The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

riggofan wrote:We need more empathy in this world. Period.

I think I'm lying to myself if I pretend to know or to understand the experience of others but I also think I'm acting un-American if I marginalize their experiences and deny them equal rights. Who am I to say that the speech or expression of others is wrong? No one. The core principle of freedom of speech is to protect speech against government, specifically speech government doesn't like. The fact that some citizens may not like the speech notwithstanding those who would deny Colin Kaepernick the right to express his sentiments freely deserve that same right not for themselves. Either you believe in the core American liberty of freedom of conscience or you don't. If you don't then you have no grounds to exercise freedom of religion, speech, or press. The entire purpose of freedom of conscience is to allow ideas to gain acceptance in the competition of the marketplace. If you disagree with the ideas of someone else the remedy is to enter your own ideas into the marketplace. It is not to say that their speech has no value because you don't like the content of their message.

I try like hell to stay away from anything not directly related to how much the Redskins organization disgusts me on this site but I think it's extremely important we all take a step back and examine the big picture with regard to Colin Kaepernick. We don't have to agree on the content of his speech but we damn sure better agree on his right to speak because that is a Constitutionally protected natural right, not a privilege restricted to those whose ideas with which we agree. I fully understand why perceived disrespect of the flag bothers some people, especially some military veterans. I have half a dozen immediate family members buried in Arlington National Cemetery, Bath National Cemetery, and a few other locations reserved for combat veterans. I have the flags of two others whose bodies were never found. They believed in the flag. They believed in for what the flag stood. They believed the flag stood for the Constitution. They believed the ability to dissent with the actions of government was one of the Constitutional rights for which they fought and, in some cases, died. Knowing what I know of them each would have been appalled by the notion that they fought to have the rights of citizens stripped. One-half of my family is from parts of the Middle East which continue to be at war to this day. They came here seeking a better life right before World War I. They became American citizens through naturalization and voluntarily enlisted in the armed forces because they would rather have died for American liberties than lived for the hell that was their country of origin. If you want to know how they felt about free speech take a look at any country where it is prohibited, where people are jailed or executed for speaking freely.

Colin Kaepernick can say anything he wants because that is what for what people fought, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, even the parts they don't like.

Ahmen brother!!!

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:We need more empathy in this world. Period.

I think I'm lying to myself if I pretend to know or to understand the experience of others but I also think I'm acting un-American if I marginalize their experiences and deny them equal rights. Who am I to say that the speech or expression of others is wrong? No one. The core principle of freedom of speech is to protect speech against government, specifically speech government doesn't like. The fact that some citizens may not like the speech notwithstanding those who would deny Colin Kaepernick the right to express his sentiments freely deserve that same right not for themselves. Either you believe in the core American liberty of freedom of conscience or you don't. If you don't then you have no grounds to exercise freedom of religion, speech, or press. The entire purpose of freedom of conscience is to allow ideas to gain acceptance in the competition of the marketplace. If you disagree with the ideas of someone else the remedy is to enter your own ideas into the marketplace. It is not to say that their speech has no value because you don't like the content of their message.

I try like hell to stay away from anything not directly related to how much the Redskins organization disgusts me on this site but I think it's extremely important we all take a step back and examine the big picture with regard to Colin Kaepernick. We don't have to agree on the content of his speech but we damn sure better agree on his right to speak because that is a Constitutionally protected natural right, not a privilege restricted to those whose ideas with which we agree. I fully understand why perceived disrespect of the flag bothers some people, especially some military veterans. I have half a dozen immediate family members buried in Arlington National Cemetery, Bath National Cemetery, and a few other locations reserved for combat veterans. I have the flags of two others whose bodies were never found. They believed in the flag. They believed in for what the flag stood. They believed the flag stood for the Constitution. They believed the ability to dissent with the actions of government was one of the Constitutional rights for which they fought and, in some cases, died. Knowing what I know of them each would have been appalled by the notion that they fought to have the rights of citizens stripped. One-half of my family is from parts of the Middle East which continue to be at war to this day. They came here seeking a better life right before World War I. They became American citizens through naturalization and voluntarily enlisted in the armed forces because they would rather have died for American liberties than lived for the hell that was their country of origin. If you want to know how they felt about free speech take a look at any country where it is prohibited, where people are jailed or executed for speaking freely.

Colin Kaepernick can say anything he wants because that is what for what people fought, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, even the parts they don't like.

He can't go in a airport and say he has a bomb...freedom of speech is not limitless!
Who has silenced him? Who has told him he couldn't kneel? As I've always said you can't support his right and not support the rights of others to not want to have that on their team/business. I don't know many employers who want employees who are bad for 50 percent of their customers. Colin could have chosen numerous other avenues to conduct his protests and I believe they would have been more effective because he'd still have the league as his platform. Again I point to Ben Watson who is very outspoken but choses different avenues to voice his opinions.

He lost his platform for using it- as a platform...

Kids dont even have to stand for the pledge of allegiance at school anymore- times have changed.

I sure as hell don't come to work every morning then the National anthem is played.. Sports politicized themselves, it wasn't Kap. Key word in his display is "PEACEFUL protest"- the media is who turned his kneeling in the back in to a controversial act; most people didn't even notice. Hell, the media didn't even notice at first!

DEHog wrote:He can't go in a airport and say he has a bomb...freedom of speech is not limitless!
Who has silenced him? Who has told him he couldn't kneel? As I've always said you can't support his right and not support the rights of others to not want to have that on their team/business. I don't know many employers who want employees who are bad for 50 percent of their customers. Colin could have chosen numerous other avenues to conduct his protests and I believe they would have been more effective because he'd still have the league as his platform. Again I point to Ben Watson who is very outspoken but choses different avenues to voice his opinions.

Yes, he go into an airport and say he has a bomb. There are consequences for doing so that have nothing to do with the speech itself and everything to do with the violation of the rights of others. It's incitement to imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). I think you're fully aware of that. Here's the bottom line: People had 100% uninfringed freedom of speech before the establishment of government and they should continue to have 100% uninfringed freedom of speech up to the point where their speech infringes upon the equal rights of others. If freedom of speech interferes with the ability of an employer to conduct business then they have a case. Employers don't have a right to dictate the personal behavior of employees beyond the job description. If they are doing their job and not interfering with the ability of others to do their jobs or with the ability of the employer to conduct business what is their case for damages? I don't think they have one. "We don't like that!" is not a legal claim to damages.

Yes, Kaepernick could have chosen other avenues but he knew that one was most likely to get the attention of the largest number of people and he put it ahead of his own job security. Most people would not put any cause or belief ahead of their own job security. I'd venture if employers required employees to sign a pledge saying they believed in the flying spaghetti monster in order to receive their holiday bonus checks the employees would sign the pledges regardless of the fact they don't believe in any such thing. There aren't nearly enough people who stand for their beliefs under any circumstances. We used to call those people "patriots." Now we call them "dissenters."

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:He lost his platform for using it- as a platform...

Kids dont even have to stand for the pledge of allegiance at school anymore- times have changed.

I sure as hell don't come to work every morning then the National anthem is played.. Sports politicized themselves, it wasn't Kap. Key word in his display is "PEACEFUL protest"- the media is who turned his kneeling in the back in to a controversial act; most people didn't even notice. Hell, the media didn't even notice at first!

Student aren't employees.
He lost his platform for the way he choose to use it...as I said others are using it in different ways and where's the outrage?
We can agree on the media but isn't that what Kap wanted?
Let's not kid ourselves this is about money, not patriotism, racism, or any ism's

BTW , I do agree with his right to kneel, I wasn't offended, but then again not much offends me...I understand those that are. With that said I also agree with the NFL's right to not employ him, that doesn't offend me either. As I teach my kids and the players I coach there are consequences for our actions.

DEHog wrote: BTW - I do agree with his right to kneel, I wasn't offended, but then again not much offends me. I understand those that are.
With that said I also agree with the NFL's right to not employ him, that doesn't offend me either.
As I teach my kids and the players I coach there are consequences for our actions.

THIS - thanks DEHog - this covers it pretty well - and, it's really just basic common sense - you make choices, take responsibility

SkinsJock wrote:

DEHog wrote: BTW - I do agree with his right to kneel, I wasn't offended, but then again not much offends me. I understand those that are.
With that said I also agree with the NFL's right to not employ him, that doesn't offend me either.
As I teach my kids and the players I coach there are consequences for our actions.

THIS - thanks DEHog - this covers it pretty well - and, it's really just basic common sense - you make choices, take responsibility

I don't see the kneeling as a free speech issue at all. The NFL is a business, and when these guys are at the field on Sundays they are employees. I run a small business myself, and I wouldn't allow my employees to be making political statements while they're at work. Because it affects my business.

I'm not offended by the protest, but its a fact that "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech".

The players are employees but aren't they are also partners ...

SkinsJock wrote:The players are employees but aren't they are also partners ...

Hmmm... not sure. What's the distinction?

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:

DEHog wrote: BTW - I do agree with his right to kneel, I wasn't offended, but then again not much offends me. I understand those that are.
With that said I also agree with the NFL's right to not employ him, that doesn't offend me either.
As I teach my kids and the players I coach there are consequences for our actions.

THIS - thanks DEHog - this covers it pretty well - and, it's really just basic common sense - you make choices, take responsibility

I don't see the kneeling as a free speech issue at all. The NFL is a business, and when these guys are at the field on Sundays they are employees. I run a small business myself, and I wouldn't allow my employees to be making political statements while they're at work. Because it affects my business.

I'm not offended by the protest, but its a fact that "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech".

When did being offended become a right to anything? You're offended and so someone can't exercise their Constitutional rights of freedom of expression? That argument goes nowhere with me. Offense is taken, not given. If you're offended by words in the English language find a language that has no words offensive to you. Good luck with that.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:When did being offended become a right to anything? You're offended and so someone can't exercise their Constitutional rights of freedom of expression? That argument goes nowhere with me. Offense is taken, not given. If you're offended by words in the English language find a language that has no words offensive to you. Good luck with that.

What in the actual f*** are you talking about? You're saying I have no right to be offended by something someone says??? That is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:When did being offended become a right to anything? You're offended and so someone can't exercise their Constitutional rights of freedom of expression? That argument goes nowhere with me. Offense is taken, not given. If you're offended by words in the English language find a language that has no words offensive to you. Good luck with that.

What in the actual f*** are you talking about? You're saying I have no right to be offended by something someone says??? That is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

Offense is subjective. You can be offended but don't expect anyone else to be offended because you are or to change their speech because it offends you. Maybe your speech offends someone somewhere, too. If we insist that no one can say anything that offends someone then no one can speak. Ever. At all. Is that really the hill we want free speech to die on? We want to tell people what they can say and where they can say it and how they can say it? Sounds a lot like North Korea.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Offense is subjective. You can be offended but don't expect anyone else to be offended because you are or to change their speech because it offends you. Maybe your speech offends someone somewhere, too. If we insist that no one can say anything that offends someone then no one can speak. Ever. At all. Is that really the hill we want free speech to die on? We want to tell people what they can say and where they can say it and how they can say it? Sounds a lot like North Korea.

I have no idea what you're on about, but you're making a ridiculous leap from what I said.

You are completely free to show up at work and start loudly protesting for equal rights for NAMBLA members. And I am equally free as your employer to fire you because your support of the Man Boy Love Association is negatively impacting my business. That is not remotely the same as throwing you in jail. Feel free to test this theory at your place of business.

I don't understand where people get this notion that one can say whatever he wants and is completely free from consequences in this country. This is 8th grade social studies stuff.

Employees don't have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution's right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it's not absolute. ... So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.

https://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-fre ... h-at-work/

I gotta add that this is EXACTLY why I think Kaepernick's protest is so meaningful. There are real consequences for him in what he chose to do. People can debate whether he is right or not or whether kneeling for the flag is an appropriate protest or whatever. But that guy spoke out for something he believes in strongly, and it has cost him his football career.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:The players are employees but aren't they are also partners ...

Hmmm... not sure. What's the distinction?

Players are both employees of the NFL owners AND are also partners with the NFL

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Offense is subjective. You can be offended but don't expect anyone else to be offended because you are or to change their speech because it offends you. Maybe your speech offends someone somewhere, too. If we insist that no one can say anything that offends someone then no one can speak. Ever. At all. Is that really the hill we want free speech to die on? We want to tell people what they can say and where they can say it and how they can say it? Sounds a lot like North Korea.

