The Colin Kaepernick Thread...

[peplaw06]

The Elliott bullshit suspension gives me way more motivation to protest then players kneeling during the anthem. But frankly it's all of this that has made the NFL product shit.

It use to be about football, and on Sunday I just want to be able to enjoy football instead of all of this other stuff.

Yep, Elliott's drama has a part to play in that.

It's kind of a circular thing... The NFL has become a gargantuan entity and as such they feel they have to saturate the media and get theirs as much as they can. Everyone seemed to want more and more. Now the oversaturation is shining a light on the unsavory sides of the league, and sours the die-hards who were fans from before this era.

Cuban was right... Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.

 

[peplaw06]

actually no. asked the kid at the drive-up window for three ketchups and received only two. too lazy to drive back. whole day ruined.

It'll be alright bb. You got another meal coming up in 6 hours.

 

[peplaw06]

PROTEST HOW I WANT YOU TO PROTEST!!!!

 

[bbgun]

How do you figure they win? If you stop watching them and the league folds, and the coddled, multi-millionaire ingrates would have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs... you win right?

Oh please. The league will never fold, but their bottom line will be adversely affected. They would "win" if they paid no price for driving people from the game. Some might lose some endorsement $, but most of the protesters are jags with no such prospects.

 

[peplaw06]

Oh please. The league will never fold, but their bottom line will be adversely affected. They would "win" if they paid no price for driving people from the game. Some might lose some endorsement $, but most of the protesters are jags with no such prospects.

So your intent is protest to the league by continuing to watch? Brilliant!

Oh, but you'll say your peace on DCU.com by god. That'll show em.

And if their bottom line is adversely affected, then that might speak loudly enough to them to change behaviors. That's not a small thing.

But I suspect no one here will do anything overt. You might watch fewer games, might buy less merchandise... but you'll still consume. Because it's more important to you to get your football fix than it is to show your disgust at the actions of the league. It's alright, just admit it. Acceptance is good for the soul.

 

[Genghis Khan]

It use to be about football

I think that sums up the problem here, whether you are talking about the protests or the Sherrif Goodell stuff or whatever else.

 

[Bluestar71]

Now that the NFL has established it respects the rights of players to engage in political protests under it's auspices what happens when some idiot comes up with an agenda they don't agree with? What if some demented white player decides he wants to show his political bent by giving a Heil Hitler salute before games? That's a ridiculous hypothetical but now that they've opened the doors to making the playing field a political arena as well don't they have to open it to all views? They've opened a Pandora's box they should have left sealed.

 

[bbgun]

So your intent is protest to the league by continuing to watch? Brilliant!

You're starting to sound like Trump. The idea that someone who is a beneficiary of a product or system should not be allowed to criticize aspects of it is the laziest sort of thinking imaginable. I never figured you for a "Love it or leave it!" type, yet here we are.

Oh, but you'll say your peace on DCU.com by god. That'll show em.

And if their bottom line is adversely affected, then that might speak loudly enough to them to change behaviors. That's not a small thing.

But I suspect no one here will do anything overt. You might watch fewer games, might buy less merchandise... but you'll still consume. Because it's more important to you to get your football fix than it is to show your disgust at the actions of the league. It's alright, just admit it. Acceptance is good for the soul.

Lower ratings + lower merchandise sales + lower ticket sales = the loss of millions and millions of dollars in potential revenue. If there's one thing the owners like more than winning it's making money. Will sucking up to the BLM crowd ultimately be worth it? Doubtful.

 

[peplaw06]

Now that the NFL has established it respects the rights of players to engage in political protests under it's auspices what happens when some idiot comes up with an agenda they don't agree with? What if some demented white player decides he wants to show his political bent by giving a Heil Hitler salute before games? That's a ridiculous hypothetical but now that they've opened the doors to making the playing field a political arena as well don't they have to open it to all views? They've opened a Pandora's box they should have left sealed.

So what do you want? No one should be allowed to speak at all unless it's pre-approved?

That's called prior restraint, and that's specifically what the first amendment prohibits the government from doing. And no, it wouldn't be the government doing it in this set of circumstances. But if we accept the idea that employers can impose prior restraints on speech based on their own beliefs, how long before we accept extending that ability to the government?

I say the good outweighs the bad... Let the few crazies and nuts do a heil Hitler salute... They'll be ostracized and taken from their platform, and we'll move on.

You have to let speech be free, so you can identify the crazies.

 

[bbgun]

Silly boy. The NFL only allows black power salutes.

 

[Smitty]

That's called prior restraint, and that's specifically what the first amendment prohibits the government from doing. And no, it wouldn't be the government doing it in this set of circumstances. But if we accept the idea that employers can impose prior restraints on speech based on their own beliefs, how long before we accept extending that ability to the government?

