boycott the NFL
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
I think it's actually on the verge of being really good again, not dominated by a couple of teams.
So...tv then.
lain:Was there an award I missed? :think:
You're merely getting hard right water all over the place. Which is like hard lemonade, but with less taste.
How'd they do that?
At least you didn't say statist.
Your idea of how the criminal justice system works could be funny. Please, particulars.
In the meantime, what rhymes with "the President blew it?"
You know, I think we're both right.
The President has overwhelming support for his NFL criticism, they are backing down.
:rotfl: You're a card, PJ. :think: Probably a club of some sort.
Lon
Well-known member
Another reason: Poor example?
Another reason: Poor example?
When you are in the limelight, you inspire impressionable young men and women:
Texas High School removes 2 players who took a knee, off the team.
Lewis' (one of the offending players) mother Rhonda Brady supported her son and nephew being inspired to protest, saying it was completely their decision.
She was surprised by the coach's reaction, however, deeming it out of line.
"I'm definitely going to have a conversation because I don't like the way that that was handled," Brady said. "But I don't want them back on the team. A man with integrity and morals and ethics and who truly lives by that wouldn't have done anything like that.
"Actions speak louder than words. So, for him to do what he did, that really spoke volumes and I don't want my kids or my nephew to be around a man with no integrity."
The coach is also content with not having the pair back on the team.
Mitchem said the pair left him no choice. He thought he had a deal with his players that no one would kneel. He said he supported the pair protesting, but wanted them to do it in other ways - kneeling after a touchdown in the end zone or writing and passing out a paper about the issues.
Mitchem believes the kneeling offends people and veterans who have fought for this country and takes away from the focus on the issues.
"That was my point of view," Mitchem said. "Like I said, I'm a former Marine. That just doesn't fly and they knew that. I don't have any problem with those young men. We've had a good relationship. They chose to do that and they had to pay for the consequences."
This is all in response to an increasing number of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem in protest of racial injustice and police brutality in this country. The face of that protest test is former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who knelt last year to bring awareness to the issues.
Another reason: Poor example?
When you are in the limelight, you inspire impressionable young men and women:
Texas High School removes 2 players who took a knee, off the team.
Lewis' (one of the offending players) mother Rhonda Brady supported her son and nephew being inspired to protest, saying it was completely their decision.
She was surprised by the coach's reaction, however, deeming it out of line.
"I'm definitely going to have a conversation because I don't like the way that that was handled," Brady said. "But I don't want them back on the team. A man with integrity and morals and ethics and who truly lives by that wouldn't have done anything like that.
"Actions speak louder than words. So, for him to do what he did, that really spoke volumes and I don't want my kids or my nephew to be around a man with no integrity."
The coach is also content with not having the pair back on the team.
Mitchem said the pair left him no choice. He thought he had a deal with his players that no one would kneel. He said he supported the pair protesting, but wanted them to do it in other ways - kneeling after a touchdown in the end zone or writing and passing out a paper about the issues.
Mitchem believes the kneeling offends people and veterans who have fought for this country and takes away from the focus on the issues.
"That was my point of view," Mitchem said. "Like I said, I'm a former Marine. That just doesn't fly and they knew that. I don't have any problem with those young men. We've had a good relationship. They chose to do that and they had to pay for the consequences."
This is all in response to an increasing number of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem in protest of racial injustice and police brutality in this country. The face of that protest test is former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who knelt last year to bring awareness to the issues.
A fan since 5 years old, I haven't watched a game this year and probably won't. Not a boycott. Just know my team won't make it again. And the negative Nancy's are too discouraging. Especially bobble head bennet mumbling something about a vegas police action. That man's body language and speech is pure simpleton.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
drbrumley
Well-known member
Unless they were much, much better at football apparently.
Ouch!
If the boys had literally told him they wouldn't do it and then did it I can understand the action. But "I thought I had a deal" doesn't sound like he had that conversation.
The coach is like their parent and his judgement/discretion controls. If the school doesn't have a policy and doesn't countermand him then it's really his call, but he should take that responsibility and set a clear line.
A lot of veterans don't agree. I agree with him that at this point the issue is getting muddied and the conversation is taking place, which should be the point.
He's wrong. Consequences are fair when the rules are sure. I thought I had a deal and I'm a Marine so they should know doesn't sound like the lines were clear outside of his mind.
