1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#552 Oct 03 2017 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,360 posts
I will use this double to direct your attention to the fact that my transport that rides on a cushion of air seems to be holding its capacity of long, slender water-inhabiting fauna.


Edited, Oct 3rd 2017 10:21pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#553 Oct 04 2017 at 7:05 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,889 posts
gbaji wrote:
The counter protesters who were blocking streets and were not inside the approved area absolutely were engaged in an illegal protest.
No, they weren't.
gbaji wrote:
The players have always been expected to be on the field and standing for the anthem.
No, they haven't.
gbaji wrote:
But then, you'd have to spend a tiny bit of time separating fact from fiction.
What I said was fact, what you said was fiction.
gbaji wrote:
I should abandon it?
Well, you should abandon it because you've been wrong about it for more than a decade. The fact you picked up the pace with it because you have a spokesperson certainly isn't making it right.
gbaji wrote:
And again, all the while, you're avoiding actually discussing the core question of whether the claim itself is true.
Maybe if you didn't spend more than a decade ignoring anything anyone says and just repeating yourself people wouldn't feel like minimizing their interaction with you. Reap what you sow.
gbaji wrote:
I think you don't like it because it's working
Why would anyone like 45 using fear to embolden simpleminded folks like you to ignore facts?
Friar Bijou wrote:
I will use this double to direct your attention to the fact that my transport that rides on a cushion of air seems to be holding its capacity of long, slender water-inhabiting fauna.
You got mold in your butt?

Edited, Oct 4th 2017 9:07am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#554 Oct 04 2017 at 7:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ITT: Gbaji somehow tries to connect the GOP letting the housing market collapse because they were (according to Gbaji) supposedly afraid of being called racists to why it makes sense to conflate the Washington Post with FreedomPatriotsWatch.com by calling each "Fake News". Also, he thinks that blatant lying from the GOP and its head is the same as "being strong".

Well! Uh, okay then! It's your party dude and if that's how you need to defend it then you do that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#555 Oct 04 2017 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Quote:
The players have always been expected to be on the field and standing for the anthem.

No, they haven't.
I'd like to add, the theater of invoking the military and the national anthem at a sports game is a little bit absurd anyway. It's definitely not always been the case, it started around the 2nd world war, and initially was with baseball, and seems to have been trying to do something to increase attendance. before 2009 depending on the timing of the game, players were often not on the field and only came out after the national anthem was over, this was just due to scheduling and networks, so not a lot of patriotism there really.


Edited, Oct 4th 2017 8:59am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#556 Oct 04 2017 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If there's one thing conservatives can't get enough of, it's false "traditions" based around iconography to inspire mandatory jingoism.

And, yes, it's jingoism. Patriotism is seeing someone kneel during a song and thinking "That guy is exercising his rights afforded to him by this nation; good for him". Jingoism is screaming at him that he should just leave America if he can't make hollow shows of devotion on demand.

Edited, Oct 4th 2017 9:08am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#557 Oct 04 2017 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,930 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Mic.com wrote:
Stuff about Fake News about a made up guy named Geary Danely

...Something, something "HuffPo reported on Trump falsely saying that a senator was in the hospital when at home resting is close enough!!!! FAKE NEWS!!!" something, something...


So, apparently Geary Danley is the ex-Husband of Marilou Danley, who was the current girlfriend of Paddock.

I never actually saw any of these initial stories that blamed Geary. I'm guessing they were on some Far-Right forums or troll sites that no really pays attention to? I only saw a couple stories about the fake stories. But thought it was odd that the last names matched. Then today I see more articles about Marilou and mentions of her being married to Geary when she started a relationship with Paddock.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#558 Oct 04 2017 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, yeah, that's the usual way of things. The fake stories get circulated via Facebook & Twitter on sites with names like USNewser, The Boston Tribune, DC Gazette and various legitimate seeming media URLs that are actually hosted on com.co (washingtonpost.com.co, abcnews.com.co, etc). Stuff that looks legitimate enough that people believe it but the sites don't have any actual news value and are just used to spread stories via social media.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#559 Oct 04 2017 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,930 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, yeah, that's the usual way of things. The fake stories get circulated via Facebook & Twitter on sites with names like USNewser, The Boston Tribune, DC Gazette and various legitimate seeming media URLs that are actually hosted on com.co (washingtonpost.com.co, abcnews.com.co, etc). Stuff that looks legitimate enough that people believe it but the sites don't have any actual news value and are just used to spread stories via social media.


Ya, I get that whole fake news source.

My curiosity was piqued from the person being real and linked to the real culprit before it was announced who it was that did it.

Quote:
Before police named Paddock as the suspected shooter, though, far-right trolls circulated the hoax that the person being sought by police was another man named Geary Danley
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#560 Oct 05 2017 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Interestingly, an Ipsos/Reuters poll shows that people are getting more confident in the news media as the administration continues. People saying they had "great confidence" or "some confidence" in the press grew to 48% from 39% last November.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#561 Oct 05 2017 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
The players have always been expected to be on the field and standing for the anthem.

No, they haven't.
I'd like to add, the theater of invoking the military and the national anthem at a sports game is a little bit absurd anyway. It's definitely not always been the case, it started around the 2nd world war, and initially was with baseball, and seems to have been trying to do something to increase attendance. before 2009 depending on the timing of the game, players were often not on the field and only came out after the national anthem was over, this was just due to scheduling and networks, so not a lot of patriotism there really.


Edited, Oct 4th 2017 8:59am by Xsarus
I haven't fact checked this but it has come up in multiple articles (although could just be them repeating something spit out by the first one).

Supposedly, starting in 2009, the US Department of Defense, among other government agencies, PAID the NFL to start playing the anthem and requiring players to come out and stand for the anthem prior to kick off. Now, maybe the articles got some of it wrong (i suspect they have) and prior to 2009, the NFL was playing the anthem, but what certainly wasn't happening, was any requirement or expectation for players to be on the field during it.

It shouldn't be surprising to anyone though that gbaji got something wrong when it came to the NFL, given no one in San Diego knows **** about football.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#562 Oct 05 2017 at 11:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,456 posts
But what about the Char-....Oh! I see what you did there.

You know why Portland doesn't have a professional football team?

Because Seattle would want one too!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#563 Oct 11 2017 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
The players have always been expected to be on the field and standing for the anthem.

No, they haven't.
I'd like to add, the theater of invoking the military and the national anthem at a sports game is a little bit absurd anyway. It's definitely not always been the case, it started around the 2nd world war, and initially was with baseball, and seems to have been trying to do something to increase attendance. before 2009 depending on the timing of the game, players were often not on the field and only came out after the national anthem was over, this was just due to scheduling and networks, so not a lot of patriotism there really.


Edited, Oct 4th 2017 8:59am by Xsarus
I haven't fact checked this but it has come up in multiple articles (although could just be them repeating something spit out by the first one).


Here's one quick/easy source. The idea that player never stood for the national anthem before games until 2009 is completely false. It's a bit of conflation, and a lot of misinformation. Players have always stood when they are on the field. Only during prime time games did players not stand, because the players were not yet on the field. In 2009, the league changed their rules to have the players on the field during the anthem during prime time games as well, specifically to be consistent with regard to the anthem.

Quote:
Supposedly, starting in 2009, the US Department of Defense, among other government agencies, PAID the NFL to start playing the anthem and requiring players to come out and stand for the anthem prior to kick off. Now, maybe the articles got some of it wrong (i suspect they have) and prior to 2009, the NFL was playing the anthem, but what certainly wasn't happening, was any requirement or expectation for players to be on the field during it.


The NFL was definitely playing the anthem. Have you ever attended a football game in person? The only question is whether the players were on the field and standing at attention, hands on heart, etc, while it was being played.

Also, while there was an issue with DoD funding of games, it was not about paying the NFL to play the anthem (it always had), nor about paying them to require the players to stand (they always had, when on the field). The issue is referenced here. Specifically:

Quote:
The Department of Defense spent $6.1 million on various recruitment efforts and patriotic events at NFL games between 2012 and 2015, according to a 2015 joint oversight report from the offices of Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, both Republicans from Arizona.

Shortly after that report was made public, the NFL undertook an audit of more than 100 contracts between its various teams and the Department of Defense, according to a letter NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent to Flake and McCain. That audit found $723,734 of defense funding that “may have been mistakenly applied to appreciation activities rather than recruitment efforts,” according to the letter. Goodell pledged to return that money.

“DoD has a long history of providing community relations participation at sports venues because of the prime opportunity to connect with their large fan bases,” Army Maj. Dave Eastburn, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, said in a statement to FactCheck.org. He confirmed that the department currently has no contracts for patriotic displays at football games.


