NFL’s Proposed National Anthem Rules

[Roy]

Simple solution: don't play the national anthem at games that don't involve a national team.

More complex solution: have teams pick their own anthems, and play those of both teams before a match.

Over here, sports teams frequently include foreign players. Do teams over there?

[Sparko]

Your disdain for Trump is duly noted, but he's not the ONLY one who got tired of the drama.

I did not say he was.

What????

YES, you did. You said he was the only root and single cause.

This ruckus has one and only one root - and I think we all know what it is.
...Your suspicion was not founded. My "single cause" was Trump, not race.

[carpedm9587]

What????

YES, you did. You said he was the only root and single cause.

CP noted that Trump was not the only one who got tired of the drama, and my response was to that statement. I did not ever say that "Trump was the only one who got tired of the drama."

I did say that Trump was the cause of the drama/situation. Before Trump singled it out as a cause, there were a handful of players doing this and it was getting a few articles here and there. Left to itself, it would have been old news in a matter of a few games. When he singled it out, the numbers immediately climbed, giving him even more fodder for his campaign. The players, essentially, played right into his hands. And he, once again, read the situation spot on and realized that the mixture of race, flag, anthem, business was giving him a pretty much guaranteed win.

Hence my comment.

[Sparko]

CP noted that Trump was not the only one who got tired of the drama, and my response was to that statement. I did not ever say that "Trump was the only one who got tired of the drama."

and his comment was to your comment about Trump being the single cause of the situation.

The rest of this is just you doing your normal Kabuki dancing.

I did say that Trump was the cause of the drama/situation. Before Trump singled it out as a cause, there were a handful of players doing this and it was getting a few articles here and there. Left to itself, it would have been old news in a matter of a few games. When he singled it out, the numbers immediately climbed, giving him even more fodder for his campaign. The players, essentially, played right into his hands. And he, once again, read the situation spot on and realized that the mixture of race, flag, anthem, business was giving him a pretty much guaranteed win.

Hence my comment.

[Cow Poke]

Weren't you a police officer at one point? You told a story the other day about scaring your wife in which it appeared you were going for your duty shift to the station across the street. Did I misunderstand?

What does that have to do with anything?

[carpedm9587]

What does that have to do with anything?

Umm...the players are protesting police behavior/actions? Most police I know of find such criticism offensive and disrespectful. I was asking if it was possible that your reaction is related to your history.

[One Bad Pig]

I cannot say I am surprised by the defense.

BTW, we get on TWO knees for reverential prayer. We get down on ONE knee to propose, and we "bend a knee" to swear allegiance and loyalty. If the posture of these young men is examined, that is exactly what they are doing. And the position is traditionally interpreted as one of respect and allegiance.

This ruckus has one and only one root - and I think we all know what it is.

In turn, I cannot say I am surprised by your avoidance of context; it doesn't fit your narrative, so something else must be proposed.

[carpedm9587]

and his comment was to your comment about Trump being the single cause of the situation.

The rest of this is just you doing your normal Kabuki dancing.

This is an old theme with you, Sparko - but it doesn't make it any more true than the last 100 times...

I stand by Trump being the only (actually, "primary" would have been better - "only" is a bit of an exaggeration, given that none of this would happen if the player had not protested and/or if they didn't have anything to protest) cause...and I stand by my observation that I did not say Trump was the only one who got tired of the drama.

The rest I leave to you.

[Cow Poke]

Umm...the players are protesting police behavior/actions? Most police I know of find such criticism offensive and disrespectful. I was asking if it was possible that your reaction is related to your history.

No, but you've already jumped to that unwarranted conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

In turn, I cannot say I am surprised by your avoidance of context; it doesn't fit your narrative, so something else must be proposed.

Actually, I'm not avoiding context, OBP. The context is at par with the objection the right is making over free speech on campuses (which I believe I referenced in an earlier post). Campuses can be both private and public, and both are businesses. When the left rallies to prevent a speaker from speaking, the right goes up in arms claiming "free speech, free speech." Campuses, especially more liberal ones, can also see a business impact from the presence of conservative speakers, especially those with a deeply ugly message (e.g., racism, sexism, etc.). Here, these young men are taking a reverential posture to protest what they consider an injustice, and the right is so incensed they're boycotting the games and using advertising pressure to get the behavior they want in that venue.

• The speakers on campus can go freely speak somewhere else - just as the players can freely protest somewhere else.
• Both are businesses
• Both are being shut down because one side doesn't want to see/hear what the other side is saying.

From my perspective, it's one set of rules for one side, but a different set for the other.

