https://www.dailywire.com/news/theyre-not-even-following-their-own-rules-packers-aaron-rodgers-slams-pelosi-newsom?itm_source=parsely-api&utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=011821-news&utm_campaign=position1

Well, after reading it I suppose I agree with most of what he said...but he has to view their hypocrisy in perspective of the good they did to mitigate the pandemic vs the criminal negligence/reckless misconduct of the leaders who have a couple of hundred thousand deaths on their hands.

BTW, the lockdowns are primarily necessitated by what is going on in SoCal, so I can only assume there is a fear of insurrection if he opened up just NorCal.

Wait I thought athletes weren't allowed to express political opinions?
What changed?

I once heard Gary Radnich say that you have lost the battle when you are celebrity that believes your opinion, on a subject outside your expertise, matters more than anyone else's.
However, I definitely hear where Aaron is coming from.


*A nun that taught me in grammar school said you are only entitled to an opinion based on the facts. If you base it on unsupported allegations, you are doing little more than flapping your jaws.

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

bearister said:

---

Well, after reading it I suppose I agree with most of what he said...but he has to view their hypocrisy in perspective of the good they did to mitigate the pandemic vs the criminal negligence/reckless misconduct of the leaders who have a couple of hundred thousand deaths on their hands.

BTW, the lockdowns are primarily necessitated by what is going on in SoCal, so I can only assume there is a fear of insurrection if he opened up just NorCal.

---

How can an issue, that at face value is "wrong," be addressed if it is re-framed as a "moral authority" argument. It's like yeah, that might be wrong but they are worse. Yeah, I was a hypocrite about this, but that's nothing compared to that other dude who I think is a bigger hypocrite. It creates hopeless gridlock doesn't it?

I'm following the leaders that implemented pandemic plans approved by State medical experts and that are similar to plans followed by countries that had the greatest success against the pandemic. It would have been a real bonus if they had not been hypocrites, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face over it. If a leader says it is a bad idea to drive while drunk, and then gets popped for a DUI, my takeaway from that hypocrisy is not to get drunk and drive.

What country implemented a pandemic response plan that you would support?

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

Golden One said:

---

https://www.dailywire.com/news/theyre-not-even-following-their-own-rules-packers-aaron-rodgers-slams-pelosi-newsom?itm_source=parsely-api&utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=011821-news&utm_campaign=position1

---

My choice of information always comes alt right websites that quote athletes.

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

Really?

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

Really?

---

Yeah, I ain't clicking on a racist's website. Especially not on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

bearister said:

---

Well, after reading it I suppose I agree with most of what he said...but he has to view their hypocrisy in perspective of the good they did to mitigate the pandemic vs the criminal negligence/reckless misconduct of the leaders who have a couple of hundred thousand deaths on their hands.

BTW, the lockdowns are primarily necessitated by what is going on in SoCal, so I can only assume there is a fear of insurrection if he opened up just NorCal.

---

perfectly stated

Say what you will about Dave, he always steps up for people in a crisis

ColoradoBear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

---

Thanks.

As a follower of Rodgers on social media, it's a bit disconcerting seeing him getting close with David Portnoy.

bearister said:

---

Well, after reading it I suppose I agree with most of what he said...but he has to view their hypocrisy in perspective of the good they did to mitigate the pandemic vs the criminal negligence/reckless misconduct of the leaders who have a couple of hundred thousand deaths on their hands.

BTW, the lockdowns are primarily necessitated by what is going on in SoCal, so I can only assume there is a fear of insurrection if he opened up just NorCal.

---

This is fantastic. "I agree with what he said but its ok for people I like to lie and be hypocrites (rules for thee but not for me) because other people I don't like did things I think are worse." And people wonder why most politicians are awful.

Hint: People who support Trump use the exact same faulty logic to justify Trump's bad behavior. Either we have a universal standard or there is no standard other than partisanship.

