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

[Spare_change]

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.

To translate ... "I really can't create a response, so I'll just attack the poster by calling him racist." Facts are such inconvenient things, aren't they?

 

[Spare_change]

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.

See what a "little bit of info" does to you? The question wasn't whether they got the services they need, but rather about the method of payment.Nobody went untreated ...

Try educating yourself about a subject ...

 

[GLASNOST]

....... Facts are such inconvenient things, aren't they?

I noticed. That's the reason I didn't think you would take very kindly to me itemizing them in my last response to you.

See what a "little bit of info" does to you? The question wasn't whether they got the services they need, but rather about the method of payment.Nobody went untreated ......

So what you're saying is that, it doesn't matter their 'coverage' wasn't respected due to commercial-law chicanery. I assumed that we were talking about 'heroes' - who honours them ...... and who doesn't. I would have thought you'd be more upset with the treatment they were subjected to, than what type of socks athletes prefer to wear or whether they stand (or don't stand) at the appropriate moment. I guess what I am trying to say is that I fail to see how Kaepernick's socks disrespect those volunteers, at the same time I do see the legal troubles they suffered as indeed disrespecting them. Obviously, we disagree on that point.

 

[Spare_change]

....... Facts are such inconvenient things, aren't they?

I noticed. That's the reason I didn't think you would take very kindly to me itemizing them in my last response to you.

See what a "little bit of info" does to you? The question wasn't whether they got the services they need, but rather about the method of payment.Nobody went untreated ......

So what you're saying is that, it doesn't matter their 'coverage' wasn't respected due to commercial-law chicanery. I assumed that we were talking about 'heroes' - who honours them ...... and who doesn't. I would have thought you'd be more upset with the treatment they were subjected to, than what type of socks athletes prefer to wear or whether they stand (or don't stand) at the appropriate moment. I guess what I am trying to say is that I fail to see how Kaepernick's socks disrespect those volunteers, at the same time I do see the legal troubles they suffered as indeed disrespecting them. Obviously, we disagree on that point.

No, that isn't what I said at all ... in fact, what I said was the heroes received the treatment they required and deserved. It was a disagreement between health providers on who had responsibility - one was the government program, the other a private concern. It was the "government program" - workmen's comp - who disavowed responsibility. You know, kinda like Obamacare.

Let me see ... he wore sox with images of pigs in police uniforms ... I wear sox of black people hanging from trees. Neither of us should be offended?

 

[GLASNOST]

Let me see ... he wore sox with images of pigs in police uniforms ... I wear sox of black people hanging from trees. Neither of us should be offended?

I have to admit - that's a very good point!

 

[Spare_change]

Let me see ... he wore sox with images of pigs in police uniforms ... I wear sox of black people hanging from trees. Neither of us should be offended?

I have to admit - that's a very good point!

It was an accident .... I don't usually do that well.

 

[GLASNOST]

Let me see ... he wore sox with images of pigs in police uniforms ... I wear sox of black people hanging from trees. Neither of us should be offended?

I have to admit - that's a very good point!

It was an accident .... I don't usually do that well.

No honestly, I think it is a good point. But you still need to contend with the law. I'll make a pair of completely unqualified statements:
1). Depicting police as pigs on your socks is LEGAL.
2). Depicting negroes hanging from trees on your socks is ILLEGAL.

I'm probably right. So if those 2 'facts' disturb you then you have two courses of action to take:
1). Petition to have cop-pig socks made ILLEGAL (you might have a chance)
2). Petition to have hanging tree socks made LEGAL (good luck with that one)

You could just accept things as they are .... but after already 15 pages of this thread I've got a feeling you're going to need a whole lot more convincing.

 

[beagle9]

Let me see ... he wore sox with images of pigs in police uniforms ... I wear sox of black people hanging from trees. Neither of us should be offended?

I have to admit - that's a very good point!

It was an accident .... I don't usually do that well.

No honestly, I think it is a good point. But you still need to contend with the law. I'll make a pair of completely unqualified statements:
1). Depicting police as pigs on your socks is LEGAL.
2). Depicting negroes hanging from trees on your socks is ILLEGAL.

