Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Colin Kaepernick Thread and related anthem kneeling issues/news


Recommended Posts

Quote

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/04/colin-kaepernick-ambassador-of-conscience/

Colin Kaepernick was honored today with Amnesty International’s 2018 Ambassador of Conscience Award, which is given annually to someone who embodies the spirit of activism and courage.

He may not have a future in football, but he can definitely do something more than football with his life's work. 

Edited by Riffraff
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

says the guy who is on an internet politics forum while the game is on saying he doesnt want to be bothered by political stuff during the game take that to the bank bromigos 

John Chavez‏ @jchavezfbnm 4h4 hours ago Replying to @realDonaldTrump "Thinking NFL players are 'protesting the flag' is like thinking Rosa Parks was protesting public transportation."

I'm quoting you here, but I am not really directing this at you, since I believe you have no ability to take yourself out of your shoes. But for a second, try to imagine being a black person who has g

In before Sqiz:

Bleacher Report

@BleacherReport

Pete Carroll says there ‘may be a place’ for Colin Kaepernick with Seahawks and doesn’t rule out potential signing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though they just signed Austin Davis last week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Highlights of article:

Exclusive: NFL owners and players discussed President Trump and Colin Kaepernick at a private meeting in October. The Times obtained a recording.

The owners were particularly eager to find a way to avoid further public rebukes from Trump

The Houston Texans owner Bob McNair urged the players to tell their colleagues to, essentially, knock off the kneeling

The Buffalo Bills owner Terry Pegula said he thought the league was battling a perception and “media problem”

Philadelphia Eagles defensive end Chris Long, on Colin Kaepernick: “We all agree in this room as players that he should be on a roster.”

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/989179990452391941

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

It is so shocking Chris Long the great white knight thinks kaep should be on a team. Shocking.

From the article it appears no one contradicted him when he said he was speaking for all players present that Kaep should be on a roster.

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites

"This kneeling. The problem we have is, we have a president who will use that as fodder to do his mission that I don't feel is in the best interests of America. It's divisive and it's horrible."  - Bob Kraft

 

Gold star for you today Robert!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skoo said:

"This kneeling. The problem we have is, we have a president who will use that as fodder to do his mission that I don't feel is in the best interests of America. It's divisive and it's horrible."  - Bob Kraft

 

Gold star for you today Robert!

He can say that all he wants, but the answer is for some team to hire Kaepernick, and unless they do that, they're cowards IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

He can say that all he wants, but the answer is for some team to hire Kaepernick, and unless they do that, they're cowards IMO.

You guys are ridiculous with this. It is real easy for you to play with other people's money and stand on your soapbox. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, squistion said:

Chris Hayes‏ @chrislhayes 8h8 hours ago

Kaepernick's not being signed is the most high-profile, high-dollar example of punishing free expression, and policing speech that exists in the country at the moment.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/989177762593300480

Who the hell is Chris Hayes?   ???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Underachievers said:

Who the hell is Chris Hayes?   ???

Odd you use the same unusual emojis as Cowboys and seem to like all his tweets. Coincidence I guess...:shrug:

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, squistion said:

Odd you use the same unusual emojis as Cowboys and seem to like all his tweets. Coincidence I guess...:shrug:

Odd how many people you stalk here instead of sticking to the topic.  But let me guess you'll cry to Joe again that you're the victim.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Almost every team, perhaps 100% of them I think, carry 3 quarterbacks on the roster. Are we really supposed to believe that there are 96 professional quarterbacks better than Colin Kaepernick? That makes no sense. 

Oh yay! This argument again. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Oh yay! This argument again. 

I don’t mean to repeat it Para, but I haven’t heard a good comeback. 

If you want to admit that he’s being blackballed because of his refusal to stand for the flag, fine. But to pretend that he’s just not good enough to make a team- we all know that’s nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t mean to repeat it Para, but I haven’t heard a good comeback. 

If you want to admit that he’s being blackballed because of his refusal to stand for the flag, fine. But to pretend that he’s just not good enough to make a team- we all know that’s nonsense. 

Tim..this is what the PSF is.  There are 242 pages on Kappy.  Pick any page and it is all the same.

To nutshell it.  All teams though in the NFL are owned by individuals.  If any owner feels a certain player is bad for the $$ bottom line $$  and alienate the teams fan base they will not sign them.  It is not blackballing but a business decision.  Is Kappy good enough to be on a roster..yes.  Is he worth the baggage he brings.  Obviously not.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

Tim..this is what the PSF is.  There are 242 pages on Kappy.  Pick any page and it is all the same.

