I would agree except for greatest. The only thing we're greatest at is military expenditures and size of Fountain drinks.
South Park - Sit, Stand, Kneel
- Thread starter DanC78
- Start date
I would agree except for greatest. The only thing we're greatest at is military expenditures and size of Fountain drinks.
Ummm, yeah I don't think we should have a day celebrating someone who "found" people already living in his "newly discovered land" when Chinese and Vikings had already been here, especially when he was literally directly responsible for the 250,000+ natives killed in two years on Haiti under his governorship (setting up a "sport" of killing natives with hunting dogs, cutting off the hands of natives who didn't supple a thimbleful of gold every three months, set up butcher shops of native body parts for use as cannibal treats and dog food, kidnapped girls as young as 9 to act as sex slaves, etc...). Columbus was so horrible he even offended European sensibilities at the time and he was shipped back to Spain in chains (but eventually they loved the gold more and sent him back on a fourth voyage).
Columbus is FAR worse than any of the slavemasters we honor.
It's not a fireable offense. League rules say players have to be on the field during the National Anthem. It does not say that they have to stand.
LOL that's what I thought. Well, I guess we shouldn't celebrate any human or any government in the history of mankind, all have some dirt I guess!
Political statements for a private company is. Freedom for political speech does not apply to private companies. Kind of like when a jerk off shows up at Walmart to work and has a KKK shirt on, they could be fired.
Not leaders who commit mass genocide, enslave children as sex slaves and encourages the creation of real bloodsport and the creation of cannibal butcher shops. I'll assume you're just ignorant of history and therefore wouldn't otherwise "lol" at some of the worst atrocities in history committed by your celebrity.
So not standing for national anthem = wearing KKK shirt to work. Got it.
You missed my point....humans have evolved from hundreds of years ago, we have a much different standard nowadays, so to hold people from the 1400's to modern standards of decency is well.....pretty ridiculous!
When at slavery's peak over 92% of families didn't own slaves, is that a fair way in your opinion to describe the society as a whole?
Not at all man. I get where the problem is here if you equate the two to be the same.
Even by what little passed for humanity in 14th century Europeans, Columbus was a monster. Perhaps you misread where I stated he was thrown in jail for his crimes by the Spanish Crown.
Here’s just the wiki summary without the gory details.
“Bobadilla, who ruled as governor from 1500 until his death in a storm in 1502, had also been tasked by the Court with investigating the accusations of brutality made against Columbus. Arriving in Santo Domingo while Columbus was away in the explorations of his third voyage, Bobadilla was immediately met with complaints about all three Columbus brothers: Christopher, Bartolomeo, and Diego. A recently discovered report by Bobadilla alleges that Columbus regularly used torture and mutilation to govern Hispaniola. The 48-page report, found in 2006 in the national archive in the Spanish city of Simancas, contains testimonies from 23 people, including both enemies and supporters of Columbus, about the treatment of colonial subjects by Columbus and his brothers during his seven-year rule.
According to the report, Columbus once punished a man found guilty of stealing corn by having his ears and nose cut off and then selling him into slavery. Testimony recorded in the report claims that Columbus congratulated his brother Bartolomeo on "defending the family" when the latter ordered a woman paraded naked through the streets and then had her tongue cut out for suggesting that Columbus was of lowly birth.[84] The document also describes how Columbus put down native unrest and revolt; he first ordered a brutal crackdown in which many natives were killed and then paraded their dismembered bodies through the streets in an attempt to discourage further rebellion. "Columbus's government was characterised by a form of tyranny."
Because of their gross mismanagement of governance, Columbus and his brothers were arrested and imprisoned upon their return to Spain from the third voyage.”
One of Columbus’ men, Bartolome De Las Casas, was so mortified by Columbus’ brutal atrocities against the native peoples, that he quit working for Columbus and became a Catholic priest. He described how the Spaniards under Columbus’ command cut off the legs of children who ran from them, to test the sharpness of their blades. According to De Las Casas, the men made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. He says that Columbus’ men poured people full of boiling soap. In a single day, De Las Casas was an eye witness as the Spanish soldiers dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 native people. “Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight as no age can parallel,” De Las Casas wrote. “My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature that now I tremble as I write.”
De Las Casas spent the rest of his life trying to protect the helpless native people. But after a while, there were no more natives to protect. Experts generally agree that before 1492, the population on the island of Hispaniola probably numbered above 3 million. Within 20 years of Spanish arrival, it was reduced to only 60,000.
What part of Breitbart or the Daily Stormer did you pull that nonsense from?
“The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas). The 1860 Census counted a total of 31,443,321 people, of which 3,953,760 were slaves. So slaves accounted for 12.6 percent of the national population.”
“It's also possible that the Census data is misleadingly low, Goodheart said.
"Many non-slaveholding whites in the South rented slaves from wealthier slaveholders," he said. "So it was very common for a white Southerner to be a 'slave master' but not technically a 'slave owner."
We do have a great fountain, but unfortunately it was discovered by a diminutive conquistador from another meanie country.
I guess this is from the game operations manual?
“The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.
“During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition...
...It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
Last edited:
I'd suggest reading the entire article you quoted from below, since that's where the info came from.
A clever lawyer would note that 'States that would soon secede' does not equal the United States. But those are cool oranges, bro.
Not sayin, just sayin.
Ok. The NFL and the owners have the right to enforce or not enforce the players to stand for the anthem or not. They decided to allow them to kneel or sit.
So people really just need to move on. Either watch or don't. Certainly i would hope no one wants to have a law written to no longer let a business to allow or disallow kneeling or sitting for the anthem. Let the NFL change their course or not based on any loss or gain in revenue. As a consumer, you can choose to watch or not. It's really simple.
So people really just need to move on. Either watch or don't. Certainly i would hope no one wants to have a law written to no longer let a business to allow or disallow kneeling or sitting for the anthem. Let the NFL change their course or not based on any loss or gain in revenue. As a consumer, you can choose to watch or not. It's really simple.
Agree with this.
I'm disappointed that the owners have gone the direction they've gone. And while I was already more or less not watching the NFL for reasons not related to the National Anthem...this has put me squarely in the "not watching at all anymore" camp.
But it's their league. Their business. Their rules. They've made a decision that it's better to let the players protest while in uniform. I think that's a bad decision, business-wise...but we'll see.
http://time.com/4955704/nfl-league-rulebook-a62-63-national-anthem-rule/
Here's the 2017 rules manual.
http://operations.nfl.com/media/2646/2017-playing-rules.pdf
"Both teams must be on the field to kick off at the scheduled time for the start of each half. Prior to the start of the game, both teams are required to appear on the field at least 10 minutes prior to the scheduled kickoff in order to ensure sufficient time for proper warm-up. Designated members of the officiating crew must notify both head coaches personally of the scheduled time for kickoff prior to the start of each half."
"Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office. All such items approved by the League office, if any, must relate to team or League events or personages. The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns. Further, any such approved items must be modest in size, tasteful, non-commercial, and noncontroversial; must not be worn for more than one football season; and if approved for use by a specific team, must not be worn by players on other teams in the League."
Regardless, no where does it say not standing is a fireable offense.
This is correct. The section pertaining to the anthem is in the operations manual, not the rulebook. In the operating manual it says players must be on the field for the anthem and should be standing.
Semantics matter. Even if it were against the rules, it's the NFL's option whether to enforce it, which I doubt they'd do.
Brian McCarthy, the NFL’s vice president of communications, shared the portion of the manual that addresses the anthem, and that language is what has been shared on social media but mistakenly attributed to the rulebook.
McCarthy stressed that passage about the national anthem is a guideline and not a requirement. The key words in the operations manual are “should” and “may” and not “must.” No player is required to stand at attention.
Troy Vincent, the NFL’s executive vice president of football operations, told The Sporting News in March that “the league didn’t discuss setting a standard protocol for all players during the pregame playing of the anthem.”
That Sporting News story said Vincent told Vic Carucci and Alex Marvez: “Frankly, the players have that right. They’re asked (to stand), but not required.”
Well, yes, it doesn't say that. I find your excerpt interesting in that the spirit of the language is to avoid political expressions by players on the field or sideline.
The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns.
Last edited:
right but the statement "through helmet decals..." narrows it down to items on their person. Not their actual bodies.
Hence where the grey area is. If it leaves off that qualifying statement about decals, arm bands, etc" then I would agree that it should have been nixed early.
It also doesn't state what the punishment is, but most things I've seen is fines or suspensions, not firing. Just focusing on firing, as that was the ridiculous statement made earlier in the thread (not by you).
players are employees of the franchises. the nfl can't fire them. they can suspend them and fine them but both would result in the NFLPA's involvement and a string of lawsuits and appeals (freaking brady considered taking his case to the supreme court!)
this is not something the NFLPA will be backing down from, the owners and goodell's office know that.
within a week or two the media will move on to some other contrived controversy and people, except the obsessive nutjobs, will move on from this. would be great if the media focused on things that matter, like getting into the weeds of tax policy or health care... or legitimately addressing the racial inequalities many Americans continue to face.
Yes, I think our illustrious leader shouting a tag line "you're fired" from his TV show was not helpful to clarifying the issues, at all.
So who are the only people here taking a knee and not removing their hats during the National Anthem? Hmmmmm.
7.8% from that article was the percentage of people who owned not the households who own (ie women and children didn’t own slaves) and just from 1860. You go further back in time than 1860 and far more white people owned slaves. Blacks as a percentage of population dropped tremendously from 1790 to 1860 due to the increased immigration of poor whites from Ireland, Italy, Germany and elsewhere who took the positions previously held by black slaves in the North East. In 1790, New York had more slaves than Tennessee, Kentucky, and Delaware put together and Georgia only had about 6,000 more. In fact, as most slaves in New York City and Boston were just one or two servants per household, you could say that the roughly that same 7.8% of New Yorkers owned slaves in 1790 and as a household would be double or triple that. Meanwhile in North Carolina there were almost one slave to every one white citizen. New Hampshire and Vermont were the only states without a significant portion of slaves, even Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were such that about 10% of the households owned a slave in 1790.
