Politics is what drove us apart Town.
boycott the NFL
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
But it sounds so good to the left and to blacks.
Nah. We were never less than apart, PJ. It's only that I tend to be friendly and measured with people who behave themselves. What I've found is that once I engage someone toward either end of the political poles long enough they become increasingly frustrated by their inability to move me to their thinking. So while they first consider my personality and manner, a willingness to differ genially, it's only a matter of time before their frustration with that inability to alter my understanding turns into an increasingly aggressive hostility, directly or in the passive aggressive sense that yours did.
So you went from, "You have to see this," to "You can't be serious," to "You're not being honest," to the goofy high fiving and encouraging of the more direct and hostile elements who supported your personal philosophy in their approach to me. Eventually you made your own sniping additions and you got a bit more of the barbed end of the humor stick, because that's what I apply when that aggression reaches the stage of actualization on the part of someone I've been friendly with taking up that methodological approach. Before long you were comfortable with the "Elton" nonsense unrelated and I'd moved on from worrying about your sensibility.
Life. People. Go figure.
Liberals. Go figure
That was dishonest, but predictable.
And that was unoriginal. So an extremist twofer then.
Lon
Well-known member
This is probably most of the dilemma between sides. I HAD to stand and cross my heart for both the pledge and anthem. It was mandatory. I'd think this is huge as far as disparagement regarding the matter!
I'd argue, at this point and carrying the theme: It is the difference in what we HAD to do in school. I was given specific directions for observing the anthem and flag and we had no options at that time. None.
We disagree on this point. I believe there is plenty of information given in the article that describes a clarity I'd have gotten.
A good many of us will not share and see the TOL NFL thread as offensive. You go ahead and use your liberty in Christ, only use it to encourage and uplift others. I don't have to go to that thread, but I did want to know who was serious about their boycott, words, and actions.
Incorrect. It shows the character of the man, further and who his associates are AND what he was doing there. It yet sheds clarity and further light, regardless of just a legal concern. Mine was well beyond that.
As is kneeling, but for perhaps the way we were raised. I wonder if a poll "Were you made to stand during the national anthem?" would shed a bit of light across the table.
October '61 thus nearly '62
February '65
By that reckoning, 3yrs. 3mo.
Point getting lost in details....
Again, it would seem a difference in schooling. :think: However, even if standing is understood as respect (and it is), your point is just one you and a few others would understand or make. Not many of us can empathize with you over this. It is hair-splitting. Offense was taken, even die-hard fans who attended booed the sitting athletes. When in the minority, you might be wrong.
lain: Nor is Redskin. Fair enough for conversations sake.
To me? Loophole. It is excusing behavior.
Disagree. Authority is authority. "Stop" from a policeman is to be obeyed. "...or I'll shoot," isn't necessary. You do what you are told from an authority. Court cases are built off of such, but we appoint authority on purpose and for this reason.
Same issue: Disrespect and disobedience. We may well argue the obedience issue depending on what we learned in school. It would seem, a needed and perhaps profitable conversation.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I find it odd that those of you who are most anti government and individualistic tend to be the ones who a certain form of respect to the flag and the anthem is is most important to.
I'm of the opinion that the treatment of certain sections of your community by the police is a much greater disrespect to you flag and nation than anyone kneeling standing or doing cartwheels. Its a matter of priorities and anthems don't matter people do.
I'm of the opinion that the treatment of certain sections of your community by the police is a much greater disrespect to you flag and nation than anyone kneeling standing or doing cartwheels. Its a matter of priorities and anthems don't matter people do.
Interesting. I don't remember it being an issue or a source of mandate here.
I don't see the value in that as an approach. I don't even see much of our American foundation in the idea of a forced conformity, a semblance of respect mandated. I'm sorry someone felt obligated to do that to you.
I've told you specifically why I differ. You haven't offered an explanation as to how his deciding to tell people that he thought he had a "deal" exists reasonably with the idea of a clear prohibition. Unless you can I don't know what else there is for me to say on the point.
Why on earth should any of us? It isn't. Mostly, a few of us talk about upcoming games, trades, injuries, who is better at what. The usual sports palaver.
On a three year old charge that never should have been leveled against a completely exonerated Kaepernick:
Not being guilty of anything? Okay. I think when you have a DA going out of their way to be clear on the point it speaks to something.
