• 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!

SJW organization known as the NFL makes plans to advance their agenda[W:42]

trouble13 said:
Being selective about it is partisan

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well they're not forcing the players to kneel, are they?

I can understand why the sending of the letter in support of criminal justice reform could be seen as a political act. However, Goodell seems to be focused on social welfare, rather than partisan politics. IMO, the right made their bed in that respect by orienting themselves against social welfare.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The problem with your OP is that because the left supports their right to protest, you're immediately assuming that it's a political issue and not a matter of right or wrong. Just because a political lean supports a certain matter does not make that particular matter any less right or wrong.

It's very much like the tendency of many on the right to assume news is "fake" when it's published by the NYT...not because the stories are in any way false or not factual, but because of the fact that it's the NYT who published it.

In other words, what y'all should be doing is looking at the facts FIRST, and decide what is right or wrong FIRST...and THEN look at which political lean is supporting the right or the wrong side.
Click to expand...
Is there any ring wing social issue that you can think of the the NFL supports? I can not. Now they are stating they indicating they are shifting even farther left with the SJW crusades. They are free to do so but they will do it without me.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Absentglare said:
Well they're not forcing the players to kneel, are they?

I can understand why the sending of the letter in support of criminal justice reform could be seen as a political act. However, Goodell seems to be focused on social welfare, rather than partisan politics. IMO, the right made their bed in that respect by orienting themselves against social welfare.
Click to expand...
Why did they stop players players from voluntarily memorializing fallen police officers? It looks partisan to me.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Why did they stop players players from voluntarily memorializing fallen police officers? It looks partisan to me.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue that the NFL isn't leaning liberal, it looks like they are. I just think part of that is that conservatives can be quick to oppose what liberals support, even when what they choose to oppose is social welfare rather than partisan politics.

I guess it gets tricky because democrats/liberals tend to politicize their social welfare pursuits. The right could have re-appropriated these goals for themselves, but they chose not to.

At the end of the day, i don't consider the NFL an overtly liberal, hard left, partisan organization. Just saying "i want to improve the community" has become a "liberal" position because of the history.
 
Absentglare said:
I wouldn't argue that the NFL isn't leaning liberal, it looks like they are. I just think part of that is that conservatives can be quick to oppose what liberals support, even when what they choose to oppose is social welfare rather than partisan politics.

I guess it gets tricky because democrats/liberals tend to politicize their social welfare pursuits. The right could have re-appropriated these goals for themselves, but they chose not to.

At the end of the day, i don't consider the NFL an overtly liberal, hard left, partisan organization. Just saying "i want to improve the community" has become a "liberal" position because of the history.
Click to expand...
I would not call them hard left either but I do see them solidly aligned with the left. As I said they do not show agreement with the right on anything.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Is there any ring wing social issue that you can think of the the NFL supports? I can not. Now they are stating they indicating they are shifting even farther left with the SJW crusades. They are free to do so but they will do it without me.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're still framing the issue in terms of 'right' and 'left' BEFORE deciding whether those issues are right or wrong. Decide FIRST the right-and-wrong sides of each issue...and THEN look at which political lean supports which side.

Full disclosure: I used to be a strong conservative - I happily voted for Reagan and Bush 41 (and I still hold Bush 41 to be a very underrated president - he was better than most people think). But when I saw what was happening with my fellow conservatives concerning Iran-Contra and the never-ending witch-hunt against the Clintons, it became obvious to me that they had stopped caring about right or wrong so much as party over country. This happened because of the power of the political pundits and the Religious Right, wherein they allowed Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell to become kingmakers within the GOP. No Republicans could get elected to national office if either Limbaugh or Falwell opposed them.

The Dems aren't perfect - far from it - but they are not locked into a never-ending circular firing squad of "I'm more liberal than the next guy". If you'll check the 1956 Republican Party Platform, except for LGBTQ rights, it's MUCH closer to today's Democratic Party platform than to today's GOP. In other words, YES, today's Democrats are closer to the 1956 Republicans than today's GOP is.

Perhaps you should read that party platform, so you can read what "conservative" really meant back in the days when America was led by Eisenhower.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You're still framing the issue in terms of 'right' and 'left' BEFORE deciding whether those issues are right or wrong. Decide FIRST the right-and-wrong sides of each issue...and THEN look at which political lean supports which side.

Full disclosure: I used to be a strong conservative - I happily voted for Reagan and Bush 41 (and I still hold Bush 41 to be a very underrated president - he was better than most people think). But when I saw what was happening with my fellow conservatives concerning Iran-Contra and the never-ending witch-hunt against the Clintons, it became obvious to me that they had stopped caring about right or wrong so much as party over country. This happened because of the power of the political pundits and the Religious Right, wherein they allowed Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell to become kingmakers within the GOP. No Republicans could get elected to national office if either Limbaugh or Falwell opposed them.

