Warbler

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think boycotting Nike is misdirected outrage, and that this outrage is just a fad. So many consumer boycotts come and go, and next year no one will remember this one. Being angry at Nike is just the recent popular thing to do.

Well I know it won’t do any good, but I won’t be buying anything from them. It is a matter of principle for me. I have as just as much to protest via boycott as those that protest via disrespecting the Anthem.

Honestly I think you’re the one disrespecting the country. You’re one of these people that’s opposed to any kind of protest that ruffles people’s feathers.

ruffing feathers is one thing, disrespecting the country is another.

I’ve also not once heard your justification for how this is disrespecting the anthem or why that’s even a bad thing, but I know you’ll never bother to actually explain that so I’ll stop asking.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

(a)Designation.—
The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b)Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

EDIT: And everybody already knows that you have a “right” to do whatever you fucking want so stop reminding us. We get it. We aren’t dumb. We know.

I will do whatever the fuck I want! and the reason I do remind you that is that it seems as though you don’t act like it sometimes.

Settle down. Now.

I hope and assume this warning was about the last sentence in that post, and not the rest and I don’t see anything wrong with the rest of that post of mine. If so, I will heed your warning.

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

I have as just as much to protest via boycott as those that protest via disrespecting the Anthem.

Fuck. You. You miserable self centered entitled asshole.

This is a personal attack and name calling and is against the rules. And what I said is true. I have the same right to protest as the players.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think boycotting Nike is misdirected outrage, and that this outrage is just a fad. So many consumer boycotts come and go, and next year no one will remember this one. Being angry at Nike is just the recent popular thing to do.

Well I know it won’t do any good, but I won’t be buying anything from them. It is a matter of principle for me. I have as just as much to protest via boycott as those that protest via disrespecting the Anthem.

Honestly I think you’re the one disrespecting the country. You’re one of these people that’s opposed to any kind of protest that ruffles people’s feathers.

ruffing feathers is one thing, disrespecting the country is another.

I’ve also not once heard your justification for how this is disrespecting the anthem or why that’s even a bad thing, but I know you’ll never bother to actually explain that so I’ll stop asking.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

(a)Designation.—
The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b)Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

EDIT: And everybody already knows that you have a “right” to do whatever you fucking want so stop reminding us. We get it. We aren’t dumb. We know.

I will do whatever the fuck I want! and the reason I do remind you that is that it seems as though you don’t act like it sometimes.

chyron8472 said:

Personally, I think boycotting Nike is misdirected outrage, and that this outrage is just a fad. So many consumer boycotts come and go, and next year no one will remember this one. Being angry at Nike is just the recent popular thing to do.

Well I know it won’t do any good, but I won’t be buying anything from them. It is a matter of principle for me. I have as just as much to protest via boycott as those that protest via disrespecting the Anthem.

True enough I suppose.

*sigh*

unbelievable.

I am quite partial to the silent version of King of Kings by Cecil B. Demille.

Jeebus said:

This is hilarious.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/06/645177784/jury-fines-man-1-for-punching-charlottesville-rally-organizer

I guess I won’t lose any sleep over a man getting fined only $1 for punching a man like Kessler.

Spuffure said:

Why did TV’s Frink get banned? I’m just curious

It is only a temp ban.

Warbler said:

Good thing I don’t get my sneakers from Nike.

This is vague?

Which article are you referring to? The one where it was announced that Nike hired Kaepernick? I have read it. My opinion on him is unchanged.

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

The point is, is that is is unfair to allow positive comments about X but yet not allow legit criticism of X.

But it’s not unfair. The reasoning why they don’t want active users to criticize banned users is because said banned users can’t personally rebut to defend themselves.

Which if the ban was justified, is their own fault.

And SW was not telling me off. He was giving fair warning in advance of anything actionable that we might say, while trying to be civil and friendly about it.

It looked to me like he was trying to politely tell you to shut up about Frink.

To brand it as “X” suggests that all negative criticism is created equal,

I believe in my initial post on the subject, I made clear that I understood that there needs to be some limits like no name calling and no personal attacks and whatnot in regards to those that can’t defend themselves.

and that allowing non-negative conversation makes them hypocrites, which is not true.

No, I just think that either both negative and positive comments should be allowed or both should be disallowed and not one allowed and the other not.

moviefreakedmind said:

So what? I don’t like seeing /sigh/ and “whatever” and “ha ha.” and all that bullshit every time you respond to me but you don’t see me playing the victim over it.

I don’t sigh anywhere near as much as I used to. As for “ha ha”, I don’t what to say when you accuse me of being wrong about everything. There is a lot about your posts I don’t like seeing (the constant depression, misery, and hatred of just about everyone and everything).

They need to impeach him or the cabinet needs to declare him unfit. Now.