It was not in 2009, and had absolutely nothing at all to do with the previously mentioned changes about players being on or off the field during the anthem for prime time games.

It's unclear what these "appreciation activities" were exactly, but there's no indication that it had anything to do with the playing of, or standing for, the national anthem. Again, the league was already doing that stuff. They presumably included costs for things like flyovers, flag waving ceremonies, advertisements, endorsements, etc. Again, if you've been to a few football games in your life, you've seen stuff like this. They occasionally do some kind of special "appreciate your military" thing during halftime, for example. Or hand out flags. Or buy tickets for military personnel to attend the games (in uniform, of course). While we can certainly argue that might be wasteful spending (which is why the audit happened in the first place), and even argue it's "paid patriotism", there's nothing to indicate that the absence of this funding would have meant that games would not still have started with the anthem, just as just about every other sporting event does.

The suggestion that somehow, magically, the NFL alone would not do this without being paid to do so, while every other major sport does, is pretty freaking insane. One should immediately suspect BS when someone tries to make that claim. One could at least maybe try to find out what the truth of the matter is just to see, right?

Nah! Let's just repeat the ridiculous claims because it fits a narrative better. That makes so much sense! Smiley: dubious


Quote:
It shouldn't be surprising to anyone though that gbaji got something wrong when it came to the NFL...


Except that I didn't get it wrong. The folks blindly repeating the false claims did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#564 Oct 12 2017 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
gbaji wrote:
The players have always been expected to be on the field and standing for the anthem.
Politifact wrote:
McCarthy told PolitiFact that "players are strongly encouraged, but not required, to stand during the national anthem."
Guess you should have read the whole article.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#565 Oct 12 2017 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The idea that player never stood for the national anthem before games until 2009 is completely false. It's a bit of conflation, and a lot of misinformation. Players have always stood when they are on the field. Only during prime time games did players not stand, because the players were not yet on the field
Yeah, that was my point. Some games had the players standing some didn't depending on the timing of the game. Wow, super patriotic and important. Oh wait, no, not at all. It's meaningless absurd theater that has nothing to do with football. The idea that every game should have the anthem is just manipulation of people to make them feel that watching football is somehow a patriotic duty which helps boost and maintain interest etc.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#566 Oct 12 2017 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The players have always been expected to be on the field and standing for the anthem.
Politifact wrote:
McCarthy told PolitiFact that "players are strongly encouraged, but not required, to stand during the national anthem."
Guess you should have read the whole article.


That's a quote from an NFL rep talking about the rule, but not the rule itself. The rule says that they "should stand at attention, hold their helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking". Guess what? There are a lot of rules that say "should", and may result in penalties if someone doesn't do what they "should".

The point here is that the league could penalize these players if they wanted. They have chosen not to. They are well within their authority to do so. In addition to the specific rules for the anthem, there are broader clauses in every players contract having to do with behavior, both on and off the field. The players represent their teams, the league, the city they play for, the networks who broadcast the games, the advertisers on those networks, the merchandisers, etc. If any of those groups decide that a player or players behavior does not represent them well, and pressure the league to make changes, they can penalize the player for that behavior as part of that process.

They can do this. They choose not to. That's the point here.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#567 Oct 13 2017 at 2:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,889 posts
gbaji wrote:
The point here is that the league could penalize these players if they wanted. They have chosen not to.
It's not a rule if there's no penalty for ignoring it. It's a suggestion. And you're not "expected" to follow a suggestion. Demanding strict obedience to suggestions at the expense of personal freedom isn't patriotic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#568 Oct 13 2017 at 3:11 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Lol, personal freedom. The Great American Myth.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#570 Oct 13 2017 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point here is that the league could penalize these players if they wanted. They have chosen not to.
It's not a rule if there's no penalty for ignoring it.


The choice to penalize the behavior is not up to the players though. It's up to the owners of the teams, or the league. Just because your parents choose not to punish you for breaking a rule today, doesn't mean it's not a rule, and doesn't mean that they can't punish you if you continue to break it.

Quote:
It's a suggestion. And you're not "expected" to follow a suggestion. Demanding strict obedience to suggestions at the expense of personal freedom isn't patriotic.


It's a suggestion about the behavior of players. There are multiple parts of the contracts players sign that reference expected behavior:

Quote:
He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and 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.


Quote:
... or if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract.


Quote:
Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he... <list of things like bribes, fixing games, using performance enhancing drugs, etc.> ... ; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.