The Dems aren't perfect - far from it - but they are not locked into a never-ending circular firing squad of "I'm more liberal than the next guy". If you'll check the 1956 Republican Party Platform, except for LGBTQ rights, it's MUCH closer to today's Democratic Party platform than to today's GOP. In other words, YES, today's Democrats are closer to the 1956 Republicans than today's GOP is.

Perhaps you should read that party platform, so you can read what "conservative" really meant back in the days when America was led by Eisenhower.
Click to expand...
What your describing is the denifition of partisanship. They have that right and they can believe they are the moral high ground. I have the right to disagree and not support their agenda. This is the danger they run by taking sides if their goal is to attract the largest audience it can. They chose to be social crusaders and I chose that they do it on someone else's dime. I'm not obligated to agree with them.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
What your describing is the denifition of partisanship. They have that right and they can believe they are the moral high ground. I have the right to disagree and not support their agenda. This is the danger they run by taking sides if their goal is to attract the largest audience it can. They chose to be social crusaders and I chose that they do it on someone else's dime. I'm not obligated to agree with them.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Really? So it's not a matter of right or wrong when a certain demographic believes it has an urgent need to protest how that demographic is being treated by the government? Does that mean, then, that if many unarmed white nationalists were being killed by the police, and some of the NFL players were white nationalists who wanted to use their position to protest their treatment by the government, that you wouldn't see their right to protest as a matter of right and wrong, but only as a matter of partisanship?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really? So it's not a matter of right or wrong when a certain demographic believes it has an urgent need to protest how that demographic is being treated by the government? Does that mean, then, that if many unarmed white nationalists were being killed by the police, and some of the NFL players were white nationalists who wanted to use their position to protest their treatment by the government, that you wouldn't see their right to protest as a matter of right and wrong, but only as a matter of partisanship?
Click to expand...
The part that is partisan is the nfl not allowing it

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
FLASHBACK: NFL Banned Teams From Honoring Murdered Cops; Threatened Players Honoring 9/11 | Daily Wire

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting quote from your reference:

“Avery Williamson, a starting linebacker for the Tennessee team, hoped to wear a pair of specially-designed cleats at his team’s home opener Sunday against the Minnesota Vikings on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but he backed off when a league rep vowed to fine him for violating the league’s uniform code,” the New York Post reported.

So I looked into it and found a USA Today article that said:

The NFL is notoriously strict about its uniform code.

In August, the league prohibited the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a helmet sticker honoring local police.

Last season, the NFL fined two Pittsburgh Steelers players $5,787 each for first-offense uniform violations — running back DeAngelo Williams for wearing "Find the Cure" in his eye black to promote breast cancer awareness and cornerback William Gay for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness about domestic violence.

Ah. So you was SO sure that it was all about the NFL supporting "leftist causes"...but in reality, it was the NFL's long-running strict uniform code, under which they fined two other players for raising awareness about causes that the Left very much DOES care about.

Next time, please consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe it's not all about left vs. right, but more often it's about justice and equality and following the rules and simply doing the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Here's an interesting quote from your reference:

“Avery Williamson, a starting linebacker for the Tennessee team, hoped to wear a pair of specially-designed cleats at his team’s home opener Sunday against the Minnesota Vikings on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but he backed off when a league rep vowed to fine him for violating the league’s uniform code,” the New York Post reported.

So I looked into it and found a USA Today article that said:

The NFL is notoriously strict about its uniform code.

In August, the league prohibited the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a helmet sticker honoring local police.

Last season, the NFL fined two Pittsburgh Steelers players $5,787 each for first-offense uniform violations — running back DeAngelo Williams for wearing "Find the Cure" in his eye black to promote breast cancer awareness and cornerback William Gay for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness about domestic violence.

Ah. So you was SO sure that it was all about the NFL supporting "leftist causes"...but in reality, it was the NFL's long-running strict uniform code, under which they fined two other players for raising awareness about causes that the Left very much DOES care about.

Next time, please consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe it's not all about left vs. right, but more often it's about justice and equality and following the rules and simply doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
I know the reason they gave but they could of allowed it just like they are allowing the players to kneel. They chose not to. They could of allowed those players to express themselves.

We can also talk about tebow and the difference in coverage he received to taking a knee and the difference in support the league gave

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I know the reason they gave but they could of allowed it just like they are allowing the players to kneel. They chose not to. They could of allowed those players to express themselves.

We can also talk about tebow and the difference in coverage he received to taking a knee and the difference in support the league gave

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The NFL dress code already prevented anyone from making unauthorized changes. There was no such rule *requiring* players to stand for the anthem. There was a line saying they *should*, but 'should' is not the same thing as 'must'.

I'm retired Navy - I've done my time honoring our flag, and I can tell you this: requiring patriotism (such as standing for the anthem) of anyone not in the military...well, that's not patriotism. Patriotism that is mandatory is NOT patriotism. Instead, that's something you find over in North Korea or in the old USSR. Peer pressure to encourage patriotism is to be expected, but to make displays of patriotism mandatory and legally enforceable outside our military and government? No. That smacks of despotism.

