For all Trump's hoopla about kneeling and how it takes away from the game....
- Thread starter usmbguest5318
- Start date
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #22
Well, if you'd just read the title you'd notice that nobody but Trump is discussed or mentioned. That's how you'd know that this isn't a thread about comparisons with anyone else.
If you read the OP, you'll see that the thread is only about one aspect of Trump's duplicitousness -- that pertaining to his remarks about "taking a knee" and football. That's how you'd know that general duplicitousness is not part of the thread's topical scope.
As for the fist batch of bullets in the OP, surely you, more so than most members/readers here, are prescient enough to tell that their rhetorical purpose is because there are no Trump "actual game" comments to be made. As for what Obama may have said about social protest movements in the NFL, I don't know that he said anything about any such protests. I just know he was into football, the game itself and he aired his preferences about who'd win or lose the Super Bowl games themselves. Obama liked sports in general, however, he actually plays somewhat physical sports. The point, however, is that as far as I can tell, I don't think Trump gives a damn about any sports -- hell, the man's not even so athletic as to walk the course when he plays golf [1], at 70 and the supposed "pictured of good health" that we were told he's in, he damn sure could be -- for the sake of the sport itself, though perhaps he is into golf as more than merely a foil and pretext for talking about non-sports/non-golf stuff.
Note:
- Don't anybody start telling me about club rules that require members to use carts so as to speed play. Trump only plays at his own damn clubs, plus he's POTUS. He can walk if were of a mind to actually be somewhat athletic.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #23
No.Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
Where does one find that part?
- 2014 -- NFL Personal Conduct Policy -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
- 2016 -- NFL Personal Conduct Policy -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
- Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
- 2017 -- Official Playing Rules of the NFL -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
The only appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document are in this sentence:- The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns.
It's Republicans that helped pass the civil rights and have never hated rights for all Americans.
Republicans have always stood for equal rights for every single American and still do.
That's an insult to every single American that got involved in civil rights in the1960's.
We were all United and outraged when those 4 little girls were murdered in their church for just going to Sunday school.
It United the nation with MLK peaceful movement.
A Great movement that got things done peacefully.
Then the violent ones took over.
It became a pick and choose game with the left.
Protesting violently and nothing much has been accomplished ever since.
Keep the politics out of sports.
No.Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
Where does one find that part?
- 2014 -- NFL Personal Conduct Policy -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
- 2016 -- NFL Personal Conduct Policy -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
- Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
- 2017 -- Official Playing Rules of the NFL -- There is no appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document.
The only appearance of the letters "politic" in the whole document are in this sentence:
- The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns.
Trump said it.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #26
Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
ETA: How droll !
Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
Millions of sports fans have said politics should stay out of it during the national anthem.
That's why they stopped attending them for a while.
Nice , so laugh in their faces for having a view point you don't agree with.
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,829
- 11,665
- 950
My statement was made in regard to a direct quote to a statement you made in post #1. If you want to have 100% control of where a discussion may lead, i suggest you have the conversation by yourself.
That being said, I will respect your wishes and withdraw from this thread.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #29
Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
Millions of sports fans have said politics should stay out of it during the national anthem.
That's why they stopped attending them for a while.
Nice , so laugh in their faces for having a view point you don't agree with.
As I asked before, where is that part? So far nobody you've identified sets the rules and regulations governing anything having to do with the NFL and its player's conduct.
Let me be crystalline: Yours, not anyone else's, is the face in which I laughed figuratively, and figuratively only because you're not before me. Were you, I'd literally have laughed in your face.
Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
Millions of sports fans have said politics should stay out of it during the national anthem.
That's why they stopped attending them for a while.
Nice , so laugh in their faces for having a view point you don't agree with.As I asked before, where is that part? So far nobody you've identified sets the rules and regulations governing anything having to do with the NFL and its player's conduct.
Let me be crystalline: It's you, not anyone else, in whose face I was laughing.
I never said anything about it being in the rules.
You laugh at what you do not understand, not me.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #31
Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
Millions of sports fans have said politics should stay out of it during the national anthem.
That's why they stopped attending them for a while.
Nice , so laugh in their faces for having a view point you don't agree with.As I asked before, where is that part? So far nobody you've identified sets the rules and regulations governing anything having to do with the NFL and its player's conduct.
Let me be crystalline: It's you, not anyone else, in whose face I was laughing.
I never said anything about it being in the rules.
You laugh at what you do not understand, not me.
Actually, I'm better positioned to tell you why I laughed than you are to tell me or anyone else.
