Jump to content

Is anyone else less invested in this season than normal?


Cal

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Like A Mofo said:

 

Im going to respectfully disagree here on the picture that is being painted. Next time there is a cop shooting where it is not a white cop vs black victim, let me know the games leagues sit out at, the kneeling taking place, and the social media outrage displayed.

But that's not at all what I said. You will definitely continue to see outrage when it happens.  From my perspective you're mischaracterizing the argument which makes it easier to defend from your side. I'm not suggesting you're doing it on purpose, but that's what I see.

Edited by BullBuchanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Prickly Pete said:

Done with the NFL until they stop sending money to Black Lives Matter, so that pretty much means I'm done with the NFL, and other major professional sports for a very long time.

 

They can send money to other organizations that help those communities, and I will be fully supportive.

 

Until then, I don't care if the Bills play in the Super Bowl, I won't be following it.

The NFL, as other sports, does tons of community charity work, not related to BLM, or any social justice causes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TwistofFate said:

This BLM BS has me not wanting to watch any football at all.  The only games I plan on watching this year are the two Jet games, which I'm obligated to because of very close friends, and the Super Bowl if we get there. 

 

Aside from that, I'm out on this season and have zero respect for the commissioner and the league for supporting such BS and funneling it down my throat.  No thanks. 

 

17 hours ago, Cal said:

 

I understand. I'm getting there too bro

Whats getting to me is the amount of division that continues to build in our country at the worst possible time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prickly Pete said:

 

 

At this point anyone using the term "black lives matter" certainly knows that it refers directly to the organization. There are plenty of other ways to get across the sentiment of black lives mattering than using the the same term. But then,  you already know that, but want to act disingenuous....because you are full of crap..

 

I don’t think that’s the case at all, which is my point. I bet a LOT of people are unaware of the organization itself and that it is anti-nuclear family as Marcellus Wiley discusses. I’m dead serious. I didn’t know that until I saw his clip. These are two very different things. One is a belief in what I feel to be an obvious truth (the need for equality), the other is an organization with an agenda and some points I just can’t get behind.

 

I’m dead serious. I think many people have this all lumped in together in their minds, which is a mistake. Have you read their positions in their mission statement? I haven’t, but if Marcellus is accurate here I’ve got a big problem with BLM.  Nuclear family is critical to the odds for success. I am still fully behind the obvious lower case blm. 

 

But thanks for the lovely characterization. I was just trying to make what I feel is a fair (and important) distinction, and I’m still not sure if you get my point. Concept vs Organization......two different things. 

 

 

.

Edited by Augie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t think that’s the case at all, which is my point. I bet a LOT of people are unaware of the organization itself and that it is anti-nuclear family as Marcellus Wiley discusses. I’m dead serious. I didn’t know that until I saw his clip. These are tow very different things. One is a belief in what I feel to be an obvious truth (the need for equality), the other is an organization with an agenda and some points I just can’t get behind.

 

I’m dead serious. I think many people have this all lumped in together in their minds, which is a mistake. Have you read their positions in their mission statement? I haven’t, but if Marcellus is accurate here I’ve got a big problem with BLM.  Nuclear family is critical to the odds for success. I am still fully behind the obvious lower case blm. 

 

But thanks for the lovely characterization. I was just trying to make what I feel is a fair (and important) distinction, and I’m still not sure if you get my point. Concept vs Organization......two different things. 

 

Take us to the Hamptons, Augie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t think that’s the case at all, which is my point. I bet a LOT of people are unaware of the organization itself and that it is anti-nuclear family as Marcellus Wiley discusses. I’m dead serious. I didn’t know that until I saw his clip. These are tow very different things. One is a belief in what I feel to be an obvious truth (the need for equality), the other is an organization with an agenda and some points I just can’t get behind.

 

I’m dead serious. I think many people have this all lumped in together in their minds, which is a mistake. Have you read their positions in their mission statement? I haven’t, but if Marcellus is accurate here I’ve got a big problem with BLM.  Nuclear family is critical to the odds for success. I am still fully behind the obvious lower case blm. 

 

But thanks for the lovely characterization. I was just trying to make what I feel is a fair (and important) distinction, and I’m still not sure if you get my point. Concept vs Organization......two different things. 

He's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Prickly Pete said:

Done with the NFL until they stop sending money to Black Lives Matter, so that pretty much means I'm done with the NFL, and other major professional sports for a very long time.

 

They can send money to other organizations that help those communities, and I will be fully supportive.

 

Until then, I don't care if the Bills play in the Super Bowl, I won't be following it.

Donald,  Is that you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Well Pete, you are indeed Prickly.   :)

 

I honestly don’t know the answer to this: has the NFL actually sent any money the the organization that is Black Lives Matter? Or have they just supported the obvious philosophy that black lives matter. These are two very different things. 

 

I happen to believe that an intact nuclear family improves the likelihood of success for children. Marcellus indicates BLM (the organization) disagrees, so there needs to be a distinction between the obvious and the bogus organization which is collecting money from those unaware of the difference. 

 

 

.

Great reply. While Im not a fan of the organization I am of the thought of it. I think Im the only diehard Conservative in my family that plans to turn on the tv at kickoff and enjoy the NFL. Im not a boycotter in the grand scheme of things however I do voice my thoughts when companies head in a direction that I disagree with. I am the guy that stands back and looks at stuff like the kneeling and although I am opposed to thst I understand the reason they are doing it. Although I dont like they are doing it I also recognise the majority are using their income to help with many things like children hospitals and school and education initiatives.  Should I boycott that too? We need to realize we are a society of people that love the pendulum swing but truly it isnt always far left or right but often we need to meet in the middle. 

Finally,  to answer the original question by @Cal, yes....Im pumped about the Bills this year. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Best Player Available said:

Some of us fought for this country. so, chumps like you have the right too mouth off.

You did? Are you sure it wasn't due to lack of viable alternatives or self interest? 

Did we not have the right before you took that job? What about folks in other countries that have that right without you doing a job you were paid for.

Edited by BullBuchanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

You did? Are you sure it wasn't due to lack of viable alternatives or self interest? 

Did we not have the right before? What about folks in other countries that have that right without you doing a job you were paid for.

your too much of a ppp idiot too even engage with. 

get back in your hole. since you have no clue how most people who have served.

even got there. adios! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t think that’s the case at all, which is my point. I bet a LOT of people are unaware of the organization itself and that it is anti-nuclear family as Marcellus Wiley discusses. I’m dead serious. I didn’t know that until I saw his clip. These are tow very different things. One is a belief in what I feel to be an obvious truth (the need for equality), the other is an organization with an agenda and some points I just can’t get behind.

 

I’m dead serious. I think many people have this all lumped in together in their minds, which is a mistake. Have you read their positions in their mission statement? I haven’t, but if Marcellus is accurate here I’ve got a big problem with BLM.  Nuclear family is critical to the odds for success. I am still fully behind the obvious lower case blm. 

 

But thanks for the lovely characterization. I was just trying to make what I feel is a fair (and important) distinction, and I’m still not sure if you get my point. Concept vs Organization......two different things. 

 

Sure. And when someone says "Make America great again" they likely don't mean "Make America Great Again", and aren't referring to the Trump slogan.

 

And if the NBA paints "Make America great again" on their courts, it would be A-OK, and only insane Leftist's would confuse that uplifting message with supporting Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Prickly Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Best Player Available said:

your too much of a ppp idiot too even engage with. 

get back in your hole. since you have no clue how most people who have served.

even got there. adios! 

I mean I do, but ok. I come from a family with a lot of service members.
I politely reject the notion that the military protects our freedoms and I'm not interested in handing out 'attaboys for it.

It's a job.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Best Player Available said:

Some of us fought for this country. so, chumps like you have the right too mouth off.

Enjoy your freedoms loser. 


Thank you for your service and courage (seriously).

 

TBH, if I had fought for this country I’d be even more dismayed with the current state of affairs.  This country is a MESS.  It’s a mess on all sides.  The cities and infrastructure are crumbling.  The national debt is skyrocketing.  We have under-educated our population for decades, resulting in tens of millions of adult-aged morons who lack meaningful job skills, let alone critical thinking skills.  We chose pensions over progress in the 70s and many parts of the country (Buffalo is a prime example) are still suffering the consequences.  We no longer create wealth at the rate we once did.  Something as simple as fixing a school or a subway requires greasing so many politicians and unions that it’s financially impossible.  We reject science on all sides of the political spectrum.  We are obese as hell, we subsidize corn products to fatten people up and then subsidize fixing the resulting health problems.  And we have an unqualified morally and financially bankrupt leadership class that cannot respond productively to the challenges of our times.  We are third-world.  Honestly at this rate we are a decade or two away from being Lebanon.  This country is TRASH right now and it’s a damn shame because we should be the best country in the world.  We got fat and lazy and stupid and we paid into pension plans for government employees instead of investing in our kids’ future.  Yeah I’d be damned furious if I fought for this crap.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:


Thank you for your service and courage (seriously).

