martin wrote:jrodmc wrote:martin wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:He doesn't believe in patriotism. That's nice. He believes in being a citizen here and making 72 million US dollars though. Glad he still believes in legal tender. He doesn't believe in kids killing kids. That's nice too. I'm sure to a man/woman, the cadets and the officer he dissed don't believe in killing kids either. They just happen to believe in defending the country he just happens to be living in and making a seriously lucrative living playing basketball.
Was anyone asking him to pledge and oath, sing the anthem or scream amen to the talk? Nope.
Another wealthy, entitled athlete who thinks any arena is the proper arena to garner attention for their own personal convictions. Why not attend the dinner and talk to the officer giving the talk and the cadets afterwards? Nope, better to create some much needed drama/attention over something that didn't really need to happen.
MSG trying to do damage control by posting pics of cadets talking with Noah on the court.
It's an awkward position the Knicks put their players in. This dinner is not part of the players' contractual obligations. Arranging a dinner related to a politically charged issue (our international wars) is questionable. The team could have just made a charitable donation to support the troops.
I understand what Noah is getting at. I actually embrace his POV. I just think his method for objecting is flawed. Soldiers simply follow orders. They are not the disease, they are the symptom. He should be doing this to people who actually make the decisions to send men and women to kill and die abroad. And sadly, one of the most egregious figures in recent history of this rocks a "D" next to his name yet has a Noble Peace Prize.
what's the doing this part? he quietly skipped a dinner function. he didn't make a thing about it, the NY Post did.
Yeah, everyone knows 72million dollar NBA athletes can just quietly do anything. We're not talking Chris Smith here. Noah made it a thing by doing it. I guess the NY Post made West Point determine it was inappropriate, too?
No one is worse off if they didn't know Noah skipped. No one, so no he did not make it a thing. And the Post did make it a thing by asking West Point to respond and also making this more than it actually is.
Last I checked Noah's about 7 feet tall and quite hard to miss. And if he just showed up at the dinner, we'd have nothing to post about, right?
And the Post probably wrote West Point's response for them too, right?
And I guess the press should just selectively not report on certain things that all truly intellectual types know are just not that important, right? Like walking to a bodega in the middle of the night in your bathrobe...
DrAlphaeus wrote:What if Noah was a Quaker or Jehovah's Witness? Would he get the jrod 7 seals of approval then?Knicks can't suit up quick enough, sweet bouncing baby Jesus.
I doubt a Quaker or a JW would be showing up at NBA games, Dr A. Them dancers be pretty much against anything a good Quaker or Charles Taze Russell would be preaching about.
Then we could all be posting about Noah's inability to overcome his prudish, outmoded views on sex.
jrodmc wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:What if Noah was a Quaker or Jehovah's Witness? Would he get the jrod 7 seals of approval then?Knicks can't suit up quick enough, sweet bouncing baby Jesus.
I doubt a Quaker or a JW would be showing up at NBA games, Dr A. Them dancers be pretty much against anything a good Quaker or Charles Taze Russell would be preaching about.
Then we could all be posting about Noah's inability to overcome his prudish, outmoded views on sex.
Clever. I will leave you to wallow in your apologetics then.
All I'm saying is if he doesn't want to accept a dinner invitation because of feeling uncomfortable in that military setting and rather spend that time with his newborn or picking his toes, it's his right, like you said.
And just because you take offense and find it disrespectful doesn't mean he intended offense or disrespect, and I haven't heard any word that anyone actually involved took offense or felt disrespected.
But if you want to fire up the outrage machine, go ahead, just pay the fuel costs.
jrodmc wrote:Knickoftime wrote:BRIGGS wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Let me write this basic answerIf it wasn't for millions of American soldiers who died. As in gave their live in the cause of providing a country full of freedoms, there would be no J Noah's available yo be direspectful . But hey fck them they're dead and were here. So all of these young kids who give their lives to train and maybe their own life to protect Noah and his kids. Yeah let's get rid of the military and the flag. Let's listen to quiet riot in schools and fck we don't need the police either. We can self police ourselves
That applies to some of our country's wars. Much of the time now our military is a Department of Offense (as Jill Stein put it), not Defense.
Call it whatever you want Bonn if it wasn't here you wouldn't be here
Same thing with doctors, police, etc. As a nation, we're all interdependent. Do I have to go to dinners for everyone?
If you are a public figure who makes incredible earnings you should be first in line to do the minimum to support the countries military. I'm not sure Noah would be as happy in a concentration camp somewhere
This is out of order BRIGGS. People supporting their military were responsible for concentration camps in the first place. What a shitty dramatic escalation of where grown men decide to eat dinner.
Wow are you guys naive. Without the military you would not have the life you do. Case closed
Indeed true.
We also probably would not have the life we do if we didn't annex one of the world's largest, most abundantly rich, most naturally defendable land masses by committing genocide against the civilizations that already inhabited it.
We probably would not have the life with do if we didn't build our pre-industrial economy on the backs of slave labor.
We might not have life we all do if we were not the only civilization in the history of humankind to use a nuclear weapon on another... twice.
Your 'point' has no meaning. The idea that a person can't object to specific applications of our standing military is intellectually barren.
Your 'counterpoints' also are meaningless.
The civilizations that already inhabited it were slightly busy committing atrocious acts against each other, as well as anyone else that happened along, while fighting alongside the French or English. Missed those days in history class, did you? Ever see a Franciscan monk without any weapons being skinned alive?
All countries had slaves (including the ones we imported slaves from) maybe the whole world should just disband it's governments and militaries. Also, I forget why the North won the Civil War. Was it so we could all benefit from slave labor?
Had lots of family dying in the Pacific theatre during WWII, did you? Ever read anything about what the Japanese were planning towards the end of that war? Had a great alternative plan that would have ended it all sooner?
No one's saying Noah can't object until his man bun falls off. He could have objected any one of a million other ways. More power to his free speech.
Being disrespectful or choosing an inappropriate way to object is the point. Not his rights as an American citizen.
Is your point that we annexed North America under the doctrine of Manifest Destiny because native American cultures deserved it? It was to make the world better? They forced the U.S.'s hand?
Yes, most country's histories are stained by slavery. I'm not accustomed, however, to the argument that the U.S. is just another nation in the world community?
None of your rebuttals justifying these things is the point, however.
The point always was the argument that a person of conscious should put their brain on hold in some broad deference to ideals they don't believe in is both moronic and unamerican.
Being disrespectful and inappropriate is a completely subjective matter and will naturally be defined differently by those with different views. The important thing is what's the intentions of people like Noah or Kaepernick. Deciding for someone else they intend to disrespect others or institutions is ridiculous.
jrodmc wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:jrodmc wrote:He doesn't believe in patriotism. That's nice. He believes in being a citizen here and making 72 million US dollars though. Glad he still believes in legal tender. He doesn't believe in kids killing kids. That's nice too. I'm sure to a man/woman, the cadets and the officer he dissed don't believe in killing kids either. They just happen to believe in defending the country he just happens to be living in and making a seriously lucrative living playing basketball.
Was anyone asking him to pledge and oath, sing the anthem or scream amen to the talk? Nope.
Another wealthy, entitled athlete who thinks any arena is the proper arena to garner attention for their own personal convictions. Why not attend the dinner and talk to the officer giving the talk and the cadets afterwards? Nope, better to create some much needed drama/attention over something that didn't really need to happen.
MSG trying to do damage control by posting pics of cadets talking with Noah on the court.
It's an awkward position the Knicks put their players in. This dinner is not part of the players' contractual obligations. Arranging a dinner related to a politically charged issue (our international wars) is questionable. The team could have just made a charitable donation to support the troops.
It was a dinner arranged by the hosts of the training camp. And what's so awkward about it? Do you seriously think it wouldn't blow up if it WAS made a contractual obligation?
Be serious.
Asking players to attend events that are political in nature is awkward. I know there would be backlash in many organizations if the employers told their employees "We've arranged for you to have dinner with the troops." If the players do or don't want to meet with the troops, that should be their private lives and entirely separate from their career work.
I am reading a bit about his history. Read his first 2 trips to White House with Florida team to Bush, he reluctantly went but untucked his shirt in protest.
Third time he went with Bulls as first sports team to visit Obama.
When the Knicks win the championship and Noah has to decide whether to go to the White House or not, we'll see what happens. Because I will admit it would be much more powerful and philosophically consistent to decline a visit to the President than a West Point invitation, since the White House represents the command that sends these poor kids to war in the first place.
Noah is 100% within his rights to not support wars and to not buy into the "brave men and women defending our country" propaganda when all they have sone since WWII is attack other countries. Nothing he said seemed offensive, he doesn't have to support the troops and he doesn't have to attend dinners. The country was founded based on freedom of thought and action. Any right wing BS double standard about people making their own choices automatically becoming unpatriotic is just that is right wing idealogy and BS.
jrodmc wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:jrodmc wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:BRIGGS wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Let me write this basic answerIf it wasn't for millions of American soldiers who died. As in gave their live in the cause of providing a country full of freedoms, there would be no J Noah's available yo be direspectful . But hey fck them they're dead and were here. So all of these young kids who give their lives to train and maybe their own life to protect Noah and his kids. Yeah let's get rid of the military and the flag. Let's listen to quiet riot in schools and fck we don't need the police either. We can self police ourselves
That applies to some of our country's wars. Much of the time now our military is a Department of Offense (as Jill Stein put it), not Defense.
Call it whatever you want Bonn if it wasn't here you wouldn't be here
Same thing with doctors, police, etc. As a nation, we're all interdependent. Do I have to go to dinners for everyone?
If you are a public figure who makes incredible earnings you should be first in line to do the minimum to support the countries military. I'm not sure Noah would be as happy in a concentration camp somewhere
This is out of order BRIGGS. People supporting their military were responsible for concentration camps in the first place. What a shitty dramatic escalation of where grown men decide to eat dinner.
Wow are you guys naive. Without the military you would not have the life you do. Case closed
But you brought up concentration camps: something invented and executed by militaries. I'll cop to being naive if you admit to having no sense of perspective.
Godwin's Law by page 2 because someone turned down a dinner invitation. Congrats BRIGGS.
Maybe we need to read a little bit about what drove the Final Solution before deciding it's the evil military that invented something as insidious as concentration camps.
The Holocaust was driven by what? The need to win wars? No, it was driven by Nietzschean and Darwinian worldviews that Nazi leadership decided was the way to drive humanity forward.
This is akin to saying the "militaries" are responsible for the invention of ISIS and Al Queda.
+666
Boo!
I'm not a Bush fan but that's not cool to post.
As one who is more familiar than most with the Academy and the Army, my thoughts are these:
If Noah wanted to spend time with his new-born daughter rather than attend a formal dinner, he should've just said so and it would've been an absolute non-issue. To say something to the effect of "I don't like the idea of kids killing kids" as justification is disingenuous. Last I checked, neither the Army nor the Academy is particularly fond of that idea either.
As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
As a tangent, in July 1972 Muhammad Ali visited the Academy. His opinions on the war in Vietnam were well documented but Ali was a gracious guest and accepted the academy's hospitality in the spirit in which it was intended. He spoke with the Academy's brass, joked with the cadets, and was good natured during the photo ops. Bottom line: he handled himself entirely appropriately to the occasion and circumstance.
It would've been to Noah's great credit had he either handled the situation similarly to Ali or, as stated above, declined (sans political statement) to say he'd prefer to spend time with his newborn.
Knickoftime wrote:jrodmc wrote:Knickoftime wrote:BRIGGS wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Let me write this basic answerIf it wasn't for millions of American soldiers who died. As in gave their live in the cause of providing a country full of freedoms, there would be no J Noah's available yo be direspectful . But hey fck them they're dead and were here. So all of these young kids who give their lives to train and maybe their own life to protect Noah and his kids. Yeah let's get rid of the military and the flag. Let's listen to quiet riot in schools and fck we don't need the police either. We can self police ourselves
That applies to some of our country's wars. Much of the time now our military is a Department of Offense (as Jill Stein put it), not Defense.
Call it whatever you want Bonn if it wasn't here you wouldn't be here
Same thing with doctors, police, etc. As a nation, we're all interdependent. Do I have to go to dinners for everyone?
If you are a public figure who makes incredible earnings you should be first in line to do the minimum to support the countries military. I'm not sure Noah would be as happy in a concentration camp somewhere
This is out of order BRIGGS. People supporting their military were responsible for concentration camps in the first place. What a shitty dramatic escalation of where grown men decide to eat dinner.
Wow are you guys naive. Without the military you would not have the life you do. Case closed
Indeed true.
We also probably would not have the life we do if we didn't annex one of the world's largest, most abundantly rich, most naturally defendable land masses by committing genocide against the civilizations that already inhabited it.
We probably would not have the life with do if we didn't build our pre-industrial economy on the backs of slave labor.
We might not have life we all do if we were not the only civilization in the history of humankind to use a nuclear weapon on another... twice.
Your 'point' has no meaning. The idea that a person can't object to specific applications of our standing military is intellectually barren.
