NFL enacts ban on kneeling during Anthem

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Catnip1024:
And I've said from the start you can argue the toss either way about that. Personally, I don't see a national anthem as pushing any particular cause, but I'll concede the US goes slightly nutty over that sort of thing. That said, I don't believe they are obliged to sing it, rather just stand respectfully.

I think a national anthem qualifies as a political activity. It is essentially the act of a community publicly reaffirming their allegiance to the nation, which is a political entity.

I mean, if it wasn't a political activity, what would you say to a football player who went onto the field and sang The Internationale? Would that be political or apolitical?

In fact, why is it okay to not sing the anthem so long as you stand for it? What's the basis for that distinction? It feels arbitrary.

Catnip1024:
If you don't see the difference between someone paid to professionally talk about politics and someone paid to professionally run after a bit of leather, we might as well let this one drop.

Jimmy Kimmel isn't paid to talk about politics, either. You're dodging the question by rephrasing it as something irrelevant. Why should sport be apolitical?

Catnip1024:
And that's horseshit, is it? It's an opinion. What's so mind-bogglingly bizarre about this opinion that this particular one is horseshit, and not say, preferring jam to marmalade, or not liking trains?

Yes. It's horseshit. It's a horseshit opinion. It's myopic, it's hypocritical, it's unjustified and potentially unjustifiable, it's impossible in practical terms and if it were ever accomplished it would be a colossal violation of internationally recognised human rights. More than anything else, it's arbitrary, because there's a whole lot of political speech that you tolerate because you don't recognise it as political. So rather than banning all political speech from the football field, you'd be banning what you consider to be political. And it turns out people might disagree with you on what is or isn't political!

Think about what I said earlier. What or who determines whether a given type of speech is of the impermissible political sort? To a person living in 1918, a statement expressing support for casual premarital sex would be controversial and offensive, but a statement calling for the prohibition of all alcohol sales was palatable enough that it did in fact happen. In 2018, the reverse is true; premarital sex is common and normal, and the total prohibition of alcohol is a laughable relic of the past.

The point is what constitutes a "political" topic will vary depending on what your political preferences are. This fact isn't immediately apparent to many people, because most people only notice political speech when it says something controversial that grabs their attention. But when you think about it, what constitutes "too political" will vary depending on when and where you happen to live. In the US, the topic of publicly-funded healthcare is a matter of heated public debate; in Canada, the UK and Australia, it is an accepted and uncontroversial fact of daily life. In Saudi Arabia, it only recently became acceptable to go to the cinema. The acceptability of casual marijuana use in the US is radically different to that in Amsterdam. If I came from a hypothetical society where arithmetic was seen as witchcraft, I would consider the teaching of arithmetic in schools to be a controversial political topic, whereas to everybody else it's common sense.

So how do you determine what speech is or isn't permissible on a football field? Can you ever hope to do it? If you did, would it be fair to do so - would you be truly even-handed in censoring all political speech without prejudice towards its nature, or would you censor only that speech which you personally considered political?

As opinions go, it's not like saying "I prefer jam over marmalade." It's like a person saying "I like eating jam, but I think all fruit preserves should be banned." And when someone points out that jam is a fruit preserve, they go "No! No it isn't. Jam is jam!"

Catnip1024:
As a colossal effort by many parties to attempt to keep the politics out of sport.

The Olympics is a field where nations send their best athletes to compete with the athletes of other nations in the hopes of winning one of many largely valueless medallions that symbolise the superiority of their nation over all others in rest of a single activity. The only reason it exists is because of national pride. It's taken seriously enough that Russia got caught running a state-sponsored doping program to win more medals purely because they felt like Russia needed to win more medals!

I find it completely absurd to suggest that the Olympics is an apolitical activity. If it were, the nationality and political allegiance of the athletes would not even be listed; it would simply be human beings competing with other human beings to see who is the best at sprinting. But we don't even remember the names of the athletes most of the time. All we remember is that Australia won so many gold medals and so on.

It's political actors competing to achieve a political goal. I'm essentially somewhat gobsmacked that you could think otherwise. This is like meeting someone who thinks that "regulating the banks" means deciding where the sides of the river should be.

Catnip1024:
National anthems do not make the olympics political. Neither do flags. That's just team colours, in effect.

