NYC politician wants Bills+Giants to adopt Jets Anthem policy

[Hapless Bills Fan]

17 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Of course we should have the right to disrespect the flag, our national symbol, and everything it represents. Whether it’s right or proper and whether it is the correct way to protest social injustice is another matter.

 

See, another place where we agree.  We have the right...maybe not at work unless our employer is down with it.

I'm not sure what "correct way" means to you. I'd go with "not by itself a very effectivel way to protest social injustice", and perhaps you'd agree there too.

 

So that leaves us with "right" and "proper", and I'm not quite sure what that means to you.  It may bring us back to "disrespectful" (in your view)?  I would say if it's not something that has the "shock value" of being disruptive or disrespectful to some, it could be argued it's not a very effective protest - so "right" or "proper" = "effective" but I don't think that was your intended meaning?

[Sky Diver]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

See, another place where we agree.  We have the right...maybe not at work unless our employer is down with it.

I'm not sure what "correct way" means to you. I'd go with "not by itself a very effectivel way to protest social injustice", and perhaps you'd agree there too.

 

So that leaves us with "right" and "proper", and I'm not quite sure what that means to you.  It may bring us back to "disrespectful" (in your view)?  I would say if it's not something that has the "shock value" of being disruptive or disrespectful to some, it could be argued it's not a very effective protest - so "right" or "proper" = "effective" but I don't think that was your intended meaning?

 

The flag is an important symbol. Using it as a focal point for protest just serves to alienate people. Disrespecting a symbol that many hold sacred doesn’t seem like a good way to gain sympathy for your cause.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Success]

I’ll never understand why anyone was and is so offended by this.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

4 minutes ago, Success said:

I’ll never understand why anyone was and is so offended by this.

 

Because he is a multi millionaire raised in an upper middle class neighborhood, who has never experienced and never will experience American poverty, who made his millions playing a child's game, who then started preaching to his consumers on how they should think about American poverty...

 

He's basically the liberal Trump...

Edited June 3, 2018 by LikeIGiveADarn

[Success]

3 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Because he is a multi millionaire raised in an upper middle class neighborhood, who has never experienced and never will experience American poverty, who made his millions playing a child's game, who then started preaching to his consumers on how they should think about American poverty...

 

He's basically the liberal Trump...

If only the poor stood up for the poor, nothing would ever be done for the poor.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

6 minutes ago, Success said:

If only the poor stood up for the poor, nothing would ever be done for the poor. 

 

Problem is is that he isn't standing up for all the poor, only for certain member of the poor, which tends to piss off the rest of the poor.

[K-9]

11 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Because he is a multi millionaire raised in an upper middle class neighborhood, who has never experienced and never will experience American poverty, who made his millions playing a child's game, who then started preaching to his consumers on how they should think about American poverty...

 

He's basically the liberal Trump...

So a person’s upbringing, economic class, and eventual affluence precludes him from sympathizing with and seeking to effect change in a societal issue he finds important? Perhaps the single most narrow-minded viewpoint I’ve read since the debate started. 

[LikeIGiveADarn]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

So a person’s upbringing, economic class, and eventual affluence precludes him from sympathizing with and seeking to effect change in a societal issue he finds important? Perhaps the single most narrow-minded viewpoint I’ve read since the debate started. 

 

I'm not saying any of that, but I am saying that based on what I've read and seen of Kap, that HE doesn't understand it.

[BadLandsMeanie]

25 minutes ago, Success said:

If only the poor stood up for the poor, nothing would ever be done for the poor.

I keep vowing to keep my mouth shut on this topic. But  I keep chiming in! ?

 

For the issue of police violence towards black citizens, be it real or not or somewhere in between, I believe that the players think it is real.

 

So they are protesting something that they themselves feel could happen to them. Nothing wrong with that. But I think it should be said that they are acting in thier own self interest here. They think they too could get stopped and get shot for no good reason. 

 

Why it bugs me is because I am tuned in to the extremely high rate of death by gunshot wound of youngsters who are black and who live in certain urban areas. It is the leading cause of death in many areas. The rate is ten times higher than for other ethnic or racial groups in the large urban areas. 10 times higher than the already epidemic rate.

Many others are  caught in the crossfire and killed, including children. Hundreds.

 

But the music our players promote glorifies that lifestyle. So not only do they have they no problem with it, they love it. I'm a big tough guy because i have a gun and will shoot you if you disrespect me. They promote that. A very good percentage of them  sing about it, or listen to those who do. They put out team  videos of it. They adopt it as team theme songs that play in the stadiums and on TV. They practice to it. They promote their playlists of it on espn and sport illustrated websites (sponsored by Bose)

 

That is all in good fun because they are at zero risk from it. They don't have to live there any more, if they ever did.

 

So that is why the selfless sacrificing freedom fighter image grates on my nerves so bad.

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[BillsfaninSB]

10 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well, no, but the terms of your lease typically set out what you can or can't do and what the penalties are for breaking the terms. 

 

If you are a business leasing a property, the terms of your lease typically give you sole authority over access to the site (reserving the site owner's right to access and inspect) and both authority over and liability for employee and contractor behavior on-site.  So in the case of a Stadium lease, I would expect that the team's right to regulate and direct employees (specifically players) behavior while on the premises and so forth would be set out pretty clearly. 

 

I agree with you and your response is very well thought out. 

 

I was just tired of the argument that an NFL franchise is complete private and the owners can do whatever they want in their “house”. 

 

It’s not that black and white. 

[Wily Dog]

As I said in an earlier post that, is not the flag or the anthem that our servicemen fought and died for . It was for our RIGHTS. The Supreme Court has over and over again said that a citizen CAN  desecrate the flag. It is within our free speech right. I would not do it and the vast majority would not do it , but it is our right. It is our RIGHT To protest . Colin chose to protest in the manner he thought would draw attention to the  lack of justice for minorities . Unfortunately , the president decided to politicize his actions .This is what polarized the country. Even the president does not understand the constitution with regard to our rights. The posters who say that everyone must stand for the anthem and flag are only partially right, Active duty service people and  some contractual situations must stand . The NFL is between a rock and a hard place because any effort to legislate a dictum to the players , would make their correct null and void.

[Buffalo716]

9 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

As I said in an earlier post that, is not the flag or the anthem that our servicemen fought and died for . It was for our RIGHTS. The Supreme Court has over and over again said that a citizen CAN  desecrate the flag. It is within our free speech right. I would not do it and the vast majority would not do it , but it is our right. It is our RIGHT To protest . Colin chose to protest in the manner he thought would draw attention to the  lack of justice for minorities . Unfortunately , the president decided to politicize his actions .This is what polarized the country. Even the president does not understand the constitution with regard to our rights. The posters who say that everyone must stand for the anthem and flag are only partially right, Active duty service people and  some contractual situations must stand . The NFL is between a rock and a hard place because any effort to legislate a dictum to the players , would make their correct null and void.

 

But you don’t have full  freedom of speech when working.

 

i can’t say or do anything to my boss without repercussions at work. I’ll lose my job

[Wily Dog]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

But you don’t have full  freedom of speech when working.

 

i can’t say or do anything to my boss without repercussions at work. I’ll lose my job

you have freedom of speech but you may want to suppress it when you are at work unless it becomes untenable.

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, Wily Dog said:

you have freedom of speech but you may want to suppress it when you are at work unless it becomes untenable.

 

Correct. You can still say and do whatever but their will be consequences 

[ProcessAccepted]

On 6/1/2018 at 8:35 PM, Binghamton Beast said:

 

And, while they are at it, remind me of what they are doing about it besides kneeling.

 

Oh yeah, Kaepernick wore socks with pigs on them.