I'm probably right. So if those 2 'facts' disturb you then you have two courses of action to take:
1). Petition to have cop-pig socks made ILLEGAL (you might have a chance)
2). Petition to have hanging tree socks made LEGAL (good luck with that one)

You could just accept things as they are .... but after already 15 pages of this thread I've got a feeling you're going to need a whole lot more convincing.

. Now why aren't sox with cops depicted as pigs illegal ? It should fall up under the same law that would apply to blacks hanging from tree's depictions. Innocent cops the same as blacks have lost their lives due to the bull crap. The law should apply for all that is related or fits in the category.

 

[Spare_change]

Let me see ... he wore sox with images of pigs in police uniforms ... I wear sox of black people hanging from trees. Neither of us should be offended?

I have to admit - that's a very good point!

It was an accident .... I don't usually do that well.

No honestly, I think it is a good point. But you still need to contend with the law. I'll make a pair of completely unqualified statements:
1). Depicting police as pigs on your socks is LEGAL.
2). Depicting negroes hanging from trees on your socks is ILLEGAL.

I'm probably right. So if those 2 'facts' disturb you then you have two courses of action to take:
1). Petition to have cop-pig socks made ILLEGAL (you might have a chance)
2). Petition to have hanging tree socks made LEGAL (good luck with that one)

You could just accept things as they are .... but after already 15 pages of this thread I've got a feeling you're going to need a whole lot more convincing.

Actually, you're wrong ---- they're both legal. Though, that which is legal is not necessarily moral. In this case, neither is ...

 

[GLASNOST]

..... you still need to contend with the law. I'll make a pair of completely unqualified statements:
1). Depicting police as pigs on your socks is LEGAL.
2). Depicting negroes hanging from trees on your socks is ILLEGAL.

Actually, you're wrong ---- they're both legal. Though, that which is legal is not necessarily moral. In this case, neither is ...

I can't agree with you. First of all we are talking about what can be publicly display legally. We disagree on that.
Secondly I see the hanging tree clearly immoral, while the pig socks no more aggressive than if the socks had 'cops' written of them.

Pigs don't carry the sort of demeaning connotations in the west as they most certainly do in Muslim countries. As far as I can remember, it was either the Manson madmen or Patty Hearst Symbian Army lunatics who first coined the term 'pig'. It was slated to join ranks with the equally respect-less term 'cop'. I distinctly remember many policemen wearing T-shirts upon which were written, "P.I.G. Pride Integrity and Guts." So why all the fuss about joking about the cops (Oh! Sorry!) I mean police being called pigs? I'll tell you why ... it's the media (AGAIN) that's stirring the pot.

 

[beagle9]

..... you still need to contend with the law. I'll make a pair of completely unqualified statements:
1). Depicting police as pigs on your socks is LEGAL.
2). Depicting negroes hanging from trees on your socks is ILLEGAL.

Actually, you're wrong ---- they're both legal. Though, that which is legal is not necessarily moral. In this case, neither is ...

I can't agree with you. First of all we are talking about what can be publicly display legally. We disagree on that.
Secondly I see the hanging tree clearly immoral, while the pig socks no more aggressive than if the socks had 'cops' written of them.

Pigs don't carry the sort of demeaning connotations in the west as they most certainly do in Muslim countries. As far as I can remember, it was either the Manson madmen or Patty Hearst Symbian Army lunatics who first coined the term 'pig'. It was slated to join ranks with the equally respect-less term 'cop'. I distinctly remember many policemen wearing T-shirts upon which were written, "P.I.G. Pride Integrity and Guts." So why all the fuss about joking about the cops (Oh! Sorry!) I mean police being called pigs? I'll tell you why ... it's the media (AGAIN) that's stirring the pot.

