Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Hotplant

Random Thoughts v.3

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Bong-Man said:

Oh me too !  Your fascination and approach sounds just like a Paul Ryan example from the 2012 campaign trail...."I once knew a man who....(fill in the blank to support your all encompassing angle to the issue)".

Another Holiday weekend and the bat-shit crazy drivers are on the loose.  "We've all got places to go lady !"  What is this new found fascination with swinging out and using two lanes to make a left turn ?  You're driving a Fusion, not an 18 wheeler !    

It just showed me that not all whites are racist, American blacks are NOT innocent of racism themselves and appears that most if not all libtards are morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 7:45 AM, IpMan said:

The fact is no one was disrespecting the flag, it was a simple form of protest to point out police brutality in the black community. Mark my words, this is going to blow up in the NFL's face big time. 

Last time I checked we still live in the United States with a constitution which guarantees ones right's. I understand the NFL is a private organization but they also need to realize those players are their bread and butter. If they decide to collectively all stay in the locker room, or, even worse, refuse to play, the NFL is screwed. What would they do? Recruit a bunch of shitty 10th stringers to play? Yeah, good luck with that. On top of it we have a President who does not seem to understand the rule of law. He goes on national TV and says, "...well, maybe if you don't stand, you don't respect the flag and anthem, maybe you should be kicked out of the country." That right there is dictator level insanity and should not be tolerated from a sitting President. Just imagine what would have happened if any other President said those very same words on national TV. 25th Amendment anyone?

Don't take the bait, IpMan. It's pointless to engage. Especially with someone who uses terms such as "real patriots". 

This whole thing is a dog-and-pony show, with Trump as Dog Whistler in Chief. The two best quotes I saw that encapsulate this farce were these:

From Philadelphia Eagle Chris Long...

1545473349_Dd6c3hyU0AA9-kV(1).thumb.jpeg.6686ba12cf6c27921fb4508ac8aad438.jpeg

From Nancy Armour in the U.S.A. Today...

"...the owners were terrified that Trump would continue to use the protests as a punchline at one of his campaign klatches - sorry, rallied - and it might threaten their precious bottom line. So they caved.

The joke, however, is on them. Trump might give owners the occasional pat on the head, but the league will still be damaged when he turns his verbal fire hose on players. And that is exactly what he will continue to do.

With the midterm elections looming as a referendum on Trump's presidency, he's going to pull out every racist and bigoted trope he can to convince his base that American exceptionalism - read:  white exceptionalism - is under siege, and it's these black and brown people who are to blame. He did it Thursday morning, and he's going to keep doing it.

The only way to defeat a bully is to call his bluff, but the NFL doesn't have the courage to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRONG...it always boils down to dollars.  The owners saw diminishing returns on their investment and are looking at a way to try and get those dollars back. Plain and simple.  Has ZERO to do with their politics.  But as always, the libtards need to put the blame on OUR PRESIDENT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, paplbojo said:

http://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/timmonsville-naacp-president-says-was-racially-profiled-body-cam-video-shows-otherwise

I see this appear in the news significantly more often, three times in the last week in fact. 

Yes, and I'm glad for it. Body cameras are a must. I'm a big supporter of big brother because you can't trust anyone.

But this doesn't have anything to do with the anthem protests, which are to shine light on the fact that cops have been abusing their authority for decades and getting away with it. Literally murdering people and getting a week suspension. Even with video footage nothing is really being done in a lot of cases. You can cry about your sports and your flag all you want, but when people and their families are getting murdered and then laughed at, they tend to not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stryder1978 said:

WRONG...it always boils down to dollars.  The owners saw diminishing returns on their investment and are looking at a way to try and get those dollars back. Plain and simple.  Has ZERO to do with their politics.  But as always, the libtards need to put the blame on OUR PRESIDENT!

Proving that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend the above quotes. What do you think "fear of a diminished bottom line" means? But then, it is also pointless arguing with people who use terms like "libtards". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gibsonfan159 said:

I'm a big supporter of big brother because you can't trust anyone.

I don't know if I follow what you are saying exactly... Believing that most cops are good guys, and supporting them, does not go hand in hand with having a big government, which is what I interpret big brother to mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paplbojo said:

I don't know if I follow what you are saying exactly... Believing that most cops are good guys, and supporting them, does not go hand in hand with having a big government, which is what I interpret big brother to mean. 