And I know a Marine lifer who completely disagrees with his stand and thinks this is more about right/left politics, resents being used as a chip in the game.
Lon
Well-known member
While there may be some (and I'd expect few) who have served, not taking offense, the offense is clear and thus and so, the WRONG offense to have made by the token. Kaepernick was in trouble with the law, wore pigs in police uniforms for socks, and wore a Castro/Malcom X shirt approving of their 'great minds' at his Q/A concerning the matters of socks and kneeling. I love a couple of the NFL players that are Christians, but I disagree with them over this matter too. Colin Kaepernick was not a nice guy, nor was this a noble protest to emulate. Anybody that is in trouble with the law, then protests the law? Yeah, no discernment. Chalk it up next to: "This ain't gonna fly."Cillian Zeal said:
Again, I hate to disagree with brothers, but I simply see this as both wrong-headed which leads to wrong-hearted in at least the initial if not poor misguided NFL dupes afterwards.
Seems a technicality or lawyer's ploy to me. While I applaud such, we really have to be just. The article says he made it clear. Whether he did or not, may be in question, but certainly he said "do not take a knee." When you do what the coach expressly forbids, you take whatever consequences, whether you 'knew' the outcome or not. "Do not take a knee" with clear directions how else to do a protest instead, was emphatically clear.
Lest we forget the point: The NFL players are responsible not only for their own consequences, but for inciting wrong behavior by example of young impressionable minds. Romans 8:28, but that doesn't mean no harm, no foul.
If some who have served don't take offense then the offense isn't inherent. If it isn't inherent then it is brought to the act by the person offended and not presented by the person who is protesting.
How?
A stupid thing to do.
Malcom X wasn't Castro. It's a peculiar mix. Which Malcom though? The one before his trip to Mecca or the altered man who came home with a broader and more compassionate understanding? The one that got him killed.
I'm more concerned with the message than the indisputable fact that the messenger (as with most messengers) is flawed.
Nothing wrong with principled difference.
Call it a turnip, if it satisfies, so long as you have an answer for it. Anyway, I've never punished Jack for violating an agreement he didn't make or for breaking a rule I hadn't imposed, along with a clear understanding of the consequences. Neither should this coach.
No it doesn't. It specifically says the thought he had a deal. Not, "I told them there would be no kneeling and if there was the offender would be removed from the team." See how easy that was to do? Took me a few seconds.
It's absolutely in question. He "thought" he had a deal. Not, he set a rule. On being clear:
"Like I said, I'm a former Marine. That just doesn't fly and they knew that."
That sounds like an assumption, like the deal he thought he had. They may know he doesn't agree with it. He certainly appears to have spoken about it, but that's not the same thing as forbidding them to take an knee or being clear on what would happen if they did.
If he'd said that he wouldn't have to wonder about a deal or relate his Marine resistance. He'd have simply said, "I told them not to take a knee and they decided to, so they'll take the consequences of their actions," (which also would need to have been set out).
Nothing in what you presented has him saying that and much of what is there suggests he never did.
If you just enforce the rules against top performers just as strictly, as against everybody else, then we wouldn't have to have discussions about how professional athletes are role models, so they really should behave better. They can do whatever they want, just enforce the rules against them, just as if they weren't top performers. Kappernick wasn't an NFL star when he started taking a knee, and breaking the rule, so it wouldn't have been a big loss for the Niners anyway, not on the field. What would've been the harm in dealing with him right then, instead of just letting this problem fester? What good's it done? Now the POTUS has to weigh in on it, because the NFL is a national legal monopoly, which means they better walk the line, or else, because they operate their otherwise illegal monopoly at the pleasure of the People of the United States, whom the POTUS and the SCOTUS and the Congress represent. This offense is in the President's bailiwick, so that's who's addressed them. "You're fired!" he suggests. :idunno:
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: There are native Americans that don't mind "Redskin" for example. Be consistent. In school we were in trouble if we tried to sit during the anthem. It didn't happen AND we were told why. When did those instructions and values change? Again, be consistent. Some see it as exactly that. The article quoted said you can't 'wall-paper' over the slight. See why such is important, if it is. As I said, you have a right to face consequences with your decisions. We are not talking about going to jail, just boycotting what is unacceptable.
Rape case he was involved with.
So there ARE unacceptable demonstrations?
3 1/2 years before his death.
That too. It is about protests regarding men in trouble with the law, being shot while breaking said law. Ferguson was the wrong way to protest. Disrespecting the flag is the wrong way to protest. Two wrongs never make a right.
