They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Memorex]

There is a difference between not standing while remaining quiet as to the why and using that moment to push your agenda. The moment is not yours, it's for those that want to share in it. I promise you, 99% of companies out there would punish an employee or at least ask them not to attend if that employee used that moment to call attention to some protest they were participating in. If he simply sat at his desk, no problem. But they would not let him show up and then kneel.

I would like to see this challenged in court then. If I told my manager and any who ask that I am not standing for the national anthem because of how this country has been treating black people...I doubt very much I would be fired. And, if that happens somewhere, I think it should be challenged in court. What if it is a Christian who takes this ritual as worshipping an idol, which Christians are NOT supposed to do according to commandments from God, does not stand? What if a Jew does the same? What if foreign contractors do the same because this is not their country and do not wish to worship our flag?

Forcing people to worship our flag is WRONG. It is what happens in dictatorships. Period.l

The NFL is a perfect example why. Favorability down 47%.

And, that is for management to deal with...but spreading the fire by firing players is not going to help. Like I said, go back to the early 90's when the players were not even on the field while the anthem was playing.

Now rated the 3rd favorite sport in a poll that used to have them number one above all. Ticket and ratings decline. All in just the last few weeks, not to mention it was already a steep slide last year. So in a regular workplace, it would go over the exact same.

And, like I said, the NFL was having falling rating well into last season. This is NOT the only issue at play here. Let's say they tell players to stand or be fired, so they go on strike. Do you think that will help the situation?

This is only an issue because dickhead Trump would rather the nation talk about this then debate his attempt to end Obamacare, or him leading us to war in North Korea, or the Russia investigation, or "Pworto Reeco" (Puerto Rico to the rest of the world). Everything is burning around him so all he knows to do is to start a fire somewhere else and point to that.

Do you even read my posts. I stated that if someone simply sat down, it would be and should be fine. But if they attended the gathering where people were standing and actively knelt in protest, I promise you that would not be tolerated. At all.

[slucero]

With the law.. its not about "being resonable"... its about the law.

I would argue the NFL owners could change the rules to say...

"Players will stand for the national anthem, with right hand over heart, for the duration. Players who do not comply will not be allowed to play. Teams that play players in game who voilate this rule will forfeit said game."

And according to the FindLaw statement below: "Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers"

...it would be perfectly within the owners legal rights to do so.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-librar ... sited.html

Freedom Of Speech In The Workplace: The First Amendment Revisited

I spend a substantial amount of my practice on employment law issues, including workplace training on sexual harassment, discrimination and workplace violence. One question that frequently comes up during the training sessions is whether employees have freedom of speech in the workplace. The answer depends on whether the employer is a public or private entity, the type of speech involved, and the employee’s position.

No Constitutional Freedom of Speech in the Private Sector
Employees in the public sector – who work for governmental entities – have First Amendment rights in the workplace, subject to certain restrictions. The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. There are no Washington cases that this author is aware of where freedom of speech has been protected under the First Amendment in private sector workplaces.

Other Freedom of Speech Issues in the Private Sector

On one level, a private sector employer could take the absence of a direct First Amendment right as providing free rein to discipline, terminate or retaliate against employees for their speech in the workplace. Before doing so, however, the private sector employer should take into account the effect of the anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. These laws provide a level of protection for certain types of expression in the workplace, and thus should be considered even if the right of speech associated with these laws is not a “First Amendment” right per se. For example, punishing an employee because of his religion is not technically a First Amendment violation in the private sector, but it would be a violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Conversely, the anti-discrimination laws prohibit certain types of expression on the part of employers, such as comments that constitute sexual or racial harassment, thereby putting a limit on “free speech” in the workplace.

The Bottom Line

Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers, determine if there is some other interest that governs the employee’s ability top speak freely. The following are some examples:

• Is this employee’s speech being restricted or punished because the employee is expressing religious or other beliefs that are different from the employer’s or from co-workers?
  
  
• Are employees of some religions or national origins allowed to express themselves regarding religion or national origin, but not others?
  
  
• Is the employee being punished for speaking a different language during lunch or breaks?
  
  
• Are the employee’s rights to share information protected by some other right, e.g. union regulations under the NLRB or PERC that allow employees to share salary information?

Additionally, determine whether the employer has a duty to restrict the employee’s speech. For example:

• Does the employee’s speech violate the anti-harassment or anti-discrimination laws, including local ordinances?
  
