Jump to content

Boycott Both Bengals vs. Browns Games


Rick

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Would this be acceptable ?

NFL players were not required to be on the field during the playing of the U.S. national anthem prior to 2009. The DoD paid for patriotic displays on the field. Yes. It's time to revert back to pre 2009 and leave the players off the field while the anthem is played and the flag is paraded.

The NFL players who want to continue their display of solidarity can now do so with some of that entitled money and privileged status. The message will continue to be delivered without any perceived slight towards the flag or anthem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Numbers said:

Would this be acceptable ?

NFL players were not required to be on the field during the playing of the U.S. national anthem prior to 2009. The DoD paid for patriotic displays on the field. Yes. It's time to revert back to pre 2009 and leave the players off the field while the anthem is played and the flag is paraded.

The NFL players who want to continue their display of solidarity can now do so with some of that entitled money and privileged status. The message will continue to be delivered without any perceived slight towards the flag or anthem.

Not sure if this is restating what you said or not but what I suggested elsewhere is simply to do the player intros AFTER the National Anthem and presentation of the Colors.  They are not even on the field for the ceremonies.  If any fans choose not to participate, they can skin their own cats by remaining in the concession areas or sitting.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is restating what you said or not but what I suggested elsewhere is simply to do the player intros AFTER the National Anthem and presentation of the Colors.  They are not even on the field for the ceremonies.  If any fans choose not to participate, they can skin their own cats by remaining in the concession areas or sitting.


This is the same basically. I would go further and not begin televising until after the ceremonies. Prevents this celebration from being hijacked by the DoD or the players.

Sent from my 2PS64 using Go-Bengals.com mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Numbers said:

 


This is the same basically. I would go further and not begin televising until after the ceremonies. Prevents this celebration from being hijacked by the DoD or the players.

Sent from my 2PS64 using Go-Bengals.com mobile app
 

 

Boycotting games simply does not work because, as said before, most of the seats are paid for via season tickets in advance, anyway, and it does not make any difference if there is anyone in them or not.  I also wonder how many people calling for the boycott even go to games or are the least bit interest in pro football.

Also does not take into account TV revenue, advertising at the fields, etc.

 

I did see where Von Miller had an endorsement cancelled.  Not that would get the players' attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, High School Harry said:

Boycotting games simply does not work because, as said before, most of the seats are paid for via season tickets in advance, anyway, and it does not make any difference if there is anyone in them or not.  I also wonder how many people calling for the boycott even go to games or are the least bit interest in pro football.

Also does not take into account TV revenue, advertising at the fields, etc.

 

I did see where Von Miller had an endorsement cancelled.  Not that would get the players' attention.

What I am proposing is not a boycott but simply rearranging the schedule of events. 

 

1.  Players don't take the field until after the ceremonies are completed. 

2.  Do not begin televising until after the ceremonies are completed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Homer_Rice said:

I suppose I could say there are equivalencies to be drawn on from both sides.

 

Everyone's perception of another person is subject to change.  Right or wrong.  Good or Bad.  Just because one person of a particular color/race is not happy with another person of a different color/race does not make that person bad or a racist.  I love what Ali did to the establishment in the 60s.  Ali continued his affiliation with the Sisters of Charity (Catholic) long after his acceptance of Islam. 

 

Note:  Homer, the link you provided could very well be the beginning of the end.  If people continue to regurgitate hate we will never have peace.  For those that are proponents of violence we will never have peace.  Someone needs to start providing a solution to the problem rather than praying or kneeling on the sidelines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have an immense amount of respect for Ali. The first real political disagreement I had with my father was over Ali's draft controversy. And while Dad and I weren't conscious of it at the time, Street breaks down the divide that was between us pretty well. What Street doesn't say--and I think this is important--is that there are generational differences which are significant and relevant when these kinds of politico-cultural kerfuffles arise. In this instance, Dad was a WWII vet who was a quintessential 50s "corporate man." He was a conformist and his views were an honest reflection of his past experience. I was a kid growing up in the turbulent 60s/early 70s and my views were shaped by that turbulence. Was this a contention between equivalencies? I'm not sure but I don't think so. If you've been watching the Burns doc on Vietnam (which is, in itself, a "corporate" version of the war wherein differences are kept within certain "acceptable" boundaries of discourse) then it's pretty obvious that the cracks in the system were really beginning to become obvious to folks. That said, I think it follows that even in such troubled times there is right and wrong. Even if it isn't as cut and dry as many people would like it to be.

