huffingtonpost.com: Dan Snyder inspires lawmakers to draft legislation to stop people from doing things Dan Snyder does

[Califan007 The Constipated]

why are you calling it "irrational hate"?

Don't make the mistake of lumping any and all criticism of Snyder under the Irrational Snyder Hate umbrella.

Of course there ARE some who feel every single criticism of the man is valid and warranted...those who can only see every issue through the "I can't stand Dan Snyder" lens on their B&G glasses...those who feel his missteps and mistakes as owner of their favorite team means they'll believe every negative "fact" disseminated in the media, even after some of those facts are shown to be wrong...who treat speculation and rumor as indisputable truth when it's negative and ridicule anyone who dares say otherwise...who laugh off any mention of the good aspects of Snyder the man and owner as nonsense from Snyder "apologists"...and on and on and on...

When someone lets their dislike/hatred of Snyder dictate what is "true" and what is not, then it crosses over into the irrational...because they are NOT being rational in their criticisms.The whole topic of the Skins coaches sending out a letter claiming they're not in agreement with the brief filed by the Coaches Association was a small example of that.

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.

NONE of that should play a role in whether or not anyone decides his lawsuit holds merit and validity, though. Which, of course, is primarily what this thread is about. What role does Snyder keeping Vinny on for way, WAY too long play in all of this? Nothing. So why bring it up, other than to explain emotionally what should be explained intellectually? What role does the Redskins' record under his watch play in his lawsuit? None. So why bring it up, other than to show why Snyder deserves every ounce of criticism and bashing that comes his way, regardless of whether it's accurate or not? I mean, does anyone really think the judge is going to say "Ok, I've read the lawsuit...I have one question, though...is your client, Dan Snyder, a douchebag? He is?...Case dismissed!"

i just dont know how you can call it irrational.

Again, I'm not doing like some here are doing and lumping anyone who doesn't hold my thought process into the ISH crowd.

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 doesn't HAVE to be lol ...that's what's great about our legal system...it serves and protects everyone, not just those who we like.

Again...when/if your hatred of Snyder dictates what is factual and what is not, then that's when it becomes irrational.

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.

Emphasis as "comes off as"...perception is reality and all that, I know. JKC came off as a wise, gracious, grandfatherly figure who was classy and mature. We of course now know that was not close to being accurate. But, hell, he brought us SB victories and we didn't have to hear about all his douchebaggery during those winning years, so all is forgiven and forgotten.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 08:18 AM ----------

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.

I find it ironic that you apparently don't know what "ironic" means lol...

And if the Redskins PR machine spent nearly as much time on ES as I do they probably would, what with all the Irrational Snyder Hate floating around. It would fill their days and send them into overtime.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 08:21 AM ----------

Cali, I genuinely applaud how much effort you've put into this thread but you do realize you're fighting a losing battle, right?

Oh, I know that going in lol :yes:...but as I said to someone else, perhaps on this thread (but I don't think so)...I don't post to try and directly change a poster's mind...I post to give a counterbalance to some of the more nonsensical posts for anyone who might be reading.

[pimpumd]

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),

Nobody ever said or claimed Dan Snyder was a saint and/or had people in "his corner singing his praises..." A person doesn't need to be a saint or have people singing his praises to not be loathed or be the recipient of "irrational hate." This line of reasoning makes no sense.

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.

Whoa whoa whoa...you didn't really just try to sneak that in your post, did you?

Dan Snyder's moves an owner with this franchise do anything but demonstrate that he's more concerned with "banking cash than building a winner." If Snyder wanted to "bank cash," why would he continue to drastically overspend on free agents? Why have the Redskins continued to be at the top of the league, annually, in terms of payroll? This argument just isn't true.

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.

Are you saying that if the media doesn't "like" a person, then hate for that person is "rational?" As for the 90% part, how'd you calculate that?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

And what does that have to do with my response? ...I said you were wrong about the Skins being 10-6, said the link you provided illuminated absolutely nothing about your point, and since Snyder never mentioned a 10-6 record I had no idea why you felt the need to.

Try going back and rewriting your "performative post"...maybe 3rd times a charm. :thumbsup:

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.

Exhibit A of ISH...Snyder does not deserve defending...not because his lawsuit holds no validity, but because of his personality. Because he made a claim of antisemitism. Because he thought McKenna ridiculed and diminished his wife's work in cancer and other health concerns. Oh, and because he said the Redskins had a record of "3-13 or whatever" in 1998 when they really went 6-10. All obviously atrocious sins which prove his lawsuit against WCP is baseless.

