Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Dissident2

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,257

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Dissident2

  1. Dissident2
    With that intimidating, athletic build? No way. Riddick just must be a raquetball GOAT.
  2. Dissident2
    ES gets a mention in this article, along with the old "Andyman" saga. The overuse of "[insert racist team name here]" gets really old in my opinion, but interesting article despite all that: https://defector.com/dan-snyder-accused-of-wielding-twitter-bot-army-has-a-pathetic-history-of-astroturfing/#:~:text=Dan Snyder stands accused of,planet%2C denies all astroturfing allegations.
  3. Dissident2
    This thread has me shoveling names into my ignore list like a 19th century stoker shoveling coal into a steam engine. Keep 'em comin'!
  4. Dissident2
    Time will tell. From what I can see, this is hardly a huge "revelation" or anything that wasn't talked about on Friday. The last line of the article says: "However the unfinished report made its way to 106.7 The Fan, there’s now reason to believe that the initial report was accurate but premature. Time will tell whether that’s the case. Regardless, this specific development makes full transparency as to the investigation, the findings, and the consequences even more important." So the only question is whether or not the report they looked at was "finished" and actually sent to the league. Looks the answer to the latter question is "no." The answer to the former question is still unclear. Even if it wasn't finished, does anyone really believe the conclusion to force Dan to sell would be added to a draft and then removed? Come on, man. This changes virtually nothing.
  5. Dissident2
    It really all depends on what's in the investigation report. If it's stuff that 21 other owners can look at and say, "Holy lord, I'm nowhere near that bad, this is disgusting," then there's hope for what we all want. My hunch is that will be the case, because again, we're not talking about one instance of wrongdoing here, we're talking about stuff that stretches out over decades with many, many people affected, AND a potential effort to cover that up. We also have to factor in the fact that he's devalued the team since he's been the owner to the point of it being an utter embarrassment to the league as a whole. I'm also of the opinion that the whole "they are all scared to set a precedent" thing is a bit overblown. He's a terrible owner who does damage to the brand that keeps everyone rich. He's nearly destroyed what was once one of the premier teams and fan bases in the entire league, representing the nation's capital. He's liked by virtually no one among that group, from what I can gather. Here's there chance to basically take Fredo out for a boat ride. I hope they take it. ALL THAT SAID, I still think the odds favor a suspension and not forcing the little despot to sell. I hope I'm wrong, and I wish the law firm never offered that second option.
  6. Dissident2
    Whatever works, I will take! Kevin Sheehan was sort of clarifying a point this morning I made earlier in the thread, that really the only way the NFL cannot make the main results of the report public at this point would be to work out a way for Snyder to sell. Anything short of that, they're going to need to 'splain. He did say that the cover-up aspects could be what end up causing this UNLESS there's some sort of smoking gun in the report that no one knows about and the league (and Snyder) would want to keep quiet, hence making a sale beneficial to all parties. I personally doubt there's any kind of huge smoking gun of that magnitude only because of the other option presented to suspend Snyder. If there was something truly illegal in that report, I don't believe that option would've been included. My hunch is that they uncovered so much in the way of a simply horrific, toxic culture created and perpetuated by Snyder that, combined with his efforts to cover it up, they feel it would be best for the league if he's gone. It will take 2/3 of the owners to vote for that to happen if it's the case. So that means you'll need 21 owners out of 31 who don't consider themselves in that "there but for the grace of God go I" category. Maybe I'm naive, but that doesn't sound completely out of the question to me. We shall see.
  7. Dissident2
    Sports Junkies doubling down on their report from last week this morning. They are 100 percent in on what they talked about with the Wilkinson report and it's number one recommendation to force lil' dan to sell.
  8. Dissident2
    It really is insane. Then again, there's a lot I can't wrap my head around in the world over the last few years. I've heard some seem to suggest this is some kind of "cancel culture" attack on Little Danny. Actually saying that after all the stories, all the people who've come forward, all the drek and horrible examples of humanity that have come through the team's doors over the years, what he's done to the team simply ON the field, and now the results of an independent investigation that spoke with well over 100 people and pored over stories and data and comes to the conclusion that he needs to go? This is not related to "cancel culture." This is a proven POS who the NFL should not want representing them in any capacity. And yes, I believe the Junkies' story is 100 percent accurate. There is absolutely NO WAY they report about this without it being vetted. I suspect it COULD be a leak from Wilkinson's team to try to force the NFL to make the results public. If so, brilliant move, because now the league is really stuck. Really the only way they can get around NOT making things public at this point would be to force Snyder to sell, which I will happily take! They can't really suspend him without making things public now that we know the top recommendation was to force him to sell. They now are in a position where anything less than forcing him out they will need to explain. Pass the popcorn.