 

I've stated this before and I firmly believe it. Prosperity does a lot to meliorate the hatefulness that surfaces when times are economically bad. It's why I spend so much time reading political economy. But Street addresses something vitally important which is true even when times are good. There are systematic injustices which shape the general health of a society, too. And there is always, and will always be, room for improvement in that regard. The structural cracks we are experiencing now beg the question: Can this structure be saved or is it necessary to replace the structure with something else? Further, history suggests that these periods in which there are shifts do not necessarily lead to something better. It can be something worse.

 

So, I tell people this from time to time. Everyone has a jury in their head. Be selective about who you place on that jury.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Numbers said:

Paid protestors are another point of contention. Not sure of percentages but do believe they exist for every side in one form or another.

 

If that's the case, why hasn't someone signed up and then exposed the whole thing with a paycheck from Soros or whoever?  

 

I think this falls into the same category as the "jobless hippie protester" stereotype - a means of discrediting and silencing dissent.

 

If you want to take it to conspiracy theories and agent provocateurs, I would look at the Black Block protesters (often misidentified as Antifascist Action) or particularly the folks smashing windows and otherwise causing random damage at BLM protests.  I've read several accounts of BLM groups claiming that they had never seen the people doing that anywhere before, or in Ferguson locals claiming that they didn't recognize any of the people intent on clashing with police.  I have the same questions about the dude who ran over that woman in VA.  Who was he connected to? Unfortunately our current political climate won't treat him like a terrorist since he's a young white dude, but that POS was almost certainly radicalized by what should honestly be called a terrorist cell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
If that's the case, why hasn't someone signed up and then exposed the whole thing with a paycheck from Soros or whoever?  
 
I think this falls into the same category as the "jobless hippie protester" stereotype - a means of discrediting and silencing dissent.  


Research "paid protestor" and you will find your answer whether it is acceptable to you or not is up to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Numbers said:

 


Research "paid protestor" and you will find your answer whether it is acceptable to you or not is up to you.

 

 

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than "research it".  If you mean "type paid protester  into Google", I just did, not for the first time, and found not a shred of evidence such a thing exists.  Just articles like this from Chicago Tribune

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-paid-protesters-huppke-20170227-story.html

 

And another from politifact

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/27/louie-gohmert/protesters-are-paid-disrupt-town-hall-meetings-goh/

 

So if you've got a credible source, don't just make vague statements about it.  Post a URL.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third or 4th hit on researching "paid protestor" will yield the following; https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/posteverything/wp/2017/04/26/so-what-if-protesters-are-paid/

"In reality, organizations often do sponsor or support rallies and send paid staff to help organize them, although unpaid protesters typically outnumber organizers. "

While you're at it, go on to read about Rosa Parks in the same article. You may not like what you read but the truth is there if you want to read. In other words, every side has a paid protestor which end up IMHO like a lobbyist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Numbers said:

The third or 4th hit on researching "paid protestor" will yield the following; https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/posteverything/wp/2017/04/26/so-what-if-protesters-are-paid/

"In reality, organizations often do sponsor or support rallies and send paid staff to help organize them, although unpaid protesters typically outnumber organizers. "

While you're at it, go on to read about Rosa Parks in the same article. You may not like what you read but the truth is there if you want to read. In other words, every side has a paid protestor which end up IMHO like a lobbyist.

 

Yeah my bad, see I searched for "paid protester proof"  which yielded fuck-all.  Show me a pay stub.

Quote

Little evidence exists to back the claim that significant numbers of protesters are paid,

That is from the article you just posted. 

It then goes on to point out Rosa Parks worked for "liberals", as if that is proof of anything, I assume, but the fact that "Conservatives" wouldn't hire a black woman at the time.  Then they claim that her employer "helped finance" activism, in the sense that my employer helps finance alcoholism every time I buy a 6-pack.

 

Quote

 if that's the case you will never find the forest despite being in it.

 

That's a strong statement from someone who has yet to offer a shred of evidence to support their claims. 

 

And I mean..  This standard of "research" in itself may be the problem.