Gotcha.

Again, sorry to shoot over your head there.

No, I fully admit to not understanding illogical twaddle when I read it lol...

Let's see if there's anything else in here worth replying to.

Everything I write is worth replying to lol ...It's just a matter of whether or not you're capable of doing so intelligently.

He's got a pattern of predatory business tactics and, to put it kindly, stretching the truth.

Which means we don't even have to know what the lawsuit is about, or even read it, in order to determine Snyder has no case and is only filing it because 1) his feelings got hurt, 2) he's' throwing a temper tantrum, 3) he's trying to scare everyone in the media from ever criticizing him again, 4) all of the above.

Gotcha.

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.

And? lol...My point was that having a "US Senator" taking up a cause is hardly the sign of anything substantial...Yes, better to let a "US Senator" use his position to intimidate your actions than an NFL owner.

Sorry you can't see that's a bad thing.

Bad for Snyder? I'm not Snyder so I don't give a **** either way if it's bad for him lol...it's not bad for the Redskins, although a few too many seem to equate everything Snyder does as having some damaging effect on the team. If Bellichick can be caught cheating and the Patriots are still flying high, still successful, still selling jerseys and still considered a franchise that "does things right", then this will effect the Redskins nada.

Who left the thread now?

If you can't see the connection to what's been occurring with Snyder's lawsuit in the media and with the "US Senator", then all I can think is that your analytical skills need some severe polishing. Some day down the road it'll hit you what my point was....and you'll say "Ohhhhhhh...I get it now"...and you'll send me a PM thanking me. :

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.

Attacks from "Congressional idiots" rarely have a lasting effect...that's something else I would have expected you to have learned considering your age. And did you ever think about how much we contribute to encouraging future Congressional idiots making unnecessary attacks when we side with the Congressional idiot for no other reason than we don't like the guy they're attacking? lol...

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.

Unless you have an unhealthy obsession with how Snyder is perceived by people who don't know him, I have zero understanding why you or anyone else would care so much if one "idiot" is attacking another "idiot" ...

This is a non-Redskins matter. It's a personal one that doesn't effect the team...yeah, there are some Redskins fans whose weak constitutions can't handle having anyone write a bad article about the owner and are hoping for a way to shut Snyder up completely so that he--and by proxy, the team--doesn't get attacked anymore.

Again...I'll let the irony of that last statement sink in.

[pimpumd]

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.

It is not difficult to see that Snyder's (as well as his legal team's) posture towards McKenna included gathering up any and all potential claims against McKenna/WCP. That is what happens in a lawsuit. You throw every potential claim you have against the wall and hopefully one will stick. Everyone who knows anything about the lawsuit has already acknowledged the whole thing comes down to McKenna's claim that Snyder personally forged documents. I don't see the point in continuing to harp on the irrelevant issues when discussing the lawsuit.

McKenna said Snyder personally forged documents. Man, that McKenna is in freakin lala land, as are those who defend him at this point. :ols:

I don't think anybody here is defending Dan Snyder, the individual. I think they're defending the legitimacy of Snyder's libel claim against McKenna/WCP. I know...it's much easier to say those people are in lala land.

He's got a pattern of predatory business tactics and, to put it kindly, stretching the truth.

Really? Could you please point me to this pattern? I'd also like to see how Snyder was personally involved any such predatory business tactics.

I will assume you are referring to the slamming that occurred at SNC. There is absolutely no evidence or proof that shows Snyder in any way knew of or directed SNC employees to slam customers. This is pure conjecture on your part. We've already had others familiar with the industry explain how such things are done by employees with absolutely no knowledge from their superiors. It isn't difficult to understand why an employee would slam considering the employee is monetarily incentiviezed to do so.

[SonnySide]

In other words, Snyder is mounting what is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (also known as a "SLAPP" suit), which is defined as "a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition."

Yet the Huffington Post has no problem when the gobt. engages in this type of behaviour.....

Most of these Huff Post writers couldn't manage a hot dog stand.....

[dg28daman]

Honestly, Dave McKenna deserves to be silenced, simply because he is a d-bag. He writes the most biased anti-Skins articles I've seen for someone who is supposed to be covering the team.

He just slams the team and Snyder over and over and over. Honestly, it got old quick. Of course, the other journalists support him and paint Snyder to be the bad guy and why wouldn't they? He's part of their fraternity and they hate to be silenced, which I understand. . But realistically, Dave McKenna is a complete hack and a pretty lousy writer, who has an unhealthy obsession with Dan Snyder. He's unprofessional and deserves what he's getting.

