Andrew in CA
-
Posts
1,124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Andrew in CA
-
-
1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:
You obviously have never been to a Chicago Blackhawks game where the anthem is sung by this guy. It's amazing. Every. Single. Game.
A) F the blackhawks, i don't watch garbage teams, that needs to be said off the bat. ?
B) that's lovely, but i don't think it's appropriate for this to be happening at every single sporting event around the country every day. It diminishes the symbolism and importance of the anthem.
-
8 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:
Andrew -every major sport plays the National Anthem and in the NBA there is a far gr after percentage of people of color than the NFL, and standing for the Anthem is mandatory.
i still think this plan will be a spectacle as it will be obvious who is not out there. No one seemed to like my simple solution to just go pre 911 and not have anyone out there and problem solved.
By the way I absolutely agree with the players who as I adhore racial violence in anyway, and want as many players of any race or ethnicity protest these injustices. I just don’t agree with doing it on the field during a game. Raise funds, protests, talk to you’re local police depts about the injustices you’ve faced or extra stops when driving. It’s disgusting and should not be tolerated by superiors. For any of the police officers as a couple of years ago fired on an innocent person should go to jail.
i respect people who have an opposite opinion, but that does not mean my opinion is valid as well.
I’m sure I’ll catch it for my opinion, but I really try to be respectful of people I disagree with on this stance.
i hope all of you have a nice weekend.
I know, my point is all sports should stop playing it, at least for every single game. It loses meaning and is not treated with respect or reflection. Symbols lose their meaning when they become routine. You're plenty respectful, no disrespect taken!
5 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:Good thoughts. On the anthem, that goes way back into baseball lore, at least that far back I think. No idea why they started. My best guess would be it signals people to settle down and pay attention the game is about to start.
It works well for that because most people figure they have to behave during it so it settles everyone down and gets them paying attention to the field.
I personally wouldn't stop playing it in response to this, unless things got very desperate. I think stopping on account of this would do more lasting harm than the kneeling.
Exactly -- the anthem becomes a school bell letting everyone know to get to class on time! It is not about reflection or reverence. You're right that if they stopped it now, it would be seen as a response to these protests, but I think that they should've done this awhile ago.
-
1
-
-
I'd prefer if all sports just stopped playing the anthem altogether. It is an odd time for a display of patriotism and we've all seemed to accept it because it's been going on for years and years. Why did they even do it in the first place?
Hey, all you drunks who've been throwing yourselves through tables and chugging liquor out of bowling balls for 5 hours, please stand and remove your hats and solemnly reflect on what it means to be an American before this sporting event, in which no team is playing on behalf of the nation! Oh, but feel free to puke in the bathroom or chug your beers in the concourse or get 12 more beers at the concession stands while it's playing!
8 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:Thanks Andrew. I recall those things. To me though Tommie Smith and John Carlos were literally standing on their own platforms (the Olympic pedestals). They earned that through individual accomplishment. Ali was the same way.
I think an NFL game is a group effort of who knows how many people? Players, coaches, owners, etc. So to have a few guys say they are using their platform isn't right. They are using the platform of everybody who makes up the overall team. Their platform would be whatever individual recognition they could get from being a celebrity athlete.
Anyway that isn't what I am wondering about
I am more wondering if the NFL has faced a challenge like this before. One that has unknown implications. The NFL had always been very strict about keeping to the script and staying in their lane and not being used as publicity for anyone. Except if you paid them a fee for advertising .
Yeah I getcha -- those events were on my mind because I recently watched a four-part special on 1968. I agree in my lifetime that this is the most divided political climate, and I found myself wondering if we didn't have cable and the internet would we be seeing more of the large protests and violence that they saw in that year..... I don't know one way or the other, just got me thinking about it.
And yes i agree with you that the NFL seems to be totally clueless when it comes to all of their problems, not just the anthem stuff.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
I think there are certainly people who quit watching games because of the protests. I'm pretty sure it is a known fact. I don't see why everybody wants to claim this guy here is making it up. Geeze half the people on here believe the dunkirk guy. But somebody says they stopped watching games is not plausible.
On another note, I personally don't remember any level of controversy like this one for the NFL. Even during Vietnam I don't think the protests were allowed to bleed into the games.
Anybody else know if there has been a circumstance like this before?
I don't think it blended in to the NFL but you had Tommie Smith and John Carlos raise their fists during the anthem at the 1968 olympics, and Muhammad Ali refused to go to Vietnam.
-
18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Of course I can expect it, and there are many different ways to disagree with people, rudely if that's the plan, that don't involve harassing people in a restaraunt. Off the top of my head, write a letter, organize a boycott, protest at the studio, interrupt a speech.
I added "idiotic" to see what your response would be. It was my version of a "restaurant boo", but not in public, not with any of your friends or family around wondering who the psycho is (or may be)at the table booing their son/daughter/best friend because of what they do for a living. I didn't call you an idiot, but I disagreed strongly enough with what I perceived to be an extremist/outlier opinion about how people should treat other people to wonder how you might reply. Why would that bother you?
