Sit, stand, kneel, or do whatever you like for the National Anthem

[Mitchrapp]

i forgot to add the 30 NFL owners and probably their GMs as well as a lot of coaches. They may be outnumbered or at least appear outnumbered because 1 side has the bigger platform but plenty of people are making the case for him not being good enough. That's the whole argument, people who think he doesn't have a job because he's being blackballed vs. people who think he doesn't have a job because he's not good enough.

Actually the owners haven't said a thing. Just because they didn't sign a guy doesn't mean they're saying he doesn't haven't talent. Remember the free agent freeze of MLB back in the day (Kirk Gibson was one).

McCoy probably said it best.. basically it's a little bit of both. But most articles out there say he's unemployed because of the stance he took.. I hardly ever just see one that goes "He's not an NFL QB blah blah blah not good blah blah blah..." Which is what I mean, even McCoy said distraction, not worth the distraction.

 

[Spartanmack]

Australia would be far easier to invade, thousands of miles of coastline with hardly any population. Notice how the US coastline is much different?

Military plays a key role, but geography plays a much bigger one.

no, it doesn't. that's civilian population distribution, not military distribution. nice pictures though.

 

[Michchamp]

Actually the owners haven't said a thing. Just because they didn't sign a guy doesn't mean they're saying he doesn't haven't talent. Remember the free agent freeze of MLB back in the day (Kirk Gibson was one).

McCoy probably said it best.. basically it's a little bit of both. But most articles out there say he's unemployed because of the stance he took.. I hardly ever just see one that goes "He's not an NFL QB blah blah blah not good blah blah blah..." Which is what I mean, even McCoy said distraction, not worth the distraction.

Kaepernick would easily be one of the best, if not the best backup QB in the league. and he's arguably better than a handful of current starters. it's clear he's been blackballed for his public stance. Haven't some NFL staffers even admitted that (anonymously?)

The NFL is incredibly sleazy and works all sorts of back channels ... OF course they have some sort of "understanding" with regard to Kaepernick. If not, one of the handful of owners who cares more about wins than he does $$$ would've signed him, at least as a backup. they're making an example of him. Maybe if it doesn't work, he'll be signed up.

 

[Thumb]

no, it doesn't. that's civilian population distribution, not military distribution. nice pictures though.

We live in the USA, so even though they may be civilian, chances are they are pretty well armed no?

 

[tomdalton22]

Kaepernick would easily be one of the best, if not the best backup QB in the league. and he's arguably better than a handful of current starters. it's clear he's been blackballed for his public stance. Haven't some NFL staffers even admitted that (anonymously?)

The NFL is incredibly sleazy and works all sorts of back channels ... OF course they have some sort of "understanding" with regard to Kaepernick. If not, one of the handful of owners who cares more about wins than he does $$$ would've signed him, at least as a backup. they're making an example of him. Maybe if it doesn't work, he'll be signed up.

If the handful of owners who care about wins more than money already have a backup QB, why would they sign him?

 

[Spartanmack]

Actually the owners haven't said a thing. Just because they didn't sign a guy doesn't mean they're saying he doesn't haven't talent. Remember the free agent freeze of MLB back in the day (Kirk Gibson was one).

McCoy probably said it best.. basically it's a little bit of both. But most articles out there say he's unemployed because of the stance he took.. I hardly ever just see one that goes "He's not an NFL QB blah blah blah not good blah blah blah..." Which is what I mean, even McCoy said distraction, not worth the distraction.

they haven't hired him, that speaks volumes. As businessmen the odds are much more likely that they're listening to their coaches & GMs and making business decisions based on his talents, not his politics. If they thought Kaepernick could win games and make them money, he'd have a job. Maybe on the margin, his position has kept him from getting a 3rd string spot but that's not "a little bit of both." That's a whole lot of one (not good enough) and a sliver of the other (bad for the sport).

Either way, plenty of people have spoken up to say Kaepernick isn't working because he isn't good enough. Overblowing a non-issue is the SJWs m.o.

 

[Michchamp]

in 1942 Australia was weaker than they are now, and Japan was at the height of their power, able to launch an offensive almost anywhere in the Pacific, and they STILL wouldn't risk an invasion of Australia.

it's really hard and complicated to invade a continent.

geography matters a lot more than military cheerleaders understand.

 

[Michchamp]

If the handful of owners who care about wins more than money already have a backup QB, why would they sign him?

he's better? he can actually win games, so if their starters get injured (a likely occurrence) they won't be one-dimensional

 

[Spartanmack]

in 1942 Australia was weaker than they are now, and Japan was at the height of their power, able to launch an offensive almost anywhere in the Pacific, and they STILL wouldn't risk an invasion of Australia.

it's really hard and complicated to invade a continent.

geography matters a lot more than military cheerleaders understand.

they couldn't take a continent with almost no military so instead, they attacked the United States - makes a lot of sense. It probably went down something like this...

We can't take Australia because it's a continent, and by extension, we definitely can't take the USA, cuz we'd also be invading a continent but we have all these guns and really want to pick a fight with someone. Let's flip a coin, heads "USA", tails "Australia" and thus it was decided, Japan chose to attack America.

newsflash, Japan is an Island so basically everyone they invade is like invading a continent.

They didn't invade Australia because in 1942 there were only 7mm living in Australia and their natural resources were largely undiscovered and wholly undeveloped - the continent was largely unknown in terms of resource wealth and added little to no strategic advantage. there was neither need nor advantage to it.

 

[Spartanmack]

We live in the USA, so even though they may be civilian, chances are they are pretty well armed no?

no, they're not well enough armed to stop an invasion. Our military on the other hand, is.