To nutshell it.  All teams though in the NFL are owned by individuals.  If any owner feels a certain player is bad for the $$ bottom line $$  and alienate the teams fan base they will not sign them.  It is not blackballing but a business decision.  Is Kappy good enough to be on a roster..yes.  Is he worth the baggage he brings.  Obviously not.

 

In theory I agree with the concept that teams should be able to hire or fire players for any reason. But the problem is that they have an agreement with the players that says something very different I think. And if Kaepernick can prove they are colluding to keep him out then perhaps he has a case. I’m not enough of an attorney to know. 

I admit I never liked Kaepernick. I didn’t approve of his protest either; it wasn’t specific enough to have meaning, and I don’t like it when people are disrespectful to the flag and the anthem. It bothered me, because like many people here I have family who fought and died to keep this country free: in Vietnam, in Korea, and I have a great uncle who was in the Bataan Death March. 

What changed my mind was, frankly, Trump’s involvement. It offended me deeply that the President should be putting pressure on a private company to fire someone who chose to be disrespectful to the flag; it was reminiscent of the McCarthy era, when dozens of communist and socialist sympathizers were driven out of Hollywood at the behest of the FBI. That wasn’t the FBI’s business, and it’s not Trump’s business. The government doesn’t get to define patriotism. And so at that point I became a Kaepernick fan and still am one. I now regard his kneeling as an act of patriotism, one that my family members would have been OK with I think; that’s the freedom that they fought for. So I want the NFL to hire this guy and I want him to keep kneeling, because I want Trump to lose this battle. I probably won’t get what I want but that’s how I honestly feel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In theory I agree with the concept that teams should be able to hire or fire players for any reason. But the problem is that they have an agreement with the players that says something very different I think. And if Kaepernick can prove they are colluding to keep him out then perhaps he has a case. I’m not enough of an attorney to know. 

I admit I never liked Kaepernick. I didn’t approve of his protest either; it wasn’t specific enough to have meaning, and I don’t like it when people are disrespectful to the flag and the anthem. It bothered me, because like many people here I have family who fought and died to keep this country free: in Vietnam, in Korea, and I have a great uncle who was in the Bataan Death March. 

What changed my mind was, frankly, Trump’s involvement. It offended me deeply that the President should be putting pressure on a private company to fire someone who chose to be disrespectful to the flag; it was reminiscent of the McCarthy era, when dozens of communist and socialist sympathizers were driven out of Hollywood at the behest of the FBI. That wasn’t the FBI’s business, and it’s not Trump’s business. The government doesn’t get to define patriotism. And so at that point I became a Kaepernick fan and still am one. I now regard his kneeling as an act of patriotism, one that my family members would have been OK with I think; that’s the freedom that they fought for. So I want the NFL to hire this guy and I want him to keep kneeling, because I want Trump to lose this battle. I probably won’t get what I want but that’s how I honestly feel. 

I actually like Kappy as he won me 5K in a FF league.  As far as collusion that will be tough.   In reality NFL owners want each other to fail on the playing field.  If any team thought that Kappy would put them over the hump he would already be on a team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t mean to repeat it Para, but I haven’t heard a good comeback. 

If you want to admit that he’s being blackballed because of his refusal to stand for the flag, fine. But to pretend that he’s just not good enough to make a team- we all know that’s nonsense. 

For starters your argument is flawed. It assumes that backup QB roles are only evaluated by the ability of what would happen if the starter got hurt. There is more to a backup QB role in the NFl. Tons more.

I don't think anybody in here has argued that he isn't one of the best 96 QBs on an absolute scale. Typically what you get are people arguing that he isn't good enough to be a starter or top tier backup. I agree with that. Lots of people do.

Now back to some other duties of a backup QB. Insight, leadership, mentoring, film study, opposing QB tendencies, etc etc. You or I have literally zero clue if he would be good at any of those things. We could probably each point to some things, but nothing concrete. So we probably should refrain from judging there.

Yes he kneels for the anthem. He brings attention. Now we can argue if it is negative attention or not, but I wont waste my breath. I will say it is, you will say it isn't. What I will say is it doesn't have anything to do with football and it absolutely takes up time. I don't think that is debatable. It also likely has a negative dollar impact.

