NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    or else the SB will be taken away

    I would tell them to take it and shove it. I dont like being bullied - forget the issue

    The NFL is a bully, they have problems galore, are hypocrites when it comes to player saftey. They really only care about making money, no matter what BS they try and peddle. They will ruin the NFL just like the NCAA ruined college basketball, And  the NHL ruined the hockey and the NBA ruined the regular seasons.

    But i can see that the Gov will veto it

     

    By the way there is already a rulke ginst using the N word or anything like it

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from fishers5. Show fishers5's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    or else the SB will be taken away

    I would tell them to take it and shove it. I dont like being bullied - forget the issue

    The NFL is a bully, they have problems galore, are hypocrites when it comes to player saftey. They really only care about making money, no matter what BS they try and peddle. They will ruin the NFL just like the NCAA ruined college basketball, And  the NHL ruined the hockey and the NBA ruined the regular seasons.

    But i can see that the Gov will veto it

     

    By the way there is already a rulke ginst using the N word or anything like it

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree 100 percent

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    I believe that it's over the serving gays bill and following dust up.

    The NFL is well within it's rights to play where ever they want.

    I would however caution them not to get too political as they are coming under scrunity for their non-profit status.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Good for the NFL. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    I would however caution them not to get political as they are coming under scrunity for their non-profit status.



    As they should.  I believe the motivation for labeling them non-profit was to help the league stay alive during the formative years (not because anyone seriously thought they were non-profit).  The fact that they are still labeled as such is a travesty.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Good for the NFL. 

    [/QUOTE]

    +1

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    The leauge chose the SB site; they can un-choose it.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I would however caution them not to get political as they are coming under scrunity for their non-profit status.

     



    As they should.  I believe the motivation for labeling them non-profit was to help the league stay alive during the formative years (not because anyone seriously thought they were non-profit).  The fact that they are still labeled as such is a travesty.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ya it's been looked at for awhile now. I believe Basketball and Baseball gave up their non profit status awhile back and the NFL did itself no favors with the 42 Million paid to Goodell. And no matter where you stand on the issue the NFL has the right to play where ever they see fit. 

    I believe the law ain't going anywhere anyways and all should climb down off the soapboxes.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Didn't NEgame say something like this on the other thread and the rusty ballbag mocked her?

    "Well, folks, looks like rusty's wrong again!" lol


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from KyleCleric1. Show KyleCleric1's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    The NFL should. It's Arizona's MLK day controversy all over again.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    The NFL can pick and chose where they have the SB (that's their choice) but they should make the choice and stick with it. Saying don't pass this or else is pretty much blackmail in my book and blackmail is just plain wrong period. Funny thing is if it was a company saying this to MA about their practice of giving benefits to illegals everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil corporation is blackmailing a state to adopt policy. So, either you're fine with corporations using blackmail as a means to dictate policy or you aren't regardless of if you feel the policy is stupid or not

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't NEgame say something like this on the other thread and the rusty ballbag mocked her?

    "Well, folks, looks like rusty's wrong again!" lol


    [/QUOTE]


    I believe you are 100% correct Bungalow-Bill!

    Just another poster owning Rusty!

    NEGAME > Rusty!!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The NFL can pick and chose where they have the SB (that's their choice) but they should make the choice and stick with it. Saying don't pass this or else is pretty much blackmail in my book and blackmail is just plain wrong period. Funny thing is if it was a company saying this to MA about their practice of giving benefits to illegals everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil corporation is blackmailing a state to adopt policy. So, either you're fine with corporations using blackmail as a means to dictate policy or you aren't regardless of if you feel the policy is stupid or not

    [/QUOTE]

    If it wasn't a case of a discriminatory law being passed, I might agree with you. The problem is they gave the SB to Arizona BEFORE the present descriminatory laws against gays were being discussed. You should be applauding the NFL for standing up to descrimination but no, you feel it is blackmail! Do you have a social conscience?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    If it wasn't a case of a discriminatory law being passed, I might agree with you. The problem is they gave the SB to Arizona BEFORE the present descriminatory laws against gays were being discussed. You should be applauding the NFL for standing up to descrimination but no, you feel it is blackmail! Do you have a social conscience?

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, I hate the law being discussed in Ari. My cousin is gay and I completely support him. However, to me there is a strong difference between the NFL saying "We support gay rights and do not plan to be affliated with a state that does not support them" and the NFL saying "You better not pass this law or else". To me the latter is completely wrong vs the former expressing your opinion and choice. If you don't support what the state is doing, fine start a campaign and speak to the voters to try to change it or get out of the state but trying to blackmail policy by saying or else is just plain wrong. If Ari wants to do it, that's on them. And yes I do have a social conscience, I just have beliefs that you shouldn't use a threat and  ultimatums to bend others to your will. Instead speak to the issue and bring the topic to the people voting and let them vote on that issue.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The NFL can pick and chose where they have the SB (that's their choice) but they should make the choice and stick with it. Saying don't pass this or else is pretty much blackmail in my book and blackmail is just plain wrong period. Funny thing is if it was a company saying this to MA about their practice of giving benefits to illegals everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil corporation is blackmailing a state to adopt policy. So, either you're fine with corporations using blackmail as a means to dictate policy or you aren't regardless of if you feel the policy is stupid or not

    [/QUOTE]

    Bingo, we have a winner! 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to fishers5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    or else the SB will be taken away

    I would tell them to take it and shove it. I dont like being bullied - forget the issue

    The NFL is a bully, they have problems galore, are hypocrites when it comes to player saftey. They really only care about making money, no matter what BS they try and peddle. They will ruin the NFL just like the NCAA ruined college basketball, And  the NHL ruined the hockey and the NBA ruined the regular seasons.

    But i can see that the Gov will veto it

     

    By the way there is already a rulke ginst using the N word or anything like it

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree 100 percent

    [/QUOTE]
    YEAH...SHE"S UNAMERRRRIKANNNNN

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    If it wasn't a case of a discriminatory law being passed, I might agree with you. The problem is they gave the SB to Arizona BEFORE the present descriminatory laws against gays were being discussed. You should be applauding the NFL for standing up to descrimination but no, you feel it is blackmail! Do you have a social conscience?

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, I hate the law being discussed in Ari. My cousin is gay and I completely support him. However, to me there is a strong difference between the NFL saying "We support gay rights and do not plan to be affliated with a state that does not support them" and the NFL saying "You better not pass this law or else". To me the latter is completely wrong vs the former expressing your opinion and choice. If you don't support what the state is doing, fine start a campaign and speak to the voters to try to change it or get out of the state but trying to blackmail policy by saying or else is just plain wrong. If Ari wants to do it, that's on them. And yes I do have a social conscience, I just have beliefs that you shouldn't use a threat and  ultimatums to bend others to your will. Instead speak to the issue and bring the topic to the people voting and let them vote on that issue.

    [/QUOTE]

    So you want the NFL to get out of the state (which they are saying they will do by taking the superbowl away) but you don't want them to "blackmail" the state which changed the playing ground AFTER the contract was signed? This is like having your cake and eating it too.

    Don't forget, the Supreme Court made the Arizona Cardinals and the NFL people. And as people they have every right to tell their state politicians how they should vote and they have every right to do it with their wallet.

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    Tell me this, would you have a problem with the NFL pulling the superbowl from Arizona if they passed a law that made it illegal for people with brown eyes to live? 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The NFL can pick and chose where they have the SB (that's their choice) but they should make the choice and stick with it. Saying don't pass this or else is pretty much blackmail in my book and blackmail is just plain wrong period. Funny thing is if it was a company saying this to MA about their practice of giving benefits to illegals everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil corporation is blackmailing a state to adopt policy. So, either you're fine with corporations using blackmail as a means to dictate policy or you aren't regardless of if you feel the policy is stupid or not

    [/QUOTE]

    That is the important thing. IMO, they should not be able to do this. Where does it stop?

