uh, was that supposed to be the lack of discourse--I hope--and not the lack of "intercourse" [sic] ..?
No, I've got it right.
in·ter·course ˈin(t)ərˌkôrs/ noun communication or dealings between individuals or groups. "everyday social intercourse"
When I was a kid, my favorite book was the dictionary. Why? Because I was raised to believe that it isn't enough to simply SPEAK English....you have to know how to USE it.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 09-24-2016).]
I've quoted this previously but in this instance, it's fully worthy of an encore....."I may disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
May I presume that this same attitude can be applied the Mr. Clevenger, formerly of the Mariners? Where's the outrage for him being suspended?
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
Definition of a home owner, "see the door threshold, without my permission, there and no futher.......
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Socialist, Liberal or Progressive, tell them the truth.
May I presume that this same attitude can be applied the Mr. Clevenger, formerly of the Mariners? Where's the outrage for him being suspended?
1st Amendment rights allow you to say whatever you wish (within certain well-defined perameters) and no one seems to have restricted his abiility to do that. He can do it again tomorrow if he so wishes. HOWEVER it does not protect the speaker from subsequent consequences.
He said what he wanted to and his employer disagreed.
Why should anyone be outraged? Isn't that among the "freedoms" we frequently tout?
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 09-26-2016).]
1st Amendment rights allow you to say whatever you wish (within certain well-defined perameters) and no one seems to have restricted his abiility to do that. He can do it again tomorrow if he so wishes. HOWEVER it does not protect the speaker from subsequent consequences.
He said what he wanted to and his employer disagreed.
Why should anyone be outraged? Isn't that among the "freedoms" we frequently tout?
Excellent response, I agree. I feel the same way about Kaepernick. It's not his message, it's his platform and type of protest. Appreciate the response.
But, imagine (if you will) the outrage if Kaepernick was suspended. Again, not his message, his method of protest. ------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
Definition of a home owner, "see the door threshold, without my permission, there and no futher.......
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Socialist, Liberal or Progressive, tell them the truth.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-26-2016).]
Hmm, seems the NFL decided that kneeling is a no bueno affair.
**** you Kapernick.
As my ole pappy used to say, a day late and a dollar short.
They should have addressed this the first time it happened, before the beast grew. The NFL lost a lot of fans due to this protest, I doubt it will recover anytime soon, if ever.
I'm thinking that if there is any kind of serious decline underway for the NFL, as a profitable business enterprise and as a U.S. cultural icon, it has far more to do with the neurological and other health-related problems of its active and retired players, than anything connected with the National Anthem. Like 99 percent more.
I have a suspicion that the outcry or negativity about Kaepernick and players taking a knee (etc.) has been coming disproportionately from people who were already not any significant part of the NFL's revenue generating machine, even before one Donald J Trump made it one of his standard agenda items.
I'm being influenced in my thinking by comments from current and former NFL players that have appeared recently on cable TV.
That's my impression. Without trying to find or analyze any relevant numbers on the NFL's profitability from its various revenue streams, or trying to analyze any opinion polls.
How many people are aware--and this is according to what I have viewed on cable TV--I have not fact checked on it--that Trump tried to become an NFL franchise owner and was resisted by the NFL and its other franchise owners.
Is anyone ready to debunk that observation? Because I have not fact checked on it. It suggests that there is a motivation for Trump's NFL and National Anthem-related commentaries that is not just political, but also personal.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-25-2018).]
I also hear--and again, I have not fact checked--that former NFL players are on average about four times as susceptible to Opioid-related problems as the general population.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-25-2018).]
I'm being influenced in my thinking by comments from current and former NFL players that have appeared recently on cable TV
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I also hear--and again, I have not fact checked--that former NFL players are on average about four times as susceptible to Opioid-related problems as the general population.
OMG! OMG! I just saw some people cheering for President Trump at a political rally. Cancel my personal compensation from the NFL. Cancel the League office. Cancel the newest stadiums that are under construction. Cancel all of our media and merchandising contracts. Cancel the NFL..!
I'm thinking that if there is any kind of serious decline underway for the NFL, as a profitable business enterprise and as a U.S. cultural icon, it has far more to do with the neurological and other health-related problems of its active and retired players, than anything connected with the National Anthem. Like 99 percent more.
I have a suspicion that the outcry or negativity about Kaepernick and players taking a knee (etc.) has been coming disproportionately from people who were already not any significant part of the NFL's revenue generating machine, even before one Donald J Trump made it one of his standard agenda items.