Who does he normally associate with, Lon? And what was he doing there? Do you know or are you being ruled by your inclination?
Not at all. You can disagree with the methodology or find it offensive, but it's not stupid because it offends you. Wearing the socks was stupid because it mixed messages and played into the hands of people who would concentrate on the messenger and not the thing he was taking all the character hits and loss of income to promote.
Well, the South is fairly traditional and accounts for working on half the armed forces. So I don't take your meaning.
Of a sort, maybe. I never recall in my younger life seeing anyone who didn't rise for the anthem out of respect for it and the flag, for the symbolism present in their presentation. I'm really surprised by the idea of someone having to be told to do it.
From The History Channel: "In September 1960, Castro led a delegation to New York City to address the United Nations General Assembly. He and his entourage caused an immediate sensation by deciding to stay at the Theresa Hotel in Harlem. While there, Castro met with a number of African-American leaders, including Malcolm X..."
From The New Republic: "On September 18, 1960, four months before the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with Cuba and 56 years before Barack Obama would become the first sitting American president in almost a century to step foot on Cuban soil, Fidel Castro arrived in New York City for the 15th session of the United Nations General Assembly."
Beyond that, again, the Malcom of 1960 hasn't had the eye opening experience that his trip to Mecca entailed and the shift that put his life in the crosshairs of the radical Nation of Islam.
Whose?
Absolutely.
And protest can be respectful too. Rights absent use aren't worth much. People who aren't willing to bear the public displeasure of authority and the social stigma of failing to uphold a popular notion aren't worth much either, if they differ with that stand. Whatever his faults, and being human and young I'd expect he has many, Colin took both of those and stayed his course. That's admirable. That's what this country was founded to protect, the right of men to their own conscience and exercise within the respect afforded the other guy's rights. He didn't take anything from anyone, reduce the right of any man in exercising a right he felt compelled to meet as he did. I don't have to agree with it or mistakenly believe him to be a patron saint to find that exercise and willingness to be publicly dragged through the dirt something worthy of respect.
I don't know what that means.
That makes even less sense to me, given I'm not a proponent of kneeling during the anthem. I don't require and I certainly haven't asked for empathy. Neither has the guy who actually is a proponent of kneeling as protest.
It isn't.
I never argued it wasn't.
You mean some or many, not all or by necessity.
Said King George to the colonials.
The word was initially paternalistic and semi-literal, but by the late 1800s its use was anything but and to the extent that Webster's noted its largely "contemptuous" usage.
Here's are a few of the respectful lyrics from the condensed Hail to the Redskins team song, 1937:
Scalp ’um, swamp ’um — We will
Take ’um big score.
Read ’um, weep ’um, touchdown,
We want heap more.
You have a right to call cheese a rock, but you aren't addressing the points I make by telling me how you feel about it. A thing you haven't demonstrated by reason to be necessarily anything requiring an excuse only needs an explanation.
I held rules should be unambiguously set out along with the consequences.
Sorry to hear it. You're advocating for the tyranny of might.
That's not much better, but authority isn't ambiguous. Neither should a rule be or anyone who means to create and enforce one.
There's a law on the books for that, along with a clear penalty.
Just following orders? No, thank you.
Court cases are built on the Constitution and in relation to law.
I noted that it's as easy to read two kids agreeing in principal and inspired to action as anything else.
Same response: the former is in your head, not in theirs by necessity and an unwritten law is an idea, not an actual law.
I learned academics in school...and some civics. But we learned our values at home where I live. Those included respect for lawful authority, and a respect for the right to tell that lawful authority to stand on its ear when it overreaches.
Lon
Well-known member
I'm not antigovernment. I'm anti-abuse. I'd say I'm for their demonstration, but not like Ferguson or disrespecting the flag and anthem. That said, it seems we had different directives concerning the flag and pledge :think: There is not much that unites us as a nation. Whenever we are, it probably should always be celebrated instead of 'yet another reason to be divided.'
Lon
Well-known member
It was said: "You have rights in this country because of those who have provided it, you will stand for the flag."
"Deal" said atf, not during it. It doesn't matter how clearly he expresses what he did, as if that were the final word. What matters is what the students understood. That conversation hasn't happened yet, nor did they ask him specifically what was said to convey the terms. What was clear, was the coach had told them to protest some other way, not kneel.