How about we just agree that Rodgers has a point about the hypocrisy and double standards? Full stop. His comments aren't really even partisan - the criticism of the $600 payment is arguably directed at Republicans more than dems and there are plenty of republican politicians who have been caught breaking the rules. Based on other things he's said, we know Rodgers is far from a conservative republican.

okaydo said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

---

Thanks.

As a follower of Rodgers on social media, it's a bit disconcerting seeing him getting close with David Portnoy.

---

He thinks differently than you (maybe). Let's cancel him before he makes friends with other dangerous independent thinkers like Joe Rogan or, god forbid, an actual conservative.

And for sure don't click on any links from websites you might disagree with - you might read something you don't like.

okaydo said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

Really?

---

Yeah, I ain't clicking on a racist's website. Especially not on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

---

A racist?

BearGoggles said:

---

okaydo said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

---

Thanks.

As a follower of Rodgers on social media, it's a bit disconcerting seeing him getting close with David Portnoy.

---

He thinks differently than you (maybe). Let's cancel him before he makes friends with other dangerous independent thinkers like Joe Rogan or, god forbid, an actual conservative.

And for sure don't click on any links from websites you might disagree with - you might read something you don't like.

---

Uh, you're the one who's talking about canceling him. That's the problem with the right: all you think about is cancel culture.

Portnoy has a history of using the N-word. Heck, he launched the N.I.G.G.E.R. podcast just last year.

Portnoy has a history of harassing female journalists, specifically Sam Ponder and Laura Wagner.

Rodgers' brand, on the other hand, has been the opposite of Barstool's.

While Portnoy is proudly Islamophobic, Rodgers made headlines and received a letter from the president when he stuck up for Muslims after they were booed at a Packers game.

Rodgers has also stuck up for ex Olivia Munn and the sexist BS she had to go through when she dated him.

Rodgers also granted one of his most in-depth interviews to one of the top female sports journalists.

So yeah, it's a bit disconcerting to see Rodgers associate his brand with somebody's brand who's the total opposite.

"As a follower of Rodgers on social media, it's a bit disconcerting seeing him getting close with David Portnoy."

Is that a Portnoy's Complaint?

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

Really?

---

Yeah, I ain't clicking on a racist's website. Especially not on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

---

A racist?

---

yes, a racist.

Rodgers can spend his millions however he wants, just as Jack Clark was free to throw all of his baseball millions away on race cars.

But, I don't have to respect Rodgers' life/political choices, or those of, say, Kevin Johnson, merely because those guys were star athletes at Cal.

okaydo said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Can somebody link to the actual news source. I'm not doubting he said that, but I am hesistent to click on Trump News.

---

Really?

---

Yeah, I ain't clicking on a racist's website. Especially not on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

---

A racist?

---

yes, a racist.

---

Except the link was not to Pourtnoy's website. Who else are you wrongfully calling a racist?

Reading comprehension has never been a strength among Republicans/conservatives...

AunBear89 said:

---

Reading comprehension has never been a strength among Republicans/conservatives...

---

Apparently it is not yours either. He refused to click on a dailywire website link because its owned by a "racist" and then proceed to justify that by calling Portnoy a racist. Portnoy doesn't own that site.

And to call Dailywire alt-right is laughable and just factually untrue based on any accepted definition of alt right existing outside of this board (and the far left).

Save your righteous indignation for someone who cares. You know exactly who he was talking about. The guy who started the far right (extreme right, alt right, goose step right, righteous right, Christian Right - use whatever euphemism you prefer for the current political right in America) site Daily Wire is arguably pretty racist. You can look Shapiro up on your own. He's an angry little ball of hate.

But I get it - your bubble keeps telling you that the only racism today is anti white. That everyone is out to get your side. And Righteous Righty media like Fox and OAN and The Daily Wire keep feeding you that story, while eagerly running cover and carrying water for the most corrupt and morally bankrupt administration we've ever seen.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Wait I thought athletes weren't allowed to express political opinions?
What changed?

---

The NBA, that's what.

upsetof86 said:

---

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

---

Yes, yes, and double-yes. Amazing how some don't see this important distinction. Have an opinion, want to promote something? Do it on your own time and use your own dime. Using NFL Sunday, the stadium, the owner's property, and the team's TV contract to advance a personal cause is throwing your employer under the bus. How many of us can use our employer's property to publicly state our personal views and have a job there the next day?

LMK5 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

---

Yes, yes, and double-yes. Amazing how some don't see this important distinction. Have an opinion, want to promote something? Do it on your own time and use your own dime. Using NFL Sunday, the stadium, the owner's property, and the team's TV contract to advance a personal cause is throwing your employer under the bus. How many of us can use our employer's property to publicly state our personal views and have a job there the next day?

---

You think people don't use their company laptops or phones to post political messages on Twitter sometimes (or on BearInsider)? They almost certainly do.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

---

Yes, yes, and double-yes. Amazing how some don't see this important distinction. Have an opinion, want to promote something? Do it on your own time and use your own dime. Using NFL Sunday, the stadium, the owner's property, and the team's TV contract to advance a personal cause is throwing your employer under the bus. How many of us can use our employer's property to publicly state our personal views and have a job there the next day?

---

You think people don't use their company laptops or phones to post political messages on Twitter sometimes (or on BearInsider)? They almost certainly do.

---

Yes of course they do. But we're talking about something quite different. If you're posting here using your company laptop, your company name is still isolated from your opinion and you are not taking advantage of your company's profile in the public sphere to promote your views. You are not taking advantage of your company's brand and ability to draw an audience in order to legitimize your personal message.

When an employee of a sports team displays a personal message on game day, in front of the cameras, in front of the seated fans, and wearing the team's jersey, he/she is using the company's stage--the teams stage--to further their own agenda. Airing of personal opinions should be done using their own personal profile; their own time; their own assets; putting only their own reputation at risk. In fact, many sports personalities do establish a following outside of the team's operations to air their opinions on matters of all sorts.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

---

Yes, yes, and double-yes. Amazing how some don't see this important distinction. Have an opinion, want to promote something? Do it on your own time and use your own dime. Using NFL Sunday, the stadium, the owner's property, and the team's TV contract to advance a personal cause is throwing your employer under the bus. How many of us can use our employer's property to publicly state our personal views and have a job there the next day?

---

You think people don't use their company laptops or phones to post political messages on Twitter sometimes (or on BearInsider)? They almost certainly do.

---

Yes of course they do. But we're talking about something quite different. If you're posting here using your company laptop, your company name is still isolated from your opinion and you are not taking advantage of your company's profile in the public sphere to promote your views. You are not taking advantage of your company's brand and ability to draw an audience in order to legitimize your personal message.

When an employee of a sports team displays a personal message on game day, in front of the cameras, in front of the seated fans, and wearing the team's jersey, he/she is using the company's stage--the teams stage--to further their own agenda. That should be done using their own personal profile; their own time; their own assets; putting only their own reputation at risk. In fact, many sports personalities do establish a following outside of the team's operations to air their opinions on matters of all sorts.

---

Okay, that's a better distinction.

With Kaepernick it's a bit complicated, because when he originally did his kneel he wasn't trying to draw attention to anything. He didn't say anything about making a political statement until he was asked, and at that point there were a lot of outside interests (like Trump) who wanted to make a big deal out of it. Kap's original action was relatively quiet.

And with the NBA stars, it's pretty clear at this point they are making their statements with the full backing of the league. Maybe the league feels like they have to do it or risk pissing off their biggest stars, but that's just them reacting to free-market considerations. In basketball the top stars are super important for selling the game. So I don't know that there's much to be upset about there.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

---

Yes, yes, and double-yes. Amazing how some don't see this important distinction. Have an opinion, want to promote something? Do it on your own time and use your own dime. Using NFL Sunday, the stadium, the owner's property, and the team's TV contract to advance a personal cause is throwing your employer under the bus. How many of us can use our employer's property to publicly state our personal views and have a job there the next day?

---

You think people don't use their company laptops or phones to post political messages on Twitter sometimes (or on BearInsider)? They almost certainly do.

---

Yes of course they do. But we're talking about something quite different. If you're posting here using your company laptop, your company name is still isolated from your opinion and you are not taking advantage of your company's profile in the public sphere to promote your views. You are not taking advantage of your company's brand and ability to draw an audience in order to legitimize your personal message.

When an employee of a sports team displays a personal message on game day, in front of the cameras, in front of the seated fans, and wearing the team's jersey, he/she is using the company's stage--the teams stage--to further their own agenda. That should be done using their own personal profile; their own time; their own assets; putting only their own reputation at risk. In fact, many sports personalities do establish a following outside of the team's operations to air their opinions on matters of all sorts.

---

Okay, that's a better distinction.

With Kaepernick it's a bit complicated, because when he originally did his kneel he wasn't trying to draw attention to anything. He didn't say anything about making a political statement until he was asked, and at that point there were a lot of outside interests (like Trump) who wanted to make a big deal out of it. Kap's original action was relatively quiet.

And with the NBA stars, it's pretty clear at this point they are making their statements with the full backing of the league. Maybe the league feels like they have to do it or risk pissing off their biggest stars, but that's just them reacting to free-market considerations. In basketball the top stars are super important for selling the game. So I don't know that there's much to be upset about there.

---

I see what you're saying, but here's a question: When Kaepernick kneeled, did he do it on the practice field or on the gameday field? I think answering that question should allow us to decide whether or not he was seeking attention.

As far as the NBA goes, I do agree that they've hopped on board, as has the NFL and the NCAA. But my point is that they were forced to make a decision by those--in the case of pro sports--who co-opted their teams' public profile. The leagues seemed to have come out OK but it could have gone differently. They were put in a position to take sides and risk a good portion of their audience being put off. The teams and the leagues had a good old-fashioned squeeze put on them.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

---

Yes, yes, and double-yes. Amazing how some don't see this important distinction. Have an opinion, want to promote something? Do it on your own time and use your own dime. Using NFL Sunday, the stadium, the owner's property, and the team's TV contract to advance a personal cause is throwing your employer under the bus. How many of us can use our employer's property to publicly state our personal views and have a job there the next day?

---

You think people don't use their company laptops or phones to post political messages on Twitter sometimes (or on BearInsider)? They almost certainly do.

---

Yes of course they do. But we're talking about something quite different. If you're posting here using your company laptop, your company name is still isolated from your opinion and you are not taking advantage of your company's profile in the public sphere to promote your views. You are not taking advantage of your company's brand and ability to draw an audience in order to legitimize your personal message.

When an employee of a sports team displays a personal message on game day, in front of the cameras, in front of the seated fans, and wearing the team's jersey, he/she is using the company's stage--the teams stage--to further their own agenda. That should be done using their own personal profile; their own time; their own assets; putting only their own reputation at risk. In fact, many sports personalities do establish a following outside of the team's operations to air their opinions on matters of all sorts.

---

Okay, that's a better distinction.

With Kaepernick it's a bit complicated, because when he originally did his kneel he wasn't trying to draw attention to anything. He didn't say anything about making a political statement until he was asked, and at that point there were a lot of outside interests (like Trump) who wanted to make a big deal out of it. Kap's original action was relatively quiet.

And with the NBA stars, it's pretty clear at this point they are making their statements with the full backing of the league. Maybe the league feels like they have to do it or risk pissing off their biggest stars, but that's just them reacting to free-market considerations. In basketball the top stars are super important for selling the game. So I don't know that there's much to be upset about there.

---

I see what you're saying, but here's a question: When Kaepernick kneeled, did he do it on the practice field or on the gameday field? I think answering that question should allow us to decide whether or not he was seeking attention.

As far as the NBA goes, I do agree that they've hopped on board, as has the NFL and the NCAA. But my point is that they were forced to make a decision by those--in the case of pro sports--who co-opted their teams' public profile. The leagues seemed to have come out OK but it could have gone differently. They were put in a position where a good portion of their audience may have been put off. The teams and the leagues had the squeeze put on them.

