CDZ The NFL should immediately adopt new rules and guidelines pertaining to

[Anathema]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

Great idea.... except it should be a PERMANENT suspension.

 

[beagle9]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

Great idea.... except it should be a PERMANENT suspension.

. The NFL needs to take heed to what is going on, and they should put new rules in place to get a handle on the situation before it gets out of control. Like people say, the guy has a right to protest, but there is a proper place and time for it, and the NFL has a right to protect it's institution, brand, and it's players from these sorts of things. Why not protest outside of the station where the alledged rogue cop may be employed at, and during that protest demand justice with a sit in until things improve or some proper action is taken quickly by the justice system ? If Obama's justice system couldn't be trusted, then look out for way more of this stuff to come.

 

[I amso IR]

I lived in Berlin during the Cold War and I've visited every Communist European nation during that time.

I also am a veteran and I also lived, for five years in West Berlin, during the Cold War. The period I mention was 1961 to 1966. Based upon my experience, I am curious as to how you visited "every" Communist European nation during that that time. I am assuming your years in "Berlin" were not the same years as mine. However, please clarify the statement you made as it was not possible to "visit" every European Communist nation during the period 1961 thru 1966. The furthest one could visit, if you will, was East Berlin, on organized and escorted tours which were a mandatory event, conducted by roster at the Company level and organized by Headquarters Berlin Brigade. Visits indeed!

I appreciate your response. It is evident we are both making reference to a couple of different time frames and totally different situations. Since for military reasons, the four major powers, the United States, Soviets, England and France divided Berlin and all of Germany into four sectors after WWII and formulated the Four Powers Agreement, certain restrictions for travel were also begun to lessen the chance of conflict. The Soviets had all of Eastern Europe while the Western portion belonged to the U.S., Great Britain and France. As the Capital of Berlin was one hundred and ten miles inside the Soviet Sector it was necessary to limit all travel of the military of the U.S., Britain and France while stationed in Berlin. Since you did not serve during that period, in Berlin, it stands to reason you were never impacted by those regulations. As a civilian living in Berlin, you were held to a different set of rules established by civil authority. You are hereby informed that said rules were in fact, established by military authority, did exist even though you personally never experienced them. Also, since you were in a civilian capacity you had a certain freedom not enjoyed by the military and were in fact on your own as far as "we" were concerned. I am pleased that the Soviets treated you favorably and you enjoyed your stay. Good to hear. By that time things had cooled a lot, the Soviets were in their death throes as the west wanted and things were progressing. My time in Berlin was when Germans by the thousands were using western sector of Berlin as an escape route from repression and Unkle Walter Ulbrict, the East German grand foopah decided to build a wall to keep that from happening. You missed that apparently and it is understandable have no firsthand knowledge to judge by. Your Cold War was not my Cold War nor the Cold War of millions of others. I will leave it at that as it is senseless to discuss the hardships of Germany with one who never experienced them. That I am assuming is why you have a much warmer feeling towards the Soviet system than I. Thanks again for helping to clear the matter. Have a nice day.

 

[GLASNOST]

I lived in Berlin during the Cold War and I've visited every Communist European nation during that time.

I also am a veteran and I also lived, for five years in West Berlin, during the Cold War. The period I mention was 1961 to 1966. Based upon my experience, I am curious as to how you visited "every" Communist European nation during that that time. I am assuming your years in "Berlin" were not the same years as mine. However, please clarify the statement you made as it was not possible to "visit" every European Communist nation during the period 1961 thru 1966. The furthest one could visit, if you will, was East Berlin, on organized and escorted tours which were a mandatory event, conducted by roster at the Company level and organized by Headquarters Berlin Brigade. Visits indeed!

