Jump to content

***The Official 2021 NFL Super Bowl LV Game Thread***


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Dude/dudette there is a rule here NO POLITICS some of us hate seeing this sh*t on a football message board. 

Listen I'm not one way or another on the political front. I have my beliefs and I'm proud of my beliefs. I lean right but I don't seek to dismiss people who have other perspectives. Mentioning this quote is not trying to drag politics into it, it's about the overall message. Who cares who says it. If Vince Lombardi said it would it make it acceptable?

Well articulated statements can still be smart even if it comes from someone who you don't necessarily agree with, or if they're said by someone who happens to have had a political career. That's one of the many problems we have today: there's no need to take "politics" so personally, nor does it have to be so one-sided. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 892
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Amy Schumer looks like she freebases Hellmans

This was the greatest pass I’ve ever seen by the way. The receiver who let it bounce off his face mask should be ashamed of himself. 

How any Jets fan can root for Brady is beyond my comprehension. And every Pats fan I know has been a Bucs fan all season. 

Posted Images

56 minutes ago, The Gooch said:

Doe's anyone else besides me think that If the Jet's played KC yesterday we might have beat them??

If the Bucs' front four, Devin White and Brady were on the Jets?   Then, sure.   Ah, but knowing our history, we'd have most likely choked it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to admit this because I’ve loathed him both on the field and as a human being, but it was enjoyable to watch Brady for much of the year. The Patriots dominance just became so inevitably boring. Nice to watch him torture the other conference for once. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Thumb Down 2
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, PS17 said:

I hate to admit this because I’ve loathed him both on the field and as a human being, but it was enjoyable to watch Brady for much of the year. The Patriots dominance just became so inevitably boring. Nice to watch him torture the other conference for once. 

Also really shot holes in the argument he was a system QB/product of beli.

 

And also blew away the "Pat's have it easy in the AFC and afc east"

 

Jets fans should take solace in brady winning. It means Pats just lucked out in having the goat QB and it wasnt the Pat's system that was why they won. The Pat's ceased being a threat and are now like every team struggling to figure out the QB situation.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

Also really shot holes in the argument he was a system QB/product of beli.

 

And also blew away the "Pat's have it easy in the AFC and afc east"

 

Jets fans should take solace in brady winning. It means Pats just lucked out in having the goat QB and it wasnt the Pat's system that was why they won. The Pat's ceased being a threat and are now like every team struggling to figure out the QB situation.

For years the NY Jets were defeated by NE we played them 2 times a year yet we never figured them out or copied their blueprint. 

We beat them once to make it to the AFC Championship game. 

TB is gone from the division but JA is there now so another hurdle. 

Why didn't more teams blueprints NE up until what Tampa Bay just did this season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, football guy said:

By no means. I encourage people to speak freely, to judge freely. I don't encourage "cancelling" or ostracism. Exiling people for their beliefs is wrong. Empathy is more effective. 

I have a much more nuanced position.  You can have abhorrent positions that are far outside the norms of any civil society.  Once you start putting into the public square and try and normalize them societal ostracism is appropriate.  That doesn't mean government has the right to impinge on your free speech.  None governmental organizations and individuals do have that right if you step over certain boundaries and frankly civil society is built on that premise.  Once civil society stops doing its job there will be blood.  

FYI if you move the needle and civil society moves in your direction the shaming may be worth it.  That's entirely up to you.  It's a pretty free country.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Warfish said:

 

So what did Drew Brees actually suffer from his supposed "cancelling"?  Almost nothing apart from verbal criticism and a minor temporary wound to his public reputation.

I am not in any way moved by this argument, honestly.  Drew said something, presumably knowing the ongoing controversy it related to, some supported him for it, some were critical of him for it, and he chose to follow up with more speech to clarify his view.  He did not chose to tell everyone to F off, but he could have if he wanted to, and that too would have resulted in others expressing their freedom of speech in retort.

