I'd Guess maybe 5 Percent of those who watch the NFL stand for the Anthem. The hypocrisy is HUGE

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
This manufactured outrage is so sad, it exposes so much hypocrisy.

The majority of people watch the game on TV. How many of you who are so outraged stand, take off your hat, and put your hand over your heart in your living room when it is played? I'd say a small minority.

If the anthem is not played on TV, are you outraged and feel the need to contact the TV networks? Are you angry when the anthem is not played at a concert or a play? Is your outrage selective like that?

I've been around a lot of football fans, both sides of the political spectrum and in 25 years have never once seen someone stand unless they are at the game. And at the game you'll notice a lot of empty seats as fans use the time to get beer and food and go to the bathroom.

Bars? Never. Even for the Super Bowl - usually people say like "Come ON! Get on with it! This is too taking too long!"

People really do like the war planes that fly over, and they love the Navy parachute guys, I'll say that.

But seriously, have you been doing your civic duty and been standing for the anthem, say when you are out shopping and the game is on tv at best buy? Do you report the employees that keep selling TV's during the Anthem? Why not? SHouldn't they be fired for ignoring it?

Do you stand in your home? If no, you need to look in a mirror and ask why you are such a blatant liar with your feelings. That is unless you never thought about it before, which I would surmise comprises 90% of you or more.

Great, another post with made up statistics and zero logic. Just what ATS needed!

I made a guess - where are any statistics to back up my guess? According to this OP there have been about 5 people out of 100 who said they stand for the anthem if not at the game. I'd say I was curiously close to being spot on.

No way to tell of course, but I'd guess the number is even lower than estimated. You're spot on here at demonstrating the ludicrosity of their underlying argument.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The players have the right to protest, the fans have a right to be irritated, sponsors have the right to pull their support, the only reaction I have seen that I feel is wrong is the state agencies that have moved to strip the teams/NFL of its public funding.

That should be done because a multi billion dollar a year industry does not need the tax dollars, not to punish them for the protest.

a reply to: Gryphon66

youre asserting an a priori position that "wherever" you hear the anthem you should honor it. Thats pure unhinged lunacy.

how about while watching a cartoon?

how about while driving?

how about while breast feeding?

how about while showering, brushing your teeth or shaving?

If you hear the anthem through your neighbors walls while sitting on the pot?


youre perfectly illogical position creates the absurd situational dilemmas i just illustrated.

If you really believe what you said i hope you arent responsible for anyones well being.

a reply to: ColoradoJens

There's only 3 things I stand for when watching a footy match:

1. To get more beer from the fridge.
2. To take a piss.
3. To show my support of my team when they score.

The only time I stand for such things as anthems and the like, is when the bugler plays 'the last post' on ANZAC day.

a reply to: seeker1963

Never mind all the important things, YOU MUST STAND FOR OUR ANTHEM AND FLAG WHICH WAS MADE IN CHINA OR ELSE DONALD TRUMP WILL GET YOU AS IT IS ALL PART OF HIS MASTER PLAN TO DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!

Cultural Marxists...

Is this the new buzz-word?

Between this football frenzy and your label identity induced buzz-words I'm starting to think that the Mandela Effect is real and that I have been smacked into some twisted timeline where false outrage over other people's false outrage in regards to trivial things are the main concern.

Whole lot of MAGA going on lmao.

a reply to: tribal

LOL ... so, let's be clear, you're saying then that there's nothing about the playing of the Anthem that should inspire all of us to stand and honor our country and our traditions and our veterans?

I disagree. I feel like anytime you have the opportunity to show respect to our symbols and traditions you should.

I guess I look at it differently than you.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

The players have the right to protest, the fans have a right to be irritated, sponsors have the right to pull their support, the only reaction I have seen that I feel is wrong is the state agencies that have moved to strip the teams/NFL of its public funding.

That should be done because a multi billion dollar a year industry does not need the tax dollars, not to punish them for the protest.

...and I don't have a single complaint about any of that.

You indicated earlier that those here who are arguing for the players' rights were somehow trying to suppress the speech rights of those here who disagree. My challenge to you regarded that statement.

a reply to: WhereAmEYE

Cultural Marxism is a long-standing catch-all phrase from right-wing fringe theory.