Now lets move on to his collusion accusations. He literally has accused every possible employer of something pretty bad publicly. Yeah, owners like that. They love wasting hours in a deposition too.

Now lets take a look at his girlfriend. Lets first not forget he once got in a physical altercation with a teammate over a girl. Then let's not forget that she has publicly insulted an owner.

So wait, are we still discussing why NFL GM's and owners should want this guy to be brought in to interview as a backup QB???? Oh yeah, sure seems like a no brainer to sign a guy that you can easily make an argument isn't a top 50 QB anymore that brings with him a bunch of distractions and wasted time and if you even want to take a look at the guy to evaluate and then don't sign him, he might depose you or his girlfriend might blast you publicly. Maybe he will punch you because you looked at her butt. He might even wear a shirt to troll you. .

Whats that? Your local police force doesnt like me? Oh yeah? Here look at me donate 25k to an organization named after a convicted cop killer and prison escapee. 

Oh, don't worry coach I will be right there. Yeah, I was up all night studying I know everything there is to know about the Ram's tendencies. I watched like ten hours of Case Keenum footage last night. Uh Colin, you mean Goff right? Oh crap. Sorry I had a deposition to prepare for. You know what? You do now too. 

So forgive us for not thinking that a backup QB is worth this kind of trouble. Especially when we don't even actually know his contract demands or his abilities for the other duties of a backup QB.  

Mark Sanchez isnt exactly a great QB. All reports are that he was a great mentor for Trubisky. How could you or I have ever debated that in advance? We couldn't. The people that worked with them and asked around knew better than us. I think Colin is a better player than Sanchez on an absolute scale. I would rather have Mark as my 3rd string QB. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Da Guru said:

Tim..this is what the PSF is.  There are 242 pages on Kappy.  Pick any page and it is all the same.

To nutshell it.  All teams though in the NFL are owned by individuals.  If any owner feels a certain player is bad for the $$ bottom line $$  and alienate the teams fan base they will not sign them.  It is not blackballing but a business decision.  Is Kappy good enough to be on a roster..yes.  Is he worth the baggage he brings.  Obviously not.

 

I'm going to need a few more pages of random tweets before i decide, for sure, my stance on Kaepernick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

In theory I agree with the concept that teams should be able to hire or fire players for any reason. But the problem is that they have an agreement with the players that says something very different I think. And if Kaepernick can prove they are colluding to keep him out then perhaps he has a case. I’m not enough of an attorney to know. 

I admit I never liked Kaepernick. I didn’t approve of his protest either; it wasn’t specific enough to have meaning, and I don’t like it when people are disrespectful to the flag and the anthem. It bothered me, because like many people here I have family who fought and died to keep this country free: in Vietnam, in Korea, and I have a great uncle who was in the Bataan Death March. 

What changed my mind was, frankly, Trump’s involvement. It offended me deeply that the President should be putting pressure on a private company to fire someone who chose to be disrespectful to the flag; it was reminiscent of the McCarthy era, when dozens of communist and socialist sympathizers were driven out of Hollywood at the behest of the FBI. That wasn’t the FBI’s business, and it’s not Trump’s business. The government doesn’t get to define patriotism. And so at that point I became a Kaepernick fan and still am one. I now regard his kneeling as an act of patriotism, one that my family members would have been OK with I think; that’s the freedom that they fought for. So I want the NFL to hire this guy and I want him to keep kneeling, because I want Trump to lose this battle. I probably won’t get what I want but that’s how I honestly feel. 

If you really think that Kaepernick's protest was non-specific and disrespectful, then nothing Trump has done should cause you to change your mind about that.  Or, more specifically, Trump's involvement doesn't magically transform a disrespectful protest in a respectful protest. 

(I don't have a problem with Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem. Just pointing out that your argument doesn't make any internal sense).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If you really think that Kaepernick's protest was non-specific and disrespectful, then nothing Trump has done should cause you to change your mind about that.  Or, more specifically, Trump's involvement doesn't magically transform a disrespectful protest in a respectful protest. 

(I don't have a problem with Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem. Just pointing out that your argument doesn't make any internal sense).

I still think it was non specific. But as to disrespectful, it’s not that Trump’s involvement transformed it, it that Trump’s Involvement caused me to re-evaluate and change my earlier opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Tim..this is what the PSF is.  There are 242 pages on Kappy.  Pick any page and it is all the same.