[worstSeat]

Really? Could you please point me to this pattern? I'd also like to see how Snyder was personally involved any such predatory business tactics.

I will assume you are referring to the slamming that occurred at SNC...

Wow, really? Off the top of my head... Mastercard and season tickets? The 200k strong wait list? Ordinances against walking to the stadium and his running shuttles or parking lots... at FedEx and Six Flags? Suing old ladies who can't pay for season tickets? The recent ND/MD game turning into Kenny Chesney tickets? The freakin City Paper lawsuit? That's not predatory? Did you even read McKenna's Cranky Fan's Guide? None of what's in there happened? All those choices were smart PR moves? Come on. Wake up. Why defend this guy? Why defend his frivolous lawsuit? "[G]athering up any and all potential claims against McKenna/WCP. That is what happens in a lawsuit"? "No evidence" at all that Snyder knew? That's a joke. If you're a lawyer, I'm not real impressed with your client list.

Not always predatory, but always, always for the short term dollar at the expense of the long. He's a charlatan, not a respectable businessman. He got lucky once with [literally] house money, and paid over three million in fines for his practices. When you cheer for a team, you're ultimately cheering for the one thing that stays put the longest -- the owner. JKC was great. It's hard to cheer for this one.

Seriously, you wouldn't rather The Squire still owned the team? Can't we all at least agree on that?

[pimpumd]

Wow, really? Off the top of my head... Mastercard and season tickets? The 200k strong wait list? Ordinances against walking to the stadium and his running shuttles or parking lots... at FedEx and Six Flags? Suing old ladies who can't pay for season tickets? The recent ND/MD game turning into Kenny Chesney tickets? The freakin City Paper lawsuit? That's not predatory?

I don't think you know what predatory business practices are. Please tell me how any of the above constitutes "predatory" business practices. Here's a definition to help you out:

inclined or intended to injure competitors by unfair means <subject to antitrust liability for ~ conduct *National Law Journal> <~ bidding>

Here's a more comprehensive description:

Predatory Business Practices

Here, there are no ethics, no rules, only what you can get away with. The feelings of the customers play no role in the actions of the predatory business person. It does not matter to them if lives are disrupted; people are emotionally hurt or inconvenienced. A good example of a predatory business is a moving company. They agree to move households for a low price but the moving contract contains many provisions harmfully to the customer. Since the mover has the customer’s belongings they are in a position to demand what they want in compensation or they will not deliver the goods to the new home. This is a very common practice in the United States. There is an abundance of naive shoppers easily fall for a good sales pitch, promises, and an inexpensive price. It is a particularly viscous practice and the perpetrators of these scams are probably based out of the state and outside the reach of state courts and regulations.

The word predatory is a moral term with a long history of use describing behaviors a society condemns. This is because the world is building a civilization. Predation is part of the past not the future. To allow predation to flourish is to turn the clock back on civilization. Predation is a low brain function. The ethical person uses the more evolved prefrontal areas of the brain to guide their activities.

Did you even read McKenna's Cranky Fan's Guide? None of what's in there happened? All those choices were smart PR moves? Come on. Wake up. Why defend this guy? Why defend his frivolous lawsuit? "[G]athering up any and all potential claims against McKenna/WCP. That is what happens in a lawsuit"? "No evidence" at all that Snyder knew? That's a joke. If you're a lawyer, I'm not real impressed with your client list.

Wow---You're very good at the strawman tactic. Where did I say nothing in McKenna's article ever happened? Where did I say all Dan Snyder's choices were smart PR moves? Is this the best you can do?

I see you've also now resorted to simply calling my points directed at you "a joke"--rather than address them. I know that's much easier to do when you have nothing logical to say. Yes, my friend, you throw every potential claim you might have against someone into a lawsuit. Prosecutors do the same thing when they charge someone with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, manslaughter, etc. etc. You saying it is "a joke" does not prove otherwise.

As for your remark about "no evidence"--I specifically said there was no evidence demonstrating that Snyder directed or knew about SNC employees slamming customers. Some reading comprehension on your part would be useful in this debate. If you have any info suggesting Snyder directed or knew about the slamming at SNC, please provide it. You provided a laundry list of absolutely nothing involving "predatory" business practices. That is the point I replied to you on...what you're talking about is irrelevant, useless nonsense having nothing to do with "predatory" business practices. BTW--I couldn't care less what you think of my "client list."