 

TBH, if I had fought for this country I’d be even more dismayed with the current state of affairs.  This country is a MESS.  It’s a mess on all sides.  The cities and infrastructure are crumbling.  The national debt is skyrocketing.  We have under-educated our population for decades, resulting in tens of millions of adult-aged morons who lack meaningful job skills, let alone critical thinking skills.  We chose pensions over progress in the 70s and many parts of the country (Buffalo is a prime example) are still suffering the consequences.  We no longer create wealth at the rate we once did.  Something as simple as fixing a school or a subway requires greasing so many politicians and unions that it’s financially impossible.  We reject science on all sides of the political spectrum.  We are obese as hell, we subsidize corn products to fatten people up and then subsidize fixing the resulting health problems.  And we have an unqualified morally and financially bankrupt leadership class that cannot respond productively to the challenges of our times.  We are third-world.  Honestly at this rate we are a decade or two away from being Lebanon.  This country is TRASH right now and it’s a damn shame because we should be the best country in the world.  We got fat and lazy and stupid and we paid into pension plans for government employees instead of investing in our kids’ future.  Yeah I’d be damned furious if I fought for this crap.

Good points. All of them.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You did? Are you sure it wasn't due to lack of viable alternatives or self interest? 

Did we not have the right before you took that job? What about folks in other countries that have that right without you doing a job you were paid for.

 

Yes...because someone fought for it previously and if they didn't continue to, you'd cease to have that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwistofFate said:

 

Yes...because someone fought for it previously and if they didn't continue to, you'd cease to have that right.

When did they fight for it previously? Why would I cease to have it? Who is capable of taking it that the military prevents?

Edited by BullBuchanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Why would I cease to have it? Who is capable of taking it that the military prevents?

 

China, Russia, Mexico.....our own tyrannical government...take your pick.  Military is the wall between you speaking Chinese or you being allowed to say what you want.  Try going to China and typing some of the stuff you have in this thread, even the UK for that matter...you'd be in jail already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwistofFate said:

 

China, Russia, Mexico.....our own tyrannical government...take your pick.  Military is the wall between you speaking Chinese or you being allowed to say what you want.  Try going to China and typing some of the stuff you have in this thread, even the UK for that matter...you'd be in jail already.

 

He'd be in jail in the UK? Please explain that to me? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwistofFate said:

 

China, Russia, Mexico.....our own tyrannical government...take your pick.  Military is the wall between you speaking Chinese or you being allowed to say what you want.  Try going to China and typing some of the stuff you have in this thread, even the UK for that matter...you'd be in jail already.

I would be in jail in the UK for typing the things I have? I think not.

Are we actively in wars or have we been in the last 100 years with China, Russia or Mexico?
They were all allies in WW2.

Is Mexico is trying to take my freedom to challenge your assertions on the internet?

When has the military protected us against our own tyrannical government?

 

Edited by BullBuchanan
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

He's not.

 

Since he’s a smart guy and he preceded the comment with “quote”, I felt compelled to look it up. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a hater and there’s a lot of great stuff in here, but there is also what Marcellus read in that clip. I am pro-nuclear family wherever possible. Maybe this was meant to say we work together and survive when the nuclear family is no longer possible? IDK. But it’s in there so I can see where he would question it. Hey, Columbia would not have me on their radar, I promise!

 

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

Feel free to respond,  or not. I’m just going to look forward to football coming soon as we move forward. 

 

GO BILLS! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Since he’s a smart guy and he preceded the comment with “quote”, I felt compelled to look it up. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a hater and there’s a lot of great stuff in here, but there is also what Marcellus read in that clip. I am pro-nuclear family wherever possible. Maybe this was meant to say we work together and survive when the nuclear family is no longer possible? IDK. But it’s in there so I can see where he would question it. Hey, Columbia would not have me on their radar, I promise!