To nutshell it.  All teams though in the NFL are owned by individuals.  If any owner feels a certain player is bad for the $$ bottom line $$  and alienate the teams fan base they will not sign them.  It is not blackballing but a business decision.  Is Kappy good enough to be on a roster..yes.  Is he worth the baggage he brings.  Obviously not.

 

IMO this is all true but also ignores the point.  The problem is that he shouldn't bring so much baggage as to make it a defensible business decision.

Fans are willing to tolerate men who beat up women on their NFL team but not men who kneel for the national anthem because that's how the fans feel about those people. So yeah, that means the front offices and owners are making defensible business decisions with respect to those players.  But that's not a resolution, that's the whole problem.  It doesn't really matter if the owners are colluding to blackball Kaep because they personally don't like him or if they're doing it for business reasons because their customers have insanely ####ed up priorities and are more willing to cheer on someone who beats the hell out of a woman than someone who peacefully protests discrimination in law enforcement.  In the end it's equally stupid, the only thing that changes is who's being stupid.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

IMO this is all true but also ignores the point.  The problem is that he shouldn't bring so much baggage as to make it a defensible business decision.

Fans are willing to tolerate men who beat up women on their NFL team but not men who kneel for the national anthem because that's how the fans feel about those people. So yeah, that means the front offices and owners are making defensible business decisions with respect to those players.  But that's not a resolution, that's the whole problem.  It doesn't really matter if the owners are colluding to blackball Kaep because they personally don't like him or if they're doing it for business reasons because their customers have insanely ####ed up priorities and are more willing to cheer on someone who beats the hell out of a woman than someone who peacefully protests discrimination in law enforcement.  In the end it's equally stupid, the only thing that changes is who's being stupid.

You say he shouldn't, yet he does.  When it comes to business and money that's all that matters.  NFL owners need fan support to derive revenue and they've determined he would have a negative effect on that.  Once that's determined, it's over.  You don't have to agree with it or like it, it's just the way it is.  It's no different from that dish at the local restaurant you liked that got removed from the menu because not enough people ordered it to make it economically viable for them to leave it as an option.  You may not agree or wish it were true, yet it is that way due to it's lack of economic viability.  He's put himself in this spot, and maybe he feels as though it's worth it to him.  But he could have/should have forseen this from the beginning.  I suspect he did, because I don't think he's dumb.

Edited by Shula-holic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shula-holic said:

You say he shouldn't, yet he does.  When it comes to business and money that's all that matters.  NFL owners need fan support to derive revenue and they've determined he would have a negative effect on that.  Once that's determined, it's over.  You don't have to agree with it or like it, it's just the way it is.  It's no different from that dish at the local restaurant you liked that got removed from the menu because not enough people ordered it to make it economically viable for them to leave as an option.  You may not agree or wish it were true, yet it is that way due to it's lack of economic viability.  He's put himself in this spot, and maybe he feels as though it's worth it to him.  But he could have/should have forseen this from the beginning.  I suspect he did, because I don't think he's dumb.

I think you missed my point. I agree that the owners are making a defensible business decision with it comes to Kaep.  But that does is redirect the fundamental question of "what the hell is wrong with you?" from the owners to the fans who make it so while having no problem with players beat up women on the roster, to cite just one of the many things active NFL players have done that reflect far more poorly on their character than what Kaepernick does or did.

To borrow your analogy- it's like if the meatloaf at the local restaurant got removed from the menu because not enough people ordered it to make it economically viable for them to leave as an option ... but the restaurant customers were happily eating ####loaves all the while.  Yeah, that makes the owner's menu decision defensible.  But that doesn't mean there's nothing more to discuss.  Now the question is why the customers are into ####loaves but can't stand meatloaf?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

I think you missed my point. I agree that the owners are making a defensible business decision with it comes to Kaep.  But that does is redirect the fundamental question of "what the hell is wrong with you?" from the owners to the fans who make it so while having no problem with players beat up women on the roster, to cite just one of the many things active NFL players have done that reflect far more poorly on their character than what Kaepernick does or did.

To borrow your analogy- it's like if the meatloaf at the local restaurant got removed from the menu because not enough people ordered it to make it economically viable for them to leave as an option ... but the restaurant customers were happily eating ####loaves all the while.  Yeah, that makes the owner's menu decision defensible.  But that doesn't mean there's nothing more to discuss.  Now the question is why the customers are into ####loaves but can't stand meatloaf?

