National Anthem Solution

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

The reason this "protest" is so divisive is because anything race related gets divisive.  And that is exacerbated by the current sitting president.

Go ahead and keep feeling aggrieved if you'd like.  We'll all try to work around your sensitivities.  Just let us all know when you've decided that 'your world' is good enough for you to stand up again.....we'll all wait.

[C.Biscuit97]

8 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

They cater to their customers and that is ethical that is what you are supposed to do as a business.  These players have no ethics and don't care what the people paying think or how they feel.  They are what they claim to hate.  A bunch of hypocrits. it's ironic that I made a legitimate point and no one empathises with me.  The funny part is you actually think they care,.

So Kaepernick (who I agree is a flawed messenger) who was willing to give up millions of dollars a year to bring awareness to social injustice has no ethics?  

[MAJBobby]

8 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

They cater to their customers and that is ethical that is what you are supposed to do as a business.  These players have no ethics and don't care what the people paying think or how they feel.  They are what they claim to hate.  A bunch of hypocrits. it's ironic that I made a legitimate point and no one empathises with me.  The funny part is you actually think they care,.

 

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.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan
politics -> ppp

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

In a vacuum, sure. In the wider context of society (which is where the meme originated)  - I’ve yet to see what the acceptable version of protesting looks like, especially for minorities. The goal line seems to change frequently. 

 

That's a valid point.   We've lived through that discussion 2x recently here in St Louis.

 

It's a bit beyond the scope of football-related political discussion I believe.

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Of they can all not protest like the NBA mandates.

Want to know why there is NO issues in the NBA over this.....  Because the Players actually TRUST the ownership and the league.

3 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

You are missing the part where if they don’t want to participate they can stay in the locker room without punishment

Sure you mean until 45 keeps up his deport them claim he has already said ONCE, about them being in the lockeroom

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

Want to know why there is NO issues in the NBA over this.....  Because the Players actually TRUST the ownership and the league.

Sure you mean until 45 keeps up his deport them claim he has already said ONCE, about them being in the lockeroom

 

So this is really about trump not the anthem policy 

[Rocky Landing]

27 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Very nice, but IMO a nice red herring here.

 

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?

The response would be that systemic racism isn't in writing. But, if there is a policy that affects one race over another, or (as in this case) a policy that is put in place as a result of a protest against racism by members of a certain race, it really doesn't matter if the written policy applies to every race. That is one of the elements of systemic racism, and also (IMO) one reason it is so easily dismissed by those who don't want to acknowledge its existence.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Want to know why there is NO issues in the NBA over this.....  Because the Players actually TRUST the ownership and the league.

Sure you mean until 45 keeps up his deport them claim he has already said ONCE, about them being in the lockeroom

 

and that has what to do with police mistreating  blacks??

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

So this is really about trump not the anthem policy 

Owners even Confirmed his name was brought up in the meetings, so cannot have one without the other can you.

[Happy]

13 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Maybe your friend group.  You honestly think most people of color feel this way?  Pretty naive to think that.  

 

And nascar lost a lot of ratings. Probably because of those kneelers they have.

 

Don't know the breakdown of people of color vs whites who feel this way.  Not all white people think the players should stand, like not all people of color think they should kneel; I'm not being naive here.

The players should just refrain from kneeling - the whole situation would soon be forgotten.  They don't have to like the NA, or even pay attention.  We all have to do things we don't like

Edited May 25, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan
politics -> ppp

[CodeMonkey]

6 hours ago, That_Guy said:

If the NFL cared about losing TV ratings over this, like they claim they are and do, it's an easy fix:

 

At the stadium: Do the anthem as normal and let people sit/stand/kneel if that's what they want

On TV: when the stadium anthem starts, cut to some cheesy b-roll video montage of flags waving gently in the breeze and eagles soaring majestically while an audio recording of the anthem is played over it.

 

Once the issue is out of sight out of mind to the TV viewer the ratings should come back and all is well.

Or, play commercials during the anthem.  The "controversy" fades away like you said, and they make money at the same time.  Win-win.

[MAJBobby]

So Instead of Kneeling. Fine stay in the locker room.

 

Now whenever you are interviewed I would LOVE for a player to make it all about these social injustices instead of canned coach speak, would that make everyone happy.  It isn't "disrespecting" the flag.  Is that OK?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

What Employer FORCES mandatory participation in the Anthem or Pledge before a meeting?  Go ahead and find me that first, once you can tell me that you can then explain to me how standing for a Song is appropriate use of Office time for a football player, wouldn't that be getting treatment, stretching last minute prep?

 

The NBA for one:

" Page 60 of the NBA Rule Book states that, "Players, coaches and trainers are to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or on the foul line during the playing of the National Anthem." Thus, the NBA could be placed in a very difficult situation in the near future, especially if it chooses to rely upon precedent. In 1996, former NBA Commissioner David Stern suspended Mahmoud Abdul-Raul when he sat during the National Anthem. "

[BringBackOrton]

17 minutes ago, K-9 said:

The points are often conflated due to the overlying principle at the crux of the argument; the right to protest or not. Is it really a surprise that people may not appreciate that private companies are allowed to mandate employee behavior? Is that what really angers you about the issue; that people don't have that understanding? 

 

Yes, people are allowed to be hypocrites. It would be hell for so many if that weren't so. As this debate has clearly illustrated. 

I'm not angry. I would look to the posters in this arena, and who among them are inflammatory in their ignorance.  

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Owners even Confirmed his name was brought up in the meetings, so cannot have one without the other can you.

 

Of course his name was brought up. The sitting president was commenting on the issue. That doesn’t mean they made their rule just to placate him. 

 

They stood against him last year with the remarks he made, so I would have to believe while it may have been a factor, I don’t think it was that big of one.

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Of course his name was brought up. The sitting president was commenting on the issue. That doesn’t mean they made their rule just to placate him. 

 

They stood against him last year with the remarks he made, so I would have to believe while it may have been a factor, I don’t think it was that big of one.

OK lets say EVERY time a player is interviewed they talk about social injustice is that an OK time to bring it up.  I mean after all they would be respecting the flag right?

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

So this is really about trump not the anthem policy 

The kneeling started before President Trump was elected.  Everything is not about Trump! (Unless of course you're watching CNN.)

[Rocky Landing]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

The kneeling started before President Trump was elected.  Everything is not about Trump! (Unless of course you're watching CNN.)

To insinuate that the statements that Trump has made, and the effect they have had, was not a part of this policy change is naive, at best-- more likely disingenuous.

[blacklabel]

5 hours ago, CountDorkula said:

but hey its about Patriotism right?

 

https://thinkprogress.org/nfl-dod-national-anthem-6f682cebc7cd/

 

As recently as 2015, the Department of Defense was doling out millions to the NFL for such things as military flyovers, flag unfurlings, emotional color guard ceremonies, enlistment campaigns, and — interestingly enough — national anthem performances. Additionally, according to Vice, the NFL’s policy on players standing for the national anthem also changed in 2009, with athletes “encouraged”thereafter to participate. Prior to that, teams were not given any specific instructions on the matter; some chose to remain in the locker room until after opening ceremonies were completed. (It’s unclear whether the policy change was implemented as a direct result of any Defense Department contracts.)

In 2015, Arizona Sens. Jeff Flake (R) and John McCain (R) revealed in a joint oversight report that nearly $5.4 million in taxpayer dollars had been paid out to 14 NFL teams between 2011 and 2014 to honor service members and put on elaborate, “patriotic salutes” to the military. Overall, they reported, “these displays of paid patriotism [were] included within the $6.8 million that the Department of Defense (DOD) [had] spent on sports marketing contracts since fiscal year 2012.”

Among the more wasteful expenditures were a payment to the Atlanta Falcons to have a National Guard member sing the national anthem and a payment to the Minnesota Vikings for the “‘opportunity’ to sponsor its military appreciation night.”

 

I was going to post this. If anyone is truly upset about the situation, be upset at the government. Before 2011, teams waited in the locker room while the anthem was sung. As the article linked above states, the government approached the NFL with a bunch of money to start adding more "patriotism" to the game. Wasting taxpayer money to influence sports teams to show more patriotism isn't really patriotic. 

