Oldfan Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 In Snyder's shoes my goal would be to build a Redskins' dynasty. With that goal in mind, I would not have given complete control of the team to Shanahan since I don't believe that Mike is both willing and able to achieve that goal. In Snyder's shoes, I would have filed suit against McKenna and the paper as a public service since I believe the defamation laws offer inadequate protection of the reputations of public figures. If I were a journalist, I would want Snyder to win. I think Dave McKenna's lower standards hurt the reputation of his craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 The lawsuit is more evidence that Danny is indeed a petty little man who insists people call him "Mr. Snyder" and on special privileges. Like being in a public position, as the owner of The Washington Redskins; but suing over an opinion piece that ACCURATELY described some of the major missteps Danny has made as owner. In a perfect world, The City Paper could counter-sue Danny for filling a SLAPP suit. And win enough millions of dollars, that Danny would have to sell the team. Better that, than Danny keep embarrassing all us wearing Skins colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Man, do I love Dan Snyder. For his sake, I hope the Congressman Cohen has a good team of lawyers, because after comments like this one: Snyder was understandably angry, but instead of fighting speech with more speech, he chose to use the courts for his personal revenge. There may be a SLAPP coming in his future. :rotflmao:---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 07:02 PM ---------- I gotta ask you the same thing I've asked others who hold this viewpoint...If Snyders only reason for all of this was to silence papers who merely criticize him, why did he wait until the WCP published 55 articles lambasting him for everything from business decisions to not tying his shoes correctly? lol...He had ample opportunity to try and "silence" McKenna in the past with the use of a lawsuit...so why didn't he issue a lawsuit before? Maybe handing the team over to Shanahan gave Snyder more free time to think up new and more chilling ways to intimidate the press and control sports media in the DC area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwasm Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 So in reality, the validity of this lawsuit is irrelevant in your eyes. Gotcha. That's not what I said. Even if he does win this lawsuit, it doesn't change all of the other bad things he's done to run this football team and hurt others. Frankly, I don't think the lawsuit is valid. He's just upset because someone made fun of him. It's never his fault. It's always every one else's. He's a bully and needs to be put in his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Why does this keep coming up and why is it so hard for some to understand? Suing someone for writing a critical article is MUCH different than suing someone for writing an article that accuses you in participating in a known felony. It's not hard. Snyder only decided to sue after someone crossed the line. If he's so power hungry as some people think, he would have started suing years ago. I've said in a past thread that, if it were me, and I felt someone accused me wrongfully of a felony and it potentially caused me financial harm (which it has done to Snyder because i've seen too many "not renewing my tickets" or "not buying anymore jersey's etc") I would surely contemplate suing. Most people here would and aren't being truthful if they say they wouldn't. Sue and win Dan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Let's just try to win a division title first. 1999 called and wants to know where you've been... Maybe you meant "another" division title... Wasn't it determined that the specific time McKenna quoted her was an interview that had nothing to do with her cause? As pointed out already' date=' Tanya Snyder has more than just one cause she is out promoting...she's very active in a lot of health issues and has done a lot of interviews championing those causes. And, yes, this was another of those interviews. ---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 06:14 PM ---------- That's not what I said. Even if he does win this lawsuit, it doesn't change all of the other bad things he's done to run this football team and hurt others. Frankly, I don't think the lawsuit is valid. He's just upset because someone made fun of him. It's never his fault. It's always every one else's. He's a bully and needs to be put in his place. Oh, I do believe that's what you said...and said again just now, actually. This lawsuit's validity won't matter one iota in whether or not you see Snyder as a bully who only sued because "someone made fun of him". You may not believe it's valid, but if a judge or jury in a court of law decides it IS valid and he wins his case, it should make those who believe this is nothing but a temper tantrum think twice about why they reached that conclusion. But it won't. You know it won't. I know it won't. Everyone knows it won't lol. That's why I asked the question...to see if there was anyone out there who would say "Yeah, I'd think maybe I was wrong about the suit's validity and why Snyder may have filed it"...too many have waaaaay too much emotion wrapped up in Snyder being a selfish, evil troll of a man...and they're not gonna give that up easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I wouldn't have hired Joe Gibbs and given him complete control as Dan did, but Joe was a "proper football man." So, it isn't as though Dan didn't hire a proper football man and step back before. Gibbs, whatever fancy title they tagged onto him out of both respect and an effort to fully sway him into coming back, was a Coach and little else. I'll always believe that ultimately it was Snyder and Cerrato who called the shots on acquisitions. I don't believe that's the case this time around. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Gibbs, whatever fancy title they tagged onto him out of both respect and an effort to fully sway him into coming back, was a Coach and little else. I'll always believe that ultimately it was Snyder and Cerrato who called the shots on acquisitions. I don't believe that's the case this time around.Hail. We are talking about the Joe Gibbs who won a power struggle with Bobby Bethard to get final say on roster moves in his first go around causing Beathard's resignation. We are talking about the Joe Gibbs who told us often that he had the final say on all football decisions in this go round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 We are talking about the Joe Gibbs who won a power struggle with Bobby Bethard to get final say on roster moves in his first go around causing Beathard's resignation. We are talking about the Joe Gibbs who told us often that he had the final say on all football decisions in this go round. One of us is getting confused here. I honestly seem to recall Gibbs saying it was a joint process between himself, Snyder and Cerrato, with a mutually agreed outcome. Now personally I happen to suspect and believe Joe would ultimately go with what Cerrato, who had Snyders ear, wanted. I don't think for one minute it was the same Joe Gibbs in terms of the fight in him the second go-around man. Yes he had that fight when it came to his dedication and will to win football games; but at 63, on a last shot, "win now" deal, I don't think for one minute he wanted to upset things between an owner with an open cheque book to allow him to try do that and said owners right hand man. He may well of identified and suggested players, but if dumb and dumber wanted someone else, he ended up with someone else. Of course that's all open to conjecture either way, but that's how I believe it played out. Coach had the fancy title in name only. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 One of us is getting confused here. I honestly seem to recall Gibbs saying it was a joint process between himself, Snyder and Cerrato, with a mutually agreed outcome. Now personally I happen to suspect and believe Joe would ultimately go with what Cerrato, who had Snyders ear, wanted...Joe described a decision process with others involved, yes. But, it is unrealistic to expect unanimous agreement on all decisions, so someone has to have the final say. That person bears the ultimate responsibility. Dan told us that Joe had the final say and Joe told us that several times.Trading up in the draft to get the player you covet, and trading draft picks for vets -- Joe did both with Casserly. Free agency wasn't the tool it is today or Joe would have been heavily into FA with Casserly. Of that I have no doubt. "Win now!" was the battle cry. Dan and Vinny were enthusiastic supporters, but Joe led the charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share Posted June 2, 2011 I can't believe how important everyone feels that they have to bring up something about Dan Snyder and his legal battles. Everyone that looks for this stuff to post wants Dan Snyder to get some sort of punsihment and hope that he sells the team. Hey there. I didn't go looking for this article. I noticed it on my Twitter feed, read it, thought it was interesting, and posted it. Not that I need to explain myself to you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwasm Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Oh, I do believe that's what you said...and said again just now, actually. This lawsuit's validity won't matter one iota in whether or not you see Snyder as a bully who only sued because "someone made fun of him". You may not believe it's valid, but if a judge or jury in a court of law decides it IS valid and he wins his case, it should make those who believe this is nothing but a temper tantrum think twice about why they reached that conclusion. But it won't. You know it won't. I know it won't. Everyone knows it won't lol. That's why I asked the question...to see if there was anyone out there who would say "Yeah, I'd think maybe I was wrong about the suit's validity and why Snyder may have filed it"...too many have waaaaay too much emotion wrapped up in Snyder being a selfish, evil troll of a man...and they're not gonna give that up easily. So then, in your eyes, if he wins this suit, all is forgiven and he's a GREAT man who's done nothing but wonderful things for this organization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 It has become a religion for some, almost...or a cult. Take your pick. How's that Dan Snyder fan club you've created? Not only are you the president but........