Real patriotism happens when people want to follow. Problem is, many - perhaps most - blacks believe that even now, this nation does not welcome them. Yes, Obama was elected, but the killings of unarmed blacks by police still continue unabated (which, remember, is what the protests are about in the first place). If you really, truly want the kneeling players to stand for the anthem, then the RIGHT way to do that is to stand with them in their protests, to show that the killings of unarmed blacks by police is not acceptable, that police - as much as I personally and deeply respect their service - must also be held accountable for their actions.

Otherwise, if we just ignore the wrongs that are done to the black community by the relatively small percentage of cops who fire first and think later when confronting an unarmed black man, then we're just perpetuating the problem.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The NFL dress code already prevented anyone from making unauthorized changes. There was no such rule *requiring* players to stand for the anthem. There was a line saying they *should*, but 'should' is not the same thing as 'must'.

I'm retired Navy - I've done my time honoring our flag, and I can tell you this: requiring patriotism (such as standing for the anthem) of anyone not in the military...well, that's not patriotism. Patriotism that is mandatory is NOT patriotism. Instead, that's something you find over in North Korea or in the old USSR. Peer pressure to encourage patriotism is to be expected, but to make displays of patriotism mandatory and legally enforceable outside our military and government? No. That smacks of despotism.

Real patriotism happens when people want to follow. Problem is, many - perhaps most - blacks believe that even now, this nation does not welcome them. Yes, Obama was elected, but the killings of unarmed blacks by police still continue unabated (which, remember, is what the protests are about in the first place). If you really, truly want the kneeling players to stand for the anthem, then the RIGHT way to do that is to stand with them in their protests, to show that the killings of unarmed blacks by police is not acceptable, that police - as much as I personally and deeply respect their service - must also be held accountable for their actions.

Otherwise, if we just ignore the wrongs that are done to the black community by the relatively small percentage of cops who fire first and think later when confronting an unarmed black man, then we're just perpetuating the problem.
Click to expand...
Look I have heard all the arguments your making. Nothing in them convinces me that I am wrong about my opinion. Your entitled to yours and I'm entitled to mine. I'm not obligated to support the NFL or provide anyone with a reason why and nor are you or the players. Like you said this is not N. Korea. I am exercising my freedom of speech.

I don't like the behavior of the NFL and I have expressed that. They responded by doubling down and digging in. That is their perogative as it is mine to reject their organization.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Look I have heard all the arguments your making. Nothing in them convinces me that I am wrong about my opinion. Your entitled to yours and I'm entitled to mine. I'm not obligated to support the NFL or provide anyone with a reason why and nor are you or the players. Like you said this is not N. Korea. I am exercising my freedom of speech.

I don't like the behavior of the NFL and I have expressed that. They responded by doubling down and digging in. That is their perogative as it is mine to reject their organization.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you disliking the NFL and myself. You can disagree with us all you want - that is indeed your right. That being said, just as you have a right to peacefully protest to your heart's content, those NFL players also have a right to peacefully protest to their hearts' content. Again, when patriotism is made mandatory (outside the military), then it's no longer patriotism - it's despotism. That's something that much of the Right needs to relearn.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I have no problem with you disliking the NFL and myself. You can disagree with us all you want - that is indeed your right. That being said, just as you have a right to peacefully protest to your heart's content, those NFL players also have a right to peacefully protest to their hearts' content. Again, when patriotism is made mandatory (outside the military), then it's no longer patriotism - it's despotism. That's something that much of the Right needs to relearn.
Click to expand...
I don't dislike you, I disagree with you. I appriciate that you offer your difference of opinion respectfully and take the time to ask questions.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I have no problem with you disliking the NFL and myself. You can disagree with us all you want - that is indeed your right. That being said, just as you have a right to peacefully protest to your heart's content, those NFL players also have a right to peacefully protest to their hearts' content. Again, when patriotism is made mandatory (outside the military), then it's no longer patriotism - it's despotism. That's something that much of the Right needs to relearn.
Click to expand...

Not while they are working. Protest on their own time, imo
 
holbritter said:
Not while they are working. Protest on their own time, imo
Click to expand...

A solid argument can be made for that. But by the same token, "standing up for the anthem and flag" is not required by the NFL - it's "should" but not "required". Therefore, they are within their rights as contracted employees.
 
holbritter said:
Not while they are working. Protest on their own time, imo
Click to expand...
The NFL in its wisdom has decided they want to be a left wing activist organazation. I have chosen to move on from them because of it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
I actually LOVE this move by the NFL to continue to recommend the players "should" stand but still give them the freedom not too.

Now im already on record many times saying that the NFL gets to make the call what their employees do. If they would have "required" the players stand that would of been their choice and i'd support it. Its the NFL's company and employees :shrug:

But this is nice it shows they are listening to their employees and in a case where it doesn't interrupt the playing of football they choose to give the freedom for players voices to be heard and it shows great solidarity.

Of course in the future that "could" change but its really nice thing to do since they definitely dont have too. Good job NFL! Good for CK too more people are talking about the issue than ever before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom