• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Raven ray Rice suspended 2 games

On sports television today--it's an easy Google.

That Super Bowl was last year and was a disaster for the NFL--setting it back several years.

I can't speak to this .

One week doesn't make a trend friend. And no it wasn't last year, it was 2014, and it was the most watched super bowl ever. So successful that they're even pondering having a cold super bowl in Minnesota (a horrible idea mind you, but nonetheless).
 
And you know the one person who is really going to suffer for all this? The NOW wife. Her meal ticket and life of happiness just got flushed down the toilet because everyone else thought they should feel bad for her. She didn't want any of this.
Are you saying that wives should internalize this so as to be accused of far worse, as others women have been by other posters today?
At 34-YOA, Rice should have plenty in the bank since that is yer direct concern.

This film is no different than politicians getting secretly taped as Romney and his 47%.

The difference is that Romney is an honorable man and has not been caught on
tape knocking his future wife out, kicking her when she was down and draggin her on the flloor .
 
And no it wasn't last year, it was 2014, and it was the most watched super bowl ever.
So yes it was last "year" since it was LAST SEASON.
I'll let others judge my responses .
 
So successful that they're even pondering having a cold super bowl in Minnesota
(a horrible idea mind you, but nonetheless).

They're already having a cold Super Bowl this year in New York .
 
You're assuming she started it. Do you have evidence of that?

Watch the video before you embarrass yourself here.

Too late!
 
You seriously don't get it at all. I'm 5'10 215 and in similar shape to Ray...

:lamo :lamo

It was worth reading this entire thread to read this. :lamo

If this is the case, there is a job opening for you in Baltimore. :lamo
 
The league is a business, and it has a right to protect its image.

Playing pro football is not a right. It's a privilege.

I did not say they were not within their legal rights to do it - I simply stated that I don't like it.

You disagree - fine.
 
It's good that Rice was released. He acted like a bully and was caught. Too many cameras today to act like a fool in public.
 
And an employer has the right to fire employees for any legal reason in an at-will state....and for cause in other states. This may well fall under 'cause,' esp. if he gets charged.

Edit: sorry, didnt process the last part of your post earlier. Concur but also still see the League having vested business and image interests.

I am not saying the league acted illegally...I am quite sure that the labor agreement stipulated that they can do exactly what they are doing.

I simply do not personally believe that any large corporation has any business dictating the private lives of it's employees...no matter how disgusting their actions.

Were I the player's union head there is no way (imo) I would have given them that power in the labor agreement.


The rest is not directed at you per se - just a general statement.


Also, the NFL does not even own the Ravens. They are a seperately owned franchise.

Only the owner of that team - imo - should have the power to suspend a player for his/her off field activities if they could make a case that those activities were hurting the profits of the franchise.


Additionally, what if the owner of the team AND the fans had no problem with something a player did (granted, it would probably not be this case)? What if they were prepared to forgive and forget OR they thought it was none of their business? They have no say but the league - who do not own the team - can arbitrarily state what a player can and cannot do.

That is not the bottom line any longer - that is a moral issue.

I mean, where does this end?

Will the NFL eventually not allow it's players to go to certain bars? To gamble? To date women that have criminal records or who have 'iffy' backgrounds? To be involved with certain religions? To engage in S&M (or other unusual) sex with consenting adults? TO have political opinions that the majority of Americans do not agree with? The list could be endless.


IMO, it should be none of the NFL League Office's business what a player does in his/her spare time. NONE.
 
Last edited:
:lamo :lamo

It was worth reading this entire thread to read this. :lamo

If this is the case, there is a job opening for you in Baltimore. :lamo

Lol. I don't have the athletic ability that ray has. I'm also too old to be a running back at 31. ;)
 
It's good that Rice was released. He acted like a bully and was caught. Too many cameras today to act like a fool in public.

How was he acting like a bully?
 
Tell that to Donte Stallworth. Or Josh Brent. Both of whom drove under the influence and killed a person. There was still room in the NFL for them.

Ray Rice will most likely back next year with a team that won't care about the controversy.

Career over. Future over. And now that the check just dried up, marriage over.
 
I am not saying the league acted illegally...I am quite sure that the labor agreement stipulated that they can do exactly what they are doing.

I simply do not personally believe that any large corporation has any business dictating the private lives of it's employees...no matter how disgusting their actions.

Were I the player's union head there is no way (imo) I would have given them that power in the labor agreement.


Also, the NFL does not even own the Ravens. They are a seperately owned franchise.

Only the owner of that team - imo - should have the power to suspend a player for his/her off field activities if they could make a case that those activities were hurting the profits of the franchise.

Well, I'm not sure how a 'big corp' with a board of directors varies that much from a single business owner with respect to this issue, because I see them with the same concerns: the bottom line and the reputation of their business. It is a judgement call for them....which I think individuals and for something like this, also corps...reasonably have the ability & choice to make.
 
Lol. I don't have the athletic ability that ray has. I'm also too old to be a running back at 31. ;)

I figured you were talking about size and weight. I am sure you are in great shape; I didn't mean this comment to be a slap. Don't feel bad, I am about as athletic as a snail.

What I found funny is that so many people in great shape and who are good athletes themselves have no idea at the difference between themselves and a professional football player like Ray Rice.
 
Tell that to Donte Stallworth. Or Josh Brent. Both of whom drove under the influence and killed a person. There was still room in the NFL for them.

Ray Rice will most likely back next year with a team that won't care about the controversy.

If he was younger, sure, but at his age and with his declining performance on the field I doubt it.
 
How was he acting like a bully?

I have always felt like a man who hits someone who is inferior with the force Rice did is a bully. Once when my mother was in her late 70's she attacked my wife with a telephone. Now, my wife could have taken that phone and beat my mother to death. Instead, my wife realized my mother was in the early stages of senility, was frail and therefore acted like a civilized person. She disarmed my mom and calmly took control of the situation.

By comparison, a friend of mine had a neighbor woman attack him one morning while he was getting in his car to go to work. She had a 10 or 12 inch butcher knife in her hand. He knocked her out. In my opinion, he was not acting like a bully.
 
Additionally, what if the owner of the team AND the fans had no problem with something a player did (granted, it would probably not be this case)? What if they were prepared to forgive and forget OR they thought it was none of their business? They have no say but the league - who do not own the team - can arbitrarily state what a player can and cannot do.

That is not the bottom line any longer - that is a moral issue.

I mean, where does this end?

Will the NFL eventually not allow it's players to go to certain bars? To gamble? To date women that have criminal records or who have 'iffy' backgrounds? To be involved with certain religions? To engage in S&M (or other unusual) sex with consenting adults? TO have political opinions that the majority of Americans do not agree with? The list could be endless.


IMO, it should be none of the NFL League Office's business what a player does in his/her spare time. NONE.

Well, I'm not sure how a 'big corp' with a board of directors varies that much from a single business owner with respect to this issue, because I see them with the same concerns: the bottom line and the reputation of their business. It is a judgement call for them....which I think individuals and for something like this, also corps...reasonably have the ability & choice to make.
.......

Including boards of trustees, and those that are in the body that governs the organization (that the team must comply with) and must keep it's interests in mind.
 
Well, I'm not sure how a 'big corp' with a board of directors varies that much from a single business owner with respect to this issue, because I see them with the same concerns: the bottom line and the reputation of their business. It is a judgement call for them....which I think individuals and for something like this, also corps...reasonably have the ability & choice to make.

My point is, let the fans decide through their wallets...not the league to decide based on some sort of moral belief system they have developed on their own.

If the fans boycott games (or enough of them publicly threaten to) because of this Rice dickhead...then the owner should dump him (which apparently they did).

But the NFL banned him before they even heard from the fans.

Imo, it should be none of the league office's business to pass morality judgement on it's employees.

I realize that legally the NFL was within it's mandate to do it...I just don't like it and think it is a dangerous slope.


You disagree - fine.
 
Last edited:
My point is, let the fans decide through their wallets...not the league to decide based on some sort of moral belief system they have developed on their own.

If the fans boycott games (or enough of them publicly threaten to) because of this Rice dickhead...then the owner should dump him (which apparently they did).

But the NFL banned him before they even heard from the fans.

Imo, it should be none of the league office's business to pass morality judgement on it's employees.

I realize that legally the NFL was within it's mandate to do it...I just don't like it and think it is a dangerous slope.

Why wait for that? The damage could be done. The success of the organization...the League...is indeed their business.

As is the judgement call/choice on the direction and reputation they want the teams in the league to uphold.

Those decisions include entire TV networks and commercial sponsors. Waiting for fans that are disgusted with non-action could be very very damaging.
 
Why wait for that? The damage could be done. The success of the organization...the League...is indeed their business.

As is the judgement call/choice on the direction and reputation they want the teams in the league to uphold.

Those decisions include entire TV networks and commercial sponsors. Waiting for fans that are disgusted with non-action could be very very damaging.


I have already stated my case.

You don't agree - fine.

I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind.

What is the point in going on and on about it?

I am done on this for now.


Good day.
 
I have always felt like a man who hits someone who is inferior with the force Rice did is a bully. Once when my mother was in her late 70's she attacked my wife with a telephone. Now, my wife could have taken that phone and beat my mother to death. Instead, my wife realized my mother was in the early stages of senility, was frail and therefore acted like a civilized person. She disarmed my mom and calmly took control of the situation.

By comparison, a friend of mine had a neighbor woman attack him one morning while he was getting in his car to go to work. She had a 10 or 12 inch butcher knife in her hand. He knocked her out. In my opinion, he was not acting like a bully.

Fair enough. My main argument in this thread is that the culture of "never hitting a woman" is short sighted and does more harm than good. I'm convinced that women are getting more aggressive and if men continue to do nothing but take it or restrain women that are getting aggressive the situation will only get worse. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself, and all this calculation people expect people to do is not at all realistic. Whatever though, I'm tired of this thread now.
 
Fair enough. My main argument in this thread is that the culture of "never hitting a woman" is short sighted and does more harm than good. I'm convinced that women are getting more aggressive and if men continue to do nothing but take it or restrain women that are getting aggressive the situation will only get worse. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself, and all this calculation people expect people to do is not at all realistic. Whatever though, I'm tired of this thread now.

First drunk driving is ok, and now you say knocking a woman out is ok.

Quite the twisted place you live in.
 
Back
Top Bottom