User Tag List

Page 8 of 35 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 342

Thread: A new dead horse to beat: What are your reactions to the NFL's anti-kneeling rule?

  1. #71
    Senior Member townsend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,370
    Quote Originally Posted by lostxn View Post
    Fox News certainly portrayed him that way. Some people fell for that...
    I like to point people towards PBS Frontline’s “The Divided States of America” because it did a great job of showing how right wing media and the Republicans figured out a way to turn the most innocuous decision into proof that he was a socialist monster who wanted to send your grandma to the death panels.

  2. #72
    Senior Member deadrise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by pdom View Post
    not sure why talking about Trump now with this issue. NFL did this policy to save their own ass, not for Trump to call off the dogs. Trump said his piece last year and left it at that. He just stated opinion.
    No, he said just a few days ago that players who didn't comply should "get out of the country."

  3. #73
    No longer a fan midswat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,136
    Quote Originally Posted by townsend View Post
    Itís a reasonable point, but not really relevant because the rule wasnít minted in response to a civil rights protest, NBA didnít pick a side on an existing controversy.
    But they did. See Chris Jackson, aka Muhammen Abdul-Rauf

    Like Kaepernick, Abdul-Rauf said he viewed the American flag as a symbol of oppression and racism. Abdul-Rauf also said standing for the anthem would conflict with his Muslim faith. ďYou canít be for God and for oppression. Itís clear in the Quran, Islam is the only way,Ē he said at the time. ďI donít criticize those who stand, so donít criticize me for sitting.Ē

    On March 12, 1996, the NBA suspended Abdul-Rauf for one game, citing a rule that players must line up in a ďdignified postureĒ for the anthem. It cost him almost $32,000 of his $2.6 million salary. The players union supported Abdul-Rauf, and he quickly reached a compromise with the league that allowed him to stand and pray with his head down during the anthem. But at the end of the season, the Nuggets traded Abdul-Rauf, who averaged a team-high 19.2 points and 6.8 assists, to the Sacramento Kings.

    His playing time dropped. He lost his starting spot. After his contract expired in 1998, Abdul-Rauf couldnít get so much as a tryout with any NBA team. He was just 29 years old.

    Chris Jackson sat during the national anthem, citing the flag representing oppression (just like kaep). NBA fined him and suspended him. Players association went to bat for him and the commissioner made him stand. Jackson agreed only if he could pray during the anthem. He was blackballed a la Kaep and eventually out of the league a few years later.

    So you're absolutely wrong on that. Chris Jackson wanted to exercise his "civil rights." League said nope, you gonna stand.

    Question: Why weren't you or anyone else outraged back then? Maybe because the MSM didn't tell you to be. So many on the far left lack the ability to think for themselves and instead feel outrage or offended when directed to.


    Now, why I personally don't have an ounce of sympathy for the proponents of this protest, outside of the whole "owners have a right to not want employees to protest in uniform/while working."


    First... lets look at symbolism:

    Kaepernick, like Jackson, said the flag/anthem represented oppression. Whereas the flag/anthem represents liberty, freedom, sacrifice, lost loved ones, the military, etc to the general public. Most people who live in this country, love this country.

    CK is willfully ignorant to that and wants to shit on that symbol anyways. Meanwhile, he expectes people to respect his protest because he suggests it symbolizes the right for equality.

    But just as he doesn't agree with the symbolism of the American flag, the lions share of the general public does not agree with the symbolism of his protest.

    Like pdom said earlier (paraphrasing), if your form of protest pisses off the masses, it won't be effective.


    Second.... the purpose of a protest is what: Bring attention to a cause? Fair enough. They did that.

    Now what? What have you done to advance the cause? Is the intent just to continue kneeling? How lazy is that? Congratulations: you've had the spotlight drawn on your supposed cause for going on two years now. How have you, as protesters and advocates for this supposed cause, worked to improve the situation? I guarantee very little is being done by anyone.


    Third... Very little is being done outside of anyone BUT the NFL. Congrats again, you're protest let to the NFL voluntarily donating 100 million dollars for social justice causes. You, as a protester, essentially "won." So why is there still this want to kneel?


    Fourth.... as NFL players, you don't need to kneel - a clear symbol of disrespect to the vast majority of your audience - to get your message out. Most NFL players have a strong social media presence. A lot of NFL players can utilize this, as well as interviews and press conferences, etc, to advocate for their cause. Think of how effective this has been in the past. How much money did JJ Watt raise this past year based almost entirely off of twitter.