I have no idea what you're on about, but you're making a ridiculous leap from what I said.

You are completely free to show up at work and start loudly protesting for equal rights for NAMBLA members. And I am equally free as your employer to fire you because your support of the Man Boy Love Association is negatively impacting my business. That is not remotely the same as throwing you in jail. Feel free to test this theory at your place of business.

I don't understand where people get this notion that one can say whatever he wants and is completely free from consequences in this country. This is 8th grade social studies stuff.

Employees don't have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution's right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it's not absolute. ... So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.

https://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-fre ... h-at-work/

I think we're having two different conversations. I never said anything about employers restricting speech. I said being offended by speech or expression is not a right to anything. Yes, there are consequences for speech. Yes, private employers have a right to fire employees for just cause such as negatively impacting business. In some states employers have the right to fire employees for no reason. When it comes to NFL players I believe there has to be proof they violated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement player conduct policy. I doubt seriously anything about conduct during the national anthem is in the CBA. The anthem is not part of the game and it is not an essential job function. It will be interesting to see how the lawyers present their cases and how the arbitrators or judges rule.

My question, generally, and not to you specifically although it may have come across that way is shouldn't being offended be the beginning of a discussion and not the end of one? Isn't the answer to speech we dislike more speech?

For as long as Ive been watching this team and football for that matter. Unless we get some real football people at the top there wont be any consistency of success.
Im hoping for a new GM.

HEROHAMO wrote:For as long as Ive been watching this team and football for that matter. Unless we get some real football people at the top there wont be any consistency of success.
Im hoping for a new GM.

+1 - this franchise needs to head in a different direction and it can't happen with these guys

even if Dan commits to putting new people in charge, it's still going to take time for this franchise to gain some respectability

I'm GM for Skins, here is what I'd do with the QB position:

If Alex is ready for the start of 19, go with him and Colt in 2019. If Alex isn't ready to start season and start Colt and have Josh as the backup. When Alex is ready, drop Josh.

Both of these allow us to use our 2019 draft and FA period to improve the team in all other areas --but QB... The cap hit for Alex is really big, we can't afford another big contract on qbs in 19 or 20.

In 2020 draft -- pick a qb in first round. Sounds like the 2020 draft has a lot more quality qb's than the 2019 draft. Don't reach in 19.

If we go with Alex, Colt and/or Josh after using 19 draft and FA on improving the roster and we do well, great, pick the qb in first round 0f 2020 and go with Alex, #1 and Colt in 2020.

In 2021 -- 2020 1st round QB starts. Pickup a quality backup, Alex, Colt, etc...

Kneel-anick -- NO THANKS!!!

I kind of enjoyed watching Josh vs the Titans last weekend. If Jay is back next year, think I'd give Josh Johnson a shot.

riggofan wrote:I kind of enjoyed watching Josh vs the Titans last weekend. If Jay is back next year, think I'd give Josh Johnson a shot.

Agreed. Save the first Int he played well- we were on the way to tie and take the lead too... Apparently the int wasnt on him or Jdoc.. Not sure how that works. More time in the system and in those key situations should pay dividends. He showed elusiveness and poise, I'd argue the O looked better with him under the helm then most of the year with AS or Colt

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Agreed. Save the first Int he played well- we were on the way to tie and take the lead too... Apparently the int wasnt on him or Jdoc.. Not sure how that works. More time in the system and in those key situations should pay dividends. He showed elusiveness and poise, I'd argue the O looked better with him under the helm then most of the year with AS or Colt

Thought so too. Though that INT reminded me so much of Cousins it hurt my bones.

riggofan wrote:I kind of enjoyed watching Josh vs the Titans last weekend. If Jay is back next year, think I'd give Josh Johnson a shot.

Me too. I thought it was one of the better games of the season. AP was phenomenal.

But then came crunch-time and JJ showed why he's a career backup.

El Mexican wrote:

riggofan wrote:I kind of enjoyed watching Josh vs the Titans last weekend. If Jay is back next year, think I'd give Josh Johnson a shot.

Me too. I thought it was one of the better games of the season. AP was phenomenal.

But then came crunch-time and JJ showed why he's a career backup.

Lol he hasn't even been a back-up as of late! For a guy off the street, with mere weeks in the system- he did a damn good job vs a top Tier D