YOU'RE FIRED!

[Lexicus]

No, you are dead wrong about this, but we aren't going to agree... I think the POTUS exerts considerable influence and the concept of implied orders applies to Trump's comments... "Will no one rid me of these meddlesome NFL players?!?"... on the other hand you want to make a technical argument about his black letter legal authority as if that was all the power he had. Its the classic internets oldie-but-goodie... technical vs. practical... and in my experience, the argument goes round and round with both people repeating themselves... so let's get off this merry go round... its going nowhere.

And on this note...
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/10/national-anthem-nfl-owners-rule-change-players-stand-update

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And on this note...
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/10/national-anthem-nfl-owners-rule-change-players-stand-update

Like many of our fans, we believe that everyone should stand for the National Anthem. It is an important moment in our game. We want to honor our flag and our country, and our fans expect that of us. We also care deeply about our players and respect their opinions and concerns about critical social issues. The controversy over the Anthem is a barrier to having honest conversations and making real progress on the underlying issues. We need to move past this controversy, and we want to do that together with our players.

Good, good. You'll see, once standing is made mandatory, those nasty barriers will be removed and an honest conversation will take place. Mark my words. Trump will stop tweeting instantly.

What a load of bollocks.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The controversy over the Anthem is a barrier to having honest conversations and making real progress on the underlying issues.

Before I read Ziggy's post, I was prompted to hone in on the same statement from the league spokesperson. This way of framing the issue is preparing to end the "controversy over the anthem" by mandating that the players not kneel. But the players kneeling is not the "controversy over the anthem"; the "controversy over the anthem" was started by the President's comments over the players kneeling. A change in NFL rules can't constrain the President from making comments, and in any case, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube regarding the controversy he's already stirred up. All the NFL can do is prevent one party in the controversy, the protesting players, from expressing its opinions. Doing that won't make the controversy go away. I, for one, will stop watching NFL games* if the league mandates that players stand during the anthem. if they knuckle under to this knuckle-head. Nothing can make the controversy go away; we are in the midst of the controversy. But nor is the controversy a "barrier to having honest conversations"; the controversy is a conversation on this issue. I have no idea how much "real progress" that controversy will result in. But I can almost guarantee that stifling one side of the controversy won't result in any real progress. So don't invoke "real progress" as your grounds for mandating that players stand.

So, in a word, in Ziggy's nice word: bollocks.

*I have to confess, I'm already this close** anyway, due to the whole concussion issue.

**imagine me holding my thumb and index finger with only a very small gap between them.

 

[Bamspeedy]

This so called "poorly chosen target" is a multi-week media spectacle with hundreds of millions of viewers and national reach to get the message out... You couldn't find a better platform to raise awareness on a topic if you tried... Its basically the perfect medium to raise awareness on this topic.

Once again... don't like the who/what, gonna dislike the how, regardless... pfft, please... "poorly chosen topic"... That's nonsense.

All I hear on the radio is 'protest', 'respect the flag' and 'Should Kaepernick play'. I hear very little talk of the reason for the protest.

The NBA and NCAA boycotted North Carolina until they changed their disgusting anti-trans laws. The boycott by international sport of Apartheid South Africa probably helped bring it down. Sport leagues can exert political pressure.

I reckon one NFL game refusing police protection, locking out fans, playing to an empty stadium in response to a miscarriage of justice after a racialised murder in a given city could help spur that city to reform. No doubt the owners wouldn't go for that, but it doesn't mean it mightn't be effective

The NCAA game(s) were neutral sites, so moving the games were not causing a team to lose it's 'home field advantage'. The NBA moved it's all-star game. The NFL doesn't have neutral-field games, with very few exceptions. The games in London and Mexico City, a team is considered the 'home' team, but those games could be moved and a team won't really lose it's advantage (but then, what did London or Mexico City do to deserve losing the chance to host the game?), the pro-bowl which was always played in Hawaii before very recently moving to Pheonix and then of course there is the Super Bowl.
And the NCAA and NBA were correct in their target, they penalized the state (and not a team) because of what the state did.

