(05-24-2018, 10:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Then you are either purposefully ignoring my answer or you didn't understand it.
I understood it fully; perhaps, you felt it best to stand because someone gave you the stink eye, but I thought we both understood what I meant when I asked who forced you to stand. But apparently not. Pretty sure the PA announcer even says please when he asks you to stand.
So let's try this semantic. Who has ever made it mandatory that you stand? AKA, who has ever taken away your right to sit?
(05-24-2018, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I understood it fully; perhaps, you felt it best to stand because someone gave you the stink eye, but I thought we both understood what I meant when I asked who forced you to stand. But apparently not. Pretty sure the PA announcer even says please when he asks you to stand.
So let's try this semantic. Who has ever made it mandatory that you stand? AKA, who has ever taken away your right to sit?
The United States Code.
Edit: Nevermind, it does say should. Mandatory has only been via an organization's rules of which I was a part, which I still had a choice in being a member. So there has never been a mandatory situation.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-24-2018, 10:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ill never understand why people don't get this fired up when the actual land water and air that comprise this great country are raped and razed by the powers that be.
Many aspects of social norms are lost on me, ill admit. Stand for the flag and get your PATRIOT check box checked. Ehh I'm a miserable cynic. Go USA.
Heck the day before 9/11 happened, Donald Rumsfeld said that $2.3 trillion, with a T, has been unaccounted for over the years. Since then some estimate that number is now well over 10 trillion in unaccounted or unacknowledged spending, with no oversight by congress or even the President.
So yeah, it is interesting what people get fired up over on both sides of the aisle. Because last I checked, I have yet to see a march in Washington demanding where our money is going that could have been used to solve a multitude of real problems we have.
(05-24-2018, 10:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The United States Code.
Is that were it says you should stand?
We can go back and forth all night, but you know the answer; however, have chosen to be obtuse. No one has ever forced (made it mandatory) that you stand for the National Anthem. If you are made to feel uncomfortable because you choose not to stand; then that's a different situation.
EDIT: My apologies, you didn't know the answer as displayed by your edit.
(05-24-2018, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is that were it says you should stand?
We can go back and forth all night, but you know the answer; however, have chosen to be obtuse. No one can has ever forced (made it mandatory) that you stand for the National Anthem. If you are made to feel uncomfortable because you choose not to stand; then that's a different situation.
I know you started typing this before my edit, so you weren't aware of it. I just wanted to say that my original answer was not me being obtuse. Using force to get someone to do something is not the same as something being mandatory to me; I do not see them as synonyms. There was ambiguity in the phrasing you used, admit it and move on instead of being so snarky about it.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-24-2018, 10:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you started typing this before my edit, so you weren't aware of it. I just wanted to say that my original answer was not me being obtuse. Using force to get someone to do something is not the same as something being mandatory to me; I do not see them as synonyms. There was ambiguity in the phrasing you used, admit it and move on instead of being so snarky about it.
Well at least you now know that it is not mandatory that you stand for the National Anthem and you have the right to play on your cell phone. So it was time well spent. And as I said earlier I thought we were both aware of my intention when I said forced (as it was in response to you talking about your restriction of freedoms) in my original reply. But I'll take you at your word that you did not.
(05-24-2018, 08:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The main thing to me is that things like the overuse of the anthem at sporting events crosses the line from patriotism into nationalism, at least to me. I get that jingoistic Americanism is the thing these days, but I'm not a fan. Instead of making me more proud in the country it makes me embarrassed for us.
These days? Patriotism has been a "thing" since the revolutionary war. The Star Spangled Banner at sporting events has been a "thing" since 1918, which precedes when it actually became the Anthem in 1931. I'm not sure why you're embarrassed for us when the list of countries without an Anthem is far shorter than the list of those that do:
And pretty much all of them play their Anthem's before sporting events, including the Olympics and soccer matches.
(05-24-2018, 09:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: But why? Holy BeJesus? It's 2 minutes? I'm supposed to hear angry rhetoric all day long but I can't get 2 minutes of a song and flag? I can't watch a tv show without stuff being shoved down my throat and the same for the news? So why is 2 minutes of freedom such a bad thing? Is it because in that 2 minutes I refuse to be bothered by noise and be proud of the flag that is waiving and the sacrifices many gave to defend it? There are thousands upon thousands of people, who are not white, that laid their life down for that flag and the same anthem gave them hope.
We shouldn't have removed the pledge of allegiance in schools. Our politicians are whores now and not representatives to have let things go this far. This is why many think think like they do? Would you pick up a weapon and defend this country? Or would you do it on an X-Box? Seriously, that's not a personal attack, but reality and suffering is not known by most in this country like it was during our parents and grandparents age. War, famine, standing in line for hours for bread. That shit really happened. So to have an overpaid athlete who has done nothing kneel and act like he is the people? It's sad. He speaks for limelight and self service.
Many blacks, whites, mexicans, and even muslims died for that very flag and anthem some protest. They don't have a clue. However, since it's television, the youth follow for some reason and we have what we have today. Total disrespect. With the way this country is going, there will be no one to defend it in many years to come. Lay down your weapons and see what happens. we will be back to slavery, but as a country. There will be no damn free ride like some enjoy. There will be no disability. If your legs are broken, you will do what your told or die from hunger. Nobody will do things to save others and they wont get a check in the mail each week for sitting on their bums. There will be no education except that which is required to survive that people learn themselves. Goodness, what a selfish, self serving entitled society in which we live. And it's these people who are trying to change the world.
SMH.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
(05-24-2018, 10:01 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Im not irritated at all by the anthem, as a matter of fact I love it and all renditions, even Leslie Nielsons in Naked Gun. I also love the flag, and our country, even what it has become since WW2 ended. And because of that love for the anthem is why I am saying what I am saying. Hearing it just a handful of times throughout the year would give it more meaning during holidays like this upcoming weekend, 4th of July, Veterans Day, etc., and also during other times like war or after events like 911 for example. Also could be sung at championship games like Super Bowl or World Series. It's like hearing a favorite Christmas tune year round, but then come Christmas Eve night it has ran its course, so to speak.
So you think it loses some of it's emotional impact when it's played before regular season games? I suppose I could see that...but if you're watching on TV, do they always show the Anthem? Seems to me that they often didn't show it on TV and that kinda picked up when this controversy started...only so they could highlight who was kneeling.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
(05-24-2018, 10:58 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: These days? Patriotism has been a "thing" since the revolutionary war. The Star Spangled Banner at sporting events has been a "thing" since 1918, which precedes when it actually became the Anthem in 1931. I'm not sure why you're embarrassed for us when the list of countries without an Anthem is far shorter than the list of those that do:
And pretty much all of them play their Anthem's before sporting events, including the Olympics and soccer matches.
There is a difference between patriotism and what I am saying. I've tried to make it clear that I see it as different by stating it outright many times.
As to your last point: no, they don't. It will be played at matches between national teams, but say, for instance, you have a match between Manchester United and Arsenal. You aren't going to hear God Save the Queen. Say there is a UEFA match between Real Madrid and Bayern Muenchen, you won't hear Das Lied der Deustchen or Marcha Real.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-24-2018, 11:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a difference between patriotism and what I am saying. I've tried to make it clear that I see it as different by stating it outright many times.
As to your last point: no, they don't. It will be played at matches between national teams, but say, for instance, you have a match between Manchester United and Arsenal. You aren't going to hear God Save the Queen. Say there is a UEFA match between Real Madrid and Bayern Muenchen, you won't hear Das Lied der Deustchen or Marcha Real.
This Saturday is the Champions League cup final between Real Madrid and Liverpool. 2:30 est I think. So I wander what if anything they will play.
In terms of Arsenal, they need some God Save the Queen played.
(05-24-2018, 11:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is a difference between patriotism and what I am saying. I've tried to make it clear that I see it as different by stating it outright many times.
As to your last point: no, they don't. It will be played at matches between national teams, but say, for instance, you have a match between Manchester United and Arsenal. You aren't going to hear God Save the Queen. Say there is a UEFA match between Real Madrid and Bayern Muenchen, you won't hear Das Lied der Deustchen or Marcha Real.
What I perceive as Patriotism, you perceive as "jingoistic Americanism". We just disagree on what the Anthem represents.
I was not incorrect about Anthem's being played at soccer matches. I never said they were used in league play, but in World Cup and friendly national matches, both Anthems are played. Now if we want to debate whether the Anthem should be played in regular season or in non-international sporting events, I think that makes for an interesting discussion.
We are unique in that regard, as far as I know.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
(05-24-2018, 11:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: This Saturday is the Champions League cup final between Real Madrid and Liverpool. 2:30 est I think. So I wander what if anything they will play.
In terms of Arsenal, they need some God Save the Queen played.
They will play the Champions League theme,
As to the point being discussed. Who the hell cares what other countries do before sporting events? We play the National Anthem and have since long before anyone debating this issue ever drew breath. As has been shown, you are not required to stand, if you choose to not take the opportunity provided to show respect to your Nation no one will require you to do so.
I give less than a damn if India sings God Save the Elephant before their cricket matches, we play the National Anthem; hell, we used to do it before a lot more things. You can stand or you can sit. Anyone,outside of uniformed military (and I don't think they complain), has the right to sit.
(05-24-2018, 11:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: This Saturday is the Champions League cup final between Real Madrid and Liverpool. 2:30 est I think. So I wander what if anything they will play.
In terms of Arsenal, they need some God Save the Queen played.
They will play the UEFA anthem. It being the championship, it may be different. I watch enough Dortmund matches, though, that I am quite familiar with all this.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-24-2018, 10:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The social ostracizing one can experience not standing is a form of implied force that causes many people to stand, myself included.
So you care what others think? Interesting. To remove something or even defend removing something that makes others feel good, because it makes them feel bad is, well, kinda socialistic. Or is it? Maybe Socialism does not seem to fit under that type of thinking. If it’s individualism, than I stated my case earlier.
Either way, I will continue to state the obvious. It’s not about you. Its not all about me. It’s not about personal views. It’s for the greater good of “We the People.” When did we become so horrible to refuse to respect our neighbor?
I don’t care if someone sits during the anthem. Just don’t be a player and do it on national t.v. The young minds who are now dead because an overpaid racist decided to stir the pot between the people who actually loved watching this sport as a family unit, instead of taking the venue to places it belonged is a fool. We should be protecting young minds instead of navigating them with this BS.
Stop promoting hate and start promoting unity. We will grow much further. Our media outlets will not report unity because they thrive off hate. We just need to block out the noise and turn it off and encourage one another.
(05-24-2018, 11:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: What I perceive as Patriotism, you perceive as "jingoistic Americanism". We just disagree on what the Anthem represents.
I was not incorrect about Anthem's being played at soccer matches. I never said they were used in league play, but in World Cup and friendly national matches, both Anthems are played. Now if we want to debate whether the Anthem should be played in regular season or in non-international sporting events, I think that makes for an interesting discussion.
We are unique in that regard, as far as I know.
I had assumed that was your implication, about club matches, since that would be the equivalent comparison to NFL or any other pro sports matches. National team play isn't an equivalent comparison so I didn't see any valid logical reason to bring it up.
(05-24-2018, 11:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They will play the Champions League theme,
As to the point being discussed. Who the hell cares what other countries do before sporting events? We play the National Anthem and have since long before anyone debating this issue ever drew breath. As has been shown, you are not required to stand, if you choose to not take the opportunity provided to show respect to your Nation no one will require you to do so.
I give less than a damn if India sings God Save the Elephant before their cricket matches, we play the National Anthem; hell, we used to do it before a lot more things. You can stand or you can sit. Anyone,outside of uniformed military (and I don't think they complain), has the right to sit.
Well, that's not true. It may not be mandatory by law, but force can be used to require people to do so. This is that ambiguity in the term, again. Also, this is working off of the assumption that actions such as kneeling aren't respectful. From the onset of this conversation, about two years ago, now, the statement has been that the intention has been respect but with an acknowledgment of problems.
I understand that you may not find the action respectful, but we aren't going to move anywhere in this conversation if we don't couch it in those terms. You feel it is disrespectful, but not everyone does. That is a subjective interpretation but you aren't presenting it as subjective. This makes it difficult to have any meaningful discussion about the issue.
(05-25-2018, 12:50 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: So you care what others think? Interesting. To remove something or even defend removing something that makes others feel good, because it makes them feel bad is, well, kinda socialistic. Or is it? Maybe Socialism does not seem to fit under that type of thinking. If it’s individualism, than I stated my case earlier.
Either way, I will continue to state the obvious. It’s not about you. Its not all about me. It’s not about personal views. It’s for the greater good of “We the People.” When did we become so horrible to refuse to respect our neighbor?