 

[tomdalton22]

he's better? he can actually win games, so if their starters get injured (a likely occurrence) they won't be one-dimensional

Even if he is marginally better than the backup, a lot of the teams might be comfortable with their current backup for many reasons. Some being, familiarity with the system, being groomed for the future, salary, etc.

Miami had an opening and signed Cutler out of retirement because he knew the system. Of course, it was also a business decision to not sign CK. I'm sure the huge Cuban population didn't like his Fidel Castro T-shirt.

Bottom line, him not being signed is due to a combination of his talent (not starter quality) and his off field distractions that could harm their bottom line.

Read what LeSean McCoy has to say. I think he is spot on.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20445286/colin-kaepernick-not-good-enough-player-distraction

 

[Michchamp]

they couldn't take a continent with almost no military so instead, they attacked the United States - makes a lot of sense. It probably went down something like this...

newsflash, Japan is an Island so basically everyone they invade is like invading a continent.

They didn't invade Australia because in 1942 there were only 7mm living in Australia and their natural resources were largely undiscovered and wholly undeveloped - the continent was largely unknown in terms of resource wealth and added little to no strategic advantage. there was neither need nor advantage to it.

history wasn't your strongest subject, I'm guessing.

(I'm guessing phys ed was)

 

[Spartanmack]

he's better? he can actually win games, so if their starters get injured (a likely occurrence) they won't be one-dimensional

Kaepernick is 11-24 in the last 3 seasons, 3-16 in the last two with
QBRs that place him 29th and 23rd, respectively with virtually 100% of his crappy overall ranking coming from rushing plays. he's ranked dead last among starters in passer ratings (he's outside the top 30 in 2015). He's a one dimensional player that doesn't fit most systems and he most definitely cannot be counted on to "actually win games."

 

[Spartanmack]

history wasn't your strongest subject, I'm guessing.

(I'm guessing phys ed was)

Actually, history was one of my stronger subjects. Revisionist history, something you excel at, was not. You probably think Mel Brooks' History of the World is a documentary.

 

[sggatecl]

they couldn't take a continent with almost no military so instead, they attacked the United States - makes a lot of sense. It probably went down something like this...

I don't know much about Japan invading/not invading Australia. I do know that it doesn't have any correlation to Japan's attack on the United States. They attacked the United States because they were viewed as a complication to Japan's desire to further invade China. They had no intentions of invading the United States, they were simply trying to cripple the United States Navy in the Pacific.

There are several recorded documents of Japan generals stating that any war with the United States would end poorly because it was financially outgunned. The United States spent more on shipbuilding than Japan by 10 fold. Japan's #1 target going into Pearl Harbor were aircraft carriers and many (all?) were at Midway or other places when Japan decided to attack, fatal error on their part. Instead of crippling the United States Pacific presence, they only damaged it and in turn woke "the sleeping giant" (Their words).

 

[dubbsco]

I'm pretty sure even though they all say "that's why we fight, so people can do that" a great many of them still think it's disrespectful and it possibly even offends them. They just don't get their panties in a wad about being offended.

Shit man, did not know you were suddenly a mind reader. Good on you! This is the ultimate ex machina for this discussion, "I'm pretty sure... They still think..."

Versus the actual words coming from their mouth.

Yikes. Got no shot in this one.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know much about Japan invading/not invading Australia. I do know that it doesn't have any correlation to Japan's attack on the United States. They attacked the United States because they were viewed as a complication to Japan's desire to further invade China. They had no intentions of invading the United States, they were simply trying to cripple the United States Navy in the Pacific.

There are several recorded documents of Japan generals stating that any war with the United States would end poorly because it was financially outgunned. The United States spent more on shipbuilding than Japan by 10 fold. Japan's #1 target going into Pearl Harbor were aircraft carriers and many (all?) were at Midway or other places when Japan decided to attack, fatal error on their part. Instead of crippling the United States Pacific presence, they only damaged it and in turn woke "the sleeping giant" (Their words).

I'm not drawing any correlation between the two and I don't actually believe they attacked the US because of a coin toss. I'm pointing out the absurd notion that Japan didn't attack Australia because it's a continent. If they were willing to pick a fight with the US, there's probably a reason other than the fact that Australia is a continent that they left them alone.

 

[Spartanmack]

Shit man, did not know you were suddenly a mind reader. Good on you! This is the ultimate ex machina for this discussion, "I'm pretty sure... They still think..."

Versus the actual words coming from their mouth.

Yikes. Got no shot in this one.

your post was no less mind reading than mine. I'm merely offering another, more likely interpretation of what they said.

And since you've decided to get hostile from the jump, allow me to respond in kind. You really only "have a shot" in groupthink only threads.

 

[dubbsco]

I'm not hostile whatsoever. Massive, massive difference between things that are said in public, vs what you "assume" people feel.

There's no debate to be had if you can use people's minds as your measuring stick. That eliminates any rationality in conversation.

What are you doing back here anyways? Didn't you deem yourself too good for this group?

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not hostile whatsoever. Massive, massive difference between things that are said in public, vs what you "assume" people feel.

There's no debate to be had if you can use people's minds as your measuring stick. That eliminates any rationality in conversation.

your sarcasm and attempt to condescend was obvious. And again, you're using their minds as much as I am. They didn't say it wasn't disrespectful or inoffensive. They simply said it's their right. For you to say or imply that they don't care about it is mind reading. Period.

Last paragraph is nonsense. If there was no debate to be had if you can use peoples' minds as your measuring stick, then why was there such a debate spurred when so many people uses Trump's condemnation of violence from both sides as an endorsement of white supremacy? I agree in that case it was completely irrational but debates are often about interpretation.