0
0
0
Sunday is going to be interesting, and after that speech I never have to listen to any of trumps fans complaining about my rudeness with mocking them
ar-AAsnWSf
Posted from msn.comPosted in these groups: 
Donald Trump
NFL
Donald Trump NFL
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
Player's Union response:
"This union, however, will never back down when it comes to protecting the constitutional rights of our players as citizens as well as their safety as men who compete in a game that exposes them to great risks."
NFL Commissioner's response:
"Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities."
Owners' responses:
New York Giants owners John Mara and Steve Tisch:
"Comments like we heard last night from the president are inappropriate, offensive and divisive."
Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross:
"Our country needs unifying leadership right now, not more divisiveness."
San Francisco 49ers CEO Jed York:
"The callous and offensive comments made by the president are contradictory to what this great country stands for."
Green Bay Packers President/CEO Mark Murphy:
"It's unfortunate that the president decided to use his immense platform to make divisive and offensive statements about our players and the NFL."
Atlanta Falcons Owner and Chairman Arthur Blank:
"We are at our very best when we are working together, building unity and including everyone's voice in a constructive dialogue. Creating division or demonizing viewpoints that are different than our own accomplishes nothing positive and undermines our collective ability to achieve the ideals of our democracy."
Tennessee Titans Controlling Owner Amy Adams Strunk:
"I am proud to stand with our players and support them in their work on and off the football field."
Los Angeles Chargers Owner/Chairman of the Board Dean Spanos:
"I wholeheartedly agree with the commissioner's statement. The NFL and its players, more than anything, have been a force for good. What our country needs right now is a message of unity, civility and mutual respect."
Fans' response:
2017 Season
Week one attendance down by 9.4% from 2016
Week two attendance down by 7.0% from 2016
Of course, this year (2017), the entire West Coast has had major wild fires, affecting peoples participation in all outdoor activities for health reasons, and their ability to engage in regular activities because everything they own is in ashes. And the East Coast has been pummeled by an almost non-stop barrage of severe weather, affecting people's ability to participate in regular activities because everything they own has been blown away or washed away or both. Those factors just may have had something to do with decreased attendance for the first two weeks of the Season.
But, overall, time will tell, time will tell. Personally, it seems to me attitudes generally fall into two broad categories. There are those who seem to feel that the "house and field niggras" of a century and a half ago have become the "gridiron niggras" of today, and they should just do their jobs and let their betters decide what's best for them. Then there are those who, with fist raised in righteous indignation, say "Right on, brothers! Stick it to the man!"
Somewhere in the middle are those who hold to a principled stand of "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!"
"This union, however, will never back down when it comes to protecting the constitutional rights of our players as citizens as well as their safety as men who compete in a game that exposes them to great risks."
NFL Commissioner's response:
"Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities."
Owners' responses:
New York Giants owners John Mara and Steve Tisch:
"Comments like we heard last night from the president are inappropriate, offensive and divisive."
Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross:
"Our country needs unifying leadership right now, not more divisiveness."
San Francisco 49ers CEO Jed York:
"The callous and offensive comments made by the president are contradictory to what this great country stands for."
Green Bay Packers President/CEO Mark Murphy:
"It's unfortunate that the president decided to use his immense platform to make divisive and offensive statements about our players and the NFL."
Atlanta Falcons Owner and Chairman Arthur Blank:
"We are at our very best when we are working together, building unity and including everyone's voice in a constructive dialogue. Creating division or demonizing viewpoints that are different than our own accomplishes nothing positive and undermines our collective ability to achieve the ideals of our democracy."
Tennessee Titans Controlling Owner Amy Adams Strunk:
"I am proud to stand with our players and support them in their work on and off the football field."
Los Angeles Chargers Owner/Chairman of the Board Dean Spanos:
"I wholeheartedly agree with the commissioner's statement. The NFL and its players, more than anything, have been a force for good. What our country needs right now is a message of unity, civility and mutual respect."
Fans' response:
2017 Season
Week one attendance down by 9.4% from 2016
Week two attendance down by 7.0% from 2016
Of course, this year (2017), the entire West Coast has had major wild fires, affecting peoples participation in all outdoor activities for health reasons, and their ability to engage in regular activities because everything they own is in ashes. And the East Coast has been pummeled by an almost non-stop barrage of severe weather, affecting people's ability to participate in regular activities because everything they own has been blown away or washed away or both. Those factors just may have had something to do with decreased attendance for the first two weeks of the Season.