Those of us boycotting wouldn't be over in that thread. I'm generally not that interested in discussing the games on that level anyway, but it simply shows who is doing what regarding the kneeling, on TOL.
Legal vs. character. For one or several reasons, Kaepernick flaunted pig socks. Whatever he does, defines his character, thus is a relevant conversation. Who cares about 'legal' at that point? We are talking about someone of questionable character if not already 'bad' character, taking a knee during the national anthem and whether that was a good example for impressionable young minds. Say as you will but "No. No it was not a good or by any means stellar example from a less than stellar man." That's it.
:sigh: given in the court documents....
Doesn't matter. The point was that it was not a good idea to wear pig socks, it was not a good idea to not stand during the flag. We disagree. Not a lot of words are going to change that.
You already did, I already did. Apparently, you didn't 'have' to stand during the flag and were not instructed to do so in the South.
Being a squirrelly lad, I remember on more than one occasion. It isn't all my fault. It was very difficult for me to stand still as a child.
They missed facts. He was 'invited' at that time, took up the invitation, and actually had that conversation in October, from what further I've read.
Again, we are lost in details. I don't see it having much need for discussion.
Yep, definitely different instructions we were given in school.
Excellent way to put it.
There are 'unwritten' laws that most expect to be followed without having to force anyone by some written rule.
It's more of an unspoken code of honor that most are aware of.
Those that go out of their way to break those codes of honor are usually shunned and shamed by those around them. (Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings.)
The football field is supposed to be for entertaining competition, not a place to display your personal grievances towards America or the President of the United States of America.
Time and place.
What they are doing is classless and tasteless, to say the least.
When Kaepernick started it in 2016, 85% of America disapproved.
The other 15% were lowlifes.
Whoever said that needs a kick in their pants.
Right. Someone who laid down the law didn't make a deal or have to assume anything.
I don't believe many of you ever have been.
No one participating in that thread is by their participation putting a dollar in the coffers of the NFL and no one refusing to consider it (except in detail and here) is costing them a dollar.
A young man took what he knew was going to be an immensely unpopular stand that stood to cost him a career. That's character, agree with him or not. Raise flags about a discredited allegation that a DA took pains to undo if you like, criticize him for the socks he wore one day, and I'll agree it was a stupid move, but balance it against the courage of that conviction and against his charitable works and profession of faith.
If we judge men by the worst handful of moments we can find in their lives we'll have to strike the word character from our lexicon.
You mean "apparently you didn't have to be forced to stand, to have it mandated." No, not that I recall. But again, we have an uncommon bond and tradition in the South. It would never have occurred to me to do anything else.
So a little nuts then.
I was taught that difference required reason, facts, and answers. So I rebut what I can in hopes of persuading a reconsideration or, failing that, one by the onlooker, potentially. So I note the problem with Redskins, that laws and rules worth having are never written on the wind, that authority can and must be questioned, which I note my friends to the right do without much trouble often enough on any number of particulars, and that however one feels about what Colin did, he isn't responsible for the feeling, only the action.
There are no unwritten laws, only social conventions. Don't dress them up. Many of them once included things that would redden your ears.
Codes have a way of differing. Some of them, historically (and again) have been fairly disreputable outside of the bigoted minds that held them. Just go listen to Trad. His view wasn't outside the norm if you go back far enough in our history. Laws, on the other hand, don't care about your gender, race, or inclinations.
I don't believe a single game was held up by the protest. As to whether that was the stage for it. I didn't and don't like it, but it was their choice and an effective one given the conversation it started. Where else would most of them find anyone willing to listen?
No, that's just what you bring to it. I sympathize with a degree of it. My first response was to feel and voice a disagreement on the choice. But that wasn't his fault either. He meant to bring attention to an issue that matters. And that's what he did.
And owners too, looking at his employment status. That's part of what made me rethink him. That's putting your reputation and livelihood where your mouth is. How many people still do that? I know how many courageously stand with the majority and throw stones.
I already knew we all need grace, but thanks for the reminder.
Don't try to dress it up.
An NFL game is neither the time nor place to use as a platform for personal grievances.
Don't coddle their personal grievances being displayed at football games.
(And award shows too.)
Disapprove of it, as you should.