So we're adding "flags" to the list of things you do not consider political, then? Along with anthems and the Olympics.

Okay. New question: why is it controversial to burn a flag?

I remember when I realized I lived in a country supposedly about freedom, and stopped standing for the pledge in school. I did not need to cultishly recite oaths to prove my loyalty. I sat because I was confident in my patriotism.

bastardofmelbourne:
Yes. It's horseshit. It's a horseshit opinion. It's myopic, it's hypocritical, it's unjustified and potentially unjustifiable, it's impossible in practical terms and if it were ever accomplished it would be a colossal violation of internationally recognised human rights.

Bullshit.

Hypocritical? Because I distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable political gestures in the sports world? As has already been said, if you want to be arsey, anything is political. But clearly there is a line - look at the issues English football had with far right supporters in the 80s / 90s. Or is the line only there for the political stances you disagree with? Funny how that goes.

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:
Yes. It's horseshit. It's a horseshit opinion. It's myopic, it's hypocritical, it's unjustified and potentially unjustifiable, it's impossible in practical terms and if it were ever accomplished it would be a colossal violation of internationally recognised human rights.

Bullshit.

Hypocritical? Because I distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable political gestures in the sports world? As has already been said, if you want to be arsey, anything is political. But clearly there is a line - look at the issues English football had with far right supporters in the 80s / 90s. Or is the line only there for the political stances you disagree with? Funny how that goes.

Bigotry should not be legal.

Stop hiding behind 'opinion'. If your opinion is bigoted, it is not worth respecting or defending. Nazis do not deserve freedom to spread their bigotry, the KKK do not deserve freedom to spread their bigotry, whatever groups Europe has do not deserve to spread their bigotry.

The kneeling at football, which sadly has overshadowed this, is they are opposing racism against black people by US Police. I do not support the suppression of the view that cops should not murder people for being black.

Anything IS political. Most things are political. It is why I tire of people who try to be politically apathetic and pretend they are better cause they don't 'waste their time' giving a fuck about other people.

I don't think Bigotry should be illegal. Corporations and businesses unintentionally do a lot of policing of behaviours. The Rosanne cancelation being the latest exception. I'd prefer to encourage this to become more effective. This ban being a big issue. YouTube adpocalyse was another, where some people were getting away with bigoted stuff but other "nicer" smaller channels lost revenue

Saelune:
Bigotry should not be legal.

And your employer does not enforce the law, as they have no power to do that, therefore said arbitrary statement is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Stop hiding behind 'opinion'. If your opinion is bigoted, it is not worth respecting or defending. Nazis do not deserve freedom to spread their bigotry, the KKK do not deserve freedom to spread their bigotry, whatever groups Europe has do not deserve to spread their bigotry.

First, it's not my opinion. Second, the point is, do you believe that clear political gestures should be permitted at a sports event / in the workplace or not? Because I don't mind which way you swing, so long as you are consistent. Would a team lining up with anti-abortion T-shirts be fine in your eyes? Anti-immigration T-shirts? Personally, I think that's a terrible idea, because it is driving divisiveness into sport.

The kneeling at football, which sadly has overshadowed this, is they are opposing racism against black people by US Police. I do not support the suppression of the view that cops should not murder people for being black.

Again, it's not suppression to expect someone to be professional in the workplace and not to bitch about politics in front of the customer. You can argue that professionalisms over-rated, or that somehow the public really gives a shit about what linebacker number 3 thinks about the latest cheese tax, but it's not suppression either way.

Catnip1024:
Hypocritical? Because I distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable political gestures in the sports world? As has already been said, if you want to be arsey, anything is political. But clearly there is a line - look at the issues English football had with far right supporters in the 80s / 90s. Or is the line only there for the political stances you disagree with? Funny how that goes.

I agree you're not being hypocritical. I think the problem is more that your opinion is subjectively arbitrary.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it has very low persuasive weight in a reasoned discussion without reference to wider external and more objective standards.

They shouldn't play the national anthem at NFL events in the first place. The idea that there should be a rule requiring athletes to stand for it in order to be "apolitical" is asinine.

Catnip1024:
Bullshit.

Hypocritical? Because I distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable political gestures in the sports world? As has already been said, if you want to be arsey, anything is political. But clearly there is a line - look at the issues English football had with far right supporters in the 80s / 90s. Or is the line only there for the political stances you disagree with? Funny how that goes.

Are you listening to what I'm saying, or are you just miffed that I used the word "horseshit?"

My point is that your breakdown of what is and is not a "political gesture" is pretty damn arbitrary. It seems to be based more on your gut feeling of what constitutes a political controversy from your personal perspective. I find that intensely hypocritical, because rather than ban all political speech and strive to make sports fundamentally apolitical, you just want to ban the speech you don't like. You're okay with flags, so long as it's the national flag. You're okay with anthems, so long as it's the national anthem. They don't have to sing, but they do have to stand. You're okay with fruit preserves, so long as it's jam.

Seanchaidh:
They shouldn't play the national anthem at NFL events in the first place. The idea that there should be a rule requiring athletes to stand for it in order to be "apolitical" is asinine.

Especially if the players aren't American citizens.

If it's an international match and the players are representing their country, it's a lot more reasonable.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:
They shouldn't play the national anthem at NFL events in the first place. The idea that there should be a rule requiring athletes to stand for it in order to be "apolitical" is asinine.

Especially if the players aren't American citizens.

If it's an international match and the players are representing their country, it's a lot more reasonable.

Yeah. National teams are a bit different. Being on a national team is political.

Agema:
I agree you're not being hypocritical. I think the problem is more that your opinion is subjectively arbitrary.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it has very low persuasive weight in a reasoned discussion without reference to wider external and more objective standards.

Any distinction between permitting one thing and not permitting another, on a scale which is inherently down to subjective opinion, will appear arbitrary. I never claimed that my opinion was through any god-given mandate. And any pretence of reasoned discussion went out of the window with the word horseshit. I may disagree with people around here, but I have the decency to actually question as opposed to just launch mouthy attacks about their opinion.

bastardofmelbourne:
Are you listening to what I'm saying, or are you just miffed that I used the word "horseshit?"

That's funny, it's almost like you expect a person to respect your opinion when you have made quite clear you don't give a shit about theirs.

As for the rest, see above. Subjective scales be subjective. You have to have a line somewhere along it.

The owner of the Cowboys just said Trump admitted Trump pushed the issue because it benefited him.

https://deadspin.com/report-nfl-owners-admit-donald-trump-squeezed-them-on-1826419766

erttheking:
The owner of the Cowboys just said Trump admitted Trump pushed the issue because it benefited him.

https://deadspin.com/report-nfl-owners-admit-donald-trump-squeezed-them-on-1826419766

They also did also admit at the protest were reducing revenue. They can't attribute that losss to people being pro or anti protest but I would say both.

trunkage:

erttheking:
The owner of the Cowboys just said Trump admitted Trump pushed the issue because it benefited him.

https://deadspin.com/report-nfl-owners-admit-donald-trump-squeezed-them-on-1826419766

They also did also admit at the protest were reducing revenue. They can't attribute that losss to people being pro or anti protest but I would say both.

Yes, they said the protest was reducing revenue AFTER Trump interjected himself. It was not having any impact prior to Trump intentionally impacting them directly. There is also a legal issue with Trump and Kaepernick's employment, according to the law it appears Trump broke the law by calling for him being fired.

Catnip1024:
That's funny, it's almost like you expect a person to respect your opinion when you have made quite clear you don't give a shit about theirs.

I didn't go and write several long posts explaining the faults I see in your argument out of apathy for your response. I did it because I'm trying to change your mind.

You can sulk if you want, but it's not a good look.

Catnip1024:
As for the rest, see above. Subjective scales be subjective. You have to have a line somewhere along it.

What I'm saying is that it is impossible to draw such a line in a way that is both fair and internally consistent. Which invites the question: why bother drawing such a line to begin with? What's the objective?

bastardofmelbourne:
I did it because I'm trying to change your mind.

Generally, a starting statement of "horseshit" does not lead to minds being changed. Might want to bear that in mind, next time.

What I'm saying is that it is impossible to draw such a line in a way that is both fair and internally consistent. Which invites the question: why bother drawing such a line to begin with? What's the objective?

I don't see that that is an accurate statement. The whole realm of what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour in the workplace is driven through similar processes. Can you openly wear religious symbols in the office, yes or no? Can you shit on the desk, yes or no? At some point, said behaviour becomes so divisive and causes so much drama and trouble that it requires action.

The same with political symbology. Where this particular protest sits is up for debate, but surely you have to admit that there has to be a line somewhere?

American conservatives defend the rights for actual Nazis and KKK members to hijack Youtube, twitter and facebook to post propaganda but ban not standing to the anthem. So much for the American philosophy "I dont agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it."

Catnip1024:
Any distinction between permitting one thing and not permitting another, on a scale which is inherently down to subjective opinion, will appear arbitrary. I never claimed that my opinion was through any god-given mandate.

In a sense, yes it all is opinion.

On the other hand, opinion can to a greater or lesser extent tied to reasonable argument: in a simple sense, the difference between "because I said so" and "because of principles X, Y, Z". It's not that your opinion is unreasonable, in that it's a practical and moderate position. But I don't feel you've explained it well to theoretical X,Y and Zs: that's why it has been intemperately described as "horseshit".

Agema:
In a sense, yes it all is opinion.

On the other hand, opinion can to a greater or lesser extent tied to reasonable argument: in a simple sense, the difference between "because I said so" and "because of principles X, Y, Z". It's not that your opinion is unreasonable, in that it's a practical and moderate position. But I don't feel you've explained it well to theoretical X,Y and Zs: that's why it has been intemperately described as "horseshit".

Well, the counterargument has not been set out particularly well either.

Flags are passive. If a team is a national team, the flag is inherently associated with them and hence no more divisive than the team itself. If the flag is of the nation in which both teams play, again, not really divisive at all.

The problem with political protest gestures is, by definition they are divisive. Strongly divisive. Hence further along the scale.

Catnip1024:
If the flag is of the nation in which both teams play, again, not really divisive at all.

This premise needs some interrogating. Because what, varying degrees of nationalism (or anti-nationalism) aren't a thing?

Seanchaidh:
This premise needs some interrogating. Because what, varying degrees of nationalism (or anti-nationalism) aren't a thing?

Through which you imply anyone who displays a flag is a Nazi?

Flag's are everywhere. Government buildings, packaging, badly drawn tattoos. To pretend a national flag is somehow sinister is dishonest.

Catnip1024:
Generally, a starting statement of "horseshit" does not lead to minds being changed. Might want to bear that in mind, next time.

Okay. I'm sorry I called your argument horseshit. Can we stop dwelling on it?

Catnip1024:
I don't see that that is an accurate statement. The whole realm of what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour in the workplace is driven through similar processes. Can you openly wear religious symbols in the office, yes or no? Can you shit on the desk, yes or no? At some point, said behaviour becomes so divisive and causes so much drama and trouble that it requires action.

The same with political symbology. Where this particular protest sits is up for debate, but surely you have to admit that there has to be a line somewhere?

My issue here is that what you are saying is not what you are actually advocating. More specifically, your description of what you are advocating does not line up with what you are in fact advocating.

1. You are saying that "sport should be apolitical. Political tee-shirts, political gestures, political symbols, they shouldn't be permitted."
2. You are advocating only that political speech that you find disagreeable be barred. You do not consider the national anthem political, so it is permitted. You consider the act of kneeling during the anthem to be political, so it is not permitted. You do not consider the act of standing for the national anthem political, so it is permitted, and so on and so forth.

You can argue that there always needs to be a line of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and you can argue that this line is always going to be fuzzy and subjective. But that is a distraction from the fundamental hypocrisy I see in your position. You are saying that all political speech should not be permitted in sport. Yet what you are actually advocating is that some speech be permitted and some speech not be permitted, based on fuzzy and subjective rules that you seem to be making up as you go along.

So you clearly do not believe that political gestures and speech should not be permitted in sport, nor that sport should be wholly apolitical. But you are claiming that this is your position while advocating for something quite different. This is hypocritical.

Catnip1024:
Well, the counterargument has not been set out particularly well either.

Could you perhaps elaborate on any flaws you've identified?

Catnip1024:
Flags are passive. If a team is a national team, the flag is inherently associated with them and hence no more divisive than the team itself. If the flag is of the nation in which both teams play, again, not really divisive at all.

