enough is enough

[cammb]

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706416]

Originally Posted by cammb

There is no ignorance on my part, of that I am certain. Answers? You can't handle answers--they escape you, you deflect them, or they are simply beyond your comprehension. So let me see if I can make this more clear.

There will be no firings for kneeling at the National Anthem.
There could be no firings absent formal action taken through the CBA, which the owners would lose. Following along so far?
Whether the players are themselves oppressed is irrelevant. I'm a 58 year-old white guy who never served in the military. Do I have no right to join those who have been oppressed and protest with them at what I believe to be injustice? Or do I have to pass some exam satisfactory to you that I have such a right? Who are you to tell me what causes I may protest and those I cannot? And if I'm allowed to join a protest, where do you draw the line at who else can and cannot? There are white players kneeling in these protests. Do they need to prove to you that and how they've been mistreated? Is there a Jackie Robinson test? (Apparently he earned the right to not salute the flag or stand for the anthem.) Don't worry, it was a rhetorical question--the Answer is no.

Let me see if I can make it clear for you, I did not say hey will be fired I said they CAN BE fired. Where do you come off with this insane diatribe? I know who you are and what you represent so please no holier than thou bs

[nolemmings]

[QUOTE=cammb;1706659]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Let me see if I can make it clear for you, I did not say hey will be fired I said they CAN BE fired. Where do you come off with this insane diatribe? I know who you are and what you represent so please no holier than thou bs

You don't know me or what I represent. You know who I am, i.e., my name, because I state my full name per forum rules and because I would anyway. In the words of Roger Daltrey, "Who the f--- are you?"

[packs]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

While the ruling may or may not extend to school programs (nothing I've read specifically mentions sports or other extracurricular activities), I personally don't think it should extend to school programs. Those are privileges, not so much a right. That's what changed for me.

I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

[Cliff Bowman]

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706670]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

You don't know me or what I represent. You know who I am, i.e., my name, because I state my full name per forum rules and because I would anyway. In the words of Roger Daltrey, "Who the f--- are you?"

Those are the words of Pete Townshend, voice of Roger Daltrey. Daltrey couldn't write a decent song if his life depended on it.

[nolemmings]

BTW, I am not holier than thou or holier than anyone. It is not me who is telling others what they must do to show they are "real Americans", "respectful Americans" or "Patriots". Seriously, re-read the thread and tell us who comes across as "holier than thou".

[nolemmings]

[QUOTE=Cliff Bowman;1706672]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Those are the words of Pete Townshend, voice of Roger Daltrey. Daltrey couldn't write a decent song if his life depended on it.

Point taken, sort of. Roger sang those words, but Pete clearly was the man.

EDITED TO ADD: Besides, I always wondered if Roger ad-libbed that f-word into the lyrics, thereby making it is his own. It was within his skill set
Still, thanks for the clarification.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

Don't get me started on Title IX. That's a joke of a law in and of itself.

The Supreme Court says a lot of things. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them; I just have to abide by the laws.

[packs]

That is the exact issue I brought up. Louisiana Parish doesn't know the law, and isn't acting within it when it threatens to punish public school students protected under Tinker vs. Des Moines by the highest court in our country.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

That is the exact issue I brought up. Louisiana Parish doesn't know the law, and isn't acting within it when it threatens to punish public school students protected under Tinker vs. Des Moines by the highest court in our country.

Title IX visibly applies to sports. Tinker v. Des Moines does not.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Seriously, re-read the thread

This is a joke, right? You need to re-read the thread. It's about those wanting to boycott NFL games. If you agree, then do it. If you disagree, keep your mouth shut and move on.

[packs]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Title IX visibly applies to sports. Tinker v. Des Moines does not.

Tinker v. Des Moines applies to any and all silent, non-violent protests that take place on public school grounds. It is about protecting civil liberties, not protesting specifically and it protects public school students on school grounds. It's history is steeped in students who chose to wear black armbands to school during the Vietnam War.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Tinker v. Des Moines applies to any and all silent, non-violent protests that take place on public school grounds. It is about protecting civil liberties, not protesting specifically and it protects public school students on school grounds. It's history is steeped in students who chose to wear black armbands to school during the Vietnam War.

For the sake of argument, let's just say you're right. So, once again, where's the law that says they coach has to play them?

[packs]

I don't know what that has to do with anything. I brought up a public school who sent notice that it would unlawfully punish its players for lawfully protesting.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know what that has to do with anything. I brought up a public school who sent notice that it would unlawfully punish its players for lawfully protesting.

You don't know what it has to do with anything?

It relates to what you said because even though the school or coach may not legally be able to punish them, they can get around that by just not playing them. They still get punished, it's just unofficial. Get it now? Need a 5 year old to explain it to you?

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

FYI: Title IX is not a Supreme Court ruling. They have ruled on it and clarified it, but it is a federal statute. Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688

[packs]

Originally Posted by Michael B

FYI: Title IX is not a Supreme Court ruling. They have ruled on it and clarified it, but it is a federal statute. Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688

Yes, but it's validity is upheld by the Supreme Court. That's what makes it federal law.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You don't know what it has to do with anything?

It relates to what you said because even though the school or coach may not legally be able to punish them, they can get around that by just not playing them. They still get punished, it's just unofficial. Get it now? Need a 5 year old to explain it to you?

There is a big difference between official policy and unofficial policy. What you're saying didn't happen. What I'm saying did. So THAT is the difference. That is why what you're saying has no bearing. It is fantasy. I am talking about practice.

[Michael B]

[QUOTE=packs;1706716]Yes, but it's validity is upheld by the Supreme Court. That's what makes it federal law.

Actually, it was federal law once it was signed by President Nixon. The challenges that arose, upon which the Supreme Court ruled, were to specific points in the law and when and where it applied i.e. Grove v. Bell 465 US 555 (1984), not the law itself.

[packs]

I don't want to get into a war of semantics when the intricate details aren't really making or breaking anything. My point was the supreme court sets rules public schools and colleges have to follow, and one of those rules is Title IX in its current form and another is Tinker v Des Moines. I brought up Title IX only to demonstrate that public school policy applies to all aspects of the public school system, sports included.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't want to get into a war of semantics when the intricate details aren't really making or breaking anything. My point was the supreme court sets rules public schools and colleges have to follow, and one of those rules is Title IX in its current form and another is Tinker v Des Moines. I brought up Title IX only to demonstrate that public school policy applies to all aspects of the public school system, sports included.

Actually, the semantics do apply here. Title IX, as stated above, was a federal law prior to the Supreme Court rulings. Therefore, the law was upheld/adjusted accordingly.

In the same sense, while Tinker v. Des Moines has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, it doesn't specifically mention sports and, if it ever got that far, could be ruled upon again to adjust for any situations such as this. Obviously it's a case (not a law; the 1st Amendment is the law), but it can still be adjusted.

That is what we are saying. Yes, the Supreme Court made a ruling, but it is also up for interpretation, and could be ruled upon again to specifically include or exclude sports.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by packs

That is the exact issue I brought up. Louisiana Parish doesn't know the law, and isn't acting within it when it threatens to punish public school students protected under Tinker vs. Des Moines by the highest court in our country.

The Supreme Court does not make law. Only congress and states can. Congress can negate any Supreme Court decision

[packs]

Originally Posted by cammb

The Supreme Court does not make law. Only congress and states can. Congress can negate any Supreme Court decision

Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision. The decision is the interpretation of the law. Congress can change the law that the court decided upon, or amend a portion of the Constitution, but it cannot ignore the ruling of the court.

[cammb]

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706670][QUOTE=cammb;1706659]

You don't know me or what I represent. You know who I am, i.e., my name, because I state my full name per forum rules and because I would anyway. In the words of Roger Daltrey, "Who the f--- are you?"[/QUOTE

OK, calm down, snowflake!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision. The decision is the interpretation of the law. Congress can change the law that the court decided upon, or amend a portion of the Constitution, but it cannot ignore the ruling of the court.