 

The same mouthbreathers that get their crusty old underoos in a bunch over the kneeling are the same buncha mongoloids who are getting beer and nacho cheese all over their dumpster-fresh jerseys as the anthem is being sung. 

 

To see some people so enraged by this is just mind-boggling. There are hundreds of other things on the "Reasons to be Angry" sh!tlist that are ahead of "athlete kneels during anthem." Cripes, if you're that worked up, use your energy to do something positive instead of parading around screeching, "Back in my day, we stood! And they should stand, or else!" Or else what? Hit 'em with consequences like this?:

 

German football club banned from playing games for failing to give Nazi salute.

 

There's no law that says anyone has to stand whenever the anthem is being sung. If you wanna consider someone disrespectful because they didn't stand, that's fine, you can have that opinion. What you can't do is start berating/belittling/threatening/insulting, etc. someone who doesn't stand, because that's obviously far more disrespectful than kneeling during the anthem. Doing sh!t like that makes you a total hypocrite and clearly puts on display your astronomical lack of comprehension and idiocy.

 

In the grand scheme of things, this crap is SO friggin' small and insignificant that it's astounding how it's still making headlines. 

[Happy]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

So a protester is a snowflake; and letting one protest means they're being coddled?  Just seeking clarification.

 

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.

[K-9]

I'm curious as to whether the NFL's new policy regarding the anthem will have the desired outcome of putting the issue to rest as the media will continue to report on who is deciding to stay in the locker room. Will those players be any less vilified by those that find their protests reprehensible? A very small percentage of players actually participated in the kneeling protests and look at the outrage that engendered. By giving the players the option to stay in the locker room, I think there is the potential for MORE players to do that than actually took a knee during the anthem.

 

It won't be long before not showing up for the anthem will be even worse that kneeling for it. 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

To insinuate that the statements that Trump has made, and the effect they have had, was not a part of this policy change is naive, at best-- more likely disingenuous.

It's neither naïve or disingenuous.  Have you heard much from Black Lives Matter lately?  All of those protests happened while President Obama was in office.  That doesn't make Obama good, or Trump bad...or vice versa.  Once again, the actions of your local Police Department are not under the jurisdiction or control of the President of the United States!  Are we not teaching basic government in schools anymore?

[Bray Wyatt]

7 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

OK lets say EVERY time a player is interviewed they talk about social injustice is that an OK time to bring it up.  I mean after all they would be respecting the flag right?

 

While I do find it mildly disrespectful to kneel during the anthem etc. that’s my personal view and I respect that others may not feel that way. 

 

Im not sure how the employer/employee relationship works with regards to interviews (like I’m sure there has to be some sort of distinction between post game interviews and others) but if they were of the kind that is not under employee mandate or if the employer doesn’t care about the kind that are,  then sure why not?

[BringBackOrton]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I'm curious as to whether the NFL's new policy regarding the anthem will have the desired outcome of putting the issue to rest as the media will continue to report on who is deciding to stay in the locker room. Will those players be any less vilified by those that find their protests reprehensible? A very small percentage of players actually participated in the kneeling protests and look at the outrage that engendered. By giving the players the option to stay in the locker room, I think there is the potential for MORE players to do that than actually took a knee during the anthem.

 

It won't be long before not showing up for the anthem will be even worse that kneeling for it. 

The NFL will put out memos to ESPN and their reporters to not comment on the lack of attendance.

[Bill from NYC]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I'm curious as to whether the NFL's new policy regarding the anthem will have the desired outcome of putting the issue to rest as the media will continue to report on who is deciding to stay in the locker room. Will those players be any less vilified by those that find their protests reprehensible? A very small percentage of players actually participated in the kneeling protests and look at the outrage that engendered. By giving the players the option to stay in the locker room, I think there is the potential for MORE players to do that than actually took a knee during the anthem.

 

It won't be long before not showing up for the anthem will be even worse that kneeling for it. 

I don't dispute the possibility of the above. I do however think that if it DOES happen, the owners are going to lose tens of millions of dollars.