I'm being influenced in my thinking by comments from current and former NFL players that have appeared recently on cable TV.
That's my impression. Without trying to find or analyze any relevant numbers on the NFL's profitability from its various revenue streams, or trying to analyze any opinion polls.
How many people are aware--and this is according to what I have viewed on cable TV--I have not fact checked on it--that Trump tried to become an NFL franchise owner and was resisted by the NFL and its other franchise owners.
Is anyone ready to debunk that observation? Because I have not fact checked on it. It suggests that there is a motivation for Trump's NFL and National Anthem-related commentaries that is not just political, but also personal.
Not speaking for anyone but myself but, have been a Chief's fan my entire life. I haven't watched an NFL game since this crap started. Won't suggest the players are not entitled to protest but, as is true in life, every decision has it's consequences. I don't have to watch or honor their protest. All those Chiefs logos, shirts, hats and jackets are now stowed in a box in the closet. Have discovered that I can live and enjoy life without the NFL.
So, in my case, your assumptions are incorrect. It's all about the National Anthem, our flag and the folks who gave all giving these players the right to protest.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 05-26-2018).]
I also hear--and again, I have not fact checked--that former NFL players are on average about four times as susceptible to Opioid-related problems as the general population.
As my ole pappy used to say, a day late and a dollar short.
They should have addressed this the first time it happened, before the beast grew. The NFL lost a lot of fans due to this protest, I doubt it will recover anytime soon, if ever.
Rams
They should have taken this further too. If players don't stand and respect, they don't play OR get payed. On the job, in uniform ANY protest is perceived as endorsed by the employer. They can protest on their own time, NOT on the job.
They should have taken this further too. If players don't stand and respect, they don't play OR get payed. On the job, in uniform ANY protest is perceived as endorsed by the employer. They can protest on their own time, NOT on the job.
You make a good point! I wouldn't choose to make a protest at my employers place unless it was against my employer.
So, in my case, your assumptions are incorrect. It's all about the National Anthem, our flag and the folks who gave all giving these players the right to protest.
Rams
He knows this, and only chooses to type out drivel to annoy us. The man truly does not mind picking scabs.
OMG! OMG! I just saw some people cheering for President Trump at a political rally. Cancel my personal compensation from the NFL. Cancel the League office. Cancel the newest stadiums that are under construction. Cancel all of our media and merchandising contracts. Cancel the NFL..!
You make a good point! I wouldn't choose to make a protest at my employers place unless it was against my employer.
Exactly. Work related issues can be dealt with at work or off work. It is up to the employer to decide if the employees are to remain employed, disciplined, promoted, fired or anything in between. The employer decides on the terms of employment NOT the freedom of speach. Freedom of speach is like the right to bear arms, you can't take it to work if the employer does not allow it. If a person feels the need to exercise the right to free speech or to bear arms, they (in many cases) will have to do it on their own time , out side of the work place. The First and Second Amendment DO NOT guarantee permanent employment.
There is a subtext that is apparent in almost every contentious discussion that takes place here:
quote
What do you want to say about Donald Trump as the next President of the United States (Off Topic discussions that were active before the election results were finalized), or, how do you feel about Donald Trump as the current President and do you want to see him reelected for a second term?
You may have missed it, but I have already admitted that I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton.
If I had to do it over again, I think I would like to be able to say that I voted for Evan McMullin. It would have had to be a Write-In vote, here in California. McMullin was one of five Write In candidates that were recognized as legitimate candidates by the state of California. So it would have been a tallied vote, and although predictably symbolic in actual effect, it would not have been a literally "symbolic" vote, as say, a Write In vote for Mickey Mouse or Vladimir Putin would have been.
I have never cast any kind of Write-In vote.
I like what I have seen of Evan McMullin as an on-air guest ("talking head") on those cable TV programs that are so much my regular vice.
I did not pay any attention to any Evan McMullin-related news reports or statements, prior to November 8, 2016, which is when I voted. (I did not submit an early ballot.)
Hillary--well, I think she kind of embarrassed herself in some needless ways during the course of 2017 and 2018. Some of the comments she's made, in the context of discussing her "What Happened" book. Or just some of the comments she's made, in general, over the course of 2017 and 2018.
If I receive any emails from the Evan McMullin For President In 2020 organization (if there is one), I will be sure and put up a message about it, for Pennock's Off Topic consumption, as it would be a datum or a marker about who might be looking in on this forum, without identifying themselves as a member.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2018).]