And almost nothing else happened.  Wasn't fired.  Wasn't fined.  Wasn't ostracized by society.  Wasn't punished by the Government.  Looks like he expressed a freedom, and others expressed their own freedom in reply, and he may have come out of it with a better understanding of the "other side".  Hard to see the harm, much less the "oppression".

And, it should be said, it's of interest that your prime example is the mild case of Brees, and not the more severe case of Colin Kapernick.  If you were here stridently defending Kap's freedom and demanding he be signed despite vehemently disagreeing with him speech, you might have a better leg to stand on.  By defending Brees as your prime example, again, it only looks self-serving, i.e. you want your own aligned freedom of speech protected from criticism and respected, but not everyone else's. 

 

  1. Tag me 
  2. You continue to miss the point. "Nothing happened" is not a tolerable response. It's totally inconsiderate actually. Brees is an example of a big-name player that I gave an example of because people can relate to it. The point is not to say "oh well he turned out ok." Bullsh*t. The precedent being set is far worse: if you disagree, yell, scream, pout, and bully in order to get your way and to force the opposition to fall in line. F that. Brees may not have been harmed, but it shouldn't be hard to fathom how this would harm others much more significantly, as would the ethical standard being set. Brees had an innocent perspective that was made to be controversial because people want the world to overcompensate for themselves, their believes, their feelings. It's incredibly egotistical and hypocritical. Reflexive demands to cancel speech not only discourages people from engaging in the kinds of dissent and deliberation that keep a society dynamic, it risks suppression of expression across all ideological spectrums. It risks diversity of thought. The same people who claim to be ignored/gone unheard are no longer celebrating developments of social change or accepting other perspectives --- they're using those same "newly discovered" speech rights that made their progress possible as a means of attempting to silence those who question their cause via demands of institutional punishment, public shame, "cancelling", or censorship, all because they feel enabled by powers that be to engage in these activities. The CCP called these things "struggle sessions". And then one day, when the oversight is no longer in your favor, you'll cry wolf...
  3. Stop making it all about you and your side for one god damn second. I never advocated for Colin Kaepernick to be blackballed and I was always critical of the NFLs initial approach. I never felt it was fair that he didn't get an opportunity, and any orchestrated attempt to prevent him from signing with any of the NFLs teams is categorically wrong. However, let's keep the facts in mind: he was offered a job by Denver and he rejected it... that's on him. The reason why he has not been signed is because (1) he's asked for too much; (2) he's simply not good enough to be a starter; and (3) provides too much of a distraction to be a backup. The truth staring everyone in the face is that had Kaepernick still been a good QB, he'd still be in the league... just like Antonio Brown is still in the league. Stop crying for affirmative action because you want a hero to get a job in the NFL; he had an opportunity well after the kneeling began and he blew it. https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/source-kap-not-willing-take-broncos-current-pay-cut-offer#:~:text=Colin Kaepernick is willing to,Super Bowl champions would like.&text=Agreeing to Denver's offer would,over the next two years.
  4. Furthermore, Brees actually caved and apologized --- which I wholeheartedly disagree with and am critical of him for. There's nothing to apologize for when you said nothing wrong. I think that was a cuck move. Being said, I'm not going to shame him for having his own perspective.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, football guy said:
  1. Tag me 
  2. You continue to miss the point. "Nothing happened" is not a tolerable response. It's totally inconsiderate actually. Brees is an example of a big-name player that I gave an example of because people can relate to it. The point is not to say "oh well he turned out ok." Bullsh*t. The precedent being set is far worse: if you disagree, yell, scream, pout, and bully in order to get your way and to force the opposition to fall in line. F that. Brees may not have been harmed, but it shouldn't be hard to fathom how this would harm others much more significantly, as would the ethical standard being set. Brees had an innocent perspective that was made to be controversial because people want the world to overcompensate for themselves, their believes, their feelings. It's incredibly egotistical and hypocritical. Reflexive demands to cancel speech not only discourages people from engaging in the kinds of dissent and deliberation that keep a society dynamic, it risks suppression of expression across all ideological spectrums. It risks diversity of thought. The same people who claim to be ignored/gone unheard are no longer celebrating developments of social change or accepting other perspectives --- they're using those same "newly discovered" speech rights that made their progress possible as a means of attempting to silence those who question their cause via demands of institutional punishment, public shame, "cancelling", or censorship, all because they feel enabled by powers that be to engage in these activities. The CCP called these things "struggle sessions". And then one day, when the oversight is no longer in your favor, you'll cry wolf...
  3. Stop making it all about you and your side for one god damn second. I never advocated for Colin Kaepernick to be blackballed and I was always critical of the NFLs initial approach. I never felt it was fair that he didn't get an opportunity, and any orchestrated attempt to prevent him from signing with any of the NFLs teams is categorically wrong. However, let's keep the facts in mind: he was offered a job by Denver and he rejected it... that's on him. The reason why he has not been signed is because (1) he's asked for too much; (2) he's simply not good enough to be a starter; and (3) provides too much of a distraction to be a backup. The truth staring everyone in the face is that had Kaepernick still been a good QB, he'd still be in the league... just like Antonio Brown is still in the league. Stop crying for affirmative action because you want a hero to get a job in the NFL; he had an opportunity well after the kneeling began and he blew it. https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/source-kap-not-willing-take-broncos-current-pay-cut-offer#:~:text=Colin Kaepernick is willing to,Super Bowl champions would like.&text=Agreeing to Denver's offer would,over the next two years.
  4. Furthermore, Brees actually caved and apologized --- which I wholeheartedly disagree with and am critical of him for. There's nothing to apologize for when you said nothing wrong. I think that was a cuck move. Being said, I'm not going to shame him for having his own perspective.

 

TLDR:  You hold certain ideas about the world that and you don't like it that others have the freedom to be critical of you for it. 

I.e. you're rather obviously fearful your own beliefs will be criticised when/if you speak them publicly, and that you may suffer consequences for it.  Rather than reevaluate the things you believe in light of where society is choosing to go, you prefer to deny basic freedoms to society in order to protect your own viewpoint from "cancellation", a power you simply do not possess.  Sadly, for you, you lack the power to compel the rest of us to not think whatever we choose of you for the things you say.  

I think we've likely reached a logical end point here.  Delving further would cross some clear site-rule boundaries. 

So I will thank you for the enlightening exchange, and wish you a good day.

By the way, you remind me very much of someone I used to know on JI.  :-k  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

 

So I will thank you for the enlightening exchange, and wish you a good day.

By the way, you remind me very much of someone I used to know on JN.  :-k  

 

 

JN?? Did you mean JI??

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Warfish said:

TLDR:  You hold certain ideas about the world that and you don't like it that others have the freedom to be critical of you for it. 

I can't help that you're ignorant. And again, I don't have a care in the world who is critical of me of anyone for that matter.

I.e. you're rather obviously fearful your own beliefs will be criticised when/if you speak them publicly, and that you may suffer consequences for it.  Rather than reevaluate the things you believe in light of where society is choosing to go, you prefer to deny basic freedoms to society in order to protect your own viewpoint from "cancellation", a power you simply do not possess.  Sadly, for you, you lack the power to compel the rest of us to not think whatever we choose of you for the things you say.  

I'm not fearful of my beliefs at all. I'm proud of them. I'm sure anyone who knows me would vouch that. What bothers me is the unnecessary divide and further splintering of society - much of which stem from these concepts. There's a difference between being critical and ostracization, and that's what I have been saying since the moment this started. I gave my perspective exactly why I hate the concept of "cancelling" people for having different beliefs and views; furthermore, I think it's downright disgusting to view someone as immoral for having simple ideological differences. You seem to forget how this started... It wasn't a matter of holding someone accountable for being morally wrong or having done something reprehensible; it was because an actress happened to be conservative, and that some posters felt that merited her being fired or not getting future roles. That's a horrific standard to set, and while I can't control others, I can judge the sh*t out of them and condemn them for their horrible world views myself. With that being said, I recognize there are plenty of stupid people in this world who have talent and can provide some sort of benefit to society; it's not my desire to "cancel" them for having a perspective I don't agree with. That's the big difference between my view and what I read to be yours. You think it's OK to do that; I don't. 

