Artie Burns is not happy with new NFL National Anthem policy

Wallace108 wrote:

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

nice debating wally..

Don't encourage me. It never ends well.  

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

i'd also like to add that these players have other venues they could address the topic on that would be far more effective than a silent protest. these guys constantly have reporters around them

Spot on. And even beyond access to traditional media, they have access to tens of thousands or even millions of people through social media. If they want to make a statement or get a message out, they have a number of ways to reach an audience of millions without offending half the fan base and bringing unwanted scrutiny to their employer. NFL players don't need to protest during a game to have their voices heard.

look wally , Dak agrees with us ...



   “I never protest,” Prescott said. “I never protest during the anthem, and I don’t think that’s the time or the venue to do so. The game of football has always brought me such peace, and I think it does the same for a lot of people — a lot of people playing the game, a lot of people watching the game, a lot of people who have any impact of the game — so when you bring such controversy to the stadium, to the field, to the game it takes away. It takes away from that, it takes away from the joy and the love that football brings a lot of people.

Prescott later said he respects the decision of the players who do protest, but added that he’s more about action as opposed to silent protests.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/dak-prescott-gets-called-raiders-linebacker-critical-player-protests-044319643.html

It's bad enough he's a Cowboy, but I can't respect anyone who would agree with us on anything.

By the way, I miss your old avatar from the SF and SU days.

this one ?

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

Wallace108 wrote:

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

nice debating wally..

Don't encourage me. It never ends well.  

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

i'd also like to add that these players have other venues they could address the topic on that would be far more effective than a silent protest. these guys constantly have reporters around them

Spot on. And even beyond access to traditional media, they have access to tens of thousands or even millions of people through social media. If they want to make a statement or get a message out, they have a number of ways to reach an audience of millions without offending half the fan base and bringing unwanted scrutiny to their employer. NFL players don't need to protest during a game to have their voices heard.

look wally , Dak agrees with us ...



   “I never protest,” Prescott said. “I never protest during the anthem, and I don’t think that’s the time or the venue to do so. The game of football has always brought me such peace, and I think it does the same for a lot of people — a lot of people playing the game, a lot of people watching the game, a lot of people who have any impact of the game — so when you bring such controversy to the stadium, to the field, to the game it takes away. It takes away from that, it takes away from the joy and the love that football brings a lot of people.

Prescott later said he respects the decision of the players who do protest, but added that he’s more about action as opposed to silent protests.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/dak-prescott-gets-called-raiders-linebacker-critical-player-protests-044319643.html

It's bad enough he's a Cowboy, but I can't respect anyone who would agree with us on anything.

By the way, I miss your old avatar from the SF and SU days.

this one ?

Yep. It brings back a lot of memories of braintrusts and bannings.

You should try it on and see if it still fits.

I agree with Dak. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a discussion, but football isn't the place to be doing it. Players are abusing their celebrity athlete status to force their opinions onto the masses. That's not OK. They are getting paid, they are employed, and the NFL has every right to tell them to protest on their own time. If I did what they were doing at my job, I'd probably get suspended the first time, and fired if I did it again.

IowaSteeler927 wrote:

I agree with Dak. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a discussion, but football isn't the place to be doing it. Player's are abusing their celebrity athlete status to force their opinions onto the masses. That's not OK. They are getting paid, they are employed, and the NFL has every right to tell them to protest on their own time. If I did what they were doing at my job, I'd probably get suspended the first time, and fired if I did it again.

And this is the point a lot of people are failing to understand. Yes, NFL players are wealthy and famous, but they're still employees of the NFL. And just like any other employees at any other businesses, they have to abide by the business's rules. It's fine to disagree with the rule (I disagree with my company's dress code), but the issue has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment and violation of rights. I honestly can't wrap my head around what's so hard to understand about that.

Wallace108 wrote:

IowaSteeler927 wrote:

I agree with Dak. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a discussion, but football isn't the place to be doing it. Player's are abusing their celebrity athlete status to force their opinions onto the masses. That's not OK. They are getting paid, they are employed, and the NFL has every right to tell them to protest on their own time. If I did what they were doing at my job, I'd probably get suspended the first time, and fired if I did it again.

And this is the point a lot of people are failing to understand. Yes, NFL players are wealthy and famous, but they're still employees of the NFL. And just like any other employees at any other businesses, they have to abide by the business's rules. It's fine to disagree with the rule (I disagree with my company's dress code), but the issue has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment and violation of rights. I honestly can't wrap my head around what's so hard to understand about that.

Precisely, I disagree with my employer's policy regarding facial hair. Guess what? I still don't get to have facial hair outside of a stupid stereotypical mustache, and if I were to protest it I'd be on unpaid leave.

There's a bit of difference between work dress codes etc and being forced into faux political acts, which is what it is when choice is taken out. If this were done elsewhere many in favour of it in this instance would be all over lack of freedom, totalitarianism etc.

Add to that I'm a truculent bugger, even if I agree with something ,if I'm told I have to, I'll rail against it.

Geordie wrote:

There's a bit of difference between work dress codes etc and being forced into faux political acts, which is what it is when choice is taken out. If this were done elsewhere many in favour of it in this instance would be all over lack of freedom, totalitarianism etc.

Add to that I'm a truculent bugger, even if I agree with something ,if I'm told I have to, I'll rail against it.

I don't think the Anthem is a faux political act. It's just supposed to be a time that we stand and honor our country. Funny you don't see Canadians doing this kind of thing, for that matter I don't think I've seen British people doing it either. I see it as a time to honor those that gave their lives for the flag and for the freedoms that we are afforded today because of the blood they've shed.

It simply isn't a time for political protest. Would one protest in the middle of a moment of silence? No. It's a time for peace, respect, and dignity. People make it political when it's not.

Yes the NFL has contracts with the military, but the Anthem is done before all kinds of major events whether it be a festival in a small town, a high school football game, a parade, etc... It's just not a time for political protests in my eyes, especially ones that try to demonize and generalize and entire profession worth of people over the wrongful actions of the very, very few.

Geordie wrote:

There's a bit of difference between work dress codes etc and being forced into faux political acts

Both scenarios fall under the umbrella of workplace rules. Just as my employer can tell me what to wear, he can also require me to participate in acts of patriotism while at work. It's then up to me to decide whether I want to adhere to either of those policies and continue working there.

People keep trying to make this an issue of free speech, but it's really not. The government can't require me to participate in acts of patriotism, but my employer can. I can disagree with him all I want, but he has that right. Same goes for NFL players. They can disagree with the anthem policy all they want, but the NFL is well within its rights to require them to stand.

Do you think an employer should have that right ? Do you think the NFL would have carried out this directive if Trump hadn't pushed for it ?

The anthem itself isn't a faux political act. It's observance via threats makes it one that way.

Geordie wrote:

Do you think an employer should have that right ? Do you think the NFL would have carried out this directive if Trump hadn't pushed for it ?

Yes, employers should have that right. As long as no crimes are being committed and no one's health is at risk, less government interference the better. If I own a business and require my employees to wear American flag shirts as part of the dress code (for example) there's no reason for government involvement. It's an issue between me, my employees, and my customers. I'm free to require that employees wear patriotic shirts, my employees are free to adhere to it or work someplace else, and my customers are free to choose whether they want to give their money to my business.

There's no question that Trump added fuel to the fire, but it was already a big issue long before Trump commented on it. People were walking away from the NFL over the issue, so at some point the NFL had to take a stance, one way or the other. Before Trump's comments, the issue had died down a little, but it was still boiling under the surface.

Wallace108 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

Do you think an employer should have that right ? Do you think the NFL would have carried out this directive if Trump hadn't pushed for it ?

Yes, employers should have that right. As long as no crimes are being committed and no one's health is at risk, less government interference the better. If I own a business and require my employees to wear American flag shirts as part of the dress code (for example) there's no reason for government involvement. It's an issue between me, my employees, and my customers. I'm free to require that employees wear patriotic shirts, my employees are free to adhere to it or work someplace else, and my customers are free to choose whether they want to give their money to my business.

There's no question that Trump added fuel to the fire, but it was already a big issue long before Trump commented on it. People were walking away from the NFL over the issue, so at some point the NFL had to take a stance, one way or the other. Before Trump's comments, the issue had died down a little, but it was still boiling under the surface.

It's written into the policy for the office I work for that I will not say or do anything to disparage the office. I knew that when I signed up. If I was running my own company, I wouldn't want it to where my employees could just say and do as they please... at the end of the day they represent my company and if they are misrepresenting it, or flat out disrespecting it by violating written policies then they can and should be subject to discipline and/or termination if the circumstances dictate it. It's no different for the NFL. These guys are employed, they sign contracts, and I'm sure the NFL has plenty of written policies in place that govern how players should act when they're representing the NFL. It's pretty clear, cut, and dry. They are wearing that uniform, they are at work, and they are therefore representing their employer (the NFL, and their respective franchise). If the NFL says you can't protest during the Anthem, then you can't.

I think the NFL needs to stop being weak-minded and tell the players you can either shut up and play on gameday, or you won't be allowed into the stadium and will be immediately suspended. They might rebel for like a week, but when they're not getting paid, and they're not playing, they'll fall back in line.

At the end of the day, protest on your own time. I don't need to see the hateful rhetoric towards my profession during a form of escape from said profession.

The reason I still watch the NFL when a lot of my coworkers refuse to, is because I know not every player supports the BS against law enforcement. That being said, where are these jerkoffs when there were 70 shootings in Chicago over the past weekend and a child was shot? Where's their protest then? Black Lives Matter and other anti-LEO groups only complain and protest when it furthers their agenda against the police. When there's gang shootings at record levels, they couldn't give two shits less.

Wow ! So much for the land of the free. In the UK we have the right to air our own views providing we don't bring the employer into disrepute..

Geordie wrote:

Wow ! So much for the land of the free. In the UK we have the right to air our own views providing we don't bring the employer into disrepute..

People are plenty free here, free to protest on their own time, not while they're being paid quite handsomely to do a job under contract.

Geordie wrote:

Wow ! So much for the land of the free. In the UK we have the right to air our own views providing we don't bring the employer into disrepute..

Freedom should exist for everyone, not just certain people. NFL players are free to protest. On their own time. The NFL owners also have freedom, and they want to be free from the fallout of the protests. The NFL owners are against the protests, so if they are forced to allow something that harms their business, how would that be defined as freedom? In that scenario, as you're defining it, the players would have freedom, but the owners would not.

In America, one person's rights and freedom ends where another person's begins. You have the right to stand there and throw punches in the air, but you don't have the right to punch me in the face.

Players have the right to throw punches in the air (protesting on their own time), but they don't have the right to punch NFL owners in the face (protesting during games and driving away fans). Freedom should exist for everyone. The players are free to protest (on their own time when they're representing themselves and not the NFL). And the NFL owners are free to not be associated with those protests.

Wallace108 wrote:

Geordie wrote:

Wow ! So much for the land of the free. In the UK we have the right to air our own views providing we don't bring the employer into disrepute..

Freedom should exist for everyone, not just certain people. NFL players are free to protest. On their own time. The NFL owners also have freedom, and they want to be free from the fallout of the protests. The NFL owners are against the protests, so if they are forced to allow something that harms their business, how would that be defined as freedom? In that scenario, as you're defining it, the players would have freedom, but the owners would not.

In America, one person's rights and freedom ends where another person's begins. You have the right to stand there and throw punches in the air, but you don't have the right to punch me in the face.

Players have the right to throw punches in the air (protesting on their own time), but they don't have the right to punch NFL owners in the face (protesting during games and driving away fans). Freedom should exist for everyone. The players are free to protest (on their own time when they're representing themselves and not the NFL). And the NFL owners are free to not be associated with those protests.

I'm in complete agreement with Wallace and the last line in particular. This has always been my issue with the protest. The players don't seem to be doing anything to further their cause outside the few minutes before games. They have the financial backing as well as several months a year off work where they could protest all they wanted. They could take a nationwide spring tour of the big USA cities, they'd likely even get donations to pay their way ,they'd get national news coverage, they could speak in depth and further the cause they are pursuing. But we hear little other than how dissatisfied they are for not being able to protest when they are on the clock and about ready to work.

TV air times for games are meant just for that. I don't think there are many if any businesses in the USA that would allow using company time for a personal protest especially if the company started to lose money because of it. If anything they likely have been given way more leeway by the NFL because they are in the national eye. I respect the players to have their own agendas and work to effect change, but commandeering games they are not paying for as their main or only platform doesn't endear me to the movement.

My biggest issue is the villainization of all law enforcement like we're all out to get minority groups. It's ridiculous. How many times have people flat out lied to the media trying to make the police look bad? How many times have the body cams proved these people wrong? Why doesn't the MSM call these people out when they lie? Why is it okay to try to ruin someone's life and career with false cries of racism? Where is BLM, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton when innocent bystanders and little kids are shot up by gangbangers in cities like Chicago? I assure you, gang violence, and criminality are much bigger issues than the literal handful of bad apple cops out there.

Are there bad police officers out there? Yep, there is. There's bad people everywhere, and in every profession. But I don't need to watch spoiled athletes that have had everything handed to them on a silver platter generalizing police/corrections based on the actions of the few. Colin Kaepernick wore socks with pigs in police hats on them, that's an insult to American police officers across the board from a spoiled athlete that hasn't walked a single day in the shoes of the police. If you're going to generalize, insult, and berate and entire group or profession you should at the very least go out and do some ride alongs and see what they deal with every day and every night. But why put in that work, why give anyone the benefit of the doubt when you can play victim's advocate for career criminals and gangbangers?

A few years back I was in a Supervisor's meeting at work. The plant manager was not happy with the way the place looked so we were told first shift supervisors would be coming in on our day off to clean it up.

I asked if second shift would also be working as well and he said no. I said I didn't think it was right for us to have to clean up their mess in addition to ours and his response was: "I don't give a damn what you think. We're going to get this place cleaned up with or without you,the choice is yours whether you want to continue working here." I was pissed off not so much about having to work as I was being embarrassed in front of my peers.

After the meeting I told that manager that I thought the problem with the company is that "those who work have to take up the slack for those who won't and those who won't never get punished. I went on to say that this was what was fucked up about the company". He didn't fire me but I still had to come up,clean up first and second shift messes.

My point is he had every right to make me do the cleanup and I had every right to refuse, and as we like to put it back then "GET QUIT". Workplace rules are workplace rules.

Eagles, Dolphins players protest during anthem

By Austin Knoblauch
Published: Aug. 9, 2018

Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins resumed his protest against social inequality by raising his fist during the national anthem prior to Thursday's preseason opener against the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Jenkins was joined on the sideline by cornerback De'Vante Bausby, who also raised a fist. Eagles defensive end Chris Long put his arm around Jenkins in a sign of support -- just like he did last season.

In addition to Jenkins, Miami Dolphins wide receivers Kenny Stills and Albert Wilson took a knee during the anthem. Miami defensive end Robert Quinn raised a fist into the air. San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Marquise Goodwin also raised a fist into the air before his team's game against the Dallas Cowboys.

to read rest of article:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000946620/article/eagles-dolphins-players-protest-during-anthem

So no one gets the incongruity of people being forced to do things along to a song that extols freedom ? If it really means that much make sure every spectator is there to observe it aswell with no one getting a beer or hot dog at that time.

Geordie wrote:

So no one gets the incongruity of people being forced to do things along to a song that extols freedom ? If it really means that much make sure every spectator is there to observe it aswell with no one getting a beer or hot dog at that time.

Geordie the guy with in sight of Chevrolet talking about a song inspired by Fort McHenry raising a huge American flag to celebrate a crucial victory over British forces during the war of 1812. to a lot of Americans kneeling for the Star Spangled Banner is like giving the English Queen the big Middle Finger and I'm a American who's ancestors came from England.

Damn that predictive text, it's Cheviot.FWIW.

You'll not get me singing God Save the queen and I guess the reason we don't push it that much over here is that if it was forced on us people might question the monarchy more ( and I'll all for getting rid of them)), not like lined up and shot but once the Queen dies just saying to pack in all this nonsense).

Geordie wrote:

So no one gets the incongruity of people being forced to do things along to a song that extols freedom ? If it really means that much make sure every spectator is there to observe it aswell with no one getting a beer or hot dog at that time.

I get what you're saying, and if it was the government forcing people to do this, it would be unacceptable (and unconstitutional). But an employer has the right to do it. Freedom does not exist in the workplace.

Personally, I've never understood why they play the anthem at every sporting event. It wouldn't bother me if they didn't. But long ago the NFL started portraying itself as a patriotic business, and the majority of its fans are patriotic. So if the NFL allows something that upsets a majority of its paying customers, it's going to take a financial hit. For the NFL, the anthem issue isn't about patriotism ... it's about money.