Surely the owners are adding a rule outlawing socks with pigs

[Sky Diver]

9 hours ago, Wily Dog said:

As I said in an earlier post that, is not the flag or the anthem that our servicemen fought and died for . It was for our RIGHTS. The Supreme Court has over and over again said that a citizen CAN  desecrate the flag. It is within our free speech right. I would not do it and the vast majority would not do it , but it is our right. It is our RIGHT To protest . Colin chose to protest in the manner he thought would draw attention to the  lack of justice for minorities . Unfortunately , the president decided to politicize his actions .This is what polarized the country. Even the president does not understand the constitution with regard to our rights. The posters who say that everyone must stand for the anthem and flag are only partially right, Active duty service people and  some contractual situations must stand . The NFL is between a rock and a hard place because any effort to legislate a dictum to the players , would make their correct null and void.

 

The flag is a symbol. We don't stand for the flag, per se, but what it represents.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Mr. WEO]

21 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

We just don’t agree on the “moving the needle” part. I don’t even disagree that it was grandstanding. With that being said, even if it got political, the conversation has taken place. I agree that the conversation primarily became about the anthem but his grievances are attached to that. It isn’t “no one talking about police brutality.” It is less than the kneeling but it is there. Even if 90% of the conversation is about the flag and 10% about race relations that 10% is 10% more than would have been there without kneeling. It has led to a ton of exposure and money. 

 

 

That's the part I disagree with--and which I addressed in my post exposing the cynicism of Kaep's late-to-the-movement protest.

 

This discussion has been front and center now and had been raging for 4 full years before he woke up to it.   He did so when his starting job and fame were not in jeopardy. 

 

"His grievances" didn't seem to exist before 2016, yet his stated issues were burning up front pages and dominating public discussion for years by that point.  So, he has added nothing to the topic he claims to be supporting or protesting---instead, he has opened a tangential discussion about patriotism, real or fake, about Trump and about owners vs players.

[Sky Diver]

The grievance industry provides a very good living for some people.

[Wily Dog]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

That's the part I disagree with--and which I addressed in my post exposing the cynicism of Kaep's late-to-the-movement protest.

 

This discussion has been front and center now and had been raging for 4 full years before he woke up to it.   He did so when his starting job and fame were not in jeopardy. 

 

"His grievances" didn't seem to exist before 2016, yet his stated issues were burning up front pages and dominating public discussion for years by that point.  So, he has added nothing to the topic he claims to be supporting or protesting---instead, he has opened a tangential discussion about patriotism, real or fake, about Trump and about owners vs players.

 

 

I don't agree with you calling Kaepernick  a cynic . The things he was protesting against have been in the news for a long time but, with the instant news and the shift in the political scene , the racism has proliferated in the time which you said. He has traded his position as a football player for a clarion of the oppressed. Not a lot of people would have the guts to do what he has done and history will remember him, Favorably .

 

[Mr. WEO]

56 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

 

 

I don't agree with you calling Kaepernick  a cynic . The things he was protesting against have been in the news for a long time but, with the instant news and the shift in the political scene , the racism has proliferated in the time which you said. He has traded his position as a football player for a clarion of the oppressed. Not a lot of people would have the guts to do what he has done and history will remember him, Favorably .

 

 

 

Well than perhaps I am the cynic for pointing out that his protest began only when his football career stalled. 

 

Racism certainly has not "proliferated" in this country in the less than two years since Kaepernick apparently discovered its existence.  But for those who get their news and views from social media--they could be excused for thinking what you claim is true.

 

Also, when you have 45 million in the bank, it gets real easy to fancy yourself a "clarion of the oppressed".  But he's not speaking for them--this whole kneeling/sitting/standing protest is solely about players vs owners at this point.  It occurred to none of these players until Kaep sat in 2016 that they should be protesting or sticking up for or doing anything at all for 'the oppressed".  They actually see themselves as the oppressed, since that CBA they couldn't wait to sign in 2011 was agreed upon.

[mannc]

20 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Almost certainly yes. I can't think of anything where it wouldn't . Maybe someone else could , so I'll leave it at almost. Just not the time or place for protests. Plenty of other opportunities to do so outside of the job. 