[carpedm9587]

No, but you've already jumped to that unwarranted conclusion.

Actually - I didn't jump - I asked if it was possible (actually, what I specifically said was "I have to wonder how much of that is associated with your history as a police officer."). If the answer is "none," then so be it. In that case, I have no idea how you got from my post to the conclusion that I was accusing you (or any other specific person, other than Trump) of racism. Given how you responded, and which part of my post you clipped out for your first response, the reaction appears to have been prompted by my describing the players as "black young men." However, that is only how it appears. I have no idea what was going on in your head.

I do know you accused me of saying/meaning things I did not say/mean. My original post attests to that.

[Cow Poke]

Actually - I didn't jump -

Pretty much

I asked if it was possible

No, you did not.

(actually, what I specifically said was "I have to wonder how much of that is associated with your history as a police officer.")..

Correct - that was NOT a question.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, I'm not avoiding context, OBP. The context is at par with the objection the right is making over free speech on campuses (which I believe I referenced in an earlier post).

I'm not concerned about 'too much free speech', I'm concerned that the institutions themselves are allowing so much one-sided 'free speech'.

Campuses can be both private and public, and both are businesses. When the left rallies to prevent a speaker from speaking, the right goes up in arms claiming "free speech, free speech." Campuses, especially more liberal ones, can also see a business impact from the presence of conservative speakers, especially those with a deeply ugly message (e.g., racism, sexism, etc.). Here, these young men are taking a reverential posture to protest what they consider an injustice, and the right is so incensed they're boycotting the games and using advertising pressure to get the behavior they want in that venue.

It's amazing to me that you see higher education, where there is supposed to be academic freedom, and the NFL - where it's all about ratings - on the same par. Stunning, even.

• The speakers on campus can go freely speak somewhere else - just as the players can freely protest somewhere else.
• Both are businesses
• Both are being shut down because one side doesn't want to see/hear what the other side is saying.

At Colleges / Universities, students (or their parents or grantors) actually pay money there to get an education, part of which is the free exchange of ideas. These institutions frequently seem to favor one side far more than the other.

in the NFL - advertisers, sponsors, fans and 'risk management firms' (bookies) go there to be entertained and/or make money, and the players are paid big money to play the game. It is not intended to be about "the free exchange of ideas".

From my perspective, it's one set of rules for one side, but a different set for the other.

As well it should be, because you're comparing Apples to Porcupines.

[Cow Poke]

Simple solution: don't play the national anthem at games that don't involve a national team.

I would not be surprised if it came to that for football. I would be very surprised if it came to that for baseball (in my lifetime).

More complex solution: have teams pick their own anthems, and play those of both teams before a match.

And, both teams consisting of multiple nationalities, multiple national anthems from both teams...

Or, maybe like the Olympics - the WINNERS get to hear their national anthem!

Over here, sports teams frequently include foreign players. Do teams over there?

I follow baseball, not football, but, YES! More and more baseball teams are made up of more and more nationalities, hence, my comment about multiple anthems per team.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not concerned about 'too much free speech', I'm concerned that the institutions themselves are allowing so much one-sided 'free speech'.

Where did I say, "too much free speech?"

It's amazing to me that you see higher education, where there is supposed to be academic freedom, and the NFL - where it's all about ratings - on the same par. Stunning, even.

I don't think I ever said "colleges = football." Obviously there are differences. The point was that there is parallelism between the two.

At Colleges / Universities, students (or their parents or grantors) actually pay money there to get an education, part of which is the free exchange of ideas. These institutions frequently seem to favor one side far more than the other.

in the NFL - advertisers, sponsors, fans and 'risk management firms' (bookies) go there to be entertained and/or make money, and the players are paid big money to play the game. It is not intended to be about "the free exchange of ideas".

And yet, the squelching of ideas is being done in both venues. An individual's ability to express themselves non-violently is being squelched.

Don't get me wrong, CP - I recognize the NFL as the employer has every right to limit the activity of employees. The point that is being missed is that they would not HAVE to do this if the right was not pig-piling on these players, taking massive offense at a simple protest, all whipped up by Mr. Trump. It's not the NFL I fault; it's the members of the right who are doing, in this venue, what they are accusing others of doing in other venues.

As well it should be, because you're comparing Apples to Porcupines.

No - I'm comparing "silencing a message I don't want to hear" with "silencing a message I don't want to hear." I think you folks seem to be under the impression I am finding fault with the NFL. I am finding fault with the people who are working to squelch the speech. The NFL is just their tool. I wish they had a better spine, but I don't really expect them to. Dollars talk, as we well know.