    If you so strongly believe in your cause, and you truly want to foster change, then do this:

    • Realize that you're original cause, by virtue of your method of protest, has been lost.
    • Recognize that the American flag and the National Anthem are things most Americans hold dear to their hearts, and intentional or not, your method is offensive to them.
    • Appreciate the fact that the owners, who have given you opportunities to acquire wealth beyond what most people ever acquire, do not want you protesting in their uniforms.
    • Be grateful that the NFL has donated such a substantial amount of money to further your cause.
    • Use other platforms afforded to you because of your fame, to get your message out.

  4. The following 3 users like this post:


  5. #74
    No longer a fan midswat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,136
    Quote Originally Posted by deadrise View Post
    No, he said just a few days ago that players who didn't comply should "get out of the country."
    No, he said "maybe they shouldn't be in the country."

    As in, if 'Murica is so racist and oppressive and these players hate it that much, why are they here? Maybe they could find another country that they can love and be proud to live in.

    Probably because in doing so, they'd lose the lifestyle and freedoms and fortunes this horrible oppressive country lets them live.

  6. #75
    Senior Member lostxn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by midswat View Post
    But they did. See Chris Jackson, aka Muhammen Abdul-Rauf
    [INDENT]
    Like Kaepernick, Abdul-Rauf said he viewed the American flag as a symbol of oppression and racism.
    The reason the basketball player didn't become a big issue in the MSM is likely because the president of the United States didn't weigh in on it and the NBA worked with the player's association to come up with a solution. Further BBall is a less popular sport and the Nuggets a less profile team than the 49ers. Not to mention Kap plays the most high profile position in American sports and started in a Superbowl. They did talk about this whole thing on ESPN a ton. But yeah, media bias and stuff.

    The guy's career was still torpedoed. Again, I draw a distinction between consequence free speech and free speech. I really don't have a problem with owner's not wanting to employ people who can't stand for the flag. That is their right as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by midswat View Post
    Question: Why weren't you or anyone else outraged back then? Maybe because the MSM didn't tell you to be. So many on the far left lack the ability to think for themselves and instead feel outrage or offended when directed to.
    Man you really are even-handed. You clearly can see both sides of an issue and don't live in your bubble. Well done.
    Last edited by lostxn; 05-26-2018 at 08:23 PM.

  7. The following user likes this post:


  8. #76
    Senior Member townsend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,370
    It’s true, I should have been a better more informed activist in 1996 when I was 11.

    I do think it would be the right thing to do for the NBA players & coaches to break the hell out of that rule. Dare them to enforce it.

    Society should have been angrier about oppression in the 90s. It wasn’t MSM that changed it, it was cell phone footage of cops executing unarmed black men, and the “thin blue line” that said it was their right. Right wing spin used to have a lot more traction in the public discourse until it was confronted with evidence.

  9. #77
    Senior Member Angrymesscan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,313
    I’d say the main difference between the what the NBA did in the 90’s and the NFL now is that the NBA already had a rule in place for standing during the anthem which was broken by that player, while the NFL wrote it after the protests
    @Rev supporter

  10. #78
    Senior Member deadrise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by midswat View Post
    No, he said "maybe they shouldn't be in the country."

    As in, if 'Murica is so racist and oppressive and these players hate it that much, why are they here? Maybe they could find another country that they can love and be proud to live in.

    Probably because in doing so, they'd lose the lifestyle and freedoms and fortunes this horrible oppressive country lets them live.

    So your implication is that people who dissent or protest against what they believe to be social wrongs or injustices should leave the country instead? Isn't dissenting or protesting one of the most basic of American rights?

    The First Amendment puts it this way:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    I don't see anything in there about leaving the country.

  11. #79
    Senior Member townsend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,370
    The fundamental conceit of the “If you don’t like it than get the heeeeelll out” premise that Republicans love so much is that elderly, white, conservatives are fundamentally more American and have more rights to claim ownership of the country than citizens that protest.

    Once again there’s a LOT of history behind the idea of a certain demographic being “true” Americans.

  12. #80
    No longer a fan midswat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,136
    Quote Originally Posted by deadrise View Post
    So your implication is that people who dissent or protest against what they believe to be social wrongs or injustices should leave the country instead? Isn't dissenting or protesting one of the most basic of American rights?

    The First Amendment puts it this way:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    I don't see anything in there about leaving the country.
    If I don't like a movie, I'll leave the theater. If I don't like a restaurant, I won't eat there. If I don't like a neighborhood, I'll move. Et cetera.

    If you hate America, and think it so oppressive then consider leaving. That's my opinion. And this is the last post I'll make on said opinion in this thread.

    Now go back and read my long winded post above over and over until you brainwashed left wing mind grasps why (a) the NFL was fully justified in implementing the rule, (b) why the protests are ineffective, and (c) how the players are essentially lazy and in the wrong for continuing to want to kneel.

    kthxbai

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •