NYC politician wants Bills+Giants to adopt Jets Anthem policy

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, Lfod said:

Was it possible to promote a message and support a cause without causing a controversy and division that still exist today? If there was a way that should of been the action taken. 

 

Someone brought the necessary relationship between controversy and effective protest on another thread, asking me "don't you agree"?  In a stunning move, I told them I had to think about it before deciding whether or not I agree.

 

So after thinking about it and doing some background reading, I agree with them - basically, I think effective protest and controversy are pretty much inextricably linked.  One needs to do something that is controversial and garners attention in order for protest to be effective.

 

Now, the relationship between effective protest, and effecting change, may be harder to establish.

 

[machine gun kelly]

Plain and simple it’s a private company and any team can do within the NFL guidelines what they believe is right.  What legitimacy does some Brooklin politician have to tell private companies what to do.  If the Jets owner wants to pay for their fines, that’s his decision. He as a private company owner.

 

im sick of politicians over reaching their authority on a capitalistic society.

[Saxum]

29 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

Plain and simple it’s a private company and any team can do within the NFL guidelines what they believe is right.  What legitimacy does some Brooklin politician have to tell private companies what to do.  If the Jets owner wants to pay for their fines, that’s his decision. He as a private company owner.

 

im sick of politicians over reaching their authority on a capitalistic society.

 

Let the Brooklin politician offer to pay fines out of his campaign contributions.

[benderbender]

18 hours ago, Mickey said:

The issue isn't just about what the players can say at work, it is what the employer can compel them to say when at work.

I disagree because their issue is not directly work related. Their using their job as a platform for their issue. They have the entire offseason and all of their personal time to speak however and to whomever they please.

 

It’s like trying to save the whales only after clocking in at Burger King. It’s noble and well intentioned, but neither directly correlated to the job performed nor the company that employs you. 

[tumaro02]

1 hour ago, mannc said:

And yet here you are, posting on an NFL team’s fan message board (and not just about the national anthem, by the way).  

 

I don’t believe you. 

Started going to "The Rockpile" in my teens and watched Jack Kemp, Elberbert Dubenion, and can name most of the AFL Bills champion teams in '64 and '65. Look up "The Rockpile" in Bill's Lore which will tell you how long I have been a Bill's fan. You are welcome to believe anything you want but calling me a liar is laughable.

9 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

So your issue isn't the kneeling during the anthem. It's that if some do it for some causes, then others could do it for different causes and it would just be too much protest? I mean your argument is stupid, baseless, and should be used as an example for the slippery slope fallacy for kids.

 

The reason the protest was effective is because it was a decent number of guys, unified in protesting for a cause.

 

No white guys went out their and knelt because of reverse racism with affirmative action, no guys of any color went and keeled for abortion laws, for or against gay marriage, no Muslims kneeled on religious grounds. Your logic is just wholly wrong.  

Mine is the anthem protest. Clear a village in Iraq of ISIS. Climb the mountains in Afghanistan. Put your  life on the line for your country... or respect the national anthem and flag of those who do.  If you have done NOTHING in your life to secure the freedom of dishonoring the flag and  anthem, then simply respect it. Try doing the kneeling thing in North Korea.

[Lfod]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Someone brought the necessary relationship between controversy and effective protest on another thread, asking me "don't you agree"?  In a stunning move, I told them I had to think about it before deciding whether or not I agree.

 

So after thinking about it and doing some background reading, I agree with them - basically, I think effective protest and controversy are pretty much inextricably linked.  One needs to do something that is controversial and garners attention in order for protest to be effective.

 

Now, the relationship between effective protest, and effecting change, may be harder to establish.

 

Well CKs kneeling protest definitely got attention. It's still a discussion today. I really have no issue with it. I really have no issue with it continuing to happen. I just have a fear that in some ways it may cause a bigger division between people because the different interpretation of the meaning behind it.

 

If positive change has come from the kneeling protest for people then it served a purpose. I think it did a bit of both. I think it brought positive change and came with negative distraction. 

 

Sometimes a thing can be over done. I'm not saying it has been just saying it can be. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Lfod

[tumaro02]

11 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

Congratulations. Ostriches everywhere are proud of your capacity to keep social justice separate from violent sports entertainment. This country provides certain populations with considerable privilege.  

Resorting to name calling  is  the typical route to go when you don't have a valid argument. Discrediting people by name calling is  your M.O. Social justice should have its platform but  not at the expense of dishonoring the National Anthem and Flag and not at the expense of a fan crowd who spent hundreds to watch a football game. Were you at the 49ers vs. Bills game last year? What did many thousands of  fans chant when Kaepernic did his thing tell  you about how they felt about his  cause?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

24 minutes ago, tumaro02 said:

Started going to "The Rockpile" in my teens and watched Jack Kemp, Elberbert Dubenion, and can name most of the AFL Bills champion teams in '64 and '65. Look up "The Rockpile" in Bill's Lore which will tell you how long I have been a Bill's fan. You are welcome to believe anything you want but calling me a liar is laughable.

 

I have no need to look it up.  I can't name the teams, but I remember watching the games with my Grandpa.  He wouldn't take me to the Rockpile though.

 

Quote

Mine is the anthem protest. Clear a village in Iraq of ISIS. Climb the mountains in Afghanistan. Put your  life on the line for your country... or respect the national anthem and flag of those who do.  If you have done NOTHING in your life to secure the freedom of dishonoring the flag and  anthem, then simply respect it. Try doing the kneeling thing in North Korea.

 

I appreciate your viewpoint.  What I'd like to know is can you understand - not share, not accept, just understand - a different viewpoint which says that in fact our brave armed forces serve a country where the citizens have a free right to disagree - including the right to show that disagreement by not saluting or standing for the flag and anthem.  That viewpoint holds that a failure to salute or stand for our flag and anthem does not dishonor those symbols, but is intrinsic to the founding principles of our country.

 

I can't do any better than to quote Supreme Court Justices Black and Douglas in the W Va vs Barnett opinion: "Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest.  Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

 

And Justice Jackson, same: " If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."  and "freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

 

Again, not asking you to share that viewpoint, just to understand a different viewpoint that holds we fight for the freedom to NOT be forced or mandated into a patriotic display - that in fact, expressing that freedom underscores and honors our country's founding principles and is not a dishonor.

[mannc]

39 minutes ago, tumaro02 said:

Started going to "The Rockpile" in my teens and watched Jack Kemp, Elberbert Dubenion, and can name most of the AFL Bills champion teams in '64 and '65. Look up "The Rockpile" in Bill's Lore which will tell you how long I have been a Bill's fan. 

Why would any of that make me more likely to believe you when you say you quit the NFL because of the protests?  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I would say it was lost when the owners decided to react to it with statements of outrage and unity. Some taking it a bunch of levels up and making a big show of kneeling with their players. Talk about being trolled.   Trump just made troll remark they should have just totally ignored it, but they were too stupid.

 

Not ignored it, perhaps, but responded with a statement to the effect of "We, as the owners of the NFL, will exercise our rights to run our business as we see fit without unwarranted interference from elected officials" - or the like.

[BadLandsMeanie]

I think there are certainly people who quit watching games because of the protests. I'm pretty sure it is a known fact. I don't see why everybody wants to claim this guy here is making it up. Geeze half the people on here believe the dunkirk guy. But somebody says they stopped watching games is not plausible. 

 

 

On another note, I personally don't remember any level of controversy like this one for the NFL. Even during Vietnam I don't think the protests were allowed to bleed into the games. 

Anybody else know if there has been a circumstance like this before? 

[Just Joshin']

1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

 

Let the Brooklin politician offer to pay fines out of his campaign contributions.

Or graft

[tumaro02]

19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have no need to look it up.  I can't name the teams, but I remember watching the games with my Grandpa.  He wouldn't take me to the Rockpile though.

 

 

I appreciate your viewpoint.  What I'd like to know is can you understand - not share, not accept, just understand - a different viewpoint which says that in fact our brave armed forces serve a country where the citizens have a free right to disagree - including the right to show that disagreement by not saluting or standing for the flag and anthem.  That viewpoint holds that a failure to salute or stand for our flag and anthem does not dishonor those symbols, but is intrinsic to the founding principles of our country.

 

I can't do any better than to quote Supreme Court Justices Black and Douglas in the W Va vs Barnett opinion: "Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest.  Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions."

 

And Justice Jackson, same: " If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."  and "freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

 

Again, not asking you to share that viewpoint, just to understand a different viewpoint that holds we fight for the freedom to NOT be forced or mandated into a patriotic display - that in fact, expressing that freedom underscores and honors our country's founding principles and is not a dishonor. 

I do appreciate your post. I would only say that when you say "WE fight for the freedom" are you including yourself? Have you personally fought for our freedom by serving in the armed forces or are you another who CLAIMS that  freedom as a birthright secured by the blood of others who serve now or have shed their blood in the past to secure that freedom for you? It is always easier to claim a Supreme Court ruling as a right when you did not serve or shed blood yourself. As long as some else has fought the fight you are eager to claim that freedom. I have not personally fought to preserve your  freedom or your Supreme Court gained rights but people also have a right to bigotry, racism, thoughtlessness, and some people here go out  of their way to claim all of those rights.

[Mr. WEO]

11 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

No, their team will though.

 

As far far as I know, only the Jets have made that offer

[BadLandsMeanie]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Not ignored it, perhaps, but responded with a statement to the effect of "We, as the owners of the NFL, will exercise our rights to run our business as we see fit without unwarranted interference from elected officials" - or the like.

Ok. I can see doing that. I wouldn't word it that exact way because it brings into it the idea that so many teams get lots and lots of money from elected officials by way of stadium subsidies and all kinda perks. The trouble with the NFL is they have their hands in everybody's pockets. 

