SonnySide Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 There has been an attempt by certain political groups to keep segments of the population ignorant and angry so as to control them. Peterson's words and the support he has gotten is proof those political groups have been successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Lets see.....millions of dollars, fancy cars, huge houses, beautiful women, worshiped by millions of fans, glorified name, eating great food at the finest restaurants, possibility of becoming a historical figure, top notch medical care, etc....Hell, I would pick cotton or build pyramids if I got all those benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherz Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Well, owners trade players all the time, and usually players are just run into the ground until their bodies just give in. Owners don't really care about the players' well being, just look at the concussion situation that would have never been addressed if the owners didn't think it would affect their pockets. I'm not saying AP is right, or that it is a good analogy. I just don't like how people always get their pitchforks out and just disregard the person as a whole. A statement about slavery doesn't define AP. Nappy-headed hos doesn't define Imus (well, not by itself it doesn't. the way that played out, I really do think he's a racist).. Owners trade players? You mean as in sports trades among teams? You mean like in the strategy of the game right? You aren't actually alledging that the owners OWN the human beings are you? You do realize that the players can literally stop playing whenever they want right? You do know that if the player didn't like the trade they could literally say "no" and go get a different job right? I just want to make sure that I am understanding you here. Are you saying that because the "owners" who own the football franchises trade players to other football franchises in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement that the same players agreed to and whereby the player still gets the benefit of the contract that they voluntarily entered into with the trading team that somehow they are slaves? Or that the "owners" are akin to slave owners? Or that trading a fullback for a wide reciever is akin to the "slave trade". I see you using the cute buzz words like "trade" and "owner" but you do realize that outside of that ANY analogy to the slave trade is absolutely ludicrous right? You understand that AP voluntarily entered the nfl draft right? You get that nobody went to his home, grabbed him and his family, forced them into a conveyance and brought him to a trading block against his will right? You know that AP was "invited" to the combine and he accepted the invitation. You do know that players who get "drafted" aren't actually forced into the NFL even though we use the same word for a military draft whereby young men were actually forced to go and die fo their country even if they didn't want to. You do know that words in our language can be used in many different contexts right? You understand that once AP was "Drafted" he was OFFERED a contract that he could have said no to right? You understand that in reality, AP paid a guy millions of dollars to HELP him get the contract he got because HE WANTED to play in the NFL and get paid millions and millions of dollars to play a game? I am just curious because you are apparently calling me ignorant because I called AP ignorant for saying that he was a modern day slave. I'm just making sure that the person who is calling me ignorant knows all of the stuff I typed up there because it seems obvious to me that the guy I was calling ignorant (AP) doesn't. As for the motives of the owners relative to the bodies of NFL players breaking down, couldn't the same be said about guys who work on an assembly line at any factory? Coal Miners in the mines of West Virginia? Oil riggers, mechanics? Construction workers? How about actresses who get burnt up and thrown in the trash after their beauty fades. All slaves? As for the concussion thing and the owners pockets - When they did do something about the "concussion thing" the PLAYERS got pissed. They threatened retirement (Lamar Woodley). Oh, and yea, the owners are in this BUSINESS to make money. Guess what? So are the players. They do a physical job, sure. So do a lot of people. The difference is in their job they get to retire at 34 with millions and millions of dollars. They aren't slaves. I am willing to run the risk of sounding ignorant in front of this forum for saying they aren't slaves and you can look brilliant agreeing with AP that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It's obvious by the support for A Peterson that those who have set out to "dumb-down" America have been successful in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I am just curious because you are apparently calling me ignorant because I called AP ignorant for saying that he was a modern day slave. I'm just making sure that the person who is calling me ignorant knows all of the stuff I typed up there because it seems obvious to me that the guy I was calling ignorant (AP) doesn't. From reading this debate from an outsiders POV, I don't think he ever called you ignorant because you feel AP was ignorant, rather he called you ignorant because of your unwillingness to try and understand what AP said, he even made it in bold for you. And not trying to at least attempt to view something from a different POV is ignorant. However for the most part I agree with what you are arguing, the NFL bears no resemblance to slavery, and the best thing for AP to do know would be to back off his comments. At this point he looks extremely foolish. ---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 01:25 PM ---------- It's obvious by the support for A Peterson that those who have set out to "dumb-down" America have been successful in many cases. You just can't keep your GOP politics out of anything can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It sounds to me like you're taking his statement way too literally. It's obvious that the point AP is getting at is that he feels that the players are treated like they have no say in the matter, and that they are just property. I know that a big issue is the whole playing more games and being compensated the same deal. I really think you're not taking context into it at all. You, sir, are a joke. When any person of any background, age, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. speaks his/her opinions into a microphone that is not only recording the person's comments, but broadcasting to the entire world via television, radio, and Internet, the onus is 1000% on the speaker to make sure that his comments and words are comprehend-able, understandable, and not open for misinterpretation or misrepresentation. It is not on any listener to have to work at trying to understand what that person meant. That should be apparent as the words are being spoken. You are treating Adrian Peterson like he's the President of the United States. How absurd is that? People should be able to speak their minds without needing to have prepared statements due to fear of someone misinterpreting what they said. The world is a lot nicer if you try to understand where people are coming from instead of just jumping down their throat. From reading this debate from an outsiders POV, I don't think he ever called you ignorant because you feel AP was ignorant, rather he called you ignorant because of your unwillingness to try and understand what AP said, he even made it in bold for you.And not trying to at least attempt to view something from a different POV is ignorant. However for the most part I agree with what you are arguing, the NFL bears no resemblance to slavery, and the best thing for AP to do know would be to back off his comments. At this point he looks extremely foolish. I could not have said it better. I'm not saying Brotherz is an ignorant person btw (I don't know him), just that the line of thinking is ignorant by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 ---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 01:25 PM ---------- You just can't keep your GOP politics out of anything can you? Interesting.....I never mentioned the names of the responsible parties.....hmmmmm...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Interesting.....I never mentioned the names of the responsible parties.....hmmmmm...... Highly suspicious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Interesting.....I never mentioned the names of the responsible parties.....hmmmmm...... because your posts don't show your political views at all...... Doesn't take a rocket scientist to read one of your posts(which for the most part have nothing to do with football) and deduce which side of the aisle you fall on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The problem I have with relating the NFL to "modern day" slavery, is that it takes the already minuscule focus we have on "modern slavery" down to an already lower level. I bet the children living in dog crates would love his view of slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherz Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 From reading this debate from an outsiders POV, I don't think he ever called you ignorant because you feel AP was ignorant, rather he called you ignorant because of your unwillingness to try and understand what AP said, he even made it in bold for you.And not trying to at least attempt to view something from a different POV is ignorant. ---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 01:25 PM ---------- Fair enough. I re-read his post and you appear correct. I do apologize for mis-characterizing why he was calling me ignorant. Maybe I should phrase it this way - I think we live in a culture that champions personal responsibility for some while completely eschewing it for others. He referred to AP as a 25 year old kid. An astute poster pointed out that 25 year olds at some point have to stop being "kids". And lest we forget he is a young 25 year old black "kid".He should know better quite frankly. Its like a jew saying his working conditions at his multimillion dollar job is akin to the holocaust. Maybe i'm not aloud to point out how sad it is that a black 25 year old millionairre, celebrity looks ignorant for calling his career slavery. Maybe I could if I were black. And maybe I am treating him like a man when I shouldn't. Maybe I should call him a child like Jhany does. Maybe I should treat all young black men as children and excuse them when they say stupid, racist comments that demean their own history and culture. Maybe we should all excuse young black men from accountability when they step up to a microphone or a twitter or any other mass media instrument that they INTEND to communicate TO THE WORLD with because of their celebrity. Maybe we should just say they are 25 year old children and their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously. We shouldn't get insulted by them because they don't know any better. Of course if we did that we would have told Martin Luther King to shut up because he was 28 years old when he formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to fight segregation. We would have also told Jackie Robinson to shut up when in his mid-twenties he said " The right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time". I find it hard to take the position of those disagreeing with me on AP here. I find it hard in 2011 to regress to the point where I don't hold a young black MAN accontable for knowing his own history. I have a hard time treating him as a child like those against me would here in this thread and I have to ask why they want to? No, I'm sorry, I will treat Adrian Petersen like a man. A man who has a national spotlight. A man who actively went out and sought that spotlight. A man who with conscious deliberation took to a mass media outlet of his own choosing and chose the words he would send to the world. I respect AP enough to treat him like a man. He's not a child. He's also not a slave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 because your posts don't show your political views at all...... Doesn't take a rocket scientist to read one of your posts(which for the most part have nothing to do with football) and deduce which side of the aisle you fall on. Well, considering I was lamenting the fact that certain groups conspire to "enslave" (that word again) people by intentionally keeping them ignorant and stirring dissent, I would say my political views are a shining example for the world to follow. If you have no problem admitting "your side" is happy dumbing-down certain segments of the population in order to control them, you need to do some SERIOUS soul-searching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The problem I have with relating the NFL to "modern day" slavery, is that it takes the already minuscule focus we have on "modern slavery" down to an already lower level. I bet the children living in dog crates would love his view of slavery. I'll agree with that. It diminishes pretty much any form of real slavery. Should I be outraged or conclude that AP is an idiot? No. Could he have used a much better analogy to work with? Definitely. Fair enough. I re-read his post and you appear correct. I do apologize for mis-characterizing why he was calling me ignorant. Maybe I should phrase it this way - I think we live in a culture that champions personal responsibility for some while completely eschewing it for others. He referred to AP as a 25 year old kid. An astute poster pointed out that 25 year olds at some point have to stop being "kids". And lest we forget he is a young 25 year old black "kid".He should know better quite frankly. Its like a jew saying his working conditions at his multimillion dollar job is akin to the holocaust. Maybe i'm not aloud to point out how sad it is that a black 25 year old millionairre, celebrity looks ignorant for calling his career slavery. Maybe I could if I were black. And maybe I am treating him like a man when I shouldn't. Maybe I should call him a child like Jhany does. Maybe I should treat all young black men as children and excuse them when they say stupid, racist comments that demean their own history and culture. Maybe we should all excuse young black men from accountability when they step up to a microphone or a twitter or any other mass media instrument that they INTEND to communicate TO THE WORLD with because of their celebrity. Maybe we should just say they are 25 year old children and their opinions shouldn't be taken seriously. We shouldn't get insulted by them because they don't know any better. Just to be clear. I wasn't the one calling him a child. The guy's older than me, and it's a little insulting to dismiss people as children when you think something they say is stupid. That said, I think the whole idea of treating someone like a man should include giving them the benefit of the doubt and taking his words in context. I don't see the point in drawing negative conclusions just because a guy could have expressed his thoughts better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 BTW, Peterson did not "misspeak" and he wasn't "taken out of context", he was doing what millions of young people have been brainwashed into doing: throw out the "R-bomb" to deflect personal responsibility.....he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherz Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 You are treating Adrian Peterson like he's the President of the United States. How absurd is that? People should be able to speak their minds without needing to have prepared statements due to fear of someone misinterpreting what they said. The world is a lot nicer if you try to understand where people are coming from instead of just jumping down their throat.I could not have said it better. I'm not saying Brotherz is an ignorant person btw (I don't know him), just that the line of thinking is ignorant by definition. First let me apologize for mischaracterizing your statement. I understand what you mean now about me not considering AP's point of view. I reject it. But I see how I came across ignorant for not considering it. I reject the analogy completely