As for your comment about "why defend this guy?"---well, I'm not defending Dan Snyder, the man. I said that before I believe. The only thing I'm defending is the legitimacy of the lawsuit he filed against WCP/McKenna. That's it, nothing more. You got yourself all hot and bothered in your blind hate for Dan Snyder and failed to read and understand what I wrote. I think calming down and reading what people actually write and say might serve you better than getting your panties in a bunch simply because you hate Snyder.

Not always predatory, but always, always for the short term dollar at the expense of the long. He's a charlatan, not a respectable businessman. He got lucky once with [literally] house money, and paid over three million in fines for his practices. When you cheer for a team, you're ultimately cheering for the one thing that stays put the longest -- the owner. JKC was great. It's hard to cheer for this one.

Seriously, you wouldn't rather The Squire still owned the team? Can't we all at least agree on that?

JKC was great because he won. JKC had his off-field issues too--I guess they're overlooked because he won, right? So all Snyder has to do is win, and then you'll love the "charlatan," right?

[Taylor 36]

EXCELLENT post Pimp. worst Seat is out of his league in this debate, as are most of the irrational, blind Snyder haters. If he was smart, he would either concede or just stop; however, I think it is evident at this point that when it comes to hating Snyder, he's not that smart.

I also love that people bring up JKC to try and show how bad Snyder is. How easily people forget or simply rewrite history. Funny how they never seem to want to talk about JKC's first decade of ownership, nor what happened when the rules of the league changed to what Snyder has to work under. As I posted in another thread:

Ah, but everyone seems to forget that once Gibbs left and the NFL went to the current system it is now presently in (well, it was until the lockout anyway) that JKC accomplished absolutely nothing. Not one division title. Not one playoff appearance. Nada. Let's not forget that it wasn't Snyder that took an annual contender and ran it in to the ground. That's what the Redskins were when Snyder purchased the team. Has Snyder made mistakes that prevented quicker turnarounds, yes. Is he finally starting to own up to those mistakes and attempting to do things differently to make the team better and be a better owner. By all accounts, yes. No one has any proof to the contrary. Snyder has stayed out of any news when it comes to football operations, player personnel, etc.

People keep wanting to bring up the past and throw out mistakes that were made over a decade ago. I'm sure there is not one poster on this board that doesn't have some past transgressions that they finally learned from that make them cringe when they remember or think about them. By the way some people speak, though, you would think that they live their lives exactly the same as they did 9, 10, 12 years ago and have never made a mistake that they had to fix or change that wasn't difficult to do. No wonder they don't know how to let go and recognize attempts at bettering one's self.

Along those lines, people need to stop talking about Snyder's impatience. That myth was created from events that took place in 2000 and 2001. TEN YEARS AGO. However, firing Marty was really his only big transgression in that department. Anyone who doesn't think it was well past time for Norv to go simply never paid attention to his SEVEN years of ineptitude, nor have they paid attention to his HC career after the Redskins. Snyder did not fire Spurrier nor Gibbs. Snyder would have given Spurrier more time, but Spurrier realized he was in over his head and threw in the towel. No sign of impatience there. He did, however, fire Zorn. But, honestly, is there anyone on this board who would not have gotten rid of that disaster after what he showed his last 1.5 seasons of coaching?

Now people want to dump on Snyder for a lawsuit that he has every right by the laws of our land to file. People try to act like every single decision, accusation, and step that has been taken is all Snyder's doing. Wake up people. It is all the doings of his lawyers who doing what lawyers do. This is how lawsuit of this type works. Snyder's lawsuit doesn't even have one iota of a scrap to do with the Washington Redskins. Unless your neighbor works with you, you filing a suit against them doesn't have anything to do with your job or the company you work for. It doesn't matter what any of us think about the lawsuit itself. There are many Snyder haters on this board that would be doing the same thing if they were in Snyder's shoes, but their blind hatred is preventing them from seeing/admitting that. This has nothing to do with Snyder's character; it has everything to do with the lack of ethics in today's media. And, while I'm there, JCK's personal and professional lives were much more tainted than Snyder's' have ever been proven to be. And, you want to talk about a dick of an owner, JKC didn't even leave them team to his family. He basically set them up to lose the Redskins after he died.

People act like it was a dick move on Snyder's part to "steal" the Redskins from the Cooke's. First, it never would have happened if JKC didn't dick over his own family. Second, once again, there isn't one die-hard Redskins fan on this entire site that would not have done their damndest to buy this team if they were in a position to do so at the time, regardless of who your purchasing competitors were.

So, as Cali has stated numerous times in different threads, stop the irrational hate for 30 minutes and take a look at the entire picture. You might find that the intensity and amount of hate some of you have for a man who you don't even personally know is nowhere close to being warranted.