I appreciate your response. It is evident we are both making reference to a couple of different time frames and totally different situations. Since for military reasons, the four major powers, the United States, Soviets, England and France divided Berlin and all of Germany into four sectors after WWII and formulated the Four Powers Agreement, certain restrictions for travel were also begun to lessen the chance of conflict. The Soviets had all of Eastern Europe while the Western portion belonged to the U.S., Great Britain and France. As the Capital of Berlin was one hundred and ten miles inside the Soviet Sector it was necessary to limit all travel of the military of the U.S., Britain and France while stationed in Berlin. Since you did not serve during that period, in Berlin, it stands to reason you were never impacted by those regulations. As a civilian living in Berlin, you were held to a different set of rules established by civil authority. You are hereby informed that said rules were in fact, established by military authority, did exist even though you personally never experienced them. Also, since you were in a civilian capacity you had a certain freedom not enjoyed by the military and were in fact on your own as far as "we" were concerned. I am pleased that the Soviets treated you favorably and you enjoyed your stay. Good to hear. By that time things had cooled a lot, the Soviets were in their death throes as the west wanted and things were progressing. My time in Berlin was when Germans by the thousands were using western sector of Berlin as an escape route from repression and Unkle Walter Ulbrict, the East German grand foopah decided to build a wall to keep that from happening. You missed that apparently and it is understandable have no firsthand knowledge to judge by. Your Cold War was not my Cold War nor the Cold War of millions of others. I will leave it at that as it is senseless to discuss the hardships of Germany with one who never experienced them. That I am assuming is why you have a much warmer feeling towards the Soviet system than I. Thanks again for helping to clear the matter. Have a nice day.

Hello! Thank you for your response!
Let me clear up a few loose ends to this dialogue.

First. There were more than 4 occupying military forces in Germany. Canadians, Belgians, and Dutch military forces were also represented in the BRD …... possibly even Danish but I'm not completely certain about that.

Second. The capital of the DDR was (indeed) Berlin but the capital of the BRD was the fabricated-capital city of Bonn.

Third. While in Berlin I was employed by the RAF (Gatow) so my knowledge of things 'military' isn't simply guess-work.

Fourth. As I think we are in agreement, it was your Command ('military authority' as you correctly said) that stipulated you travel by organised group. This was no rule enforced by any of the Warsaw Pact Nations. In any case, you were not allowed to have a passport, as I understand it. So '6 of one, half a dozen of the other', you had to either travel by organised group ….. or not travel at all.

Fifth. My experience with what you call 'hardships of Germany' is in many ways more intense than yours. I walked amongst the people of the DDR. I ate at their restaurants and drank at their cafés and Kneipen. I talked with them in the parks, on the trains and the S-Bahn. I've hitch-hiked along their cement-slab, country roads. I sat with men who fished from the river banks, and discussed many things. I've been to several of the cities, and through many villages of the DDR in Mecklenburg Vorpommern, Saxony Anhalt, Saxony, and Thuringen. I don't think my experience can be considered very much less than enlightened.

SIXTH. My 'much warmer feelings towards the Soviet system' is a misconception. I didn't say that, you did.

Anyway, I hope I've cleared up everything. I assume the subject has reached its' ETS. Enjoy the day and all the rest to come!

 

[Spare_change]

U.S. Veterans Are Coming To Colin Kaepernick's Defense In Droves

#VeteransForKaepernick

All 3 of them !!!!!

You're a fucking moron. Google #VeteransForKaepernick

... and you're a fool who relies on childish name calling and merely regurgitate the latest liberal garbage. Apparently, you are incapable of conscious thought.

Do your research ... WE veterans don't support what Kaepernick did, but we support his right to do it. There are miles of difference.

Stop trying to speak for veterans. You can barely speak for yourself.

LOL -- well, given the fact that I AM a 20 year veteran, and given the fact that I have been actively involved with veteran's affairs since my retirement, and given the fact that i am currently the chairman of a national organization for veterans (about 65,000 strong), and given the fact that I have 7 years of chairmanship of a charitable organization serving veterans, I would guess that my qualifications probably come about as close as anybody you can mention. I believe I can speak, with some authority, for veterans today.

 

[Spare_change]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

Great idea.... except it should be a PERMANENT suspension.

. The NFL needs to take heed to what is going on, and they should put new rules in place to get a handle on the situation before it gets out of control. Like people say, the guy has a right to protest, but there is a proper place and time for it, and the NFL has a right to protect it's institution, brand, and it's players from these sorts of things. Why not protest outside of the station where the alledged rogue cop may be employed at, and during that protest demand justice with a sit in until things improve or some proper action is taken quickly by the justice system ? If Obama's justice system couldn't be trusted, then look out for way more of this stuff to come.

Actually, everybody keeps forgetting he DOESN'T have an inherent right to protest when he is conducting business as a representative of a particular company or brand. He signed a contract, and in that contract, is a performance clause that he must make every effort to advance the brand. He, of course, can protest his ass off if he isn't at work, but his right to free speech does not give him the right to demean or lessen the product through his actions while in his employ.

Don't believe it? Go run up and down the halls at work shouting racist and homophobic names - see how fast the boss forces you to stop.

 

[beagle9]

It appears according to the news this Sunday morning, that the NFL is bracing for possibly more protest to come. Looks like the NFL might be going the way of the past MLB strike this year if not careful. The Seattle Seahawks are about to make history doing the right thing, where as they are going to stand and lock arms in unity while the Anthem plays, and that is outstanding. I applaud the Seahawks for a great team response in showing that unity is a great thing, and it solves problems best. Activism is great, as long as it is done right. Just take the protest to the proper locations is all.

 

[GLASNOST]

... WE veterans don't support what Kaepernick did ........

"We"?

.... given the fact that I AM a 20 year veteran, and given the fact that I have been actively involved with veteran's affairs since my retirement, and given the fact that i am currently the chairman of a national organization for veterans (about 65,000 strong), and given the fact that I have 7 years of chairmanship of a charitable organization serving veterans, I would guess that my qualifications probably come about as close as anybody you can mention.

And .....?

I believe I can speak, with some authority, for veterans today.

I am a veteran and you do not speak for me. You see, I support what Kaepernick did. Yes, and his right to do it. Look, the only thing your credentials prove is that you have your ear to the ground when it comes to veteran 'hangers on'. The guys who join the VFW and wear their insignia on faded fatigue jackets on veterans day and the 4th. of July. There are a lot more veterans than those. A whole lot more. Have I already said enough so that we can shake hands and agree that there is more to 'speaking on behalf of veterans' than merely the ones you meet in the corridors of official channels?

 

[GLASNOST]

Actually, everybody keeps forgetting he DOESN'T have an inherent right to protest when he is conducting business as a representative of a particular company or brand.

I think what you are missing is that YES he does have that right as a citizen.

He signed a contract, and in that contract, is a performance clause that he must make every effort to advance the brand.

I'll take your word for that ..... and this is your best argument.

He, of course, can protest his ass off if he isn't at work, but his right to free speech does not give him the right to demean or lessen the product through his actions while in his employ.

You are confusing 'right' and 'free speech' with some kind of absurd fantasy. You make it seem as though he (or we) believe it is a RIGHT 'to demean or lessen the product' of his employer. Who told you that? Where did you get that idea?

Don't believe it? Go run up and down the halls at work shouting racist and homophobic names - see how fast the boss forces you to stop.

Apples and pears, my good friend. In fact, if anything, your example suggests that your employer is keen to associate it's product with non-racial sentiments. Ring a bell?

NOTE. Through the chicanery of events in life a product can become linked to a political or social incident. I don't need to tell you that. But don't forget that depending upon the incident the product can win or lose popularity at either end. The product in question can (1) turn a blind eye – (2) terminate the players contract and sue for damages -- or even (3) stand by his side. The consequences are not always clear cut, as can be seen by your very own comment just above this one.

 

[jillian]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

in other words you don't like what a particular player says so the rules should change.

now tell us how much you love the constitution.......

 

[beagle9]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

in other words you don't like what a particular player says so the rules should change.

now tell us how much you love the constitution.......

. Lord help these people PLEASE !!!!!!

 

[jillian]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

in other words you don't like what a particular player says so the rules should change.

now tell us how much you love the constitution.......

. Lord help these people PLEASE !!!!!!

i wish the same for the trumpeter. it is my fondest hope that they leave behind their misogyny, bigotry and anger.

 

[beagle9]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

in other words you don't like what a particular player says so the rules should change.

now tell us how much you love the constitution.......

. Lord help these people PLEASE !!!!!!

i wish the same for the trumpeter. it is my fondest hope that they leave behind their misogyny, bigotry and anger.

. Call it what you will, but you know you are just jabbering your jaws about something in a troll sort of way. Got any actual comment that makes sense, because so far there has been some great commenting here in the thread until you came along to troll it.

 

[jillian]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

in other words you don't like what a particular player says so the rules should change.

now tell us how much you love the constitution.......

. Lord help these people PLEASE !!!!!!

i wish the same for the trumpeter. it is my fondest hope that they leave behind their misogyny, bigotry and anger.

. Call it what you will, but you know you are just jabbering your jaws about something in a troll sort of way. Got any actual comment that makes sense, because so far there has been some great commenting here in the thread until you came along to troll it.

not at all. i'll remind you that this is the CDZ and insulting me and saying i'm trolling for expressing a heartfelt view is probably inappropriate and off topic.

 

[beagle9]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

in other words you don't like what a particular player says so the rules should change.

now tell us how much you love the constitution.......

. Lord help these people PLEASE !!!!!!

i wish the same for the trumpeter. it is my fondest hope that they leave behind their misogyny, bigotry and anger.

. Call it what you will, but you know you are just jabbering your jaws about something in a troll sort of way. Got any actual comment that makes sense, because so far there has been some great commenting here in the thread until you came along to troll it.

not at all. i'll remind you that this is the CDZ and insulting me and saying i'm trolling for expressing a heartfelt view is probably inappropriate and off topic.

. You refer to me as a misogynist, bigot, and angry Trumpeter (yes you did), but I insulted you eh ? Hey I look at your comment the same as Hillary's comment on the 47%, so don' try and weasel out of it.

 

[Spare_change]

Actually, everybody keeps forgetting he DOESN'T have an inherent right to protest when he is conducting business as a representative of a particular company or brand.

I think what you are missing is that YES he does have that right as a citizen.

He signed a contract, and in that contract, is a performance clause that he must make every effort to advance the brand.

I'll take your word for that ..... and this is your best argument.

He, of course, can protest his ass off if he isn't at work, but his right to free speech does not give him the right to demean or lessen the product through his actions while in his employ.

You are confusing 'right' and 'free speech' with some kind of absurd fantasy. You make it seem as though he (or we) believe it is a RIGHT 'to demean or lessen the product' of his employer. Who told you that? Where did you get that idea?

Don't believe it? Go run up and down the halls at work shouting racist and homophobic names - see how fast the boss forces you to stop.

Apples and pears, my good friend. In fact, if anything, your example suggests that your employer is keen to associate it's product with non-racial sentiments. Ring a bell?

NOTE. Through the chicanery of events in life a product can become linked to a political or social incident. I don't need to tell you that. But don't forget that depending upon the incident the product can win or lose popularity at either end. The product in question can (1) turn a blind eye – (2) terminate the players contract and sue for damages -- or even (3) stand by his side. The consequences are not always clear cut, as can be seen by your very own comment just above this one.

What uneducated nonsense ... you're trying to manufacture a justification for an action after-the-fact. When you sign a contract to work for a company - implied or in fact - you agree to act in a manner that does not reflect negatively on your employer or his product.

In reality, Colin Kaepernick chose a way to make a supposedly political statement in an incredibly ignorant manner. It was a statement by a privileged, misinformed, and self-absorbed person who hasn’t got even the faintest idea of what he’s talking about. Raised by white parents in a well-to-do neighborhood, coddled thru high school and college because of his athletic talents, and rich beyond anyone’s dreams by people who fawn over him.

Then, to make the problem worse, supporters scramble to create a justification for his ignorance, and have to come up with an intentional misinterpretation of the SECOND verse (two whole lines!!!), something that 99,5% of society had never heard or even knew existed, in order to try to give some credence to his stupidity.

I have watched for 130 posts as people intentionally invoke lies, racism, misinterpretation, and just plain ignorance, on this whole discussion. Blacks try to act so grieved, whites try to say things, so politically twisted, that they can't figure out how to say what they really mean - because they know their words will be intentionally perverted so that someone can call them racists.

Fortunately, or unfortunately - and, frankly, I don't care which it is - I'm going to write the unvarnished truth (or, at least, as I see it). I'm too damn old to dance the PC dance. It's time that someone said the truth - and it's time that both sides approach the issues in a mature and responsible manner, the impossibility of which we demonstrate every day, and frankly, in every post here..

Here’s the cold, hard truth ---- we live in a country of two separate, and distinct, societies There is little, or no, continuity or integration between the society of the white middle class and the society of the black, impoverished ghetto. Neither side has a clue how the other side lives, and neither side is the least bit interested in worrying about the other side of the river..

For those familiar with Mazlow’s Hierarchy of Needs, one society worries about its survival and security. Gunfire in the middle of the night, long walks to school in order to avoid gang controlled territories, drive by shootings, homes that are falling down, or apartments without heat and water are not only present, but they are epidemic. In order to survive, society members are forced to confront these issues on a daily basis. For the sake of clarity, we’ll call this one the “Black Society”.

For the other society, safety and security are not driving concerns, but rather, belonging, esteem, and self growth are the driving factors. They don’t expect to be killed when they step outside their door, they don’t expect the actions of others to negatively influence their lives. This one, we’ll call the “White Society”.

How did we get to be members of our respective society? The Black Society was forced into it, segregated into substandard areas, and restricted both by law and social convention. The White Society, on the other hand, faced the same prejudices and restrictions as the Black Society, and grew their way out of it. They learned that, in order to move from one society to the other, they had to assimilate themselves into the White Society – they had to act, think, and live like those they wished to emulate. We have watched as Poles, Irish, Jews, and Germans have come here, been forced into slums and ghettos no different than what the Blacks live in today. Yet, they were able to assimilate themselves into mainstream society, and not only became productive members of the White Society, but also its leaders, financiers, and most accepted citizenry.

But – but – you say, that’s different!! They were White, and fit right in. We’re Black, and everybody can see it. Wow – that’s really insightful. But, is it the color Black that so concerns Whites, or is it what Black Society represents? Is it that they fear the crime, the poverty, the lawlessness, that are so much a party of the Black Society?

How did – and how do – Black Society members migrate to the White Society? First, we have to assume that they, in fact, wish to move across the divide. Given that most of the benefits, wealth, privilege and safety exist in the White Society – if the Blacks want it, they have to join in. They have to do exactly what the Irish, the Poles, the Jews, and all the other groups did, and they have to work for it, they have to contribute to the joint society, and they have to work within the confines of the White Society in order to influence, and change, those things they find unacceptable.

If, on the other hand, they want all those things the Whites have, but want to be able to maintain their autonomy, then they need to figure out how to create it themselves. There is no practicable rationale for Whites to give up their societal assets, so that someone else can have it, without some expectation of return. The Black Society cannot simply sit around with hands out, expecting to be given all they think they deserve. They have to get out and earn it. They have to work for it. They have to create a society, not of lawlessness and fear, but a society of laws and responsibility. They have to stand up and fix the problems in their society, rather than sitting around bemoaning the fact that the problems exist.

They DO exist – but no amount of whining will fix them. No amount of free handouts will fix them. It is the responsibility of the members of that society to fix their problems – to establish an acceptable societal code that protects all, cares for the least able, and looks to move toward the future. Maybe it can best be said … If you don’t like it, get off your ass and fix it. Find a way, rather than an excuse.

Let the public skewering begin ….

Back to Kaepernick - he's like most people. He wants to talk about it, but he really doesn't want to DO anything about it. Tell him to put his money where his mouth is - tell him to get off his ass and work to make things better. Kneeling for 45 seconds during the national anthem does nothing to fix the problems - it merely attracts attention to a rich, privileged, and self absorbed attention whore.

 

[Bush92]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

Weak minded people look to these NFL players as extra special or heroes. Real heroes wear the uniform and defend our nation, real heroes are cops and firefighters. Real heroes are teachers that put in the extra hours for kids that are not theirs. Heroes are moms and dads that go to work everyday to support their family.

 

[Spare_change]

anyone trying to highjack the sport, highjack it's half time shows or highjack it's brands for the purposes of political statements and/or attacks to be strategically used by way of it's access to millions of viewers. Anyone doing so or attempting such a thing should be banned from the game for no less than 2 years.

Weak minded people look to these NFL players as extra special or heroes. Real heroes wear the uniform and defend our nation, real heroes are cops and firefighters. Real heroes are teachers that put in the extra hours for kids that are not theirs. Heroes are moms and dads that go to work everyday to support their family.

Nahhh ... real heroes are people who ambush cops and burn down local stores.

 

[GLASNOST]

What uneducated nonsense ...

Nice.

you're trying to manufacture a justification for an action after-the-fact. When you sign a contract to work for a company - implied or in fact - you agree to act in a manner that does not reflect negatively on your employer or his product.

Shall I assume that you didn't actually read my response to that point?

Sadly, the rest of your reply is so saturated with what seems to be prejudice, racist, absurd supposition that I would probably fail in the promise I made to

if I were to itemize a response. It's really too bad because you've put such a great effort in presenting it.

 

[GLASNOST]

Real heroes wear the uniform and defend our nation ..

But you haven't had one since 1945.

real heroes are cops and firefighters.

You mean like the volunteers who rushed into the WTC buildings to save lives but then were refused financial assistance for medical service against the illnesses (and death) they suffered because of asbestos (for example) because as 'off-duty' volunteers they were not injured 'on the job'? Yes, I agree with you.

Real heroes are teachers that put in the extra hours for kids that are not theirs. Heroes are moms and dads that go to work everyday to support their family.

I think you have grossly misunderstood the definition of the word 'hero', my friend.