and I believe it demonstrates and utter lack of knowledge of his own history. Its an emotionally powerful topic he chose to talk about.He used the words slavery on purpose. He did so to add to the gravity of his own personal situation. My opinion (and only my opinion) is that he would not have done so if he had any understanding of the history he was referencing. I find it offensive that he throws around slavery as a black man so cavalierly. I wouldn't do that and I am white. I am also annoyed by how little the media pundits went after him for it. I think if we are going to be a nation of political correctness we should at least wield that sword evenly - after all that is what "equality" means. He is getting a pass on this statement because he is black. As someone said earlier in this thread, "black people don't own slavery". AP clearly thinks they do. The media also thinks they do. Peyton Manning says this and its outrage everywhere. He probably loses an endorsement deal over it. Quit frankly as a society I think political correctness has gotten way way out of line to the point of absurdity. I could even make the case that AP has a point. The hypocrisy of the statement and its response is outrageous to me however. lastly, you indicate that people are jumping all over him for "misinterpreting" what he said. Nobody is misinterpreting anything. What he said is not capable of misinterpretation. And I suppose this is where you and I truly part company. He may in fact have a point. It may even be a good point - like the owners have a monopoly on this "job" and its not like other professions as a result and they can't have their cake and eat it too. The owners can't thwart any competition that threatens their monopoly and then claim that their employees can go get a job somewhere else if they don't agree to the bosses' arbitrary decisions about their livelihood. Rush Limbaugh once said that the media wants a successful black quarterback to finally end the racist ideas that they can't lead, aren't cerebral etc and that as a result he gets more credit than a comparable qhite qb of his same caliber would. He got fired for it. Nobody said he was wrong. Nobody said it was a lie. It was his opinion and he was giving it on a show that asked him and paid him for his opinion with full knowledge of his political leanings. I just think that if we are going to hold public figures accountable whenever they say something divisive or potentially hurtful (despite its truthfullness no less) then we should MINIMALLY hold everyone equally responsible regardless of their skin color. I guess, if I cut to the chase, I think the media is letting AP get away with this comment because he is black and I think people are defending him because he is black. . . and I think that is wrong. ---------- Post added March-22nd-2011 at 03:11 PM ---------- I'll agree with that. It diminishes pretty much any form of real slavery. Should I be outraged or conclude that AP is an idiot? No. Could he have used a much better analogy to work with? Definitely. Just to be clear. I wasn't the one calling him a child. The guy's older than me, and it's a little insulting to dismiss people as children when you think something they say is stupid. That said, I think the whole idea of treating someone like a man should include giving them the benefit of the doubt and taking his words in context. I don't see the point in drawing negative conclusions just because a guy could have expressed his thoughts better. You are absolutely right. I am so sorry man. I have totally confused you with Redskins 55 who I was first responding to. My apologies (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 First let me apologize for mischaracterizing your statement. I understand what you mean now about me not considering AP's point of view. I reject it. But I see how I came across ignorant for not considering it. I reject the analogy completely and I believe it demonstrates and utter lack of knowledge of his own history. Its an emotionally powerful topic he chose to talk about.He used the words slavery on purpose. He did so to add to the gravity of his own personal situation. My opinion (and only my opinion) is that he would not have done so if he had any understanding of the history he was referencing. I find it offensive that he throws around slavery as a black man so cavalierly. I wouldn't do that and I am white. Okay, your clarifications show me that our opinions weren't as far apart as I thought. I do agree that it's unfair for the media to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not others. I forget what he said about McNabb, but I remember thinking that Limbaugh's intent wasn't looked at fairly. I guess it's hard to understand when I say you're misinterpreting what he said or taking it out of context. I'm just trying to say I don't like drawing conclusions about a person from one bad analogy. I hate all the comparisons people make of some random leader to Hitler, but I also try to see the point they're trying to make (which is hard since the comparison makes me want to choke somebody). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Okay, your clarifications show me that our opinions weren't as far apart as I thought. I do agree that it's unfair for the media to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not others. I forget what he said about McNabb, but I remember thinking that Limbaugh's intent wasn't looked at fairly. ). Initially, Tom Jackson AGREED with Limbaugh if I'm not mistaken. As to holding everyone equally accountable, it's the only thing that will rid our society of the destructive, counterproductive PoliticalCorrectness beastie as no one will be able to USE PoliticalCorrectness as a weapon and/or crutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherz Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Okay, your clarifications show me that our opinions weren't as far apart as I thought. I do agree that it's unfair for the media to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not others. I forget what he said about McNabb, but I remember thinking that Limbaugh's intent wasn't looked at fairly. I guess it's hard to understand when I say you're misinterpreting what he said or taking it out of context. I'm just trying to say I don't like drawing conclusions about a person from one bad analogy. I hate all the comparisons people make of some random leader to Hitler, but I also try to see the point they're trying to make (which is hard since the comparison makes me want to choke somebody). Look, if I am honest, I could probably have discerned what he "meant" and translated his "modern day slavery" comment in my own mind. You're right on. My REAL annoyance is more with the media selective enforcement of political correctness than even AP or anything he said. I didn't fall down in shock when I heard what he said and I suppose if I am honest, I understood the general point he was trying to get across. I just think it was a really bad way to make the point. It also was in my opinion specifically chosen by him. And I think the fishbowl media let him slide on it, and the only reason that I can discern is the color of his skin. That's racist. Racism is racism whether you are hurting someone or "letting someone slide" because of their color. Your point is well taken, particularly on the issue of the world being a better place if we try to empathize and understand each other before firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Im sure redskins 55 was saying the exact same thing when Michael Richards went crazy in his stand up routine. I am sure he was right there calling for understanding when Don Imus said something "stupid" about the Rutgers girl basketball team. I am sure Redskins 55 was first in line to say hey let's all take a step back when Limbaugh (who he attacks in this very thread even though he has absolutely nothing to do with it) made his unfortunate comments about media bias directed at Donovan Mcnabb. I think I understand Redskins 55 perfectly - everyone should get a break when they are national figure thrusting themselves into the national spotlight and making a divisive racist, moronic, insulting comment . . . so long as it isn't someone who believes anything different than him. Got it. Im sorry, but I think its ridiculous how people gather up in a lynch mob for some people just spouting offf ready to get them fired for their politically incorrect speech but when a young black man does it he has no consequences at all and we are dumb for not trying to decipher the idiot's true intent. AP is a moron. PLain and simple. He is ignorant. Im sorry you or anyone else can't handle that. So is Jalen Rose by the way. But our culture won't let them have it. They let Don Imus have it. They let Rush limbaugh have it. They let white guys have it. Its BS. Its the worst form of affirmative action left out there. It allows bigotry, ignorance and racism to still exist as long as those who use it are from the most recent class of people victimized by it. Its wrong. Plain and simple. I don't want to try to understand what AP meant. AP has the microphone. Maybe he should stop for a minute and think before opening his dumb ass mouth. See...this is what I'm talking about.... #1.Why must you judge me personally simply because I chose not to pile on AP. #2. " divisive racist, moronic, insulting comment " What did AP say that specifically had to do with RACE??? AP being black has nothing to do with this debate. You think I'm giving him a pass because he's black? Where in my post did I ever mention anything about race? I'm speaking facts jack! Its a fact that AP has not had a history of saying ignorant things in the media. Its a fact that Limbaugh says ignorant things all the time, even personalizing them to specific races, genders and classes of people. Now if you chose to debate these facts you most certainly will lose! So instead you attempt to paint every insidious comment under the same brush as if all ignorant comments have the same connotation. WRONG! But since you wont argue facts lets go where you took it! What AP said had nothing to do with WHITE PEOPLE! or Black people, Asians or gays! Its not racist language unless you yourself believe the NFL belongs to white people. And if you beleive that then maybe your the racist not AP. To be clear, AP was not denigrating a group of people. He was criticizing a company for their practices (The NFL..a billion dollar company). But by your comparison he's just as bad as Don Imus? A man that called a girls college basketball team " nappy headed hoes"??? So let me get this straight, if AP would've said "Walmart is modern day slavery" that's the same thing as Michael Richards yelling the "N" word at a guy in his audience?? If he would've said "AIG is modern day slavery" It's the same thing as Louis Farakan saying "Jews represent the mark of the beast"? If