They drag it out when they can't cry about anything else.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

sorry, I chose to show respect to those who went to war for this country by buying them a meal when I run across them wandering the streets homeless!!!

or when I speak out against the senseless, usually manufactured wars that they are sent off to fight...

showing them respect would be to either not paint every food stamp recipient as being a loser or paying the troops enough to support their families..

and it certainly wouldn't be trying to tear down a respectable pow by calling them a loser because they were captured.

a flag is just a flag, a song is just a song... patriotism is a spirit that dwells within the people within a countries borders and it's health is displayed in how those people treat each other, not weather or not they stand, sit, or kneel for the anthem.

I honestly get what the OP is saying, but of course comparing what people do behind their own closed doors ie. privacy away from the outside is not the same as it being blasted on a mass scale. Example when your in the military and in garrison if you are outdoors you must face the flag and salute it regardless if you see it or not. If you are indoors then you do not have to. I just think pushing this issue making it a HUGE deal is obviously just pot stirring at this point. Oh and to answer the OP's question, no I do not only because I am in the comfort of my home. If I was at a game yes I always do.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Most of the folks I know are not bent out of shape over the anthem as much as the presentation of the colors that goes along with the playing.

I know that is the biggest part of my problem with it, they have a number of ways they can take the lead as celebrities and more wealthy than most of their fans that would not include the bad optics of appearing to disrespect the flag.

The players may have a legitimate gripe, but several have publicly stated that they did it cause Trump said not to which is a seriously bone headed move.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

Most of the folks I know are not bent out of shape over the anthem as much as the presentation of the colors that goes along with the playing.

I know that is the biggest part of my problem with it, they have a number of ways they can take the lead as celebrities and more wealthy than most of their fans that would not include the bad optics of appearing to disrespect the flag.

The players may have a legitimate gripe, but several have publicly stated that they did it cause Trump said not to which is a seriously bone headed move.

Hmmm. Well, those are some more factual points that could be discussed. Frankly, in general, I'm appalled at the way I see our Flag treated culturally. And in this case, I have to admit that I would have chosen another time and place to use my celebrity power in favor of a cause.

I'm still interested in your post here in which you said that those of us who are supporting the right of the players to do so are tearing down and taking away from the rights of others here. If you don't want to address that, it's fine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Hmmm ... well, whoever that was in that thread you're whining about had a point.

If you chime in on an unsupported claim of fact and argue for it, you're just as responsible for the evidence when asked for it.

Is this a complicated concept for you?

We all have the rights to post our opinions here, in fact, that's a great deal of what most people do. There's very little actual debate or informed discussion going on.

There's a difference, however, when an opinion is claimed to be factual; the fundamental concept of "burden of proof" applies.

Glad I could help out in your future interactions with whomever it was from that "other thread."

I wasn't whining. I called someone a hypocrite. I understand that you wouldn't want to account for that and deflect by calling someone a whiner.
I made no claims myself.
I posted facts that included numbers that backed up something other than what you were saying.
Then you seem to have left the thread.
Bye.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Hmmm ... well, whoever that was in that thread you're whining about had a point.

If you chime in on an unsupported claim of fact and argue for it, you're just as responsible for the evidence when asked for it.

Is this a complicated concept for you?

We all have the rights to post our opinions here, in fact, that's a great deal of what most people do. There's very little actual debate or informed discussion going on.

There's a difference, however, when an opinion is claimed to be factual; the fundamental concept of "burden of proof" applies.

Glad I could help out in your future interactions with whomever it was from that "other thread."

I made no claims myself.
I posted facts that included numbers that backed up something other than what you were saying.
Then you seem to have left the thread.
Bye.

Sounds to me like you made a claim: when you state that another unsupported claim is true.

My goodness, were you talking about me and our discussion in another thread?

Well, I can't discuss that here; it's against T&C. Tsk tsk.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

The players have the right to protest, the fans have a right to be irritated, sponsors have the right to pull their support, the only reaction I have seen that I feel is wrong is the state agencies that have moved to strip the teams/NFL of its public funding.

That should be done because a multi billion dollar a year industry does not need the tax dollars, not to punish them for the protest.

...and I don't have a single complaint about any of that.

You indicated earlier that those here who are arguing for the players' rights were somehow trying to suppress the speech rights of those here who disagree. My challenge to you regarded that statement.

