Oso planning to go pro
Lol, Colts.McDaniels doesn't get another chance after this, right?
My wife and I have debated this often the last six months. We have been Democrats our entire lives, but she recently registered as an independent. She is what I would call a Blue Dog Democrat. We own guns, support gun rights, and she has strong feelings on the border. She's not one to build the wall, but she put an important question to me after this latest news.If our child died at the hands of a drunk driver, would you be angry? My answer was yes.If our child died at the hands of a drunk driver who was here illegally and deported two previous times, would you feel the same?My answer was no. I would feel furious. That doesn't make her or I racist. It has nothing to do with Dreamers, whom we largely support. It comes down to incremental loss of life. This man would not have been killed by this man if our border security and policies were where they need to be. The argument that others are killed by drunk driving American citizens makes no difference because they are legally allowed to be in this country. It doesn't make those deaths any less tragic, but losing someone at the hands of someone that isn't allowed to be here and has already been deported multiple times is deeply troubling.Thank you for hearing my opinion.
Interesting.If my child was killed by a drunk driver, I think I would be so distraught at the loss that I couldn’t be “less upset” simply because the driver was here legally. My grief would be complete regardless of the driver’s status.
I tell you one thing. I would not allow my dead child to be used as a political prop by those support xenophobic policies.
If our child died at the hands of a drunk driver who was here illegally and deported two previous times, would you feel the same?My answer was no.
Had Goddell over today for some quality time. He was very nice in person.
I want to stay away from the hot taek elements of the OP and the replies, but I do want to jump on my soapbox for a moment (feel free to tl;dr from here on).Putting ourselves in other's shoes is generally a good thing. It gives us empathy, and highlights the "so but for the grace of God go I" truths that are easy to ignore every day. But when we're talking about tragedy, there's a danger of forcing your mind and heart into the worst version of yourself, and then advocating policy on the basis of that version. If Edwin Jackson were your child, you would feel and think things you previously thought monstrous and unimaginable. I'm willing to bet that even the parents in the link tower posted - both Mennonite ministers - had emotional reactions and thoughts that, in the opinion of their church, would condemn them to damnation if acted upon. That's human, and expected, and okay. But that's also not a place from which to advocate for or against policies that affect millions of people. You see a similar argument with the death penalty. "Its easy to be against the death penalty, but what if your child were raped or murdered??" You don't have a moral imperative to advocate for policy based on this hypothetical, emotionally-destroyed version of yourself. In fact, its all of our responsibility to use the more calm, rational, versions of ourselves to come up with policy that we know is right and just, and that holds up against our universal inclinations to devolve into worse versions of ourselves in the face of tragedy.
This is reasonable. We all think we know how we will react to a situation ... until it happens to us.This is borne out time and again from folks who rail against the evils of homosexuality - until their child comes out of the closet. Then they become beacons of tolerance, right Dick Cheney?So yes, I allow that if my child were killed, I might react in ways I can't conceive of now.But I do like to think I would react the way the heroic families of the 9 churchgoers who were killed by white supremacist Dylann Roof did. Here's hoping none of us on this board ever have to find out how we would react.Meanwhile ... how 'bout that NFL?
I read some interesting analysis of the McDaniels situation.Who do people "blame"? Some said it was McDaniels being a d-bag (he had already lined up a coaching staff). Some say it was the Patriots for (allegedly intentionally) screwing over the Colts. Some say it was the Colts for not being enticing enough for McD (or for not disclosing all the info on Luck's health).Thoughts?
Didn't the hoodie do something similar to the Jets?
If New England and Belichick let him know that the hoodie was leaving soon and that Josh was the heir apparent, it makes sense.
For his sake, they better have. No other team in the NFL will ever hire the d'bag again.
Similar things were said about Belichick when he spurned the Jets, Dana Altman when he spurned Arkansas and Billy Donovan when he spurned Orlando. Just like with those guys, a team will hire McDaniels if they believe he'll bring them wins. This won't matter a bit.
A real boss move by Kraft would be to hire someone other than McDaniels when Bellicheck retires, and tell McD "this is what happens when you even think about crossing enemy lines".