Yea, disregard that. It was off the wall. I'm speaking of having more cameras in public places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paplbojo said:

I don't know if I follow what you are saying exactly... Believing that most cops are good guys, and supporting them, does not go hand in hand with having a big government, which is what I interpret big brother to mean. 

In order to be a good cop, you must be wiling and ready to turn in and expose fellow officers who are corrupt and / or abusive. If you turn a blind eye then you too are a bad cop. As I do not see any cops speaking out against the bad cops, exposing them, refusing to work with them, or demanding they be held accountable, I hate to say it but I honestly do not see any good cops at this point.

Just like this crap with the new director of the CIA. Good old Gina was just "following orders" and "destroying evidence of a crime" yet it was ok because she was just "following orders." Hmmm, where did I hear that exact same excuse used before? I wonder? And what happened to those poor functionaries who were only "following orders?" Hmmm, my memory fails me. Oh well, I am sure the tribunals empathized with their simply following orders and let them all go to live peaceful lives.

I guess what is good for the goose is NEVER good for the gander, especially if the gander is the victor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Strider said:

Don't take the bait, IpMan. It's pointless to engage. Especially with someone who uses terms such as "real patriots". 

This whole thing is a dog-and-pony show, with Trump as Dog Whistler in Chief. The two best quotes I saw that encapsulate this farce were these:

From Philadelphia Eagle Chris Long...

1545473349_Dd6c3hyU0AA9-kV(1).thumb.jpeg.6686ba12cf6c27921fb4508ac8aad438.jpeg

 

Chris Long, you go girl with your commitment to affecting change with YOUR platform on YOUR time. However, when you are wearing the uniform of your employer at your place of employment (American taxpayer-subsidized sports venues) you will either STFU and hike the ball or get your ass off the field. 

1 hour ago, IpMan said:

In order to be a good cop, you must be wiling and ready to turn in and expose fellow officers who are corrupt and / or abusive. If you turn a blind eye then you too are a bad cop. As I do not see any cops speaking out against the bad cops, exposing them, refusing to work with them, or demanding they be held accountable, I hate to say it but I honestly do not see any good cops at this point.

Just like this crap with the new director of the CIA...

Are you 12 years old? If not, put on your big boy pants and see the world for how it really is: no black and white, only shades of grey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, gibsonfan159 said:

Remember when almost no one had a portable video recorder on them and couldn't conveniently record evidence of cops abusing their authority? Technology changes and attitudes change. And the fines go to charity, do you really think that will affect anything? Don't get me wrong, I think shitting where you eat is a bad idea and that there are more tasteful ways to protest, but it's still gonna happen. I guarantee it. 

Also, no politics.

:goodpost:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Chris Long, you go girl with your commitment to affecting change with YOUR platform on YOUR time. However, when you are wearing the uniform of your employer at your place of employment (American taxpayer-subsidized sports venues) you will either STFU and hike the ball or get your ass off the field. 

Are you 12 years old? If not, put on your big boy pants and see the world for how it really is: no black and white, only shades of grey. 

So shades of grey it is huh? In other words, what you REALLY mean to say is might makes right, the winners make the rules, right, wrong, or indifferent. Talk about shades of George Wallace, John McCone, and Curtiss LeMay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Strider said:

Don't take the bait, IpMan. It's pointless to engage. Especially with someone who uses terms such as "real patriots". 

ImSgNWjliqRIlsg-1600x900-noPad.jpg?14724

Black & White thinking from this guy ^^. I'm not talking racism. Absolutism.

What a "real patriot" is not. You can have him. I respect his freedom of speech and call it disrespectful to our flag and country. My free speech!

Bait...? https://vimeo.com/135203185  When football was about football. It was aired on MTV (Music Television), when MTV was about Music? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dteBUV_coN8  Does anybody remember laughter? :lol: Football should be fun. Not shit.

Old Prez. 'It's fine.' New Prez - Wouldn't it be nice to 'take the politics and racism out of football'. I'm paraphrasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Chris Long, you go girl with your commitment to affecting change with YOUR platform on YOUR time. However, when you are wearing the uniform of your employer at your place of employment (American taxpayer-subsidized sports venues) you will either STFU and hike the ball or get your ass off the field. 