In this case then it should make sense why he isn't on a roster.  You're wanting them to essentially ask, "What's wrong with my customer?", and thereby angering a large percentage of their customer base who will hurt them economically.  My point that I think you understand is, what possible incentive would any owner have to do that?  I thought about this from a standpoint of could I name any business owner who did this.  The only thing I can even come up with off the top of my head is some of the drug store chains pulling cigarettes.  But I had to go to cancer causing agents being removed from shelves to come up with anything.  When politics and sports get mixed up, these things are going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shula-holic said:

In this case then it should make sense why he isn't on a roster.  You're wanting them to essentially ask, "What's wrong with my customer?", and thereby angering a large percentage of their customer base who will hurt them economically.  My point that I think you understand is, what possible incentive would any owner have to do that?  I thought about this from a standpoint of could I name any business owner who did this.  The only thing I can even come up with off the top of my head is some of the drug store chains pulling cigarettes.  But I had to go to cancer causing agents being removed from shelves to come up with anything.  When politics and sports get mixed up, these things are going to happen.

No, not really.  I don't fault the owners here.  I mean it would be awesome if someone actually stood by the man and tried to change things instead of accepting the current reality of their market, but I realize that's asking a lot. You and I are largely in agreement about the owners.

I was responding to the idea that we've been over this and it's settled just because the owners are rational actors and not spiteful bigots (at least in this case!).  My point is that this doesn't end the debate, it just shifts the questions and charges of misplaced priorities from the owners to the NFL fan base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

No, not really.  I don't fault the owners here.  I mean it would be awesome if someone actually stood by the man and tried to change things instead of accepting the current reality of their market, but I realize that's asking a lot. You and I are largely in agreement about the owners.

I was responding to the idea that we've been over this and it's settled just because the owners are rational actors and not spiteful bigots (at least in this case!).  My point is that this doesn't end the debate, it just shifts the questions and charges of misplaced priorities from the owners to the NFL fan base.

I understand what you're saying.  But then we are getting into subjective opinions.  I enjoy political discussion, but really don't like it when it interjects itself into sports and entertainment. When it's mixed together, it's going to always alienate a significant portion of your fan base and IMO that's why it should remain separate.  I'm a 49ers fan as well and I'm fine if they bring back Eric Reid. I don't agree with him, but if he helps the team that's fine, I'm not going to complain, boycott, etc.  I do think Kaepernick has gone beyond the kneeling with the Castro t-shirts, the socks depicting police as pigs, etc.  Curt Schilling has lost a tremendous amount of HOF support and essentially his job in broadcasting for mixing his conservative views into the athletic realm.  Whenever politics and sports are mixed, there's usually going to be a large negative financial impact.  ESPN is feeling some of that right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I understand what you're saying.  But then we are getting into subjective opinions.  I enjoy political discussion, but really don't like it when it interjects itself into sports and entertainment. When it's mixed together, it's going to always alienate a significant portion of your fan base and IMO that's why it should remain separate.  I'm a 49ers fan as well and I'm fine if they bring back Eric Reid. I don't agree with him, but if he helps the team that's fine, I'm not going to complain, boycott, etc.  I do think Kaepernick has gone beyond the kneeling with the Castro t-shirts, the socks depicting police as pigs, etc.  Curt Schilling has lost a tremendous amount of HOF support and essentially his job in broadcasting for mixing his conservative views into the athletic realm.  Whenever politics and sports are mixed, there's usually going to be a large negative financial impact.  ESPN is feeling some of that right now.

Absolutely.  What sort of behavior someone is and isn't willing to tolerate in an athlete or entertainer is totally subjective. I was just disputing the idea that there's nothing to discuss.  A subjective opinion that you can't abide Kaepernick but are cool with [insert violent criminal or whatever here] is, in my subjective opinion, a terrible opinion that is symptomatic of a larger problem worthy of discussion.

Also I disagree that it's the mix of "politics" and sports that's the problem.  Plenty of people who are outspoken about political issues on both sides of the aisle are involved in sports in various ways. Fans latch on to and reject specific actions. Schilling's problem was frequent expressions of bigotry, not his conservatism. Kapernick's "problem" was that he kneeled during the national anthem and wore socks with pigs on them or whatever, not that he opposes discrimination in law enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Absolutely.  What sort of behavior someone is and isn't willing to tolerate in an athlete or entertainer is totally subjective. I was just disputing the idea that there's nothing to discuss.  A subjective opinion that you can't abide Kaepernick but are cool with [insert violent criminal or whatever here] is, in my subjective opinion, a terrible opinion that is symptomatic of a larger problem worthy of discussion.