Congress can only propose an amendment, not amend. That's up to the states.

[nolemmings]

[QUOTE=cammb;1706759][QUOTE=nolemmings;1706670]

Originally Posted by cammb

You don't know me or what I represent. You know who I am, i.e., my name, because I state my full name per forum rules and because I would anyway. In the words of Roger Daltrey, "Who the f--- are you?"[/QUOTE

OK, calm down, snowflake!

So who are you?--put your full name by your posts, oh legal scholar and mental giant.

Congress' laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court, which is free to find them unconstitutional where appropriate. A ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not "negated" by Congress simply saying otherwise. You see, oh learned one, that Congress itself is limited by the Constitution as to what it can do. Who knew? (Psst...most everyone).

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706771][QUOTE=cammb;1706759]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

So who are you?--put your full name by your posts, oh legal scholar and mental giant.

Congress' laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court, which is free to find them unconstitutional where appropriate. A ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not "negated" by Congress simply saying otherwise. You see, oh learned one, that Congress itself is limited by the Constitution as to what it can do. Who knew? (Psst...most everyone).

Yet another thread that is a field day for non lawyers butchering the law. Sigh.

[bnorth]

Yet another thread that is a field day for non lawyers butchering the law. Sigh.

Maybe they are all lawyers, not everyone is good at their job.

[cammb]

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706771][QUOTE=cammb;1706759]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

So who are you?--put your full name by your posts, oh legal scholar and mental giant.

Congress' laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court, which is free to find them unconstitutional where appropriate. A ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not "negated" by Congress simply saying otherwise. You see, oh learned one, that Congress itself is limited by the Constitution as to what it can do. Who knew? (Psst...most everyone).

Hey, snowflake, look up the word Negate. And yes, I am a mental giant

[cammb]

Originally Posted by packs

Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision. The decision is the interpretation of the law. Congress can change the law that the court decided upon, or amend a portion of the Constitution, but it cannot ignore the ruling of the court.

Again, reread what I posted. No mention of congress overruling Supreme Court

[Leon]

[QUOTE=cammb;1706759][QUOTE=nolemmings;1706670]

Originally Posted by cammb

You don't know me or what I represent. You know who I am, i.e., my name, because I state my full name per forum rules and because I would anyway. In the words of Roger Daltrey, "Who the f--- are you?"[/QUOTE

OK, calm down, snowflake!

Well, you do need to have your full name in your post(s) for comments like those, you know that.

[nolemmings]

Perhaps his full name should be put out there by someone else, as it has from time to time when one ignores the rules and requests that he identify himself.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Perhaps his full name should be put out there by someone else, as it has from time to time when one ignores the rules and requests that he identify himself.

I usually like to give folks an opportunity to put it out there for themselves once asked. Not always but usually.

[vintagetoppsguy]

There are a few people in this thread without their full name.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This is a joke, right? You need to re-read the thread. It's about those wanting to boycott NFL games. If you agree, then do it. If you disagree, keep your mouth shut and move on.

This sums up the whole thread perfectly! Some see the protests as legal and perhaps even logical, but in this thread they're called names. Some want to the boycott games and punish players, those who don't should "Keep their mouth shut and move on."

How many posts about boycotting the NFL over the wife-beaters? I'll bet not 158. And David, can you direct me to any posts where you have any vitriol for the NFL for allowing Ray Lewis to continue his HOF career? Because I'd much rather celebrate Kapernick in any way over that criminal.

Ken

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

David, can you direct me to any posts where you have any vitriol for the NFL for allowing Ray Lewis to continue his HOF career?

Well, yes, Ken, I certainly can. Will this one suffice?

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=193661

Post #24, 3rd sentence?

Anything else I can help you with, Ken, because I have nothing better to do today than to search old threads?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

This sums up the whole thread perfectly! Some see the protests as legal and perhaps even logical, but in this thread they're called names. Some want to the boycott games and punish players, those who don't should "Keep their mouth shut and move on."

How many posts about boycotting the NFL over the wife-beaters? I'll bet not 158. And David, can you direct me to any posts where you have any vitriol for the NFL for allowing Ray Lewis to continue his HOF career? Because I'd much rather celebrate Kapernick in any way over that criminal.

Ken

I wasn't a board member back in 2014, but if I was I sure as Hell would have joined in on the conversation, condemning Ray Lewis & Ray Rice. However, you don't need to see posts to realize that people HAVE BEEN protesting the NFL over the DV and other criminality in the league. This isn't the first year that ratings are down. The NFL has been in decline for a couple years now, and the anthem protests have only occurred in the past 2 seasons. So people have been unhappy with other aspects of the NFL, the criminal employees being one of them.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

There are a few people in this thread without their full name.

The one you are referring to is special and doesn't have to reveal his name in these discussions.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

The one you are referring to is special and doesn't have to reveal his name in these discussions.

Dewey make every participant in this thread put their full name in their post? If you're going to say something that imPacks others, I think you should.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Perhaps his full name should be put out there by someone else, as it has from time to time when one ignores the rules and requests that he identify himself.

Ok, you have my name , now what else do you need?

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Dewey make every participant in this thread put their full name in their post? If you're going to say something that imPacks others, I think you should.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but if you are saying that I need to say who I am referring to, yes, I am referring to packs.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but if you are saying that I need to say who I am referring to, yes, I am referring to packs.

No, I already knew who you were referring to.

He's exempt from having his name in posts. I already fought that battle and lost.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No, I already knew who you were referring to.

He's exempt from having his name in posts. I already fought that battle and lost.

I haven't seen him post anything inflammatory, but why do you say he's exempt?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I haven't seen him post anything inflammatory, but why do you say he's exempt?

He isn't exempt and tries to not get into a place where he has to post his full name. I pm'd him again this morning with another informal warning. He said he won't post again in the thread or post opinions that will need his name. He and I have had that discussion before too. Some folks just don't want their name out here. It's their choice as long as they abide by the rules. So there you have it....but the easy and short answer is no one is immune to that policy. It's been that way for over a decade now..

..I should add that the rule, by its own nature, can't really be black and white. It is fairly subjective but the litmus test for me, usually, is if someone said that in my direction would I want to know who they are? The bar is low as I usually want to know who is throwing jabs, debating or arguing with me.

[cammb]

Congrats to the Wash Redskins for showing respect for the flag and anthem

Not to sound like a crybaby, but I wish there was somewhere I could go in this day and age where I don't have to have politics shoved down my throat 24/7. I listen to sports radio - it's all politics and hardly any sports talk (WEEI in the Boston Area being a prime example), social media - nothing but political arguments, chat boards the same thing and then of course television. It's nothing but Obama this and Trump that, even on websites and other media that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. I once saw two guys fighting like rabid dogs about Obama and his policies a few years ago on a frigging Star Wars website. I know it's important and sometimes to the point where our freedom is at risk, but does it have to all the time? I just once would like to have a day where someone talks about a vacation they went on or a great meal they had or an anniversary or a grandchild's first birthday or how great the weather has been. Life is short enough without being pissed off and at war with each other all the time. I wish the whole country could just take a break for a week, celebrate the blessings we have in common and enjoy life. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part or the weed talking?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandBaseBallist

Not to sound like a crybaby, but I wish there was somewhere I could go in this day and age where I don't have to have politics shoved down my throat 24/7. I listen to sports radio - it's all politics and hardly any sports talk (WEEI in the Boston Area being a prime example), social media - nothing but political arguments, chat boards the same thing and then of course television. It's nothing but Obama this and Trump that, even on websites and other media that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. I once saw two guys fighting like rabid dogs about Obama and his policies a few years ago on a frigging Star Wars website. I know it's important and sometimes to the point where our freedom is at risk, but does it have to all the time? I just once would like to have a day where someone talks about a vacation they went on or a great meal they had or an anniversary or a grandchild's first birthday or how great the weather has been. Life is short enough without being pissed off and at war with each other all the time. I wish the whole country could just take a break for a week, celebrate the blessings we have in common and enjoy life. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part or the weed talking?

My grandfather told me that the two things you don't talk about in polite company are politics and religion.

[ALR-bishop]

If you need to talk about something in polite company, talk about sex ?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by drcy

My grandfather told me that the two things you don't talk about in polite company are politics and religion.

I was told that as well by my parents growing up. Now I've realized if I don't talk about it and don't voice my opinion, my side isn't heard. Religion is a different situation, and I don't discuss religion, but politics needs discussed. The issue is, our ability to converse as a society has become so limited, that we're automatically triggered by different views.

Edit: Not that my side is automatically right, but two different points of view creates conversation, which is what needs to be had.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Things get heated in political debate. That's understandable. Sometimes there's insults, sometimes there's name calling. But you have one side that is so vile in their rhetoric taking it to the extreme. Let me give you a few examples.

“That motherf*cker, the one that was shot…. this motherf*cker, like his whole job is like to get people, to convince Republicans to f*cking kick people off f*cking health care. I hate this motherf*cker. I’m glad he got shot, I’m glad he got shot. I’m not going to f*cking say that in public. I wish he was f*cking dead.”
-Phil Montag, Democratic Offical from Nebraska talking about the shooting of Steve Scalise

"I'm actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans are often republican gun toters>"
-Haley Geftman-Gold, CBS Attorney talking about the recent shooting in Las Vegas

Heck, even in this thread, you have people looking forward to the death of other board members.
"Your generation will be dead soon enough"
-gobucksmagic74 to another board member.

There are many other remarks made about Scalise and about the Las Vegas shooting victims that I won't even bring up. I don't understand the vile hatred that comes from this side.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Things get heated in political debate. That's understandable. Sometimes there's insults, sometimes there's name calling. But you have one side that is so vile in their rhetoric taking it to the extreme. Let me give you a few examples.

“That motherf*cker, the one that was shot…. this motherf*cker, like his whole job is like to get people, to convince Republicans to f*cking kick people off f*cking health care. I hate this motherf*cker. I’m glad he got shot, I’m glad he got shot. I’m not going to f*cking say that in public. I wish he was f*cking dead.”
-Phil Montag, Democratic Offical from Nebraska talking about the shooting of Steve Scalise

"I'm actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans are often republican gun toters>"
-Haley Geftman-Gold, CBS Attorney talking about the recent shooting in Las Vegas

Heck, even in this thread, you have people looking forward to the death of other board members."Your generation will be dead soon enough"
-gobucksmagic74 to another board member.

There are many other remarks made about Scalise and about the Las Vegas shooting victims that I won't even bring up. I don't understand the vile hatred that comes from this side.

+1

...and I do not understand why Leon doesn't step in at this post and close this thread!

.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Things get heated in political debate. That's understandable. Sometimes there's insults, sometimes there's name calling. But you have one side that is so vile in their rhetoric taking it to the extreme. Let me give you a few examples.

“That motherf*cker, the one that was shot…. this motherf*cker, like his whole job is like to get people, to convince Republicans to f*cking kick people off f*cking health care. I hate this motherf*cker. I’m glad he got shot, I’m glad he got shot. I’m not going to f*cking say that in public. I wish he was f*cking dead.”
-Phil Montag, Democratic Offical from Nebraska talking about the shooting of Steve Scalise

"I'm actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans are often republican gun toters>"
-Haley Geftman-Gold, CBS Attorney talking about the recent shooting in Las Vegas

Heck, even in this thread, you have people looking forward to the death of other board members.
"Your generation will be dead soon enough"
-gobucksmagic74 to another board member.

There are many other remarks made about Scalise and about the Las Vegas shooting victims that I won't even bring up. I don't understand the vile hatred that comes from this side.

+2