NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Never agree to 3 points on top of the vig.
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

They are probably more afraid of falling attendance and lower TV ratings.

Follow the money.

They could solve the kneeling question by not having the TV cameras pan over the line of players during the anthem.

What a waste of time, effort, and babble over five minutes of bad singing.
Grammatron
Posts: 36378
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Grammatron »

I have 0 fucks for them
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Grammatron wrote:I have 0 fucks for them
My sentiments exactly.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/76/7d/9b/767d ... renemy.jpg



Pyrrho wrote:Follow the money.
Exactly.

What other business allows their employees (on company time) to make a controversial political spectacle in front of paying customers that don't want to see it?

The NBA doesn't allow it, and their rules are more strict than the new NFL rules, so anyone who complains about the new NFL rules and does not also complain about the NBA rules, is a hypocrite.

So where is all the outrage about the NBA rules against player protests during the anthem?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know™.
Doctor X
Posts: 74286
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Doctor X »

It is not like fucked up a ham sandwich before.

--J.D.

P.S.

P.P.S. What?
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

xouper wrote:
Grammatron wrote:I have 0 fucks for them
My sentiments exactly.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/76/7d/9b/767d ... renemy.jpg



Pyrrho wrote:Follow the money.
Exactly.

What other business allows their employees (on company time) to make a controversial political spectacle in front of paying customers that don't want to see it?

The NBA doesn't allow it, and their rules are more strict than the new NFL rules, so anyone who complains about the new NFL rules and does not also complain about the NBA rules, is a hypocrite.

So where is all the outrage about the NBA rules against player protests during the anthem?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know™.
I think the customers who are complaining about it, up to and including the President of the United States, are overreacting and are acting like children.

It is only controversial because the news media and political hacks have made it controversial. Ignoring it has not occurred to people...and there is money to be made by sensationalizing it, political capital to be made by exploiting it.

Companies can rightfully set whatever rules they like, and can penalize their employees however they wish. Freedom of speech is still viable, even if there are consequences such as losing one's job. These days, society seems all too wiling to sacrifice that freedom, even people who are vociferous about defending that freedom, even people who have sworn oaths to defend that freedom, and I find that to be far more troubling than a handful of professional athletes silently taking a knee or raising a fist.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote:I think the customers who are complaining about it, up to and including the President of the United States, are overreacting and are acting like children.
Some customers are overreacting and are acting like children, but in my opinion, most aren't.

Perhaps I am not clear on the point you are trying to make.

Most customers who don't like what they see on TV simply change the channel, or in the case of a live event in a sports stadium, simply stop buying tickets. That is not necessarily a childish reaction or an overreaction. That's simply how a free market works.

No one is required to see or listen to anything they don't want to see or hear. Free speech does not include the right to make anyone listen or watch. Walking away from something one does not want to hear or see is a perfectly normal reaction.

In my opinion, the NFL player-protesters are behaving like spoiled brats. They are claiming a right for themselves that almost no one else in the US has. Those players do not have my sympathy.

Pyrrho wrote:Companies can rightfully set whatever rules they like, and can penalize their employees however they wish. Freedom of speech is still viable, even if there are consequences such as losing one's job. These days, society seems all too wiling to sacrifice that freedom, even people who are vociferous about defending that freedom, even people who have sworn oaths to defend that freedom, and I find that to be far more troubling than a handful of professional athletes silently taking a knee or raising a fist.
Except that the First Amendment applies only to government, not private organizations.

No one has a right to come onto your private property and say (or express) whatever they want. More specifically, in the workplace, no employee (while on the job) has the right to make controversial political protests in front of the paying customers. The NFL players are demanding a right that almost no one else has.

Example: When the Dallas Cowboys wanted to express their support for recently shot Dallas police officers, the NFL said no. Where was the outrage at the NFL then for suppression of speech? And there are many more examples of how the NFL restricts players expression while on the job. No celebrating in the endzone, etc. As is their right as a private business. And none of that is a violation of any labor law.

Now that I've complained and expressed my opinion, are you going to accuse me personally of overreacting and acting like a child? :wink:
Doctor X
Posts: 74286
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Doctor X »

All of these posts, save mine--Humble, Yet MagNIfIcent, are conduct detrimental.

In the https://withywindlebooks.secure-chrisla ... 41a54e.jpg

--J.D.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote:It is only controversial because the news media and political hacks have made it controversial.
Respectfully, I disagree. Here's my interpretation:

The initial protest event by Kaepernick was intended to be controversial, as he readily admitted.
www.nfl.com/news/story/ wrote:
. . . "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," . . . Kaepernick said that he is aware of what he is doing and that he knows it will not sit well with a lot of people, . . .
Intentionally disrespecting the American flag as part of a political protest is automatically a move that is designed to stir up controversy. That's one obvious way to get media attention for your cause. It did not become controversial only after the media or politicians jumped into the fray. The media and politicians jumped in precisely because it was already controversial.

That is not to say that the media (and politicians) did not fan the flames in this case, but clearly it is not possible to fan the flames if there isn't any flame to begin with.

Perhaps our disagreement on this point stems from a core principle: I believe that intentionally showing disrespect for one's country is automatically controversial, by definition. And I believe that refusing to stand for the anthem is an intentional act of disrespect for the flag and the country, by definition. And I suspect I am not in the minority in my belief.
www.cbsnews.com/news/ wrote:Most Americans think refusing to stand for the national anthem is disrespectful to the country, the military and the American flag.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Does anyone in a regular working class or middle class job have the right to protest on the job?
Answered in a previous post: viewtopic.php?p=915882#p915882
xouper wrote:In my opinion, the NFL player-protesters are . . . are claiming a right for themselves that almost no one else in the US has.
As a former customer of the NFL, I have the right to refuse to patronize their business, and I have the right express why.

If that causes some people to think of me as being childish, then so be it. I will not be bullied into remaining a customer of a product I no longer want.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Yeah OK, but have you ever heard of it happening?
If you are asking do I know of anyone whose employer allows them (while on the job) to express controversial political opinions that might offend customers, then no, I have no such personal knowledge. I tried searching for examples, but my google-fu has failed me.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Speaking of fallacies:
xouper wrote:Perhaps our disagreement on this point stems from a core principle: I believe that intentionally showing disrespect for one's country is automatically controversial, by definition. And I believe that refusing to stand for the anthem is an intentional act of disrespect for the flag and the country, by definition. And I suspect I am not in the minority in my belief.
It would be a fallacy if I were arguing that my belief is correct merely because it is supported by a bigly number of people.

I assume Doctor X (and certain others) already know the Latin name for that fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

But that is not the argument I was trying to make.

(I mention this only in case anyone perceives an ambiguity in my previous post and would be helped by clarification of what I intended to say.)

I mention the population merely in support of my claim that protesting the flag is automatically controversial even before any media (or politicians) get involved. (It may not be sufficient support — there may be other requirements to meet — but that's another story.)

For Doctor X (and certain others), here is the Latin etymology: controversia.
Doctor X
Posts: 74286
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Doctor X »

"Conduct unbecoming."

Quod erat demonstrandum

Shantih shantih shantih
.

--J.D.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Rob Lister »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Update:

NFL stars 'threaten to sit out games until Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid are signed by new teams'
Daily Fail
Several NFL stars are reportedly considering not playing until Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid are signed by teams.

According to columnist Shaun King, the protesting players are hoping that up to 25 per cent of the league will join them in sitting out.

...
I predict less than .25%. Four and a quarter.
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by RCC: Act II »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Does anyone in a regular working class or middle class job have the right to protest on the job?

When I worked in private industry it didn't even come up. That's how inconceivable it was.

As a federal employee covered by the Hatch Act, I would face official discipline just for wearing a discreet campaign button.
It happens all the time. Calling kneeling a protest is a stretch though. It has more in common with wearing a flag pin than manning barricades in the streets. Using the word "protest" makes it sound far more intrusive than it is, which is not at all.

It is an employee-employer issue for the most part. It is however curious when people who claim to be economic conservatives see nothing wrong with the president forcing a private business to adopt a code of employee behavior that suits his political preference.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

RCC: Act II wrote:It is an employee-employer issue for the most part. It is however curious when people who claim to be economic conservatives see nothing wrong with the president forcing a private business to adopt a code of employee behavior that suits his political preference.
In general, I agree with your sentiment.

In this particular case, however, the NFL gets taxpayer money which complicates the issue bigly.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point?
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

All the more reason for the NFL to support freedom of speech.
Doctor X
Posts: 74286
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Doctor X »

Then they would have to listen to what people say about Goodell's competence and, in the case of certain owners of Indy, Washington, NYJ, their sanity.

--J.D.
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

If market indicators suggested that players kneeling for the anthem increased TV viewership and game attendance, I suspect that the NFL and the owners would be encouraging players to kneel and making somber statements of support.

As it is, the wind is blowing the other way.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

xouper wrote:. . . the NFL gets taxpayer money which complicates the issue bigly.
Pyrrho wrote:All the more reason for the NFL to support freedom of speech.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Federal employees do not have full right of free speech while on the job.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to have disrespect for my country pushed in my face.

The NBA doesn't allow disrespect during the anthem, so where is all the outrage about that?
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by RCC: Act II »

xouper wrote:As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to have disrespect for my country pushed in my face.
As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to see forced displays of jingoistic patriotism.



The NBA doesn't allow disrespect during the anthem, so where is all the outrage about that?
There is way more respect between NBA players and the NBA establishment because the NBA has a track record of unconditional support for the social justice issues the players are concerned about. The NBA establishment has earned the players' trust to the point where the players are willing to follow along with this rule and use their platforms in other ways.

Rule or no rule, If you think the league would be able to stop it if the players decided to kneel, you are living in a dreamworld. They aren't kneeling by choice.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

RCC: Act II wrote:
xouper wrote:As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to have disrespect for my country pushed in my face.
As a former customer of the NFL, I was paying to be entertained and have a few moments free from politics, not to see forced displays of jingoistic patriotism.
Touché. :)

Reminds me of a bumper sticker: "If you try to please everyone, someone won't like it."

Another bumper sticker: "Follow the money."

RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think the league would be able to stop it if the players decided to kneel, . . .
The NFL successfully prevents (and punishes) many forms of employee "expression" that the NFL does not approve of. (I assume I don't need to post a list.) Why do you say they would not also be able to stop the kneeling during the anthem?

RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think . . . , you are living in a dreamworld.
No need to get snippy. I am not your adversary here. We are just having a conversation, not a pissing contest.

RCC: Act II wrote:They aren't kneeling by choice.
I'm not following what you mean by that. (It's Monday and I may have forgot to bring my brain to the office.) I assume you are not saying that someone is forcing those players to kneel against their wishes, therefore I assume you mean something else?
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by RCC: Act II »

xouper wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think the league would be able to stop it if the players decided to kneel, . . .
The NFL successfully prevents (and punishes) many forms of employee "expression" that the NFL does not approve of. (I assume I don't need to post a list.) Why do you say they would not also be able to stop the kneeling during the anthem?
Leverage. The NBA is a star driven league. The NFL is more team driven. The NBA players have way, way more leverage than NFL players. Careers in the NBA last longer, the players are more visible, they make way, way more money, and talent translates to results far more directly than in the NFL. Football in general has a far more militaristic culture than does basketball, so the players are less likely to revolt en masse.

Also, NBA players are a pretty tight knit bunch. There aren't a lot of them compared to football and they come up through the same AAU ranks, basketball prep schools, and so on. There is a strong sense of solidarity and community among those that make it to the NBA.

Going even further upstream, if the top 20 players in the NBA decided to ditch the NBA and start a player owned league, it would have a remote chance because they'd have the money and the public profile to pull it off. That would never happen with football.

That all adds up to leverage. And leverage means not having to take shit from the man. They don't kneel because they don't see it as necessary.




RCC: Act II wrote:Rule or no rule, If you think . . . , you are living in a dreamworld.
No need to get snippy. I am not your adversary here. We are just having a conversation, not a pissing contest.
Sorry.

RCC: Act II wrote:They aren't kneeling by choice.
I'm not following what you mean by that. (It's Monday and I may have forgot to bring my brain to the office.) I assume you are not saying that someone is forcing those players to kneel against their wishes, therefore I assume you mean something else?
They are by choice not kneeling.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Rob Lister »

xouper wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:They aren't kneeling by choice.
I'm not following what you mean by that. (It's Monday and I may have forgot to bring my brain to the office.) I assume you are not saying that someone is forcing those players to kneel against their wishes, therefore I assume you mean something else?
They are by choice not kneeling.[/quote]

I'm guessing you think that the "team" aspect of the NFL prevents those that would not otherwise kneel from standing. I think that is likely. Like you I don't like mixing politics with sports. Like you I am a [mostly] former customer of the NFL. I don't know about you but this issue does not endear me to the sport. I don't give a rat's ass who kneels or not to what but I sure don't want to hear four hours commentary on any particular issue based on an otherwise far-too-commercial-filled three hour game. And I sure as shit wouldn't pay $300 to see it live.
RCC: Act II
Posts: 904
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by RCC: Act II »

Rob Lister wrote: I'm guessing you think that the "team" aspect of the NFL prevents those that would not otherwise kneel from standing. I think that is likely. Like you I don't like mixing politics with sports. Like you I am a [mostly] former customer of the NFL. I don't know about you but this issue does not endear me to the sport. I don't give a rat's ass who kneels or not to what but I sure don't want to hear four hours commentary on any particular issue based on an otherwise far-too-commercial-filled three hour game. And I sure as shit wouldn't pay $300 to see it live.
As a practical matter I don't think mixing politics and sport can be avoided. There are too many things involved in the status quo that are inherently political, and addressing that and maybe removing the political nature of that requires being aware of such political nature. Eliminating politics from sport would be a herculean task that itself would be both political and, well, continuing.

Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.

Those that accuse the kneeling players of bringing politics into sport have, assuming good faith, a blind spot as to the fact that what they see as the default, that is players standing for the anthem, is itself political. What they are really saying is they don't want to mix sports and politics when the politics are those they don't care for.

Pretty close to 100% of the time there is a complaint that politics shouldn't be in sport, the real complaint is that the speaker doesn't want the political values reflected by the status quo to be challenged. Ignoring politics isn't apolitical. It is an implicit endorsement of the status quo.
ed
Posts: 41054
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by ed »

RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
Grammatron
Posts: 36378
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Grammatron »

ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

RCC: Act II wrote:As a practical matter I don't think mixing politics and sport can be avoided. There are too many things involved in the status quo that are inherently political, and addressing that and maybe removing the political nature of that requires being aware of such political nature. Eliminating politics from sport would be a herculean task that itself would be both political and, well, continuing.

Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.

Those that accuse the kneeling players of bringing politics into sport have, assuming good faith, a blind spot as to the fact that what they see as the default, that is players standing for the anthem, is itself political. What they are really saying is they don't want to mix sports and politics when the politics are those they don't care for.

Pretty close to 100% of the time there is a complaint that politics shouldn't be in sport, the real complaint is that the speaker doesn't want the political values reflected by the status quo to be challenged. Ignoring politics isn't apolitical. It is an implicit endorsement of the status quo.
Many of your points make sense, but I disagree with your usage of the word "political" in this context. It certainly isn't consistent with any of my dictionaries. Playing the anthem is not necessarily political, nor is it necessarily an endorsement of the status quo. Perhaps a different word might be more accurate.

Nonetheless, in my opinion, the NFL player-protesters are behaving like spoiled brats. They are claiming a legal right for themselves that
almost no one else in the US has.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Rob Lister »

Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
Clearly it isn't unless they do it for a reason. It gets its own set of commercials, after all.
ed
Posts: 41054
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by ed »

Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
They are avoiding "trouble" by removing it. In effect, the ninnies exercised a sophisticated form of the hecklers veto.
Grammatron
Posts: 36378
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Grammatron »

ed wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
ed wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Like the anthem at games. The real solution to removing politics from sport is to not play the anthem at all. Playing the anthem and socially compelling people to show respect is, after all, political.
Censoring the anthem is far more a political statement than some overpaid ninnies kneeling.
I don't understand how removing the anthem from a sporting event is censorship
They are avoiding "trouble" by removing it. In effect, the ninnies exercised a sophisticated form of the hecklers veto.
And that is censoring?
Doctor X
Posts: 74286
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Doctor X »

It is an example of Political Reality.

As we ["We?--Ed.] have debated, one of the reasons there has not been a solution to marijuana legalization, with now a gradual creep, was "YOU WANT CHILDREN TO DO THE DRUGS!"

Go back further, the same stupidity occurred with civil rights: "You want YOUR CHILDREN raped by gays/blacks/Gram's Mom!"

Politicians being dependent on votes to maintain their snouts in the troughs, have to pay attention to this stupidity. Call it "pandering" at best, it prevents progress at worse.

So . . . Товар[Прекрати--Ed.] Comrade Gram, you want to DEPRIVE OUR CHILDREN OF FREEDOM?!!!1!!

:freedom:

--J.D.

P.S. As enough Sports Dudes noted, there are a few things different in the NBA. First, and foremost, they have a collectively bargained agreement to stand respectfully for anthems. It is a rule. The players long ago signed off on it. The NFL does not have this which is why trying to directly fine the players "is a problem." The Ginger Dildo can try the "Conduct Unbecoming" Elastic Clause as I have suggested, but that will still end up in court and who knows.

Second, and more effective, the current commissioner is both effective, respected, and loved. His immediate suspension and initiating the process of removal of the Well-Known and Tolerated Racist owner of the Clippers with an "I don't care if he sues!" quickly soothed the sensibilities of players who were, understandably, pissed off and threatening boycotts. That all ended in about a day. Not being the Egotistical Ass-Hat that is Ginger Dildo, Silver--Heaven's to Betsy!--communicated directly with player representatives that day. He let everyone know he would deal with it immediately; this would not "simmer" for weeks with the appearance of hoping it would "go away."

Third, the NBA allows and supports player activism outside the court. That creates a very different attitude: Princess James can say what he wants without fear of being "cut," certainly, but the same applies for J'qwan Finkelmez, the New Orleans pick playing in the Canadian league based in Bahrain. . . .

Because . . . the NBA players have guaranteed contracts. The NFL do not. The NBA has a strong enough union with few enough players. One or two players per team shuts that team down. A strike would be disasterous for the NBA, because it is not like there are bunches of NBA quality basketball players "waiting for their chance" out there. If the owners try to lock out players, they face independently wealthy players who can mount legal challenges. Fans know them and worship them.

Still, Ginger Dildo could have solved this very easily by applying a similar approach. Instead he, and the owners, lived up to their negative stereotypes as "slave owners." So players who fight this are not only "Fighting Trump" they are "sticking it to Ginger Dildo."

Finally, [ZZZzzzzzzZZ--Ed.] not all of the owners agree with Ginger Dildo. So you have owners claiming they will simply pay any fine for their players if they kneel.

--J.D.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

xouper wrote:The NBA doesn't allow disrespect during the anthem, so where is all the outrage about that?
Thanks to RCC and Doctor X for explaining the differences between the NBA and the NFL. You have sufficiently answered my question and therefore I withdraw my (implied) objection.

I appreciate that you took the time and effort to do that without attacking me for asking. You have persuaded me to revise my understanding.

My other question is still on the table: If there is no provision in the employee contract otherwise, why do employees think they have a legal right (during the performance of their job) to express whatever they want in front of the customers? Is the law not settled on that issue?
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

The legal right to freedom of speech is conferred by the First Amendment, even if a person has a job, even if they indulge in freedom of speech on the job.

Employers are likewise free to act on behavior they don't like in the workplace. Unless they--or the employees--don't care.



Domestic Violence Expert Resigns From NFL Players Association Commission
The NFL's Players Association Commission on Violence Prevention was formed after several NFL players were accused of violence against their domestic partners, including Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens, who knocked his fiancée unconscious in an elevator.

In 2014, Epstein, director of the Georgetown University Law Center's Domestic Violence Clinic, was asked to serve on the commission. She and research psychologist Lisa Goodman were authorized to conduct a national study of players' wives, collecting the women's suggestions for handling domestic violence and supporting its victims.

As she tells NPR, her decision to resign came after troubling "pattern emerged" in her communications with the NFLPA.

...

"The Player's Association contacts that I have would welcome those ideas, tell me they were eminently doable, but that they had to get kicked down the road because 'It was the Super Bowl, it was the draft, it was the season,' " she says. "And I would come back and reiterate my suggestions, and eventually I found that communication would just die on the vine."

"I realized very little, if anything, was going to happen."

NFLPA said it respects Epstein's decision to resign, but has disagreed with her reasoning. NFLPA Deputy Managing Director Teri Smith says the association never had plans to publicly release the study. "We did circulate that report to our player leadership, and we have implemented a number of recommendations made by [Epstein], both in that report and over the life of the commission being in existence," Smith says.
Doctor X
Posts: 74286
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Doctor X »

Neither they, nor the NFL cares.

Other than to show a few ads where Goat Face Junior and Hillary Swank cry.

Because that will change everything.

http://static-25.sinclairstoryline.com/ ... 6510422217

--J.D.
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

Esptein, who signed a confidentiality agreement with the NFLPA, says she can't divulge what recommendations she provided in the report. Ostensibly, the confidentiality protects the anonymity of spouses and partners of NFL players from retribution, allowing them to speak freely.

"Although there are ways to create confidentiality about individual people without creating confidentiality about the recommendations that emerged from such a report, I'm not allowed to talk about either one," Epstein says.

But she will say why she thinks the actions the NFLPA says it's taken do not align with the commission's recommendations — and beyond that, she says, are "woefully inadequate."

First, she says, the hire of a director of wellness "is responsible for all wellness-related issues for more than 1,500 NFL players scattered across the country, and she has no particular training or experience in the field of domestic violence."

While Epstein says the crisis management training the NFLPA has introduced for player-interfacing staff is "terrific," crisis management as it relates to alcohol, drugs or mental health is "very different than managing a crisis of domestic violence for someone who's actually at risk of physical harm."

The NFLPA's third action, a focus on marriage counseling and couples enrichment, concerns Epstein the most.

"If you speak to anyone who works in the domestic violence field, they will tell you we have known for more than a quarter-century: that marriage-based/couples-based counseling is absolutely not the way to deal with domestic violence," she says.

"When a power dynamic in a relationship is so deeply unequal, it's not the way to go. So they are not only taking inadequate actions, they are taking actions that are not recommended by the advocacy community."
It is what it is I guess.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote:The legal right to freedom of speech is conferred by the First Amendment, even if a person has a job, even if they indulge in freedom of speech on the job. Employers are likewise free to act on behavior they don't like in the workplace. Unless they--or the employees--don't care.
Point of clarification (I assume everyone here already knows this): The First Amendment protection of free speech applies only to censorship by the government, not by private entities. The government cannot censor your speech on the job, but your employer can.
findlaw.com wrote:Employees who work in the private-sector do not, as a rule, have First Amendment protection for their speech in the workplace.
And then the article lists some possible exceptions imposed by other laws, which do not seem to apply to NFL player anthem protests.

In other words, certain NFL players are demanding a right from their employers that almost no other employee in the US has. I have no sympathy for them on that point.
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

If an employer censors speech they do not like, employees still have the right to freedom of speech.

If an employer bans guns from their premises, employees still have the right to keep and bear arms.
xouper
Posts: 10928
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by xouper »

Pyrrho wrote:If an employer censors speech they do not like, employees still have the right to freedom of speech.

If an employer bans guns from their premises, employees still have the right to keep and bear arms.
Tuesday is not my favorite day of the week, which may be why I am not following the point you are trying to make. What's the takeaway message here?

For the sake of getting clarification I might ask: What idea are you trying to convey to me by saying you "have the right" even though your employer will not let you exercise it on the job?
Pyrrho
Posts: 31595
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: NFL owners are 'f-----g terrified' of Trump, report says

Post by Pyrrho »

My employer cannot take away my constitutional rights even if they fire me for exercising those rights.