I think we've likely reached a logical end point here.  Delving further would cross some clear site-rule boundaries. 

So I will thank you for the enlightening exchange, and wish you a good day.

By the way, you remind me very much of someone I used to know on JI.  :-k  

I was never on JI (I'm not sure what that is) 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HawkeyeJet said:

Anyone else ever see threads still going pages after they last read it and wonder "what in the hell could possibly be going in in there?" So you check and immediately regret it?

Yeah me too.

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, football guy said:

I can judge the sh*t out of them and condemn them for their horrible world views myself. 

So you mean you can cancel them.  Because that is all "Cancel culture" is, groups of people doing what you say you do in the above quote.

Funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

So you mean you can cancel them.  Because that is all "Cancel culture" is, groups of people doing what you say you do in the above quote.

Funny.

No, I very clearly don't mean cancel them. You have chosen to take my worlds and define them how you please. 

  • Condemn/Criticize: Drew Brees is an cuck for apologizing. That's foolish of him. Shouldn't apologize to people who have horrific world views. Still going to watch him play because he's a great QB. I support and respect a lot of things he has done in society, even if I don't agree with him on what he believed was right in that specific instance. 
  • Woke/Cancel Culture: Drew Brees is the worst human on earth for apologizing to a bunch of woke blm terrorists. He needs to be cut immediately for his horrific actions. He's an abomination to society. The NFL should fine him and they should ban him from partaking in a game ever again. The fact that he's apologizing for standing for the National Anthem is worse than kneeling. Someone find out where he lives so we can interrogate him for this grave injustice. Let's yell and scream at his family in public. 

Huge difference. Can't just rely on semantics and definitions of related words when analogizing a cultural standard.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Biggs said:

I have a much more nuanced position.  You can have abhorrent positions that are far outside the norms of any civil society.  Once you start putting into the public square and try and normalize them societal ostracism is appropriate.  That doesn't mean government has the right to impinge on your free speech.  None governmental organizations and individuals do have that right if you step over certain boundaries and frankly civil society is built on that premise.  Once civil society stops doing its job there will be blood.  

That’s some scary sh*t you wrote there! 
The government has proxies who do their bidding to get around being seen as going outside the judicial boundaries. 
The CCP, Nazis, Venezuelan dictators and  the Ayatollah use these groups to instill fear among the people to keep silent or they will be next. I’m seeing it play out in the news on the left coast and even in DC. Constantine wire and fencing around our federal buildings and attacks in Portland, Seattle and Chicago against police. I hope you reconsider your views. People get hurt when gangs start deciding what’s good speech and bad. 
 

in before the lock!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, football guy said:

No, I very clearly don't mean cancel them. You have chosen to take my worlds and define them how you please. 

  • Condemn/Criticize: Drew Brees is an cuck for apologizing. That's foolish of him. Shouldn't apologize to people who have horrific world views. Still going to watch him play because he's a great QB. I support and respect a lot of things he has done in society, even if I don't agree with him on what he believed was right in that specific instance. 
  • Woke/Cancel Culture: Drew Brees is the worst human on earth for apologizing to a bunch of woke blm terrorists. He needs to be cut immediately for his horrific actions. He's an abomination to society. The NFL should fine him and they should ban him from partaking in a game ever again. The fact that he's apologizing for standing for the National Anthem is worse than kneeling. Someone find out where he lives so we can interrogate him for this grave injustice. Let's yell and scream at his family in public. 

Huge difference. Can't just rely on semantics and definitions of related words when analogizing a cultural standard.  

Nothing you've posted has changed my initial evaluation of you. 

You demand the freedom to express your views without respect for that very same freedom being expressed by others.  You want all the rights, with none of the societal responsibility.

