Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The NRA wont put a dent in the NFL on this subject. Too many stupid mother fuckers who claim to be conservative are glued to the FUCKING TELEVISION. They are addicted to shitty news, full on advertising assaults and fluorinated domestic beer.

 

IMHO DD rifles suck balls.

Perhaps the NFL can't get into politics because it's a non profit? Same as the church not being able to tell you that Obama is an asshole without loosing their non profit status.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DD rifles suck balls? Really? I always thought they were pretty good AR's.

In my opinion, yes. The only thing they have going for them is the ability to hammer forge barrels in house. A new company that presses play on CNC machines to make accessories and AR platform rifles just like a dozen other new kids on the block. Whahoo. Pay up the ass for their marketing campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA doesn't have to take a stance on football, so why would the NFL be obligated to get mixed up in the gun debate? I totally get it. It's too political. They aren't taking a stand either way. Bob Costas has or had a right to editorialize in his contract and that's what he did. I don't think the NFL liked the way his comments made them look, either, which is probably why they want to steer clear of the whole issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DD rifles suck balls? Really? I always thought they were pretty good AR's.

In my opinion, yes. The only thing they have going for them is the ability to hammer forge barrels in house. A new company that presses play on CNC machines to make accessories and AR platform rifles just like a dozen other new kids on the block. Whahoo. Pay up the ass for their marketing campaign.

 

Isnt that what all of them do?

DD rifles suck balls? Really? I always thought they were pretty good AR's.

They are good AR's. Maybe they should do it all by hand to be accepted by the masses. rolleyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh its amazing how little impact the NFL imparts on my life.

 

A few hours entertainment a year is easily replaced and was.

 

While I was raised to love the game, and still do, I will not contribute to either the NFL or these ethically bankrupt universities that supply it with fodder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA doesn't have to take a stance on football, so why would the NFL be obligated to get mixed up in the gun debate? I totally get it. It's too political.

 

Maybe it's because they fill in the ranks with murderers and gang bangers.  What better way to polish a shitty image than with political marketing.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The NRA doesn't have to take a stance on football, so why would the NFL be obligated to get mixed up in the gun debate? I totally get it. It's too political.

 

Maybe it's because they fill in the ranks with murderers and gang bangers.  What better way to polish a shitty image than with political marketing.    

 

While I don't consider football players to necessarily be role models, very few of of them are murderers and gang bangers. Probably a fewer percentage than the general population in most major cities. And some of them are better people than I will ever be. Those are just facts. And yes, we can all point to a bunch of them that are just pieces of crap. Political marketing is a terrible way to market anything because you immediately alienate half of your base no matter which side you even appear to be on. It's all about the money and that means not turning away your customers. Heck, just look at some of the members here who say they won't watch football because they THINK that the NFL has gone anti-gun because of an ad they did NOT run. But that's not true at all, they are just anti-gun "controversy". If they had run the Daniel Defense ad they would have had to fend off the Brady bunch for the last few weeks instead of concentrating on what was their marque game of the year. I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with a bunch of attention that has nothing to do with their business.

Edited by DogMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The NRA doesn't have to take a stance on football, so why would the NFL be obligated to get mixed up in the gun debate? I totally get it. It's too political.

 

Maybe it's because they fill in the ranks with murderers and gang bangers.  What better way to polish a shitty image than with political marketing.    

 

While I don't consider football players to necessarily be role models, very few of of them are murderers and gang bangers. Probably a fewer percentage than the general population in most major cities. And some of them are better people than I will ever be. Those are just facts. And yes, we can all point to a bunch of them that are just pieces of crap. Political marketing is a terrible way to market anything because you immediately alienate half of your base no matter which side you even appear to be on. It's all about the money and that means not turning away your customers. Heck, just look at some of the members here who say they won't watch football because they THINK that the NFL has gone anti-gun, when in fact that's not true at all, they are just anti-gun "controversy". I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with a bunch of attention that has nothing to do with their business.

 

 

Good points but but like anything else the avoidance of controversy can easily land one on a side as an unintended consequence such as the NFL can now demonstrate.

 

I will add the NFL doesnt seem overly concerned with avoiding other controversial issues in commercials do they.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The NRA doesn't have to take a stance on football, so why would the NFL be obligated to get mixed up in the gun debate? I totally get it. It's too political.

 

Maybe it's because they fill in the ranks with murderers and gang bangers.  What better way to polish a shitty image than with political marketing.    

 

While I don't consider football players to necessarily be role models, very few of of them are murderers and gang bangers. Probably a fewer percentage than the general population in most major cities. And some of them are better people than I will ever be. Those are just facts. And yes, we can all point to a bunch of them that are just pieces of crap. Political marketing is a terrible way to market anything because you immediately alienate half of your base no matter which side you even appear to be on. It's all about the money and that means not turning away your customers. Heck, just look at some of the members here who say they won't watch football because they THINK that the NFL has gone anti-gun, when in fact that's not true at all, they are just anti-gun "controversy". I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with a bunch of attention that has nothing to do with their business.

 

 

My point is this, the NFL has an image problem.  That is why it is publicly choosing sides on gun control.  This is a premeditated marketing process done by the NFL's higher ups in hopes of changing public opinion.  It's a fact, the NFL has a gun culture as such unseen in any of the major sporting leagues.  No, not all players are murders or gang bangers but events in the past decade has told us that they do exist and the thought of gun crime is problematic to the leagues image.  Google "NFL player gun" and you'll find a plethora of information regarding players using guns in domestic assaults, suicide, drugs, gun trafficking, illegal possession, and murder.

 

Personally I do blame the NFL for the "rotten eggs" they invite into their league.  A lot of players and their character defects are glossed over for game performance.  I don't believe Arron Hernandez woke up one day and decided he was going to be a bad person.  It's hard to imagine the league didn't see the warning signs.  The league must bear some of the responsibility on part of it's players actions.  They know this and I believe we will find them taking a stronger stance on gun control in the future.  Tune in if you wish, but more marketing is to come.       

 

edited: grammer

Edited by HighPlainsDrifter
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't consider football players to necessarily be role models, very few of of them are murderers and gang bangers. Probably a fewer percentage than the general population in most major cities. And some of them are better people than I will ever be. Those are just facts. And yes, we can all point to a bunch of them that are just pieces of crap. Political marketing is a terrible way to market anything because you immediately alienate half of your base no matter which side you even appear to be on. It's all about the money and that means not turning away your customers. Heck, just look at some of the members here who say they won't watch football because they THINK that the NFL has gone anti-gun because of an ad they did NOT run. But that's not true at all, they are just anti-gun "controversy". If they had run the Daniel Defense ad they would have had to fend off the Brady bunch for the last few weeks instead of concentrating on what was their marque game of the year. I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with a bunch of attention that has nothing to do with their business.

 

I have to call BS on this all because the NFL allowed Bob Costas ignorant rant against the 2nd Amendment!  :angry:

They're already "in the thick of it" because of that! If they had "chosen" to run the Daniel Defense ad, then they would have been more "neutral" in this discussion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While I don't consider football players to necessarily be role models, very few of of them are murderers and gang bangers. Probably a fewer percentage than the general population in most major cities. And some of them are better people than I will ever be. Those are just facts. And yes, we can all point to a bunch of them that are just pieces of crap. Political marketing is a terrible way to market anything because you immediately alienate half of your base no matter which side you even appear to be on. It's all about the money and that means not turning away your customers. Heck, just look at some of the members here who say they won't watch football because they THINK that the NFL has gone anti-gun because of an ad they did NOT run. But that's not true at all, they are just anti-gun "controversy". If they had run the Daniel Defense ad they would have had to fend off the Brady bunch for the last few weeks instead of concentrating on what was their marque game of the year. I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with a bunch of attention that has nothing to do with their business.

 

I have to call BS on this all because the NFL allowed Bob Costas ignorant rant against the 2nd Amendment!  mad.gif

They're already "in the thick of it" because of that! If they had "chosen" to run the Daniel Defense ad, then they would have been more "neutral" in this discussion.

 

You have to understand how this works. Bob Costas had a contract that allowed him to "editorialize" in a brief segment of the show. That's an important word because it means he gets to say anything that Bob Costas feels like saying, and he's not speaking for anyone but himself. It's his opinion alone. Not the Network or the NFL It's like when you read an editorial in a newspaper, that newspaper has granted that writer an editorial column to give his opinion but you then frequently see a disclaimer that says these comments do not necessarily represent the views of this newspaper.  I doubt that the network or the NFL even knew what he was going to say and I doubt either one was very happy about it. But that's what happens when you allow one person that kind of a forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the NFL fire him?

Did the NFL post as rebuttal?

Did the NFL make any kind of a statement about it at all, besides quoting his "disclaimer?"

 

Evil will triumph when good men simply do nothing.

 

Yes, it's hard for me to imagine the NFL has no control in shaping Bob Costa's message.  If they do in fact dislike what he's saying they wouldn't employ him, let alone allow him to be on air broadcasting a message that does seem to be endorsed by the league.

 

Let's see if this video embed works...

 

edited:  nope, didn't work.

Edited by HighPlainsDrifter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the NFL fire him?

Did the NFL post as rebuttal?

Did the NFL make any kind of a statement about it at all, besides quoting his "disclaimer?"

 

Evil will triumph when good men simply do nothing.

The NFL can't fire him because he doesn't work for the NFL. Why should the the NFL issue a rebuttal? As I said before, they don't want to have ANY dog in this hunt. Making a rebuttal makes them appear to take sides and opens the door for a re-rebuttal against them, and then they are in it up to their ears.  Bob Costas said it and Bob Costas can take the heat, and he did, with a little bit going to NBC. The NFL stayed out of it then, and they are trying to keep from being dragged into it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DD rifles suck balls? Really? I always thought they were pretty good AR's.

 

In my opinion, yes. The only thing they have going for them is the ability to hammer forge barrels in house. A new company that presses play on CNC machines to make accessories and AR platform rifles just like a dozen other new kids on the block. Whahoo. Pay up the ass for their marketing campaign.

Good thing they actually use quality materials and parts. Unlike a Bushy, Windham and a dozen other entry level ARs.

 

This place is turning more Bubba day by day

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 They are addicted to shitty news, full on advertising assaults and fluorinated domestic beer.

 

 

Fluoridated domestic beer? The put fluoride in beer? No shit?tinfoilhat.gif  

 

 

No they put it in the water which may then used to make the beer. If the water has it so does the beer.

Removing fluoride is not nearly as easy removing chlorine. Chlorine is bad for the yeast but since its so reactive its easily removed and wont build up in a complex system.

Not so for fluoride.

Yes one can remove it but imagine doing it on an industrial scale, expensive shit.

 

Now imagine how a substance like fluoride will begin building up in a system, hell water your tomatoes with city water and guess whats in the 'maters. 

 

Wouldn't it have been better (cheaper and easier) to just tell people to brush their teeth? 

Still think its there for your teeth?

Edited by Rhodes1968
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, something to think about I guess. I know the Budweiser brewery near here draws their water straight from the Etowah River, but I have no idea what treatment that water undergoes before they use it in the brewing process....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...