Also I disagree that it's the mix of "politics" and sports that's the problem.  Plenty of people who are outspoken about political issues on both sides of the aisle are involved in sports in various ways. Fans latch on to and reject specific actions. Schilling's problem was frequent expressions of bigotry, not his conservatism. Kapernick's "problem" was that he kneeled during the national anthem and wore socks with pigs on them or whatever, not that he opposes discrimination in law enforcement.

Which specific action of Schilling are you referring to as bigoted?  I'm not aware of one he said that would meet my definition.  It's possible I missed one, but if not, here we are with another subjective situation.  I'm not sitting here crying for Curt Schilling as he chose to bring politics into his public persona.  We shouldn't be blinded by the fact that because we may agree with one side or leaning and not the other that our view is absolute and that only our view or side should be tolerated and the other punished in some way.  Your statement above passes judgment on Schilling, yet you stated earlier it would be awesome if some owner stood by Kaepernick.  I don't think you can, or at least should, have it both ways.  You can either be fine with political speech having consequences for athletes or you can say we shouldn't allow them to be punished for it.  I'm fine with either though I certainly believe in one over the other, but we shouldn't mix and match.  Trying to splice a difference between two athletes because you may agree with one and not the other will never work.  It's very subjective and when you start mixing politics and sports it's a huge problem and there will always be losers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Which specific action of Schilling are you referring to as bigoted?  I'm not aware of one he said that would meet my definition.  It's possible I missed one, but if not, here we are with another subjective situation.  I'm not sitting here crying for Curt Schilling as he chose to bring politics into his public persona.  We shouldn't be blinded by the fact that because we may agree with one side or leaning and not the other that our view is absolute and that only our view or side should be tolerated and the other punished in some way.  Your statement above passes judgment on Schilling, yet you stated earlier it would be awesome if some owner stood by Kaepernick.  I don't think you can, or at least should, have it both ways.  You can either be fine with political speech having consequences for athletes or you can say we shouldn't allow them to be punished for it.  I'm fine with either though I certainly believe in one over the other, but we shouldn't mix and match.  Trying to splice a difference between two athletes because you may agree with one and not the other will never work.  It's very subjective and when you start mixing politics and sports it's a huge problem and there will always be losers.

Yes, I suppose it's true that thinking hard core Islamophobia (among other things) makes someone a worse person who is harder to root for/listen to than silent protest of law enforcement discrimination during the National Anthem and wearing pig socks is a subjective opinion.

I'm OK with being on my side of that debate, I think it's ridiculous to equate the two and I think if a lot of people genuinely do we have some serious issues that are worth discussing. Which was really my only original point.  "This is a rational business decision" is not the end of the discussion, it's the beginning of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Yes, I suppose it's true that thinking hard core Islamophobia (among other things) makes someone a worse person who is harder to root for/listen to than silent protest of law enforcement discrimination during the National Anthem and wearing pig socks is a subjective opinion.

I'm OK with being on my side of that debate, I think it's ridiculous to equate the two and I think if a lot of people genuinely do we have some serious issues that are worth discussing. Which was really my only original point.  "This is a rational business decision" is not the end of the discussion, it's the beginning of it. 

OK, I got it, your side is always right.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy, especially when you complain about NFL fans who shouldn't react to Kaepernick kneeling for the anthem or wearing socks that call police derogatory names.  You want to call those fans out for essentially punishing someone for their political beliefs, yet you seem willing to do the same and are fine with it because you feel you have the moral high ground.  Gee, I wonder if those folks you are disparaging feel the same way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TobiasFunke said:

No, not really.  I don't fault the owners here.  I mean it would be awesome if someone actually stood by the man and tried to change things instead of accepting the current reality of their market, but I realize that's asking a lot. You and I are largely in agreement about the owners.

I was responding to the idea that we've been over this and it's settled just because the owners are rational actors and not spiteful bigots (at least in this case!).  My point is that this doesn't end the debate, it just shifts the questions and charges of misplaced priorities from the owners to the NFL fan base.

To be fair Tobias that was brought up because Tim popped in and made an argument that has been made repeatedly, which is not the argument you are presenting here. 

