|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 16, 2016 10:38:35 GMT -5
Do you think there is a difference in taking a knee for your NBA/NFL/NWSL Soccer team vs when you are representing a U.S. National team and your country? www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/16/u-s-soccer-admonishes-megan-rapinoe-for-kneeling-during-anthem-before-match/?tid=pm_sports_pop_b“Representing your country is a privilege and honor for any player or coach that is associated with U.S. Soccer’s National Teams. Therefore, our national anthem has particular significance for U.S. Soccer. In front of national and often global audiences, the playing of our national anthem is an opportunity for our Men’s and Women’s National Team players and coaches to reflect upon the liberties and freedom we all appreciate in this country. As part of the privilege to represent your country, we have an expectation that our players and coaches will stand and honor our flag while the national anthem is played.”
|
|
|
Post by jash on Sept 16, 2016 11:19:52 GMT -5
I'm glad they have the right (and they absolutely do), but I'm not a fan of Rapinoe's actions in particular in the USA jersey.
I get all the arguments, and again I support their right from a legal standpoint, but now I just think Rapinoe is being petulant. Her reaction to the Spirit's decision to take away her spotlight spoke volumes to me. Her willingness to disrespect her teammate (nevermind her country) sealed it.
Maybe I'll change my mind someday, but right now... I won't be disappointed if she's dropped from the team.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 16, 2016 11:53:31 GMT -5
To me the night was about O'Reilly and unfortunately it seems to be all about Rapinoe -- surely she realized her actions would over shadow the swan song for O'Reilly - one of the grittiest players to ever wear the US jersey - 231 caps, 3 Olympic Gold Medals, 1 World Cup, 1 u19 World Cup
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Sept 16, 2016 12:46:42 GMT -5
While I respect and applaud anyone's right to protest peacefully - and supposedly not standing or kneeling during the anthem is a protest of the injustices and inequalities that still exist in this country - my question for both Kaepernick and Rapinoe is why NOW? Both have been in the spotlight for years and had ample opportunity to express themselves so why now? Why now when these same injustices and prejudices against people of color and homosexuals have existed for entirely too long before right now.
To me both actions smack of self serving promotion rather than a true protest. I never followed Kaepernick but I have always liked Rapinoe and I'm disappointed in her choices right now to jump on this bandwagon. She's done a lot in her career both on and off the field that warrant respect - and still do but the general consensus will be negative reactions toward her - which I don't think is representative of her as a player or person.
That said -I do think it was tacky and out of place do kneel for Heather O'Reilly's last game - like stated above, it took the attention off what should have been the main focus and I find that incredibly disrespectful.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 16, 2016 12:49:03 GMT -5
look to the right ---->>
most of the stories are about US Soccer calling out Rapinoe vs about O'reilly.
|
|
|
Post by TheMadOx on Sept 16, 2016 12:50:42 GMT -5
The thought process was ridiculous. She stood for the Thailand national anthem! Why? Obviously to show respect to their team, fans and country. Yet, she doesn't want to show respect to our team, fans and country. That tells me the selfishness of it all. There is a time and place for personal protest. Your national team isn't one of them. I'm just thankful that she was not a starter and further embarrass us with her kneeling while being a starter!
|
|
|
Post by guest on Sept 16, 2016 13:47:52 GMT -5
I'm always struck by folks who think that freedom of speech means one can say anything they want at anytime without repercussion. Reality is that the freedom of speech is between you and the government. What private entities do is different. There are always consequences for things that you say. I can call my boss a big fat jerk. Freedom of speech, right?
Or stated more simply, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Sept 16, 2016 14:35:06 GMT -5
I'm always struck by folks who think that freedom of speech means one can say anything they want at anytime without repercussion. Reality is that the freedom of speech is between you and the government. What private entities do is different. There are always consequences for things that you say. I can call my boss a big fat jerk. Freedom of speech, right?
Or stated more simply, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. NAILED IT! Freedom of speech is our protection that we can disagree with our government without fear of being drug outside and shot in the middle of the night for saying it. Not that you can use whatever event you are at to promote your own agenda and call it 'free speech'. You're right - you can call your boss a big fat jerk - and he can fire you for it. Which brings me back to my question of why now for those protesting all the great injustices and inequalities in this country. We have legalized same sex marriage and transgender protective laws (except in NC) that didn't exist just two years ago - where was Megan Rapinoe's protest back in 2012 or 2014? She had that same opportunity to 'take a knee' in protest then. Again - it smacks of self promotion more than peaceful protest.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Sept 16, 2016 16:14:05 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why everyone is making a big fuss over what someone else is doing or not doing? It's their right to do. I mean what ever happened to the old idea of two negative don't make a positive, so yes you have your right to whine about what so and so did but is that really helping? Or just showing you're just as bad as them??
