OT New NFL Kneeling Rule

[Mediocre Man]

I said he knelt regarding abortion. He was a staunch anti-abortion advocate and he kneeled to pray his Christian values every time. Gloss over this if you want. He had a whole fucking anti abortion ad.

And to all you MFs (@Gronk Brady) complaining about protesting at work, where were you when Anti-Gay Kim Davis was protesting at work by not giving marriage certificates to gay couples? You were probably quiet as a rat pissin' on cotton.

Did she have a right to protests in the job????

No, and she was jailed because if it, and her office forced to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. What's your point?

 

[dviss1]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally said the same thing about that that I say about this. If a person's employer puts expectations on you during your time on the job--unless those expectations are outside of what is permissible by law--that person's choice is to comply, to defy and accept the consequences, or to find another job.

I also didn't think that Davis' "freedom of religion" argument was valid in the slightest.

I'll counter that with a better argument:

Why are private entities allowed to skirt the constitution?

 

[Mediocre Man]

MF follows forum rules as not an insult. Hell, I've fucked my fair share of mothers. You?

It's a term of endearment.

And I'm pretty tired of you tryna paint me as some angry black man. It's clear you're the one that's more angry about them protesting then WHAT they're protesting. So again, since you don't watch NFL for the anthem, ignore it like you do when you're at home. Don't lie and say you stand up in the middle of your living room with your hand over your heart...

Ignore it like you do their reason for protesting.

There are a few terms of endearment we can't call you. If it offends someone, stop using it

 

[dviss1]

No, and she was jailed because if it, and her office forced to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. What's your point?

My point is (not sure why you don't get it) most people complaining about Kaepernick supported Kim Davis.

Jesus you're obtuse at times...

 

[Mediocre Man]

My point is (not sure why you don't get it) most people complaining about Kaepernick supported Kim Davis.

Jesus you're obtuse at times...

Is it hard typing while looking in a mirror?

 

[Mediocre Man]

I'll counter that with a better argument:

Why are private entities allowed to skirt the constitution?

PRIVATE

 

[Gronk Brady]

MF follows forum rules as not an insult. Hell, I've fucked my fair share of mothers. You?

It's a term of endearment.

And I'm pretty tired of you tryna paint me as some angry black man. It's clear you're the one that's more angry about them protesting then WHAT they're protesting. So again, since you don't watch NFL for the anthem, ignore it like you do when you're at home. Don't lie and say you stand up in the middle of your living room with your hand over your heart...

Ignore it like you do their reason for protesting.

Not tryin to paint you as anything... those are your words not mine... I’m just trying to defend the opposing viewpoint and you seem to think only your viewpoint is correct. As I have said many times, I am pro police reform and punishment for their actions... I just think there are so many other ways to do it then offend half the country... and Kaepernick’s own words said the flag stands for oppression... how about the flag stands for all the good things in America and we still have a ways to go... I just really don’t like how you stereotype anyone who disagrees with you

 

[dviss1]

There are a few terms of endearment we can't call you. If it offends someone, stop using it

Dude GTFO....

 

[Mediocre Man]

Dude GTFO....

Am I wrong?

 

[dviss1]

PRIVATE

So? So the fuck what?

Please give me logic. There's nothing logical about private entities not having to follow the constitution. That just pushes us toward fascism.

 

[dviss1]

Am I wrong?

Jesus..... I know why!!!

What I'm saying is, why do we allow it......?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'll counter that with a better argument:

Why are private entities allowed to skirt the constitution?

How do you mean? For example, are you asking why private entities are (or should be) permitted to limit their employees' speech? Or is it something else I'm missing?

 

[dviss1]

Not tryin to paint you as anything... those are your words not mine... I’m just trying to defend the opposing viewpoint and you seem to think only your viewpoint is correct. As I have said many times, I am pro police reform and punishment for their actions... I just think there are so many other ways to do it then offend half the country... and Kaepernick’s own words said the flag stands for oppression... how about the flag stands for all the good things in America and we still have a ways to go... I just really don’t like how you stereotype anyone who disagrees with you

Don't just talk about it, be about it. Your actions (ranting about Kaepernick instead of caring about how we're treated in this country) show the Opposite.

 

[barfo]

I said he knelt regarding abortion. He was a staunch anti-abortion advocate and he kneeled to pray his Christian values every time. Gloss over this if you want. He had a whole fucking anti abortion ad.

And to all you MFs (@Gronk Brady) complaining about protesting at work, where were you when Anti-Gay Kim Davis was protesting at work by not giving marriage certificates to gay couples? You were probably quiet as a rat pissin' on cotton.

Did she have a right to protests in the job????

I just want to acknowledge the 'quiet as a rat pissin' on cotton' phrase, which I'd never heard before and I like a lot.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

So? So the fuck what?

Please give me logic. There's nothing logical about private entities not having to follow the constitution. That just pushes us toward fascism.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-damore-google-memo-interview-autism-regrets

 

[Gronk Brady]

Don't just talk about it, be about it. Your actions (ranting about Kaepernick instead of caring about how we're treated in this country) show the Opposite.

Give some options on how to contribute besides kneeling for flag... if there is a petition to sign to put laws on the ballot for better screening/longer training of officers I will sign it... if there is a charity I can donate to, I will... but I don’t see those options because all that is ever talked about is kneeling for anthem... how can you not see this has been a counterproductive distraction

 

[dviss1]

How do you mean? For example, are you asking why private entities are (or should be) permitted to limit their employees' speech? Or is it something else I'm missing?

Yes. That.

They don't have to follow the constitution.

Drug screens are a violation of our 4th amendment right.

