Page 11 of 31 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 308
  1. Warning: long rant ahead!

    I'm not sure I can even express properly how I feel about this most recent reversal by the Vikings on Peterson's status. To me, this sends no positive message at all. What it says to me is that the organization is a bunch of wishy-washy, spineless, disloyal idiots who have bowed to public pressure instead of standing up for what they believed was right.

    Whatever you may feel about what Peterson himself has done, he is still entitled to the basic rights of any other American, and should therefore be judged (and sentenced if found guilty) in a court of LAW, not of public opinion. And then, if you are not happy with the outcome, there are mechanisms in place to do something about it. Elect different judges. Legislate new laws. File Civil suits.

    It seems to me that he has already been tried and convicted by not only the media, but also several sponsors and even his own Foundation. Does no one out there understand how WRONG this is? What happens if, down the road, he is found not guilty in the Texas court system? (I don't really expect this, but there are any number of legal loopholes that could derail his prosecution.) What sort of reparation would then be necessary? How could the damage be undone?

    We are not, cannot be, responsible for judging him. That is up to the judicial system. That's why we have one.

    Now, another major problem. The term "child abuse" has been thrown around a lot when talking about this case. The Grand Jury that brought forth the indictment against Peterson could not find any evidence to justify that charge, nor any intent to deliberately harm the child. Therefor, he is not even accused of that crime, let alone convicted. Legally, there is no case for "child abuse." I can only wonder if the media who continue to refer to the case that way might not be liable for damages. We all know what a hot button that phrase is. IMO, the media should be banned from using it in this case, as it is so extremely prejudicial and emotional in its connotation. If I were on Peterson's legal team, I'd be pushing for this, and perhaps even arguing that it is no longer possible for him to even get a fair trial due to the high level of exposure that has already occurred.

    Now, all of that said, given the facts we have at our disposal along with Peterson's own admission of what he did, I do expect a plea deal or conviction, resulting in an appropriate punishment decreed, once again, BY LAW. Once judgement has been rendered, then the team and the league are free to act as they will in response. But punishing him now is not only legally wrong, it is also morally reprehensible. Wouldn't you want the same fair shake if you were accused?

    There was an episode of the TV series "Blue Bloods" re-broadcast the other night, in which Tom Selleck's character, the Commissioner of Police for New York City, makes a public speech. In this speech, he talks about how Police officers are held to a higher standard than most civilians. He goes on to make the point that, despite this, they are still human beings and make mistakes. I feel very strongly that the same sentiment should apply to civilian idols such as pro athletes and actors and other media sensations. They are all human, too, subject to the same frailties and failings as the rest of us. And I'd even go farther to say that maybe they don't deserve to be held to that higher standard just because of the attention they receive as celebrities.

    Oh, and by the way, you will note that I do not use the upbringing excuse. That one doesn't fly for me. I personally can recall being spanked only twice, by hand, when I was little. Both times, my parents made sure to explain to me why they felt they had to do it, and it was done firmly but without anger. And in both cases, I had done something fairly serious that I KNEW was wrong, but did anyway. I like to think that I would approach it the same way, but unfortunately I have never experienced first-hand the joy of parenthood. I did do a lot of babysitting as a teen, and was often told by the parents to spank the kids if they deserved it. You can believe this, at least for the older ones, the shame of being spanked in front of others is much, much worse than the pain of the spanking itself. But even given all of that, I do believe that switching is excessive, and that this child was too young to truly understand enough to benefit from it. Peterson's actions were excessive and he should be punished. By the courts. Not by the team and not by the league, until judgement is overwith.

    Maybe this would qualify me as an "A--hole" by VMB standards. Call me what you will, but I will continue to consider facts, and not allow my emotions to interfere with what I believe is right. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done.

    To the sponsors who have withdrawn deals, that is your right. However, I believe these actions to be premature and overly extreme. Oh, and to Anheuser-Busch specifically: What the hell are you doing expressing displeasure as to how the league is handling "certain situations," without even hinting at what you would actually want? You have no business criticizing if you can't offer something better. You can talk about big money sponsorships all you want, but are you really willing to go so far as to pull your product from being sold at NFL events? If so, then I would commend you for sticking to your guns, but you'd be hurting a lot more than just your bottom line by doing so. What about the independent concession vendors who sell your product for you? Did you stop to think about them at all? In truth, you have a lot less weight to throw around than you believe.

    Now, moving on to the Vikings decision. What sort of sense does it may to continue to pay the man, and not let him do the job he was contracted to do? Are you afraid that the emotionally-charged fan base will boycott the stadium if he is allowed to play? That's even more mercenary than the accusation from the other side about winning being more important than moral rectitude when he was reactivated. But people will still believe what they want to believe.

    One last thing. What does Peterson's private life have to do with playing football? As good as he is at what he has done for the Vikings over the years, I really would have expected a little more loyalty from the organization. I highly suspect that if you were to poll his teammates, they'd agree that, no matter what he may have done in this case, they'd rather have him there with them.

    For those of you who made it this far, thank you for listening to my rant. And though our opinions may differ on these issues, I will not think any less of you for standing up for your beliefs. I take nothing personally, I and hope and expect that you will do me the same courtesy, as has been the usual policy here at PP.O over the years.

    My Meeple is purple. What color is yours?

  2. #102
    Are you also saying then that Aaron Hernandez & Ray Rice should be reinstated by the NFL since what he did in their private lives are their business & all the facts are not in & they haven't been found guilty by a court of law or does a double standard exist where great, well liked Vikings players are exempt, like AD, which doesn't apply to lesser liked Vikings players or ex-Vikings players like Simpson, Harvin, Cook, Sharper, or Smoot.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveling_Vike View Post
    Warning: long rant ahead!

    I'm not sure I can even express properly how I feel about this most recent reversal by the Vikings on Peterson's status. To me, this sends no positive message at all. What it says to me is that the organization is a bunch of wishy-washy, spineless, disloyal idiots who have bowed to public pressure instead of standing up for what they believed was right.

    Whatever you may feel about what Peterson himself has done, he is still entitled to the basic rights of any other American, and should therefore be judged (and sentenced if found guilty) in a court of LAW, not of public opinion. And then, if you are not happy with the outcome, there are mechanisms in place to do something about it. Elect different judges. Legislate new laws. File Civil suits.

    It seems to me that he has already been tried and convicted by not only the media, but also several sponsors and even his own Foundation. Does no one out there understand how WRONG this is? What happens if, down the road, he is found not guilty in the Texas court system? (I don't really expect this, but there are any number of legal loopholes that could derail his prosecution.) What sort of reparation would then be necessary? How could the damage be undone?

    We are not, cannot be, responsible for judging him. That is up to the judicial system. That's why we have one.

    Now, another major problem. The term "child abuse" has been thrown around a lot when talking about this case. The Grand Jury that brought forth the indictment against Peterson could not find any evidence to justify that charge, nor any intent to deliberately harm the child. Therefor, he is not even accused of that crime, let alone convicted. Legally, there is no case for "child abuse." I can only wonder if the media who continue to refer to the case that way might not be liable for damages. We all know what a hot button that phrase is. IMO, the media should be banned from using it in this case, as it is so extremely prejudicial and emotional in its connotation. If I were on Peterson's legal team, I'd be pushing for this, and perhaps even arguing that it is no longer possible for him to even get a fair trial due to the high level of exposure that has already occurred.

    Now, all of that said, given the facts we have at our disposal along with Peterson's own admission of what he did, I do expect a plea deal or conviction, resulting in an appropriate punishment decreed, once again, BY LAW. Once judgement has been rendered, then the team and the league are free to act as they will in response. But punishing him now is not only legally wrong, it is also morally reprehensible. Wouldn't you want the same fair shake if you were accused?

    There was an episode of the TV series "Blue Bloods" re-broadcast the other night, in which Tom Selleck's character, the Commissioner of Police for New York City, makes a public speech. In this speech, he talks about how Police officers are held to a higher standard than most civilians. He goes on to make the point that, despite this, they are still human beings and make mistakes. I feel very strongly that the same sentiment should apply to civilian idols such as pro athletes and actors and other media sensations. They are all human, too, subject to the same frailties and failings as the rest of us. And I'd even go farther to say that maybe they don't deserve to be held to that higher standard just because of the attention they receive as celebrities.

    Oh, and by the way, you will note that I do not use the upbringing excuse. That one doesn't fly for me. I personally can recall being spanked only twice, by hand, when I was little. Both times, my parents made sure to explain to me why they felt they had to do it, and it was done firmly but without anger. And in both cases, I had done something fairly serious that I KNEW was wrong, but did anyway. I like to think that I would approach it the same way, but unfortunately I have never experienced first-hand the joy of parenthood. I did do a lot of babysitting as a teen, and was often told by the parents to spank the kids if they deserved it. You can believe this, at least for the older ones, the shame of being spanked in front of others is much, much worse than the pain of the spanking itself. But even given all of that, I do believe that switching is excessive, and that this child was too young to truly understand enough to benefit from it. Peterson's actions were excessive and he should be punished. By the courts. Not by the team and not by the league, until judgement is overwith.

    Maybe this would qualify me as an "A--hole" by VMB standards. Call me what you will, but I will continue to consider facts, and not allow my emotions to interfere with what I believe is right. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done.