I actually agree with you that being so pissed at somebody that kneels for the anthem and not even batting an eyelash at a wife beater, drunk driver, or a thief is a bit absurd. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

OK, I got it, your side is always right.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy, especially when you complain about NFL fans who shouldn't react to Kaepernick kneeling for the anthem or wearing socks that call police derogatory names.  You want to call those fans out for essentially punishing someone for their political beliefs, yet you seem willing to do the same and are fine with it because you feel you have the moral high ground.  Gee, I wonder if those folks you are disparaging feel the same way?

Again, my point was that if you disagree with my subjective opinion on the merits of Kaepernick vs a guy who beats women (or Schilling) then that’s a topic for discussion, not “case closed” like others had said.

More importantly, though, i think it’s kinda gross that you called my criticism of Schillng “a difference of political beliefs” in order to avoid acknowledging the obvious hatred and bigotry on display. Bigotry is bigotry.  A decent, kind conservative whom I respect (that’s you) defending the obviously wrong and bigoted thoughts of Schilling as innocuous differences of opinion on politics tells me that I’m right, that this is a discussion worth having.  Some ideas are repulsive and harmful enough that they’re not entitled to the courtesy we give to respectful differences of opinion. 

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

To be fair Tobias that was brought up because Tim popped in and made an argument that has been made repeatedly, which is not the argument you are presenting here. 

I actually agree with you that being so pissed at somebody that kneels for the anthem and not even batting an eyelash at a wife beater, drunk driver, or a thief is a bit absurd. 

 

Gotcha, thanks for the context

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SHIZNITTTT said:

"NFL owners all but agreed they were blackballing Colin Kaepernick to appease President Donald Trump, according to newly released audio recordings."

:lmao:

You should probably take rawdog off your list of "news" sources.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

"NFL owners all but agreed they were blackballing Colin Kaepernick to appease President Donald Trump, according to newly released audio recordings."

:lmao:

You should probably take rawdog off your list of "news" sources.

Lol...kind of a ridiculous narrative.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

"NFL owners all but agreed they were blackballing Colin Kaepernick to appease President Donald Trump, according to newly released audio recordings."

:lmao:

You should probably take rawdog off your list of "news" sources.

:lol::lol::lol:  here you go something a little more mainstream  LOL   oof

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/sports/nfl-owners-kaepernick.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&mtrref=t.co

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2772494-nfl-owners-players-meeting-on-colin-kaepernick-protests-detailed-in-nyt-report

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/25/new-york-times-publishes-more-secretly-recorded-quotes-from-last-years-anthem-meeting/

 

 

Edited by SHIZNITTTT
Link to post
Share on other sites

N.F.L. owners, players and league executives, about 30 in all, convened urgently at the league’s headquarters on Park Avenue in October, nearly a month after President Trump began deriding the league and its players over protests during the national anthem.

It was an extraordinary summit; rarely do owners and players meet in this manner. But the president’s remarks about players who were kneeling during the anthem had catalyzed a level of public hostility that the N.F.L. had never experienced. In the spirit of partnership at the meeting, the owners decided that they and the players should sit in alternating seats around the large table, which featured an N.F.L. logo in the middle.

“Let’s make sure that we keep this confidential,” Commissioner Roger Goodell said to begin the session.

The New York Times has obtained an audio recording of the roughly three-hour meeting, and several people in the room corroborated details of the gathering. The unvarnished conversation reveals how the leaders of the most dominant sports league in the country and several of its most outspoken players confronted an unprecedented moment — mostly by talking past one another.

The players sounded aggrieved. After discussing a proposal to finance nonprofit groups to address player concerns, they wanted to talk about why Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback who started the anthem protests to highlight social injustice and police brutality against African-Americans, was, they believed, being blackballed by the owners. The owners sounded panicked about their business under attack, and wanted to focus on damage control.

“If he was on a roster right now, all this negativeness and divisiveness could be turned into a positive,” Philadelphia Eagles defensive lineman Chris Long said at the meeting.

Long said he did not wish to “lecture any team” on what quarterbacks to sign, but “we all agree in this room as players that he should be on a roster.” The owners’ responses were noncommittal. The Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie said that fighting for social justice is not “about one person.”

The New England Patriots owner Robert K. Kraft pointed to another “elephant in the room.”

“This kneeling,” he said.