[K-9]

9 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

I'm not angry. I would look to the posters in this arena, and who among them are inflammatory in their ignorance.  

Inflammatory in their ignorance. Such fluidity of prose. 

 

So, you're not angry. OK, then what? Certainly, the people defending the actions of the protesting players has struck some kind of emotion in you so how would you label it?

 

Anyway, my question remains; is it the fact that people don't have an appreciation for the difference between their guaranteed rights granted by the Constitution vs. what behaviors a private employer can mandate to its employees really the reason for your reaction (however you want to label it)? 

[formerlyofCtown]

20 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

So Kaepernick (who I agree is a flawed messenger) who was willing to give up millions of dollars a year to bring awareness to social injustice has no ethics?  

No I think he thought the subject was going to make him untouchable.  Then he could say that he wasn't the starter because of racism.  But I'm done with this topic it's political and doesn't belong here.  If you allow a political subject it's gonna get political.  And when dealing with Buffalo my opinion is not popular and I am subject to abuse of power.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

The response would be that systemic racism isn't in writing. But, if there is a policy that affects one race over another, or (as in this case) a policy that is put in place as a result of a protest against racism by members of a certain race, it really doesn't matter if the written policy applies to every race. That is one of the elements of systemic racism, and also (IMO) one reason it is so easily dismissed by those who don't want to acknowledge its existence.

 

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.

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

While I do find it mildly disrespectful to kneel during the anthem etc. that’s my personal view and I respect that others may not feel that way. 

 

Im not sure how the employer/employee relationship works with regards to interviews (like I’m sure there has to be some sort of distinction between post game interviews and others) but if they were of the kind that is not under employee mandate or if the employer doesn’t care about the kind that are,  then sure why not?

So employers can even dictate what to say.

 

NFL Cannot tell them what to say, Beast Mode. "I am here to not get Fined"  So they have to show for their interview, use that Interview as the platform players, watch how many people still get pissed because this is about the message not how they are bringing it to light.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

The NFL will put out memos to ESPN and their reporters to not comment on the lack of attendance.

Will the league put out memos to every other media outlet as well?

[Gugny]

@Happy Gilmore - Thanks for clarifying.  I'm actually not rock solid in my stance, as far as athletes using game time as the time/place to protest.  I do respect that the protests have been peaceful and quiet.

 

I have never been a fan of any athlete using game time (or broadcast time, in general) to push any agenda.  I could not stand when Tebow did his praying thing when he knew the cameras would be rolling.

 

In my opinion, this became a bigger issue once the white house inserted themselves into this.  Although that's this current administration, I've been critical of other administrations (dem and gop) for chiming in on issues they should not have.

 

We will never know, but I think that, had this remained an NFL situation and not a President vs. NFL situation, it would not have come to this new policy.

 

Most of me truly believes that an athlete who is a U.S. citizen is still a U.S. citizen first and he should be able to exercise his rights in a peaceful, quiet manner whenever he chooses; as long as it doesn't happen between the lines, during game time.

 

But I do understand points of view like yours.

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So employers can even dictate what to say.

 

NFL Cannot tell them what to say, Beast Mode. "I am here to not get Fined"  So they have to show for their interview, use that Interview as the platform players, watch how many people still get pissed because this is about the message not how they are bringing it to light.

 

I said, I am not sure what the laws are in regards to that. If there are laws that dictate things such as that they should be abided is all I was saying.

 

If there are no such laws, then sure they can say what they want

Edited May 25, 2018 by Bray Wyatt

[boyst]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Good point, here. These same yahoos decrying such disrespect for our flag, will have no problem wearing their flag underwear, flag socks, flag speedos, etc., while picnicking on their flag blankets and drinking beer out of their flag cozies. 

 

Let us now await the replies from those who claim that if it's not made from an actual flag, then it's not disrespectful of the flag in the least; that it's perfectly OK to wear it, sit on it, or even make toilet paper out of it. 