I appreciate the the tone of your response, by the way, quite civil and reasonable to wonder why I wrote what I wrote. I think if that standard is applied in public, everyone wins. I think when things get off the rails because some jackass acts the fool, things can escalate quickly.
i guess I wonder....if you think it's acceptable to harass famous people, toss water, be aggressive with them....what would your thought be if TLs bodyguard sensed a threat and dispatched the attacker? Let's agree boos don't reach the level of violence here, but let's assume boos lead to words lead to a person stepping toward TL with an object in their hand and the bodyguard neutralizes the threat. Let's the assume the aggressive party has a dislocated elbow, and soft tissue strain. Fair result? I'm thinking you would see that as coming with the territory for the harasser, so no harm no foul.
Sorry, i thought you were calling me an idiot. I went off on a bit of a tangent as you saw with my dialogue with JSP that i feel people resort to name-calling really quickly and that just gets everyone's guard up and derails any convo. Now, i did what i preached against and put words in your mouth so I'm sorry for that.
In the hypothetical you pose yes, if someone is approaching TL with an object in his/her hand and is acting aggressively, then they are asking for a response from the bodyguard.
Maybe i'm taking it to an extreme, but i think people have to face the consequences of their words, and those consequences aren't always going to be friendly. They can be hostile or rude. But i draw the line at assault (putting someone in fear of physical contact) and battery (actual physical contact), both because it's illegal and i think morally wrong -- respond to words with words (or boos, jeers, etc.), but don't touch someone or attempt to do so.
And as JSP brought up i think it goes both ways. BLM protesters say and do a lot of provocative, controversial things. If they are out in public, people who disagree with them should be free to do so, and the BLM people should expect blowback/backlash. I think there is a tendency on the left to think you can say what you want, and because it's "speaking truth to power" or whatever, they think no one can respond to them. In other words, they think they can speak, and no one else can respond. I disagree with that.
I guess when it comes down to it, my point is that when you take a stand, when you make yourself an object of attention (whether you make money off of it or not), people will react, both positively and negatively. I don't think you get a shield of armor or get to cry foul if people react to you with boos, silence, what have you, out in public.
And I'm not saying that you were saying that (about Tomi/anyone else getting a shield of armor), I'm just circling back to my original post -- which, had i known would get a reaction, i would have elaborated on more fully. But i didn't, so now I am facing the some backlash of my clearly unpopular opinion, and that's OK, i get it, if you post, you get a response, and it's not always going to be one that agrees with you.
-
13 minutes ago, GG said:
Kaep is good enough to play in the NFL. He's not good enough to compensate for the added noise and distraction that his signing would bring.
Exactly right. He's not starter material but he's good enough to at least be a third stringer, if not a backup. But no one wants their third-stringer bringing the circus to town every single day, so why have the headache.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:
MY MAN
For a CA guy you have pretty good taste in Capital Region ice cream
Stop in downtown Albany instead. There are more Stewart's and I'm actually fun, unlike certain Asian midgets in redneckville, NY
Grew up in the Capital Region, and still get back to see family/friends about once a year!
2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:That I'm helping to gentrify. Now with breweries!
And a distillery!
-
55 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Good topic;
Marone, by far the best. Don’t like him fine, but he turned the organization around.
Gailey: best of the worst. Made the most of his JV wr, secondary and LB squads. Trent Edwards v Ryan Fitzpatrick... ugh
Juaron: (7–9 no matter how good/bad the talent)
Mularkey: actually had a winning season, although he left town a goat, his resemblance to Kevin Costner makes him look like a leadership figure. So there’s that.
Greggo: meh
Rex: actually took a good team with a stout defense and totally jacked it up by imposing his scheme which completely misfit the talent. The whole time in front of the podium he was acting like he was winning rings... what an epic failure
I agree with this
-
Soft serve: black raspberry from Kurver Kreme in Albany.
Hard: pistachio from Tollgate in Slingerlands.
Store brand: butter pecan from Tillamook.
-
-
4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Thanks for dropping by. I hope to see more of you.
Wishing you a speedy and full recovery.
Thanks Tasker, I will be fine. I will try to post more often
-
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:
Well you seem like a mostly harmless guy. Stick around
Thanks Joe wish i could stay longer -- just have some down time this week when I'd usually be working recovering from minor surgery -- back to the real world next week where I can only lurk for a few minutes here or there.
-
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:
That's a legitimate point...sometimes.
Other times (virtually any thread by Tiberius, LA Grant or now even #34) it's completely warranted and based on past history.
I hear you and agree -- i've lurked these boards for a long time (joined in '06) and people like that, or Conner, or whoever preceded Conner, would come on here just to get a rise out of the majority conservative faction of the board and start dumb ****. But there are people like me who dip their toe in time to time with no agenda, just a bit of sporadic free time, and may have a different opinion, without the agenda.
-
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:
Because a good many of us understand that the speech of certain groups is protected and valued above that of others.
Yeah, i get that there's a double standard. But my point was that often times words get put in people's mouth on this board just to escalate stuff and throw it completely off topic. Or the name calling and flame war begins and any actual discussion is lost.
-
3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Got it, have "polarizing opinions", make money, subject yourself to all sorts of stupidity.
On on the other hand, have polarizing opinions, verbally and physically harass people for some perverse "hey everyone look how tough I am" moment and no money at all...very cool and understandable because you can't get arrested for it.
Idiotic.
I didn't say that. Take the money thing out of it -- you have a forum such as youtube or something where you spout polarizing opinions, people are going to react when they see you. It comes with the territory. You can't expect to become famous for making opinions that some strongly disagree with and then not face some reaction when you're seen in person.
Why say idiotic? Why does this forum always immediately result in knee-jerk name calling and escalation to BLM or Obama or whatever?
Just now, joesixpack said:Perhaps, then, you can clarify what this means:
I didn't say that you can't yell at the BLM folk. You said that.
-
6 hours ago, joesixpack said:
Oh really? So I can verbally harass BLM people? Good to know. Oh wait, no I can’t. I’m white.
I didn't say that.
-
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Why would you consider it "ok" to disrupt, harass and bully a customer at a restaurant?
because it's not against the law. you like to have polarizing opinions and make money doing so? be prepared for people to voice their disagreement with you when you're out and about. comes with the territory.
-
8 minutes ago, Azalin said:
You think that's okay? Something that mature people in a supposedly diverse society can resort to as an acceptable option when faced with someone who represents a different value set than your own?
Do you mean it would be okay if other patrons simply sat at their tables and voiced a general "boo" that she was allowed in and served the same as they were? Or do you mean more of a metaphorical "boo", like getting up from their seats and jeering her until her and her parents fled the property?
Of course, simply saying "boo" in a public setting is completely innocuous on it's own, right? I'll tell you what, Andrew - I disagree with you. I choose to express my disagreement by waiting until I see you and some of your family out for a pleasant evening of dinner and drinks. My friends and I won't throw anything at you or anything else that might be construed as "never OK". We'll just gather around you and yours and boo until you get up and leave.
Perfectly okay, right?
yeah sure its fine w me
-
4 minutes ago, Paulus said:
I am aware. I can still think the ignorant masses (everything on twitter) and those who makes these decisions are detriments a healthy society. Good comedy pushes the envelope and offends.
I never mentioned the "state." I meant what I said, and find the current state of things stupid. But, the PC thing and fake outrage is the current fad, so the cows do their thing.
i know you didn't mention it. I was building off your comment with my own.
-
31 minutes ago, /dev/null said:
Some people may disagree with her.
Does that make her a viable target for assault?
No, assault is never OK. Had other patrons booed her out of the restaurant, that's OK.
-
18 minutes ago, Paulus said:
Bar has legit mental issues. Most comedians do. I was never a fan of the lady. That said, I have a great hatred to those who try and silence comedians, for their comedy. I had no issue with the redhead lady and the bloody Trump head. The backlash against comedians is what ought be actively rejected.
I agree that the state should not silence anyone. However, if you say/do something that really offends people, you get backlash. The bloody Trump head thing is terribly offensive and she got backlash, which was deserved IMO.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
But you asked who was still employed. Michelle Wolf has a Netflix show.
I looked up Valerie Jarett's parents on wiki (so grain of salt). Her father is black. Her mother was 1/4th black, and also French and Scottish. They were American. So you are partially correct, and I was partially correct. ?I didn't know she had a show to begin with. If she said some racist stuff at the correspondents dinner then Netflix should probably have stepped in.
I didn't know Jarett's mother was 1/4 black.
We've gone on a tangent here a bit, but I'm just going back to my original point that i don't see how Roseanne's statement was political.
-
Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:
See White House correspondent dinner.
Here's one from Wanda Sykes:
In this case, Google is your friend. Start googling "Trump jokes".
And again, Valerie Jarett is NOT black (she is Iranian, which is caucasian so that lets out "racist" based on color for most people), and Muslim is NOT a race.I don't think calling someone a m-f'r is as bad as comparing a black woman to an ape. Maybe it's differences of degrees. And didn't everyone lose their collective **** over the woman at the correspondent dinner?
Jarett is black. She was born in Iran but both her parents are African-American.
-
Just now, 3rdnlng said:
Yeah and wasn't she rightly pilloried for that? I think they kicked her off the CNN show she was appearing on.
NYC politician wants Bills+Giants to adopt Jets Anthem policy
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by Andrew in CA
And my question is why. Why has it been a tradition for decades? It's pointless. It's an embarrassment and if you think it actually supports and revers this great nation you are mistaken. Hundreds of dopes are puking, or chugging beers, or fighting each other during the anthem. Because of the routine nature of it, the anthem has become a school bell to tell fans to get to their seats before the game starts. Honoring the country is so attenuated from the song that they might as well play the power rangers/ninja turtles/he-man song.
You say that "a significant majority of fans prefer that it's done" -- where is your support for that? Show me your basis for that, please. I'd love to be wrong on this.
The anthem has become so attenuated from true patriotism because of its routine playing at every sporting event that it has become meaningless. If it is ever going to be meaningful again, the powers that be better parse it out so that when folks hear it, they don't automatically think kickoff/puck drop/tip off/first pitch is 60 seconds away. If anything, the routine nature has diminished whatever power that song had. And it's a damn shame.