    To the sponsors who have withdrawn deals, that is your right. However, I believe these actions to be premature and overly extreme. Oh, and to Anheuser-Busch specifically: What the hell are you doing expressing displeasure as to how the league is handling "certain situations," without even hinting at what you would actually want? You have no business criticizing if you can't offer something better. You can talk about big money sponsorships all you want, but are you really willing to go so far as to pull your product from being sold at NFL events? If so, then I would commend you for sticking to your guns, but you'd be hurting a lot more than just your bottom line by doing so. What about the independent concession vendors who sell your product for you? Did you stop to think about them at all? In truth, you have a lot less weight to throw around than you believe.

    Now, moving on to the Vikings decision. What sort of sense does it may to continue to pay the man, and not let him do the job he was contracted to do? Are you afraid that the emotionally-charged fan base will boycott the stadium if he is allowed to play? That's even more mercenary than the accusation from the other side about winning being more important than moral rectitude when he was reactivated. But people will still believe what they want to believe.

    One last thing. What does Peterson's private life have to do with playing football? As good as he is at what he has done for the Vikings over the years, I really would have expected a little more loyalty from the organization. I highly suspect that if you were to poll his teammates, they'd agree that, no matter what he may have done in this case, they'd rather have him there with them.

    For those of you who made it this far, thank you for listening to my rant. And though our opinions may differ on these issues, I will not think any less of you for standing up for your beliefs. I take nothing personally, I and hope and expect that you will do me the same courtesy, as has been the usual policy here at PP.O over the years.
    I think I have cheered my last game for this team. I just can't support the crap this organization has done.

  4. #104
    chalk up another victory for the liberal media and put another mark in the loss column for our American justice system. it's sad that most people can't see what's happening, the media will attack anyone that does or says anything that they deem unacceptable and they will protect anyone who they feel is on their side. it's amazing how much power they have and how easily they manipulate peoples opinions. i've been a vikings fan since the sixties and have always worn the purple shades and guzzled the purple kool aid but this is too much, i cannot support this team anymore.
    None

  5. #105
    ray rice should be reinstated, he answered to the law, he answered to the league and then the howling liberal mob decided that he must be banned. he will sue, he will win but his football career is over.
    None

  6. Peterson has been labeled "exempt" until his legal issues are dealt with: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...ngs-activities

    In other words, he won't play for the Vikings this season (unless this is the most streamlined legal process in the history of man).

  7. #107
    Good post Traveling Vike, it's a sad day when ESPN and other media outlets become judge and jury. I believe the Wilfs succumed to all of the media pressure and sponsors threats.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Traveling_Vike View Post
    Warning: long rant ahead!

    I'm not sure I can even express properly how I feel about this most recent reversal by the Vikings on Peterson's status. To me, this sends no positive message at all. What it says to me is that the organization is a bunch of wishy-washy, spineless, disloyal idiots who have bowed to public pressure instead of standing up for what they believed was right.

    Whatever you may feel about what Peterson himself has done, he is still entitled to the basic rights of any other American, and should therefore be judged (and sentenced if found guilty) in a court of LAW, not of public opinion. And then, if you are not happy with the outcome, there are mechanisms in place to do something about it. Elect different judges. Legislate new laws. File Civil suits.

    It seems to me that he has already been tried and convicted by not only the media, but also several sponsors and even his own Foundation. Does no one out there understand how WRONG this is? What happens if, down the road, he is found not guilty in the Texas court system? (I don't really expect this, but there are any number of legal loopholes that could derail his prosecution.) What sort of reparation would then be necessary? How could the damage be undone?

    We are not, cannot be, responsible for judging him. That is up to the judicial system. That's why we have one.

    Now, another major problem. The term "child abuse" has been thrown around a lot when talking about this case. The Grand Jury that brought forth the indictment against Peterson could not find any evidence to justify that charge, nor any intent to deliberately harm the child. Therefor, he is not even accused of that crime, let alone convicted. Legally, there is no case for "child abuse." I can only wonder if the media who continue to refer to the case that way might not be liable for damages. We all know what a hot button that phrase is. IMO, the media should be banned from using it in this case, as it is so extremely prejudicial and emotional in its connotation. If I were on Peterson's legal team, I'd be pushing for this, and perhaps even arguing that it is no longer possible for him to even get a fair trial due to the high level of exposure that has already occurred.

    Now, all of that said, given the facts we have at our disposal along with Peterson's own admission of what he did, I do expect a plea deal or conviction, resulting in an appropriate punishment decreed, once again, BY LAW. Once judgement has been rendered, then the team and the league are free to act as they will in response. But punishing him now is not only legally wrong, it is also morally reprehensible. Wouldn't you want the same fair shake if you were accused?

