Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Sep '17 19:25 / 1 edit
    http://www.espn.com/blog/dallas-cowboys/post/_/id/4752796/nfl-bans-decal-but-cowboys-will-carry-on-message-of-unity

    Remember when the Cowboy players wanted to wear decals in support of law enforcement and were denied by the NFL?

    The NFL has denied the Dallas Cowboys' request to wear the "Arm-in-Arm" decal on their helmets for Saturday’s preseason opener against the Los Angeles Rams.

    The Cowboys had unveiled the decal at an emotional start to their first padded practice of training camp, when they walked arm-in-arm on the field with Dallas police officials, including police chief David Brown, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings and the families of the police officers slain in the line of duty last month.

    The Cowboys, who wear the decal on their helmets during training camp, knew they would not be able to wear the decal for the regular season but had hoped to wear it in the preseason.

    “We certainly understand the position the league takes on this, but it won’t diminish our support for that concept of unity and supporting our police force and what they do to make our lives better on a daily basis,” coach Jason Garrett said. “That arm-in-arm image is something that we really believe in. You heard me talk about it a couple weeks back. What we’re trying to do as a football team is build a team that’s close. We talk a lot about unity and having each other’s backs, and certainly they embody that.”

    Tight end Jason Witten spearheaded the idea of the players honoring the police and the families. While a little disappointed, Witten believes the gesture at the start of camp can have a long-lasting impact.

    “What’s really important is what we tried to do, and that’s to unite that community, our community, and show that support for those families and really honor the leadership of our city,” Witten said. “I think that decal not being on the helmet is not going to stop that. It’s going to continue to do that not only now but in the future as we move forward. As players and an organization that is something we’re going to continue to support.”
  2. 25 Sep '17 19:27 / 2 edits
    It's just another example of fascist type of hypocrisy that has gripped the nation. The only rights we have are those in line with Progressive ideology

    The brown shirts rule with an iron fist, you don't, so deal with it.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    25 Sep '17 19:37
    There's a difference between altering an organization's uniform to include third party emblems, and kneeling on one knee.

    End thread.
  4. 25 Sep '17 20:16
    Look at Whodey getting all worked up over people not worshipping the state. What a remarkable change of character.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Sep '17 20:23
    Originally posted by @vivify
    There's a difference between altering an organization's uniform to include third party emblems, and kneeling on one knee.

    End thread.
    There's a distinction, but that is significant enough to make it a difference? Both are expressions. Anyway, it was the organization itself that wanted to alter its own uniform, not a member of the organization.
  6. 25 Sep '17 20:28
    Originally posted by @sh76
    There's a distinction, but that is significant enough to make it a difference? Both are expressions. Anyway, it was the organization itself that wanted to alter its own uniform, not a member of the organization.
    No.

    NFL = Neo Fascist Liberals.
  7. 25 Sep '17 20:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @vivify
    There's a difference between altering an organization's uniform to include third party emblems, and kneeling on one knee.

    End thread.
    End thread, eh?

    LMAO! Find your safe zone some place else.

    What do you think of the players on the Steeler team being ordered to not take the field during the national anthem?
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Sep '17 20:32
    Originally posted by @whodey
    End thread, eh?

    LMAO! Find your safe zone some place else.

    What do you think of the players on the Steeler team being ordered to not take the field during the national anthem?
    No one was "ordered", you pathetic lying idiot. The players made a joint decision, that all the players but one honored.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    25 Sep '17 20:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sh76
    There's a distinction, but that is significant enough to make it a difference? Both are expressions.
    As a lawyer, I'm sure you're aware of the proprietary nature of an organization's uniforms, as well as the legal implications of adding third-party emblems. As a man with common sense, I'm sure you can see how that's quite a distinct matter from kneeling down.

    Anyway, it was the organization itself that wanted to alter its own uniform, not a member of the organization.

    The NFL is the organization the Cowboys must adhere to. Adding third-party emblems to the NFL uniforms is the NFL's call.
  10. 25 Sep '17 20:34
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    No one was "ordered", you pathetic lying idiot. The players made a joint decision, that all the players but one honored.
    I see, so why do you suppose he "agreed" to it and then changed his mind?
  11. 25 Sep '17 20:35
    Originally posted by @vivify
    As a lawyer, I'm sure you're aware of the proprietary nature of an organization's uniforms, as well as the legal implications of adding third-party emblems. As man with common sense, I'm sure you can see how that's quite a distinct matter from kneeling down.

    [b]Anyway, it was the organization itself that wanted to alter its own uniform, not a member of t ...[text shortened]... n the Cowboys must adhere to. Adding third-party emblems to the NFL uniforms is the NFL's call.
    So you are saying that it is important how the players look because they represent the franchise?

    Interesting. So how do the players look not standing for the national anthem?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Sep '17 20:36
    Originally posted by @sh76
    There's a distinction, but that is significant enough to make it a difference? Both are expressions. Anyway, it was the organization itself that wanted to alter its own uniform, not a member of the organization.
    So what? This is an apples to oranges comparison.

    The NFL has specific rules regarding what may or may not be placed on uniforms during games. The league owners, including the Cowboys, are the ones who made such rules. IF they want to alter the rules, they may but while they are in force all the teams should have to abide by them.

    In contrast, there is no rule covering what players must or mustn't do during the playing of the national anthem (I doubt there is even a rule the national anthem must be played). IF the league wants to mandate some such behavior, it must negotiate with the Players' Union and alter the Collective Bargaining Agreement. So far, neither the owners nor the players have shown any interest in doing so.
  13. Standard member vivify
    rain
    25 Sep '17 20:37
    Originally posted by @whodey
    So you are saying that it is important how the players look because they represent the franchise?

    Interesting. So how do the players look not standing for the national anthem?
    To interpret my post like that is willful stupidity on your part.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Sep '17 20:37
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I see, so why do you suppose he "agreed" to it and then changed his mind?
    Ask him.
  15. 25 Sep '17 21:03
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Ask him.
    Obviously he had issues with the decision and was conflicted giving into the pressure to conform.