  
• Are other employees using speech or expression to retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her legal rights?
  
  
• Is the employee entitled to whistleblower protection?

By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.

[Monker]

[/quote]
With the law.. its not about "being resonable"... its about the law. [/quote]

Except he wasn't talking about "the law". He was simply talking about screaming racial slurs at work. That is not the same as what was being discussed here.

I would argue the NFL owners could change the rules to say...

"Players will stand for the national anthem, with right hand over heart, for the duration. Players who do not comply will not be allowed to play. Teams that play players in game who voilate this rule will forfeit said game."

I would say that would be grounds for the players union to go on strike, and take the NFL to court if anybody is not allowed to play, is fired, or a game is forced to be forteited.

And according to the FindLaw statement below:

The problem is, I could use this same text to back up my point:

The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. There are no Washington cases that this author is aware of where freedom of speech has been protected under the First Amendment in private sector workplaces.

This reads that it is unclear if it applies to private companies...because it has not been challenged in court. Also, it depends of the "type of speach", which was said earlier in your post.

Other Freedom of Speech Issues in the Private Sector

This is saying that a private sector emploer is limited on how they can restrict freedom of speech. You all were saying an employer can force an employee to do whatever it wants...not true.

On one level, a private sector employer could take the absence of a direct First Amendment right as providing free rein to discipline, terminate or retaliate against employees for their speech in the workplace. Before doing so, however, the private sector employer should take into account the effect of the anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. These laws provide a level of protection for certain types of expression in the workplace, and thus should be considered even if the right of speech associated with these laws is not a “First Amendment” right per se. For example, punishing an employee because of his religion is not technically a First Amendment violation in the private sector, but it would be a violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Conversely, the anti-discrimination laws prohibit certain types of expression on the part of employers, such as comments that constitute sexual or racial harassment, thereby putting a limit on “free speech” in the workplace.

Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers, determine if there is some other interest that governs the employee’s ability top speak freely. The following are some examples:

Is this employee’s speech being restricted or punished because the employee is expressing religious or other beliefs that are different from the employer’s or from co-workers?

Are employees of some religions or national origins allowed to express themselves regarding religion or national origin, but not others?

Is the employee being punished for speaking a different language during lunch or breaks?

Are the employee’s rights to share information protected by some other right, e.g. union regulations under the NLRB or PERC that allow employees to share salary information?
Additionally, determine whether the employer has a duty to restrict the employee’s speech. For example:
Does the employee’s speech violate the anti-harassment or anti-discrimination laws, including local ordinances?

Are other employees using speech or expression to retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her legal rights?

Is the employee entitled to whistleblower protection?

By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.

[/quote]

When answering these questions, I would say that not standing for the anthem leans more favorably to the employee. The employer looks to be punishing the employee simply because he disagrees politicaly...whether that be over what the employee is protesting, or simply the debate if this is a lawful protest. Not standing does not violate any laws and it does not interfere with anybody elses rights (including the employers), Therefore, the reasoning is simply to supress the employees expression of his opinion. IMO, *MY* opinion is that is wrong...and I would love to see the issue in the NFL be taken to court and appealed to the Supreme Court - I think the NFL would lose.

So, IMO, this is not very well defined...and it will take court cases to get it there.

[Boomchild]

Not standing and sitting on the bench is one thing, kneeling is another. That turns it from abstaining to a public display of protest. I would argue that since they are "on the clock" they do not have the right to protest on the employers time. For me the simple solution is to direct those players that do not wish to abide by the standard practice to stay back in the locker room and enter after it is over.

[Boomchild]

[Boomchild]

[Boomchild]

[Monker]

Not standing and sitting on the bench is one thing, kneeling is another.

I don't think so. When this first started, we were not talking about players near the bench, but players standing on the sideline...away from the bench, so "taking a knee" was the closest thing to sitting...and I shouldn't make a difference anyway.

As I said, if I told my manager and anybody who asked, that I was not standing to protest the treatment of blacks in this country, I do not believe I can legaly be fired over it.

That turns it from abstaining to a public display of protest.

It doesn't make any difference. I would not be breaking any law, I would not be disrupting others, I would not be publicly shaming the company at all. I should have the Constitutional right to do it.

I would argue that since they are "on the clock" they do not have the right to protest on the employers time.

And, I would argue that it is time the company is spending on a ritual to worship a flag and song so it is NOT on "company time". It is on time the company has intentionaly set aside from work.