But, overall, time will tell, time will tell. Personally, it seems to me attitudes generally fall into two broad categories. There are those who seem to feel that the "house and field niggras" of a century and a half ago have become the "gridiron niggras" of today, and they should just do their jobs and let their betters decide what's best for them. Then there are those who, with fist raised in righteous indignation, say "Right on, brothers! Stick it to the man!"
Somewhere in the middle are those who hold to a principled stand of "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!"
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Let them speak. Let them take a knee. Let them alien the people that go to their games and support them. When their insolence hits the owners in the pocketbook, they'll change their tune. As I have said before. Liberals are overly concerned about every perceived offense (real or not) against them, and yet they are least concerned with how their actions may be perceived as offensive to others. I really don't think they care. In fact, I think they delight in offending others because knowing they can do that gives them an imagined sense of power. They are so self-centered that they can't see past themselves to comprehend what is the greater good.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
Capt Jeff S. - As a very unscientific experiment, I just did two YouTube searches. One for "cop kills innocent black man", another for "cop kills innocent white man". The first one produced 749,000+ hits, the second, 539,000+. Taken at face value, cops kill innocent black men more than innocent white men at a ratio of about 3:2.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 63% of the population is white/non-Hispanic, and 12.3% is black. All things being equal, there should be five times as many whites being killed as blacks. That alone indicates there might be a real problem that goes beyond a "perceived offense (real or not)".
(There's one other factor that I'm not quantifying, but seems to be real... The first several YouTube pages of "blacks killed" contained only videos of blacks being killed by cops. The first several pages of "whites killed" included quite a few clips of blacks being killed, which would artificially inflate that statistic.)
I'm going to presume that you have children. I have four. If you've raised your kids in any way similar to the way I've raised mine, they have learned and observed the importance of being polite and respectful to LEOs if and when they have any encounters with them. They have an important job, and responsibilities and risks that we don't. If they've pulled you over or stopped you, there's probably a reason for it.
Friends of mine, who are black, teach their kids the same thing, but for very different, additional reasons. It's important for them to be polite and respectful because the cops have an important job. But it's also that you don't do ANYTHING that would upset or make the cop nervous. Statistics show that an innocent black man is somewhere between 2/3s to FIVE times more likely to be shot and killed for no other discernable reason than being black.
I'm a white man, and I have personally seen and observed that kind of totally undeserved "preferential treatment" given to blacks by LEOs and Mall Security Guards. Taking that as a given (and it is real, whether you admit it or not), just for discussion, what do you think they should do? Should they just take it quietly and be grateful that they made it through another day alive. If they don't make it through the day alive, is it up to their friends and family to just say, "Yep, it sucks to be black in America." and let things go on for another century or so unchallenged?
In the grand scheme of things, pro sports players taking a knee during the National Anthem is a lot less offensive than innocent blacks being buried by their friends and relatives for no reason other than being black.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 63% of the population is white/non-Hispanic, and 12.3% is black. All things being equal, there should be five times as many whites being killed as blacks. That alone indicates there might be a real problem that goes beyond a "perceived offense (real or not)".
(There's one other factor that I'm not quantifying, but seems to be real... The first several YouTube pages of "blacks killed" contained only videos of blacks being killed by cops. The first several pages of "whites killed" included quite a few clips of blacks being killed, which would artificially inflate that statistic.)
I'm going to presume that you have children. I have four. If you've raised your kids in any way similar to the way I've raised mine, they have learned and observed the importance of being polite and respectful to LEOs if and when they have any encounters with them. They have an important job, and responsibilities and risks that we don't. If they've pulled you over or stopped you, there's probably a reason for it.
Friends of mine, who are black, teach their kids the same thing, but for very different, additional reasons. It's important for them to be polite and respectful because the cops have an important job. But it's also that you don't do ANYTHING that would upset or make the cop nervous. Statistics show that an innocent black man is somewhere between 2/3s to FIVE times more likely to be shot and killed for no other discernable reason than being black.