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 How's that Dan Snyder fan club you've created? Not only are you the president but........ Just because I won't take off my clothes and join in on the Snyder Bashing orgy doesn't mean I've formed a fan club... Again...I may absolutely despise KingGibbs, but if you were in the same situation and felt a need to sue I wouldn't let my hatred of you dictate whether or not I felt your suit held any validity. That must be rather difficult for a certain segment of Redskins fans on ES to do or understand, but it is possible. ---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 07:59 AM ---------- So then, in your eyes, if he wins this suit, all is forgiven and he's a GREAT man who's done nothing but wonderful things for this organization? You'll have to read my post again and show me where I mentioned any viewpoint changing other than the ones associated with the lawsuit...you know, like that Snyder is a bully who only sued because someone made fun of him or that the suit held no validity at all. Also re-read the part where I said I wondered if any critics would say to themselves "Maybe I was wrong about the suit's validity and why Snyder may have filed it" and notice nothing whatsoever was mentioned about Snyder overall as owner of the Redskins or Snyder as a businessman or person. This suit isn't about the Redskins, so him winning or losing this lawsuit should be 100% irrelevant to how someone sees him as an NFL owner. Conversely, this suit isn't about the Redskins, so how someone sees him as an NFL owner should be 100% irrelevant to how someone sees the validity of the lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwasm Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Just because I won't take off my clothes and join in on the Snyder Bashing orgy doesn't mean I've formed a fan club... Again...I may absolutely despise KingGibbs, but if you were in the same situation and felt a need to sue I wouldn't let my hatred of you dictate whether or not I felt your suit held any validity. That must be rather difficult for a certain segment of Redskins fans on ES to do or understand, but it is possible. ---------- Post added June-2nd-2011 at 07:59 AM ---------- You'll have to read my post again and show me where I mentioned any viewpoint changing other than the ones associated with the lawsuit...you know, like that Snyder is a bully who only sued because someone made fun of him or that the suit held no validity at all. Also re-read the part where I said I wondered if any critics would say to themselves "Maybe I was wrong about the suit's validity and why Snyder may have filed it" and notice nothing whatsoever was mentioned about Snyder overall as owner of the Redskins or Snyder as a businessman or person. This suit isn't about the Redskins, so him winning or losing this lawsuit should be 100% irrelevant to how someone sees him as an NFL owner. Conversely, this suit isn't about the Redskins, so how someone sees him as an NFL owner should be 100% irrelevant to how someone sees the validity of the lawsuit. But, when you look at his history, how he's treated people, how he's run his business, you can't help but consider his track record in all of this. Also, keep in mind he makes accusations of anti-semitism, even though the author of the article and the author's boss were Jewish. To me, that comprimises the validity of the suit and just shows, once again, how things are never his fault and this is just his way of showing the media he's the boss of the town and no one is allowed to say anything bad about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I've said in a past thread that, if it were me, and I felt someone accused me wrongfully of a felony and it potentially caused me financial harm (which it has done to Snyder because i've seen too many "not renewing my tickets" or "not buying anymore jersey's etc") I would surely contemplate suing. Most people here would and aren't being truthful if they say they wouldn't.Sue and win Dan! Do you honestly believe that you are seeing so many "not renewing my tickets" or "not buying anymore jersey's etc" posts/threads because of one slamming case? You, Sir, are awesome. How many players on this team have ONE public intoxication/urination charge, or something similarly minor? Do you no longer support them? Of course you support them! It has nothing to do with one felony, and everything to do with a greatist hits anthology that was actually pretty well put together (and didn't even get much play until Danny wanted to file suit) by a small time paper. And whoever says it was Tony Wylie's idea (I got it, he said it himself, but come on....) need only look at the accolades that Wylie accrued while he was in Houston, and how many times he was personally selected by the league to be in charge of PR for multiple Super Bowls and other events on big NFL stages. You tell me when it starts to smell like poo and I'll point to the owners box and tell you where it's coming from. Doesn't mean the dude isn't trying to change, he just wants to take a shortcut to it, like he has with everything else in his life....by trying to say that McKenna was anti-Semetic and was mocking fun of his wife being a cancer survivor... he somehow thought that he would score sympathy (either that or he just shot from the hip on the lawsuit 3 months after the fact and that was the best job Wylie could do to control the situation). He was wrong. Danny, change takes time.....just like building a football team or making a fine wine. Don't rush it. HAIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 No, they published something like 79 disparaging columns full of half-truths about Snyder and his ownership of the Redskins lol... you know after awhile those "half truths" start to add up. its sad tho, 99% of this fanbase pretty much agrees that snyder is a ****ty dude, and we're just stuck with him. so for the 1% that enjoy defending him and making him out to be the victim, at least the distaste for snyder is one thing that the majority of the fanbase can agree on! the lockout needs to end...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 My favorite part: "If enacted, this law will be the first time Dan Snyder's actions achieved a positive societal outcome." It's funny cuz it true lol.... ROFL, thats hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 you know after awhile those "half truths" start to add up.its sad tho, 99% of this fanbase pretty much agrees that snyder is a ****ty dude, and we're just stuck with him. so for the 1% that enjoy defending him and making him out to be the victim, at least the distaste for snyder is one thing that the majority of the fanbase can agree on! the lockout needs to end...... Ok. And Snyder threatened to fire his coaches unless they put out a letter stating they were on the side of ownership and not the players... No doubt that one will end up in McKenna's next article...and the usual suspects here will lap up that morsel as "fact" and use it to further validate their irrational hate of Dan Snyder. Anyone trying to correct that "fact" will be labeled a Snyder apologist or a member of the Snyder Fan Club. Can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worstSeat Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I gotta ask you the same thing I've asked others who hold this viewpoint...If Snyders only reason for all of this was to silence papers who merely criticize him, why did he wait until the WCP published 55 articles lambasting him for everything from business decisions to not tying his shoes correctly? lol...He had ample opportunity to try and "silence" McKenna in the past with the use of a lawsuit...so why didn't he issue a lawsuit before? Why now? Because he was coming off of a 3-13 season (or was that 10-6? One of those) and was frustrated, that's why now. Look, the white elephant is that cancer claim. He's misremembering a bit, and there's a pattern. Who knows why Snyder's team gives away a beer sleeve if you order $75 of stuff from Redskins.com or tries to pretend walking to the stadium is dangerous so that he can sell bus rides. Not me. He's an evil man, and I want my (yes, I'm JKC. shaddup.) team back. Even more importantly, a US Senator is calling Snyder out. An attentive reader brought something to my attention that I had missed: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn), announced last week in Roll Call that he was going to draft legislation to provide anti-SLAPP protection for all Americans by federal mandate. And you'll never guess who inspired Cohen to act:"... But Snyder’s lawsuit against the newspaper highlights a much more serious issue -- the need for federal legislation to protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans against strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. The City Paper’s column was admittedly harsh but well within the bounds of free speech, especially about a public figure. Snyder was understandably angry, but instead of fighting speech with more speech, he chose to use the courts for his personal revenge. Whatever you may think of Snyder and the Redskins, the courts are not the appropriate forum for resolving these sorts of grudges." That's embarrassing, and it's embarrassing for the team. Maybe it'll be like Snyder and LaVar, and "as [in this case, Snyder] gets older, I think he’s really gonna understand how us reaching out to him and his experience with us will be a life-charger for him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Why now? Because he was coming off of a 3-13 season (or was that 10-6? One of those) and was frustrated, that's why now. Huh? lol...What the hell are you talking about here? First off, Snyder was talking about the 1998 season, the year before he became owner...he got the record wrong, but then again so did you by linking the 10-6 record to a Wiki page . the Redskins went 6-10 the year before he became owner...not 10-6. I'm not even sure why you mentioned 10-6 to be honest...Snyder didn't mention it so why did you? Secondly, that comment has ZERO to do with him filing a suit 12 years later... Lastly, I love how the ongoing thought that the lawsuit was a decision based on nothing more than "hurt feelings" or "frustration" seems to be the catch-all answer for any reasonable question. Yes, Snyder has never been frustrated or had his feelings hurt with literally 12 years of negative press...until now lol... Look, the white elephant is that cancer claim. He's misremembering a bit, and there's a pattern. Who knows why Snyder's team gives away a beer sleeve if you order $75 of stuff from Redskins.com or tries to pretend walking to the stadium is dangerous so that he can sell bus rides. Not me. He's an evil man, and I want my (yes, I'm