 

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

Feel free to respond,  or not. I’m just going to look forward to football coming soon as we move forward. 

 

GO BILLS! 

Personally, I'm not typically a person that's invested in specific social missions/causes. It's not my place, and honestly I'm not that interested. Where I do step in is on matters of oppression, and so this is a weird one for me.

However, this whole anti-nuclear family thing is just straight up reading comprehension failure, and that I can't abide.

Everyone that's come out against that line has conveniently taken it out of context, skipping down to that specific line and cutting out the parts that don't help them make their argument. The entire mission statement of one that is of inclusiveness. They reject the "requirement", not the option. They used the word specifically. The rest of their mission statement is much the same. The entire message is an expansion of ideas and accepted beliefs, not one of contractions as some folks are trying to characterize it as.

I reject tomatoes as a requirement for something to be called a sandwich, but if you want tomatoes on your sandwhich, you do you. That's what's being said there.

I have no idea why Marcellus Wiley is such a lightning rod for this. 

Edited by BullBuchanan
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Personally, I'm not typically a person that's invested in specific social missions/causes. It's not my place, and honestly I'm not that interested. Where I do step in is on matters of oppression, and so this is a weird one for me.

However, this whole anti-nuclear family thing is just straight up reading comprehension failure, and that I can't abide.

Everyone that's come out against that line has conveniently taken it out of context, skipping down to that specific line and cutting out the parts that don't help them make their argument. The entire mission statement of one that is of inclusiveness. They reject the "requirement", not the option. They used the word specifically. The rest of their mission statement is much the same. The entire message is an expansion of ideas and accepted beliefs, not one of contractions as some folks are trying to characterize it as.

I reject tomatoes as a requirement for something to be called a sandwich, but if you want tomatoes on your sandwich, you do you. That's what's being said there.

I have no idea why Marcellus Wiley is such a lightning rod for this. 


This reminds me of being on twitter and seeing someone tweet “Im not into politics, and I dont have strong feelings about Trump, but ...” and then you click on the tweet and see their Twitter handle is something ridiculous like @ResistTrumpAtAllCosts.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:


This reminds me of being on twitter and seeing someone tweet “Im not into politics, and I dont have strong feelings about Trump, but ...” and then you click on the tweet and see their Twitter handle is something ridiculous like @ResistTrumpAtAllCosts.

It shouldn't, because I don't have much of a posting history of saving the whales, blood drives, or march of dimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Personally, I'm not typically a person that's invested in specific social missions/causes. It's not my place, and honestly I'm not that interested. Where I do step in is on matters of oppression, and so this is a weird one for me.

However, this whole anti-nuclear family thing is just straight up reading comprehension failure, and that I can't abide.

 Everyone that's come out against that line has conveniently taken it out of context, skipping down to that specific line and cutting out the parts that don't help them make their argument. The entire mission statement of one that is of inclusiveness. They reject the "requirement", not the option. They used the word specifically. The rest of their mission statement is much the same. The entire message is an expansion of ideas and accepted beliefs, not one of contractions as some folks are trying to characterize it as.

I reject tomatoes as a requirement for something to be called a sandwich, but if you want tomatoes on your sandwhich, you do you. That's what's being said there.

I have no idea why Marcellus Wiley is such a lightning rod for this. 

 

I don’t have an argument. I just read the words, as have many others. Maybe it’s not clearly written if so many take exception? To dismantle the patriarchal practice and disrupt nuclear family structure - those are words that capture people. Maybe keeping the nuclear family intact is not always possible, but it should almost always be a high priority for the sake of future generations. It’s not a “requirement”, but it is almost always superior. 

 

Anyway, this is about am I looking forward any less to football, yes or no? The answer is a firm no. It will certainly be different, but I’m still looking forward to it. I just hope they get to finish what they start.

 

 

.

 

 

.

Edited by Augie
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t have an argument. I just read the words, as have many others. Maybe it’s not clearly written if so many take exception? 

 

Anyway, this is about am I looking forward any less to football, yes or no? The answer is a firm no. It will certainly be different, but I’m still looking forward to it. I just hope they get to finish what they start.

If you read the sentence and you see the phrase  "disrupt requirement" and you interpret that as "completely eliminate", I'm honestly not sure if there are different words in the English language that would make it more clear. I mean that in all sincerity. The words mean what they mean.

Edited by BullBuchanan
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...