I'm a white man, and I have personally seen and observed that kind of totally undeserved "preferential treatment" given to blacks by LEOs and Mall Security Guards. Taking that as a given (and it is real, whether you admit it or not), just for discussion, what do you think they should do? Should they just take it quietly and be grateful that they made it through another day alive. If they don't make it through the day alive, is it up to their friends and family to just say, "Yep, it sucks to be black in America." and let things go on for another century or so unchallenged?
In the grand scheme of things, pro sports players taking a knee during the National Anthem is a lot less offensive than innocent blacks being buried by their friends and relatives for no reason other than being black.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - Mark Twain said, "There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics."
I'll stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that the stats you've quoted are accurate, but with the further caveat that statistics without context can be and frequently are misleading. (The FBI: UCR Introduction says as much.)
The next caveat is that these data are from reports of arrests, not convictions.
The next caveat is that these reports are voluntary from the reporting Agencies. The reporting Agencies are encouraged to be uniform and complete with their reports, but not required.
The next caveat is that some reports are known to not make note of the race or ethnicity of the suspect.
The next caveat I've heard referred to as "the green Volkswagen syndrome". Normally, you don't notice that many green VWs on the road. Until you buy one, and start noticing. Then it seem that every third or fourth car on the road is a green Volkswagen. (That was told to me by a close friend who is a retired Cop, and confirmed by another friend, also a retired cop. They both used to work in large metropolitan cities, one of them as an undercover narcotics officer.)
The point of that is that an Officer will approach an encounter with a black man differently than he will one with a white man. Heightened awareness, higher level of anxiety, more adrenalin pumping, etc. And the only, objective difference between the two is one is white and one is black.
As the driver reaches into the glove box to get the car's Registration, if it's a white man driving, the Officer notices there's a flashlight in there with the Registration. If it's a black man driving, he sees what looks like a gun and reacts accordingly. The Incident Report will read that the Officer thought he saw a gun and reacted appropriately to the "percieved" (not real) threat. Conclusion: another justified shooting.
All that I've just said is accurate and represents real world events. My information comes from my two friends, my cousin who is a cop, a couple acquantences who are cops, et al.
Are the FBI: UCR stats accurate? Sure, to an extent, but they also have their limitations.
P.S. As I understand it, that White House invitation was rescinded only after it was first declined by the invitee.
EDIT
Epilogue: Statistically, the term is "Confirmation Bias": the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
More generally it's called "Self-fulfilling prophecy". You go into the situation expecting it to go bad, so you're not surprised when it does.
I'll stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that the stats you've quoted are accurate, but with the further caveat that statistics without context can be and frequently are misleading. (The FBI: UCR Introduction says as much.)
The next caveat is that these data are from reports of arrests, not convictions.
The next caveat is that these reports are voluntary from the reporting Agencies. The reporting Agencies are encouraged to be uniform and complete with their reports, but not required.
The next caveat is that some reports are known to not make note of the race or ethnicity of the suspect.
The next caveat I've heard referred to as "the green Volkswagen syndrome". Normally, you don't notice that many green VWs on the road. Until you buy one, and start noticing. Then it seem that every third or fourth car on the road is a green Volkswagen. (That was told to me by a close friend who is a retired Cop, and confirmed by another friend, also a retired cop. They both used to work in large metropolitan cities, one of them as an undercover narcotics officer.)
The point of that is that an Officer will approach an encounter with a black man differently than he will one with a white man. Heightened awareness, higher level of anxiety, more adrenalin pumping, etc. And the only, objective difference between the two is one is white and one is black.
As the driver reaches into the glove box to get the car's Registration, if it's a white man driving, the Officer notices there's a flashlight in there with the Registration. If it's a black man driving, he sees what looks like a gun and reacts accordingly. The Incident Report will read that the Officer thought he saw a gun and reacted appropriately to the "percieved" (not real) threat. Conclusion: another justified shooting.
All that I've just said is accurate and represents real world events. My information comes from my two friends, my cousin who is a cop, a couple acquantences who are cops, et al.
Are the FBI: UCR stats accurate? Sure, to an extent, but they also have their limitations.
P.S. As I understand it, that White House invitation was rescinded only after it was first declined by the invitee.