 

So if I wanted to boycott the NFL like the one poster so they don't get any of my money, I really can't  do that. They get state and county funds. And i don't even want to think about how much of the medical care some of these guys need for life, is paid for through Medicaid and such. So to me before the NFL can take a really hard line stance of independence, they need to restrict their revenue sources to tickets and advertising and such, and then just pay for everything they need to run their business out of that. Out of the money they make.

 

 

Back to your point, if they had someone who was very adept formulate a level, bland, measured, but firm statement that would have been ok.

 

Now I think about it they could have asked almost any coach to make the statement. Those guys are superb at saying nothing you can grab on to.

Edited June 2, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[BillsfaninSB]

2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Then why do you have to pay to get in.  If they are not owned by the teams then they are leased and under the control of the team and hence become private property just like when you rent a home.

That’s ridiculous.  You don’t get to do what you want when you lease anything.  Do you get to add a second story when you lease a house?  Do you get to enter a demolition derby when you lease a car?

[Richard Noggin]

1 hour ago, tumaro02 said:

Resorting to name calling  is  the typical route to go when you don't have a valid argument. Discrediting people by name calling is  your M.O. Social justice should have its platform but  not at the expense of dishonoring the National Anthem and Flag and not at the expense of a fan crowd who spent hundreds to watch a football game. Were you at the 49ers vs. Bills game last year? What did many thousands of  fans chant when Kaepernic did his thing tell  you about how they felt about his  cause?

Didn't realize I had an M.O. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

 

I simply do not agree that taking a knee dishonors anything. That has been my point. I see people looking for the offense in an action that I interpret to be solemn and respectful. You're free to interpret it differently, of course. And I'm then free to respond, and maybe even throw out the highly inflammatory pejorative name, "ostrich." Some simply don't wish to be bothered with certain causes while enjoying their collision sports, i.e., the whole head in the sand thing (which is a flawed metaphor on many levels). 

[purple haze]

8 hours ago, Lfod said:

Was it possible to promote a message and support a cause without causing a controversy and division that still exist today? If there was a way that should of been the action taken. 

Well, I don't know.  I tend to doubt it.  If we look back through the history of opposition to the status quo in the States it always causes controversy and there are always large segments of people who are uncomfortable or do not approve; who ask why "they" have to protest at all or why "they" have to protest in the way that "they" are.  

 

Perhaps it is not the protest, but the actual reasons for the protests that causes the divisions.  Were slaves choosing to run away the problem or the fact there was slavery?  Was marching across a bridge in Alabama the problem or the fact that Jim Crow existed and caused beatings, lynchings, destruction of property, dog attacks, and bombings of American citizens who were marginalized?   Is kneeling the problem or is it misconduct by some police officers, who often face no legal consequences, and white supremacist sympathizers in the White House?  

 

The division is there before the protest begins.  Hence the protest.  The real question to ask is why do groups of people, in a country they were born in or naturalized into, and contribute to, have to continually protest mistreatment and inequality over decades and centuries?

Edited June 2, 2018 by purple haze

[napmaster]

20 hours ago, Mickey said:

I think there are limits to an employer's ability to compel speech by their employees when it is unrelated to work. Thus, Burger King can mandate that their employees say "have a nice day" after taking a customer's order. They cannot constitutionally compel them to say "God Bless America" or "God Save the Trump" whenever greeting a customer anymore than they can compel them to give a Nazi salute every time someone orders a whopper with no pickles or says the word "Obama". Mandating certain conduct during the national anthem, it could be argued, is compelling speech. And what it has to do with the job of winning football games I do not know.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, and Corporate Personhood has been established.  Corporations are treated as unique entities, just like a person, and are provided similar protections.  Hobby Lobby was protected under the 1st Amendment in respect to avoiding laws that were in conflict with the corporate religious beliefs.  If Burger King mandated those greetings it also be protected under the 1st Amendment with the free speech clause.  They may go out of business if they did that, but it would be protected.  

 

The NFL can mandate whatever speech they like and it will be protected.   Players can choose to drop out of the league, or fans can stop supporting the league and put them out of business.

 

[Epstein's Mother]

 

It really doesn't bother me that there are players that would prefer to kneel during the national anthem to bring attention to social injustices.  This type of activity is considered free speech and is protected under the 1st amendment to the constitution just as is almost all speech good and bad (with the notable exception of calls to violence).  What is not protected by the first amendment is people's reaction to this type of activity.  

 

Like all of us on this board I have to consider the response to everything I post.  If I am willing to post something then I have to be willing to accept the praise and potentially the condemnation of my fellow posters.  The benefit of anonymity may raise the pain threshold for some on this board but I try to take some care in what I present.

 

If you are willing to kneel for the anthem then you have to be willing to accept everything that goes with it both good and bad.  If you are surprised by negative feedback then you have not properly weighed the potential outcomes of any protest.  No protest receives universal support.