The league rules of conduct also reference this:

Quote:
Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL.


Quote:
We must endeavor at all times to be people of high character; we must show respect for others inside and outside our workplace; and we must strive to conduct ourselves in ways that favorably reflect on ourselves, our teams, the communities we represent, and the NFL.


Quote:
We are all held to a higher standard and must conduct ourselves in a way that is responsible, promotes the values of the NFL, and is lawful.


Quote:
Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

<list of stuff>

Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.



The players in the NFL are not special snowflakes. There's nothing sinister going on here. Every employer has similar rules and contracts, and similar power and discretion to chose when and whether to punish bad behavior which reflects badly on the company. I am under such an agreement, you are. Everyone who is employed is. You can't do things that make your employer look bad (exceptions for stuff like whistle blowing, I suppose, but that's not what we're talking about here).

If I stage protests on my employers property, during work hours, I'm not going to have a job for long. I'll be politely asked to stop, and if I don't, I'll be terminated. So would you, and so would everyone else here. This is not something special about NFL players. The only difference is that they have a national audience watching, which does not mean they get more discretion here, but less. Everything they do on the field is seen by millions of people.

There does not need to be a specific written rule about this. They're engaged in activities which many fans find offensive. That is causing reduced viewership, ticket sales, and merchandizing. The league needs to step in and stop this. Period. In precisely the way that employee behavior which customers find offensive has to be stopped.

This is not much different than the cashier at a store continually swearing and making customers uncomfortable. He can claim he's exercising his first amendment right all day long, but if customers complain, and he doesn't stop the behavior, he can and should be fired. When you are on the clock at work, you don't have the right to protest. It's not your time, and it's not your dime.

If players want to organize protests when not in uniform, and not during game times or other official events, they are free to do so. That's their right. Doing this during the game event? No. They have no right to do so. And if it's upsetting the fans (which it clearly is), then the owners and the league have one clear option. They should take it, sooner rather than later.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#572 Oct 13 2017 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Double bah!

Edited, Oct 13th 2017 4:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#573 Oct 13 2017 at 5:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,456 posts
gbaji wrote:
Double bah!


That's what we all say when you post, actually.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#574 Oct 16 2017 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
gbaji wrote:
If I stage protests on my employers property, during work hours, I'm not going to have a job for long. I'll be politely asked to stop, and if I don't, I'll be terminated. So would you, and so would everyone else here.
Maybe you would. It takes an incredible amount of headache for all involved just to demote me, and short of being convicted of a federal crime I literally can't be fired. I can refuse to shake a President's hand in front of an audience and there was zero consequences.
gbaji wrote:
They have no right to do so.
Other players seem to believe they have the right and are joining in, and the ones that don't aren't interfering. The coaches and trainers aren't penalizing the players and joined in, so they say the players have the right. The owners are also not penalizing, and have also joined in, so according to them they have the right. The league has come out and said they're not penalizing the players, and have said they're encouraging of it so they seem to believe the players have the right. There's no State laws prohibiting their protest, so on that level they're still good. Federal? Nope, no none there either. So, the fans? Well ...
gbaji wrote:
That is causing reduced viewership, ticket sales, and merchandizing.
Colin Kaepernick, the guy who started all this,'s **** was some of the hottest selling merch last year. Ratings are down, as they were last year. They tend to dip early and build back up for Playoffs and Super Bowl. Attendance is down compared to the same Week 4 numbers last year and the year before, but it isn't as low as 2014. So with the actual facts and not emotional narratives it looks like even the fans feel the players have the right to protest, or are indifferent, as well. And that's just the numbers. If you want to argue the reason there's just as much evidence it's because people's attention spans are shrinking due to Netflix and DVRs (since the numbers are down for pretty much all sports), or you could say fans are boycotting player condition due to concussions and such.

But who are you going to believe? Facts or a businessman turned politician who was burned by the NFL in the '80s and has a long documented history of lying and holding grudges?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#575 Oct 17 2017 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If Trump's picking a fight, look for how he's distracting from a potential big loss:

(A) Trump riles people up by falsely claiming that Obama didn't call families of fallen soldiers
(B) The Senate has three days left to pass a budget or else tax "reform" is dead -- and even if the budget passes, tax reform is currently a stalled mess
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#576 Oct 17 2017 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
Obama never called my family when I slipped on ice. Smiley: mad
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CST
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (55)