I understand your point and generally agree that crazy white nationalist talk is gonna be rejected by the marketplace of ideas, but I think this is a bit of a stretch.

 

[UncleMilti]

I don't think a football game is a place to try and get your message across, especially when it involves our flag and our veterans.

Its pretty simple for me....I would buy the "message" a bit more if we had a commissioner and a league that truly put their money where their mouth is. The truth is they are frauds. From taking away the right of a player to celebrate in the end zone, to not allowing fair and impartial hearings on players who violate the NFL rules, to staying relatively quiet about DV incidents, dog fighting, etc....its comical to suddenly see Goodell stand up and tout the rights of the players to protest as they see fit.

That will all change soon, because I think a lot of America has had it with the spoiled athletes and multi-billionaire owners being OK with what they see as disrespecting our veterans and flag.

The owners and players being multi-millionaires also leads to no empathy from the avg Joe...esp Goodell with his 45 million a year salary. These people have the means and methods to get a much more powerful message out to their local communities and PD's across the US that would bring a helluva lot more change than simply disrespecting the flag at every football game. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[peplaw06]

You're starting to sound like Trump. The idea that someone who is a beneficiary of a product or system should not be allowed to criticize aspects of it is the laziest sort of thinking imaginable. I never figured you for a "Love it or leave it!" type, yet here we are.

Because I said "brilliant?"

I didn't say you couldn't criticize the league. I just think it's probably not going to accomplish much. A personal boycott will accomplish a lot more in my opinion. You can say all you want about it. And I don't get the mentality behind saying you hate something so much, and have spent all this time and energy on it, when you could just avoid it and all the wasted time and energy.

My wife has knee troubles. She's had a scope done and has asked for a knee replacement, but they won't do it because she's too young. She loves playing slow-pitch softball, and she still tries playing from time to time. She'll hit the ball, but can't run. She hobbles down the line to first and if she somehow makes it, we get a pinch runner for her. Inevitably after she plays, her knee will swell. I get agitated when she plays, because I know what it will likely do to her, and I know she's going to be down for a few days. When we went into the doctor's office, she asked if she could still play softball. He was like, you don't need my permission to play softball... you can play all you want. But your knee isn't going to respond well. So if you choose to play, then don't complain when the knee is hurting.

I think it's analogous. It's hard to give up something you love, I understand that. But if it causes you pain or stress, then change something... Either change how you react to it, or get rid of it.

The NFL isn't a perfect league... as we've had ample evidence of in the last 10 years. There are probably a hundred things I'd change about the league if I could. But I can't change it, and I still love it, despite all the problems I see.

I used to rail on Jerry a TON. I've significantly curtailed my rants on him, because no matter what I do, I can't control what he does, or his position with the team. Accepting that has led to a happier life. I don't get irritated as much when I hear him speak. It's the same with Trump. He's a blowhard, but a blowhard is gonna blowhard. I didn't vote for him before, and I won't next time either. But he did win. And I have to accept that, or I'm going to be wasting time and energy on something I have no control over.

The serenity prayer says, "grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." If you can change it, then change it. If you can't change it, give it up. If you can't give it up, then accept it the way it is.

 

[NoDak]

I am curious, though. Between you and [MENTION=49]fortsbest[/MENTION], why does this bother you so much? Why is it such an uproar if black players kneel during the anthem?

I know you didn't ask me, but felt compelled to chime in here. The actual protest itself doesn't bother me at all. I don't like the fact they chose to do it during our nation's National Anthem, but whatever. A peaceful protest is a peaceful protest, and they are not hurting anybody, or causing any damage. But one thing in your statement I do take umbrage with, though. I feel the exact same way when somebody of any other race does the same thing. It is not a black thing.

 

[Bluestar71]

So what do you want? No one should be allowed to speak at all unless it's pre-approved?

That's called prior restraint, and that's specifically what the first amendment prohibits the government from doing. And no, it wouldn't be the government doing it in this set of circumstances. But if we accept the idea that employers can impose prior restraints on speech based on their own beliefs, how long before we accept extending that ability to the government?

I say the good outweighs the bad... Let the few crazies and nuts do a heil Hitler salute... They'll be ostracized and taken from their platform, and we'll move on.

You have to let speech be free, so you can identify the crazies.

Prior restraint is exactly the answer. The NFL is running a business not a political forum and if they want to keep those billions flowing they should work on enticing viewers not alienating them. And that's exactly what happens when they allow politics to run amok.

And that's one of the most ridiculous slippery slope arguments I've ever read. Newsflash: employers have and have always had the power to police the speech of employees as a condition of employment and most of them do so including the anally retentive NFL. As I pointed out earlier they restrained the Cowboys from wearing a sticker on their helmets supporting cops and they're fining players for wearing shoes that memorialize 9/11. It seems free speech is allowed only by the league when bashing this country is the issue put forward.

 

[Smitty]

Prior restraint is exactly the answer. The NFL is running a business not a political forum and if they want to keep those billions flowing they should work on enticing viewers not alienating them. And that's exactly what happens when they allow politics to run amok.

And that's one of the most ridiculous slippery slope arguments I've ever read. Newsflash: employers have and have always had the power to police the speech of employees as a condition of employment and most of them do so including the anally retentive NFL. As I pointed out earlier they restrained the Cowboys from wearing a sticker on their helmets supporting cops and they're fining players for wearing shoes that memorialize 9/11. It seems free speech is allowed only by the league when bashing this country is the issue put forward.

Yeah, the "we can't allow employers to exercise prior restraint on employees free speech" is a bizarre angle. It's like.... pretty much standard procedure.

 

[Texas Ace]

I know you didn't ask me, but felt compelled to chime in here. The actual protest itself doesn't bother me at all. I don't like the fact they chose to do it during our nation's National Anthem, but whatever. A peaceful protest is a peaceful protest, and they are not hurting anybody, or causing any damage. But one thing in your statement I do take umbrage with, though. I feel the exact same way when somebody of any other race does the same thing. It is not a black thing.

No, it's good.

I'm glad you chimed in and it was really more of a question to those who are strongly opposed to this action. I just didn't wanna tag a whole bunch of people individually, so I went with the 2 members who had most recently commented on it in the thread.

And I've had issues with people of my own race protesting certain things, so I completely understand what you mean.

My parents and myself have largely always been Republican.

I watched my dad go from having nothing when he came into this country into a successful middle-class American. My dad takes pride in being an American citizen and he's the last person who wants to hear excuses of how one cannot make it in this country because you don't have the resources to succeed.

So when I see Latin Americans holding rallies at city halls crying about how they HAVE to be given this or that, it bothers me. All that you deserve is to be treated fairly, nothing more. It irritates the shit out of me when people ask to have things done here like they are in their countries.

"Hey, you can't do that because it offends us!"



If you don't like that you can't celebrate Cinco De Mayo, then go to Mexico.

Having said that, I think lots of whites confuse this with minorities, especially those from the black community, being treated unfairly and unjustly and having to go the extra mile just to have a concern addressed or heard that the average white person never has to worry about. Just because these groups are known to bitch and moan about faux disrespect doesn't mean that all of our concerns of social inequality aren't genuine.

This protest to me is a good example. I totally understand why you or someone else would dislike seeing them kneel for the anthem, but I also understand that they can't just hold a community gathering because that gets them nowhere.

They have to put it in people's faces and make them uncomfortable in order to have their voices heard sometimes.

 

[peplaw06]

Prior restraint is exactly the answer. The NFL is running a business not a political forum and if they want to keep those billions flowing they should work on enticing viewers not alienating them. And that's exactly what happens when they allow politics to run amok.

Politics running amok?

The NFL didn't ask for this. The president put them all on blast and they responded. And by taking a knee or staying in the locker room, it's now politics run amok? Drama queen much?

And that's one of the most ridiculous slippery slope arguments I've ever read. Newsflash: employers have and have always had the power to police the speech of employees as a condition of employment and most of them do so including the anally retentive NFL. As I pointed out earlier they restrained the Cowboys from wearing a sticker on their helmets supporting cops and they're fining players for wearing shoes that memorialize 9/11. It seems free speech is allowed only by the league when bashing this country is the issue put forward.

Its not ridiculous... it just makes you uncomfortable to think about it that way. Maybe you need to be reminded that the Supreme Court has had to rule that burning the flag is protected speech. So somewhere a group of people enacted a law that burning the flag was a crime. So, no, it's not a stretch to think that potentially there could be a law passed saying how you had to stand when the anthem is played, and that it would be generally accepted?

I asked bbgun this, but I'll ask you too. Are you saying that you are only offended with this protest because they happen to be employees? If it was just random joe fan in the stands in front of you who stayed seated while the anthem was played, would you still be offended? Of course you would... The employee distinction is just a pretext. The underlying sentiment is you don't want people to say something that hurts your feelings.

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, the "we can't allow employers to exercise prior restraint on employees free speech" is a bizarre angle. It's like.... pretty much standard procedure.

Standard procedure? No it's not.

 

[Smitty]

Standard procedure? No it's not.

I don't know where you work but I have been well aware at every job I've ever had that if I say something in public my employer disagrees with strongly enough, I would be fired. That unspoken danger seems like the epitome of prior restraint to me.