Most of that stems from the outrage some are showing that people are disagreeing with the form the protest is taking, like the cat that resigned his commission in the national guard because people were objecting to the protest (he sang the anthem for the Ravens), If folks dont want anyone to be critical that means they want those objecting to shut it.

ETA: I will freely admit thats an assumption on my part, but seeing some of the hate at those objecting, or some of the hate directed at those that have not taken a knee alongside their team mates, i am willing to wager my assumption is not far off.

I will also admit I could have worded my original post better, obviously not everyone wants the objectors to shut it, just like not everybody taking a knee is only doing it to spite Trump.

a reply to: Irishhaf

The players may have a legitimate gripe, but several have publicly stated that they did it cause Trump said not to which is a seriously bone headed move.

not really sure who you are saying made the bone headed move, but I thought that the republican base believed that the business owners should be left alone to run their businesses as they see fit? or is that only true when it comes to when they want to discriminate against someone? the fact that trump very publicly told the owners how to run their businesses, tried to meddle in their employee policies, the fact that he practically called for a boycott till they changed those policies is something we probably should all be alarmed about.
after all, if the president is given the power to use his position to coerce the NFL to change their business policies, what company will he meddle with next??

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Hmmm ... well, whoever that was in that thread you're whining about had a point.

If you chime in on an unsupported claim of fact and argue for it, you're just as responsible for the evidence when asked for it.

Is this a complicated concept for you?

We all have the rights to post our opinions here, in fact, that's a great deal of what most people do. There's very little actual debate or informed discussion going on.

There's a difference, however, when an opinion is claimed to be factual; the fundamental concept of "burden of proof" applies.

Glad I could help out in your future interactions with whomever it was from that "other thread."

I made no claims myself.
I posted facts that included numbers that backed up something other than what you were saying.
Then you seem to have left the thread.
Bye.

Sounds to me like you made a claim: when you state that another unsupported claim is true.

My goodness, were you talking about me and our discussion in another thread?

Well, I can't discuss that here; it's against T&C. Tsk tsk.

Look back on the thread. The post that you took exception to was supporting you... I don't even think you read much of the posts, you just respond to what you think a person might say.
they can ban me.

a reply to: dawnstar

Its a bone headed move because it looks bad, and since a large segment of the rabid NFL fans are regular blue collar types that could see the protest in a way not intended the blow back could cost them money. (owners and players)

Especially when some players are saying they only did it to spite Trump, and then you have the dumb move in london to knee for the American Anthem and then stand with hands over their hearts (some players did) for God Save the Queen.

It looks bad, it will play bad in repeated viewings.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Hmmm ... well, whoever that was in that thread you're whining about had a point.

If you chime in on an unsupported claim of fact and argue for it, you're just as responsible for the evidence when asked for it.

Is this a complicated concept for you?

We all have the rights to post our opinions here, in fact, that's a great deal of what most people do. There's very little actual debate or informed discussion going on.

There's a difference, however, when an opinion is claimed to be factual; the fundamental concept of "burden of proof" applies.

Glad I could help out in your future interactions with whomever it was from that "other thread."

I made no claims myself.
I posted facts that included numbers that backed up something other than what you were saying.
Then you seem to have left the thread.
Bye.

Sounds to me like you made a claim: when you state that another unsupported claim is true.

My goodness, were you talking about me and our discussion in another thread?

Well, I can't discuss that here; it's against T&C. Tsk tsk.

Look back on the thread. The post that you took exception to was supporting you... I don't even think you read much of the posts, you just respond to what you think a person might say.
they can ban me.

Not going to discuss it with you any further here Butch. You're as aware of the rules as I am.

In general, you make a claim, you accept a claim, you support a claim, you should be able to back it up.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: dawnstar

Its a bone headed move because it looks bad, and since a large segment of the rabid NFL fans are regular blue collar types that could see the protest in a way not intended the blow back could cost them money. (owners and players)

Especially when some players are saying they only did it to spite Trump, and then you have the dumb move in london to knee for the American Anthem and then stand with hands over their hearts (some players did) for God Save the Queen.

It looks bad, it will play bad in repeated viewings.

... or perhaps it will elevate the examples of freedom of speech beyond apologizing for Nazis and White Supremacists.

People can learn and change.