There is a subtext that is apparent in almost every contentious discussion that takes place here: You may have missed it, but I have already admitted that I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton.
I fail to see how any of this is political,...or at the least, can't see why politics are dragged into this issue. This is an illegitimate protest that is ignorant and racist, NOT political. This is a protest that accuses America of being racist and in some way targeting black people. This accusation is absolutely false, but kept alive by the ignorant and racist people behind the movement. BUT is not political. This is a protest that is becoming a thorn in the side of an employer, who in response is making changes so as to stop loosing money and listening to the will of customers, NOT politics. Trump voiced an opinion, he did not take over the NFL and started making changes.
This is an issue that happens in other business resulting in disciplinary actions or terminations of employment, but does not even make the news. This NFL " national anthem protest" makes the news because the worshipping of celebrities that happens in America. This protest in part stays in the news because money is being made by some and lost by others, namely the NFL and sponsors. The race baiters are making money and therfore wish to keep this very much alive. This would be a long dead issue if celebrities were not involved.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 05-26-2018).]
I fail to see how any of this is political,...or at the least, can't see why politics are dragged into this issue.
Be very aware that you quoted and responded to a profoundly mentally ill person.
There is rarely, if ever, any rational explanation for the obsessive crap that Ronald spews.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
The truth is that I do see a professional (mental health) counselor from time to time. And you know what I said to him, the last time that I had a counseling session? I said this:
"You know, in some of our recent sessions,I have talked about some of my interactions online at the [Pennock's] Fiero Forum. You know what's going on now?"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-26-2018).]
You dont have all the same amendment rights as an employee in a business. Football games are not public forums. They are a business run by the owners of that business and they make up their own rules. If the boss says you cant wear green socks on the field that means you cant wear green socks. In public you can wear what you want. If he says you must stand for the anthem, you will or your out. The Constitution doesnt give you the right to disobey the boss. I wanna see the first player try and sue his team for firing them for not standing.
I'm thinking that if there is any kind of serious decline underway for the NFL, as a profitable business enterprise and as a U.S. cultural icon, it has far more to do with the neurological and other health-related problems of its active and retired players, than anything connected with the National Anthem. Like 99 percent more.
If that were true, then they would make changes that effect the long term health-related issues of the players. Instead they are changing their position on kneeling for the anthem. If that is what the NFL believes is behind their declined income enough as to target it's previously stated position for change, then I imagine they have some sort of evidence that tells them that is what they need to do. Or are you suggesting that kneeling has some long term detrimental health effects the NFL is concerned about?
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 05-26-2018).]
You dont have all the same amendment rights as an employee in a business. Football games are not public forums. They are a business run by the owners of that business and they make up their own rules. If the boss says you cant wear green socks on the field that means you cant wear green socks. In public you can wear what you want. If he says you must stand for the anthem, you will or your out. The Constitution doesnt give you the right to disobey the boss. I wanna see the first player try and sue his team for firing them for not standing.
People are conditioned to think that companies are social activist groups and must let activism rule. For example GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE and TWITTER, are berated for gun control and biased searches and attacks against conservatives, but the fact is that they also are businesses and do not have to be conservative, pro 2nd or fare. They can be blatantly bias in favor of what ever they want to be.
People are conditioned to think that companies are social activist groups and must let activism rule. For example GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE and TWITTER, are berated for gun control and biased searches and attacks against conservatives, but the fact is that they also are businesses and do not have to be conservative, pro 2nd or fare. They can be blatantly bias in favor of what ever they want to be.
Very true and we the consumer of their product must decide whether that position is important enough to us to use/buy their product based on our own positions. I've made my decision in reference to the NFL and it's player protest.
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!
Very true and we the consumer of their product must decide whether that position is important enough to us to use/buy their product based on our own positions. I've made my decision in reference to the NFL and it's player protest.
This week, the league attempted a solution: it changed its rule that players “should” stand for the anthem into a mandate that any player on the field stand. It also said those who did not wish to partake in the anthem ritual could stay in the locker room. If players protested, the team would be fined, the NFL said.
Led by Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, the panel of NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report, and Matthew Continetti, editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, debated the merits of the NFL decision.
