New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope.  Let me ask you this, are people in show business known for the lack of ego and unassuming manner.  Are you familiar with the term "rider" and what it means.  If so, are you familiar with what they typically contain?  Seriously, your question was stupid.

Demanding perks is not the same as claiming their opinion means more than the average Joe.

This discussion is silly.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. And that is just as disrespectful as calling the judge a crook, right?

2. I was talking about your double standard where you say it is not disrespectful to say the country is messed up, but it is disrespectful to kneel during the national anthem.

3. To me they are both the same.  Both the Trump crowds and the kneeling players are saying this country has problems.  If one is disrespectful then both are.

1. Depends on if he's a crook.

2. I do not see a double standard; I'd expect criticizing/applauding the current state of the nation to be decorum at political rallies and even criticizing the current POTUS is not disrespectful, but failing to stand as he enters to "Hail to the Chief" is; as is failing to follow the US Code that explains how to show respect during playing of the National Anthem'

Now you could be like Matt and complain about subjective all you want; yet, when presented with the written methods to show respect , you want to get subjective and say "Is that the only way?" But it doesn't change the fact that failing to show respect during the National Anthem is disrespectful. No matter how many liberals try to twist that simple fact; it cannot be changed.

3. You are entitled to your opinion if you wish to consider them both disrespectful then fine. 

[HarleyDog]

(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.  

(05-25-2018, 09:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Is it going to take seeing a really fat girl in nude colored spandex for you to understand what SSF is saying? Go to Walmart so you can have an epiphany. 

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2018, 04:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. You are entitled to your opinion if you wish to consider them both disrespectful then fine. 

You are entitled to your opinion also.  Personally I am more impressed with substance than symbolism.  

If someone tips his hat while calling my mom a ***** I don't consider that being respectful.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2018, 05:33 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Is it going to take seeing a really fat girl in nude colored spandex for you to understand what SSF is saying? Go to Walmart so you can have an epiphany. 

Given SSF's rep comment on that post for me was "Exactly," I'm guessing that I'm understanding his point pretty well.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are entitled to your opinion also.  Personally I am more impressed with substance than symbolism.  

If someone tips his hat while calling my mom a ***** I don't consider that being respectful.

Do you consider it respectful if his says "Good Afternoon Ma'am" while flipping her off? If you say no, then you may realize how feeble your analogy is. 

[*Nately120*]

According to facebook the left wing and right wing have finally united in their agreement that I'm a d-bag for just wanting to watch football.

[Bengalzona]

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2018, 10:12 AM)Bengalzona Wrote:

I think this is one of the things that bugs me with this whole situation. We can find examples of both sides siding with or against people who have been told to "just do their jobs." It's very partisan in the way this all goes and how people view the specific instance. Of course, there is some variability. Ms. Davis, for instance, was refusing to do her job. Protesting during the National Anthem doesn't impact job performance. Though being a conspiracy theory pushing asshole doesn't affect Roseanne's job in her acting, either.

In both cases we have a company that felt that the events were damaging their image and so took corrective action, which is their right and I have no problem with. I just wish we could either all agree that companies have a right to manage these sorts of things or that they should let it go and we let the consumers decide. The left and the right want to have it both ways depending on who is being punished for speaking out and that's dishonest.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-25-2018, 10:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: According to facebook the left wing and right wing have finally united in their agreement that I'm a d-bag for just wanting to watch football.

If you offended them both, then you won.

[fredtoast]

(05-30-2018, 10:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In both cases we have a company that felt that the events were damaging their image and so took corrective action, which is their right and I have no problem with. I just wish we could either all agree that companies have a right to manage these sorts of things or that they should let it go and we let the consumers decide. The left and the right want to have it both ways depending on who is being punished for speaking out and that's dishonest.

I agree. 


The key thing is that companies need to have clear rules in place before anything like this happens.  If they wait and react then they look like they are picking sides.

[Bengalzona]

(05-30-2018, 10:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think this is one of the things that bugs me with this whole situation. We can find examples of both sides siding with or against people who have been told to "just do their jobs." It's very partisan in the way this all goes and how people view the specific instance. Of course, there is some variability. Ms. Davis, for instance, was refusing to do her job. Protesting during the National Anthem doesn't impact job performance. Though being a conspiracy theory pushing asshole doesn't affect Roseanne's job in her acting, either.

In both cases we have a company that felt that the events were damaging their image and so took corrective action, which is their right and I have no problem with. I just wish we could either all agree that companies have a right to manage these sorts of things or that they should let it go and we let the consumers decide. The left and the right want to have it both ways depending on who is being punished for speaking out and that's dishonest.

I agree.

But I would add the church and state aspect of the Kim Davis episode does make it even more different.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2018, 10:51 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I agree.

But I would add the church and state aspect of the Kim Davis episode does make it even more different.

Yeah, the Kim Davis thing is a shit show from top to bottom. This is actually one of the reasons you won't find any of the more conservative anabaptists holding office. They won't take an oath, that's a part of their faith. Part of it is because they see it as inherently against their religion, but the other part for some of the more modern ones is that their oath to God is the strongest oath they have, and so it would be dishonest if they were to hold public office and swear to uphold man's laws when their faith dictate's they uphold the laws of God over all others.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-30-2018, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, the Kim Davis thing is a shit show from top to bottom. This is actually one of the reasons you won't find any of the more conservative anabaptists holding office. They won't take an oath, that's a part of their faith. Part of it is because they see it as inherently against their religion, but the other part for some of the more modern ones is that their oath to God is the strongest oath they have, and so it would be dishonest if they were to hold public office and swear to uphold man's laws when their faith dictate's they uphold the laws of God over all others.

Now that makes sense.  Don't take a job you can't fulfill in the first place.  Granted gay marriage wasn't legal at the time she took the job, but we all knew it was coming.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2018, 11:00 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Now that makes sense.  Don't take a job you can't fulfill in the first place.  Granted gay marriage wasn't legal at the time she took the job, but we all knew it was coming.  

To me, it's one of the issues of electing officials to positions that don't have legislative authority. If you aren't voting on bills or you don't have the final approval/veto authority, then you shouldn't be elected. You should either be hired or appointed. Those jobs are all about carrying out policy enacted by those with policy making authority, not making policy, and so should be based upon the capabilities to do the job and nothing else. If you fail to carry out the job, you should be fired.

This is a problem I have with sheriffs, elected judges, you name it.

[fredtoast]

(05-30-2018, 11:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: To me, it's one of the issues of electing officials to positions that don't have legislative authority. If you aren't voting on bills or you don't have the final approval/veto authority, then you shouldn't be elected. You should either be hired or appointed. Those jobs are all about carrying out policy enacted by those with policy making authority, not making policy, and so should be based upon the capabilities to do the job and nothing else. If you fail to carry out the job, you should be fired.

This is a problem I have with sheriffs, elected judges, you name it.

In Kentucky they elect the coroner an even the county jailer is elected separate from the sheriff.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-30-2018, 11:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: To me, it's one of the issues of electing officials to positions that don't have legislative authority. If you aren't voting on bills or you don't have the final approval/veto authority, then you shouldn't be elected. You should either be hired or appointed. Those jobs are all about carrying out policy enacted by those with policy making authority, not making policy, and so should be based upon the capabilities to do the job and nothing else. If you fail to carry out the job, you should be fired.

This is a problem I have with sheriffs, elected judges, you name it.

I might have to disagree on sheriff.  That is a unique position.  Who would do the appointing?  I do always like watching TV shows where the mayor is bossing the sheriff around.  

Now someone like Kim Davis has a purely administrative rule and needs to do what the law says or quit her job. It's like working in a pharmacy in the private sector. If there are prescriptions you don't want to fill, then find a boss who will make accommodations, open your own pharmacy or find another line of work.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2018, 11:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In Kentucky they elect the coroner an even the county jailer is elected separate from the sheriff.

See, that sort of thing is ridiculous.

(05-30-2018, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I might have to disagree on sheriff.  That is a unique position.  Who would do the appointing?  I do always like watching TV shows where the mayor is bossing the sheriff around.  

The appointing would be done by a municipal legislature. City council, county supervisors, whatever you call it where you are done in conjunction with an elected executive for the municipality if one exists. I guess what it boils down to is I think that sheriffs are an antiquated part of today's criminal justice system. I am of the opinion that being concerned about an upcoming election introduced possibilities for increased subjectivity in positions where there shouldn't be as much.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-30-2018, 11:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: See, that sort of thing is ridiculous.


The appointing would be done by a municipal legislature. City council, county supervisors, whatever you call it where you are done in conjunction with an elected executive for the municipality if one exists. I guess what it boils down to is I think that sheriffs are an antiquated part of today's criminal justice system. I am of the opinion that being concerned about an upcoming election introduced possibilities for increased subjectivity in positions where there shouldn't be as much.

Well certainly no municipality can appoint a county sheriff.  It's two different governments.  And which municipality gets to choose?

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2018, 11:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well certainly no municipality can appoint a county sheriff.  It's two different governments.  And which municipality gets to choose?

Sorry, I meant locality. So for a county government, the county legislature would appoint their own. If a municipality within a county has their own law enforcement, then they can appoint their own for their jurisdiction.