I am glad J.J. Watt didn't "STFU", and so are millions of Houstonians. Watt raised over $30 million for hurricane relief and he is also paying for the funerals of the Santa Fe High School shooting victims.

Free speech means you take the good with the bad. Which means suffering the likes of Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and protesters.

Either you support the Bill of Rights or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose which parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Strider said:

Free speech means you take the good with the bad. .

DEAL

Image result for mama jeansImage result for mama jeans 

11 hours ago, Freeyyaa said:

Yesterday we celebrated Day of Slavic Script and Culture or Day of Cyril and Methodius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius
And today we celebrate World Day of Grammarian.

Hope you had the kind Day of Cyril and the  Greatest Grammarian Day! What is World Grammarian Day, Freeyyaa? :slapface: I'm sorry I missed it.

We have a holiday too, coming up.

Image result for memorial day flag animated gif Happy Memorial Day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photo by W. Eugene Smith on Iwo Jima.

"Sticks and stones, bits of human bones"

image.png.40af136d3180ca4649eb2133ccede937.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strider said:

I am glad J.J. Watt didn't "STFU", and so are millions of Houstonians. Watt raised over $30 million for hurricane relief and he is also paying for the funerals of the Santa Fe High School shooting victims.

Free speech means you take the good with the bad. Which means suffering the likes of Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and protesters.

Either you support the Bill of Rights or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose which parts.

The NFL players do NOT have a First Amendment right in relation to the NFL owners. They only have a First Amendment right in relation to the government. If you are going to discuss the Bill of Rights, grasp this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Strider said:

I am glad J.J. Watt didn't "STFU", and so are millions of Houstonians. Watt raised over $30 million for hurricane relief and he is also paying for the funerals of the Santa Fe High School shooting victims.

Free speech means you take the good with the bad. Which means suffering the likes of Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and protesters.

Either you support the Bill of Rights or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose which parts.

Did JJ Watt petition fans for donations before the start of each game while he was on the field in his professional uniform, representing a team someone else owns? No, he did it on his own time, not his boss's time. You keep talking about bill of rights and freedom of speech, it's irrelevant here, the point is you can't just say whatever you want when you're on the job. At my job if I start talking about politics Everytime right before I talk business with a client I assume I'd be fired. Rightfully so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...that was when the swirling vortex of coincidence and rimechodelia dissipated the confusing fog and revealed that I wasn't in an alternate dimension contrary to the operations of physics in my dimension of origination... no... the swirling vortex was a disguise protecting the brittle framework of a gnome-like machine crafted with the tediousness of malicious scientists pretending to be perfect angels... they were power tripping on the exhaust and fumes of the great rulers above them, whom they served with all their utmost care so as to relax them into their deceptions, soften their defenses... ever ready to seize that great power and... 

Then I woke up. Another one of those oddball dreams. This one was like a trip through a courthouse battle for the deaf... in Hades. Wait a second... does Hades even exist? I considered both sides of the story but then realized it was an endless exercise of political proportions... no resolve, just two camps that neither of I belong to trying to keep me between them. I decided to quit trying to interpret my dreams anymore as this brought up more questions than answers, most especially when my dreams were as symbolic and cryptic as this last one. Whatever, there was always donuts and coffee. I got out of bed and went for a shower. I would be getting a half dozen morning pastries at the coffee trailer on my way to work. My stomach grumbled. I couldn't wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

The NFL players do NOT have a First Amendment right in relation to the NFL owners. They only have a First Amendment right in relation to the government. If you are going to discuss the Bill of Rights, grasp this.

Guess what, the NFL has something called a union and a collective bargaining contract of which the league is likely in breach of with this ruling. If you are going to discuss business and owners, grasp this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IpMan said:

Guess what, the NFL has something called a union and a collective bargaining contract of which the league is likely in breach of with this ruling. If you are going to discuss business and owners, grasp this.

