Tank... am I the only one appalled at the double-standard?

[joseephuss]

I'd like to see consistency from people.

If you were outraged by the T.O. signing because of how atrocious of a human being you thought he was, you should be twice as outraged at the Tank signing.

It's an absurd double-standard.

One guy has a big mouth/ego, and he's worse than Hitler... another guy is an actual thug who has been in trouble with the law several times, and those same people welcome him with open arms.

Like I said... I was for BOTH signings. I'm pumped about getting Tank.

But if you were one of the cry-babies whining about how you won't root for the team as long as T.O. is here, or that Jerry is "selling his soul to the Devil", you are a complete hypocrite if you are in favor of the Tank signing... or if you just aren't strongly opposed to it.This is about principles people held only 18 months ago. Moralities they claimed to have, and at times rubbed in other peoples' faces.

It is not about winning football games. It is not about the smart thing to do from a salary cap standpoint. If THOSE were the only reasons you were against the T.O. signing, this thread is not directed at you. This is about those morality pushers who poo-poo'd those of us who wanted T.O. because of the type of person that T.O. is/was.

Much of the outrage at T.O.'s signing was because they felt that he was just an awful human being, and they wanted NO part of him as a Cowboy, WIN OR LOSE.

How many people against the T.O. signing said a Super Bowl win with T.O. would be an "empty victory"?

So, no... the "well, T.O. hasn't blown up yet and we're winning football games!" contrition does not hold much weight.

A lot of people never brought morality into the conversation about T.O. or Tank. There are trust issues. Can T.O. be trusted to be a team guy? Can Tank be trusted to stay out of trouble?

Whether or not you or I believe what Tank did was wrong, the law did and the NFL did. That is what matters because they determine if he is playing or not. If Tank avoids trouble, that will be fine especially at a minimum salary. Not that it really matter until he can actually join the team on the field.

Will T.O. start throwing a fit like he did with the Eagles? Maybe not because Jerry Jones paid him while the Eagles were unwilling to do that. Will that matter? I hope so, but there is still a part of me that doesn't trust him.

I am not outraged by the signing either player, but at the same time I didn't think either one was a must have. And that is not just based on each player, but also all the other Cowboys' needs.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

I completely understand your position. Certainly not a bad one to have.

I guess I have a expect the worst, hope for the best mentality with knuckleheads. I've seen too many in my lifetime. You want to see them change and improve, but they always seem to fail you. With these guys, is you gotta actually see it first before you start removing any doubts.

As a knucklehead, I'm officially offended.

 

[WoodysGirl]

You know, I really didn't read the entire first post. I probably have no clue what he was talking about.

:laugh2:

Eh, I'm allowed to be wrong every now and then.

 

[Next_years_Champs]

Anything semi automatic with a detachable magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds. Little idiotic things like a flash suppresor, bayonet lug, pistol grip can all get a weapon classfied as an assault weapon.

If you can believe it, the Ruger 10/22 is technically an assault weapon.

http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html
Rifles
Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:


1. Folding or telescopic stock
2. Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
3. Bayonet mount
4. Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
5. Grenade launcher

Among this list of "evil features", only one item initially stands out to the layperson as possibly making the firearm significantly more dangerous, and that is the grenade launcher. However, since grenades and the components to make them are already extremely tightly regulated as "destructive devices", grenade launchers are irrelevant. It would be a fair assumption to say that perhaps "grenade launcher" was added to the list simply to provide a certain degree of shock factor.
Other items on the list at least have some practical purpose.
The most amusing of these by far is the bayonet mount, which is the subject of an infinite number of wise-cracks (such as, "the ban has significantly reduced the number of drive-by bayonettings"). All joking aside, while a bayonet could be useful in either millitary combat, or a home defense situation, if anyone has EVER heard of ANY harm being committed by a criminal armed with a bayonet on an "assault weapon", please tell us about it.
A folding or telescopic stock allows the firearm to more easily be transported and stored, and would also be useful in a home defense situation where maneuverability is important. A flash suppressor reduces the visibility of the bright flash of light that is sometimes produced by firing in the dark. This would be very important for someone defending their family against an intruder in the middle of the night, as the flash would tend to temporarily hamper the shooter's vision.
The pistol grip, being perhaps the most "military-like" feature in appearance, in most cases is a necessity of the firearm's design due to the stock being directly in-line with the bore, as opposed to being lower than the bore as is the case with "traditional" rifles. Because the positioning of the stock in the manner does not provide for a place that the shooter can hold on to with the trigger hand, a pistol grip is used.
None of these things have any significant impact on how deadly a particular firearm is, and each is a legitimately purposeful feature.

 

[Nav22]

So basically people should develop opinions (which you call principles) and never change them because you say so.

Way to miss the point.

"Jerry sold his soul to the Devil, I won't watch until that jerk is off the team, a Super Bowl win would be hollow with T.O.!" is a display of one's principles. To be willing to trade WINS to ensure that we don't have any bad people on our team, is a principle.

And to ignore those very same principles when it comes to signing an actual criminal? Well, that's just hypocrisy.

If you didn't want T.O. due to MORALITY ISSUES, and NOT because you thought it would be a detriment in our W/L record you are a hypocrite for welcoming Tank in with open arms. Period.

Me? Like I said, I've welcomed them BOTH in with open arms. I just can't stand it when people have ridiculous double-standards and don't even see it.

 

[theogt]

Way to miss the point.

"Jerry sold his soul to the Devil, I won't watch until that jerk is off the team, a Super Bowl win would be hollow with T.O.!" is a display of one's principles. To be willing to trade WINS to ensure that we don't have any bad people on our team, is a principle.

And to ignore those very same principles when it comes to signing an actual criminal? Well, that's just hypocrisy.

If you didn't want T.O. due to MORALITY ISSUES, and NOT because you thought it would be a detriment in our W/L record you are a hypocrite for welcoming Tank in with open arms. Period.

Me? Like I said, I've welcomed them BOTH in with open arms. I just can't stand it when people have ridiculous double-standards and don't even see it.

You still don't get it. People can hold principles. And then CHANGE the set of principles that they hold.

Sheesh, this is like talking to edunce.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Jerry is selling his soul to the DEVIL!

I don't know what Dan Snyder has to do with this.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Way to miss the point.

"Jerry sold his soul to the Devil, I won't watch until that jerk is off the team, a Super Bowl win would be hollow with T.O.!" is a display of one's principles. To be willing to trade WINS to ensure that we don't have any bad people on our team, is a principle.

And to ignore those very same principles when it comes to signing an actual criminal? Well, that's just hypocrisy.

If you didn't want T.O. due to MORALITY ISSUES, and NOT because you thought it would be a detriment in our W/L record you are a hypocrite for welcoming Tank in with open arms. Period.

Me? Like I said, I've welcomed them BOTH in with open arms. I just can't stand it when people have ridiculous double-standards and don't even see it.

How do you know it is the same people that didn't want Owens that now want Tank?

 

[America's Team]

Let me just say that I am a Cowboys fan untill I die, we could sign all criminals and ill still be a Cowboys fan, and either way having a "Thug" doesnt directly effect the team, were not gonna play any different. the only way bringing him would be bad for our team is if he starts shoooting up the place

 

[Doomsday]

What is there to be outraged about? Its not like they signed him to a huge multiyear deal, if he slips up again he will be gone if not Dallas has a guy with huge upside for pretty much nothing. A lot of people make stupid mistakes when they are in their 20s, he deserves another chance just like we all do.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Let me just say that I am a Cowboys fan untill I die, we could sign all criminals and ill still be a Cowboys fan, and either way having a "Thug" doesnt directly effect the team, were not gonna play any different. the only way bringing him would be bad for our team is if he starts shoooting up the place

:laugh2:

He's going to church with Roy, that will calm him down. Might not hit anyone again.

 

[bbgun]

Me? Like I said, I've welcomed them BOTH in with open arms. I just can't stand it when people have ridiculous double-standards and don't even see it.

Because the sheep have no scruples. I hope I don't see any more threads mocking the Bengals' travails, because we too are now in the criminal coddling business. I support this signing because it fills a need and I want to win. But we're no better than anyone else. That's the point. Indeed, that's the lament.

 

[FCBarca]

Because the sheep have no scruples. I hope I don't see any more threads mocking the Bengals' travails, because we too are now in the criminal coddling business. I support this signing because it fills a need and I want to win. But we're no better than anyone else. That's the point. Indeed, that's the lament.

Precisely.

Personally, I'd have preferred the ethical route but it is what it is.

 

[Nav22]

You still don't get it. People can hold principles. And then CHANGE the set of principles that they hold.

Yep, it's perfectly normal to do a complete 180 on certain principles you hold in an 18 month span. Based on nothing, too! Principles that would cause you to withdraw your allegiance to a football team you've loved and cherished all your life.

Oh, and remember that you first scoffed that they were even "principles" to begin with (just "opinions", remember?). Oops!

 

[theogt]

Yep, it's perfectly normal to do a complete 180 on certain principles you hold in an 18 month span. Based on nothing, too! Principles that would cause you to withdraw your allegiance to a football team you've loved and cherished all your life.

Oh, and remember that you first scoffed that they were even "principles" to begin with (just "opinions", remember?). Oops!

Yes, it's perfectly normal. And expected. TO has been about as great a signing as any of us could have hoped for so far.

Usually it doesn't take 18 months to think, "Oh, really? People can change? How 'bout that."

By my count that only takes about 5 seconds.

 

[Hostile]

Sorry for the sarcasm.I believe the term was originated by the gun control people because of it's dramatic affect.I know a few people who hunt deer with sporterized SKSs

So do I.

 

[Hostile]

I'd like to see consistency from people.

If you were outraged by the T.O. signing because of how atrocious of a human being you thought he was, you should be twice as outraged at the Tank signing.

It's an absurd double-standard.

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I would think that if the upheaval over TO was offensive, that the lack of upheaval now might be encouraging.

So I ask again, would you like to see more outrage?

What if I was opposed to both (I was) but not outraged by either (i'm not)?

I could be appalled if it would help, but it won't help.

I'm not a Tank fan, but I understand that we have cap room, a need, and money to spend. is it a good move? I can't answer that until he plays and we see if he can act right.

I see no need to fly off the handle.

 

[Hostile]

How do you know it is the same people that didn't want Owens that now want Tank?

It's a valid question.

 

[superpunk]

Mostly, I'm just appalled at the number of crappy threads around here lately.

Maybe I can start one about zone blitzes.

 

[Nav22]

Usually it doesn't take 18 months to think, "Oh, really? People can change? How 'bout that."

Ignoring wins and losses, T.O. was never as bad a seed as Tank is. That's the whole point.

So if you were against bringing in T.O. because your moral high-chair wouldn't let you overlook his faults (even if it would lead to Cowboys victories), you should be twice as upset at the Tank signing.

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I would think that if the upheaval over TO was offensive, that the lack of upheaval now might be encouraging.

I can't stand inconsistency in people. So I am appalled. Did I LIKE the fact that people were whining from their high-chairs about the T.O. signing, from a morality standpoint? No. But if you ARE going to hold such principles, don't change your mind 18 months later when we bring in an even worse seed.

So I ask again, would you like to see more outrage?

From those morality pushing clowns, yes. Show the same outrage, or more, than you showed when we brought T.O. in. Otherwise, you're a flip-flopping hypocrite.

If you ripped up your Cowboys Fan Card, by now it should have been tossed into a wood chipper.

How do you know it is the same people that didn't want Owens that now want Tank?

What was the approval rating on the T.O. signing? Like, 50% at best, right? And what is it for Tank? Much higher. I didn't take names, but seeing as how many of the T.O. bashers didn't want him around for morality reasons, it looks obvious (to me, anyways) that the double-standard is existent here. I don't have concrete proof, if that's what you're looking for. But nobody is posting that they will no longer be fans of the Cowboys. Nobody is saying we have sold our soul to the Devil. Nobody is saying a Super Bowl victory would be hollow with Tank. I saw all of these things many times when we signed T.O.

Again... if you didn't want T.O. because you thought we were fine at WR... or because you didn't like his price tag... or because you thought he'd tear apart the team and we'd go 5-11... my rant is not directed at you.