Agreed and we have to follow those convictions. This one is divisive BUT the division is not white/black to most. It became American/Anti-American.
:nono: As I said (and I hold suspect whether you read the rest of the article), he clearly communicated there would be no kneeling and that they had other choices to pursue, not that one. Again, clear enough.
1) You probably have never told him not to kill anyone. 2) There are expectations greater than you that are known in his school. Whether you personally covered them would not excuse him. This part of the conversation is a bit disconnected for me, though.... I think you are saying expectations should be clear, is all, and I'm going back to saying "clear enough."
Not how I'm seeing it. "They knew" is clear enough. He also told them clearly that other avenues were acceptable and to do that instead.
Right now? It looks like you are arguing parenting styles. From the coaches words, these kids knew better. "Deal" has nothing to do with the clarity of their directions.
:nono: "Don't take a knee. There are consequences." Even without the latter, the first is clear AND consequences are just. "You disobeyed, you take the consequences for that."
Not true. He said to his group,"Don't take a knee" and specifically to these two kids, "Do it another way, not this way," You have incredibly clear directions and again, we are talking about the bad influence of the NFL, not getting caught up in this specific story, other than young impressionable minds get into trouble for following the poor example of their idols.
And unlike our present consideration, they'd have to swim upstream against a term coined as an insult. Just so, there are black people who use the N word, but it doesn't alter the point of the word.
I tend to be.
:idunno: We didn't play the anthem except at football games. People stood. Given it was after school hours I can't imagine it would be something the school could have much of a say in...more a social expectation.
I don't follow that. I know it was and remains customary. I've never had any particular instruction on the point, except by the fellow operating the public announcement apparatus.
I don't believe I ever stood for the anthem because someone forced me or mandated that I should, or from any threat of censure. I stood because I agreed with the idea of people recognizing our common foundation and its uncommon existence. I don't think most of the people who knelt in protest of our compact failing its essential duty to every citizen must then have different values. I said somewhere else that while I differ on the expression, I can't think of anything more American than standing on principle. Even if that means kneeling. Especially in the face of popular sentiment and contrary to authority.
You'll have to find the inconsistency before I'll reform a practice related.
I said as much. I also said that they bring the offense into it. I haven't heard a soul say anything disrespectful about veterans, first responders, or the foundations of our Republic. I have heard the accusation of that from people who aren't protesting. I think it's mistaken.
The article in question noted a coach who assumed a thing not necessarily in evidence, who appears to have punished kids for doing something he hadn't expressly forbidden. The "slight" is like beauty. One man sees it while another sees something else.
Boycott away, if you feel obliged to. I'm enjoying the season. It looks more competitive. The consequences of assigning to the protest a thing not inherent in it appears to be the loss of that season for people who otherwise enjoy the sport.
The one where police determined there was NO credible evidence that he did anything wrong? The one the prosecutor went on record to note (in light of the negative publicity aimed at Colin) as "exceptionally cleared"? Not much involvement in anything. And only one reason to drag it in here, three years removed.
Sure, though what I said was stupid was the socks.
The meeting took place in 1960. Malcom was murdered in 1965. So five years then. They spoke for around fifteen minutes, largely about racial inequality and the struggle involved. Castro stayed in Harlem. It made waves. No international leader had ever taken up lodgings there before. We know why. The two never met again. Four years after the meeting and a year before his murder, Malcom made a life and perspective altering trip to Mecca.
You can't really equate most unlawful protest with lawful protest. And there's nothing wrong about what these athletes are doing, nothing even inherently disrespectful.
Only if you invest it with that. It really isn't outside of the confines of the mind that insists on it.
I read what you presented. If there was something certain in it that you failed to present by all means abridge (and you should have to begin with) but I don't tend to chase videos or go to articles unless there's something in the representation I don't trust or I mean to test the source.
Went to the article. Two things appear fairly certain to me: a) he clearly indicated he didn't want them to kneel, b) he at no time expressly forbade them to or set out consequences for going against his feeling on the point. His thinking a deal was in place after the fact supports that reading and its inclusion makes no real sense otherwise.
I'm saying that a rule should be set out as such and that the consequences for violating it should be equally clear. Nothing else is responsible and penalizing the kids without it is wrong.
Or, young black kids who share the concern and frustration find courage in the public stand of others and join it.