 

[dviss1]

Give some options on how to contribute besides kneeling for flag... if there is a petition to sign to put laws on the ballot for better screening/longer training of officers I will sign it... if there is a charity I can donate to, I will... but I don’t see those options because all that is ever talked about is kneeling for anthem... how can you not see this has been a counterproductive distraction

Why don't you stop whiteslpaining to us how to speak freely?

That's a better plan.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

What’s with calling everyone MF’s... do you just wake up every morning pissed off at the world?

When I first started posting here and @dviss1 said a couple things like that at me I took it kind of personally like, I wasn’t sure what I did to piss him off. However after being here for a little while I just kind of realized he posts like that, it seems aggressive but I don’t think it’s ever really meant to be taken like he’s actually mad or whatever. Though he does seem passionate about this subject (which is fine by me). I just don’t think you should take it likes he’s raging at his computer or whatever he posts on. Kind of took me off guard when I started, but I’ve learned that even when I may disagree with him on something he seems like a good dude to me. Kind of hope when I get back on the court I can have him as a ref, a team mate or an opponent.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yes. That.

They don't have to follow the constitution.

Drug screens are a violation of our 4th amendment right.

I would say that the constitution is all about the government, and was never intended to be anything but about the government. How the government is organized, what its functions are, how each area interacts, who can participate in it, and--in the case of the bill of rights--what it is not permitted to do. All the rights enumerated in the constitution are specifically to protect people from governmental overreach.

In my mind, the reasons for the bill of rights to apply to the government and not employers owe to the many differences between the two:

• An individual can choose from many different employers, but it's much more difficult to choose your country
• An individual is an employee only during work hours, but is under the rule of the government 24/7
• An individual is an employee only during their working years, but is under the rule of the government their entire life
• An individual is an employee only if they choose to work, but is under the rule of government whether they like it or not ("sovereign citizen" idiocy notwithstanding).
• Employers can also be further regulated/limited by the government, but the government is limited by...itself.

I would say that it is a mischaracterization to claim that companies don't have to follow the constitution, because the constitution was never meant to govern businesses. It would be akin to claiming that a parent is violating their child's constitutional rights punishing them without a trial by jury. The government has, separate from the constitution, established departments to govern businesses' practices and parental conduct, but the constitution itself does not apply to anything other than the government itself.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

When I first started posting here and @dviss1 said a couple things like that at me I took it kind of personally like, I wasn’t sure what I did to piss him off. However after being here for a little while I just kind of realized he posts like that, it seems aggressive but I don’t think it’s ever really meant to be taken like he’s actually mad or whatever. Though he does seem passionate about this subject (which is fine by me). I just don’t think you should take it likes he’s raging at his computer or whatever he posts on. Kind of took me off guard when I started, but I’ve learned that even when I may disagree with him on something he seems like a good dude to me. Kind of hope when I get back on the court I can have him as a ref, a team mate or an opponent.

Don't sweat it. He's just blacksplaining

 

[dviss1]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-damore-google-memo-interview-autism-regrets

You're making my point. You're arguing that his free speech should be protected right?

 

[dviss1]

Don't sweat it. He's just blacksplaining

You say some stupid shit in response to defending idiocy.

 

[dviss1]

I would say that the constitution is all about the government, and was never intended to be anything but about the government. How the government is organized, what its functions are, how each area interacts, who can participate in it, and--in the case of the bill of rights--what it is not permitted to do. All the rights enumerated in the constitution are specifically to protect people from governmental overreach.

In my mind, the reasons for the bill of rights to apply to the government and not employers owe to the many differences between the two:

• An individual can choose from many different employers, but it's much more difficult to choose your country
• An individual is an employee only during work hours, but is under the rule of the government 24/7
• An individual is an employee only during their working years, but is under the rule of the government their entire life
• An individual is an employee only if they choose to work, but is under the rule of government whether they like it or not ("sovereign citizen" idiocy notwithstanding).
• Employers can also be further regulated/limited by the government, but the government is limited by...itself.

I would say that it is a mischaracterization to claim that companies don't have to follow the constitution, because the constitution was never meant to govern businesses. It would be akin to claiming that a parent is violating their child's constitutional rights punishing them without a trial by jury. The government has, separate from the constitution, established departments to govern businesses' practices and parental conduct, but the constitution itself does not apply to anything other than the government itself.

I disagree that the constitution was never meant to govern business.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I disagree that the constitution was never meant to govern business.

OK--would you be willing to point to anything in the constitution itself that supports that contention? I'm always interested in considering alternate perspectives.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

You say some stupid shit in response to defending idiocy.

You just say stupid shit.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

You're making my point. You're arguing that his free speech should be protected right?

Nope. I'm showing you how hypocritical you are as usual. They have every right to fire him.

People like me that are for free speech should boycott them but whatever.

Using your bass ackwards logic some redneck NFL player should be allowed to paste swastikas and confederate flags on his helmet and uniform and yell the N word during every play because the constitution allows it right?

 

[dviss1]

Nope. I'm showing you how hypocritical you are as usual. They have every right to fire him.

People like me that are for free speech should boycott them but whatever.

Using your bass ackwards logic some redneck NFL player should be allowed to paste swastikas and confederate flags on his helmet and uniform and yell the N word during every play because the constitution allows it right?

That's not my logic but you'll like to paint that narrative.

 

[Gronk Brady]

That's not my logic but you'll like to paint that narrative.

That kind of is your logic tho... you know that kneeling offends a bunch of people and you say fuck those people it’s the players rights...

 

[barfo]

OK--would you be willing to point to anything in the constitution itself that supports that contention? I'm always interested in considering alternate perspectives.

The commerce clause, perhaps?

barfo