he would've said Enron is modern day slavery" It's the same thing as Rush Limbaugh mocking the Japanese Earthquake victims?? Pahleez My "Brotherz" ... you dont have a clue! and neither does your little amen choir. They're so ready to prove a point that nooone on here is even debating! I haven't read one person's comment suggesting that AP's comments were fine. Yet there are people saying, hey the guy has never made comments like that before maybe he simply used the wrong analogy to state his point and maybe he's not really a jerk or reverse racist like some of you are claiming. But I forgot people who criticize billion dollar oil companies are just as bad as people who degrade women right? C'mon.. This thread has nothing to do with race or gender, yet we have the "reverse racism theorist" hijacking it! BTW I'm sure Brotherz wasn't outraged when Michael Richards used that racial slur... (Yea.. I think I get it now too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yes, Redskins 55, by AP making that comment, he is saying that the only slavery that has occurred, that affects him is the slavery against blacks in America and it not only demeans what did happen, it demeans what is happening today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLredskin Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yes, Redskins 55, by AP making that comment, he is saying that the only slavery that has occurred, that affects him is the slavery against blacks in America and it not only demeans what did happen, it demeans what is happening today. what are some examples of slavery today??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 what are some examples of slavery today??? link"ROUM ROL, SOUTH SUDAN For those used to seeing the faces of slaves in Civil War-era tintypes -- staring at the camera in posed, formal judgment -- it is a shock to see the face of slavery in a shy, adolescent boy. Majok Majok Dhal, 14 or 15 years old (many former slaves have no idea of their exact age), dimly remembers his capture in the village of Mareng at about age 5. "I ran a little and was taken. I was carried on horseback." He recalls seeing other captives shot and killed after refusing to march north with the raiders into Sudan proper. His master, Atheib, was "not a good person." He forced the boy to tend goats and live with them in a stable. Majok was beaten regularly with a bamboo stick, "if I was not quick and fast." He recalls once being feverish and unable to work. The master "stabbed my leg with a knife. He said, 'I will cut your throat.' " Majok shows me his poorly healed wound. He was forced to address Atheib as "father." " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yes, Redskins 55, by AP making that comment, he is saying that the only slavery that has occurred, that affects him is the slavery against blacks in America and it not only demeans what did happen, it demeans what is happening today. Did Adrian Peterson say " The only slavery that has occurred, that affects me, is the slavery against blacks in America" ????? When did he say this????? This is his entire quote: "It’s modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it’s how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, ‘Hey — without us, there’s no football.’ There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we’re not all on the same page — I don’t know. I don’t really see this going to where we’ll be without football for a long time; there’s too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we’ll get something done." My point is stop reaching and assuming he meant anything about blacks or whites. He said "we the players" not we the black players.. he said "the owners", not the white owners. Stop assuming he meant anything likening himself to being lynched and murdered. He used a poor metaphor to make the point. But if you read the entire comment he is clearly talking about labor and how the NFL owners ensure their profitability by collaborating and limiting labor costs.Its like this.. 1st collective bargaining agreement - Players do the work = Owners collect the cash = Owners pay the players 2nd collective bargaining proposal -Players do more work=Owners collect more cash= Owners pay players the same as before or even less. How can you not see this? Just read his quote for goodness sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 what are some examples of slavery today??? Black people are still practicing slavery on the contient of Africa to this day. You see, slavery as practiced by the Americans was a small blip on history's radar as compared to how it was practiced by other nations/races, the difference being Americans are soft-hearted and soft-headed enough to fall for blackmail schemes carried out by the Sharptons, Jacksons and Jeremiah Wrights of the world. I am white and feel absolutely NO guilt for anything my forefathers may or may not have done as it is beyond my control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champskins Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 We have another one folks...:doh: Leonard Weaver agrees with Adrian Peterson “We love you guys very much, but at the same time we need to see some equal opportunity here and stop treating us basically like Adrian Peterson said, like slaves. . . . http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/22/leonard-weaver-agrees-with-adrian-peterson/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.