See page 10 https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-46.pdf
As I said, the difference was that the north used slaves primarily for housekeeping, cooking, babysitting, and other typical servant related work while in the midAtlantic states like Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and North Carolina along with the Southern states and territories used slaves not only as that but primarily as field hands. So they would typically own more.
But it most assuredly was not that 8% were evil slaveholders and 92% kindhearted abolitionists like you’re implying. During the founding of our country the wealthy northerners who could afford slaves did so (10-15% of the population) and in the south it was at least every other household. Only when the influx of poor and/or indentured rose to meet the needs was slavery outlawed in the north. In fact getting to that other half of the white southerners being kind hearted nonslave holders...most of those were basically slaves or recent former slaves themselves. Right before the civil war literally 93%, yes almost 100% of white immigrants to the midAtlantic were indentured servants. In fact George Washington kept a number of white slaves I mean “indentured servants” as well as black slaves and even filed paperwork seeking the return of two runaway white slaves I mean “indentured servants” to his property.
Indentured servitude didn’t end as a main source of immigration until the mid1800s (The majority of Irish immigrants even during the Civil War were indentured servants as they could not afford the passage fees on their own and ended up with a 5-7 year slavery sentence sometimes more) and didn’t actually end until the early 1900s when the last indentured servants from India and China stopped showing up (and frankly it didn’t really stop, it’s just not open. The “Mexicans” ie illegal Latino immigrants from all over Central and South America are usually held to the equivalent or far worse). So the majority of that other half of nonslaveholding Southerners and Mid-Atlantic whites were simply either basically slaves themselves (especially in the founding period of the late 1700s early 1800s) or just recently free and therefore too poor to own slaves.
So yes, I can safely say slavery and it’s close cousin indentured servitude (the only difference being children were free and most indentured servants had the hope of freedom in 5-10 years as opposed to perpetual slavery) were the founding bedrocks of the US and to claim otherwise is to ignore history and easily researchable facts.
"the percentage of all American families that owned slaves. The answer: 7.4 percent"
Link
:braces for next wall of text:
I already put actual facts showing that was wrong. Moreover that leaves out indentured servants that count as white but were actually slaves.
Besides are you really attempting to defend slavery by saying only 10% could afford it in 1860? First of all that fact is wrong for a number of reasons (ignoring that by that late most slaves were owned by the wealthiest and rented out to middle class), ignored indentured servants and former indentured servants that made up a hefty percentage of the nonslaveholding families and ignores that it had been outlawed in the biggest population percentage. It doesn’t cover up that even in the 1860s when slavery had been consolidated into the wealthier families that 32% of households owned them where it was legal. So again, you’re being purposefully ignorant of history.
My quote is from the source you cited.
It supports my original contention.
Your attempts to redefine what constitutes the United States or a slave doesn't alter what I wrote.
How many legs does a cow have when we call a tail a leg?
Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.
I’m pretty sure the United States was around in 1790 when I was citing statistics far in excess of the 1860 ones you prefer. There were more slaves in 1860 than 1790 but they were in the hands of less people due it being outlawed in the North and a huge influx of indentured servants from Ireland, Italy and Germany. In 1790 even in the North most middle class and above had slaves and/or indentured servants in their possession. That was doubly true in Virginia and North Carolina were nearly every household of any wherewithal owned slaves and/or indentured servants. By the 1860s the slaves had been either freed in the north or consolidated down to the largest plantations in the south where renting slaves out to middle income whites became the most common way they had Access as the price of slaves had gone up even in relative terms as the transportation of New slaves from outside the country had been outlawed.
So you want to pull a Breitbart/Daily Stormer and say 8% slave owners means America wasn’t built on slavery? Even if I accepted that number as true (and I just explained why that isn’t), what percentage of Americans now make up our corporate farms that America’s economy is currently built on? Far less (2 percent own farms of any sort, 97% of which are subsistence farms for the family making the .06% who own the giant corporate farms the lifeblood of our economy as they make up 66% of sales). So 8% is a HUGE number more than 400% those Americans who currently are farmers.
Have you ever gotten a hand cramp trying to come up with just one more strawman?
You’re basing figures on 1860 when we had the most slaves but least percentage of slaveowners. There’s no strawman, that’s fire engulfing your tiki torch argument.
Wowza, I clicked on a thread about the NFL protests and wound up here!
We're not in Kansas anymore!
You aren't kidding @BacardiNole , it's gotten a little cray cray up in here.
Should draft dodgers really call people who peacefully protest unpatriotic? Asking for a friend...
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Baseball Live updates: Penn at FSU, game 2 (Saturday at 2 p.m.)- Latest: Bob Ferrante