---

If players have the power to put a squeeze on their bosses to gain concessions then why shouldn't they do it? What difference does it make if it's about political speech or higher salaries? Isn't that all fair in a free market?

As for Kaepernick, he was doing it on the playing field, because that's where the national anthem is played and he didn't want to stand up for it. But he didn't make any public statements about what he was doing until someone asked him.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

did it on his own time, came out of pocket (doing something), I am good with all that.

---

Yes, yes, and double-yes. Amazing how some don't see this important distinction. Have an opinion, want to promote something? Do it on your own time and use your own dime. Using NFL Sunday, the stadium, the owner's property, and the team's TV contract to advance a personal cause is throwing your employer under the bus. How many of us can use our employer's property to publicly state our personal views and have a job there the next day?

---

You think people don't use their company laptops or phones to post political messages on Twitter sometimes (or on BearInsider)? They almost certainly do.

---

Yes of course they do. But we're talking about something quite different. If you're posting here using your company laptop, your company name is still isolated from your opinion and you are not taking advantage of your company's profile in the public sphere to promote your views. You are not taking advantage of your company's brand and ability to draw an audience in order to legitimize your personal message.

When an employee of a sports team displays a personal message on game day, in front of the cameras, in front of the seated fans, and wearing the team's jersey, he/she is using the company's stage--the teams stage--to further their own agenda. That should be done using their own personal profile; their own time; their own assets; putting only their own reputation at risk. In fact, many sports personalities do establish a following outside of the team's operations to air their opinions on matters of all sorts.

---

Okay, that's a better distinction.

With Kaepernick it's a bit complicated, because when he originally did his kneel he wasn't trying to draw attention to anything. He didn't say anything about making a political statement until he was asked, and at that point there were a lot of outside interests (like Trump) who wanted to make a big deal out of it. Kap's original action was relatively quiet.

And with the NBA stars, it's pretty clear at this point they are making their statements with the full backing of the league. Maybe the league feels like they have to do it or risk pissing off their biggest stars, but that's just them reacting to free-market considerations. In basketball the top stars are super important for selling the game. So I don't know that there's much to be upset about there.

---

I see what you're saying, but here's a question: When Kaepernick kneeled, did he do it on the practice field or on the gameday field? I think answering that question should allow us to decide whether or not he was seeking attention.

As far as the NBA goes, I do agree that they've hopped on board, as has the NFL and the NCAA. But my point is that they were forced to make a decision by those--in the case of pro sports--who co-opted their teams' public profile. The leagues seemed to have come out OK but it could have gone differently. They were put in a position where a good portion of their audience may have been put off. The teams and the leagues had the squeeze put on them.

---

If players have the power to put a squeeze on their bosses to gain concessions then why shouldn't they do it? What difference does it make if it's about political speech or higher salaries? Isn't that all fair in a free market?

As for Kaepernick, he was doing it on the playing field, because that's where the national anthem is played and he didn't want to stand up for it. But he didn't make any public statements about what he was doing until someone asked him.

---

What's the difference between squeezing your employer for a higher salary or for political speech? When you negotiate a salary it is a one-on-one negotiation. It is an expected part of the business. The player only has his agent, who is hired with his own funds, to communicate his message. No matter what decision the team makes, they are not being forced to open themselves up to public scrutiny for taking a stand on a highly-charged social issue. The player comes to the table alone. He doesn't use the team's assets, TV time, or stadium to enhance his own stance publicly.

As for Kaepernick, what were the chances that no one would ask him about kneeling? Why didn't he just kneel in the tunnel? If his position was not controversial, why wasn't he ever hired afterward?

LMK5 said:

---

As for Kaepernick, what were the chances that no one would ask him about kneeling? Why didn't he just kneel in the tunnel? If his position was not controversial, why wasn't he ever hired afterward?

---

I never said it wasn't controversial, just that he didn't try to make a big deal out of it at first.

He wasn't hired because he was blackballed for his political opinions.