Warbler said:

The point is, is that is is unfair to allow positive comments about X but yet not allow legit criticism of X.

Well I don’t see how the comparison is wrong.

Possessed said:

One of the downsides of sharing your opinion in a public forum warb is having to deal with reactions from people who disagree.

I don’t mind people disagreeing with me. It is the wisecracks and side comments and ridicule that I mind.

How is it a strawman? I did not ignore the reasoning of why criticism of X may not be allowed in the my initial post on the subject.

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

Handman said:

When is Frink coming back?

I assume the ban is lasting at least a month, looking at the date of last activity. That would mean 9 more days at least.

*shrug* I’m not really sorry he’s gone, though. As unpopular a position as that might be.

A gentle reminder not to knock on people who aren’t able to respond here.

I understand having limits on what one can say about someone who is banned or otherwise unable to respond and defend themselves. One certainly shouldn’t be allowed make fun of, personally attack, or name call such. But if you are going to ban all negative opinions about such, positive opinions about such should also be banned(imagine if you will how unfair we would all think it would be if mods on a forum said you were allowed to give positive opinions about Trump or some other politician but not negative opinions). Besides, if the person can’t respond be the person is banned, the mods must either agree that it is the person’s own fault that they can’t respond or that they banned someone that didn’t deserve to be banned.

Hence the gentle reminder so it doesn’t reach that level. And comparing a banned forum member to a politician is an apples and oranges argument if I’ve ever heard one.

It is not apples and oranges in the way I made the comparison.

The point is, is that is is unfair to allow positive comments about X but yet not allow legit criticism of X.

oojason said:

and in my humble opinion you aren’t getting grief

I wish to talk about this. I have gotten grief over my stance on the anthem protests. Even since I first stated my stance, I have gotten wisecracks and side comments from multiple people. I have also been treated like my stance is stupid and silly. Some of it has hurt. When I said I had gotten grief over my stance, I wasn’t just referring to the other posts in that thread. I was referring to all the posts in all the threads made about my stance. Even though this was the first time in a long time I really opened up about my stance, people still made comments.

ChainsawAsh said:

Not gone for good (or even very long), but I’ll be taking a sabbatical for a week or two while my injuries (physical and mental) from a drunken Labor Day that I still have little to no memory of heal up some.

Also until I know whether or not I’m being charged with a felony because of it, like my parents still seem to insist will happen even though it’s been days and there’s still nothing under my name when I search beyond a speeding ticket 9 years ago…

Ouch! I hope and pray everything works out for the best and that you will recover and be back soon.

I wasn’t intending to derail your thread.

But very well, please everyone take any responses to my posts on the anthem protests to the political thread.

Btw, if this thread indeed got derailed, then I am not the only guilty party.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I seriously don’t know why I get so much grieve for my stance. I am simply patriotic.

That’s why you get “grieve” from me.

Typo corrected.

I don’t like patriotism. I don’t like it when people demand flag worship and demand that people submit.

I never said people should be forced to “submit” and I don’t worship the flag.

I don’t like people being disrespectful to the National Anthem.

I don’t even see how it’s disrespectful. Would you rather he stand up and spit at the flag and scream at the top of his lungs during the anthem. Now that would be disrespectful.

That would be even more disrespectful.

Isn’t it disrespectful to play the anthem at sporting events anyway?

I fail to see why. We’ve done so for years.

Isn’t that dumbing it down?

Not in my opinion.

Why not play it before movies and concerts at that point?

It has become tradition to play it be sporting events, it never became tradition to play it before movies and concerts.

I agree they have the Constitutional and legal right to protest and kneel during the National Anthem. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with what they do. I have a right to not like their forum of protest and the right to not support it by not buying products from companies that put anthem protesters in their ads.

Thanks for the lesson on the 1st amendment.

Sheesh.

Warbler said:

I’ve always hated Carlin. I thought he was clueless, ignorant, arrogant, and nuts. (especially in the latter stages of his career)

God, you really are wrong about everything aren’t you?

ha ha.

Teaching kids to question everything is “clueless”? And “war is peace” too I guess.

He’s said a lot more than teach kids to question everything.

moviefreakedmind said:

I doubt his account will lose moderator privileges just because he is leaving the forum. I don’t know.

He didn’t just announce that he was leaving, he announced that he was stepping down as a mod.

oojason said:

‘Colin Kaepernick grievance set for trial after NFL dismissal request is denied’…

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/30/colin-kaepernick-grievance-nfl-trial
 

Hope Colin and others who seemingly may have been blackballed by the NFL do get signed - and if the NFL’s own rules were broken by those teams under it’s own Collective Bargaining Agreement (teams and the NFL are forbidden from coming together to deprive a player of employment), that they are admonished too.
 

Despite what I think of what Kaepernick did, I will agree it does not justify violating the NFL’s own rules or the collective bargaining agreement.