+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem (/Thread-New-policy-requires-on-field-players-personnel-to-stand-for-anthem)
RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - fredtoast - 05-30-2018
(05-30-2018, 11:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.
District Attorneys are even worse than Sheriffs. It is not unusual for people accused of crimes to be treated differently in election years than other times.
It is ridiculous.
RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - michaelsean - 05-30-2018
(05-30-2018, 12:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: District Attorneys are even worse than Sheriffs. It is not unusual for people accused of crimes to be treated differently in election years than other times.
It is ridiculous.
Will they charge higher? Or give less favorable deals?
RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Benton - 05-30-2018
(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’ve got less issue with owners enforcing a policy of forced nationalist
Loyalty than a public employee refusing to do the job for personal reasons.
RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - fredtoast - 05-30-2018
(05-30-2018, 12:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Will they charge higher? Or give less favorable deals?
Less favorable deals on drug charges.
RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Belsnickel - 05-30-2018
(05-30-2018, 12:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: District Attorneys are even worse than Sheriffs. It is not unusual for people accused of crimes to be treated differently in election years than other times.
It is ridiculous.
Oh, I completely agree.
RE: New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 05-31-2018
If the NFL was smart, which it has clearly demonstrated it is not, it would ban protest of all kind, political or otherwise, while in uniform or on league property. This would keep the focus on the fact that protesting on your employers dime is not acceptable, regardless of the cause, and would divorce it from the anthem protests, whatever the justification individuals see for them.