Papa John's Pulls NFL-Associated Ads Citing 'Negative Consumer Sentiment'

One side is in bed with the Republicans and one side is in bed with the dimocrats.

Neither were asked or invited in for a sleep-over.

But you and your ilk focus in on one and not the other over and over and over...

Why is that?

 

My "ilk"? Who is that? Anyone who thinks using terms like "Negroid filth" don't make America great? I guess you think it does. No surprise there.

 

Give actual thinking a try instead of guessing.

It just might make your posts look like they're intelligent (for once) and not your usual dopey post(s).

 

Reagan was a democrat for most of his life.

 

Re

Absolutely, and he had Republican ideals. I have been a Republican for most of my life, and could never vote for a con; I don't care what the hell he calls himself.
Are you 90 years old? If not, who is wolfpack talking about?

 

You'll have to fill me in on what wolf was/is talking about.

I might respond.

I responded to YOUR decerebrate post.

 

You haven't said who my "ilk" is.

You seem to only want to post about me. I'm flattered, but I'm not the topic of the thread.

 

Sensationalist reporting is always making a mountain out of a molehill. Kneeling or sitting is not going to destroy any sport as long as there is a dollar to be made from it. Yes, the sensationalists are making a big thing out of nothing. "Die-hard fan" or "Casual fan" is neither here nor there. There'll always be bums on seats at the games because football is an interesting and exciting sport. There will be no mass exodus of spectators. And TV viewers? Ha! There has been no change anyway. No change in broadcasting equals no change in viewing.

There are 2 points that need to be said:

1). "Only one year" flies in the face of the report that is supposed to make his opinion particularly worthy as the hype is being flogged about taking a knee being "disrespect for the soldiers" etc. Well, he made no war sacrifice so that line of reasoning (Oh-oh! He's a vet!") is flat no matter how you turn the subject around.

2). You have been misinformed when it comes to the meaning of "the draft". Let's begin at the beginning. During the First and Second World Wars there was something called "in for the duration". This meant that soldiers would remain on active duty until the war ended. Who did it apply to? Did it apply to everyone? I don't know. But you made a false statement when you said, "Back then they had a little something called "the draft" which is a deal that says you're here so long as we need you and when we don't need you anymore, we will let you go." A blank statement like that is absolutely UNTRUE. It is a lie, in fact. If you have sound information that the situation you describe was in effect during a specific period then lay it out, although it will be wasted energy. I served from 1965 to 1968. I was a volunteer but the draft was in full force and it had a specific stipulation - a specific time that had to be served. None of this "until we need you" crap.

No. In addition to my conviction that forcing players and spectators to stand, hand over the heart, etc. is anti-Democratic .... I also say that "the knee" posses no disrespect for soldiers and veterans. IT HAS NOTHING TO WITH THE KNEE CONTROVERSY. It is a red herring. I am not "returning to it". I am debunking it.

 

Once again you prove that your knowledge is superior to these "bowling alley philosophers". You are right. NAVY: 4 years. AIR FORCE: 4 years. MARINE CORPS: 4 years. ARMY: volunteers 3 years, draftees 2 years.

 

I saw tons of Papa Johns commercials this weekend watching NFL. LOL

 

You are one sick dude. And I'll bet you never heard of "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" or "Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan".

 

I am sure not. But you can bet that he has the complete collection of Joan Wayne films on video. What other source does he need to know all there is to know about war?

 

No one in these forums is my "buddy". He is a blogger, as I am. He knows what he is talking about. Who is the 90yr old "great" man
who served at the end of WW11, and on what blog was he insulted, and how?

 

Jesus H. Christ!

Do you come back into the discussion forgetting what you and others have posted and responded to each time you come back and post?

I already spelled it out for you in previous posts. So, start with this post...

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...umer-sentiment.517937/page-25#post-1068227236

...and continue on reading subsequent posts pertaining to it and get back to me with what you still FAIL to comprehend, M'kay?

 

I wonder if these conservatives would protest with as much fervor the federal government attempting to force professional athletes from kneeling during the anthem.

 

Since that did not happen the question is pointless

 

I was just wondering about hypotheticals. I don’t think that’s a crime... yet.

But thanks for the repeating my quote.

 

Stupid hypothetical, you guys are mad that people are protesting the millionaires protesting during the anthem, by not watching or going. Funny thing is did you see all the NFLPA ads this weekend with players talking about how much they supported the military. Everybody is realizing this was a really really dumb idea.

 

I noticed that you didn’t say that you would... you know, hypothetically.

 

So... you wouldn’t?

 

The 90yr old "great" man is Vin Scully, who was drafted at the end of the war, just as my father was drafted at the end of the war.
It was The Battle of the Bulge, when Germany made one final push. Nobody drafted during that time fought. They just went through basic training, and hung around, waiting. So to compare Vin Scully to someone who put his life on the line is ludicrous. Scully was a great sportscaster, not a "great" man. He served in name only, as did my father, who never considered himself to be a soldier.

 

He didn't get tossed. The war ended and everybody went home. He never left the USofA. He just got in his car and drove home.