Jerry Jones: Cowboys can’t stay in locker room during anthem?
Jerry Jones: Cowboys can’t stay in locker room during anthem?
This above is a headline from a recent NYT article, I invite you to read for yourself.
So what gives now? I first of all thought that the kneeling gestures of players during the anthem were not in themselves disrespectful, but angered people only because they knew that it referenced a protest action that they were not sympathtic of nor understood. So, I allow the thistle heads a compromise, players that wanted to express a protest could stay in the locker room and not “offend” the audience with a gesture that THEY saw as disrespectful and unpatriotic during the anthem. I never had an issue with it, but again, I am not a rightwinger.
Now, not appearing during the anthem is not enough, this Jones fellow wants to mandate that all players are to appear for the anthem, coerced hand over heart and standing. How are fans offended where there are no players on the field that are offending them during the ceremony? This is coercion and is so typical of conservative and rightwing thought. So, what is it, pray to your God, submit to your loyalty oaths, when there are so many on going contradictions to what the oath stands for and what continues in America today?
You dunderheads are still getting to watch your damned football game, why can’t that be enough? Are these players just marionettes such that you insist on the ability to control their thoughts as well?I think you may misunderstand the hoopla. No one had a problem with a cause. It was about simple respect for the flag. Nothing more.
I stopped watching the sport since players can't get it through their thick heads that they can protest outside of working hours, and i don't have a problem with people staying off the field if they can't respect the flag, but staying off the field would be another form of disrespectAnd when do the concerns of the prerogative of the players come into play. This is mind control, why would you want them out there if they are not enthusiastic about the ceremony? We want to see you capitulate, so you WILL bow head and bend knee at our command before the entire world.
What compromise is made on behalf of the players?
Just another of our differences, my idea of patriotism and respect verses sheer jingoism is not the same as the conservative or rightwinger…..How about this compromise ; And not one player will protest ever again . NFL ," If you meatheads will just stand for the one minute that it takes to honor the majority of the general public's love for country we will not only bring back all of the lost income that you're going to lose in the future , from the past and during each game BUT we will give you ear plugs , Deal ?"
The NFL should simply fire these brilliant gladiators and put other names in their place , OR the NFL should continue to lose income at over ten percent a year until something changes !But, Horse, if you knew that they all were wearing earplugs, would you not consider that a sign of "disrespect"?
Credence , All they have to do is stand there and shut up , tell me you in your military career never felt that that was , if not the best thing , the most honorable thing you could have to do ? Tell me there weren't times that that anthem didn't mean something to you , that even perhaps when it didn't , you stood there anyway.
And I think it's still a matter of working for the league , doing as the league says you have to do. There are plenty of opportunities to "protest " if that's what you call this AND I don't .I was commissioned into the military on my own volition, I am a yankee doodle dandy and did the military things because I believed in them. But only the progressive mind recognizes that patriotism does not mean the same thing to all of us.
Conservatives could not stand the idea if they knew these men are completely ignoring the meaning and significance of the ceremony only that they are there physically, only. So, these men have not completely capitulated, the rightwinger could never accept that.
Hi Credence:
I'm for freedom. As a vet (no combat duty), I think as many, but not all, vets do on this: the military fights, in part, to protect the freedom of expression that goes along with things like flag burning. I'm not stating that NFL players kneeling is akin to flag burning, I'm just giving a little background on my view.
I think it's ridiculous, and un-American to tell players they can't protest peacefully as they see fit. And this move by Jerry Jones does wreak of
"We want to see you capitulate, so you WILL bow head and bend knee at our command before the entire world."
Also, it's not the president's place to tell the owners of private entities what to do...most presidents wouldn't even go there, but we know Trump, so...
At the same time, I recognize we all have to do what our employer asks or we are subject to discipline up to termination. So, the players have a choice even if if there's no good option.
I think workers' rights should be better than this but this is the system we all deal with. So, it's Jones's right to force players to do this on NFL time. I never liked the Cowboys, or Jerry Jones, anyway.Hello again hard sun, this looks like it may be one of those, ...ten paces, turn and fire, encounters.
I am also a vet, a Navy vet, and I understand and agree with the point you made about that. But ... I have a different perspective on this, (surprise!).
I see this in the light of a voluntary employment issue. I don't see any relation to the discriminatory prohibitions previously mentioned by Cred; morning prayers, party affiliation, or the "fawning slave" extrapolation.
Nor do I think your " "We want to see you capitulate, so you WILL bow head and bend knee at our command before the entire world." fits the issue.
I think it would be hard to deny that the players are voluntary employees, and, that their 'on the job' actions most definitely impact their employer's business.
Just in the context to this point, prior to any discussion of the player's rights being abused, or the purpose of the protest, do you disagree with the reality of the above?
I will take a leap and guess that you might not disagree ... yet.
So where does the disagreement come in?
Look at the things Wilderness pointed out the players voluntarily agree to: the interviews - we have all seen sports players that were vocal about their dislike for that responsibility, but, it's part of the job, so they do it. How is that different from this issue?
How about the female reporters in the locker room? Surely you don't think all those macho he-men are comfortable with that, but, it's part of the job.
This issue, to me, is clearly an employer/employee issue. And I firmly believe that, within the law, an employer has every right to protect his best interests. Those voluntary employees can certainly express their protests on their own time, so why is it a 'yes, masser' portrayal just because they can't do it - without penalty - on the employer's time?
ps. as a former Redskins fan, I doubt you could dislike Jones and the Cowboys more than I. In the context of sports rivalry of course. ;-)
GAI try to look at the otherside, Don. I am willing to go with the compromise as presented by the Horse.
I fear that conservatives are not satisfied with even forcible participation in rituals, but want to force your heart and mind into compliance with them. Even, if there is no loss to them in any other way.
I am a veteran as well, and I cannot see, why this does not concern me, and others are up in arms about it. Why we have a president that attacks war heroes and those who died in service to the country, but talks all about patriotism when it comes to a harmless gesture by football players.
When that woman in Tennessee state government defied federal law by refusing a marriage license for a gay couple, conservatives talk about conscience and principles, but that can never apply to those "ungrateful" black and progressively oriented white football players.Excellent example with the marriage license lady. "Freedom with their exceptions" And, the McCain bashing? Trump turned his heroism on its head and his minions said "yes sir." The only patriotism for them seems to be to do and say what Trump wants. It's scary.
Yeah. It's rough seeing the values that even conservatives once held dear be torn apart by the confusion and hate spread by the "leader." Things were not great before Trump, but, I mean...I don't have the words."Things were not great before Trump, but, I mean...I don't have the words."
True, things were not great before Trump, but there is no question that we are going from bad to worse with Trump.Maybe a bit off subject here, but the anthem drama is an example of a nation divided.
I listened to SO many phone calls with Republicans and their talk about how Obama was dividing the nation, and we needed a President who could bring it back together again. First, while I didn't support everything Obama did, I think it's clear why he was divisive for a certain set (not all) of the population. Second, now we have Trump to unite us? It's mind boggling.
I hate bringing up my astroturf writing experience as though it makes me a political expert, because it doesn't---Please, someone bring a snide remark for that one. Also, many campaigns I'm not proud to admit I was involved with. But, I do think it gives me some decent incite into the collective frame of mind of different political factions.
I agree that they should be allowed to skip the ceremony. Empty gestures serve no purpose. I was just pointing out that refusal to stand for the flag is the same as bending a knee.
A game lasts, what? 4 hours? Can't they protest during the other 20?They don't get the attention they want if they do that. Only with a disgusting display in front of thousands plus millions of TV can they get that kind of attention.
Sounds like a pretty empty gesture then.
I understand your point Cred, but I think Jerry Jones is completely within his rights as an employer.maybe there is some angle that will involve the courts, but I support his action as an employer.
Whether I agree or disagree with the purpose of the protest action, I support his position because it involves voluntary employment - not any of that "... pray to your God, submit to your loyalty oaths ..." "thistle head" mumbo jumbo that has you seeing red. (oops! do you see red when mad, or an iridescent blue?)
GAWe all know that an employer's perogatives are not absolute otherwise we would not have banned slavery or created labor unions, yes? You reveal a whole lot more RED at times than you otherwise let on.
But, let me ask you if I were a player and goes out into the field and stand and is respectful from the view of the audience, but I have pop music playing from my concealed audio device in my earphones while this is going on. Can you live with that?Sure I have shades of red Cred, they are components of my purple. And on this issue, that purple is pretty deeply colored.
Speaking of "employer's prerogatives," I agree, they are not absolute. But in the context of this issue, your slavery and labor unions linkage is just false hyperbole, and I think you know it.
To your questions about the earphones, I would be okay with it until he got caught, then it would be an employment mandate issue between him and his employer.
You should remember that I am not offended by the player's kneeling, or staying in the locker room, I am just supportive of the owner's Right to legally run their business as they want.
You may find outrage at this player's restriction, but I think it is only because you find the cause just. I suspect other instances, like maybe a player refusing to do mandated sports interviews, might not generate the same angst in you.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago
0I guess you know we're not going to see eye to eye on this one Credence , You've totally ignored in the past that these players are not gods , they are simply employees of a football company ! Pretty simple . And when an employee works for the brand , he does what the brand tells him to do or he more than likely suffers the consequences . It isn't about free speech any more than it's about the fifth amendment .
It's simply and wholey about profitability . A few people have chosen activism in front of the cameras and so far suffered the results of their unprofessional acts of taking a political stand that effectively cost their employers millions of dollars by lost viewership , decline in ratings , depending on who you read out of googling it , as much in decline of around one third , this year alone somewhere around 10 % less in ratings?
Like it or not , Credence , the owners can do whatever they like about changing those ratings , returning their profit margins back near there original numbers . A player , on the job , under the lights , in front of the cameras ,directly affects profits by how his behavior is perceived by the $ masses on the other side of those paying cameras .
Comparison ; An employee of a fast food joint , you pick the name , decides he can no longer raise the American flag out in front of the building because he hates flags . The owner starts seeing a decline in the cars pulling into the drive through to the point it affects his bottom line . He can either put the flag up himself or he can fire the idiot he hired to do that particular job , go back into the office and do what he normally does , order frozen burgers .
What's the difference between this and the NFL ,other than a bunch of overpaid fools thinking themselves as Gods who wear tights and stand around posing for cameras alot ?I guess you know we're not going to see eye to eye on this one Credence , You've totally ignored in the past that these players are not gods , they are simply employees of a football company !
----------------------
Yeah, I am not surprised that we are going to see this differently, Horse
They are just performing seals? Rather than using your example, try this one. Say that Chik-Fi-Let has a morning prayer session before work begins and it is mandatory in regards to attendance, does that not cross the line? The next thing is that employers will insist that you prove that you voted Republican in the latest election to hold on to your job. I work for an employer, I am not obligated to bow head and bend knee is areas that are clearly within my conscience.
I am an employer, not a fawning slave.
The players are not offending anyone, they are just not there. Jones has decided that by coercing fealty he is going to raise ratings. Raising the American flag is a mechanical action, my beliefs are not tied in to a simple action.
Why do the players have to do anything beyond playing the sport, they are not offending the audience with inappropriate actions during the playing of the anthem?
If I were the players, I would coerce the managers into recognize there is no big money sports industry without the players, and you do not have control over every aspect of these lives. I would put out that challenge, as they the managers can be hurt as much as any threat against the players."Why do the players have to do anything beyond playing the sport"
Why do they burst from the locker rooms in a run? Why do they stand in line during the anthem? Why do they put up with female reporters in the locker rooms? Why are they forced to give interviews to reporters?
Answer: it's all part of the "game". So is saluting the flag rather than disrespecting it in an effort to gain attention to their private causes - causes that are NOT a part of the company they work for.OK, I see but, I put the same question to you that I put to GA, Can I just go through the motions as a player? Show up for the ceremony, stand respectfully, but have rock and roll playing over my private audio device into my headphones, and you know what else, the stadium knows that half of the players standing and in protest have personal stereos at full blast during the ceremony.
There is no further need to control the behavior of the players as the fans see everything they need to see...As long as it does not affect the appearance the employer is hiring you to give I don't see why not.
Of course those players designed the action, intentionally, to give a different appearance. It was effective, too, though it didn't give the results they wanted.
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Credence , I think this cause is the most BRILLIANT cause that the left in America should move forwards with today , Into the mid -terms and right on into the 2020 elections . What perfectly moral a cause for Democrats . The absolute mistreatment of 50 million dollar a year contracted football players .
I was wrong Credence , please delete my previous post ! There is NO better cause , NO finer platform for the left to adopt for the coming elections than a few disgruntled football players . This beats the heck out of jobs , out of education , healthcare costs and the economy, this is far more important an issue than trade deficits , returning jobs to America or making steel again in illinois ! I don't know what republicans are thinking , are they just having some kind of a political meltdown ?
Please include in my mailing a subscription for next years NFL tickets and my registration card for the DNC party please as I have had a major ideological awakening .........................:-] - ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Well here's a surprise , I understand both sides presented here to great extent . For one , having only come from a lower working class family and background I attain my thoughts relating to the employment of these players as in merely demanding they do what they are paid to do , follow basic instructions and not defame the company or the country.
Two , I come from a long line of military service in my family and follow a patriotic line of reasoning . Shouldn't we all be grateful for such a rich and varied and yes , oft times a tragic and sacrificing national history ? We also live shamelessly in a day when yes , patriotism for some is more defined by their need to destroy a heritage rather than build one , so be it for them , in my opinion they do not belong in America.
I accept that there are those in America and many here too where a negative connotation of the word patriot means something actually foreign to them although these acts and thoughts actually hurt people , So as to ceremony how about this , the next national holiday for say, MLK , I suggest to you all that we don't have to stand in remembrance of a damned thing to do with MLK sacrifices , if you want to go to work like any other day , go ahead ......
In the spirit of opening our minds to the fact that it's okay for someone to disrespect this celebration , I guess then that that old saying " Whats fair is fair " plays into the equation ? Let's all just cross each others lines of moral decency and leave our muddy tracks on the carpet . Sad part is , I was taught that if I learn about MLK I might have greater respect for him than I do for most human beings alive today. Does anyone here think that it's any different for us when the hair on the backs of our necks still rise at the national anthem ?"Shouldn't we all be grateful for such a rich and varied and yes , oft times a tragic and sacrificing national history ?"
That depends on what side of the looking glass you are sitting on.
---------
We also live shamelessly in a day when yes , patriotism for some is more defined by their need to destroy a heritage rather than build one , so be it for them , in my opinion they do not belong in America.
For me, people who do not recognize that that "heritage" is a reverence for the past, a history frought errors and wrong that constantly needed correcting, are backsliders to progress and they can leave too, as the future will not be denied.
--------
I accept that there are those in America and many here too where a negative connotation of the word patriot means something actually foreign to them although these acts and thoughts actually hurt people , So as to ceremony how about this , the next national holiday for say, MLK , I suggest to you all that we don't have to stand in remembrance of a damned thing to do with MLK sacrifices , if you want to go to work like any other day , go ahead ......
Most of you are doing THAT anyway.
---------
In the spirit of opening our minds to the fact that it's okay for someone to disrespect this celebration , I guess then that that old saying " Whats fair is fair " plays into the equation ? Let's all just cross each others lines of moral decency and leave our muddy tracks on the carpet . Sad part is , I was taught that if I learn about MLK I might have greater respect for him than I do for most human beings alive today. Does anyone here think that it's any different for us when the hair on the backs of our necks still rise at the national anthem ?
A most eloquent paragraph, Horse, that was a good point. I liked the track mud on the carpet part. I don't want to appear irreverant, but acknowledging your heroes and standards often times contradict what many us see as the reality. I am going to, more often than not, support the Indians over the Cowboys. How could that possibly fit into your value system?
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
My employer once took his employees to an Oregon Duck football game as part of a three-day team-building retreat, which was paid work time. We were wearing t-shirts indicating where we worked. Would it be okay for my employer to require me to stand during the playing of the national anthem at this particular football game, even if I didn't want to?
What if he started requiring employees to say the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of each work day? Would that be okay?
What if a bank required employees to wear an American flag lapel pin at work every day? Would that be okay?
I don't think anyone, employer or not, should require a display of patriotism from an individual. Patriotism is a much deeper concept than whether one stands or kneels for the national anthem. Patriotism includes accepting freedom for all, which includes the freedom to criticize and work for change in our country, even if it means offending someone's sensibilities. Forcing people to display patriotism in a manner that you personally believe is best cheapens the ideals of our country.
I'm embarrassed and ashamed that so many people are not addressing the life-and-death issue behind the original protests and instead are focusing on forcing individuals to bend to their own personal concepts of patriotism. That is a departure from American ideals of freedom. I am surprised so many of you would support such a violation of personal freedom.First exactly what......." life and death issues " were behind these knee jerks ? Second , Every single one of the "knees " knew NFL , Football , baseball , bass fishing and even Nascar are as American as apple pie, they knew that having the minutest amount of respect for the anyone , the system , the game and standing for an anthem was "part of the game "BEFORE they signed their multi million dollar contracts . and now know just ever so slightly what being an employee of a company suffering profits and loss actually is , although certainly not sufficiently. ! Sheltered lives is all they've known before and sheltered is all they are now .
So claiming "Oh look at the poor Football players that have to stand and be humiliated " is just a little bit lame Pretty Panther . You know what ? It's just a job , they like you and I can all choose to move on to another stadium where they don't have to stand .
But , they won't do that will they ?Not sure it is a "violation of personal freedom" at all. You are certainly free to find other employment, after all.
Is wearing a pin different than a dress code? A hairstyle? While religious beliefs are protected under the law, appearance, and especially appearance projecting company policies, are not.You don't consider being forced to publicly show reverence to an object a violation of your personal freedom?
And, aside from that, what do you all gain by forcing people to conform to your standards of patriotism? I think it takes a special kind of arrogance to want people to bow to your beliefs like that, legal or not. I shudder to think so many people in this country have such a streak of authoritarianism.
“Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil. … Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.” --Justice Robert Jackson, 1941You are not being forced. Being forced means that you have no choice, but it is always a choice to work in a specific place. You either follow the rules or be fired.
What do you gain by requiring a show of patriotism by employees? It would, of course, depend on the business, but the NFL found out when their customer base fell radically.
If you are the flag bearer of a marching band, should be you be required to carry the American flag, or would one of your choice be appropriate? If you are the guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier is it appropriate to wear shorts and T shirt?
Customers expect employees to behave in particular ways, and that can include dress, appearance and yes, saluting the flag. As the NFL found out.This new strain of "conservatism" is scary. I'm not frequenting these forums as much because I am genuinely horrified by the authoritarian views of my fellow citizens. {{{{{{{shudder}}}}}}
You guys dont even see what you're doing, on so many levels.Fair enough. The incessant demands on employers, business and just plain citizens by the "progressive" half is pretty scary too. And completely unrecognized by those that are doing it.
You want to consider "authoritarianism" think about the vast number of laws you would have enacted to control how one runs their own business. THAT'S authoritarianism, not an employer setting rules and guidelines about how they want an employee, voluntarily accepting those rules, to act when representing the business.
That has to be one of the more comical things I've heard - a liberal complaining about authoritarianism while demanding more laws to control people with.Right. My not wanting to breathe your toxic cigarette smoke in the workplace is authoritarian, while your wanting me to show reverence to an inanimate object to satisfy your definition of patriotism is not.
Got it.You're equating creating a high health risk to being intentionally disrespectful? I think you're grasping at straws, using irrelevant points to try and "prove" that employers have no right to require employees to follow reasonable company policies that benefit the company (and the players).
No I was being sarcastic
You are the one who stated "That has to be one of the more comical things I've heard - a liberal complaining about authoritarianism while demanding more laws to control people with."
Yes, liberals generally favor laws to protect people from those who would do harm. Yes, some go too far. Just like you authoritarians are going too far wanting others to conform to your concept of respect.
Tell me, did you ever once care if a football player was in the locker room during the anthem prior to the onset of these protests? Did you boycott a sports event because a player was in the locker room?
It's good to see you pop in PrettyPanther. Obviously I disagree with your comment, but maybe not for the expected reason.
I don't see the issue as involving either reverence, or an object.
Would your perspective be the same if you considered the description as respect for a national symbol, or respect for their fellow Americans who do revere it, rather than reverence for an object?
I think that is all that is being asked of the players - just respect the symbol that, to most Americans, represents their nation. They are not being forced to pledge alliance, or sing the anthem, just to respect what that symbol stands for to most Americans. No reverence demanded, and certainly not to an object, just respect for their fellow Americans.
Is it possible you might consider that a valid representation of how other non-PrettyPanthers might view this issue?
GAI understand that you see it that way. On the other hand I and many others see quietly kneeling as quite respectful, including veterans who fought for our freedom of speech and right to protest.
Why does your view have to be forced upon others? No one is forcing you to kneel out of respect for the many lives lost by police violence. Why must you force m others to conform to your standard of respect? The ironic thing is that prior to this protest, no one gave a hoot if a player was in the locker room or on the toilet while the anthem was being played. I've seen people sitting, talking, and swigging beer while the anthem was being played and I bet you defenders of the anthem have too and most of you didn't bat an eye.Because it is not your choice nor mine (nor GA's) It belongs to the business paying the salaries and providing the venue.
And they are (supposedly) doing it because people like you are having a tizzy fit when you probably paid no attention whatsoever if a player was on the crapper during the anthem, prior to the protests.
It is interesting what deserves respect and what a tizzy. If I remember, there was some speculation as to why I wouldn't understand why we should be upset because Trump stepped in front of the queen. But, now no one should be upset if someone kneels in front of the flag.
I suppose, it all depends on whether we might insult Americans or other people.I do not think anyone, including Trump, should be forced to walk behind the queen. Anyone is entitled to be upset about anything. That does not mean they should be entitled to force their desired behavior on others.
I agree. But, I also think if sometime paid me millions per year and the only thing I had to do for a minute or two was stand quietly and keep my opinion to myself...that couple of minutes would be a breeze.
But, they should have the right. I think the bigger travesty is the$20 price tag I hear they charge for a beer.Sometimes, the principles involved can and do supersede their interest in the compensation side. If all these men were just about the 'big' money, why would they even consider its loss by this show of 'defiance' during the ceremony?
Some peoplie's convictions can be bought; others choose integrity over money.
Sadly, some are forced to choose and will compromise their values to provide a good life for their families. I'd prefer not to unnecessarily force that choice on others just to satisfy my own views of patriotism.
That is not a good enough reason..It's like actors. Their job is to entertain. Once they begin to think they have some right to shove their opinions in our faces, simply because they are blessed with a venue to do it, I lose the ability to let them whisk me away into an adventure on the screen. Who they are stands in the way of the magic of becoming a different character in the movie.
Football is entertainment. A rough form, certainly. But, entertainment. If you can't entertain me during the time I've paid to be entertained that is your right. Don't be upset if I look elsewhere for my past-times.
Kudos. You got it right. The customers paying to see the game didn't like it. And the NFL didn't like the reaction (financial and otherwise) from their customers. So they stopped the practice: a most reasonable thing to do and completely outside the boundaries of being "authoritarian". A completely rational decision by the people owning the field, owning the business and paying the employees.
And you're also right; it was people like me. Although the NFL never knew it I was one of those that refused to turn on their entertainment program to watch a bunch of idiots intentionally disrespecting the primary symbol of my country. Didn't watch a game all year. My choice, same as it was theirs to show such disrespect in return for attention.(whispering) ahem ... is it safe for me to agree with you?
GA ;-)
First, we need to hold on to the truth that the "others" you are talking about are voluntary employees - not "others" that have no choice but be forced.
Then, I can accept the perspective that "kneeling" versus something like turning your back, can be considered as still being respectful.
It appears you have misunderstood my comments to be supportive of forcing my views on others. That was not my intent. Just as I don't support those "others" forcing their views on me.
What I am supportive of is the employer's Right - on this issue, to require a certain type of behavior, and as mentioned, within the legal framework of business operations.
Would you be as supportive of players that boycotted sports interviews, (a requirement of their employment), as a form of non-business related protests?
I think your "ironic thing" point validates what I am trying to say, more than it does yours. You are right, nobody probably gave a hoot about the players pre-game location or stance before this, but, when Americans that view the flag as a symbol of their nation had an act that they could only perceive as being disrespectful shoved in their face at what is probably viewed as being as all-American as baseball and apple pie, then, as is obvious by this controversy, they gave a big hoot.
Like the players choice to quit their employment if they didn't like what was being asked of them, the fans have the same choice, to quit being watchers and fans of the game. Which they did.
Which directly impacted the businesses of the owners. Your position seems to be that's too bad. An owner only has Rights to control his business as agrees with you. Within the laws, I see it differently.
And, as an opinion only, I think your closing about "... people sitting, talking, and swigging beer while the anthem was being played..." is a bunch of unrelated hooey. The same hooey others have tried by equating the public moment of an event, with the circumstances of seeing a flag or hearing the anthem in just any old setting you can imagine. They are two completely different things.
GAGA, the conflating of sports with nationalism is a marker for authoritarianism. It is a stretch to say it is a reasonable job requirement for a football player to be present and standing during the anthem. If all NFL owners require this, then they will be telling a player who trained his whole life to play football that he must conform to a symbolic act or find a different line of work. If you or wilderness don't see a problem with that, then we might as well stop talking.
We could stop talking PrettyPanther, because it is obvious we are viewing this issue from different perspectives. But I think it is more accurate to say the problem is that we are talking about different things.
The conflation of sports with nationalism is not the the employer's authoritarian order, it is a conflation made by the fans. If you want to toss out a label, put it on football fans, because without their reactions the owners probably would have done no more than what they did when the first "kneeling" happened - nothing.
I think it is your conflation of respect with reverence that is causing the disconnect. No one is asking for reverence, and the focus is not on an object, but a symbol.
Your point about "training for life..." is just another indicator of our differences. To me that sounds like you are saying that a football player dedicated his life to football, so his employer must let him do it his way. In your eyes the operation of a business must not only be legal, but by what you see as proper ethical considerations.
The bottom line is that you are probably right, we are both fighting a losing battle, so why continue?
GAI agree that we will not find resolution on this, but I do want to ask a question about one point you made: "The conflation of sports with nationalism is not the the employer's authoritarian order, it is a conflation made by the fans."
First, I want to add "....made by the fans and inflamed and encouraged by the President of the United States.
Does this not disturb you even a little bit?First, I want to add "....made by the fans and inflamed and encouraged by the President of the United States.
This is my main problem with the entire ordeal and is why I also brought Trump into this particular conversation. He plays a big role in the ordeal.Yes it does PrettyPanther. It was not necessary for him to butt in. It reflected poorly on him, and by extension our country, and, I think, as you do, that his action did inflame and encourage the negative blowback of the fans - and the knotheads.
GASo lets get this all straightened out , You want's the Pres. of the United States to ;
- Oversee Fed, government
- Protect our borders
- Protect our national interests
- Protect our nat. resources
- Nominate Federal judgeships
- Declare certain war powers
- Balance congress
- Oversee foreign diplomacy
- Generally oversee all federal policy
- Welcome world leaders
- Negotiate trade
But he cannot under any circumstances ;
- Speak to patriotism
I don't think the" knotheads" are speaking loud enough .Why would you think I don't think he should "speak to patriotism?
Is it only your determination of patriotism that is the right one?
Anyone that doesn't see it the same way you do, maybe shouldn’t be in the country?
GA.It could be about the issue of Trump saying about anything he wants , anytime he wants , about whatever he wants ...........
You do right ?Being President of the United States, you are to be held to a higher standard. His words reverberate around the world and are representative of the people of the United States. So, a little restraint and discretion is always in order
Sure do ahorseback, and I have had to eat my words enough times to prove it.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
GAWell , The left is all about trying something new right ?
Let's give this a whirl for awhile ..........:-]If Ron Paul was teaching us the right way, sure. They will never allow Presidents with intelligent and healthy critical thinking in high office, That is not in your owners interest.
And that is exactly what we are doing, isn't it ahorseback?
My thoughts on whether there can ever be a situation where the ends can justify means are being sorely tested.
Yes I do have an issue with that ahorseback, I expect more from my president, than I do from my beer-drinking buddies, (so to speak).
That's what my reference to the "ends justifying the means" thought was about,GA , Your party is looking to the future finally , Cortez , a twenty eight year old female Bernie Sanders, gaining ground and coming from a call for socialism by millennials and -X-ers , That is what you get for not listening to your "beer drinking buddies " GA , Another ideological student of democratic socialism who's first change will be " Trillions for green energy "
can you blame us ?
While Trump voters stripped down the usual B S model image , an empty suit , pseudo intellectual , pretty little family, P.C. Obamist and chose leadership above image for our gamble at "hope and change " , we chose a builder , a businessman . There are times when liberals should just stand back and let those who really know leadership, lead.With Trump? Ha..
This is definitely NOT one of those times!!ahorseback, your assumption concerning "my party" is as accurate as your assumption that you know what patriotism is, and as correct as your declaration that all Pres. Trump, and his supporters have done is strip away the PC BS.
GA
Interesting, Panther gives voice to my concern, and allows me to believe my case is valid although I am overwhelmed with the Red goo.
Why do conservatives believe that respect and patriotism has to be displayed to their liking? It it always seems more like just stamping out dissent.
So, I stand like an automaton during the ceremony sucking a lifesaver or chewing gum, even though the rightwinger has his wish of having the appropriate image on display for their customers "business" or company, what else do you want? I give you the appearance, and my heart and mind is far away, you can't change that. But you all will surely try.
I had noted that GA said that the earphones are fine as long as the "boss" does not catch you? My job as a player is to give the appearance of reverance, only. Why would the manager or boss be concerned about activities not readily observed and therefore do the affect bottom line?
I will share a brief story. Many many years ago, I worked for a temporary security service as a contractor employee. I met the dress code, uniforms, shined shoes to comply with the image the company wanted to convey. But I was "called on the carpet" by my supervisor who said that he had received reports from other employees that my reading material during lunch break in the designated area was provocative. I had just been given a 'hot' copy of "Soul on Ice" by Eldridge Cleaver. Someone that saw me reading this rèported me and although it was none of their business what I was reading on my time, the boss thought otherwise. While never having read the book, he automatically presumed that it was provocative and he asked me not to bring this in. So, OK, I wanted to keep my job, so I complied. But was it fair? Should my every prerogative to be controlled by an employer as a condition of my keeping a job?
The danger of giving a employer "total" control of all aspects of an employee behavior even when not job related gets to crossing a slippery slope. I cannot believe that only progressives can see the obvious.Good example. IMO the employer was an idiot and far too concerned about what you were doing.
But at the same time it IS his building, his property, and he DOES have the legal right to prohibit things he doesn't like. Even the ethical right. Consider the case of the janitor in the Vatican that brings his pagan spell book to work to read and study on his break.
So he has the right, even the ethical right, but is foolish and over controlling to exercise it.Thank you, Wilderness
My wife told me that during her nursing training she was berated by her supervisor for wearing a "corn roll" hairstyle. As a black women, she could not follow the "Miss Clarol" model. She would have to unnaturally process her hair to mimic the appearance of the white nurses on the floor, is that reasonable?
There is a reason why we have anti-discrimination lawsuits and protected classes. If The boss attacks the natural style of how Black women wear their hair can this not be seen as an attack on her that is unjustified and is still related to her race or ethnicity?
Like you and I have discussed before, I never believe that an employer's Rights are ABSOLUTE.No, an employer's rights are not absolute. Neither are an employee's.
Both sides of the table need to be accepting - the employer accepting of an employees wishes and life, the employee of the employer's need to keep customers happy and earn a profit. When either side decides that their wishes take absolute priority without compromise or care it becomes a problem.
Modifying your example a little, consider a giant afro on a fast food chef or server. Not appropriate, but corn rows might be (not a health inspector or expert here). Male facial hair could be real problem, beyond appearance and customer perception, as well.Don't get me wrong, Wilderness. Of course, I recognized the prerogatives of the employer in regards to his requirements of his or her workers. But standards have to be job related, big Afro, in regards to hair getting into customer's food, is a justifyiable public health issue. These are issues about being clean,neat and well groomed and such and such and I agree with those concepts. The employer has the predominate number of options as the employee works for them. But, I say that he or she crosses the line with arbitrary requirements that have abosolutely to do with the job, but is a personal caprice. Why should I have to pray with Chic filet employees every morning, for example. We live in a system where any "bosses" caprice regarding employees is not absolute. Otherwise we are going backward, as a caprice could be seen as discriminatory.
"But, I say that he or she crosses the line with arbitrary requirements that have abosolutely to do with the job, but is a personal caprice. "
While I agree completely with this, the problem is that some employees will disagree with that "absolutely nothing to do with the job". They don't care what appearance the employer is trying to create and will shift blame for falling business to customers rather than themselves in an effort to appear/behave as they want to. Whereas the employer cares a great about the bottom line and what customers think and how they react.
Not you too Cred... Am I the only one that thinks respect and reverence are different things?
I haven't heard of any owner's actions that mandated reverence. Nor have I seen any actions that mandated the player must respect the symbol that is the flag.
The only owner action I have seen is the demand that the player's respect the traditional moment of the ceremony that apparently is very important to the fans.
Have I missed something? Do you think the owners are demanding that the players revere the flag? Or could you consider that they are just demanding that, while representing "the company," they show the courtesy of respecting the sensibilities of the "customers?"
GA
Some good points hit upon here. It seems to me much of it comes down to at what point do employer's rights violate human rights. We've already handed over many of the rights a lot of our ancestors fought for, especially in states with "right to work laws." American worker rights erode more each day. Is it, or should it be, a human right to protest peacefully when it doesn't effect job performance?
Also, the biggest problem I have is that Trump stuck his nose in where it doesn't belong here. Are NFL owner's making decisions or are their hands being forced by Trump?Yes, that is just one more marker of authoritarianism. A president using his position to bully business owners into complying with his concept of patriotism. Unfortunately, this unethical behavior is not only tolerated but encouraged by many Americans. They should be outraged, but no, they're more interested in forcing their fellow Americans to conform to their sentiments.
Right to work laws violate human rights? Can you expand on that - how having the right to make a labor contract with another is a violation of human rights?
"should it be, a human right to protest peacefully when it doesn't effect job performance?"
Change that "job performance" to "business performance" (as in income generated) and ask again.3 pages of responses discussing the issue, and now, without offering any input, other then the "what it comes down to...", generalization, you feel the need to inject a Trump criticism into the thread. Why?
Do you feel the employers are wrong? Do you think that respect is the same as reverence? Do you think the issue is the owners demanding the players revere the flag, or respect the sensibilities of the fans? Do you feel the players have the Right to dictate how they will perform their employment requirements, or that the owners, the ones offering the employment, have that Right?
So many good opportunities to contribute. So little need to bring in a Trump criticism. Sheesh.
GAFirst, I contributed earlier in the forum, and stated my feelings on ALL of the things you brought up here.
Second....Why? Because the only absolute clear wrong doing I see here is Trump's intervention. And, Trump put HIMSELF into this situation, not me
Thanks for your contribution of going out of your way to find a reason to attack me, which turned about to be simply wrong. Something I said at one time must have really gotten under your skin, or you're more a part of the Trump bandwagon than you want to admit.
Please, next time, take the time to look at the thread before posting. You asked me to read through your bac kposts on different threads to better understand you before replying to you. Yet, you can't even read through my posts on one thread before attacking me?
Sheesh.
Find it on Page one by looking chronologically. I can copy it here since you seem to long for my input:
"'m for freedom. As a vet (no combat duty), I think as many, but not all, vets do on this: the military fights, in part, to protect the freedom of expression that goes along with things like flag burning. I'm not stating that NFL players kneeling is akin to flag burning, I'm just giving a little background on my view.
I think it's ridiculous, and un-American to tell players they can't protest peacefully as they see fit. And this move by Jerry Jones does wreak of
"We want to see you capitulate, so you WILL bow head and bend knee at our command before the entire world."
Also, it's not the president's place to tell the owners of private entities what to do...most presidents wouldn't even go there, but we know Trump, so...
At the same time, I recognize we all have to do what our employer asks or we are subject to discipline up to termination. So, the players have a choice even if if there's no good option.
I think workers' rights should be better than this but this is the system we all deal with. So, it's Jones's right to force players to do this on NFL time. I never liked the Cowboys, or Jerry Jones, anyway."Well damn, and I even responded to your quoted comment! You're right, and I was wrong - the comment I took issue with wasn't your first foray into the topic.
And I think you may also be half-right about the bandwagon point. You are wrong about me and the Trump support bandwagon. I am not on it. But you may be half-right in that perception, when I so frequently bristle and speak up when I see an anti-Trump insertion in a topic that wasn't a Trump action/issue thread.
I think you are also half right about something you said getting under my skin, but it wasn't you specifically, (although it was you specifically in this instance), it was you as a group member; the group that feels the need to interject a bash-Trump crack into every topic - germane or not. There are plenty of threads for that. That is almost the whole forum these days, so when done to none-Trump threads it is irritating.
But I complain about that shoe when it's on the other foot too, ie. the interjection of anti-Left/Liberals cracks in non-relative threads. I think you can see a similar reaction from me on the Winston Churchill Biography "The End of Glory" thread.
Sheesh... and it wasn't even a martini night. I will look for a salve for that irritation problem I have.
GAThanks for acknowledging the error..it happens.
"But I complain about that shoe when it's on the other foot too,..."
It's good also to see an acknowledgment that this happens as well. Thanks Obama became a long-running joke because of how ridiculous it became.
Speaking in general here, I think one reason why Trump gets interjected into so many arguments, is that he interjects himself into so many arguments. Trump felt the need to speak out about the NFL situation so he is now part of the conversation. This is in contrast to "no drama Obama" who often perturbed the left for not getting involved in social issues enough when they wanted him to intervene. I like the less drama approach.
Having said all that, I understand there are times when Trump is unnecessarily brought into the equation. This likely is a result of the general moral outrage that even the thought of Trump brings. You know I think that this outrage is valid, but these reactions are not always the most conducive to a productive conversation.
I bring facts, often with links, to support my arguments and try to keep on topic. However, I think what basically amounts to the trolls, sometimes get me off topic. As you state you are not that far up Trumps rear, as some are, I am not the bleeding heart liberal that some on here want to make me simply because I'm not a Trump fan. I think you did acknowledge that yourself before, so that's not aimed at you."... not that far up Trumps rear..." Argrrrrr... A final twist of the blade.
Okay, I brought it on myself. But you are going to have to work for the next opening.
GA :-)
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
I once worked for a company where some employees felt the company vehicles advertising was too excessive and hated driving the trucks to the companies many job sites ,they also didn't want to wear company uniforms , voiced their opinions about it .and were given the choice of not going to the job sites at all and staying home . This is no different .
So what happens when tomorrow some players decide they don't like the colors of their team jerseys will they be allowed to wear other team uniforms ? Maybe they can wear the uniform of the team they really want to play for ?
When the owners finally realize that yes , we are losing too much income from rating drops, begin firing those who affect the ratings and income and replacing them with those who will stand for the anthem , what course of litigation do these fired players have . None. They chose to not obey the employers rules .
This isn't a human , labor or civil rights issue , this is an employee ,employer issue , It's no different for some people than driving that big brown ugly UPS truck , I'm sure some drivers would like a prettier truck , Like an NFL player they have the right to seek employment elsewhere . - ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Devil's advocate , Why can't Trump speak his mind , use his free speech rights ?
Because the NFL players surely are , the NFL owners are , The public is in raising or lowering the NFL ratings , you are , I am .............
Yet so many of the masses here believe either that Trump doesn't have the same right as you do or that he somehow should act more responsibly ? What an self righteous and false elaborating bunch of hypocrites .Trump is the President. It's likely against the law for a President to do things like tell owners of private businesses to fire employees. If you can't see this, maybe you need to move to Russia.
"a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."
Here's a link to the relevant statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227
lock her up, lock her up, lock...um oh wait, lol
https://www.thewrap.com/trump-nfl-slapp … exclusive/Why should I have to move to Russia when anarchy , Nazism and tyranny are alive and well right here in the good ole' USA 's leftist movement ? Your party holds different standards for everyone they look at . Until the political mirror reflects the images of utter hypocrisy back at them that is , So what ? Your party can literally rip up the streets of America in disgust of one ideal or another but a man can't speak his mind about those who promote America hate ? Were you actually brought up in Russia or some similar place ?
Patriotism ; There should actually not only be laws for instance about say flag burning ,which there are but there should be enforcement of these laws . Your promotions ,Just one more step in the absolute promotion of anarchy in the streets of America today .
Congratulations.Are you going to respond to the actual issue of why Trump should not be sticking his nose into NFL's business? This is the way dictators behave..or attempted ones anyway.
The actual issue? Your mean his personal opinion of what he would have liked to see the NFL do in response?
While you might like to turn that opinion into a direct order ("It's likely against the law for a President to do things like tell owners of private businesses to fire employees.") it never was." It never was" REALLY, that may be up to the Supreme Court...definitely not us.
I'm not a lawyer, but if you read the law...his talk about NFL players is, if nothing else very borderline illegal. And there are lawyers making the argument that they are illegal right now. That's a fact, not my opinion.
This is why other President's did not open their mouths on every issue. Such laws help protect us from wannabe dictators. Most Presidents understand this and don't even go there. When you speak as the President, your words mean more than just a personal opinion.
When I speak, do the owners listen? Now, when the president disparages the NFL and threatens to continue to do so if things aren't done how he wants them to be done..that is public interference into private enterprise. Conservative are not for this...Trumpians are.Honest opinion - ido you really think the NFL cares one iota what Trump thinks? They know he can't force them into anything, and no one else cares what he thinks either (except to claim it is illegal to have an opinion) - do you think the NFL cares?
I think it's obvious the NFL cares because when Trump disparages the league it loses fans. The NFL cares about money, so yes the NFL cares. This is why some owners are caving into what Trump wants. Trump's followers make a bigger issue out of something if Trump speaks about it. That's clear to everyone, except maybe the most die-hard Trump fanatics.
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Why," Trump should not be sticking his nose into NFL's business "
Because apparently it's only liberals that can do that . Obama told coal companies , " I'm announcing a moratorium on new coal leases "...........That kind of "............sticking his nose in...... "?
Obama telling the fishing industry no more fishing here? Creating a huge National Marine Monument off the coast of Hawaii ?
Like that"'.....sticking his nose into business......?"
Didn't bother you with the coal miners ?
Didn't bother you with the fishermen ?
But somehow with the NFL it offends you?Some of this does bother me. You see, I don't pick a leader and decide he or she is infallible. But, BIG DIFFERENCE...Obama was talking about laws that the government can implement,not telling employers to fire workers. The US federal govt has authority to protect then environment and create National monuments. Coal leases are when the federal government leases ITS land to private entities. So the fed government has no right to decide who it leases land to?
Apples and Oranges, straw dog, etc.BS .and you know it ! It's the same thing except for the massive embarrassment of your parties choices of outrage over such policy , Listen to yourselves , you chosen to side with multi -million dollar private contractors dressed in lilly white tites , clean company jerseys , Maserati's and diamond necklaces , multi-million dollar homes over the abject poverty of coal mining families , remaining wooden boat fishermen , carpenters , plumbers or any layman !
Are you starting to see the absolute brilliance of your parties chosen reasons for such outrage ?I don't have a party. And, while I understand your round-about attempt at making a point...it's still nonsensical. If you look back, I stated that employers have the right to tell employees what to do. I'm taking the side of democracy and truth, all that stands for. You like that...MAGA!
Do you want to give Trump the authority to fire private employees?
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Geees.
Whining about what , Trump still ? It's kind of pitiful actually , 2 years almost after an election and some people are whiney because what ? Trump has been interjected into a politics and social issues Forum ?
Think about that .So, we can't criticize a President in the US now? When people criticized Obama, it was okay.
This conversation is not about the election/ The election is over. Trump won and now his held accountable for his decisions. Get over it..LOLYeah! Stop your bitching, hand over that Jew GOLD.
What do you mean calling out JEWS ?
Little prejudiced there Castlepaloma ?Correction Zionist, fake jews.
So... you still don't think we're not owned by Zionist bankers and multimedia. They even wrote many of the old western and frontirermen
Related Discussions
- 24
New NFL Rule , Stand at Anthem or Sit in Locker Room ?
by ahorseback 5 years ago
It's about time ! One positive aspect of either deliberate or non-deliberate boycotting ?
- 112
What do you think about the NBA/NFL players who kneel when our national Anthem i
by Shyron E Shenko 6 years ago
What do you think about the NBA/NFL players who kneel when our national Anthem is played?Is it to show their disdain for the lawmen of our country when they enforce our laws? Or their disrespect for our country?Are they teaching our children to disobey our country’s laws, teaching them there should...
- 163
NFL Players standing for the National Anthem
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
How do you feel about the new NFL ruling requiring players on the field to stand during the playing of the national anthem. This ruling was not brought about by any government influence. It occurred because of economic pressure placed on the NFL by the fans of the NFL. These are...
- 19
Pres. Trump Hush Money trail vs. Pro-Palestine Protests
by ga anderson 41 hours ago
BBC is the only haven today. CNN is an all-day Trump Trial and Fox is an all-day pro-Palestine protests.Since there are visuals of protesters shouting Death to America as well as Death to Isreal, describing them as anti-Isreal is no longer enough.The protests that have shut down the Golden...
- 11
Why do football players put the black marks under their eyes?
by Zaiden Jace 12 years ago
Why do football players put the black marks under their eyes?
- 17
Colin Kaepernick, Chose to Not Stand For National Anthem; Was He Right
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick chose a risky way to protest the disproportionate number of black deaths at the hands of white cops ... who get away with it. He said:"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To...