Not to get back to Kaepernick , but

[packs]

I don't see any similarities between the two unless like you said you view them extremely generally and leave it at two people who suffered professional consequences.

[PowderedH2O]

GM's have to weigh their options. I live just outside of Charlotte. Is Kaepernick better than Derek Anderson? Probably. But, will the GM get any grief from anyone for having Anderson on the team? Nope.

If he signed Kaepernick he runs the risk of alienating at least half of the fan base here. Is it worth signing him if the stadium has only 40,000 fans in attendance? It is all about the money. In many cities, he will drive away more money than he brings in. If Kaepernick was Aaron Rodgers good, it might be worth it. But not for an "ok" guy. It's the same reason Terrell Owens couldn't get a gig, even when he probably had another couple of years in him. When the trouble you bring outweighs the profits you bring,you are out.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't find Schilling to be a unifying force at all, unless it's unifying other people like him.

Schilling DID unify millions of Americans who share his same or similar beliefs (as Kyle mentioned above). Count me as one. I don't want some transgender pervert using the same restroom as my young daughter. I guess that makes me a hatemonger too, huh? Why is Kaepernick allowed to take a stance for something he believes in, but Schilling is not? Both comments by both parties offended millions of Americans. Both comments by both parties unified millions of Americans. We can agree on that, right? But it's OK for Kaepernick to exercise his freedom of speech because you agree with him. But it's not OK for Schilling to exercise his freedom of speech because you disagree with him. That's basically what you're saying, right Frank?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Schilling DID unify millions of Americans who share his same or similar beliefs (as Kyle mentioned above). Count me as one. I don't want some transgender pervert using the same restroom as my young daughter. I guess that makes me a hatemonger too, huh? Why is Kaepernick allowed to take a stance for something he believes in, but Schilling is not? Both comments by both parties offended millions of Americans. Both comments by both parties unified millions of Americans. We can agree on that, right? But it's OK for Kaepernick to exercise his freedom of speech because you agree with him. But it's not OK for Schilling to exercise his freedom of speech because you disagree with him. That's basically what you're saying, right Frank?

+1. Well said.

[packs]

One person is advocating for people's rights and another advocates for taking them away. I'd say that's a fundamental difference between the two.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

One person is advocating for people's rights and another advocates for taking them away. I'd say that's a fundamental difference between the two.

Depends in one's perspective. As far as Im concerned, Schilling was standing up for my rights.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't see any similarities between the two unless like you said you view them extremely generally and leave it at two people who suffered professional consequences.

Ding ding ding. That's all you need to leave it at to understand how they are similar. To go into more detail, both used their First Amendment rights to express political beliefs. But that's it. It's as simple as that, when looking at it from a neutral standpoint.

So if that's all it is, why do you fight so hard for Kaepernick?