Your 'counterpoints' also are meaningless.
The civilizations that already inhabited it were slightly busy committing atrocious acts against each other, as well as anyone else that happened along, while fighting alongside the French or English. Missed those days in history class, did you? Ever see a Franciscan monk without any weapons being skinned alive?
All countries had slaves (including the ones we imported slaves from) maybe the whole world should just disband it's governments and militaries. Also, I forget why the North won the Civil War. Was it so we could all benefit from slave labor?
Had lots of family dying in the Pacific theatre during WWII, did you? Ever read anything about what the Japanese were planning towards the end of that war? Had a great alternative plan that would have ended it all sooner?
No one's saying Noah can't object until his man bun falls off. He could have objected any one of a million other ways. More power to his free speech.
Being disrespectful or choosing an inappropriate way to object is the point. Not his rights as an American citizen.
Is your point that we annexed North America under the doctrine of Manifest Destiny because native American cultures deserved it? It was to make the world better? They forced the U.S.'s hand?
Yes, most country's histories are stained by slavery. I'm not accustomed, however, to the argument that the U.S. is just another nation in the world community?
None of your rebuttals justifying these things is the point, however.
The point always was the argument that a person of conscious should put their brain on hold in some broad deference to ideals they don't believe in is both moronic and unamerican.
Being disrespectful and inappropriate is a completely subjective matter and will naturally be defined differently by those with different views. The important thing is what's the intentions of people like Noah or Kaepernick. Deciding for someone else they intend to disrespect others or institutions is ridiculous.
Yea they are role models who are saying "Hey its ok to be disrespectful" Im sure those kids at the Academy now think Noah is a BIG dck. And he might be the coolest guy around--a nice human being--but his actions are disrespectful to those who put their lives on the line to protect HIM and HIS family.
WP76 wrote:As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
How did Noah handle this? Insofar as I can tell, he declined to attend.
martin wrote:WP76 wrote:As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
How did Noah handle this? Insofar as I can tell, he declined to attend.
He should've just said, "given the fact that I'm a new father, I'd like to decline the dinner invitation to spend time with my newborn." Again, non-issue at that point.
Instead he gives some brain dead rationalization of "I don't like the idea of kids killing kids" which comes off as short-sighted, ill-informed, and rude. There's a big difference between the two approaches because one shows intelligence and class; the other not so much.
WP76 wrote:martin wrote:WP76 wrote:As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
How did Noah handle this? Insofar as I can tell, he declined to attend.
He should've just said, "given the fact that I'm a new father, I'd like to decline the dinner invitation to spend time with my newborn." Again, non-issue at that point.
Instead he gives some brain dead rationalization of "I don't like the idea of kids killing kids" which comes off as short-sighted, ill-informed, and rude. There's a big difference between the two approaches because one shows intelligence and class; the other not so much.
Well, the same way Noah has a right to his opinion that you say comes across as "ill-informed and rude" you are entitled to your opinion which could be viewed as self-righteous and pompous. Once again, we ask our athletes to be authentic and genuine until they do or say what we don't like. Then they're suppose to either lie about their feelings, tow the company line or just stay quite.
What a country.
jrod was just having fun at my expense with the Devil W pic. He knows I don't believe W actually exists.
I found WP76's post compelling, thanks man. Didn't know that about Ali's visit. I agree, if it was just about him just having other things to do, the ambiguous rhetoric could have not been necessary.
But I don't think it's necessary to trash the guy. I wonder what he'd have to say to WP76's perspective.
I hope we can pick this thread up when Noah doesn't go to the White House when we get our chip! (No jinx)
WP76 wrote:martin wrote:WP76 wrote:As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
How did Noah handle this? Insofar as I can tell, he declined to attend.
He should've just said, "given the fact that I'm a new father, I'd like to decline the dinner invitation to spend time with my newborn." Again, non-issue at that point.
Instead he gives some brain dead rationalization of "I don't like the idea of kids killing kids" which comes off as short-sighted, ill-informed, and rude. There's a big difference between the two approaches because one shows intelligence and class; the other not so much.
Yeah, but Noah isn't using his newborn as the excuse. He clearly stated why he didn't want to attend. Had their been no newborn I'd suspect his answer would still be the same since he's done similar in the past.
The issue is mainly folks who cannot accept a person right to their own thoughts and speech. Noah declined and stated why like a grown man should.