NFL game refusing police protection? I bet their insurance carrier would really love to hear about that.

Locking out fans, playing to an empty stadium, yeah, you are targetting the city so I could understand it, but like you say, the owner won't go along with that. The fans would hate the lock-out and everyone involved in it, but they don't really have a choice if the owner locks them out.

The offense is purely artificial. This has nothing to do with the country, military men, the flag or even the national anthem. These are red herrings Trump had introduced so he can play the part of patriotic country loving America, which he isn't. And you know he isn't because Trump recently used that most sacred of American rituals as a political tool when he send Pence to prance in front of the camera during that Colts game.

This is about police brutality. Period. Anything else is dragged kicking and screaming against it's will into the debate by Trump. Because this is a hot topic he can spin to make himself look good. Diverting attention from his woeful presidency.

You do know people were talking about this for a year before Trump threw in his two cents, right?
He may be finally talking about it to distract from his own failings, but he wasn't the one who started the debate about whether kneeling to the flag is offensive.

So you "don't trust mobs to distribute justice fairly" but you trust "faulty wiring" and "karma kicking him in the rear" to distribute justice fairly? You're really contorting your logic here to defend Nazis on the one hand and say "Meh" to the NFL players on the other.

Nah, I didn't mean karma would distribute justice fairly but I can see why one would think that with how I wrote it. I was talking of what is the right thing to do and sympathy. Mob mentality is usually not the right thing to do, and my chances of having sympathy for someone increases if they are a victim of a mob. Accuse me of being a 'law and order' type, would it not make sense I would be against vigilantes burning down houses and punching people in the face?
How much of a stretch is it from you being quick to lump anyone who defends a nazi's right to speak and a nazi together and label them the same, thus the defender of speech also deserves a punch to the face or his house burned down.

Well first off...you don't get your electricity from "the government". But more importantly, losing your utilities, your home and then your children are just some of the potential consequences of losing your livelihood. So I say again, why so apoplectic about a person getting punched for their views but so "meh" about a person losing their livelihood and with it their home, utilities, etc, for those views? Why the arbitrary line around "punched in the face"?

What right does someone have to go around and punch people? Why does the puncher get to decide what people can and cannot say?

An employer can have expections of an employee (especially when 'on the job' and in uniform) as part of the deal for their pay. Don't like it, then work somewhere else, if the expectations are too great, nobody will work for that employer.

I feel sick when I watch the guy in Seattle get stalked and then punched and knocked out for wearing the nazi armband. What if that guy was mentally ill? What if that guy had been my brother that someone thought it would be funny to trick him into wearing the armband, and him and his learning disabilities not knowing any better, went along with it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You do know people were talking about this for a year before Trump threw in his two cents, right?
He may be finally talking about it to distract from his own failings, but he wasn't the one who started the debate about whether kneeling to the flag is offensive.

Ok, he didn't introduce it. Fair enough.

 

[Zkribbler]

The league and the union have met. They had a "very productive meeting," and decided to do nothing.

 

[FriendlyFire]

WELP
At least trump didnt kneel when the national antheme played.

‘Disrespectful lie’: Anger grows over Trump’s claims about past presidents and fallen troops

Anger sparked by President Trump’s false claims on Monday that Barack Obama and other past presidents did not reach out to families of fallen American troops swelled into the night.

Near midnight Monday, former U.S. attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr., who in 2009 accompanied Obama to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to witness the return of 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan, tweeted for Trump to “stop the damn lying.” He added, “I went to Dover AFB with 44 and saw him comfort the families of both the fallen military & DEA.”

When asked by a reporter why he had not spoken publicly about the four U.S. Special Forces members who were killed in an ambush in Niger nearly two weeks ago, Trump responded that he was going to send their families letters, which were drafted over the weekend, and he justified his behavior by referring to the practices of other presidents.

“If you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls. A lot of them didn’t make calls. I like to call when it’s appropriate, when I think I am able to do it,” he said. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker judged his description “false.”

Ben Rhodes, who served as Obama’s deputy national security adviser, called the statement “an outrageous and disrespectful lie even by Trump standards.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.df905a19a165#comments

 

[Berzerker]

The second question was referencing your pointing out to me that you were the one who started the thread.

Okay...I still dont understand the question. What does the 'religious thing' have to do with posting history?

Now I don't understand your second question. It sounds a little like youre projecting your position onto me, then asking me to defend your position as if it was my own... but maybe I missed something. Again, my position on the Klan is thus... Eff those Ay-holes. I'm not sure what is vague or ambiguous about that. Maybe you're trying to be cute or clever somehow? Let me know...

Well, I'm assuming you'd defend the Klan from being rounded up and executed. Due process, trials, a constitutional process by which they are afforded rights, etc. You know, the same rights you want and deserve. So why do you defend the Klan?

 

[Commodore]

No, you are dead wrong about this, but we aren't going to agree... I think the POTUS exerts considerable influence and the concept of implied orders applies to Trump's comments... "Will no one rid me of these meddlesome NFL players?!?"... on the other hand you want to make a technical argument about his black letter legal authority as if that was all the power he had. Its the classic internets oldie-but-goodie... technical vs. practical... and in my experience, the argument goes round and round with both people repeating themselves... so let's get off this merry go round... its going nowhere.

Except even as a practical matter, Trump's words carry very little weight on this issue. This is evidenced by the fact that Goodell was more or less ignoring Trump and standing by the players in their right to protest. He only changed his stance on the issue when the NFL's sponsors started getting antsy over this whole thing. And it wasn't Trump that made the sponsors antsy, it was the customers of those companies sending messages threatening to boycott both the NFL and their respective companies until these protests are stopped.

That's what you are failing to see. You are so eager to just blame Trump because he made a few tweets about it that you aren't seeing what is really going to kill the protests: money. You're smart enough to know that in the US (and really everywhere else, just to a slightly lesser degree) money talks. And right now the money is saying it wants the players silenced. Trump has nothing to do with it.

Nah I didn't... see above.

I see what you did there.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

WELP

Clearly doesn't respect the troops.

"Get that son of a b.... of the field. He's fired."

Wouldn't you love to see that?

 

[Bamspeedy]

You're smart enough to know that in the US (and really everywhere else, just to a slightly lesser degree) money talks. And right now the money is saying it wants the players silenced.

Is that why the NFL decided to 'do nothing' at their meeting?

They did what made the most business sense.
They leave the language as 'should stand' to indicate their preference, and to keep one side happy, but not penalize the players, keeping the other side happy.
It would be bad publicity to punish the players, but would have been the NFL's right to do it if they wanted to.

 

[Hrothbern]

All I hear on the radio is 'protest', 'respect the flag' and 'Should Kaepernick play'. I hear very little talk of the reason for the protest.

The reason for the protest is old news.
The news now is the latest tweet between the two camps.
In effect taking over the protest itself, so although the first weeks showed the strength of the protest, made the point, it is now eroding away, and vulnerable.

That's not what you allow to happen if you want your protest to succeed.
Bad management so to say, understandable as that is, because it is not managed. Both the strenght as its weakness.
So it should already have stopped by the people taking the knee themselves on their own grounds, not the attacks on it by Trump or financial reasons (that will push through).
But you are cornered aren't you ?
If you do stop, Trump can say he forced it. If you dont stop, you get more and more vulnerable and it dies out like a candle burned up.

I would stop now in homage to the green berets killed in Niger.
And would add that every weekend after a brutal killing of the police, it would be done for that weekend.
Getting into the news and get focus for the last brutal killing.
Every time a new incident.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Okay...I still dont understand the question. What does the 'religious thing' have to do with posting history?

I'm not a real big fan of religious dogma, and my posting history reflects that.

Well, I'm assuming you'd defend the Klan from being rounded up and executed.

You're mistaken in your assumptions. I wouldn't defend the Klan, period. Again ... for the what, 5th time?...my unambiguous position on the Klan is as follows... Eff those Ay holes, period. So what was your question again?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Except even as a practical matter, Trump's words carry very little weight on this issue. This is evidenced by the fact that Goodell was more or less ignoring Trump and standing by the players in their right to protest. He only changed his stance on the issue when the NFL's sponsors started getting antsy over this whole thing. And it wasn't Trump that made the sponsors antsy, it was the customers of those companies sending messages threatening to boycott both the NFL and their respective companies until these protests are stopped.

That's what you are failing to see. You are so eager to just blame Trump because he made a few tweets about it that you aren't seeing what is really going to kill the protests: money. You're smart enough to know that in the US (and really everywhere else, just to a slightly lesser degree) money talks. And right now the money is saying it wants the players silenced. Trump has nothing to do with it.

No. The sponsors are responding to the anti-protest audience, and the anti-protest audience is taking their cues from the guy they elected POTUS. You know this full well but you're so committed to your technical argument about Trumps technical authority that you're trying to hand waive his indirect/implied power. Again... the argument on this particular point is just you and me riding a merry-go-round... let's just get off and go ride something else.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not a real big fan of religious dogma, and my posting history reflects that. You're mistaken in your assumptions. I wouldn't defend the Klan, period. Again ... for the what, 5th time?...my unambiguous position on the Klan is as follows... Eff those Ay holes, period. So what was your question again?

Ah, now I understand... I've never considered the Golden Rule to be about religion (or God), just equal treatment and hypocrisy... Your unambiguous position was to not defend the Klan's free speech. I was asking if that extends to all the other rights the Klan has, like the right to not be rounded up and executed. How about people suspected of membership or sympathetic to certain causes like the civil war statues? Would you support executing the protesters in Charlottesville? At what point, if any, do you start defending people you dont like?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ah, now I understand... I've never considered the Golden Rule to be about religion (or God), just equal treatment and hypocrisy... Your unambiguous position was to not defend the Klan's free speech. I was asking if that extends to all the other rights the Klan has, like the right to not be rounded up and executed. How about people suspected of membership or sympathetic to certain causes like the civil war statues? Would you support executing the protesters in Charlottesville? At what point, if any, do you start defending people you dont like?

I defend people I don't like all the time. I have literally defended hundreds of people I didn't particularly like, because it is my job to do so.

Once again, as I've said to you specifically, numerous times... Defend the free speech of whomever you like. That's what I do, and I don't trouble myself with your (the royal your) judgments of hypocrisy. I'm not defending the freakin 'Klan or any other scummers FTM for fear of someone yelling "hypocrite!" at me. I used to do that but I've learned better. As you may recall, I reject out of hand, the slippery slope argument that often gets raised in this context.

As for "The Golden Rule", I agree that people can, and do talk about it in purely philosophical/moral terms, however, the concept also has a pretty strong connection to religion and that is the context where most people get it/learn it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hmmm, forgot to respond to this, sorry @Commodore it wasn't intentional. You know I love to leave no stone un-debunked when it comes to your arguments

Again, losing your job does not violate any of your rights, but using violence against you does. What is really so hard to grasp about this concept?

I have won numerous EEOC lawsuits based on the complete total and utter wrongness of this statement. In short, what is so hard for me to grasp about this concept... is that its completely incorrect.

There is absolutely no threat to the livelihoods of NFL players over this. At worst, they will face fines and suspensions. And since the fines are a drop in the bucket compared to their salaries and they still get paid while under suspension, the threat to their livelihoods is precisely zero. There is not a single person that has the authority to fire NFL players that is advocating or threatening to fire protesting players. Jones said he will bench them. Big whoop. They still get paid even if they are benched.

So you keep alluding to this threat to their livelihoods, but where is it? As long as they are getting paid, they still have their livelihood.

Tell that to Colin Kaepernick... What's his case? The exception that debunks your rule? Speaking of which there is actually an active claim filed over this so I guess we will let the Courts sort it out. At a minimum, your argument is on very shaky ground.

 

[Commodore]

Tell that to Colin Kaepernick... What's his case?

Colin Kaepernick wasn't fired because of his protests though. In fact, he wasn't fired at all. He opted out of the final season of his contract and wasn't re-signed because he wanted more money than the 49ers were willing to pay. He continues to be unemployed as a professional football player because he is still asking for more money than any team is willing to pay for his services.

In short, the Kaepernick situation has nothing to do with protests and he's only now trying to make it about the protests in a Hail Mary attempt to force a team to sign him at the salary he wants.

I have won numerous EEOC lawsuits based on the complete total and utter wrongness of this statement. In short, what is so hard for me to grasp about this concept... is that its completely incorrect.

Key term being EEOC. I've already specified in previous posts that employers can fire anyone for any reason with exception to protected categories. From that point on, I shouldn't have to keep specifying that caveat to my argument. Political beliefs are not a protected category under current US law, so your employer firing you for your political alignment does not violate your rights. Tell me: any of those EEOC lawsuits you won involve someone begin fired for their politics? Or were they all someone being fired for something that's actually protected by law (race, religion, gender, etc.)? If it's the latter, I've already acknowledged that as an exception to the "fire you for any reason" argument.

In fact, I even decided to do a little research on whether or not it is legal for employers to fire employees for their political views. The consensus seems to be "it depends". Everything I'm reading basically says the First Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired for your politics, however some states include protection for politics in their own anti-discrimination laws. So while I acknowledge that my argument may not be completely correct, it certainly isn't completely wrong either.

 

[Dachs]

Colin Kaepernick wasn't fired because of his protests though. In fact, he wasn't fired at all. He opted out of the final season of his contract and wasn't re-signed because he wanted more money than the 49ers were willing to pay. He continues to be unemployed as a professional football player because he is still asking for more money than any team is willing to pay for his services.

In short, the Kaepernick situation has nothing to do with protests and he's only now trying to make it about the protests in a Hail Mary attempt to force a team to sign him at the salary he wants.

He opted out of his contract because GM John Lynch told him that if he didn't do so, the Niners were going to cut him. Lynch admitted this in a candid interview several months ago. There's literally no way to paint this as a money grab by Kaepernick.

Lynch did, however, claim that the dispute was about "scheme". This contention has been blown apart by several writers on the NFL, and, frankly, by the performance of many of the starting and backup quarterbacks in the league over the past month and a half. It's also nonsensical, in that the quarterback is literally the most important piece on any team and that any scheme redesign that would make any sense at all would be focused on meeting a quarterback's needs, not the other way around. Get a QB who is good at doing something, and then build around him. Kaepernick is clearly good at doing something, and is certainly better at doing something than several jamokes currently in the league. Hell, several teams have restructured their playbook already for the crappy backups they've had to play instead of their injured starters.

Salary is also extremely hard to credit as a reason. Ownership says he's asking for too much money, but of course they'd say that. Kaepernick says he's not asking for too much money, but of course he'd say that. I think the most relevant piece of information here is that the Dolphins paid Jay Cutler, a disgraced former NFL QB who ended his career on the bench, $10 million to come back and suit up for them despite being even more out of shape than he was with the Bears. Multiple sources from different perspectives have said that Kaepernick was looking for less than that over the last several months.

I mean, seriously. Brandon Weeden?

 

[Berzerker]

I defend people I don't like all the time. I have literally defended hundreds of people I didn't particularly like, because it is my job to do so.

Do you defend people who aren't paying you?

Once again, as I've said to you specifically, numerous times... Defend the free speech of whomever you like.

I dont know why you keep repeating that, I've been asking where you draw the line on other rights... and it appears you're okay with rounding up and executing the Klan because they have no rights. Is that unambiguously accurate?

and I don't trouble myself with your (the royal your) judgments of hypocrisy. I'm not defending the freakin 'Klan or any other scummers FTM for fear of someone yelling "hypocrite!" at me.

What if they're waving $$$ under your nose?

Do you believe Klan members are entitled to due process or should they be rounded up and executed? Are you going to defend them only if they pay you?