For me the simple solution is to direct those players that do not wish to abide by the standard practice to stay back in the locker room and enter after it is over.

And, I would argue that this is singling out people based on political beliefs and that is discrimination. If one stays in the locker room - they ALL should, which is what I think they should do anyway.

[slucero]

This reads that it is unclear if it applies to private companies...because it has not been challenged in court.

You must have skipped over the part where they specifically stated:

Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers

Because it has not been challenged in court... yet... by definition, that means it is within their legal rights to do so.

That is my point.

[Monker]

This reads that it is unclear if it applies to private companies...because it has not been challenged in court.

You must have skipped over the part where they specifically stated:

Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers

Because it has not been challenged in court... yet... by definition, that means it is within their legal rights to do so.

That is my point.

And, my point is that just because it does not explicitly state it in law does not mean it is legal to do. Which is why I refer back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If a person is executing their right to protest in a lawful way that does not harm anybody else, or the corporation, than they should be allowed to do it. If an employer tramples on a person's rights without cause, than they are mistreating that person. In fact, Trump is in shady ground by condemning NFL players...it is a road that leads to abuse of power.

[Monker]

Funny that ANY Trump supporter would post this...with Trump having the same accusation, and tape of him admitting to abusing women. And, him going backstage to check out nude teenagers and telling them he would date them in a few years when they are old enough.

[slucero]

And, my point is that just because it does not explicitly state it in law does not mean it is legal to do.

The ambiguity and ignorance in this statement is appalling, and a classic strawman argument.



Please cite anything specifically and explicitly NOT made illegal by law that is actually illegal...

[ohsherrie]

Funny that ANY Trump supporter would post this...with Trump having the same accusation, and tape of him admitting to abusing women. And, him going backstage to check out nude teenagers and telling them he would date them in a few years when they are old enough.

This post represents the hypocrisy of all the outrage being spouted by the Democrats In Hollywood and Washington and you know it.

[Boomchild]

Funny that ANY Trump supporter would post this...with Trump having the same accusation, and tape of him admitting to abusing women. And, him going backstage to check out nude teenagers and telling them he would date them in a few years when they are old enough.

This post represents the hypocrisy of all the outrage being spouted by the Democrats In Hollywood and Washington and you know it.

The response is just a deflection. A way not to address the hypocrisy of the party's virtue signaling.

[Boomchild]

NEWS ALERT! Russian's used Pokemon Go to to steal election from Hillary!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOOcGF72bdA

[Monker]

Not a deflection. I said months ago that Republicans no longer have any moral high ground. They spent decades building themselves up as the party of morals and family values, even courting Christian fundamentalists. When the Republicans NOMINATED Trump, they became hypocrites and lost any high ground that they had. Hearing Billy Graham's son try to explain how he could still endorse Trump after the "Access Hollywood" tape came out was disgraceful. Billy Bush gets fired over it, and Trump gets elected President...how is that for hypocrisy?

Until you clean up your own President and vote according to how you preach, you are a hypocrite - at best - when you post such cartoons critiquing other people (ANYBODY, not just Democrats) moral character. Clean up your own house before you complain about somebody else.

[Monker]

And, my point is that just because it does not explicitly state it in law does not mean it is legal to do.

The ambiguity and ignorance in this statement is appalling, and a classic strawman argument.



Please cite anything specifically and explicitly NOT made illegal by law that is actually illegal...

What I am saying is there are some broad brush strokes when dealing with these legal things. For example, there is no specific law that says a fast food restaurant can not serve dangerously hot coffee. So, a person gets second degree burns and has to take it to court to show that it IS negligence and that they ARE responsible when they serve coffee just below the boiling point, which can't even be consumed, and is against the employees explicit instructions.

In this case, there is no law that says an employee MUST stand for the national anthem. There is no law that says a corporation must allow it. So, who's 'rights' are more important here, the corporation's or the individuals? I say the individual...but it is unknown because it will need to be settled in court. Even if congress passed a law, for either side, it should be challenged in court to verify it is Constitutional.

[Monker]

Not a deflection. I said months ago that Republicans no longer have any moral high ground. They spent decades building themselves up as the party of morals and family values, even courting Christian fundamentalists. When the Republicans NOMINATED Trump, they became hypocrites and lost any high ground that they had. Hearing Billy Graham's son try to explain how he could still endorse Trump after the "Access Hollywood" tape came out was disgraceful. Billy Bush gets fired over it, and Trump gets elected President...how is that for hypocrisy?