A flag is just a political symbol. It is only passive and not divisive if it is a commonly accepted political symbol. If someone displays the US flag on their car, that is a political statement, but not a divisive one. If someone displays the Confederate flag on their car, that is an equally political statement, but a very divisive one.

What you are saying is that the US flag is not political, but the Confederate flag is, because the former is uncontroversial and the latter is highly controversial. This is a double standard that I do not believe can be sustained or applied as a general rule. You're not arguing that sport should be clean of political speech; you are arguing that it should be clean of divisive or controversial political speech. Is this not correct?

Catnip1024:

Agema:
In a sense, yes it all is opinion.

On the other hand, opinion can to a greater or lesser extent tied to reasonable argument: in a simple sense, the difference between "because I said so" and "because of principles X, Y, Z". It's not that your opinion is unreasonable, in that it's a practical and moderate position. But I don't feel you've explained it well to theoretical X,Y and Zs: that's why it has been intemperately described as "horseshit".

Well, the counterargument has not been set out particularly well either.

Flags are passive. If a team is a national team, the flag is inherently associated with them and hence no more divisive than the team itself. If the flag is of the nation in which both teams play, again, not really divisive at all.

The problem with political protest gestures is, by definition they are divisive. Strongly divisive. Hence further along the scale.

There is nothing more political than countries. Flags are representations of countries.

Catnip1024:

Agema:
In a sense, yes it all is opinion.

On the other hand, opinion can to a greater or lesser extent tied to reasonable argument: in a simple sense, the difference between "because I said so" and "because of principles X, Y, Z". It's not that your opinion is unreasonable, in that it's a practical and moderate position. But I don't feel you've explained it well to theoretical X,Y and Zs: that's why it has been intemperately described as "horseshit".

Well, the counterargument has not been set out particularly well either.

Flags are passive. If a team is a national team, the flag is inherently associated with them and hence no more divisive than the team itself. If the flag is of the nation in which both teams play, again, not really divisive at all.

The problem with political protest gestures is, by definition they are divisive. Strongly divisive. Hence further along the scale.

Flag, and the standing on the field during the recitation of the anthem thereof, was bought and paid for by the military serving under that flag as deliberate political propoganda this millennium.

As in, I remember a time when the anthem being sung didn't have either team on the field, nor a 100 foot flag being carried out onto the field to do so.

It isn't passive.

bastardofmelbourne:
You are advocating only that political speech that you find disagreeable be barred. You do not consider the national anthem political, so it is permitted. You consider the act of kneeling during the anthem to be political, so it is not permitted. You do not consider the act of standing for the national anthem political, so it is permitted, and so on and so forth.

Well first, again I'd point out that I'm ambivalent on the national anthem thing. Second, it's not about what I agree or disagree with, it's about what I believe is divisive or not.

For instance, Pep Guardiola was fined for wearing a ribbon to support Catalonia. I sympathise with the Catalans, but I also realise that that is a divisive symbol best left off the football pitch (interesting aside - the match was refereed by a Spaniard, and they had a couple of interesting decisions go against them).

A flag is just a political symbol. It is only passive and not divisive if it is a commonly accepted political symbol. If someone displays the US flag on their car, that is a political statement, but not a divisive one. If someone displays the Confederate flag on their car, that is an equally political statement, but a very divisive one.

Funnily enough, the confederate flag isn't a national one.

The only reason a national flag might be controversial would be in situations like, say, Taiwan, or in disputed territories.

You're not arguing that sport should be clean of political speech; you are arguing that it should be clean of divisive or controversial political speech. Is this not correct?

And again, if people are being arsey, that would remove the ability to undertake sport at all. Because apparently choosing a drink is a political choice now. Some people overthink things.

There is a threshold before things become of significance enough to be really considered political. Again, the exact line is subject to argument, but that's what I'm talking about when I say "free of politics".

Saelune:
There is nothing more political than countries. Flags are representations of countries.

Have you never heard of civic pride? The idea that you show a symbol because you are proud of where you come from, with no greater political meaning than that?

Catnip1024:
For instance, Pep Guardiola was fined for wearing a ribbon to support Catalonia. I sympathise with the Catalans, but I also realise that that is a divisive symbol best left off the football pitch (interesting aside - the match was refereed by a Spaniard, and they had a couple of interesting decisions go against them).

