Jump to content

National Anthem (Cameron Jefferson)

bmur66

By bmur66
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

DirtDart RFA

DirtDart

Posted
Posted (edited)

If 50,000 violent Skinheads all somehow bought tickets for a game and were waiting outside the Bills stadium (for accuracys sake, I will assume theyre Bills fans) with brass knuckles and barbed 2x4s, and the NFL had no time to switch venues, then maybe youd get an empty stadium. But even then, Im skeptical. The Bills tailgate lot basically looks like Mad Max: Fury Road these days, and they still let everyone in.-Deadspin

So now the skinheads don't have rights, and freedom of speech. Black lives matter, and ANTIFA get to express their views. Jesus pick one. Edited by DirtDart
  • Replies 686
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Kelly the Dog Hall of Famer

Kelly the Dog

Posted
Posted (edited)

When the study in question notes in it's own weaknesses that they have no idea if the employers ever saw the names on the resumes in an employment environment where automated processes have replaced human review, amongst other critiques, yes. I have my strong doubts.

That's kind of a weak argument and you somewhat mischaracterize it. When I read what you wrote my first thought was, wow, maybe this isn't true. Then I read what they wrote. The facts are true. They couldn't be sure that the interviewers looked at the names because they weren't there when it happened. There was no weakness in the study. The ONLY way your criticism holds any water whatsoever is if you believe it was TOTAL COINCIDENCE that the black names got an enormous percentage less than white names.

Edited by Kelly the Dog
RaoulDuke79 All Pro

RaoulDuke79

Posted
Posted

 

Not saying there is, but I am saying he's got the freedom to wear them.

 

Then I asked if it was just a picture of a pig with no police reference, if that would still be offensive?

Well yeah, he has the freedom to wear them and deal with the repercussions for doing so. Label it black ball or whatever you want , but when you work for a company and your actions contribute to a financial loss for said company, don't expect to be a hot commodity.

26CornerBlitz Hall of Famer

26CornerBlitz

Posted
Posted

Well yeah, he has the freedom to wear them and deal with the repercussions for doing so. Label it black ball or whatever you want , but when you work for a company and your actions contribute to a financial loss for said company, don't expect to be a hot commodity.

 

There was no financial loss due to his actions.

What a Tuel Veteran

What a Tuel

Posted
Posted

That's kind of a weak argument and you somewhat mischaracterize it. When I read what you wrote my first thought was, wow, maybe this isn't true. Then I read what they wrote. The facts are true. They couldn't be sure that the interviewers looked at the names because they weren't there when it happened. There was no weakness in the study. The ONLY way your criticism holds any water whatsoever is if you believe it was TOTAL COINCIDENCE that the black names got an enormous percentage less than white names.

 

They didn't do any other culturally significant names though. It was solely white vs black. If American vs Eastern European sounding name has the same issue, would you admit that there's a variable here that may not be racism?

Kelly the Dog Hall of Famer

Kelly the Dog

Posted
Posted

 

They didn't do any other culturally significant names though. It was solely white vs black. If American vs Eastern European sounding name has the same issue, would you admit that there's a variable here that may not be racism?

You would have to make more of a clear hypothetical for me to know what I thought. If they used Aram, Hyak, Davrit, Anoush and Narek who got 33% less I would think we had something against Armenians.
klos63 Veteran

klos63

Posted
Posted

Ratings were down last year and the protests were one of the reasons.

BS- prove it. Thursday night games were awful. That hurts the ratings a lot.

boyst Hall of Famer

boyst

Posted
Posted

Scientific studies with real researchers from solid academia doing actual work with real numbers from documented cases are not good, versus Boyst62 random opinion with no research and no academia and no work and no numbers and no documents. Got it.

dude I did not even reply to your nonsense list, because it would be so easy to shoot holes through that it was ridiculous, and if this sounds all funky at least I spelled correctly I'm doing voice to text as I drive around on a tractor... That's how much this means to me... And I'm bored but the truth of the matter is Tasker though not very smart and terrible at Fantasy Football, well he already brought up the points that are worth bringing up I just never bother to take the time... My first name is Jeff if I spell it with the G does that make me French or a gangster because it's a g... I really am bored actually

Thats hysterical, maybe political debates hurt ratings genius

well, those debates hurt us all#terrible
xsoldier54 Veteran

xsoldier54

Posted
Posted

I will absolutely never get your obsession with standing for the national anthem, here in the UK we only know a few of the words and rarely ever actually sing it.