I don’t care if someone sits during the anthem. Just don’t be a player and do it on national t.v. The young minds who are now dead because an overpaid racist decided to stir the pot between the people who actually loved watching this sport as a family unit, instead of taking the venue to places it belonged is a fool. We should be protecting young minds instead of navigating them with this BS.
Stop promoting hate and start promoting unity. We will grow much further. Our media outlets will not report unity because they thrive off hate. We just need to block out the noise and turn it off and encourage one another.
See my above response to bfine for some of this. To the rest, I'm not really sure what the best way to respond is. The idea that calling attention to race based discrimination and injustices via protest is somehow racist in itself is interesting. That it is promoting hate rather than unity and is not for the common good is contrary to the entire premise of the message. Kaepernick is by no means MLK, but your words are the same words used to describe MLK by the racists at the time as they attempted to silence him and his movement. Just think about that.
(05-25-2018, 07:38 AM)hollodero Wrote: just when I thought nothing could shock me any more.
Old steel town that has gone high tech and the club wears black and yellow/gold. Good choice for a Pittsburgh fan.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-25-2018, 12:50 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: So you care what others think? Interesting. To remove something or even defend removing something that makes others feel good, because it makes them feel bad is, well, kinda socialistic. Or is it? Maybe Socialism does not seem to fit under that type of thinking. If it’s individualism, than I stated my case earlier.
Either way, I will continue to state the obvious. It’s not about you. Its not all about me. It’s not about personal views. It’s for the greater good of “We the People.” When did we become so horrible to refuse to respect our neighbor?
I don’t care if someone sits during the anthem. Just don’t be a player and do it on national t.v. The young minds who are now dead because an overpaid racist decided to stir the pot between the people who actually loved watching this sport as a family unit, instead of taking the venue to places it belonged is a fool. We should be protecting young minds instead of navigating them with this BS.
Stop promoting hate and start promoting unity. We will grow much further. Our media outlets will not report unity because they thrive off hate. We just need to block out the noise and turn it off and encourage one another.
players kneeling/sitting/doing whatever during the anthem isnt promoting hate. They are exercising there right as an american to a peaceful protest. The only one perpetuating hate are those that say they have no right whatsoever, and people like trump who say they shouldnt even be in the country if they are going to protest the anthem "because its offensive"
if you still dont understand or grasp why they are doing it, thats a you a problem
From what I hear of the players union being cut out of the decision, I can see a situation where many more players stay in the locker room rather than stand for the anthem.
Time will tell, but I think the NFL may have inadvertently made things look worse with this move. I don't see why there won't be a lot of focus on the guys standing in the tunnel. Players who stood for the sake of avoiding controversy may just sit the anthem out entirely now. Bottom line is I see this rule leading to less players standing for the anthem. I see how that's different than kneeling but it doesn't look like the solution people called for.
At least people won't be booing during the anthem. When the players who sat out the anthem cone out of the tunnel I expect boos to be issued.
(05-25-2018, 08:12 AM)Griever Wrote: players kneeling/sitting/doing whatever during the anthem isnt promoting hate. They are exercising there right as an american to a peaceful protest. The only one perpetuating hate are those that say they have no right whatsoever, and people like trump who say they shouldnt even be in the country if they are going to protest the anthem "because its offensive"
if you still dont understand or grasp why they are doing it, thats a you a problem
Here's the problem with your argument. I agree that, for many of the players, the objective of their protests is not to denigrate the country. However, you don't get to decide how your actions are perceived by others. If others view it as offensive to the country the fact that you disagree doesn't immediately render those opinions invalid.
(05-25-2018, 09:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the problem with your argument. I agree that, for many of the players, the objective of their protests is not to denigrate the country. However, you don't get to decide how your actions are perceived by others. If others view it as offensive to the country the fact that you disagree doesn't immediately render those opinions invalid.
Here is something I completely agree with. I just want to reemphasize that both sides of this debate have been filled with people approaching it as if these opinions are somehow objective facts. The inference of the protests is subjective, and until people come to the table to have discussions about the issue with that in mind, we will never get anywhere. This isn't a zero-sum discussion but people try to turn it into one.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/WrUVMrXqU1oSk/giphy.gif)
just when I thought nothing could shock me any more.
