After Pop's Political Rants, I'm Done With Spurs

[Splits]

[FromWayDowntown]

Tolerating and monetary support are two different things. I.e. I respect the right of others to believe in astrology, but I do not support it monetarily. Same thing here.

You suggested that the Spurs were wrong for tolerating Pop's viewpoint ("I said I'm not supporting the Spurs anymore while this sort of thing is tolerated").

You're not providing monetary support - you say - because Pop said something you don't like. Fine. But you're suggesting that, unlike you and your "tolerant" ways, the Spurs shouldn't even tolerate Pop expressing a viewpoint that you disagree with. Which is it? Do you think his employer shouldn't let him talk at all because you don't like his viewpoint or do you think he should be allowed to talk and people like you, who allow politics to get in the way of enjoying things in life, should be allowed to vote with your pocketbooks?

For what it's worth, I used to do precisely what you're doing -- I hated anyone who disagreed with me politically and refused to partake in things (like music or movies) in which those who disagreed with me had any influence. I can tell you that: (1) it's virtually impossible to live up to the boycott; and (2) the boycott itself is only a form of self-deprivation that creates no change. And given the NBA's decade-long, $24 billion media rights agreement, I'll reserve my optimism for your sort of boycott having any real impact on anyone.

Edited to add: The choice is yours, obviously, and I offer my tale as simply an anecdotal advisory. But my unsolicited suggestion to anyone is: enjoy the things that make you happy and don't let politics cloud the happiness those things bring to you.

[baseline bum]

But my unsolicited suggestion to anyone is: enjoy the things that make you happy and don't let politics cloud the happiness those things bring to you.

Sounds like what makes him happy is expressing outrage when people disagree with his politics tbh. It's pretty much all he ever posts at spurstalk.

[spurs1990]

And that's why I hope that the Holts will have Pop "clarify" his statements. I can't support any groups that promote potentially dangerous views of the POTUS, whether the office is held by an R, a D, or an I. I would love to return to supporting the Spurs down the road, but I can't do it as long as Popovich is making statements in which he has to explain why it's okay not to respect the presidency.

You may be giving too much credit to Popovich and his affect/influence on matters outside of sports, or rather NBA basketball.

I say keep watching dem Spurs and anytime you feel agitated for some political slight, just remember Nov 8.
If that day wasn't enough to carry you through politically for years, nothing will.

(As an aside, I can't think of a more neutral organization on any topic than the Spurs these last two decades)

[Blue-Lightning]

You suggested that the Spurs were wrong for tolerating Pop's viewpoint ("I said I'm not supporting the Spurs anymore while this sort of thing is tolerated").

You're not providing monetary support - you say - because Pop said something you don't like. Fine. But you're suggesting that, unlike you and your "tolerant" ways, the Spurs shouldn't even tolerate Pop expressing a viewpoint that you disagree with. Which is it? Do you think his employer shouldn't let him talk at all because you don't like his viewpoint or do you think he should be allowed to talk and people like you, who allow politics to get in the way of enjoying things in life, should be allowed to vote with your pocketbooks?

For what it's worth, I used to do precisely what you're doing -- I hated anyone who disagreed with me politically and refused to partake in things (like music or movies) in which those who disagreed with me had any influence. I can tell you that: (1) it's virtually impossible to live up to the boycott; and (2) the boycott itself is only a form of self-deprivation that creates no change. And given the NBA's decade-long, $24 billion media rights agreement, I'll reserve my optimism for your sort of boycott having any real impact on anyone.

Edited to add: The choice is yours, obviously, and I offer my tale as simply an anecdotal advisory. But my unsolicited suggestion to anyone is: enjoy the things that make you happy and don't let politics cloud the happiness those things bring to you.

Pop is free to have political views and express them, but I draw the line and am no longer supportive of statements which demonize or demean the office of the presidency, even if Pop tries to give logic to the endeavor. Of course, we tolerate all free speech, but we don't have to support all free speech. And we didn't once agree -- for me, the expressed belief has be egregious before I consider rescinding support of a product. Manu is an atheist and I'm a deist, yet it has no effect on my admiration whatsoever. I think when comments are made though that I consider dangerous, that's when I re-evaluate my support.

[Blue-Lightning]

You may be giving too much credit to Popovich and his affect/influence on matters outside of sports, or rather NBA basketball.

I say keep watching dem Spurs and anytime you feel agitated for some political slight, just remember Nov 8.
If that day wasn't enough to carry you through politically for years, nothing will.

(As an aside, I can't think of a more neutral organization on any topic than the Spurs these last two decades)

I wish they'd go back to being neutral. Or be political and just not give a thesis on situations in which the office of the presidency can be treated with disrespect.

[DMC]

They were never neutral. If you give someone a platform to speak their mind, they will. Pop doesn't rely on endorsements so he's not concerned about how the Twitterverse takes his viewpoint. Cool thing about Pop is he does what he does because its in him to do it, not because he's calculated that it will enhance his public persona.

[baseline bum]

Pop is free to have political views and express them, but I draw the line and am no longer supportive of statements which demonize or demean the office of the presidency, even if Pop tries to give logic to the endeavor. Of course, we tolerate all free speech, but we don't have to support all free speech. And we didn't once agree -- for me, the expressed belief has be egregious before I consider rescinding support of a product. Manu is an atheist and I'm a deist, yet it has no effect on my admiration whatsoever. I think when comments are made though that I consider dangerous, that's when I re-evaluate my support.

So what do you think of Trump claiming he actually won the popular vote? Or saying Ted Cruz's dad aided in the assassination of JFK? That's someone whose speech we can trust? It's way more dangerous to treat political officials as people who can't be fairly criticized because of some bull idea of respect for the office, which is what you're arguing.

[Mark Celibate]

I've been a Spurs fan since 2002, purchased their stuff, went to games, followed them closely. I've got a Spurs tag on my vehicle, and I live in Tennessee where that's not common.

I'm done with the Spurs.

If Popovich is going to publicly berate the president of the United States and speak gloriously of the women wearing "pussy" hats and cheering Madonna as she talks about thinking of physically destroying the White House, I'm out. Not watching another Spurs game. I wanted to enjoy fundamental basketball, not see the president I voted to clean up crony elitists selling out the middle class be ridiculed in ways that nobody would ever say about Obama. When he won, none of this stuff happened... we might not have liked what he was doing, but we respected democracy and the office.

It was a fun decade routing for my favorite team. Watching Manu and Timmy (was never a Parker fan) was a real treat.

Over and out,

- BL

American politics are cringy puerile bull .

All this exuberant attention whoring is so uniquely American. Most Americans I've talked to have this odd self-centered at ude. Very poor conversationalist. Bad at listening and prone to seguing into talking about themselves in the middle of a conversation.

[spurs1990]

So what do you think of Trump claiming he actually won the popular vote? Or saying Ted Cruz's dad aided in the assassination of JFK? That's someone whose speech we can trust? It's way more dangerous to treat political officials as people who can't be fairly criticized because of some bull idea of respect for the office, which is what you're arguing.

Those are fair criticisms, and Donald has a load more of them. But this is a guy who's never held political office, so his life history is chalk full of events we can all point to and laugh at.

OTOH look at the alternatives - Clinton, Obama, Bush, Bill....all of them made tremendous lies or had questionable policies throughout their political careers.

• Bill and his ridiculous womanizing (while in office!), lying under oath about the Lewinsky affair.
• Bush leading us to war with a nation that had ZERO to do with the 9/11 operation, creating a pathway to the current Islamic state.
• Obama winning a noble peace prize a month into his presidency, and proceeding to drone the out of every Arab country you can name.

Btw, Barack also ran against Clinton on the platform of NO universal healthcare - he then implements that as his signature policy. And don't forget about his politically expedient 180 on same sex marriage

And then you have Donald's opponent Hillary, who besides the fact was rejected by the Dems in 08, would've been an extension of Obama for another 8 years.

So don't feel that Trump supporters are stating his doesn't reek - we are acutely aware of his fallibility, we just happen to think he was the change we were looking for.

Looking back the Dems should've put up a fresh face - someone like Russ Feingold or Ron Wyden.
Those guys have consistent progressive histories, and aren't overly tied to the Obama/Clinton machines.

[DMC]

You have to be more covertly ty. You can't be so openly ty. While it's almost universally accepted that politicians are pieces of , we feel much better about it if they pretend they aren't, if they show a stoic face and make well vetted pla udes instead of off the cuff remarks that expose their true feelings.

We want change, but we want it to be the same change we never got before.

[spurs1990]

I wish they'd go back to being neutral. Or be political and just not give a thesis on situations in which the office of the presidency can be treated with disrespect.

I agree with Pop seeming to go out of his way to bash Trump in an overt way... can't explain what's triggering that.
Would make for an interesting case study if San Antonio wins a le in these next four (eight) years and visits Trump.

But like I said I'm pushing that BS to the side and focusing on what goes on between the lines, and I like everything about this team, from our 14 players to the entire coaching staff.
I can't think of another team, certainly in basketball, that can mimic the class, integrity, and hard work of this iteration of the Spurs.

And they are bleeping 36-9 even after Duncan leaves! That's enough to let Pop say whatever he wants, or continue to be crude to the media.

[baseline bum]

Btw, Barack also ran against Clinton on the platform of NO universal healthcare - he then implements that as his signature policy. And don't forget about his politically expedient 180 on same sex marriage

I remember Obama running on a platform of providing RomneyCare with a public option, but not wanting to do single payer like what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992. I'm fine with Obama not spending political capital on gay issues considering that's what got Bush elected in 2004. Besides, he didn't make gay marriage legal; the supreme court did.

[baseline bum]

Looking back the Dems should've put up a fresh face - someone like Russ Feingold or Ron Wyden.
Those guys have consistent progressive histories, and aren't overly tied to the Obama/Clinton machines.

I completely agree that Clinton was a terrible candidate, probably the worst the DNC has put up since Wilson, and I would have never voted for her if the situation was flipped and the Democrats had a safe lead in the House. My vote for her was mostly a vote against Ryan having the power to get all his bills signed into law. The DNC probably should have put up Sanders considering he was actually exciting the base. Once he won Michigan and steamrolled Clinton in Wisconsin the superdelegates should have really looked hard at their votes the same way they were forced to when Obama started beating Clinton in the 2008 primaries.

[Spurminator]

I wish they'd go back to being neutral. Or be political and just not give a thesis on situations in which the office of the presidency can be treated with disrespect.

It baffles me that anyone could think Popovich (or Streep, or whoever) is disrespecting the office of the Presidency more than the current officeholder himself.

[spurraider21]

If anything pop bashing trump shows great respect for the office because he's aware how how important and powerful it is. The people who don't respect the office are the ones that say "meh government doesn't control things anyway, he's just a pawn and it's all a facade"

[Spurminator]

If anything pop bashing trump shows great respect for the office because he's aware how how important and powerful it is. The people who don't respect the office are the ones that say "meh government doesn't control things anyway, he's just a pawn and it's all a facade"

That or the "I love that he pisses off lib s so much" types.