people who don't agree with you? Oh boy. lol

[Coffeedrinker]

3 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

What I don't like is that Trump has managed to totally change the perception of what the kneeling was supposed to represent...and as a result he has riled up the masses and cause further division in the country.

 

I don't blame the players for not wanting to attend, I don't think it's as much to do with them disagreeing politically as it is the way they felt attacked with the way Trump has and continues to talk about how these protests should be handled. As has been brought up, many teams in the past had players that disagreed politically, and yes in some cases it was a big deal but it never got to this extent. That alone is very telling, it's his own doing.

 

When the players kneel, they aren't disrespecting soldiers and demonstrating that they hate America and aren't thankful for what they have here...but unfortunately that is the narrative that Trump has created. Think of it this way: At sporting events, there is always a moment where the stadium honors a soldier who is home and the entire place stands and cheers and thanks them for their service...the players stand and clap as well. If they legit knelt at THAT point...well then the narrative Trump is trying to create would hold some merit. But it's simply not the message they are giving during the anthem and they way he is portraying the players for doing it flat out sucks. And then on top of that to straight up LIE about the reason the even was cancelled...I don't see how anyone can defend that.

Oh come on.  That narrative was out there long before Trump said anything.

 

We get it, you don't like Trump but to blame him for things that happened long before he said anything is a bit ridiculous. even for a Pats fan ;)

[Cynjin]

1 hour ago, Buck Showalter said:

Lol...

Not sure what is worse, or more disrespectful to the American flag? Kneeling as a form of peaceful protest, (an action that in this case literally can not be discerned from the act of prayer) or using the national anthem & name of fallen vererans as a propaganda piece in a clearly divisive piece of culture war.

 

53 minutes ago, Nadine said:

That's a pretty significant shift Doug. This was their own time and it wasn't on the field or affecting anyone's enjoyment of the game.

 

It was an intersection between politics and the NFL. It wasn't somebody elses time, it was a  time for both. I'm not surprised that both sides acted as they did.  It's politics.

 

But, I don't think that the players have any less right to not attend than you or I do to decide what we want to do.

 

side note: I'm reading that around 80 had requested security clearance to attend but that number dwindled after the NFL policy on the anthem was announced. So, in a way, perhaps it is about the anthem but, it wasn't on the field, it wasn't on employer time. At least that's what the white house is saying

 

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-disinvites-eagles-from-white-house-to-avoid-boycott.html

 

5. No political or religious discussions.

 

Taken directly from the "rules".

 

I find it interesting how some threads like this are allowed to continue and others are shut down rather quickly.

[Cynjin]

13 minutes ago, dynasty13 said:

What I don't like is that Trump has managed to totally change the perception of what the kneeling was supposed to represent...and as a result he has riled up the masses and cause further division in the country.

 

I don't blame the players for not wanting to attend, I don't think it's as much to do with them disagreeing politically as it is the way they felt attacked with the way Trump has and continues to talk about how these protests should be handled. As has been brought up, many teams in the past had players that disagreed politically, and yes in some cases it was a big deal but it never got to this extent. That alone is very telling, it's his own doing.

 

When the players kneel, they aren't disrespecting soldiers and demonstrating that they hate America and aren't thankful for what they have here...but unfortunately that is the narrative that Trump has created. Think of it this way: At sporting events, there is always a moment where the stadium honors a soldier who is home and the entire place stands and cheers and thanks them for their service...the players stand and clap as well. If they legit knelt at THAT point...well then the narrative Trump is trying to create would hold some merit. But it's simply not the message they are giving during the anthem and the way he is portraying the players for doing it flat out sucks. And then on top of that to straight up LIE about the reason the even was cancelled...I don't see how anyone can defend that.

4

 

Yes, they are.  I know this because actual soldiers have said they felt disrespected.

[dynasty13]

1 minute ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Oh come on.  That narrative was out there long before Trump said anything.

 

We get it, you don't like Trump but to blame him for things that happened long before he said anything is a bit ridiculous. even for a Pats fan ;)

 

The narrative of what was ACTUALLY being protested was out there, yes.

 

But come on, you don't think that as soon as Trump tweeted that the players should be fired for disrespecting the flag and country and that the NFL is weak and has no leadership by employing these guys, that the message was lost and the perception changed? The second that tweet went out, MORE players protested and then it blew up. He was the catalyst, and then staging the Mike Pence walkout at the Colts game only furthered that narrative and now here we are.

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Lol... O.k.

Do you have anything meaningful to offer about how this stupid protest fits into the current political climate and why its a big issue? 

 

Or do we simply blame Trump for being the one to raise the issue, instead of blaming the protesters for having a misplaced protest, changed reasons, offended many, and then refuse to apologize? 

 

Not to mention that the protest will continue in the locker room while being shielded by corporate elitists who own NFL teams and want our anthem to go away as to not offend people as  they expand to Mexico City and London.

 

[pgt_rob]

8 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

 

5. No political or religious discussions.

 

Taken directly from the "rules".

 

I find it interesting how some threads like this are allowed to continue and others are shut down rather quickly.

 

As long as you're bashing Trump in some way or another, it's cool by the rules I think. 

[DougDew]

38 minutes ago, Nadine said:

It was on their own time. 

So was Ray Rice beating his wife in a casino elevator.  Shouldn't the NFL have been silent about that?

 

Being at the stadium by a certain time is the employers time.  Being in uniform represents the organization.

 

Being in a casino on a Saturday in April in street clothes isn't even close to that.

 

It seems the definition of personal time changes based upon the perceived righteousness of the issue.

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, pgt_rob said:

 

As long as you're bashing Trump in some way or another, it's cool by the rules I think. 

 

I am not a fan of Trump, but your post is exactly what I was saying.

[Buck Showalter]

16 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

 

5. No political or religious discussions.

 

Taken directly from the "rules".

 

I find it interesting how some threads like this are allowed to continue and others are shut down rather quickly.

Not speaking for all mods, but, when the protests started, there was an obvious intersection between sports & politics. At the time mods let the conversation go, keeping the discussion centralized in one thread, and asking that posters keep posts respectful etc.

Since then, when specific events have occurred, like the current situation, a discussion on the specific topic has been allowed with the same expectation that things stay respectful & on topic.

 

[Cynjin]

2 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Not speaking for all mods, but, when the protests started, there was an obvious intersection between sports & politics. At the time mods let the conversation go, keeping the discussion centralized in one thread, and asking that posters keep posts respectful etc.

Since then, when specific events have occurred, like the current situation, a discussion on the specific topic has been allowed with the same expectation that things stay respectful & on topic.

 

Then why was the last thread on essentially the same topic shut down?  It was as respectful as this one is and was on topic.