EasternOHBillsFan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 This whole thing started because one quarterback chose to be a baby and not act like an adult after a loss, while the other one after enduring many a loss and acting like an adult won another Championship.... and the justification for the reporting of this was based upon his SKIN COLOR.... that to me is intolerable. This "journalist" should be roundly criticized for this obvious tabloid journalism...
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 This whole thing started because one quarterback chose to be a baby and not act like an adult after a loss, while the other one after enduring many a loss and acting like an adult won another Championship.... and the justification for the reporting of this was based upon his SKIN COLOR.... that to me is intolerable. This "journalist" should be roundly criticized for this obvious tabloid journalism... umm but did Payton do it ? Which is the important issue . So now the golden boy has committed sexual misconduct and had Steroids delivered to him home . Lets keep peeling back the onion
xsoldier54 Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 This whole thing started because one quarterback chose to be a baby and not act like an adult after a loss, while the other one after enduring many a loss and acting like an adult won another Championship.... and the justification for the reporting of this was based upon his SKIN COLOR.... that to me is intolerable. This "journalist" should be roundly criticized for this obvious tabloid journalism... This. Absolutely unequivocally agree 100%. Tabloid journalism and race baiting at it's best.
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Is the article racially motivated, are there double standards in America ? Both good questions . I think the first issue do you believe it happen, if so is it relavent. Personally In this case it is hard to see an underhanded motive by the accuser. Is it relative absolutley , Payton has profitted greatly on the back of the aww shucks imagine, not the guy banging his dick on someones head . This. Absolutely unequivocally agree 100%. Tabloid journalism and race baiting at it's best. again I ask . do you think he did it. Leave the abstract issue aside . Edited February 14, 2016 by baskingridgebillsfan
EasternOHBillsFan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Is the artical Racial motivate, are there double standards in America ? Both good questions . I think the first issue do you believe it happen, if so is it relavent. Personally In this case it is hard to see an underhanded motive by the accuser. Is it relative absolutley , Payton has profitted greatly on the back of the aww shucks imagine, not the guy banging his dick on someones head . again I ask . do you think he did it. Leave the abstract issue aside . It ceased to be an "abstract issue" when the motives for this "story" were based on race. It invalidates the entire piece to know that the intent is reprehensible.
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 It ceased to be an "abstract issue" when the motives for this "story" were based on race. It invalidates the entire piece to know that the intent is reprehensible. Why ? What you saying is If a story is originally reported with an agenda the facts contained in the story are irrelevant. Btw acting like a immature jack ass is a not nearly ass bad as rubbing your ass in someone face.
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Why ? What you saying is If a story is originally reported with an agenda the facts contained in the story are irrelevant. Btw acting like a immature jack ass is a not nearly ass bad as rubbing your ass in someone face. It is curious why we're rehashing this 20 year old story. What exactly is the point? That Peyton Manning did something wrong a long time ago and therefore what?
YoloinOhio Posted February 14, 2016 Author Posted February 14, 2016 This whole thing started because one quarterback chose to be a baby and not act like an adult after a loss, while the other one after enduring many a loss and acting like an adult won another Championship.... and the justification for the reporting of this was based upon his SKIN COLOR.... that to me is intolerable. This "journalist" should be roundly criticized for this obvious tabloid journalism...i think it actually started getting dusted off because a lawsuit was just filed a week ago against UT in which the manning assault is named. The article being discussed does mention the comparison between cam and Peyton images, but it's not the only article about this.It is curious why we're rehashing this 20 year old story. What exactly is the point? That Peyton Manning did something wrong a long time ago and therefore what?the article is an op-Ed about how his image is squeaky clean because this incident took place a long time ago without the media consumption we have now. but what if social media and 24-7 coverage had been around then... Would it still be as squeaky clean? That is kind of what I took from it. But overall, I never really knew what happened with the incident and the details were pretty bad. Regardless of how it is presented.
shrader Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I had to serve on a jury last week for a week long trial. It was a particularly bad divorce, accusations of adultery, hiding money... that kind of stuff. This whole thread makes me think of that immediately. During the first half of the trial with the plaintiff going through their whole argument, it looked really bad for the defendant. I know She looked like the scum of the earth and guilty as sin. That half of the trial is exactly what we just read here. But then there's that missing part, every single word from the defense. Once we started to hear their side of the story and hear from their witnesses, the whole thing became a jumbled mess and we realized the plaintiff wasn't exactly an angel either. She wound up not receiving a thing. The only facts ultimately acknowledged as "facts" by the court were their marriage date, the divorce date, and the defendants 2nd marriage date, not exactly earth shattering details. If we judged cases like this solely on what we've been given by King, we'd have a 100% conviction rate (or successful lawsuits). These arguments are designed for one sole reason, to make the defendant look as bad as humanly possible. Unfortunately, that's all we ever use to publicly judge people.
HamSandwhich Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 "The 74-page document is something that was written by the lawyers representing Jamie Ann Naughright in her defamation case against the Mannings. The 74-page document is, necessarily, one-sided." Says a lot to me.
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 the article is an op-Ed about how his image is squeaky clean because this incident took place a long time ago without the media consumption we have now. but what if social media and 24-7 coverage had been around then... Would it still be as squeaky clean? That is kind of what I took from it. But overall, I never really knew what happened with the incident and the details were pretty bad. Regardless of how it is presented. That's not what I see. I see some race-baiting douche bag with a poorly constructed argument trying to draw a false equivalence between the two players and then attributing all differences in perception to racism.
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 That's not what I see. I see some race-baiting douche bag with a poorly constructed argument trying to draw a false equivalence between the two players and then attributing all differences in perception to racism. Again everyone wants to talk about the motive behind the article , but not weather Payton did it.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Again everyone wants to talk about the motive behind the article , but not weather Payton did it. ...because whether or not he did it is not in dispute. He did it.
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 ...because whether or not he did it is not in dispute. He did it. Correct The rest is just bs
Beerball Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 That's not what I see. I see some race-baiting douche bag with a poorly constructed argument trying to draw a false equivalence between the two players and then attributing all differences in perception to racism. I only read through it once, but, to me it is a story about Manning and it stands on it's own. The fact that the author brought race into the equation was unnecessary and, in fact, based on many responses in this thread, it became THE subject. Those of you who enjoy obfuscating "facts" are left with exactly what you want. You have a place to point your finger & shout your outrage (at some who are equally outraged on the other side). Some try to have a reasonable conversation about the subject, but, it's difficult. You asked upthread why 20 years later? It's a new story for many, myself included, to a degree. I've heard the innuendo, but, this is the first time I've seen the documentation. I discard innuendo, I'm too busy for it.
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Again everyone wants to talk about the motive behind the article , but not weather Payton did it. What's to talk about? I haven't seen it disputed. So again, what's the point?
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 What's to talk about? I haven't seen it disputed. So again, what's the point?I agree with you but there are 5 pages discussing race instead of innocent or guilt
Beerball Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 What's to talk about? I haven't seen it disputed. So again, what's the point? If there is no point to you...why?
FireChan Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I agree with you but there are 5 pages discussing race instead of innocent or guilt Because no one disputes innocence or guilt.
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I only read through it once, but, to me it is a story about Manning and it stands on it's own. The fact that the author brought race into the equation was unnecessary and, in fact, based on many responses in this thread, it became THE subject. Those of you who enjoy obfuscating "facts" are left with exactly what you want. You have a place to point your finger & shout your outrage (at some who are equally outraged on the other side). Some try to have a reasonable conversation about the subject, but, it's difficult. You asked upthread why 20 years later? It's a new story for many, myself included, to a degree. I've heard the innuendo, but, this is the first time I've seen the documentation. I discard innuendo, I'm too busy for it. What have I obfuscated? You even agreed that the racial aspect was unnecessary, which is what I called out, so what's your issue? If there is no point to you...why? Why what? What's your question?
Recommended Posts