“The problem we have is, we have a president who will use that as fodder to do his mission that I don’t feel is in the best interests of America,” said Kraft, who is a longtime supporter of Mr. Trump’s. “It’s divisive and it’s horrible.”

The owners were intent on finding a way to avoid Trump’s continued criticism. The president’s persistent jabs on Twitter had turned many fans against the league. Lurie, who called Trump’s presidency “disastrous,” cautioned against players getting drawn into the president’s tactics.

“We’ve got to be careful not to be baited by Trump or whomever else,” Lurie said. “We have to find a way to not be divided and not get baited.”

The Buffalo Bills owner Terry Pegula sounded anguished over the uncertainty of when Trump would take another shot at the league. “All Donald needs to do is to start to do this again,” Pegula said. “We need some kind of immediate plan because of what’s going on in society. All of us now, we need to put a Band-Aid on what’s going on in the country.”

The Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan countered that the worst was behind them. “All the damage Trump’s going to do is done,” he said.

The owners kept returning to one bottom-line issue: Large numbers of fans and sponsors had become angry about the protests. Boycotts had been threatened and jerseys burned and — most worrisome — TV ratings were declining.

Pegula complained that the league was “under assault.” He unloaded a dizzying flurry of nautical metaphors to describe their predicament. “To me, this is like a glacier moving into the ocean,” he said. “We’re getting hit with a tsunami.” He expressed his wish that the league never be “a glacier crawling into the ocean.”

The Houston Texans owner Bob McNair was more direct. He urged the players to tell their colleagues to, essentially, knock off the kneeling. “You fellas need to ask your compadres, fellas, stop that other business, let’s go out and do something that really produces positive results, and we’ll help you.”

After the Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross raised the idea of a “march on Washington” by N.F.L. players and owners, Eric Reid, Kaepernick’s former teammate and the first player to kneel alongside him, brought the discussion back to Kaepernick.

Reid, who attended the meeting wearing a Kaepernick T-shirt over his dress shirt and tie, said that his former teammate was being blackballed.

“I feel like he was hung out to dry,” Reid said of Kaepernick. “Everyone in here is talking about how much they support us.” The room fell quiet. “Nobody stepped up and said we support Colin’s right to do this. We all let him become Public Enemy No. 1 in this country, and he still doesn’t have a job.”

Pegula offered that he thought the league was battling a perception and “media problem.” He said it would be great for the league to find a compelling spokesman — preferably a player — to promote all of the good things they were doing together. He suggested that the league could learn from the gun lobby in this regard.

“For years we’ve watched the National Rifle Association use Charlton Heston as a figurehead,” Pegula said. “We need a spokesman.”

Anquan Boldin, a former N.F.L. wide receiver who was at the meeting, said that owners needed to be spokesmen, too. “Letting people know it’s not just the players that care about these issues, but the owners, too,” Boldin said.

Pegula didn’t address Boldin’s point except to add that it would be important for the spokesman to be black. (None of the owners in the N.F.L. are black.)

“For us to have a face, as an African-American, at least a face that could be in the media,” Pegula continued, “we could fall in behind that.”

Kaepernick’s name was not mentioned again. He continues to pursue a labor grievance accusing the owners of colluding to keep him out of the league. He remains unsigned.

Before the meeting ended, owners had quoted Thomas Paine (the Falcons owner Arthur Blank), invoked Martin Luther King Jr.’s Selma march (Ross of the Dolphins) and expressed great hope for what they all could accomplish together (“We have a chance to do something monumental,” declared the Giants owner John Mara).

The meeting concluded with some participants saying how positive the session had been, and how they would all keep talking. Goodell told the group that another meeting was being scheduled. They planned to issue a “joint statement” to underscore their shared commitment.

Kraft said the statement should reflect how everyone had come together for a good cause. “It would be good if you could work in the word ‘unified’ or ‘unity’ in some fashion,” he said, referring to the joint statement.

“We could say simply, today we had a reset, and the players’ issues are our issues, and we recognize them and will work together,” Ross said.

“I like the language of ‘our issues,’” said DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the players’ union.

About an hour later, the league released its joint statement:

“Today owners and players had a productive meeting focused on how we can work together to promote positive social change and address inequality in our communities. NFL executives and owners joined NFLPA executives and player leaders to review and discuss plans to utilize our platform to promote equality and effectuate positive change. We agreed that these are common issues and pledged to meet again to continue this work together.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...