We fought a war against you people for oiur freedom. That's what the song is babout and that's why we stand. It's as a sign of respect for that flag and those men who fought opression to give us our freedom.

RaoulDuke79 All Pro

RaoulDuke79

Posted
Posted

That claim has been debunked.@richarddeitsch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per a Fox Sports exec (yes, Fox) who specializes in TV ratings, Kaepernick did not impact NFL ratings last year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/28/Media/Sports-Media.aspx

 

Well whatever. We have a different view on this topic. Personally if this nonsense draws attention from the game in tuning in less. You guys go ahead and fight the good fight. Hopefully the world will be a better place. I'll watch the bills and Liverpool.

xsoldier54 Veteran

xsoldier54

Posted
Posted

 

 

That claim has been debunked.

@richarddeitsch

Per a Fox Sports exec (yes, Fox) who specializes in TV ratings, Kaepernick did not impact NFL ratings last year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/28/Media/Sports-Media.aspx

 

I'm calling BS on this one. Ratings were down and he was a big reason. They can spin it however they want but it's a fact.

Kelly the Dog Hall of Famer

Kelly the Dog

Posted
Posted

dude I did not even reply to your nonsense list, because it would be so easy to shoot holes through that it was ridiculous, and if this sounds all funky at least I spelled correctly I'm doing voice to text as I drive around on a tractor... That's how much this means to me... And I'm bored but the truth of the matter is Tasker though not very smart and terrible at Fantasy Football, well he already brought up the points that are worth bringing up I just never bother to take the time... My first name is Jeff if I spell it with the G does that make me French or a gangster because it's a g... I really am bored actually

well, those debates hurt us all#terrible

He didn't shoot any holes through it and you knew they were ridiculous because the University of Chicago is not a good school? The professional researchers aren't qualified? You just know this stuff without looking at it?
26CornerBlitz Hall of Famer

26CornerBlitz

Posted
Posted

I'm calling BS on this one. Ratings were down and he was a big reason. They can spin it however they want but it's a fact.

 

:lol: What evidence do you cite that refutes the study done by an industry expert? I know....none. Just your unqualified opinion based on your saying it was the case. Color me convinced. :rolleyes:

Kelly the Dog Hall of Famer

Kelly the Dog

Posted
Posted

I'm calling BS on this one. Ratings were down and he was a big reason. They can spin it however they want but it's a fact.

I happen to think there were numerous reasons the ratings were down but how do you say he was a big reason and that is a fact?
BringBackOrton All Pro

BringBackOrton

Posted
Posted

That's kind of a weak argument and you somewhat mischaracterize it. When I read what you wrote my first thought was, wow, maybe this isn't true. Then I read what they wrote. The facts are true. They couldn't be sure that the interviewers looked at the names because they weren't there when it happened. There was no weakness in the study. The ONLY way your criticism holds any water whatsoever is if you believe it was TOTAL COINCIDENCE that the black names got an enormous percentage less than white names.

Luckily, that's exactly what you have to disprove to follow the Scientific Method,

Tasker wins.

RaoulDuke79 All Pro

RaoulDuke79

Posted
Posted (edited)

BS- prove it. Thursday night games were awful. That hurts the ratings a lot.

 

 

That claim has been debunked.

 

@richarddeitsch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per a Fox Sports exec (yes, Fox) who specializes in TV ratings, Kaepernick did not impact NFL ratings last year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/28/Media/Sports-Media.aspx

Maybe thats also why there are different forums on this board like PPP and the stadium wall, so entertainment doesn't mix with politics. What a novel idea.

Edited by RaoulDuke79
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...