It was Heather's night, so if you agree with that then you won't worry what someone else did. But Americans have showed themselves as loving drama and negativity so I guess everyone is equally as bad.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Sept 16, 2016 17:02:02 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why everyone is making a big fuss over what someone else is doing or not doing? It's their right to do. I mean what ever happened to the old idea of two negative don't make a positive, so yes you have your right to whine about what so and so did but is that really helping? Or just showing you're just as bad as them?? It was Heather's night, so if you agree with that then you won't worry what someone else did. But Americans have showed themselves as loving drama and negativity so I guess everyone is equally as bad. Putting aside the issue of disrespect to the country, especially in the USA jersey, this was a problem because she stole the spotlight from a teammate. Rapinoe knew that doing this would cause a big stir (whether it should or not). She chose to do it anyway knowing it would take the spotlight off of the player who deserved it, HAO. It's not a question of what should or shouldn't be. It's a question of what is. She knew it, and she did it anyway. Expressing our opinions about her actions is quite different from what she did.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Sept 16, 2016 19:33:57 GMT -5
With no words spoken, people are focusing on the method and missing the message. Megan could use her pulpit more effectively if she spoke.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Sept 16, 2016 19:42:40 GMT -5
Putting aside the issue of disrespect to the country, especially in the USA jersey, this was a problem because she stole the spotlight from a teammate. Rapinoe knew that doing this would cause a big stir (whether it should or not). She chose to do it anyway knowing it would take the spotlight off of the player who deserved it, HAO. It's not a question of what should or shouldn't be. It's a question of what is. She knew it, and she did it anyway. Expressing our opinions about her actions is quite different from what she did. There are two issues here: 1 - the right to protest and freedom of speech is not always disrespectful to the country - it's our constitutional right and by that logic, exercising it IS respecting this country. The fact that such a large majority disagree with this particular protest is why the perception is that it's 'un American' or disrespectful. 2 - The manner in which the protest is done or the venue could be disrespectful - as pointed out by Rapinoe's choice to do it on Heather's last game. But as pointed out above, we can exercise our freedoms of protest and speech all we want but we have to also accept the consequences that come with it when it involves private parties or corporations. Our freedom is from government not everything. I expect Rapinoe will lose some sponsorships over this and she may well eventually lose her spot on the USWT if the sum total of her actions and reactions start to get in Hope Solo-esque proportions. Personally I don't think they will - she typically has a good head on her shoulders and has been a voice of reason. But obviously this is an issue she is very passionate about and her passion clouded her judgement when she chose to upstage - purposefully or not - Heather O'Reilly's last game. For that I am very disappointed in her choice.
|
|
|
Post by soccerfan30 on Sept 16, 2016 20:01:55 GMT -5
Great change in history has never been accomplished by remaining silent, keeping your head down or remaining compliant. In order to change anything you have to make people look within themselves and sometimes it's going to make people uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Sept 16, 2016 21:21:54 GMT -5
I do not want to turn this into a political forum. I hope we just get back to discussing Bobby Freaking Wood. If USSF want to stop calling in Rapinoe I hope it is because she does not look like much of an impact player any more. We can probably do better at this point. That being said, there are legitimate reasons for these contemporary protests, and the higher profile those protests the more likely they are to inspire useful discussion. Such concerns are in the spirit of the times. The President had no problem with them. Can't see why we should. It is hard to remove events from their historical context and fully appreciate them. But like many other bits of American history we were taught in school, what we were taught is only a part of the truth. Would it be so bad if we found a different tune? Some Springsteen maybe? Short History of Bigotry and the Star Spangled Banner
|
|
|
Post by soccerinsider on Sept 16, 2016 22:04:43 GMT -5
This isn't great change. It's petulant look at me behavior.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Sept 16, 2016 22:05:49 GMT -5
I do not want to turn this into a political forum. I hope we just get back to discussing Bobby Freaking Wood. If USSF want to stop calling in Rapinoe I hope it is because she does not look like much of an impact player any more. We can probably do better at this point. That being said, there are legitimate reasons for these contemporary protests, and the higher profile those protests the more likely they are to inspire useful discussion. Such concerns are in the spirit of the times. The President had no problem with them. Can't see why we should. It is hard to remove events from their historical context and fully appreciate them. But like many other bits of American history we were taught in school, what we were taught is only a part of the truth. Would it be so bad if we found a different tune? Some Springsteen maybe? Short History of Bigotry and the Star Spangled Banner
Ah, my friend, politics and sports are intertwined whether we like it or not. I don't like it any more than you do but at least we're not posting candidate promos and keeping it to constitutional analysis. PS - I LOVE LOVE LOVE Springsteen!
|
|
|
Post by soccerinsider on Sept 17, 2016 17:17:14 GMT -5
Rosa Parks simply sat down because she was tired. In the face of would seemingly be clearly unfair treatment by an ordinance
MLK use the power of as well as sit in the protest government action.
here however, what exactly is each person protesting? the national anthem and indeed standing at attention for the flag isn't done for the benefit of politicians, or state laws, or City Rules. many recognize this as in essence a salute to the military.
it's not a police salute.
happy to have a discussion about whether or not the national anthem should even be played at sporting events.athletes fix their jocks, adjust themselves, and talk during it.
fans are no better typically.people in the stands look at their phones, don't remove the caps, and talk to their neighbors.
so if an athlete is going to protest,go ahead, but realize that hard-working people think you are spoiled a**hole.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Sept 17, 2016 21:40:34 GMT -5
I don't think Rapinoe intends to represent anyone but herself. While I think she could find a better way to reach people with her ideas (such as a half million twitter followers) I applaud her courage to make a point that is real.
The righteous indignation, in my opinion, is coming from just as many "look at me" critics.
Can we please get back to discussing soccer?
|
|
|
Post by aliensource on Sept 19, 2016 11:39:50 GMT -5
I love PINO. I love who she is, how she plays, and that is my kind of outspoken. NOW then. I do not believe she is protected from losing her job. Privately run organizations have rules that you must follow...break the rules get fired.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Sept 19, 2016 17:34:11 GMT -5
Freedom sure is confusing...
|
|
|
Post by soccerfan30 on Sept 19, 2016 20:27:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 19, 2016 20:35:01 GMT -5
I Don't get the shoot to kill mentality, can't you shoot someone in the leg or carry a 2nd weapon with non deadly ammo. I probably watch too many movies.
It's terrible.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Sept 19, 2016 20:38:01 GMT -5
Remind me again why the police can capture a bombing suspect hiding in a boat or a shooter in a movie theater armed to the teeth but they keep killing unarmed people? Because there is no such thing as "the police". There are hundreds of thousands of police officers working for many thousands of police departments. They are all individuals with their own experiences and good and bad points. We shouldn't make the mistake of lumping people together into one bucket, even if it is by their profession.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Sept 19, 2016 20:40:06 GMT -5
I Don't get the shoot to kill mentality, can't you shoot someone in the leg or carry a 2nd weapon with non deadly ammo. I probably watch too many movies. It's terrible. The way I understand it police officers are not supposed to fire unless they feel there is an imminent threat to themselves or someone else. In those cases you don't shoot to wound. Non-lethal options are a possibility sometimes, but they all have drawbacks. But I'm not trying to justify this incident at all... someone else will have to determine if the shooting was justified. Armchair quarterbacking is dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by alacrity174 on Sept 20, 2016 8:28:22 GMT -5
I Don't get the shoot to kill mentality, can't you shoot someone in the leg or carry a 2nd weapon with non deadly ammo. I probably watch too many movies. It's terrible. Soccerhouse have you ever fired a weapon? Hitting a target is easy enough, hitting a moving target is much harder, add in the in a real life situation there are other people around which you definitely don't want to hit and then shooting someone moving in the arm/leg which is a very small moving target becomes very difficult, all members of the military and law enforcement are taught to shoot for center of mass, IE the chest area as it is normally your biggest target. Sorry Die Hard movies and video games aside it is almost impossible to shoot and hit with reliable accuracy someones arm as they raise a weapon to shoot. Having said that there is a real disparity especially looking at the most recent events where a wanted terrorist was shot but not killed by law enforcement but an man was shot and killed for no apparent reason by the Tulsa police.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 20, 2016 8:48:35 GMT -5
"Having said that there is a real disparity especially looking at the most recent events where a wanted terrorist was shot but not killed by law enforcement but an man was shot and killed for no apparent reason by the Tulsa police"
I think that is the point I was trying to make etc. and I'm a terrible shot and really only have shot skeet! My assumption is though in some of these cases, just firing a weapon in any direction, would scare the "suspect" enough to fear they will be killed that they would cooperate. Alot of these cases though are close range, suspect is not moving and is stationary and is no 'perceived' threat (like the videos we've seen) And what I've always heard is exactly what folks have said, if police officer discharges a weapon its exactly like what is stated above.
|
|
|
Post by alacrity174 on Sept 20, 2016 14:12:05 GMT -5
"Having said that there is a real disparity especially looking at the most recent events where a wanted terrorist was shot but not killed by law enforcement but an man was shot and killed for no apparent reason by the Tulsa police" I think that is the point I was trying to make etc. and I'm a terrible shot and really only have shot skeet! My assumption is though in some of these cases, just firing a weapon in any direction, would scare the "suspect" enough to fear they will be killed that they would cooperate. Alot of these cases though are close range, suspect is not moving and is stationary and is no 'perceived' threat (like the videos we've seen) And what I've always heard is exactly what folks have said, if police officer discharges a weapon its exactly like what is stated above. Not sure I like the idea of a police officer firing a shot into the air either really, remember that bullet has to come back down to earth somewhere and could well be over a mile away into a kids playground. The better option, in my opinion and I am not a law enforcement officer, is better training for Police on when and how to use their weapon. it seems that this is only a recent event as there were never this many cases of "negligent discharge" so where did it all start to go wrong? I did see a story the other day, can't remember where now, but it was an example of an ex military who was now a police officer was trying to talk a suspect with a gun down and another officer (non military), turned up, drew their weapon and shot the suspect. I suppose this was to do with the way the different officers had been trained, the military training evidently was not to shoot on sight, maybe the typical law enforcement training is the opposite. Whatever the reasoning I would prefer the first officers approach as it seems a lot more level headed.
|
|