  9. Dissident2
    That wasn't directed at you, but more a general comment directed at something I've seen a lot, i.e., "Kraft didn't get punished for what he did, why would Snyder?" Not even remotely the same thing between those two guys.
  10. Dissident2
    Jesus Christ, why do people still equate these things? We're talking about one instance in Kraft's case versus TWENTY YEARS of systematic harrassment and abuse.
  11. Dissident2
    Ugh, when I see some of these names, like "Dalton" and "Tyrod Taylor" specifically, I almost soil myself. OK. Not almost. Please, Dear Crom, God of Conan, do not let this come to pass. No pun intended. At least not at first.
  12. Dissident2
    Whatever the investigation reveals, he's a "vile and pathetic man" in my book already based on a mountain of evidence spanning two decades that's already out there and other things I know that aren't. As far as "unverified speculation," that's why they did an investigation that, as of now, very few know the results of. An investigation that interviewed 100s of people from what I understand. THAT is what will ultimately decide the situation, not public sentiment. I'm not a fan of the whole "mob rules mentality" that's so prevalent right now either, but Jesus Christ, if I was an owner, there'd be enough out there already for me to not want this douchebag to be a part of my brand. It's one thing to have a few skeletons, it's another to have entire graveyards. If I started believing every NFL owner was "just as bad," I'd have to really question my own principles in continuing to support the league in general. It's hard enough sometimes to keep supporting this team knowing who owns it. The NFL needs to make that report public to the extent that they are able and then we can go from there.
  13. Dissident2
    Based on the rest of your comment, there's no way the first part is true. As said above, all this is written into the NFL's bylaws among owners, i.e., the other owners can oust one of their own if they believe his/her conduct is detrimental to their brand and MUTUAL BUSINESS. There's nothing "un-American" about that. It's not like they'd be taking all his money away and locking him up in jail because of "public opinion." They'd force him to sell the team and he'd rake in more money than ever. He just wouldn't be allowed to poison the brand any more. I hope to God this happens. This is a vile, pathetic man.
  14. Dissident2
    Yesterday, the petition regarding making the info public was at about 5,000. Since the Post reported on it, it's almost 25,000! Amazing response. https://www.change.org/p/roger-goodell-nfl-washington-football-team-do-the-right-thing-for-women
  15. Dissident2
    I'm sure the owners will. Or at least pretty sure. I seriously doubt the NFL will allow it to be released to the public, goons that they are. I'll be shocked if they do. There will be a lot of social media outcry for awhile about it, but they'll just say nothing and weather the storm until it dissipates. Their shield logo is a joke. Only thing it protects is their money.
  16. Dissident2
    Interesting interview with Donald Wells, former director of the cheerleaders, some of whom were featured in those "lewd" videos. If you can get through the caricature of a radio douche doing the interview, it's pretty interesting insight: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/457-elliot-in-the-morning-28216764/episode/eitm-donald-wells-22321-78018716/
  17. Dissident2
    Heartily concur. This guy was insanely lucky to have had a head coaching job for nearly 6 years in the league. He's a schlub. Anyone who makes it that far has got some serious know-how and football intelligence compared to the general public, obviously. But compared to his peers in the league? Schlub. Watching him on his local "Coach's Show" all those years doesn't make me long for hearing those "dulcet tones" do a game, either. Ugh. Can you imagine anyone EVER saying they'd "run through a wall" for Jay Gruden? Maybe run INTO one headfirst because of how annoying he is, but through it? Nah. Go back to sitting drunk on the sidewalk, smoking, wearing your stupid shoes and hitting on young girls with your gut hanging out, Jay.