Town told me that he doesn't change his mind based on evidence presented, he can't be swayed from the SJW High Horse
Lon
Well-known member
(hint: views vs postsWhoever said that needs a kick in their pants.
Right. Someone who laid down the law didn't make a deal or have to assume anything.
I don't believe many of you ever have been.
)You mean like Washington never telling a lie? :think: I'll meet you halfway on some of this but conversely, I wouldn't call King David a study on character, nor do I think there is anything particularly brave about not standing for the anthem. The kid doesn't seem to think that far in advance, honestly. As to profession of faith, I haven't heard it, don't doubt it, yet don't think that makes a platform for child role-models either. I don't want any of my kids trading Jimmy Swaggart cards (not sure I'd prohibit, just not what I'll be promoting at home).
:think: REALLY strange to me. I truly had no choice without consequences. It'd have been time in the office and missing recess. Squirrelly? That'd have been worse! During recess? I'd have exploded! :think: I wonder perchance, if the Union Jack and history had anything to do with this.... :think: It boggles me sometimes what differences there were/are. As I've told you, WA state encourages in at LEAST our RCW's, spiritual values. If a lawyer here ever gets a hold of it, the coach who was fired is going to get a reprieve I'd think. Maybe it only applies to teachers??? :idunno:
At first? REALLY offended, then I grudgingly had to concede.... :mmph:So a little nuts then.
For me? Almost the whole discussion on point. Expectation upon the premise, I think was set long before the eventuality.
I'm not sure what was written at the time, just what I was "allowed" to do. I remember after, there were a few JW kids that were allowed out, but they had to leave classrooms. They were not allowed to sit during the anthem or pledge or during the presentation of colors.
That said, an offense is understood by all of us. I don't know of any law that says "thou shalt not call thine neighbor a [blank] (including Redskin)." Yet, we know we shouldn't and that when/if we do some such, we are going to offend. There is no kneeling before the flag w/o offense. The end, for me, is consequences. "You did U,V,W; your consequences are X,Y,Z."
...not the conversation they envisioned, and mostly about the act itself. It DIDN'T work thus isn't/wasn't effective to my mind.
Have to disagree. When service men and women who have seen sacrifices and made sacrifices, bring a symbol into an arena for the sole purpose of uniting and honoring those who have given to this country, many sacrificially above and beyond, no. It is NOT the right place or the right time. As I said, it may never have been impressed upon you, but service men and women present these colors. It IS disrespectful of them. "You sat when men and women who DIDN'T die (yet!) brought in colors???? YOU UNGRATEFUL so-and-so!" Well, that is what was said by POTUS. The NFL? Reacted. Poorly. There is no honor in this. Can't be.
Anger without reserve is like that. It reacts when it should have stopped, THEN acted. I'd bet you were outraged by Trump's callous call more than the act of sitting during the color presentation. One offense MAY be more appropriate than the other.
You were one of the 15%? We all need grace. Some of us need it more often, not that any of us aren't hopeless without it. We are. Grace is terrific conversation, but so is character and role-modelling. Most saw this is 'poor' role-modelling. Oddly, you are against the South taking up a cause, but then for a young man doing so, and doing it the wrong way. A wrong thing, and a wrong way of doing something 'perhaps right' aren't very far apart. Justice is served by neither. We NEED to show our appreciations for bravery (feigned or real), more reservedly: Both the right cause AND the right action. Barabbas was 'justly' fighting a war against Roman rule. The Lord Jesus Christ didn't lift a hand toward His oppressors. You tend to like the Barabbas' of the world, at least, it seems to me.
Nothing says dress it up like repeatedly noting I differ with the action.
I can differ and still see the admirable. And I'm not invested in demonizing someone because he doesn't agree with me. What he did took something most people don't have to test. And the issue is important.
Are you just invested in seeing how many times you can say something about me that isn't true?
Well, we are talking about character, so by all means, make your case.
Two in one post. You should have called me a Muslim and gone for the trifecta.
lain:That's pretty close. The flag represents our aspirations and principals as a people. We failed them in our founding, but established the means by which others willing to bear the cost could advance us to the mark. Part of that correction has, historically, been accomplished in protest. From suffrage to Civil Rights, feathers have been ruffled and messengers vilified to accomplish it.
I'm not kneeling, into. I save that for prayer.