 

google-what-i-want-to-be-true-l-coleco-v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You refuse to acknowledge anything else in the article but what you quoted. I suppose you skipped the part about where Parks was sent to school at and how long she was an activist. Never mind the quoted part stated above.

Did her employer send her to a school to learn tactics ?

If you can't understand why there are paid protestors, even though you can't find the magical pay stub, there's not much anyone can do to convince you otherwise.

Investment of resources is common practice in every successful protest or march. It would have to be. People need to be brought in from all points, fed, and put up for the day or night. However, if you had read the above quote, "organizations often do sponsor or support rallies and send paid staff to help organize them", you wouldn't need me to reiterate the words again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Numbers said:


Investment of resources is common practice in every successful protest or march. It would have to be. People need to be brought in from all points, fed, and put up for the day or night. However, if you had read the above quote, "organizations often do sponsor or support rallies and send paid staff to help organize them", you wouldn't need me to reiterate the words again.

 

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

You have yet to present any.  An article making the same claims without evidence is not evidence. There's nothing "magical" about a pay stub, it's about as plain and simple as it gets if you want to prove someone is employing someone else.  You want to make it sound fantastic because you can't find one anywhere. If someone is hiring protesters, go get paid to protest and expose them for it.  Strangely enough, nobody has done this despite all your claims.  Doesn't that strike you as odd? Dare I say, magical?

 

Your continued insistence on attempting to denigrate Rosa Parks (of all people!) is telling.  Her employer who we think shared her politics helped pay for her education, and being educated made her more formidable? Well fuckin' A, case closed!  Assertions about this one famous person from 50+ years ago prove everything!

 

Those darn protesters are just paid to do it, so my total apathy is actually a sign of my superior integrity! Go me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
 
You have yet to present any.  An article making the same claims without evidence is not evidence. There's nothing "magical" about a pay stub, it's about as plain and simple as it gets if you want to prove someone is employing someone else.  You want to make it sound fantastic because you can't find one anywhere. If someone is hiring protesters, go get paid to protest and expose them for it.  Strangely enough, nobody has done this despite all your claims.  Doesn't that strike you as odd? Dare I say, magical?
 
Your continued insistence on attempting to denigrate Rosa Parks (of all people!) is telling.  Her employer who we think shared her politics helped pay for her education, and being educated made her more formidable? Well fuckin' A, case closed!  Assertions about this one famous person from 50+ years ago prove everything!
 
Those darn protesters are just paid to do it, so my total apathy is actually a sign of my superior integrity! Go me!


Having been in locations such as Pensacola where protestors were bussed in and paid for by local Christian university in the early 80s. 1983-1985 timeframe. I happened to be in the military at the time and the clinic was located near the movie house. People were less undercover about who provided the money back then as the busses and booths were adorned with university stickers and symbols. If you or anyone else marched or protested that day, you would receive free food and transportation. Although no magical pay stub existed, these people were clearly financially supported by someone outside of their own way.

In regards to Rosa Parks, nice try. This mention of Rosa Parks was in the article and is nothing that has been disproven by you or anyone else. Again, nice try but this article was not wrote by me.

It is you who obviously never been to a protest or near one. Otherwise you would not be continuing to discuss.

Your point of a pay stub may seem valid but if you or anyone else truly believes that this is the only way to get "paid" then you will continue to ignore the forest around you despite the trees.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Numbers said:

 


Having been in locations such as Pensacola where protestors were bussed in and paid for by local Christian university in the early 80s. 1983-1985 timeframe. I happened to be in the military at the time and the clinic was located near the movie house. People were less undercover about who provided the money back then as the busses and booths were adorned with university stickers and symbols. If you or anyone else marched or protested that day, you would receive free food and transportation. Although no magical pay stub existed, these people were clearly financially supported by someone outside of their own way.


 

 

 

That's really interesting, no lie, but "financially supported" is moving the goalposts.  Groups organizing a protest will often pool resources for transportation, maybe do a pot luck before/after or have donated food from somewhere if they're lucky.  That's not even close to the same thing as being paid to protest.  Let's be real here, nobody is going to attend a protest like the one in VA for a free bus ride and a sandwich! That's like saying people are paid if they carpool to a family reunion.

 

I am curious about the abortion clinic bombings. You're saying there was a military response? I've found those bombings interesting as another example of the elasticity of our legal definition of "terrorism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...