JKC. shaddup.) team back. So again, it seems that the validity of the lawsuit is irrelevant...Snyder is evil so that makes any action he takes that you don't agree with automatically a wrong one done for evil, selfish reasons. Gotcha. At least some of you are admitting it now. Even more importantly, a US Senator is calling Snyder out. ...Ooooh, a US Senator!! I had to check your age, and see that you're old enough to have witnessed numerous times in your life when a "US Senator" took on a stupid cause for stupid reasons...I probably have more respect for NFL owners than I do congressmen lol... Here's one that epitomizes what I mean...see if you can recall this doozy, and this one involved damn near the entire US Congress: Remember Kelly Flinn?...She was a female pilot in the Air Force who was discharged from the military after having an affair with another servicewoman's husband and lying to her superiors about it. At the time the media went nuts with the idea that she was really being punished because she was a woman who had an affair, not simply because she had one. Anecdotal evidence was trotted out ad nauseum about males in the military who had cheated but were not discharged, how sexists the military really was, how this woman had distinguished herself during her career and deserved better, what an outrage it was to treat her like she was little more than a 1950s housewife who disobeyed her husband, didn't the military have better things to do than run around investigating the sex lives of military personnel, etc, etc, yadda yadda yadda... Of course with so much negative media attention being given to this woman being charged and facing court martial, a congressional hearing was called for by "US Congressmen" (gasp! Oh noes!), at which time Congressman after Congressman scolded her superiors and pontificated for the cameras about how wrong their decision was, how sexist they were, how distinguished Ms. Flinn was and how she deserved to be treated better after serving her country so honorably. Disobeying an order and lying to your superiors was seen as trivial matters, especially since it concerned something as personal as having an affair...how dare they!! It wasn't until General Ronald Fogleman--the Chief of Staff of the Air Force--reminded everyone during the congressional hearing that Flinn, unlike hundreds of servicemen and women who are lower ranked and held no significant responsibilities, was in position to be carrying nuclear bombs on planes she'd be flying...and that when anyone is put in that position, you're got-damn right you don't allow disobeying orders to go unpunished, no matter how large or small. The General's words: "We are very much interested in a thing called the improper relationships that end up undermining the morale and discipline of an organization. And so the Lt. Kelly Flinn case, I would really like to see people not comment so much on it until they have all the facts. And we cannot get the facts out until you either have a court martial, or you have a resolution of the affair so that you can put the facts out, and the facts have not come out. Some of them are starting to come out. And I think that in the end this is not an issue of adultery. This is an issue about an officer who is entrusted to fly nuclear weapons, who disobeyed an order, who lied. That's what this is about. The adultery thing is the--that's the thing that has been spun up in the press. That's not what the Air Force is interested in." The result of the congressional hearing?...A ****load of media outlets backtracking and admitting that they had not considered the reality and significance of an Air Force pilot flying with nuclear weapons disobeying an order and lying to superiors. Newsweek in particular wrote an article about how the press and (wait for it) US Senators were wrong to make the assumptions that they did and that the media circus needed to die down because this was a far more serious matter than was originally being portrayed in the news and by congress. Seeing the media actually admitting that they ran with a story without having all the facts or considering all angles was shocking...and gratifying. General Fogleman ****slapped congress and the media, and hard lol ... Now, for the more logically-challenged among us, no...I am not saying that Snyder's lawsuit is the equivalent of an Air Force pilot carrying nuclear weapons lol :doh:...so let's just eliminate that nugget of stupidity right off the bat. But what I am saying is that thinking a "US Senator" getting involved automatically means you ****ed up is nonsense...this was just one example I gave, and lord knows I could give literally hundreds of others where "US Senators" saw a cause to jump on and run with...causes that did not deserve government attention in any way, shape or form. And ironically enough, I actually have zero problem with this particular "US Senator" bringing up this particular bill...but wouldn't it be ironic if, even if the law had been passed earlier, Snyder's lawsuit was still seen as holding validity and allowed to proceed? lol... That's embarrassing, and it's embarrassing for the team... So basically you're saying the "US Senator" might be trying to embarrass Snyder into rethinking his lawsuit?...Lord knows Snyder can't afford more negative press at this point... I'll let the irony of that statement sink in for a minute ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Ok.And Snyder threatened to fire his coaches unless they put out a letter stating they were on the side of ownership and not the players... No doubt that one will end up in McKenna's next article...and the usual suspects here will lap up that morsel as "fact" and use it to further validate their irrational hate of Dan Snyder. Anyone trying to correct that "fact" will be labeled a Snyder apologist or a member of the Snyder Fan Club. Can't wait. why are you calling it "irrational hate"? the guy comes across as a douchebag, plain and simple. theres a plethora of stories about how hes just a jackass, and even if you wanna dismiss those as rumors or stories (which should be tough to do considering how many of them there are), his football moves over the years have been abysmal, and this team consistently loses under his watch. keeping vinny around for the better part of a decade is enough without his personality issues to loathe the guy. i just dont know how you can call it irrational. its not like hes this saint who has everyone in his corner singing his praises or a guy you hear stories about being a great person (cough cough Ted Leonsis cough cough), he comes off as a dick who throws his weight around and is more concerned with banking cash than building a winner, and his moves as an owner with this franchise validate that notion. im not sure theres a single media outlet who likes the guy, hes pretty much just a running joke in our news area, and in the news throughout the country, and 90% of it is warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Cali, I genuinely applaud how much effort you've put into this thread but you do realize you're fighting a losing battle, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttr77 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I'll let the irony of that statement sink in for a minute. The part I find ironic is that if the Redskins PR machine spent half as much time defending the owner as you did, almost none of this stuff would have ever seen the light of day and this entire thread probably wouldn't even exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worstSeat Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Huh? lol...What the hell are you talking about here?First off, Snyder was talking about the 1998 season, the year before he became owner...he got the record wrong, but then again so did you by linking the 10-6 record to a Wiki page . the Redskins went 6-10 the year before he became owner...not 10-6. I'm not even sure why you mentioned 10-6 to be honest...Snyder didn't mention it so why did you? Secondly, that comment has ZERO to do with him filing a suit 12 years later... I'm sorry a performative post confused you. Let me explain a little, and then do more important things. I think he was misremembering his 6-10 with 1993's 3-13. They were 3-13 recently, which, in Snyder math, is close enough to 1998 to count. So why not use 1999? He's loose with numbers. Sorry that was over your head. The connection? That now he's connecting McKenna with anti-semintism and his wife's cancer. He's in freakin lala land, as are those who defend him at this point. There's nobody around him to counter his insane misrememberings, and they become SnyderGospel. Again, sorry to shoot over your head there. Let's see if there's anything else in here worth replying to. So again, it seems that the validity of the lawsuit is irrelevant...Snyder is evil so that makes any action he takes that you don't agree with automatically a wrong one done for evil, selfish reasons. Gotcha. At least some of you are admitting it now. He's got a pattern of predatory business tactics and, to put it kindly, stretching the truth. I'm very happy he spends on the team. ...Ooooh, a US Senator!! I had to check your age, and see that you're old enough to have witnessed numerous times in your life when a "US Senator" took on a stupid cause for stupid reasons...I probably have more respect for NFL owners than I do congressmen lol... I'm not sure many Senators or Representatives have said my name on the Congressional Record -- only two, I think, and both were commendations. What I'm saying is that he's not keeping a low profile. This can be good! Robert Kraft has a pretty distinct media profile, and he's, GET THIS, a winner! The problem is that Snyder's not hitting the record right now for good things. He's hitting it because he's made himself an easy target. What's the political ramifications of beating up on Daniel Snyder? Right or wrong, it's the same answer. Nothing. Sorry you can't see that's a bad thing. Remember Kelly Flinn? [crap removed] Who left the thread now? So basically you're saying the "US Senator" might be trying to embarrass Snyder into rethinking his lawsuit?...Lord knows Snyder can't afford more negative press at this point...I'll let the irony of that statement sink in for a minute ... Again, I'm disappointed with your absolute lack o' acumen. It's not that a Senator is unimpeachable, it's that Snyder's such a laughingstock that he's a safe target for any Congressional idiot to attack. You have to have pretty crappy PR to not be a particularly political qua politics figure and garner attacks like this. Oh well. Not everyone's a genius. Cue Carly Simon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.