So then you would negotiate with terrorists if it were your or one family but you wouldnt if it were the family of somebody else or lets say 2 families ?
Is your approach also dependend on the number of family members ?
First you wrote "you dont negotiate with terrorists". Now you write you differ between cases ?! Seems you didnt made up your mind about this problem.
If you don't understand the concept of not negotiating with terrorists, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. Obviously the "you" means a nation or organization. If someone has a gun to your head, clearly you should feel free to negotiate.
How about this.... If you are a parent, you don't give in to your child every time they throw a tantrum or you'll only encourage them, and all your other kids, to throw more tantrums.
ET is the toddler throwing a tantrum.
Contracts are binding. That's the whole point of signing one.
Martin was under contract and not going to the OTA until he got his contract
OTAs aren't mandatory.
He wants an extension.OTAs aren't mandatory.
ET is threatening not to take the field again without a renegotiation of his contract. Martin never even hinted at something similar.
He wants an extension.
If you don't understand the concept of not negotiating with terrorists, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. Obviously the "you" means a nation or organization. If someone has a gun to your head, clearly you should feel free to negotiate.
How about this.... If you are a parent, you don't give in to your child every time they throw a tantrum or you'll only encourage them, and all your other kids, to throw more tantrums.
ET is the toddler throwing a tantrum.
Contracts are binding. That's the whole point of signing one.
Hey i wasnt the one who made a comment i didnt even thought about in the beginning.
Now you put it like I didnt think about it or dont understand the concept of not negotiating with terrorists. Well i guess the truth is you cant explain it because you never really thought about what you wrote in the first place. Now you are not man enough to admit this. So you are trying to put me like i am the one who doesnt understand.
I asked you some questions just to show the stupidity of your comment. You danced around them. Well.... thats your way to solve this.
Seriously there is no "concept". Concept like you use it here is a word for people who dont want to talk or think about specifics or details. Because if they would figure out very quickly that there are problems that are not as easily to solve like thwy wished to. But that again would stand in their way or goals.
The only concept there should be is: "never say you dont negotiate with terrorists". Because it just shows your lack of ability to solve complex problems. Easy solutions for simple people.
Exactly, and we dodged a big bullet. Watkins isn't worth half of that. Draft bust that's turned into an average starting receiver. He doesn't make contested catches and he's oft injured. Hell no.We had 16 mil to try to sign Sammy Watkins but we don't have the where with all to sign ET? Not buying it. The phones are scorching hot. Let's see who blinks.
That's a long way to say that you've never heard of the concept.
Google it, it's been the policy of the US for decades. It's a very common philosophy adopted by most countries. In fact it's so common you'll probably only have to Google "we do not n" and it will fill in the rest for you.
Ed Reed (the last ET) didn't lose it until age 34, so a 3 year/39 million contract should be safe for present day ET.Earl Thomas was a crucial part of a superbowl winning team. We're questioning whether this guy wants to win?