Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

are you ready for some FOOTBALL ?? )

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by rbstern View Post

    On the rare occasions I'm in a church, I do as the regulars do (standing, sitting, moment of silence, etc.). I am not praying or observing their religion. Standing around (as opposed to a deliberate gesture designed to show objection) is not forced participation.
    . So the standing with their arms crossed in solidarity like so many did today would be ok? But more importantly, where would the courts draw the line?

    No. I'm saying that it's within the leagues authority to fine players who engage in obvious acts of protest.
    . And I'm saying it isn't when the event is forced upon them by the employer. Like an employer led prayer, the courts would allow the employee to opt out. And that would include not having to look like maybe they are particpsfing in front of cameras so as not to offend sensitive viewers.



    How can that be "keeping it to himself?" He's in showbiz. He's on a grass covered stage with dozens of cameras pointed in his direction, hundreds of media eyes on him, and millions of fans watching. Nothing he does out there is "private." For you to suggest it is laughable.
    . When the only other option is to participate in something he doesn't want to just for the cameras? Yeah, it was pretty discrete.

    By the way: You do know that his girlfriend is a big activist and was publicly stoking the fires of this controversy from day 1?
    So what?


    [quote[Never said that about Kaepernick. What I'm saying: It's bad for business.[/quote]

    Don't think that's gonna fly with the courts.






    Now you sound like the righties who swore Obama would declare marshall law on January 20th, 2016.
    Not saying it will happen. Just saying that this is why we don't consider such nonsense from our leaders acceptable. It's the principle behind the action. Not whether such outcome will really take place.
    ______________

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by guido61 View Post
      . So the standing with their arms crossed in solidarity like so many did today would be ok? But more importantly, where would the courts draw the line?
      Only the courts know.

      . And I'm saying it isn't when the event is forced upon them by the employer. Like an employer led prayer, the courts would allow the employee to opt out. And that would include not having to look like maybe they are particpsfing in front of cameras so as not to offend sensitive viewers. . When the only other option is to participate in something he doesn't want to just for the cameras? Yeah, it was pretty discrete.
      So what?
      It's bad optics for the "quietness" argument.

      Originally posted by guido61
      Originally posted by rbstern
      Never said that about Kaepernick. What I'm saying: It's bad for business.
      Don't think that's gonna fly with the courts.
      In resolving a for-profit contract dispute? What the hell is the point of a contract in a money making endeavor, particularly as it relates to how one party may be causing monetary damage to the other party?

      They aren't there for social reasons. They are all there to make money.

      Not saying it will happen. Just saying that this is why we don't consider such nonsense from our leaders acceptable. It's the principle behind the action. Not whether such outcome will really take place.
      Principles? Here I am, thinking we were talking about politics.
      Last edited by rbstern; 09-24-2017, 09:04 PM.

      Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

      "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

      Comment


      • #63
        Nope. Not this year. You already have a thousand commercials, now you've got to put up with political grandstanding. Maybe someday football will return to being a sport.
        Last edited by stratosaurus; 09-25-2017, 02:42 AM.
        ''All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"--Edmund Burke
        Man created science to create what man wants science to create.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by rbstern View Post

          Only the courts know.





          It's bad optics for the "quietness" argument.
          . Ooooo. He "kneeled"! Such an offensive and egregious act of disrespect and protest!



          In resolving a for-profit contract dispute? What the hell is the point of a contract in a money making endeavor, particularly as it relates to how one party may be causing monetary damage to the other party?
          because certain inalienable rights can not be violated. Even for profits.



          Principles? Here I am, thinking we were talking about politics.
          WE should still try to have some. Even if our politicians do not.
          ______________

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by guido61 View Post
            . Ooooo. He "kneeled"! Such an offensive and egregious act of disrespect and protest!
            It doesn't matter what you or I think about it. It matters what the cross section of the NFL's fan base thinks. The JD Powers survey from last year determined that 28% of 9200 polled sports fans said it led them watch less football. That's not a small percentage for a business that wants to increase viewership.

            because certain inalienable rights can not be violated. Even for profits.
            You're confusing a citizen's relationship with the government, versus a relationship defined by contract. A party to a contract can voluntarily give up speech rights. You've heard of non-disclosure agreements, right? A person can voluntarily give up privacy rights. You've heard of workplace drug testing, right?

            WE should still try to have some. Even if our politicians do not.
            By whose moral standards? Yours? Mine? Barbara Streisand's?

            Last edited by rbstern; 09-24-2017, 09:22 PM.

            Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

            "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

            Comment


            • #66
              This made me laugh.


              Now get in the pit and try to love someone.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by rbstern View Post

                It doesn't matter what you or I think about it. It matters what the cross section of the NFL's fan base thinks. The JD Powers survey from last year determined that 28% of 9200 polled sports fans said it led them watch less football. That's not a small percentage for a business that wants to increase viewership.
                and I gave you a link that pointed out the flaws in that survey. Not to mention we've already discussed the degree to which this may or not have any real or lasting effect on revenues.



                You're confusing a citizen's relationship with the government, versus a relationship defined by contract. A party to a contract can voluntarily give up speech rights. You've heard of non-disclosure agreements, right? A person can voluntarily give up privacy rights. You've heard of workplace drug testing, right?
                Where in their contract did they agree to participate in standing at attention for the national anthem and give up their right to not participate in such displays that they disagree with?

                But the funny thing is the owners----those whose profits you seem so concerned about---are not among those complaining. If anything they are siding with the players. So who is going to try and sue them for breach of contract?

                By whose moral standards? Yours? Mine? Barbara Streisand's?
                The founding fathers'?
                Last edited by guido61; 09-24-2017, 09:43 PM.
                ______________

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                  and I gave you a link that pointed out the flaws in that survey. Not to mention we've already discussed the degree to which this may or not have any real or lasting effect on revenues.
                  It's unknown what the impact will be, but that's the largest survey I'm aware of, and in the circles I travel in, which includes a lot of football fans, they don't want to consume social protest with their beer and nachos while watching the NFL, so it fits with what the data say.

                  Where in their contract did they agree to participate in standing at attention for the national anthem and give up their right to not participate in such displays that they disagree with?
                  The same place it says they can't flip the bird to the camera. It doesn't specifically say that, but the rule book, which the CBA accepts, says the league has control over gameday writings, props and illustrations, which includes gestures.

                  But the funny thing is the owners----those whose profits you seem so concerned about---are not among those complaining. If anything they are siding with the players. So who is going to try and sue them for breach of contract?
                  Some owners are. Jerry Jones was quoted as saying that any player kneeling during the anthem would find themselves out of a job with the Cowboys. So, while you saw some notable cases of owner/player solidarity, there are other cases you may not have heard of, where it won't be tolerated. Today, Patriots fans booed the players who took a knee. Patriots fans haven't don't booed their own team in years. Robert Kraft may be making noises toward Trump, but he's not going to let that go on long, nor will Bill Belichick let the issue become a team distraction. One Pittsburgh Steeler (a veteran) stood for the anthem alone. How long until that causes an issue in the locker room? Same thing for other teams with vets, or miltary brats (quite a few NFL players are military brats).

                  When this snowballs a bit more, it's going to cause friction that will have the owners looking to quell the social justice issues in favor of getting back to football.

                  The founding fathers'?

                  "And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years."

                  "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States.", Section 2

                  A.K.A., The Sedition Act of 1798.

                  (signed into law by John Adams)


                  Otherwise, that would have been a good retort.

                  Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

                  "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by rbstern View Post

                    It's unknown what the impact will be, but that's the largest survey I'm aware of, and in the circles I travel in, which includes a lot of football fans, they don't want to consume social protest with their beer and nachos while watching the NFL, so it fits with what the data say.
                    And at some point it ends. Like I said---it's a big deal today. Will anyone still care when the TV contracts come back up for renewal?


                    The same place it says they can't flip the bird to the camera. It doesn't specifically say that, but the rule book, which the CBA accepts, says the league has control over gameday writings, props and illustrations, which includes gestures.
                    We've been over this a dozen times now. There's a line that can't be crossed, whether it's in a contract or not. Contracts can be voided by courts. So even if a court considers a "kneel" to be the same as flipping the bird, then the players will just do something else. Stand with their arms crossed. Exiting the field. It's illogical to think the courts would not allow the players a way to not participate. They can't be forced to do so. There is no precedent for that.


                    Some owners are. Jerry Jones was quoted as saying that any player kneeling during the anthem would find themselves out of a job with the Cowboys. So, while you saw some notable cases of owner/player solidarity, there are other cases you may not have heard of, where it won't be tolerated. Today, Patriots fans booed the players who took a knee. Patriots fans haven't don't booed their own team in years. Robert Kraft may be making noises toward Trump, but he's not going to let that go on long, nor will Bill Belichick let the issue become a team distraction. One Pittsburgh Steeler (a veteran) stood for the anthem alone. How long until that causes an issue in the locker room? Same thing for other teams with vets, or miltary brats (quite a few NFL players are military brats).

                    When this snowballs a bit more, it's going to cause friction that will have the owners looking to quell the social justice issues in favor of getting back to football.
                    It seems to me the players are being respectful of each other's decisions. Watching the Washington/Oakland game tonight one shot that caught my eye was one guy standing with one hand on his heart and his other hand on the shoulder of the player kneeling next to him. Will it turn into a locker room distraction? We shall see.

                    As far as I know, Jones is so far the only owner to say anything negative about it. Most have either spoken of solidarity with their players or said nothing. We will see what will happen tomorrow night. Will he fire half the team if half of them kneel?

                    Will some owners fire players over it? Then at that point it will probably end up in court. Which I am all but certain the owners would lose.

                    So then what will they do? End the playing of the national anthem? Oh well. Other than an opportunity for young singers to get some national atttention, I'm really not sure why they do it at sporting events anyway.

                    Bottom line though---last week 6 players kneeled. This week, hundreds did. That's ALL on Trump. HE'S the one making this even more divisive.



                    "And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years."

                    "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States.", Section 2

                    A.K.A., The Sedition Act of 1798.

                    (signed into law by John Adams)


                    Otherwise, that would have been a good retort.
                    You think the Sedition Act is a good retort?

                    That is widely considered one of the most unconstitutional laws ever enacted.
                    Last edited by guido61; 09-24-2017, 11:05 PM.
                    ______________

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by guido61 View Post
                      And at some point it ends. Like I said---it's a big deal today. Will anyone still care when the TV contracts come back up for renewal?
                      Depends on the ratings at the time.


                      We've been over this a dozen times now. There's a line that can't be crossed, whether it's in a contract or not. Contracts can be voided by courts. So even if a court considers a "kneel" to be the same as flipping the bird, then the players will just do something else. Stand with their arms crossed. Exiting the field. It's illogical to think the courts would not allow the players a way to not participate. They can't be forced to do so. There is no precedent for that.
                      We'll see where it goes.


                      It seems to me the players are being respectful of each other's decisions. Watching the Washington/Oakland game tonight one shot that caught my eye was one guy standing with one hand on his heart and his other hand on the shoulder of the player kneeling next to him. Will it turn into a locker room distraction? We shall see.

                      As far as I know, Jones is so far the only owner to say anything negative about it. Most have either spoken of solidarity with their players or said nothing. We will see what will happen tomorrow night. Will he fire half the team if half of them kneel?

                      Will some owners fire players over it? Then at that point it will probably end up in court. Which I am all but certain the owners would lose.

                      So then what will they do? End the playing of the national anthem? Oh well. Other than an opportunity for young singers to get some national atttention, I'm really not sure why they do it at sporting events anyway.

                      Bottom line though---last week 6 players kneeled. This week, hundreds did. That's ALL on Trump. HE'S the one making this even more divisive.
                      I think Trump gave the owners a real break. When this goes back to just a few guys kneeling, and the ire of the fans is focused, it's going to cause a problem.

                      You think the Sedition Act is a good retort?

                      That is widely considered one of the most unconstitutional laws ever enacted.
                      No, you misconstrued the point: It was used to point out that your retort of "The founding fathers" was not a good retort. Those same guys came up the Sedition Act, which goes to show you that almost nobody's compass is completely reliable when it comes to civic virtues.
                      Last edited by rbstern; 09-24-2017, 11:18 PM.

                      Current global warming temperature trend: 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC (source: UN IPCC AR5) ...Yes, the error rate is higher than the estimated rate of change.

                      "Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late-20th-century warming and projections of 21st-century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." --Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rbstern View Post

                        Depends on the ratings at the time.
                        Among other things. Like I said before, it would be nonsense to blame all the ratings woe of the NFL on this one thing. Sports viewing is down across the board. Cable and satellite subscriptions are down. Blaming all loss in viewership of the NFL on this would by blaming the decline in CD sales since 2000 all on the Dixie Chicks.

                        The business is changing.

                        But last week, only 6 guys kneeled. No one cared. It was all but forgotten until Trump made it a big deal again. But yeah. Blame the players for the divisiveness. Sure.


                        I think Trump gave the owners a real break. When this goes back to just a few guys kneeling, and the ire of the fans is focused, it's going to cause a problem.
                        How did Trump give them a break? It was all but a non-issue a week ago and fading more as time went on. Trump brought to the forefront again and made it a bigger deal than ever.. If anything, the owners would like it to just go away. Trump all but assured it will not. At least for awhile. How is that giving them a break?

                        It's like you're HOPING it will be a problem or something.

                        No, you misconstrued the point: It was used to point out that your retort of "The founding fathers" was not a good retort. Those same guys came up the Sedition Act, which goes to show you that almost nobody's compass is completely reliable when it comes to civic virtues.
                        True. And I am one who has many times pointed out that the "founders" were not of one mind. This was certainly one of those times. The Federalists pushed this law through. Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans decried it and thought it unconstitutional. Had Judicial Review been around at the time, most scholars today believe it would have been overturned.

                        But the point I was trying to make is that it goes against our founding principles. Which I will still argue even if Adams and a few other "founders" disagreed or found a political reason to contradict themselves in 1798.
                        Last edited by guido61; 09-24-2017, 11:55 PM.
                        ______________

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Was any football actually played?

                          Or did too many white fans end up in emergency rooms with their knickers in a twist over US citizens exercising their democratic right to peaceful and respectful protest?
                          flip the phase

                          Comment













                          Working...
                          X