The discussion was led by President Trump’s reaction to the NFL move. “I don’t think people should be staying in locker rooms, but still I think it’s good,” Trump said. “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem. Or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”
Robinson of the Washington Post was the first to raise the possibility of legal interference, and blamed Trump’s statement. “Well, there’s obviously going to be a dispute that could potentially, I guess, reach the courts. I don’t know. Between the Players Association and the owners over this. The players were not consulted. I don’t believe rank and file players are going to take kindly to this decision. But basically, the owners decided they did not want to be harangued by the president of the United States every week. They were worried about their white working class audience, basically.”
He added: “I think this intensifies it. And it’s going to set the stage for more conflict.”
Continetti said fan sentiment was being missed. “And there is a bottom line decision here. What the NFL was facing, basically, the flight of its fan base as a fallout from the protests. And the other thing I would just point out is these protests began as a racial justice movement. But once Trump intervened in August, they became an anti-Trump movement.”
The Post’s Mitchell said fans were hardly standing at attention during the anthem before the player protests.
“You know, the hypocrisy is so profound,” Mitchell said. “Take a look at any NFL stadium. And people are getting hot dogs. People are getting beers. They’re not standing and saluting the anthem for a large part. They’re not. They’re distracted. They’re fans at an event. And the fact that the players do not have this freedom of speech and that no one is even thinking about (former 49ers quarterback and anthem protest leader) Colin Kaepernick, who’s lost his entire career over this issue.”
Todd raised the issue that the NFL is largely an African-American league. That creates what Todd called “racial toxic tension” over the anthem showdown.
Walter chimed in. “I don’t think this was an issue until Trump made it an issue. I don’t think Americans were sitting around thinking, ‘This is what’s dividing this country so desperately, is the fact that these NFL players are taking a knee or not showing up to salute the anthem’ “
She added: “The president is taking that as one more opportunity to divide an already divided country. And it has worked in the past. The question is if it is enough to work this time. And right now, he looks at his crowd. And he says, “They’re supportive of me.” But is that going to be enough when you have as many people on the other side now saying, “I’m against this.”
Robinson allowed that NFL owners faced a no-win situation. “The NFL owners really did have to pick their poison. This comes at a time when football as an enterprise is in trouble.”
I was just an Evan McMullin moment waiting to happen. But then I saw the light.
Not sure what a Mc Mullin moment is, but that article is just an opinion, like any other here. It is a very bias opinion against Trump, and is void of acual fact. America has been pissed of over the kneeling before Trump voiced an opinon. In fact, this was planed by the kneelers. They knew this statement would anger America, and that is why they did it. The more America spoke out the more pressure was put on the kneelers and the kneeling slowed down. Then Trump angered the kneelers, (by design) because he wanted to piss them off. They took the bait and showed America just how much they are bias against Trump. The players did not protest the Anthem or it's original cause, they protested against Trump. Now, because of hate for Trump, more blame and undue credit goes Trump's way for the NFL making changes. I think the changes are not enough for me to watch NFL games. I also think that I am not alone in this mindset, and Trump had NOTHING to do with my decision to not watch NFL games. The players kneeling are out of line, and the NFL let the craziness grow and continues to fester.
Not sure what a Mc Mullin moment is, but that article is just an opinion, like any other here. It is a very bias opinion against Trump, and is void of acual fact. ...
It is Ronald's thing this past few days. He is goading Randye. Nothing more. Ronnie knows that he is not adding to the thread, posting President Trump hate speech, and generally trolling. I recognize the mental disorder.
He is ****ing up the card game again.
Now, there is no way in hell that I will watch the NFL.
It is Ronald's thing this past few days. He is goading Randye. Nothing more. Ronnie knows that he is not adding to the thread, posting President Trump hate speech, and generally trolling. I recognize the mental disorder.
He is ****ing up the card game again.
Now, there is no way in hell that I will watch the NFL.
We've kind of discussed this before, but I think you are clearly confused about who is the "goader" and who is the "goadee".
I look at your message here, and I think, this must be a large scale version of Quantum Time Invariance. The concept, from Quantum Physics--and I make no claim to understand it as a Quantum Physicist understands it--that there is time symmetry at the quantum level. That time can be analyzed as flowing from past to present or in the reverse direction, from present to past, and nothing at the quantum level gets "broken". Cause can precede Effect, and Effect can precede Cause.
When you make your breakfast, does the scrambled egg(s) fly off your plate back into the frying pan, change from warm, scrambly eggs into a runny yellow liquid, then clarify to a yolk and an uncooked and transparent egg white, and then go back inside the reassembled egg shell?