    This can extend to anything and everything. Example, should the Wall Street banks dictate economic policy? Well, they already kinda do. And that is part of why there has not been any substantial reform. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Look , I was just listening on the tube, and no one is sure what the law really says

    Does it stop taking medical care of someone who is gay? Obviously completeky untenable and a sin

    or is it something common sense? I don't know, but I naturally distrust advocacy groups, politicians and media. I certainly don't trust the NFL or Goodell. I definitely don't trust Brewer or McCain who are less than almost smart

    In the end I think the PC advocates will rule and I am tired of them. And the NFL office sux

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The principle is entirely the same.   The firearms industry is doing precisely the same thing in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and other states that have enacted more restrictive firearms legislation.  

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PhatVirginian. Show PhatVirginian's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't NEgame say something like this on the other thread and the rusty ballbag mocked her?

    "Well, folks, looks like rusty's wrong again!" lol


    [/QUOTE]


    I believe you are 100% correct Bungalow-Bill!

    Just another poster owning Rusty!

    NEGAME > Rusty!!

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm surprised he keeps coming back...lol. Sure, he has a good point once in 10000 posts, but other than that he gets owned daily.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from PhatVirginian. Show PhatVirginian's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The NFL can pick and chose where they have the SB (that's their choice) but they should make the choice and stick with it. Saying don't pass this or else is pretty much blackmail in my book and blackmail is just plain wrong period. Funny thing is if it was a company saying this to MA about their practice of giving benefits to illegals everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil corporation is blackmailing a state to adopt policy. So, either you're fine with corporations using blackmail as a means to dictate policy or you aren't regardless of if you feel the policy is stupid or not

    [/QUOTE]

    If it wasn't a case of a discriminatory law being passed, I might agree with you. The problem is they gave the SB to Arizona BEFORE the present descriminatory laws against gays were being discussed. You should be applauding the NFL for standing up to descrimination but no, you feel it is blackmail! Do you have a social conscience?

    [/QUOTE]

    Why can't the NFL change their mind?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    I haven't seen a source that says the NFL said they will move the Super Bowl if Brewer signs the law.  All I've seen is a quote from an NFL representative urging the mayor to veto the bill.  Hundreds of companies have sent letters to Brewer urging a veto.  Most businesses (at least larger ones) think this is a very bad bill.  I know American Airlines, Apple Computer, Marriott, and a few other businesses have also made public statements in opposition to the bill.  

    Part of the problem with the bill is that it opens the door for people to do (or refuse to do) all sorts of things if they can justify their action or nonaction by a religious belief.  The bill is clearly intended to allow people not to serve and possibly not to hire gays (it is, for all the rhetoric about "religious freedom" an anti-gay bill), but it also (and somewhat ironically given conservative fears about Muslims trying to make Sharia the law in the US) could be used by a Muslim as justification for following Sharia law in his business dealings.  Of course, it also could likely be used to legalize polygamy for Mormons and legalize differential treatment for gays, women, the unmarried, the divorced, and other groups often viewed as "different" under religious rules. Some have suggested that the law would give medical providers or employers who provide medical insurance all sorts of ways to limit reproductive care (birth control, in-vitro fertilization, abortion).  This would, of course, be seen as a "benefit" of the law by the religious conservatives who are pushing it. 

    Some of the supporters of the bill have taken to arguing that all these other possibilities are "far-fetched," which again somewhat ironically proves that their main objective isn't to allow free practice of religion, but to allow discrimination against gays.  They are basically trying to defend the bill by saying it really wouldn't lead to other types of religious "freedom" just the "freedom" not to serve gays. 

    In reality, the bill responds to no real problem.  The wedding controversies all occured in states where the law requires businesses to treat people equally regardless of sexual orientation.  Arizona has no such law, so it's questionable whether the courts in Arizona would rule the same way as the courts in New Mexico or Oregon.  In those states, the law explicitly prevents discrimination against gays, so the businesses that did discriminate were in violation of laws that Arizona doesn't have.  There's no way to look at this bill other than a publicity stunt by the right wingers in the Arizona legislature designed to excite their base.  The rest of the world, though, looks at the bill for what it is--a petty attack against gays that, if signed into law, simply reinforces the image of backwardness that Arizona has already cultivated for itself thanks to its anti-imigrant legislation of a few years ago and its stubborn refusal to recognize Martin Luther King day as a holiday.  

     

     

Share