Until you clean up your own President and vote according to how you preach, you are a hypocrite - at best - when you post such cartoons critiquing other people (ANYBODY, not just Democrats) moral character. Clean up your own house before you complain about somebody else.

Let us know when Trump gets near the status of Governor Bill Clinton, the Kennedys, Roosevelt, Johnson, and other democrats. Don't forget your Weiner. Again, Trump said "you could", he never said he did.

He's already there and has been for just over a year. Your argument about Access Hollywood makes about as much sense as arguing about what the definition of "is" is.

The problems of the Democrats are not mine. I could put a list of Republicans together, too. But, "Donald Jackoff Trump" would be first on the list.

[Monker]

Hey Monker, a couple of months ago you were so interested in Russia. No comment? How about this?

http://nypost.com/2017/10/17/team-obama ... an-crimes/

I have no idea what you are talking about....maybe your link is an article about Spicer talking to Muehler. I have not talked about that because I expect him to be interviewed...he was in the middle of things. Since there are no leaks (unlike the White House), there really isn't anything to talk about...unless you want to guess about all the negative crap that Spicer said.

[Monker]

It's easy not to leak anything when there is nothing to leak. [/quote[

Considering the people who have recently been interviewed, ANYTHING leaked would be huge news...even if it was all positive news for Trump...which I doubt it is. It has been a very, very tight ship. Even the Manafort "raid" was not leaked until long after it happened.

Hillary and Barack are about to dominate headlines. Although more then likely, not where you gather your news.

Considering the "fumbles" that Trump consistently makes every few days, I highly doubt anybody else will "dominate the headlines". They guy is completely incompetent and needs to be ousted. He doesn't even work well with his own cabinet appointees. In fact, the ONLY people he has been able to deal with are DEMOCRATS that people like you HATE. How much longer does the country have to suffer through the ignorance and stupidity that people like you voted for.

[Seven Wishes]

Where, precisely, does my post reference "flip-flopping" (something the Cheeto Benito has mastered in his early-onset dementia)?

The point is, the right is immolating the causes for which it has long espoused for a fascist traitor with no proclivity for honesty or reason, who's using the office for personal enrichment and defecating on the very Constitution he claims to champion.

Good God.

Does the GOP not realize it's being led over a cliff by a chameleon-esque carnival barker with the common sense of a newt?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41570266

When was the last time a fiscally conservative Republican proposed a trillion-dollar infrastructure package?

He challenged his own fucking SECRETARY OF STATE to an IQ test! And he's calling out Bob Corker, one of his most fervent supporters through the perpetual scandal that is his "administration"!

Trump ran on infrastructure during the campaign. No flip-flop here. Many Trump campaign issues - free trade, foreign policy - were far to the left of GOP orthodoxy. Some even to the left of Hillary.

[S2M]

And, my point is that just because it does not explicitly state it in law does not mean it is legal to do.

The ambiguity and ignorance in this statement is appalling, and a classic strawman argument.



Please cite anything specifically and explicitly NOT made illegal by law that is actually illegal...

What I am saying is there are some broad brush strokes when dealing with these legal things. For example, there is no specific law that says a fast food restaurant can not serve dangerously hot coffee. So, a person gets second degree burns and has to take it to court to show that it IS negligence and that they ARE responsible when they serve coffee just below the boiling point, which can't even be consumed, and is against the employees explicit instructions.

In this case, there is no law that says an employee MUST stand for the national anthem. There is no law that says a corporation must allow it. So, who's 'rights' are more important here, the corporation's or the individuals? I say the individual...but it is unknown because it will need to be settled in court. Even if congress passed a law, for either side, it should be challenged in court to verify it is Constitutional.

A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Ayn Rand

[Seven Wishes]

Hey, look what Trump did in a few months that Obama/Clinton couldn't do in what, six years? WINNING!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... of-cruelty

Like the four Green Berets killed in Niger - can you say Benghazi? Hypocrites.

[Boomchild]

[Seven Wishes]

Sean Hannity Really? The mouth-breathing buffoon who's only not lying 14% of the time?!

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

[Seven Wishes]

Hey MONKER, Russia,Russia,Russia. Impeach Trump. Until your called under oath.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-key-figu ... 00448.html

You're. It's you're.

[Seven Wishes]

Hey, look what Trump did in a few months that Obama/Clinton couldn't do in what, six years? WINNING!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... of-cruelty

Like the four Green Berets killed in Niger - can you say Benghazi? Hypocrites.