Welpee wrote:WP76 wrote:martin wrote:WP76 wrote:As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
How did Noah handle this? Insofar as I can tell, he declined to attend.
He should've just said, "given the fact that I'm a new father, I'd like to decline the dinner invitation to spend time with my newborn." Again, non-issue at that point.
Instead he gives some brain dead rationalization of "I don't like the idea of kids killing kids" which comes off as short-sighted, ill-informed, and rude. There's a big difference between the two approaches because one shows intelligence and class; the other not so much.
Well, the same way Noah has a right to his opinion that you say comes across as "ill-informed and rude" you are entitled to your opinion which could be viewed as self-righteous and pompous. Once again, we ask our athletes to be authentic and genuine until they do or say what we don't like. Then they're suppose to either lie about their feelings, tow the company line or just stay quite.What a country.
I do agree Welpee that some people are too quick with the "shut up richie rich" my country take it or leave over-sensitive attitude to this. That's why His Airness used to never say shit and just endorse checks but there has to be a middle ground.
I think Noah gave an answer that came from a sincere place, it may have just been bad etiquitte and a wishy washy explanation. But he's a ball player and new dad... feeling emotional about kids and future. Not cool with the concentration camp talk, have some compassion BRIGGS.
Welpee wrote:WP76 wrote:martin wrote:WP76 wrote:As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
How did Noah handle this? Insofar as I can tell, he declined to attend.
He should've just said, "given the fact that I'm a new father, I'd like to decline the dinner invitation to spend time with my newborn." Again, non-issue at that point.
Instead he gives some brain dead rationalization of "I don't like the idea of kids killing kids" which comes off as short-sighted, ill-informed, and rude. There's a big difference between the two approaches because one shows intelligence and class; the other not so much.
Well, the same way Noah has a right to his opinion that you say comes across as "ill-informed and rude" you are entitled to your opinion which could be viewed as self-righteous and pompous. Once again, we ask our athletes to be authentic and genuine until they do or say what we don't like. Then they're suppose to either lie about their feelings, tow the company line or just stay quite.What a country.
I do know what people (athlete or not) with any degree or tact or class would've done in that situation and I so stated. If that comes across as "self righteous and pompous" then so be it. Noah's very much entitled to his feelings but this was neither the time nor the forum to vent them.
WP76 wrote:martin wrote:WP76 wrote:As rarely as I agree with Frank Isola, I think he nailed this when he said that Noah's gesture was "rude." If you have a host who's extending you a dinner invitation, you accept or politely decline (see above). To handle it as Noah did is, at best, poor decision making or, at worst, classless.
How did Noah handle this? Insofar as I can tell, he declined to attend.
He should've just said, "given the fact that I'm a new father, I'd like to decline the dinner invitation to spend time with my newborn." Again, non-issue at that point.
Instead he gives some brain dead rationalization of "I don't like the idea of kids killing kids" which comes off as short-sighted, ill-informed, and rude. There's a big difference between the two approaches because one shows intelligence and class; the other not so much.
You are saying that he should lie. That's the classy way of handling things? Lie?
Not for me. I thought he did the honest thing. He did not make a deal about it, went on his way and honestly answered a reporters question (Noah did not go find reporter to make it a statement thing).
Where did I say he should lie? I thought he wanted, justifiably, to spend time at home. In any case, it's his right to decline with or without an explanation. I just have an issue in his making, in my opinion, a political statement inappropriate to the time and circumstance. Sometimes saying less is better.
Bottom line: I disagree with how he handled the situation which, of course, is equally my prerogative.
What stops KP Derrick Rose Ron Baker Carmelo from saying the same thing as Noah? What if 6 guys did the same thing? I do NOT like guns--Ive never owned one I never shot one--I dont like violence I dont want anyone to die. But I do know that there are many people in this world like BOTH my grand fathers who
A One was a sailor in WW2
B The other was in a concentration camp as a prisoner
I understand both. I understand that these people my family--I could not be here without them--both were put in peril either protecting others and in the other case being the victim of a rogue nation. My Grandpa told me of many guys he was with who DID not make it back--dead. The other he only escaped due to the US military and 50%++ of that entire side of my family--dead tortured and killed.. How many of our families have the same issue? So many of us would NOT be here without our military OR maybe we would be in concentration camps without our military who knows? I dont want to see young men die--but I also want to respect those who serve us to keep us safe. There is respect and disrespect--there is common sense and then there is tweaked reality that is self righteous