You also very clearly have a deep fear of being "cancelled" for your own views, likely because you know those views would be considered problematic in the eyes of many in 2021.

It must truly be sad to live in such constant fear and paranoia, worried that the "woke cancel culture cucks" are coming for you.  Best of luck.  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

That’s some scary sh*t you wrote there! 
The government has proxies who do their bidding to get around being seen as going outside the judicial boundaries. 
The CCP, Nazis, Venezuelan dictators and  the Ayatollah use these groups to instill fear among the people to keep silent or they will be next. I’m seeing it play out in the news on the left coast and even in DC. Constantine wire and fencing around our federal buildings and attacks in Portland, Seattle and Chicago against police. I hope you reconsider your views. People get hurt when gangs start deciding what’s good speech and bad. 
 

in before the lock!

The reason our capital is surrounding by fencing is there is a 5th column in this country that's been normalized by one of the two political parties.   Are you seriously suggesting that slut shaming them is an over reaction?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biggs said:

The reason our capital is surrounding by fencing is there is a 5th column in this country that's been normalized by one of the two political parties.   Are you seriously suggesting that slut shaming them is an over reaction?  

Boy, I can see you are a consumer of 24/7 CNN & MSNBC. Bunch of nut jobs get in the Capital and it's time for 12' fencing and razor wire. Portland, Kenosha, Seattle and Chicago burn and it's just a few folks expressing their 1st amendment rights.

What you wrote is scary and shows how easily the media, FB and Twitter have shaped the narrative. You appear on the verge of doing more than slut shaming. You are looking to get people fired from their jobs because they don't fall in line with the narrative you expound..... and that's fascism.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Boy, I can see you are a consumer of 24/7 CNN & MSNBC. Bunch of nut jobs get in the Capital and it's time for 12' fencing and razor wire. Portland, Kenosha, Seattle and Chicago burn and it's just a few folks expressing their 1st amendment rights.

What you wrote is scary and shows how easily the media, FB and Twitter have shaped the narrative. You appear on the verge of doing more than slut shaming. You are looking to get people fired from their jobs because they don't fall in line with the narrative you expound..... and that's fascism.

If we were the third world country you are comparing us to the traitors who stormed the capital along with the political opposition that inspired it would have been lined up and shot by military firing squads.  Slut shamming is as far as I go.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Biggs said:

If we were the third world country you are comparing us to the traitors who stormed the capital along with the political opposition that inspired it would have been lined up and shot by military firing squads.  Slut shamming is as far as I go.  

We have nearly 50% of the country approving of socialism. We will be that 3rd world country soon enough. I believe in the Constitution and in the adherence to it. Many on the left see it as a nuisance. You think you'll only go so far, but once you let the horses out of the barn with defunding police, a review by our current Defense Department on its soldier's political affiliations and social media history, I think you'll look back 8 years from now when DC & P.R. are states and the Electoral College is no longer law, The Supreme Court is expanded to 15 and wonder what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 32EBoozer said:

We have nearly 50% of the country approving of socialism. We will be that 3rd world country soon enough. I believe in the Constitution and in the adherence to it. Many on the left see it as a nuisance. You think you'll only go so far, but once you let the horses out of the barn with defunding police, a review by our current Defense Department on its soldier's political affiliations and social media history, I think you'll look back 8 years from now when DC & P.R. are states and the Electoral College is no longer law, The Supreme Court is expanded to 15 and wonder what happened.

Please stop threatening us with a good time.

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rex-n-effect said:

Please stop threatening us with a good time.

Will have to get the opinion of your children and grandchildren as they will be the ones facing the consequences.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, rex-n-effect said:

Please stop threatening us with a good time.

5596435653_a66145f83c_b.jpgTonight we're gonna party like's it's 1959!

We have an awful lot of young very stupid people who continue to pretend "socialism" has never really been tried and it's just wonderful. Tell it to Vaclav Havel. 

If anyone can explain, justify or defend why DC is still  wrapped in gates and barb wire, the floor is yours. 

 

Rant over. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
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.




×
×
  • Create New...