. Everything is within it's own time frames, and the laws already on the books have to be looked at to see if they apply during specific happenings or events that are found within the different time periods.... It's just like we still honor the Constitution, and when it is challenged we refer to it's meaning and longstanding legal standings to put down the challenges against it... Now all depending on the extenuating circumstances of each event or case does a law either apply if charges are brought or a court judge might figure otherwise by throwing a case out if it doesn't reach the bar expected by the judge for the laws to apply. The act of making a statement about cops in pigs in a blanketing sort of way, (where it is being done when innocent cops are being murdered by activist gone mad), could rise to a level where the laws against such things would apply. So if the feds brought a case against anyone who is actively involved or connected to a movement that targets innocent cops to be killed, then who ever is involved in such a movement should then have to answer before a federal judge as to why they were carelessly going along with such a movement, instead of making a statement against what might be wrong in a more precise and specific way in which doesn't involve targeting the innocents.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

Why should they do that instead of honoring the right of free speech? I could see if it hurt their bottom line but they understand even bad pub creates dollars for their coffers.

. While working for a company, and while on company property in company uniform, your speech is limited to that which promotes and enhances your job, and when you take off that uniform, and leave company property, then you have total freedom of speech once go into the public domain where the freedom of your speech is government protected and honored. I can't just make a huge disturbance at my job without being punished or fired, and the same should go for working within the NFL.

Kneeling quietly is not creating a disturbance. Try again.

 

[NoNukes]

as far as i am concerned

not even worth watching

time can be better spent elsewhere

I quit watching football and baseball when I moved to Ireland 20 years ago. The free time that I now get is wonderful. From September to January, I get a free day, because I used to spend all of Sunday watching football.

 

[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.

Why should they do that instead of honoring the right of free speech? I could see if it hurt their bottom line but they understand even bad pub creates dollars for their coffers.

. While working for a company, and while on company property in company uniform, your speech is limited to that which promotes and enhances your job, and when you take off that uniform, and leave company property, then you have total freedom of speech once go into the public domain where the freedom of your speech is government protected and honored. I can't just make a huge disturbance at my job without being punished or fired, and the same should go for working within the NFL.

Kneeling quietly is not creating a disturbance. Try again.

. Your opinion, but maybe not a judges opinion with all things considered, otherwise if the government decided to investigate the matter further because of the sox. The law should be color blind and always fair & consistant across the board, but these days it's slipping more and more it seems. I'm like some here, who figure that this cat just wanted to be part of something for attention (because of what reason though?), and it is that he really abused his position of influence in a wrongful way when doing so is what most thought.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

Why should they do that instead of honoring the right of free speech? I could see if it hurt their bottom line but they understand even bad pub creates dollars for their coffers.

. While working for a company, and while on company property in company uniform, your speech is limited to that which promotes and enhances your job, and when you take off that uniform, and leave company property, then you have total freedom of speech once go into the public domain where the freedom of your speech is government protected and honored. I can't just make a huge disturbance at my job without being punished or fired, and the same should go for working within the NFL.

Kneeling quietly is not creating a disturbance. Try again.

. Your opinion, but maybe not a judges opinion with all things considered, otherwise if the government decided to investigate the matter further because of the sox. The law should be color blind and always fair & consistant across the board, but these days it's slipping more and more it seems.

It is the truth. He was not creating a disturbance, he was kneeling quietly.

 

[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.

Why should they do that instead of honoring the right of free speech? I could see if it hurt their bottom line but they understand even bad pub creates dollars for their coffers.

. While working for a company, and while on company property in company uniform, your speech is limited to that which promotes and enhances your job, and when you take off that uniform, and leave company property, then you have total freedom of speech once go into the public domain where the freedom of your speech is government protected and honored. I can't just make a huge disturbance at my job without being punished or fired, and the same should go for working within the NFL.

Kneeling quietly is not creating a disturbance. Try again.

. Your opinion, but maybe not a judges opinion with all things considered, otherwise if the government decided to investigate the matter further because of the sox. The law should be color blind and always fair & consistant across the board, but these days it's slipping more and more it seems.

It is the truth. He was not creating a disturbance, he was kneeling quietly.

Yes, but it sure brought attention to those Sox prompting deeper discussion about how deep does his activism go, and is he wrecklace in his application or cause from a position of influence ?

 

[NoNukes]

Why should they do that instead of honoring the right of free speech? I could see if it hurt their bottom line but they understand even bad pub creates dollars for their coffers.

. While working for a company, and while on company property in company uniform, your speech is limited to that which promotes and enhances your job, and when you take off that uniform, and leave company property, then you have total freedom of speech once go into the public domain where the freedom of your speech is government protected and honored. I can't just make a huge disturbance at my job without being punished or fired, and the same should go for working within the NFL.

Kneeling quietly is not creating a disturbance. Try again.

. Your opinion, but maybe not a judges opinion with all things considered, otherwise if the government decided to investigate the matter further because of the sox. The law should be color blind and always fair & consistant across the board, but these days it's slipping more and more it seems.

It is the truth. He was not creating a disturbance, he was kneeling quietly.

Yes, but it sure brought attention to those Sox prompting deeper discussion about how deep does his activism go, and is he wrecklace in his application or cause from a position of influence ?

When these guys kneel, the television does not have to show it. However they will, because it is newsworthy.
If it botheres people, quit playing the anthem before sporting events. It is not necessary. has nothing to do with sports and is politicalising them.

 

[beagle9]

. While working for a company, and while on company property in company uniform, your speech is limited to that which promotes and enhances your job, and when you take off that uniform, and leave company property, then you have total freedom of speech once go into the public domain where the freedom of your speech is government protected and honored. I can't just make a huge disturbance at my job without being punished or fired, and the same should go for working within the NFL.

Kneeling quietly is not creating a disturbance. Try again.

. Your opinion, but maybe not a judges opinion with all things considered, otherwise if the government decided to investigate the matter further because of the sox. The law should be color blind and always fair & consistant across the board, but these days it's slipping more and more it seems.

It is the truth. He was not creating a disturbance, he was kneeling quietly.

Yes, but it sure brought attention to those Sox prompting deeper discussion about how deep does his activism go, and is he wrecklace in his application or cause from a position of influence ?

When these guys kneel, the television does not have to show it. However they will, because it is newsworthy.
If it botheres people, quit playing the anthem before sporting events. It is not necessary. has nothing to do with sports and is politicalising them.

. So the activist win over on a long held tradition in America ? Not going to happen... This is the thought process of anti-Americans today, but it's fixing to change as America becomes strong internally and externally again.

 

[NoNukes]

Kneeling quietly is not creating a disturbance. Try again.

. Your opinion, but maybe not a judges opinion with all things considered, otherwise if the government decided to investigate the matter further because of the sox. The law should be color blind and always fair & consistant across the board, but these days it's slipping more and more it seems.

It is the truth. He was not creating a disturbance, he was kneeling quietly.

Yes, but it sure brought attention to those Sox prompting deeper discussion about how deep does his activism go, and is he wrecklace in his application or cause from a position of influence ?

When these guys kneel, the television does not have to show it. However they will, because it is newsworthy.
If it botheres people, quit playing the anthem before sporting events. It is not necessary. has nothing to do with sports and is politicalising them.

. So the activist win over on a long held tradition in America ? Not going to happen... This is the thought process of anti-Americans today, but it's fixing to change as America becomes strong internally and externally again.

The tradition means nothing and is out of place at a sporting event.

 

[beagle9]

. Your opinion, but maybe not a judges opinion with all things considered, otherwise if the government decided to investigate the matter further because of the sox. The law should be color blind and always fair & consistant across the board, but these days it's slipping more and more it seems.

It is the truth. He was not creating a disturbance, he was kneeling quietly.

Yes, but it sure brought attention to those Sox prompting deeper discussion about how deep does his activism go, and is he wrecklace in his application or cause from a position of influence ?

When these guys kneel, the television does not have to show it. However they will, because it is newsworthy.
If it botheres people, quit playing the anthem before sporting events. It is not necessary. has nothing to do with sports and is politicalising them.

. So the activist win over on a long held tradition in America ? Not going to happen... This is the thought process of anti-Americans today, but it's fixing to change as America becomes strong internally and externally again.

The tradition means nothing and is out of place at a sporting event.

Millions of Americans disagree with your assessment, and so the Anthem will remain.