We won't stand for them not standing

Food, recipes, fashion, sport, education, exercise, sexuality, travel.
User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

We won't stand for them not standing

Post by RayThom »

Scooter wrote:You can try to rationalize it however you want. It was a dishonest, sleaze ball move and I'm not surprised in the slightest that you are incapable of feeling the minutest bit of shame in showing yourself to be such a pigfucking fraud.
Whoa! That's harsh -- but how do you really feel?
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21234
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Now if this kicks me up a couple more notches on your 'asshole scale', BSG, then so be it.
I guess nobody notices the huge "IF" - 2nd word in the sentence. I don't see eye-to-eye with much of BB's posting but in this case the over- reaction is itself somewhat toxic.

As I immediately understood from his OP, he referenced the occasion on which BSG identified him closely with a set of buttocks and the darkness between. [What does it matter that the characterization was given in a different thread?] And then stated, "IF" his current post made him look even darker and moister, he'd take his lumps. Pun intended.

I don't see an insult to BSG in what he wrote since his post clearly contradicted her principled position on protest. Hardly surprising if she (or anyone else) might think he was again arguing a-posteriori* vis-a-vis Colin and his Co-Kaepernicks.

[If there is an insult to BSG and I have missed it, I'm sorry. Surely, no one, including she, believes people standing for the Anthem are somehow analogous to er... anal exits]

Whatever, I'm surprised no one has really picked up on the issue of the Cleveland emergency services announcing their intent not to wave the flag because some football players took a knee. That reaction seems more toxic than CK's and certainly a lot odder than BB's desire to be slagged off (UK slang for insulted)

*intentional spelling
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 19708
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by BoSoxGal »

I've called you an asshole a handful of times, if that, BB. Once was when you were calling black people porch monkeys, another time for posting something seriously sexist, the thread you inserted here it was because you'd called RT a draft dodger and compared him to an actual nefarious draft dodger when you didn't even have to face the prospect of being pointlessly slaughtered in Vietnam and thus don't have the right to judge, IMNSHO.

Over the time you've been posting here my amiable responses to you, whether substantive or just :lol: at your witticisms, have vastly outweighed the number of times I've called you out as an asshole or even disagreed with you. If you believe I'm wrong, go back and search and link and prove it.

Otherwise, don't be an asshole by automatically assuming I'll call you an asshole when the truth is far from that. :nana :fu
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by rubato »

RT? Who is RT?


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Econoline »

RayThom
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6721
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Long Run »

For Packer fans it will always be Forrest Gregg. ;)

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15117
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Joe Guy »

To be fair to BB, BSG, FYI, BB didn't say you would call him an AH. He only said that he might move up a couple notches on "your asshole scale."

Image

Burning Petard
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Burning Petard »

Has this 'national anthem' thing every been a religious issue before the Supremes? It does include the nice line: Then conquer we must when our cause it is just, and this be our motto, in God is our trust.

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Scooter »

Joe Guy wrote:To be fair to BB, BSG, FYI, BB didn't say you would call him an AH. He only said that he might move up a couple notches on "your asshole scale."
So if you were to say that you would never do business with Jews*, for example, and I called you an asshole for it, and then on another occasion you said that you volunteered at a homeless shelter, it would be a perfectly reasonable assumption that I might think that makes you even more of an asshole.

Because that is precisely the "logic" that BB used in bringing BSG's unrelated comment into this thread.






*which is not to say that I believe you would ever do or say such a thing
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21234
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

According to the local NPR (WCPN), the cops, EMTs and firefighters have reached a compromise with the Browns. It didn't report on whether or not they will hold the flag and wave it about but did say that representatives of the public service unions will "run out of the tunnel alongside the players"

:shrug
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Burning Petard
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Burning Petard »

Why should they? Name another private, for profit business, that gets that kind of free attention from police, fire, EMT? Is it brotherhood, solidarity, for fellow union workers--the NFL players?

snailgate

Big RR
Posts: 14750
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Big RR »

Who says it's free?

and FWIW, those cops, EMT, fireighters also usually get to attend the game free of charge, maybe even watch from the field--a fan's dream. I doubt anyone is forcing any of them to attend; and the only reason I can see the Browns tried to work this out is because they didn't want to alienate some of their fan base, who I wouldn't be surprised work in those jobs.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Lord Jim »

Stop playing the National Anthem before sporting events.
I think it would be a perfectly awful idea to bring an end to this fine American tradition. It would be a doublely (or perhaps triplely or quadruplely) awful idea to end this tradition as a cave-in to the boorish behavior of a handful of spoiled, over-paid, attention-seeking ignoramuses...
Whatever, I'm surprised no one has really picked up on the issue of the Cleveland emergency services announcing their intent not to wave the flag because some football players took a knee.
I strongly disagree with their decision, and I'm glad to see that apparently they worked something out...

By refusing to participate, they were giving the handful of spoiled, over-paid, attention-seeking ignoramuses just the sort of attention they're seeking...

The best way to deal with a handful of spoiled, over-paid, attention-seeking ignoramuses is to completely ignore their antics. If they choose to disrespect the flag that others died for so that they could have enjoy the opportunity to be spoiled, over-paid, attention-seeking ignoramuses, let that make the obvious statement about them, and don't feed their hunger for attention.
ImageImageImage

Big RR
Posts: 14750
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Big RR »

I would think kneeling would be a greater show of respect than standing--one kneels to a monarch or in church (presumably to god), and does not merely stand.

But regardless, I agree with Jim about the controversy--not everyone is going to act the way you'd prefer, but they're not hurting you, so ignore them (whichever side you're on). I wouldn't mind eliminating the national anthem from sporting events, but I don't mind that it's played either.

And jim, despite the movies and propaganda novels, people don't die for the flag, or even their country--I have known a number of people who served in combat (and have seen many more interviewed, and to a man (I have not seen women, but I doubt it would be different) they said they fought for their buddies who were with them--patriotic notions, flags, philosophical and political notions, etc. were never even part of the consideration. I would imagine if someone was defending his or her home or town it might also extend to one's defense of family and neighbors, but not "the flag".

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21234
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

I was going to reply to LJ but then I read this:
The best way to deal with a handful of spoiled, over-paid, attention-seeking ignoramuses is to completely ignore their antics
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :nana :nana :nana :nana
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14750
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Big RR »

:lol: :lol: :lol: :ok

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Lord Jim »

Image
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Guinevere »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I was going to reply to LJ but then I read this:
The best way to deal with a handful of spoiled, over-paid, attention-seeking ignoramuses is to completely ignore their antics
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :nana :nana :nana :nana
Hey, I've been saying that for DECADES now. Glad you've finally come around to my point of view, LJ. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :ok
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Lord Jim »

Image
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: We won't stand for them not standing

Post by Guinevere »

That's too bad, because I think its HYSTERICAL :lol:
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Post Reply