Sports players are contracted to act in their teams best interest and may sign clauses that prohibit certain behaviour considered normal for non-professional-sports players much like waiving your rights at a court hearing or preparing a plea bargain for the judge. Also, foreign laborers can be contracted to work through a restricted workers-visa program wherein they have no human rights while you watch them build that high-rise from across the street. Technical stuff these days... human rights. For people in free countries these compromises are usually fair (millions of dollars, etc.) but for others, not so fair. (construction worker gave his life to make $1000.00 for his family in the country he is from) Who makes these rules? Not I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think women should take over for NFL players. They should also fight the next ground war. You know, women's lib, equal rights and all that stuff.

1727caae1da1be2e2619863b96d992d2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IpMan said:

Guess what, the NFL has something called a union and a collective bargaining contract of which the league is likely in breach of with this ruling. If you are going to discuss business and owners, grasp this.

 

Guess what, I have something called an MBA, so let me educate you.

These changes will not appear as amendments to the collective bargaining agreement because they were not collectively bargained. For that reason, and because these changes impact a unionized workforce, they will be much more susceptible to legal challenge.

Goodell’s statement on Wednesday referenced the “game operations manual” as a document that will be altered in order to incorporate some of these changes. The manual is authored by the league and is not reviewed by the NFLPA. Put another way, the manual is not part of the CBA.

The fact that the manual isn’t negotiated with the NFLPA isn’t all that surprising. The manual is designed mainly to assist teams in how they collaborate on game operations. It also intends to ensure that teams treat operations in similar or identical ways. For instance, the manual specifies rules for the chain of custody of footballs before games. It also compels teams to make certain resources available to visiting players, including a safe and comfortable locker room.

The manual also contains a national anthem policy. The policy currently states that the anthem “must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.” The policy further mentions that players “should” stand. There is no explicit requirement that players must stand. Expect the league to change the language so that it reads something to the effect of the anthem “must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players who are on the field must stand for the National Anthem.”

This modest alteration to the language would accomplish Goodell’s desire to remove the requirement that players appear on the sideline for the anthem. However, it would add a condition that those players who are on the sideline must stand. The policy already contains language that the NFL can impose team punishments for failure to adhere to the policy. Such language could be preserved after any revisions. 

Players could argue that such a change will impact their wages, hours and other conditions of employment. To that end, a player could insist that while the new policy does not lead to direct league punishments of players, it nonetheless adversely affects the employment of players who do protest in ways that violate the new policy.

As noted above, teams that sign and keep protesting players will face league discipline. Those teams are thus are less inclined to sign and keep such players. Along those lines, players could cite how Kaepernick and Reid have been shut out of opportunities to play for teams in a dynamic where teams aren’t punished by the league—add to that dynamic the capacity for the NFL to punish teams with protesting players and alienation of protesting players seems even more likely to occur.

This dynamic has potential legal significance, too: in union-management settings, workplace rules that have not been collectively bargained and that impact wages, hours and other working conditions can be challenged under federal antitrust law. Specifically, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits restraints that competing businesses (NFL clubs) conspire to adopt and that harm competition more than they help.

Players would depict a policy that overtly deters teams from signing quality players—like Kaepernick and Reid—is one that denies fans of being able to watch better players than those that are signed to play the same positions. Arguably, then, the policy diminishes the league product.

In response, the league and teams would stress that players can clearly protest the anthem under this policy—they just can’t protest on the field and thus not in ways that carry the same public notice and symbolism. The league would also emphasize that there are many quality players who remain unsigned by teams and who never engaged in anthem protesting. 

Players could also raise objections to teams that now punish them for anthem protests. Under what legal authority, players might ask, did teams obtain this power?

In response, a team could cite the standard player contract, which every player must sign and which is covered by the CBA. The contract contains a clause that obligates a player to “conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.” Still, another clause empowers teams to cut players whose “personal conduct [is] reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club.”

In addition, Article 42 of the CBA authorizes teams to impose a suspension of up to four games, or a fine of up to four weeks pay, for “conduct detrimental to club.” Article 42 also features a penalty schedule for specific infractions, meaning infractions that are expressly defined to not fall under the general “conduct detrimental to club” moniker. A team, for example, can’t fine a player more than $665 for each pound he is overweight. This weight clause penalty reflects collective bargaining: since it is in the CBA, it means the NFLPA agreed to it. Article 42, however, does not contemplate a penalty for the national anthem. For that reason, a team could invoke the general “conduct detrimental” language and assert it has the right to suspend a player up to four games.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...