    There was an episode of the TV series "Blue Bloods" re-broadcast the other night, in which Tom Selleck's character, the Commissioner of Police for New York City, makes a public speech. In this speech, he talks about how Police officers are held to a higher standard than most civilians. He goes on to make the point that, despite this, they are still human beings and make mistakes. I feel very strongly that the same sentiment should apply to civilian idols such as pro athletes and actors and other media sensations. They are all human, too, subject to the same frailties and failings as the rest of us. And I'd even go farther to say that maybe they don't deserve to be held to that higher standard just because of the attention they receive as celebrities.

    Oh, and by the way, you will note that I do not use the upbringing excuse. That one doesn't fly for me. I personally can recall being spanked only twice, by hand, when I was little. Both times, my parents made sure to explain to me why they felt they had to do it, and it was done firmly but without anger. And in both cases, I had done something fairly serious that I KNEW was wrong, but did anyway. I like to think that I would approach it the same way, but unfortunately I have never experienced first-hand the joy of parenthood. I did do a lot of babysitting as a teen, and was often told by the parents to spank the kids if they deserved it. You can believe this, at least for the older ones, the shame of being spanked in front of others is much, much worse than the pain of the spanking itself. But even given all of that, I do believe that switching is excessive, and that this child was too young to truly understand enough to benefit from it. Peterson's actions were excessive and he should be punished. By the courts. Not by the team and not by the league, until judgement is overwith.

    Maybe this would qualify me as an "A--hole" by VMB standards. Call me what you will, but I will continue to consider facts, and not allow my emotions to interfere with what I believe is right. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done.

    To the sponsors who have withdrawn deals, that is your right. However, I believe these actions to be premature and overly extreme. Oh, and to Anheuser-Busch specifically: What the hell are you doing expressing displeasure as to how the league is handling "certain situations," without even hinting at what you would actually want? You have no business criticizing if you can't offer something better. You can talk about big money sponsorships all you want, but are you really willing to go so far as to pull your product from being sold at NFL events? If so, then I would commend you for sticking to your guns, but you'd be hurting a lot more than just your bottom line by doing so. What about the independent concession vendors who sell your product for you? Did you stop to think about them at all? In truth, you have a lot less weight to throw around than you believe.

    Now, moving on to the Vikings decision. What sort of sense does it may to continue to pay the man, and not let him do the job he was contracted to do? Are you afraid that the emotionally-charged fan base will boycott the stadium if he is allowed to play? That's even more mercenary than the accusation from the other side about winning being more important than moral rectitude when he was reactivated. But people will still believe what they want to believe.

    One last thing. What does Peterson's private life have to do with playing football? As good as he is at what he has done for the Vikings over the years, I really would have expected a little more loyalty from the organization. I highly suspect that if you were to poll his teammates, they'd agree that, no matter what he may have done in this case, they'd rather have him there with them.

    For those of you who made it this far, thank you for listening to my rant. And though our opinions may differ on these issues, I will not think any less of you for standing up for your beliefs. I take nothing personally, I and hope and expect that you will do me the same courtesy, as has been the usual policy here at PP.O over the years.
    I feel your pain and frustration, and appreciate your post. As saddened as I was to hear that AD resorted to whipping his little son, I am much more angered by the Vikings caving to the pressure of the sponsors, politicians and media outlets. I am sickened by the PC bullshit we have to put up with in this "progressive" society, and by the lack of balls in the front office.

    Apropos of nothing stated above...I've said it before, and I believe this to be true...the NFL and its employees are targets because they are on top. What with the Redskins name change, concussion awareness, and all these incidents in the media, there is a rush to denigrate and convict in the media. This whole ordeal has sucked the very life out of this franchise.


    Qui tacet, consentit.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Erie, PA
    Posts
    14,280
    Quote Originally Posted by iowa View Post
    chalk up another victory for the liberal media and put another mark in the loss column for our American justice system. it's sad that most people can't see what's happening, the media will attack anyone that does or says anything that they deem unacceptable and they will protect anyone who they feel is on their side. it's amazing how much power they have and how easily they manipulate peoples opinions. i've been a vikings fan since the sixties and have always worn the purple shades and guzzled the purple kool aid but this is too much, i cannot support this team anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by iowa View Post
    ray rice should be reinstated, he answered to the law, he answered to the league and then the howling liberal mob decided that he must be banned. he will sue, he will win but his football career is over.
    You're a sad, sad little man.
    I'm bloviating douchebag and Ricky is a great GM

  10. #110
    I wish the NFL would just suspend him for the year or suspend him forever. We still have no final answer. It's apparently already been determined by the Vikings, the NFL, and the huge morality-means-everything corporations that he was wrong and I agree he was wrong, just come out with a final fucking punishment please.
    Skol Vikings! Go Cubs!

    X MARKS THE SPOT

Page 11 of 31 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •