There are so many examples of that aren't there? No they are not hiding anything. The truth is out there (hey, that would make a great tagline for a TV show) they are just not putting it out front. I'd say on a scale of 1-10 (1 being a total non issue) 10 being and absolute disgrace I would put this at a 2 or maybe 2.5 and the only reason I say that is because 19 other teams apparently didn't take money and I would like to think the Packers would be leading the way in issues like this.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

I guess you don't see that there is a difference between what is clearly a paid advertisement and leading the public to believe you're putting on displays of patriotism because you care about the military and want to "honor" them. It is not honoring when you're paid to do it.

It's an honor when a young lady accepts your request for a date. It is a dishonor when a prostitute takes your money for one but you guys don't seem to be able to reconcile huge differences in approaches.

As for Ted Thompson, you choose not to get it... you guys constantly credit him for things that are actually the opposite of reality. Why can't I choose to be like you guys and blame him for something that he doesn't deserve blame for? It's no different than what you do it's just in reverse. Again, you don't see the differences just like in the paid vs. not paid thing. There is a HUGE difference.

Take your date home to mom and she's all happy thinking you found a nice girl...then tell her later she was actually a whore you paid to be on your arm at the get together. Is mama going to think the same about it? You guys sure want to think the same about what the Packers did. None of you knew those oh so patriotic displays were really paid infomercials. It did your heart good to see our org be so honoring to our military. We come to find out there was no honor in it at all...only money. Money whoring as I think nerd would probably call it. Yet, you want to say it's not an issue...there's nothing wrong with it even though what you thought is light years from reality. There is some irony in that all by itself but it's surely lost on you.

Honestly, I'm amazed at how you guys look at things. The things you don't see.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I guess you don't see that there is a difference between what is clearly a paid advertisement and leading the public to believe you're putting on displays of patriotism because you care about the military and want to "honor" them. It is not honoring when you're paid to do it.

It's an honor when a young lady accepts your request for a date. It is a dishonor when a prostitute takes your money for one but you guys don't seem to be able to reconcile huge differences in approaches.

As for Ted Thompson, you choose not to get it... you guys constantly credit him for things that are actually the opposite of reality. Why can't I choose to be like you guys and blame him for something that he doesn't deserve blame for? It's no different than what you do it's just in reverse. Again, you don't see the differences just like in the paid vs. not paid thing. There is a HUGE difference.

Take your date home to mom and she's all happy thinking you found a nice girl...then tell her later she was actually a whore you paid to be on your arm at the get together. Is mama going to think the same about it? You guys sure want to think the same about what the Packers did. None of you knew those oh so patriotic displays were really paid infomercials. It did your heart good to see our org be so honoring to our military. We come to find out there was no honor in it at all...only money. Money whoring as I think nerd would probably call it. Yet, you want to say it's not an issue...there's nothing wrong with it even though what you thought is light years from reality. There is some irony in that all by itself but it's surely lost on you.

Honestly, I'm amazed at how you guys look at things. The things you don't see.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

If you are going to spend tax payers money, are you going to spend it on each of the 32 NFL teams or the teams that get the most viewership? If you have a budget, which the military does, you select wisely. How the hell the Vikings got in there, no damn clue!!! But if I'm a person who wants to get my message out, I'm going to target the most bang for my buck.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I understand that completely and I agree. If I am spending money promoting my service I want to spend it where it will be seen. What I don't know is if the same money was offered to all teams and only the 14 accepted it and the others did it on their own or what. I don't believe that these 14 teams were the only ones to honor the military so if the military only gave money to these 14 teams who paid for the ones they didn't give the money to?

I would have a hard time believing the military would say something like "we will give money to the Packers and not the Jaguars because more people watch the Packer games." I'd like to know if this is something that the military offers to all teams and only some take advantage of it or if it is only offered to select teams.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Seemed from the article it was more National Guard.

So like the WI National Guard would be likely to advertise with the Pack, because they have like a 96% viewership in NE Wisconsin, and very high in the rest of the state. But the Florida National Guard might not invest as heavily in the Jags, because, well no one cares about them.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I seriously think that Uffda just does this stuff to see who he can get a rise out of. I don't think even he believes half of what he says.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

Skimming through some of the posts and then it came to my why the Vikings were used. Duh, they play the Packers twice a season!!

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool