National Anthem Solution

[Gugny]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

The flyovers are part of routine training hours. That people complain about that is hilarious, when it's also advertising for the military

 

What people (I can only speak for myself, really) complain about is the NFL pretending to patriotic with the flyovers, but they're actually making nice coin off of them.

[Gigs]

7 hours ago, BigDingus said:

I never cared, and still don't, regarding what players do & don't do for the anthem.

Kneeling was never disrespectful before this, now suddenly it shows contempt for the country? Uh what? And the fact a US Army Ranger is the one that proposed that as a form of peaceful protest, shows there was never any intent to disrespect the country.

On top of that, since I was 16, I have only missed 3 Bills games period, and not one single time have I ever seen a person at the bar, my house, or wherever I'm watching suddenly get up and stand when the anthem came on... Were they all disrespecting the country? No..

The funny thing is there were only several people, all backups and no-names, across the league still kneeling when the POTUS brought it up again...then suddenly half the league starts doing it in response. Did anyone really give a s*** that 3rd stringer Joe Whats-his-face on the Titans was kneeling off screen? No...but all of a sudden because of phony outrage, and players getting ticked, half the league rebels & does it. 

My wife is in the military, I'm in law enforcement, and I come from a family of both, yet I seriously never once thought "OMG! That guy kneeled! He hates the US and all I believe in!"

But man, do I have to hear about it every second on ESPN radio (and every other outlet) from all the people supposedly upset in my defense...

Former Army. Way to gain my respect you son of a B word. Well said

[K-9]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

I honestly don't know.

 

I will say that I always thought it was bull **** that they got money for flyovers.

I'd add giant, field-size flags, color guards, camo gear, etc. The military spends MILLIONS on this kind of advertising. Remember how outraged we were a few years ago when we found that out; that it wasn't a genuine outpouring of respect and a genuine display of patriotic love for our country? I was wrong when I suggested they were pushing an agenda. It's much more insipid than that. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

The flyovers are part of routine training hours. That people complain about that is hilarious, when it's also advertising for the military

 

No, they aren't actually.  They are logged as flight hours, but they aren't routine training. 

[Gugny]

Just now, K-9 said:

I'd add giant, field-size flags, color guards, camo gear, etc. The military spends MILLIONS on this kind of advertising. Remember how outraged we were a few years ago when we found that out; that it wasn't a genuine outpouring of respect and a genuine display of patriotic love for our country? I was wrong when I suggested they were pushing an agenda. It's much more insipid than that. 

 

I remember it clearly.

[Bray Wyatt]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I used to work for a major international corporation.  There was an explicit policy requiring employees to not talk to the media, to refer all media enquiries to our PR department.  When employees were made available for interviews, they were coached on approved scope of the interview.

 

Employees who talked to the media without approval were terminated immediately.

I never saw it, but I'm quite sure an employee who went outside the approved scope and inserted their personal political views into the interview would have been terminated as well.

 

It wasn't the law, it was a corporation policy all employees agreed to abide by.

 

If I were speaking on my own time, off company property, and not identified as a company employee (eg not wearing a branded polo shirt or hat) then OK

 

Appreciate this, I knew there had to be some sort of distinction.

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Probably.  The major news outlets all have some skin in the NFL game, no?

Wouldn't they have done that last year when this first blew up? The NFL is powerful, but they can't dictate editorial policy to that extent. The optic of a major media outlet being told what and what not to report on is not a good one. Not even the NFL is that stupid. 

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, K-9 said:

Wouldn't they have done that last year when this first blew up? The NFL is powerful, but they can't dictate editorial policy to that extent. The optic of a major media outlet being told what and what not to report on is not a good one. Not even the NFL is that stupid. 

I disagree.  That's a hill I'm willing to die on.  ?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, macaroni said:

 

And exactly what problem DID they solve???

 

BBO, you have been duped by the media into thinking that the protests are the problem ... I propose the problem is NOT the protests, it's what prompted the protests in the first place.

 

One of the "dad sayings" that my kids have grown up with is ... "the problem is never really the problem ... however, how you respond to the problem could be a problem."

 

The players wanted to send a message ... we as a society can receive that message and either strive to change the situation that caused that message to be sent, or disregard the situation because we think the cause isn't worth our trouble. The way I see it we (players/teams/league/fans) should be striving to correct the social injustice ... NOT trying to solve the "protest problem" 

My kids grew up hearing "Always consider the agenda behind the thought, word, deed." 

 

We can debate the pros and cons of protesting at work, who/what is being protested and how every group, sub-group and cousin' brother's friend feels about it. 

 

However, the agenda behind the NFL's approach  now seems to be: 

 

"We would prefer you not piss off the segment of the paying public that takes offense to the time, nature and location of the actions being discussed.". 

 

Part 2 of the agenda is the NFL recognizing complex social issues with its workforce and offers nearly a $100 mill to help move the issue forward, without pissing off the paying public that takes offense.  

 

The external extremist agenda seems to be none of that #### is good enough, though the NFL has offered scores and scores of kids from all types of backgrounds wealth beyond what likely was beyond their dreams. 

 

Full disclosure, my agenda is I just like to enjoy a football game without considering any narrative beyond that on a Sunday. 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Wouldn't they have done that last year when this first blew up? The NFL is powerful, but they can't dictate editorial policy to that extent. The optic of a major media outlet being told what and what not to report on is not a good one. Not even the NFL is that stupid. 

 

I could be wrong, but it seems to me the media would not accommodate any requests to cover the NFL anthem protest issue in any kind of neutral or non-inflammatory way.  It seems to me that today's media is all about "puffing up" issues and generating controversy VS factual reporting (question: has anyone heard much media coverage to the effect that NBA has had an anthem policy for years?)

[Rocky Landing]

8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think that's a very responsive reply to my questions:

"Do employers, or do employers not, have the right to define OTJ performance rules? 

Do the rules, or do the rules not, apply equally to players of all races?"

 

I think it indeed matters very much whether a written policy applies to every employee, regardless of race.

I also think it matters very much whether employers have the right to define OTJ performance rules.

 

I do appreciate your point about systemic racism but I think it's a mistake to impute systemic racism to everything one disagrees with.  The perceived need to protest may arise from systemic racism, but a rule specifying that all players must either stay in the locker room or, if on the field, stand for the national anthem, seems to me to fall into the realm of OTJ performance rules, as with the NBA where this has been a rule for some time.

I will say that I don't see this as either a first amendment issue, or one of patriotism, or legal issues. It's a labor dispute, and yes, employers most certainly have the right to dictate OTJ behavior. That doesn't come without caveats, however. There is a famous case with Disney, and a Muslim employee who was denied a job because of her religious requirement to wear a Hijab. Disney, obviously, has very strict dress codes. But, the SCOTUS found that Disney couldn't maintain a dress code, without accommodations, that disproportionately affected a protected class. Race is obviously a protected class. Could the argument be made that this NFL policy affects African Americans disproportionately? Or, could the argument be made that the policy was enacted, specifically, to affect the behavior of African American players?

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this policy challenged on these grounds.

[Reed83HOF]

38 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Maybe I wasn't clear in context.  Standing for the NA should be mandatory; there will be those players who don't like it and view it as them being forced to do something they don't like.  The rules and respect for game and country shouldn't be modified for a few.  Players who feel strongly about it should protest on their own time.

I do not view protesting (and protesters) in the proper time and place as snowflakes; many good things and freedoms have come from protesting wrongs.

 

This is the USA, my 2 grandparents fought in WW2 for my freedom to sit on my ass, stand up with a flag pole shoved up my a$$ and/or otherwise do as I choose. It's a free country where people have protected rights to protest and share their beliefs and freedom. That is what this country was founded on. Sounds like the people who are saying you should be forced to stand for the NA  #1 - need a history lesson on  what values and the vision for the country was founded on #2 - respect other peoples constitutionally free rights  #3 - instead of calling for the people who live in this country under those rules to leave, maybe, just maybe those who want to live contrary to  those protected beliefs should live and go live in one of the forcefully nationalized countries and most importantly #4 - turn of fu&K!ng Fox news...which by the way has nothing to do with actual and factual reporting of anything considered news.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said:

I will say that I don't see this as either a first amendment issue, or one of patriotism, or legal issues. It's a labor dispute, and yes, employers most certainly have the right to dictate OTJ behavior. That doesn't come without caveats, however. There is a famous case with Disney, and a Muslim employee who was denied a job because of her religious requirement to wear a Hijab. Disney, obviously, has very strict dress codes. But, the SCOTUS found that Disney couldn't maintain a dress code, without accommodations, that disproportionately affected a protected class. Race is obviously a protected class. Could the argument be made that this NFL policy affects African Americans disproportionately? Or, could the argument be made that the policy was enacted, specifically, to affect the behavior of African American players?

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this policy challenged on these grounds.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe that's one reason the owners did incorporate the "remain in the locker room" part of the rule.  That was intended to be a "reasonable accomodation" to someone who argued their personal political beliefs or personal experience as a member of a protected class did not allow them to stand for the anthem.

[K-9]

8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I could be wrong, but it seems to me the media would not accommodate any requests to cover the NFL anthem protest issue in any kind of neutral or non-inflammatory way.  It seems to me that today's media is all about "puffing up" issues and generating controversy VS factual reporting (question: has anyone heard much media coverage to the effect that NBA has had an anthem policy for years?)

What would be a neutral, non-inflammatory way?  A simple reporting of the facts should suffice. As in "so and so chose to stay in the locker room during the playing of the national anthem today. Players and team officials refused to comment."  Unfortunately, many people can't discern the difference between a report and an op/ed piece or, worse, don't even want to given the polarized viewpoints on any particular subject. Many out there would take that simple report as being anti-league when it didn't lean one way or the other, for example. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by K-9

[White Linen]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Don't want to get between you and MAJBobby here, but it seems to me you're implying that protest is inherently disrespectful.

Am I misunderstanding your intent here?

 

I'm saying it was intended to be disrespectful or whatever you want to call it, disruption, raise awareness through controversy, etc. 

 

It was meant to get attention to bring forward a conversation.  Saying that it didn't is actually disrespecting the protesters efforts - by saying no one should be offended so your conversation doesn't have a stage.  

 

Don't you agree?   

[Bruce_Stools]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

Sure but this is unhelpful to the discussion. Imagine if in every thread about the Bills' decisions you came in and said "the Bills can do what they want, and that's that. We are spectators and have no say." This wouldn't be a fun message board if that's what every discussion boiled down to. Likewise we shouldn't restrict this discussion only to what the league CAN do. Everyone agrees the NFL can set whatever anthem policy they want, where we disagree is what that policy SHOULD be.

I don’t believe it’s unhelpful at all. People want to talk about facts. If I decided to hold a protest, peaceful or not, at work I would be fired. Case closed. FACT.

 

I believe we all have these rights provided to us, but at work, you face the consequences of your actions. The players should be held to the same standards at the very least that I’m held to.  

 

Tell me why this is unimportant.  Tell me how you have the freedom to do whatever you want while “on the clock” without any consequence.  

 

In my opinion, which is worth less than $.02, this is the deciding factor on these players’ freedom of speech. It’s among the only facts that actually matter in this situation and it gets overlooked and understated at every turn.  

 

Some people think their feelings should trump facts.....not me

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

What would be a neutral, non-inflammatory way?  A simple reporting of the facts should suffice. As in "so and so chose to stay in the locker room during the playing of the national anthem today. Players and team officials refused to comment."  Unfortunately, many people can't discern the difference between a report and an op/ed piece or, worse, don't even want to given the polarized viewpoints on any particular subject. Many out there would take that simple report as being anti-league when it didn't lean one way or the other, for example. 

This is not how sports media is run.

 

"So and so chose to stay in the locker room, team refused to comment, now let's throw it over to our panel who will scream at each other with their opinions on the matter."

 

That's more like it.

[formerlyofCtown]

25 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Really want to talk Ethics..  Hmmm Former Owner of Panthers  Great ETHICS there.  Brandon what amazing ethics.  Irsay wow what a role model.  Jones yep wow what an ethical leader that guy is.

 

 

I agree.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, White Linen said:

 

I'm saying it was intended to be disrespectful or whatever you want to call it, disruption, raise awareness through controversy, etc. 

 

It was meant to get attention to bring forward a conversation.  Saying that it didn't is actually disrespecting the protesters efforts - by saying no one should be offended so your conversation doesn't have a stage.  

 

Don't you agree?   

 

I'm not sure if I agree or don't.  In a stunning and surprising development, I'm going to think about what you've said and reflect on how it aligns with what I've seen and experienced for a while, then I'll make up my mind about it  ?

 

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I could be wrong, but it seems to me the media would not accommodate any requests to cover the NFL anthem protest issue in any kind of neutral or non-inflammatory way.  It seems to me that today's media is all about "puffing up" issues and generating controversy VS factual reporting (question: has anyone heard much media coverage to the effect that NBA has had an anthem policy for years?)

What constitutes much? There have been several reports about the various anthem policies of teams in other sports.