NFL adopts new Anthem policy

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

Let's be realistic, you don't think that I am right in my views on kneeling for the national anthem and that is fine, it doesn't mean that my views don't count.  I and many others see the kneeling as being disrespectful.  Think about this logically, if I want to draw attention to a cause that I find important, is the best way to do it to intentionally be disrespectful to a large group of the public that I would like to pay attention to the cause?  I would suggest that there are better ways to bring attention to a cause that would not immediately turn off millions of people and actually keep attention focused on the cause and not the perceived disrespectful act.

 

When Bull Connor and others called MLK, Medgar Evers and other Civil Rights Figures disrespectful didn’t make what they were fighting for wrong 

 

    

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The kneeling happened after multiple incidents of racism including what he felt was racism of being bench for a white QB

Yes.  The latter.  Its what I said 6 pages ago.  If I was a QB of color who was benched for Blaine Gabbert, I would try to look at race being the cause as a means to convince myself that I wasn't a worse QB than Blaine Gabbert.

 

IOW, he was being a baby who couldn't handle his situation so he blames it on how others treat his skin color.

 

BTW, what does a 200 year old national anthem have to do with being benched for a white QB?

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, pgt_rob said:

 

But according to you, people may say racist words as long as it's apart of their upbringing. LOL. 

 

Wants to fight racism, but can't stop being racist. Makes sense. lol

 

Never said that 

   Said they use them without knowledge of what they mean since it is ingrained 

[Cynjin]

3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

When Bull Connor and others called MLK, Medgar Evers and other Civil Rights Figures disrespectful didn’t make what they were fighting for wrong 

 

    

 

You're missing the point.  There were better ways for the players to garner support for their cause and isn't that the goal to gain support for their cause in order to facilitate change?  

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  The latter.  Its what I said 6 pages ago.  If I was a QB of color who was benched for Blaine Gabbert, I would try to look at race being the cause as a means to convince myself that I wasn't a worse QB than Blaine Gabbert.

 

IOW, he was being a baby who couldn't handle his situation so he blames it on how others treat his skin color.

 

BTW, what does a 200 year old national anthem have to do with being benched for a white QB?

No he felt he was passed over because of his color not talent

 

    The protest brings to light incidents like what happened in Milwaukee and Montana

[backshoulderfade]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

The concept of free speech applies to the government not being able to arrest someone for protesting.  It has nothing to do with a company telling an employee what they can or cannot do or talk about while on company time.

 

Nobody is arguing that protesters should be arrested, so the concept of free speech shouldn't even be raised in this discussion.

 

Another datapoint of misunderstanding that clutters the issue.

 

From a legal standpoint, yes. From an idealogical standpoint my point is still valid.

[PrincetonTiger]

7 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

You're missing the point.  There were better ways for the players to garner support for their cause and isn't that the goal to gain support for their cause in order to facilitate change?  

Not at all and yes it is working

 

 

    Everyone can have their own opinions and views and that is the American Way

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

 

 

 

    Everyone can have their own opinions and views and that is the American Way

 

 

That doesn't address the question I ask about the goal of the players' protest.

[PrincetonTiger]

The only bad publicity is no publicity

[csmopar]

33 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

O because I would have been 4F my views don’t count

 

 

    I have a Great Aunt and Uncle buried in Arlington and I have several veterans in my lineage(GGF was a WWI vet, a GF who served in WWII, a GF who was exempt from service because of his job as a Butcher, an Uncle who went to Vietnam another who went to the NG, and my Mom and Dad were drafted  but were exempt for various reasons

 

   That is your opinion not fact 

you really need to ground yourself.  You've done nothing but draw made up conclusions from other people's posts all day on this topic.  I have NEVER ONCE said your views do not count. Quit fabricating stuff already.

 

Second, I am currently serving as I have for 14 years, I think I have a much better read of the pulse of serving veterans than you because your such and such served decades ago and you were 4F.  And not to make light of your disability/medical condition, but being labeled 4F does NOT make you a Veteran. Nor is anyone else you mentioned above that were exempt or disqualified for whatever reason. You either serve or you don't. Not everyone can serve, that doesn't make your opinion worth any less or any more, just means you cannot comment accurately on what the general feelings within the current military units on this issue are.  Besides, those opinions are probably going to vary from unit to unit anyway.

 

On top of that, you are a completely wrong or flat out lying when it comes to your mom being drafted. Women have never been allowed to register for the Selective Service Act, per the Library of Congress, no woman has EVER been drafted in the history of the US military. Now, if she volunteered, that's not being drafted, that's volunteering.  The closest that they ever came to drafting women was defeated in Congress during WW2. It's not been close to even passing both Houses since. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

23 hours ago, Carlos Danger said:

To clarify my position as has been stated in another thread...

 

I like the kneeling. I'm a big Ali fan, if that helps...

 

Despite that, I believe in an organization's right to restrict some behaviors of individuals while at work... I don't disagree with the NFL's new policy, although I'll be a fan of the first player that violates it. The NFL should have the authority to discipline whoever it is.

 

With this, I think of how the Fed and states work on some items.  NFL (Fed) sets a general policy, but teams (states) get to set the details of how the policy works for their team (state). The team get fined for general policy violations, not the offenders.  Teams can institute policies to discipline offenders if they wish, or not, though.

 

23 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

People will get upset no matter what. There will be plenty of cameras showing who came out for the anthem. That will start another controversy.

 

Having said that, I don't see anything wrong with the new policy. One has the option not to be on the field during the anthem. It seems like a good compromise. I don't see why the NFLPA has a problem with it. Perhaps there is something I am missing. 

 

You might well be right. If the networks show players coming out of the locker room running with a raised fist once the anthem has completed, for instance, I can see issues arising once more. (IE: what was player celebrating in the locker room that has him all fired up coming out?)

 

22 hours ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

I just heard Jed York (owner of the 49'ers) say on NFL Live that his team plans on shutting down concession sales during the anthem. He said there is more to the issue than just the players or team personnel standing or kneeling during the anthem. He basically said that if the teams are expecting the players to stand that they shouldn't be making money during the anthem as well.

 

Personally, if I were a team owner, I would have my whole team just stay in the locker room during the anthem. That way there is no discussion about who is on the field and who isn't. I'm all for the players being able to speak on the issues of social justice, but I think the time for that is not during the national anthem. Just my .

 

 

The league has set policy, and will fine the team.  From there, each team gets to set 'their rules'.  These may vary from team to team and will create more 'interesting' scenarios on their own. Jets owner also said his team will not pass league fines to the team on to the players (either offenders or the divided up by the team group as a whole).

 

But the leagues and NFLPA recently finalized an agreement just a couple of days ago to allocate nearly 90 million dollars for Social Justice inequality issues important to the players -

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000933742/article/nfl-players-coalition-finalize-social-justice-partnership

 

I think owners were hoping this would help alleviate the kneeling or staying in locker room, even though Boldin has always said it isn't about the protests.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/12/04/anquan-boldin-says-players-coalitions-agreement-with-nfl-was-never-about-protests/?utm_term=.64b5470c9239

 

21 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think the characterization of this being a compromise is not accurate at all in a couple of different areas.  First it seems to have been forced upon the players. 

 

To me, compromise often is a policy/agreement that neither party is pleased with.  This one might qualify. In addition, teams can institute policies and fines for violating them (missing team flights, meetings etc..) plus they have this that every single Player has on his contract-

 

PERSONAL CONDUCT POLICY

It is a privilege to be part of the National Football League. Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL."  This includes owners, coaches, players, other team employees, game officials, and employees of the league office, NFL Films, NFL Network, or any other NFL business.

 

The league released results (right before the Super Bowl) of a poll conducted in 2017 and in 2018. Many issues but Anthem was definitely a large portion -

 

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/02/02/nfls-core-fans-rapidly-losing-interest-in-league-poll/23351409/

 

Advertisers are very much aware of such polls which may well affect future TV contracts, and thus total NFL revenue (which owners and players split). Trust me that financial directors for teams will also monitor things like jersey sales etc.. for those publicized as standing up to policy (pardon the pun) and kneeling anyway.

 

Quote

Plus is it free speech if they are only allowed to do it where no one else can see, i.e the locker room?

 

Employees who work in the public sector (governmental entities) have First Amendment rights in the workplace, but are subject to certain restrictions. Private citizens do not have these same protections.

 

Employees who work in the private-sector do not, as a rule, have First Amendment protection for their speech in the workplace, but employers need to be aware of not violating things like the Anti Discrimination and Whistle Blower (among other) laws in the process of potentially applying discipline.

 

The NBA has a stricter policy than the NFL, but the player/owner relationship is significantly better as well.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Cynjin said:

 

That doesn't address the question I ask about the goal of the players' protest.

To bring light to issues they feel important and try and solve them and it is working

[Cynjin]

7 minutes ago, backshoulderfade said:

From a legal standpoint, yes. From an idealogical standpoint my point is still valid.

 

The thing is, people do not have a right to free speech in the workplace.  Employers can dictate how you behave/speak in the workplace and quite frankly many times outside the workplace.

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

No he felt he was passed over because of his color not talent

 

    The protest brings to light incidents like what happened in Milwaukee and Montana

No.  He faked a reason of racism so he wouldn't have to admit to himself he sucked. 

 

Look around, I don't think a person thinking rationally would say that NFL teams favor white players over black. 

 

Geez.  He started this rabbit hole two years ago and people just can't let up. 

 

[csmopar]

31 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The kneeling happened after multiple incidents of racism including what he felt was racism of being bench for a white QB

he was benched because he sucked. Yet another case of someone trying to exploit their race for gain. Personally, I wish we'd stop labeling people by their race. 

[Cynjin]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

To bring light to issues they feel important and try and solve them and it is working

 

Not to the people that are offended by their actions, their message is lost.  It would have been working better and faster if they had not offended millions of people.

[PrincetonTiger]

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

you really need to ground yourself.  You've done nothing but draw made up conclusions from other people's posts all day on this topic.  I have NEVER ONCE said your views do not count. Quit fabricating stuff already.

 

Second, I am currently serving as I have for 14 years, I think I have a much better read of the pulse of serving veterans than you because your such and such served decades ago and you were 4F.  And not to make light of your disability/medical condition, but being labeled 4F does NOT make you a Veteran. Nor is anyone else you mentioned above that were exempt or disqualified for whatever reason. You either serve or you don't. Not everyone can serve, that doesn't make your opinion worth any less or any more, just means you cannot comment accurately on what the general feelings within the current military units on this issue are.  Besides, those opinions are probably going to vary from unit to unit anyway.

 

On top of that, you are a completely wrong or flat out lying when it comes to your mom being drafted. Women have never been allowed to register for the Selective Service Act, per the Library of Congress, no woman has EVER been drafted in the history of the US military. Now, if she volunteered, that's not being drafted, that's volunteering.  The closest that they ever came to drafting women was defeated in Congress during WW2. It's not been close to even passing both Houses since. 

Her draft number was chosen 

   I do not need a history lesson and please stop trying to tell me about my life 

 

    BTW never said I was a vet

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, backshoulderfade said:

From a legal standpoint, yes. From an idealogical standpoint my point is still valid.

Nonsense.  Every company has rules about what type of political statements can be made on company time.  There is nothing free about it and it is the norm.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

No.  He faked a reason of racism so he wouldn't have to admit to himself he sucked. 

 

Look around, I don't think a person thinking rationally would say that NFL teams favor white players over black. 

 

Geez.  He started this rabbit hole two years ago and people just can't let up. 

 

That is opinion not fact unless you have talked to CK

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

Not to the people that are offended by their actions, their message is lost.  It would have been working better and faster if they had not offended millions of people.

There are millions of more who have no problem with it and/or have moved on 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Her draft number was chosen 

   I do not need a history lesson and please stop trying to tell me about my life 

Ok, keep making stuff up.  No woman has EVER been issued a "draft number" in US history.  Period. 

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, Cynjin said:

 

Negative attention, and as I have said before if you want my help in solving this problem, and I doubt I am alone with this, don't start by doing something that is disrespectful/offensive.  Your message is now lost because the vast majority of the attention is on the act, not the cause.  It is counter productive.

 

Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus and refusing to get up offended a lot of people.  But it still led to change.  Should she have not done what she did?

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, csmopar said:

Ok, keep making stuff up.  No woman has EVER been issued a "draft number" in US history.  Period. 

In Vietnam they drew BD and hers was first 

    

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

There are millions of more who have no problem with it and/or have moved on 

 

Again if you add to the millions who have no problem with it the millions that were offended there would be a much bigger movement.  The bigger the movement in a cause the faster the results.  This is not a hard concept, I am not sure why you can't accept it.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus and refusing to get up offended a lot of people.  But it still led to change.  Should she have not done what she did?

Same with MLK, Medger Evers and others

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

Again if you add to the millions who have no problem with it the millions that were offended there would be a much bigger movement.  The bigger the movement in a cause the faster the results.  This is not a hard concept, I am not sure why you can't accept it.

Stop quoting me

 

   My views are different and they are not going to change

[csmopar]

26 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

In Vietnam they drew BD and hers was first 

    

the Selective Service Act and history says otherwise. Right on the Selective Service System's own website.

 

"The following is an abstract taken from a GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, GAO / NSIAD-98-199. Appendix I of this GAO report is entitled, "Historical Perspectives on Women and the Draft." It provides an excellent chronological summary about this issue and nearly all of it is incorporated, verbatim, in this paper.

While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Those women who served in the past and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers all volunteered for military service.

The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed."

 

https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft/Backgrounder-Women-and-the-Draft

Are you done making stuff up yet?

[PrincetonTiger]

5 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus and refusing to get up offended a lot of people.  But it still led to change.  Should she have not done what she did?

Studying, RP, MLK, ME, and others helped me develop my views

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus and refusing to get up offended a lot of people.  But it still led to change.  Should she have not done what she did?

 

Really?  Are we back in the 60s?  No, I didn't think so.   These are not even close to the same thing.  I was talking about how the players could gain greater support for their cause, which I believe they would welcome.

[Cynjin]

1 hour ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Stop quoting me

 

   My views are different and they are not going to change

 

 For your reading pleasure:

 

Women and The Military Draft in America

While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Women who served in the past, and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers, all volunteered for military service. The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed.

 

http://www.militaryspot.com/enlist/women-and-the-military-draft-in-america

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Cynjin said:

For your reading pleasure:

 

Women and The Military Draft in America

While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Women who served in the past, and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers, all volunteered for military service. The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed.

 

http://www.militaryspot.com/enlist/women-and-the-military-draft-in-america

 

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

the Selective Service Act and history says otherwise. Right on the Selective Service System's own website.

 

"The following is an abstract taken from a GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, GAO / NSIAD-98-199. Appendix I of this GAO report is entitled, "Historical Perspectives on Women and the Draft." It provides an excellent chronological summary about this issue and nearly all of it is incorporated, verbatim, in this paper.

While women officers and enlisted personnel serve with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, women have never been subject to Selective Service registration or a military draft in America. Those women who served in the past and those who serve today in ever increasing numbers all volunteered for military service.

The U.S. came close to drafting women during World War II, when there was a shortage of military nurses. However, there was a surge of volunteerism and a draft of women nurses was not needed."

 

https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft/Backgrounder-Women-and-the-Draft

Are you done making stuff up yet?

yeah I had to spell it out too...

[PrincetonTiger]

@csmopar

    She was drafted but was excluded because of gender my Dad was drafted but was declared unfit because of a knee injury

    I have talked this over several times with my parents 

 

    I never meant to ruffle your feathers and never said that I was ever a vet

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

 

yeah I had to spell it out too...

 

The man is stubborn despite evidence to the contrary.

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Really?  Are we back in the 60s?  No, I didn't think so.   These are not even close to the same thing.  I was talking about how the players could gain greater support for their cause, which I believe they would welcome.

 

No they are exactly the same thing, just to different degrees.  Rosa Parks "sat down" to make a point and to try to enact change.  Kaep "knelt down" to make a point and to try to enact change.  No we are not back in the 60's but unfortunately some people prefer to pretend we're still living there. 

[csmopar]

3 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

@csmopar

    She was drafted but was excluded because of gender my Dad was drafted but was declared unfit because of a knee injury

    I have talked this over several times with my parents 

 

    I never meant to ruffle your feathers and never said that I was ever a vet

Do you even know how the draft worked?  Individuals (MALES) have to register for it on their 18th birthday. FEMALES are not allowed to register for it.  Upon registration, the men would be assigned as selective service number at random.  When a draft was initiated, the military calls up a range of random numbers.  the ONLY way to get "drafted" was for your number to be called up. According to Selective Service System, NO women have EVER registered as they are completely forbidden to do so by law. Something upheld by the Supreme Court. 

 

Trust me, my feathers aren't ruffled in the slightest. 

[Cynjin]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

No they are exactly the same thing, just to different degrees.  Rosa Parks "sat down" to make a point and to try to enact change.  Kaep "knelt down" to make a point and to try to enact change.  No we are not back in the 60's but unfortunately some people prefer to pretend we're still living there. 

 

The point I was making just flew right over your head.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, csmopar said:

Do you even know how the draft worked?  Individuals (MALES) have to register for it on their 18th birthday. FEMALES are not allowed to register for it.  Upon registration, the men would be assigned as selective service number at random.  When a draft was initiated, the military calls up a range of random numbers.  the ONLY way to get "drafted" was for your number to be called up. According to Selective Service System, NO women have EVER registered as they are completely forbidden to do so by law. Something upheld by the Supreme Court. 

As a Historian I do and resent the childish name calling bu you and Cynjin

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

The man is stubborn despite evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, almost as stubborn as my wife 

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

As a Historian I do and resent the childish name calling bu you and Cynjin

What name calling? I have not once called you a name. Good grief 

[Cynjin]

Just now, csmopar said:

Yeah, almost as stubborn as my wife 

 

LOL, God bless and thanks for your service.

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

The point I was making just flew right over your head.

 

well there's the pot calling the kettle black