Canine you're smart enough to realize this isn't about disrespecting the flag it's about stupid social causes in a false narrative issue being pushed into the sports realm that people just don't want to have to deal with

 

The low fruits like to claim it's about the flag because that's all they can cling to, when you're only so far off the ground I guess it makes sense. But it's not about the flag and it's not about disrespect for most people, it's about just being annoying petulant children playing a children's game

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

@Happy Gilmore - Thanks for clarifying.  I'm actually not rock solid in my stance, as far as athletes using game time as the time/place to protest.  I do respect that the protests have been peaceful and quiet.

 

I have never been a fan of any athlete using game time (or broadcast time, in general) to push any agenda.  I could not stand when Tebow did his praying thing when he knew the cameras would be rolling.

 

In my opinion, this became a bigger issue once the white house inserted themselves into this.  Although that's this current administration, I've been critical of other administrations (dem and gop) for chiming in on issues they should not have.

 

We will never know, but I think that, had this remained an NFL situation and not a President vs. NFL situation, it would not have come to this new policy.

 

Most of me truly believes that an athlete who is a U.S. citizen is still a U.S. citizen first and he should be able to exercise his rights in a peaceful, quiet manner whenever he chooses; as long as it doesn't happen between the lines, during game time.

 

But I do understand points of view like yours.

Devil's advocate question: Does the NFL use the anthem during "broadcast time" to push any agenda? 

[boyst]

3 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

So employers can even dictate what to say.

 

NFL Cannot tell them what to say, Beast Mode. "I am here to not get Fined"  So they have to show for their interview, use that Interview as the platform players, watch how many people still get pissed because this is about the message not how they are bringing it to light.

If these players were to start talking about being vegetarian, or supporting the rights of Aboriginal tribes in Australia or anything where they just beat the drum over and over again they would be the same results.

 

That those who hate America and freedom, like you, don't see that is not surprising. It's that people just don't give a damn what dumb jocks think

[Gugny]

Just now, K-9 said:

Devil's advocate question: Does the NFL use the anthem during "broadcast time" to push any agenda? 

 

I honestly don't know.

 

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

[boyst]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

I honestly don't know.

 

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

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

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

I said, I am not sure what the laws are in regards to that. If there are laws that dictate things such as that they should be abided is all I was saying.

 

If there are no such laws, then sure they can say what they want

 

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

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

I said, I am not sure what the laws are in regards to that. If there are laws that dictate things such as that they should be abided is all I was saying.

 

If there are no such laws, then sure they can say what they want

 

I would love players to start using these interviews as that. 

 

You will quickly see the outrage isnt about some mythical flag disrespect 

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

If these players were to start talking about being vegetarian, or supporting the rights of Aboriginal tribes in Australia or anything where they just beat the drum over and over again they would be the same results.

 

That those who hate America and freedom, like you, don't see that is not surprising. It's that people just don't give a damn what dumb jocks think

 

So I hate America and Freedom. Ha ha ha. Sure 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Inflammatory in their ignorance. Such fluidity of prose. 

 

So, you're not angry. OK, then what? Certainly, the people defending the actions of the protesting players has struck some kind of emotion in you so how would you label it?

 

Anyway, my question remains; is it the fact that people don't have an appreciation for the difference between their guaranteed rights granted by the Constitution vs. what behaviors a private employer can mandate to its employees really the reason for your reaction (however you want to label it)? 

Hey, thanks!  

 

The emotion invoked would I guess be frustrated?  I find it frustrating that folks who are unaware of what rights are, and who they are guaranteed by, and what constitutes a right versus privilege, are the ones who are attempting to dictate the rights of others.  I find it frustrating that the NFL exercising their moral right is compared to Nazism, which is a slap in the face to any victim of true Nazism.  I find it frustrating that the NFL is accused of "hating blacks protesting injustice," when they are a business who are attempting to protect their bottom line.  I find it frustrating that this new anthem policy is such an issue, when anthem policies have clear precedent.

 

I find that issues like this blur the line between Invisible Hand and mob rule.  And that frustrates me most of all.  Folks look at this issue and say "look at the larger picture."  Maybe that's what I'm doing as well, just from a different angle.

 

Does that answer your question?  I suspect it may, but I can delve deeper if you wish.

Just now, K-9 said:

Will the league put out memos to every other media outlet as well?

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