I don't believe he should have been fined for that. The ribbon does not interfere with the playing of the game and does not interfere with the audience's enjoyment of the game. I can't think of a compelling reason for it to be prohibited.

Catnip1024:
Funnily enough, the confederate flag isn't a national one.

So?

Catnip1024:
And again, if people are being arsey, that would remove the ability to undertake sport at all. Because apparently choosing a drink is a political choice now. Some people overthink things.

There is a threshold before things become of significance enough to be really considered political. Again, the exact line is subject to argument, but that's what I'm talking about when I say "free of politics".

Okay, you didn't directly answer my question or retract your earlier statement, but I'm just going to go ahead and assume that you were using the word "political" to mean "controversial." It would have saved us all a great deal of time if you'd just used the proper word in the first place.

As a general rule, political speech - both controversial and uncontroversial - falls beneath the aegis of constitutional and international protections for freedom of speech. That does not mean that their use is completely without regulation, but it does mean that any prohibition or limitation of political speech must be justified by sound and practical concerns.

When it comes to sports, my principle is that as long as it does not interfere with the playing of the game or the identification of team members and does not constitute incitement to violence or incitement of a criminal offence, the speech should be permitted.

Simply refusing to stand during a national anthem does not interfere with the game and does not constitute incitement; therefore, there is no compelling reason to prohibit it. Ribbons and armbands are the same. A Nazi armband or salute should not be permitted simply because expressing support for the Nazis also means expressing support for genocide, which would constitute incitement to violence. A Christian armband is fine; a NAMBLA armband is not. A pin, medal, brooch or other item of jewelry, regardless of its design, would not be permitted simply because it would be a physical hazard on the pitch. A full shirt would not be permitted because it would obscure one's team uniform. Am I missing anything?

Catnip1024:
Have you never heard of civic pride? The idea that you show a symbol because you are proud of where you come from, with no greater political meaning than that?

Politics encompasses civic governance; civic pride is, by definition, pride in civic governance. It is a political statement.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
There is nothing more political than countries. Flags are representations of countries.

Have you never heard of civic pride? The idea that you show a symbol because you are proud of where you come from, with no greater political meaning than that?

You're just wrong on this, objectively wrong. You're literally trying to argue that politics are not political. Symbols are political, where one is from is political. Being from this town instead of that town is political. Being from this county instead of that county is political. Being from this part of my state from that part of my state is political. From what state, to what country, to what continent, to even whether I am west of a certain point or east of a certain point, it is all political.

Nationality, 'civil pride' is the base of politics. Where one is from is where politics comes from. Sparta or Athens, Greece or Germania, Northern China or Southern, Wei or Wu, London or Wales, France or England and on and on and on.

altnameJag:
a 100 foot flag being carried out onto the field to do so.

They do that now!? Holy crap! I have been out of touch with live sports events for a really long time!

CaitSeith:

altnameJag:
a 100 foot flag being carried out onto the field to do so.

They do that now!? Holy crap! I have been out of touch with live sports events for a really long time!

At the bigger events, yeah. Maybe not literally every NFL game, but I only really start watching when the actual game starts, so I've got no hard data.

But hey, paid-for military propaganda is apolitical, I guess.

altnameJag:
At the bigger events, yeah. Maybe not literally every NFL game, but I only really start watching when the actual game starts, so I've got no hard data.

But hey, paid-for military propaganda is apolitical, I guess.

Huh. I wasn't aware of the 100-foot flag situation.

Americans are crazy, man.

In a related update that will entertain all people who are amused by Trump's endless, ham-fingered stupidity:

Not only is the NFL's recent decision apparently not enough for Trump, but he also chose the worst possible team to use as a target. No member of the Philadelphia Eagles actually took a knee during the last season. There's one photo of an Eagles player kneeling in the season before that, but for the whole of 2017, the Eagles stood for the national anthem. That didn't seem to be enough to protect them from Trump's need to manufacture a controversy. It turns out that even if you do whatever Trump says and stand politely for the national anthem while also winning the championship, he will just lie and move the goalposts.

And coming in to make things even stupider is Fox News, which aired a picture of a gaggle of Eagles players kneeling in support of the story...without realising that they were kneeling to pray. Because they're devout Christians who pray as a group before every game. Bit of an own goal, there.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here