EDIT
Epilogue: Statistically, the term is "Confirmation Bias": the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
More generally it's called "Self-fulfilling prophecy". You go into the situation expecting it to go bad, so you're not surprised when it does.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
MSG Joseph Cristofaro - Wow! I feel like I've been taken out to the wood shed and beaten severely about the head and shoulders with a big word stick.
I don't doubt for a minute the sincerity of all you've said. Just as I hope you don't doubt it when I say that the conversations you're encouraging me to have with my friends who are former LEOs, we've already had them. The one I'm closest to - we've stayed up 'til after midnight some nights after a men's Bible study at his house that typically ended by 9pm - having some spirited, wide-ranging discussions that included this topic.
One of my other friends was an undercover narcotics officer. Picture Serpico with a shaved head and no facial hair.
The first one had some unique perspective on the topic. He retired early from Law Enforcement after his third fatal shooting. As a result of those late night conversations, I received a whole new set of information and respect/compassion for LEOs who are forced to kill a suspect, even when the justification for the shooting is maybe a little less than totally justified.
He is the one who pointed out to me the shortcomings of the FBI UCR Reports and why you can't take them as any more than what they are presented to be: raw data without context, not intended to support hard and fast conclusions. I admit, I didn't realize that each report has only one classification (missed that one). But you spent a good paragraph or two expounding on a big reason for the UCRs shortcoming.
LEOs come from different backgrounds, different ethnicities, different upbrinings. They go into Law Enforcement for many different reasons and work in Depts. that are as widely varied as they are. Some individuals, the same as some Depts., will tend to under-report, some will tend to over-report. Some will not report at all. One conclusion is that when the data is filtered through such a non-uniform system, how can you expect it to produce a truly "uniform" report?
I don't doubt for a minute the sincerity of all you've said. Just as I hope you don't doubt it when I say that the conversations you're encouraging me to have with my friends who are former LEOs, we've already had them. The one I'm closest to - we've stayed up 'til after midnight some nights after a men's Bible study at his house that typically ended by 9pm - having some spirited, wide-ranging discussions that included this topic.
One of my other friends was an undercover narcotics officer. Picture Serpico with a shaved head and no facial hair.
The first one had some unique perspective on the topic. He retired early from Law Enforcement after his third fatal shooting. As a result of those late night conversations, I received a whole new set of information and respect/compassion for LEOs who are forced to kill a suspect, even when the justification for the shooting is maybe a little less than totally justified.
He is the one who pointed out to me the shortcomings of the FBI UCR Reports and why you can't take them as any more than what they are presented to be: raw data without context, not intended to support hard and fast conclusions. I admit, I didn't realize that each report has only one classification (missed that one). But you spent a good paragraph or two expounding on a big reason for the UCRs shortcoming.
LEOs come from different backgrounds, different ethnicities, different upbrinings. They go into Law Enforcement for many different reasons and work in Depts. that are as widely varied as they are. Some individuals, the same as some Depts., will tend to under-report, some will tend to over-report. Some will not report at all. One conclusion is that when the data is filtered through such a non-uniform system, how can you expect it to produce a truly "uniform" report?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Sorry, but no one's 1A rights would be violated if owners shut down players who protest. The 1A ONLY protects them from the GOVERNMENT doing so. NOT anyone else.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
1stSgt Nelson Kerr - Sorry. This is black and white. NFL owners can legally shut their players up. Trump can't. But they can. And none of your rhetoric will change that fact. Owners have EVERY RIGHT to dictate what is said in the context of their properties. Period. You don't have to like it. You just have to accept it.
(0)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
SN Greg Wright - They have every legal right to do so, but the ones that have spoken have backed the players, all trumps stupidity s did was to make Trump look eve more of a fool.
The offend owners ( if there are any) can fire whomever they chose, but it is unlik4ey that they will make much money when the affected teams player go on strike,
I think it is funny that the diva gets more offend by a kneeling protester than he does anbout American terrorists murdering people
The offend owners ( if there are any) can fire whomever they chose, but it is unlik4ey that they will make much money when the affected teams player go on strike,
I think it is funny that the diva gets more offend by a kneeling protester than he does anbout American terrorists murdering people
(0)
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
2LT Louis Gonzales - Can't have that happen, they may have to into their safe places too with their binky's.
(1)
(0)
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
There should be the word : go, between: to and into, sorry for the messup.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google