Ya, it was the fault of a video. Yep, hypocrites would be the word.

No. You're obfuscating because you have nothing with which to make a counterpoint.

We needed an investigation for Benghazi because innocent Americans were killed because of am incompetent Secretary of State and President. Remember? This is the identical situation. Period. So where's your outrage?

Didn't think so.

[tj]

[quote="Seven Wishes"

We needed an investigation for Benghazi because innocent Americans were killed because of am incompetent Secretary of State and President. Remember? This is the identical situation. Period. So where's your outrage?
[/quote]

Not identical. Benghazi was the killing of a US Ambassador and his protective team. I am almost certain that this is not what happened in Niger. Nor have the President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and other Senior administration officials attempted to place blame on a video, knowing that this was untrue.

American servicemen were killed in Niger, which may or may not require an investigation, but it is not identical.

[tj]

Funny that ANY Trump supporter would post this...with Trump having the same accusation, and tape of him admitting to abusing women. And, him going backstage to check out nude teenagers and telling them he would date them in a few years when they are old enough.

This post represents the hypocrisy of all the outrage being spouted by the Democrats In Hollywood and Washington and you know it.

Supporting Trumps policies and Trumps behavior are not the same. I imagine that many of my Democrat friends who support Hillary's policies abhor her support of Weinstein, Bill Clinton and probably others.

Trump is a pig as it relates to his statements and actions regarding the treatment of women over the years. So is/were Bill Clinton, JFK, Bob Packwood, Gary Hart, and hundreds of other political figures over the years. Reagan worked in Hollywood during the 40s and 50s. Does anyone think that he was completely virtuous? GHW Bush, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Wilson, Harding, Taft... Various presidents all the way back to Jefferson all were rumored or have been shown to have had mistresses over the years. Some while in the White House, others before/after.

They are men. Men are often pigs. Until two weeks ago, it was known and accepted in Hollywood. Until Trump, it was known and mostly accepted among politicians (as long as you were the right party). In the few cases where it became known and an issue, it was either defended by the media/hollywood (JFK, Clinton) because the person was "too important" to fail, or their careers were ruined (Packwood, Hart).

Turn on any TV show, broadcast or cable, and there is sex either graphically shown (HBO,Showtime), discussed or insinuated. Commercials for Beer, cars, hamburgers (Carl's Jr) all use sex to sell. Most of these ads have been historically targeted to men. Even the ones which are not, usually are targeted to women to make them sexier to men. Because men are often pigs who think with their penis rather than their head.

Most often, when people attain a role of power they think that the rules don't always apply to them. People get treated like crap by them, but keep quiet and perpetuate it because if furthers their personal interest to do so (casting couch gets the role/sex with the boss gets the promotion). Or if they try to bring it to light, they are shamed and vilified by the supporters of the accused (see Clinton accusers as example), or paid to go away.

Even in the Bible, King David saw Bathsheba naked taking a bath and had her brought to him to have sex with him. He then went so far as to have her husband sent to the front lines in battle, then the rest of the army pulled back so that he was killed in battle in an effort to try and cover up the love child conceived between David and Bathsheba. And David was a guy with hundreds of wives and concubines already, but he just HAD to have one more. A pig.

And yet the Bible says that David was a man after God's own heart. It comes back to the fact that he was a man, and men are often pigs.

A hashtag of #me too is nice, almost cute, but won't solve the problem. Cartoons showing the hypocrisy of one side's outrage may be witty, but won't solve it either. In the political realm, it just cranks up the noise.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Where, precisely, does my post reference "flip-flopping" (something the Cheeto Benito has mastered in his early-onset dementia)?

You asked "when was the last time a fiscally conservative Republican proposed a trillion-dollar infrastructure package?"
This implies that there is some contradiction between Trump's words and actions. There isn't. His campaign ran on infrastructure.

The point is, the right is immolating the causes for which it has long espoused for a fascist traitor with no proclivity for honesty or reason, who's using the office for personal enrichment and defecating on the very Constitution he claims to champion.

Or maybe Trump has changed the party. That's what real transformative leaders do. The Heritage Foundation even said, "Trump has converted the GOP into a populist working-class party." Whether you agree with that or not, he did not run as a garden variety Jeb Bush Republican. His win was a rejection of politics as usual. Also, the President most commonly associated with infrastructure upgrades is Eisenhower, a republican.