I laughed because your remark about Trump having said it was inane. I'm laughing now because you're resorted to equivocation to defend your inane remark.
Did you forget about the part that says ,keep politics out of the game?
Millions of sports fans have said politics should stay out of it during the national anthem.
That's why they stopped attending them for a while.
Nice , so laugh in their faces for having a view point you don't agree with.As I asked before, where is that part? So far nobody you've identified sets the rules and regulations governing anything having to do with the NFL and its player's conduct.
Let me be crystalline: It's you, not anyone else, in whose face I was laughing.
I never said anything about it being in the rules.
You laugh at what you do not understand, not me.
Actually, I'm better positioned to tell you why I laughed than you are to tell me or anyone else.
I laughed because your remark about Trump having said it was inane. I'm laughing now because you're resorted to equivocation to defend your inane remark.
What was Trump saying about the national anthem?
My conclusion was keep the protest out of the national anthem.
Is that not the same thing?
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #33
Millions of sports fans have said politics should stay out of it during the national anthem.
That's why they stopped attending them for a while.
Nice , so laugh in their faces for having a view point you don't agree with.As I asked before, where is that part? So far nobody you've identified sets the rules and regulations governing anything having to do with the NFL and its player's conduct.
Let me be crystalline: It's you, not anyone else, in whose face I was laughing.
I never said anything about it being in the rules.
You laugh at what you do not understand, not me.
Actually, I'm better positioned to tell you why I laughed than you are to tell me or anyone else.
I laughed because your remark about Trump having said it was inane. I'm laughing now because you're resorted to equivocation to defend your inane remark.
What was Trump saying about the national anthem?
My conclusion was keep the protest out of the national anthem.
Is that not the same thing?
In your mind it may; I really can't say just now because I don't know you well enough. I can say that as you wrote your earlier remarks, they're not the same things.
You're earlier remarks were positive statements. The one quoted just above is a normative statement. I don't have anything to assert about your or anyone's bald normative remarks unless they supplement it with positive justifications. Barring their doing so, at best I'll have questions about one's normative remarks. In contrast, I may or may not care to say something about your or anyone else's positive assertions, or I may laugh at their inanity (or in some instances the speaker/author) as I did above. And what I have to say and/or whether I laugh at one's positive statements has nothing to do with whether I agree with them, but rather they make sense, whether they're well founded and germane.
Believe it or not, I'm very likely to agree with strong/cogent and/or sound arguments, regardless of how I feel about their conclusions. For inductive arguments, I may not like the conclusion, but if it's sound/cogent, I'll agree with it and in doing so say something like "much as I'd rather not, I have to agree." That happens all the time with all of us when my friends or colleagues and I discuss matters of all sorts.
Aside:
FWIW, though some of those folks make a living crafting and formally presenting arguments, most of us don't. For the rest of us, business cases and/or proposals represent the beginning and end of the arguments we present to anybody, other than ourselves when we are chatting about sociopolitical "stuff." Then again, we don't engage in debates about matters we don't understand well. For example, I don't "debate" my lawyer friends about the law. My lawyer friends don't "debate" me about business management or economics. Instead, we ask each other questions to further our understandings of things. We "debate" on matters whether our respective areas of expertise overlap.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #34
I call that writing an editorial, and I've done it. I'm okay with doing that.
Well, if you have nothing to say about the dichotomy between Trump's having remarked on how injecting the kneel into professional football events and his not having a damn thing to say about the Super Bowl, thank you for doing so.
if you want to discuss the statement below, that too is fine, but discuss the statement and Trump's words and actions, not the statement and someone else's words and actions.
I'm happy to entertain your agreement with or rebuttal to that statement, provided either derives from Trump's words and deeds, not his words/deeds relative to someone else's.
BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
Many REAL Americans, Trump included, decided to boycott the NFL and the Super Bowl.
The “protest” has never been the problem...the timing is the problem.
What would happen if Whites chose to protest dangerous, violent, criminal Blacks on MLK day?
Actually, I'm better positioned to tell you why I laughed than you are to tell me or anyone else.
I laughed because your remark about Trump having said it was inane. I'm laughing now because you're resorted to equivocation to defend your inane remark.
What was Trump saying about the national anthem?
My conclusion was keep the protest out of the national anthem.
Is that not the same thing?
In your mind it may; I really can't say just now because I don't know you well enough. I can say that as you wrote your earlier remarks, they're not the same things.
You're earlier remarks were positive statements. The one quoted just above is a normative statement. I don't have anything to assert about your or anyone's bald normative remarks unless they supplement it with positive justifications. Barring their doing so, at best I'll have questions about one's normative remarks. In contrast, I may or may not care to say something about your or anyone else's positive assertions, or I may laugh at their inanity (or in some instances the speaker/author) as I did above. And what I have to say and/or whether I laugh at one's positive statements has nothing to do with whether I agree with them, but rather they make sense, whether they're well founded and germane.
Believe it or not, I'm very likely to agree with strong/cogent and/or sound arguments, regardless of how I feel about their conclusions. For inductive arguments, I may not like the conclusion, but if it's sound/cogent, I'll agree with it and in doing so say something like "much as I'd rather not, I have to agree." That happens all the time with all of us when my friends or colleagues and I discuss matters of all sorts.
Aside:
FWIW, though some of those folks make a living crafting and formally presenting arguments, most of us don't. For the rest of us, business cases and/or proposals represent the beginning and end of the arguments we present to anybody, other than ourselves when we are chatting about sociopolitical "stuff." Then again, we don't engage in debates about matters we don't understand well. For example, I don't "debate" my lawyer friends about the law. My lawyer friends don't "debate" me about business management or economics. Instead, we ask each other questions to further our understandings of things. We "debate" on matters whether our respective areas of expertise overlap.
Positive statements?
They were speech rebuttals.
9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,114
- 325
"Given those two major factors -- the kneeling furor he caused and football's status as Americans' favorite pastime --"
The idea that anybody other than the attention-whore players themselves caused "the kneeling furor" is simply idiotic. Americans are very well aware that pro. football is just another entertainment like Saturday morning cartoons and fail to find deliberate disrespect for America and the sport entertaining. I have no idea who won the game but the players and the NFL are big-time losers in my book.
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #38
I really don't know what would happen, but then neither is what might happen something that intrigues me enough to ponder and predict. How's about you take up the mantle and lead such a protest?
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #39
Actually, I'm better positioned to tell you why I laughed than you are to tell me or anyone else.
I laughed because your remark about Trump having said it was inane. I'm laughing now because you're resorted to equivocation to defend your inane remark.
What was Trump saying about the national anthem?
My conclusion was keep the protest out of the national anthem.
Is that not the same thing?
In your mind it may; I really can't say just now because I don't know you well enough. I can say that as you wrote your earlier remarks, they're not the same things.
You're earlier remarks were positive statements. The one quoted just above is a normative statement. I don't have anything to assert about your or anyone's bald normative remarks unless they supplement it with positive justifications. Barring their doing so, at best I'll have questions about one's normative remarks. In contrast, I may or may not care to say something about your or anyone else's positive assertions, or I may laugh at their inanity (or in some instances the speaker/author) as I did above. And what I have to say and/or whether I laugh at one's positive statements has nothing to do with whether I agree with them, but rather they make sense, whether they're well founded and germane.
Believe it or not, I'm very likely to agree with strong/cogent and/or sound arguments, regardless of how I feel about their conclusions. For inductive arguments, I may not like the conclusion, but if it's sound/cogent, I'll agree with it and in doing so say something like "much as I'd rather not, I have to agree." That happens all the time with all of us when my friends or colleagues and I discuss matters of all sorts.
Aside:
FWIW, though some of those folks make a living crafting and formally presenting arguments, most of us don't. For the rest of us, business cases and/or proposals represent the beginning and end of the arguments we present to anybody, other than ourselves when we are chatting about sociopolitical "stuff." Then again, we don't engage in debates about matters we don't understand well. For example, I don't "debate" my lawyer friends about the law. My lawyer friends don't "debate" me about business management or economics. Instead, we ask each other questions to further our understandings of things. We "debate" on matters whether our respective areas of expertise overlap.
Positive statements?
They were speech rebuttals.
LHFM!
- Do you notice that certain text in my posts have hyperlinks?
- When/if you do, do you click on them?
- If you click on them, do you so much as at least skim the content there so you understand what it means and why that content was hyperlinked?
Are you younger than a tenth grader? If you are, that would explain why you didn't understand what you found there, if you even clicked on the site and read the content on the linked page, and if you are younger than that, I would then understand and be far less frustrated with this conversation.
Last edited:
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Israel says it has killed Iran’s intelligence minister in third assassination in two days- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 10
-
The leaders of Christianity condemn Trump's illegal "Star Wars" War!- Started by Astrostar
- Replies: 13
-
Zone1 Religious ceremonies in which languages have you taken part?
- Started by Zebra
- Replies: 4
-