  18. Dissident2
    For any interested ... a petition created by a former WFT cheerleader (I think) asking that the NFL investigation into Snyder be made public and the cheerleading squad reinstituted. https://www.change.org/p/roger-goodell-nfl-washington-football-team-do-the-right-thing-for-women
  19. Dissident2
    That's correct. And I doubt the NFL investigators could've forced Larry to be interviewed or anyone else who didn't want to be. That's why that court case was necessary in the grand scheme of wanting Snyder being held responsible. Lying to a Post reporter is one thing. Lying under oath in court is quite another. You had two separate people from different periods there saying Larry ordered these videos to be made, and one of them says he also told the crew it was ultimately "for the owner." Seems to me it wouldn't have been that hard to at the very least prove that Larry asked for the videos. Then it would've been up to Larry as to whether or not he'd tell the truth as to Snyder's involvement. Now these guys can just pretend it all never happened. Sickening.
  20. Dissident2
    Oh, I think they could've been if it had ended up in court. That's why I was disappointed to see it settled on first hearing. They would've had the chance to question all involved, under OATH, and it could've gotten BAD for Snyder in that scenario. If it had come out in that setting that he and others had been lying all the time about these videos, I don't see how he'd survive that. To me, that was absolutely the best chance that existed in something big enough to force his removal or force him to sell. Maybe there's something out there yet to come, we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not hopeful, if one can actually be "hopeful" about something like this.
  21. Dissident2
    No, it hasn't. That's what the court case would've hopefully done. So far we have a former employee who went on record saying Larry told the editing crew that they had to make the 2008 video "for the owner." Apparently the guy who made the video in 2010 (a different person) suggested the same thing. He said he was ordered by Larry to burn the videos to DVDs that said "For Executive Meeting." Both videos supposedly have the same songs on the backing tracks: The Rolling Stones, U2 and Aerosmith. The first two of those bands Snyder is on record saying are his "favorites." But no, hasn't been proven. I personally believe the circumstantial evidence all points to Snyder. Whether they could've proven that in court I guess is a different story that we'll never get the ending for. I was just really hoping to see Larry and others have to take the stand, because at the very LEAST, Larry would've most likely been held responsible. Would've been interesting to see if he would've "flipped" on his boss or taken the blame himself. These guys really got off easy on this imo. So they have videos for 2008 and 2010. Have to wonder if there were others created in other years, which would make sense. Will probably never know at this point.
  22. Dissident2
    That's a fair point, and I agree with you. I was writing more out of the immediate reaction on seeing that article, but it did come off as selfish as it relates to my desire to see Snyder gone. And you're right, it's easy for someone not really involved to sit back and say they wish it had "gone to court." Mea culpa on that. All that said, I still maintain a case like this was the best hope in getting Snyder removed, especially in light of Goodell's recent remarks about "all the good things Dan and Tanya" have done. I don't see the NFL report getting that done at this point, unless there's something in there that no one yet knows about. And even in that case, it'd probably have to be something HUGE. I'd be surprised if the results are even made public. It's just sickening to see Snyder buy his way out of these things yet again.
  23. Dissident2
    Very disappointed they settled. I think having this case going to court and all the publicity that would've resulted was really the best chance there was to get him removed. Seems to me there was a pretty strong case there, but who knows. Maybe it wasn't as strong as it looked. I figured this was the likely result, but I was holding out hope it would go to court. Geez, Allred must've settled a long time ago. Haven't heard anything from her for months. Would love to know the details of that settlement. Sure he obviously bought their silence, so we'll never know.
  24. Dissident2
    Those earlier quotes from Goodell don't have me very hopeful. “To me, the important thing in the context of this is that the Washington football club has made a lot of changes already,” Goodell said. “They asked for this type of review. They asked for the recommendations on this. Dan and Tanya [Snyder] are going to be done making those changes for the football club. It’s really — it’s good to see that. But I expect that Beth’s recommendations will be something that will be added to that.” The way he's talking about "Dan and Tanya" there is sickening and really points to what will probably be the overall outcome in all of this. "They asked for this type of review." Who is this idiot trying to fool? The only reason any of these "good moves" have been happening is because Snyder has been deprived of all other options. Sure, the result of these moves is good for the team on the field, but the main question people with a conscience should be asking is, do they exonerate this man for the past 20 years, especially when he's never admitted to ANY wrongdoing and continues to deny everything?
  25. Dissident2
    Good Lord, please, no Carr, no Trubisky, no Mariota. I'd far rather draft who we can and roll with Allen and Heinicke than those guys. Just not even remotely enough of an upgrade to pick those guys. Would far rather wait. Don't think we have what it takes to get Watson, and don't know if I'd want to if we were willing. Just too big a price. Stafford was our best hope. I was all-in for that. Where's Yoda when you need him to say, "No, there is another ..."?
×
×
  • Create New...