Whoa! That's harsh -- but how do you really feel?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.
We won't stand for them not standing
We won't stand for them not standing

“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
- 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
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.Now if this kicks me up a couple more notches on your 'asshole scale', BSG, then so be it.
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
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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
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.

Over the time you've been posting here my amiable responses to you, whether substantive or just

Otherwise, don't be an asshole by automatically assuming I'll call you an asshole when the truth is far from that.


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
~ Carl Sagan
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
RT? Who is RT?
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
- 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
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
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
For Packer fans it will always be Forrest Gregg. 

Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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."


-
- Posts: 4488
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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
snailgate
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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.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."
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
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
- 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
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"


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
-
- Posts: 4488
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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
snailgate
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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.
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.
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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...Stop playing the National Anthem before sporting events.
I strongly disagree with their decision, and I'm glad to see that apparently they worked something out...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.
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.



Re: We won't stand for them not standing
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".
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".
- 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
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













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
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
Hey, I've been saying that for DECADES now. Glad you've finally come around to my point of view, LJ.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![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()





“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
Re: We won't stand for them not standing
That's too bad, because I think its HYSTERICAL 

“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