In other words, in your view, they can protest only when and where hardly anyone is paying attention.  Got it.  

 

They aren’t protesting during the game; they are protesting during a compelled act of allegiance to something they may or may not believe in.  To me, that seems like an appropriate time and place for a protest.

[Boatdrinks]

3 hours ago, mannc said:

In other words, in your view, they can protest only when and where hardly anyone is paying attention.  Got it.  

 

They aren’t protesting during the game; they are protesting during a compelled act of allegiance to something they may or may not believe in.  To me, that seems like an appropriate time and place for a protest.

Pretty much. It's not just my view though, it's the NFL's. Remember, we're talking about a business here. I don't really care if they believe in the " compelled" act of allegiance or not. If they don't, they can now stay inside so it's hardly compelled. I do know that I ( and others) don't believe in the crap they are spewing with their " protest". As a customer , I don't want their voice to be the only one heard when everyone is paying attention. No one else is allowed to set up shop next to them with an alternative viewpoint. It's really not the time or place for such things , and I stand by that. Why would a business want to involve themselves in such controversy? It doesn't matter if it's during the game, they are on the clock and the cameras are rolling , all too willingly to get their drivel out to the masses while they're representing a company that may not believe in that message. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Boatdrinks

[Wily Dog]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Well than perhaps I am the cynic for pointing out that his protest began only when his football career stalled. 

 

Racism certainly has not "proliferated" in this country in the less than two years since Kaepernick apparently discovered its existence.  But for those who get their news and views from social media--they could be excused for thinking what you claim is true.

 

Also, when you have 45 million in the bank, it gets real easy to fancy yourself a "clarion of the oppressed".  But he's not speaking for them--this whole kneeling/sitting/standing protest is solely about players vs owners at this point.  It occurred to none of these players until Kaep sat in 2016 that they should be protesting or sticking up for or doing anything at all for 'the oppressed".  They actually see themselves as the oppressed, since that CBA they couldn't wait to sign in 2011 was agreed upon.

 

I don't agree with your hypothesis that Kaepernicks career had stalled ,the 49 ers were going through a leadership change and were in effect getting old. Maybe he wasn't a fit for the niners anymore but a stalled career is because of a further calling and the lack of opportunity by NFL teams. Stay tuned for this because it isn't over.

It is ridiculous to think that the protest is a player /owner  thing. It is a racial protest or weren't you listening .The proliferation  of racism has increased in the last two years as the president  with his policies and actions  supports  it.

[Sky Diver]

3 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

 

I don't agree with your hypothesis that Kaepernicks career had stalled ,the 49 ers were going through a leadership change and were in effect getting old. Maybe he wasn't a fit for the niners anymore but a stalled career is because of a further calling and the lack of opportunity by NFL teams. Stay tuned for this because it isn't over.

It is ridiculous to think that the protest is a player /owner  thing. It is a racial protest or weren't you listening .The proliferation  of racism has increased in the last two years as the president  with his policies and actions  supports  it.

 

Kapernick began his protest during the pre-season of the 2016 season.. Our current president wasn't sworn into office until January 20, 2017.

 

He sat for the first three pre-season game and started kneeling during the 4th pre-season game.

[Tenhigh]

17 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

 

I don't agree with your hypothesis that Kaepernicks career had stalled ,the 49 ers were going through a leadership change and were in effect getting old. Maybe he wasn't a fit for the niners anymore but a stalled career is because of a further calling and the lack of opportunity by NFL teams. Stay tuned for this because it isn't over.

 

I dunno, he looked pretty terrible in 2015. https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/colin-kaepernick-49ers-start-chip-kelly-nfl-buffalo-stats-career-highlights-fantasy-101116

[Bob in STL]

Sure, let the Jets owners pay the players fine, and then let the  league throw a flag after the anthem.  

 

Jets kickoff 15 yards back from normal placement to start the first half. 

 

 

[keepthefaith]

5 hours ago, mannc said:

In other words, in your view, they can protest only when and where hardly anyone is paying attention.  Got it.  

 

They aren’t protesting during the game; they are protesting during a compelled act of allegiance to something they may or may not believe in.  To me, that seems like an appropriate time and place for a protest.

 

No, those players that want to protest or otherwise make their point can call a press conference for when they are not at work and use their celebrity to spread their message at that time or at other places and times.  The kneeling players are protesting while at work and in front of their employer's best customers.  A lot of customers don't like it so the business owners are now asking their employees not to do that while at work.  Work is generally not an appropriate place or time to wage one's personal non-work related protests. 

[Wily Dog]

1 hour ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Kapernick began his protest during the pre-season of the 2016 season.. Our current president wasn't sworn into office until January 20, 2017.

 

He sat for the first three pre-season game and started kneeling during the 4th pre-season game.

 

1 hour ago, Tenhigh said:

I dunno, he looked pretty terrible in 2015. https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/colin-kaepernick-49ers-start-chip-kelly-nfl-buffalo-stats-career-highlights-fantasy-101116

 

 

the conservatives took over congress in 2010 and the  policies of the federal government changed in regard to racism with this change. Since that time it has been status quo until trumps election. Do you honestly  think that the country is the same as it was before trumps election with regard to civil discourse.

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, Wily Dog said:

 

I don't agree with your hypothesis that Kaepernicks career had stalled ,the 49 ers were going through a leadership change and were in effect getting old. Maybe he wasn't a fit for the niners anymore but a stalled career is because of a further calling and the lack of opportunity by NFL teams. Stay tuned for this because it isn't over.

It is ridiculous to think that the protest is a player /owner  thing. It is a racial protest or weren't you listening .The proliferation  of racism has increased in the last two years as the president  with his policies and actions  supports  it.

 

Kaepernick basically chose another career when he carried on as he did and openly stated that he would continue and would accept the consequences.  Except now he doesn't like the consequences of not being able to find a football job so he is suing.  Not exactly a man of his word on that one.  Also, before you call anyone a racist (including our President) you had better have your facts together even from behind the veil of a computer.  That's a strong accusation.  If you can't back it up (and I doubt you can) don't say it. 

7 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

 

 

 

the conservatives took over congress in 2010 and the  policies of the federal government changed in regard to racism with this change. Since that time it has been status quo until trumps election. Do you honestly  think that the country is the same as it was before trumps election with regard to civil discourse.

 

So you're saying that the house and senate made changes after 2010 which were discriminatory to some races?  Were they law changes and did Obama sign off on them? 

[Wily Dog]

 

12 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Kaepernick basically chose another career when he carried on as he did and openly stated that he would continue and would accept the consequences.  Except now he doesn't like the consequences of not being able to find a football job so he is suing.  Not exactly a man of his word on that one.  Also, before you call anyone a racist (including our President) you had better have your facts together even from behind the veil of a computer.  That's a strong accusation.  If you can't back it up (and I doubt you can) don't say it. 

 

So you're saying that the house and senate made changes after 2010 which were discriminatory to some races?  Were they law changes and did Obama sign off on them? 

 

I did not say that any legislation was passed with regard to rights and i believe the senate majority leader said that he wanted Obama to be a one term president. A lot of the things that were done were by  presidential executive actions which trump has reminded.. and I am done with the civics lesson.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Wily Dog said:

 

I don't agree with your hypothesis that Kaepernicks career had stalled ,the 49 ers were going through a leadership change and were in effect getting old. Maybe he wasn't a fit for the niners anymore but a stalled career is because of a further calling and the lack of opportunity by NFL teams. Stay tuned for this because it isn't over.

It is ridiculous to think that the protest is a player /owner  thing. It is a racial protest or weren't you listening .The proliferation  of racism has increased in the last two years as the president  with his policies and actions  supports  it.

 

 

He had been replaced, in consecutive seasons, by Blane Gabbert.  That is the definition of a stalled career.  You couldn't be more wrong there.

 

As for "proliferation of racism" having "increased" over the past 2 years--it's a baseless claim.  Only the exposure of racists acts, through social media, has increased---and it began well before Kaepernick decided to tell us all about the racism he suddenly was upset enough with to sit down during the anthem.

 

Perhaps you are a younger poster and it seems to you, because you see events recorded on social media (that we all have seen as well), that racism is "proliferating".  But, sadly, this is not true.  It has existed, without video documentation, for generations.  Claiming that the election of a mental dwarf like Trump has stimulated some latent racism in the rest of America is naive and very telling of the current young adult generation's lack of firm grasp of this country's history....

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

 

 

I did not say that any legislation was passed with regard to rights and i believe the senate majority leader said that he wanted Obama to be a one term president. A lot of the things that were done were by  presidential executive actions which trump has reminded.. and I am done with the civics lesson.

You suggested racism was a post-2010 policy of the government, and cited a republican (presumably) majority leader was hoping the democrat president was gone after his first term.

 

 I don't ever recall leadership from any party publically cheering on a president from the opposite party to win reelection.  I thought that was the point of being from a different party.   Its like the cereal wars: Captain Crunch isn't out telling kids to buy up all the Count Chokula, but I don't think that makes him a racist. 

 

Worst....civics lesson....ever. 

[Sky Diver]

90% of the evening news reporting about Trump is negative, yet his job approval rating is going up.

 

People are tuning out the mainstream media as they realize it is a propaganda arm of the DNC.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, mannc said:

In other words, in your view, they can protest only when and where hardly anyone is paying attention.  Got it.  

 

They aren’t protesting during the game; they are protesting during a compelled act of allegiance to something they may or may not believe in.  To me, that seems like an appropriate time and place for a protest.

 

Since not one of them thought this was worth "believing" in before 2016, it is as easy to question their allegiance to their current "protest".

[Wily Dog]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You suggested racism was a post-2010 policy of the government, and cited a republican (presumably) majority leader was hoping the democrat president was gone after his first term.

 

 I don't ever recall leadership from any party publically cheering on a president from the opposite party to win reelection.  I thought that was the point of being from a different party.   Its like the cereal wars: Captain Crunch isn't out telling kids to buy up all the Count Chokula, but I don't think that makes him a racist. 

 

Worst....civics lesson....ever. 

 

41 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

90% of the evening news reporting about Trump is negative, yet his job approval rating is going up.

 

People are tuning out the mainstream media as they realize it is a propaganda arm of the DNC.

 

35 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Since not one of them thought this was worth "believing" in before 2016, it is as easy to question their allegiance to their current "protest".

 

i am sure now that a civics lesson would be a waste of time.

[mannc]

45 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Since not one of them thought this was worth "believing" in before 2016, it is as easy to question their allegiance to their current "protest".

So by not protesting sooner, they waived their right to protest?  Interesting theory.  In your opinion, when would the protests have had to begin in order to be timely?  Would you support their right to protest if the protests had begun in 2014? 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You suggested racism was a post-2010 policy of the government, and cited a republican (presumably) majority leader was hoping the democrat president was gone after his first term.

 

 I don't ever recall leadership from any party publically cheering on a president from the opposite party to win reelection.  I thought that was the point of being from a different party.   Its like the cereal wars: Captain Crunch isn't out telling kids to buy up all the Count Chokula, but I don't think that makes him a racist. 

 

Worst....civics lesson....ever. 

The point he was trying to make I think is that the obstruction by the Republicans after the '10 elections was unprecedented creating this gridlock that still endures today because the idea of working with the other side on common ground won't win you reelection.  You're right about the racism though.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

[This is an automated response]The thread is no longer focused on football-related topics and therefore the discussion has been closed.  General discussions of politics, elections, mainstream media etc, may take place in PPP or in thousands of other forums on the internet.   Thank you.