Patriots fans burn team jerseys after players take a knee during National Anthem

In all fairness, NFL ratings are down about 5% this season but ratings were down about 8% last season, before the national anthem controversy began. American football has been declining in popularity for several years.

One of the main reasons for the decline is concern over the danger of the sport. There has been a lot of attention focused on concussions and other types of injuries recently. Many parents no longer want their children to play football. The national anthem flap is just one of many controversies that has been hurting the sport.

CasualBystander said:

I don't believe he was crying.

Click to expand...

Watching this made me

Actually...

NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” game between the Oakland Raiders and the Miami Dolphins attracted 14.4 million viewers, down 22 percent from SNF’s Week 9 game last year, according to data compiled by Sports Media Watch. The game produced the third-lowest viewership of an NFL game since 2011.

Click to expand...

The Carolina Panthers-Atlanta Falcons earlier in the day drew 14.2 million viewers, down an even more troubling 29 percent.

Sunday’s two laggards reduced viewership for all six NFL national telecasts of Week 9 to 79.1 million — 9.2 percent fewer viewers than the 87.1 million who tuned into Week 9 games last season.

The poor Week 9 ratings dragged down average NFL viewership season-to-date.

The average nationally televised NFL game this season is down 5.7 percent from last season.

After the first week this season, viewership was down 11.8 percent.

Since then, the gap had narrowed each week to where it was off just 5.6 percent through Week 8.

But then the disaster of Week 9 happened.

Click to expand...

http://nypost.com/2017/11/08/nfl-ratings-turnaround-hits-big-speed-bump/

3FEL9 said:

Watching this made me

Click to expand...

I'm also curious how much of the change in climate is being caused by humans. I believe at least part of the change is probably part of a separate natural cycle. If Nye would have answered that question I would have been much more supportive of him.

3FEL9 said:

Watching this made me

Click to expand...

Yup, typical leftist. They suffer from a psychological malady called projection.

They are idiots and they project that status onto the right, who aren't.

Globular Warming, warmunism, CAGW (cult of anthropogenic global warming), the climate cult, etc. make claims that fail from a number of perspectives.

AR4 essentially changed the definition of AGW to include all warming. This allowed them to expand their dubious claims to make them even more dubious.

1. Climate Cultists don't know how much warming is due to CO2. Signs are it is 1/5 to 1/4 of the warming.

2. Climate Cultists claim that more CO2 is bad, there are numerous lines of evidence that this is a straight up lie.

3. Climate Cultists claim that warming is bad. We have to get 2-3° warmer to match the Eemian. We aren't even the warmest it has been this interglacial.

4. Climate Cultist claim that the ice caps are going to melt. Well, current info indicates that much of the west antarctica loss is due to volcanic activity and anyway the south pole is gaining 82 GT of ice a year. Greenland gained ice mass over the last 2 year period.

5. #1 means they can't even prove that global warming will continue.

So they can't prove it is our fault (mostly), they can't prove it is bad, they can't say it is unusual and they have no proof it will continue.

So like a typical leftist he wants to arrest people because he can't prove his claims. Leftists can only win arguments by suppressing the speech rights of their opponents.

To add insult to injury:
Bill Nye gets destroyed in Q&A forum

Hi Bill,

I have a great way you can start.

Stop pretending you’re a scientist.

In science, we begin with facts. The facts show you have no formal science education beyond a Bachelors in mechanical engineering from Cornell. That’s it. Not even a Masters degree, let alone a Doctorate. You literally have no formal science education beyond an undergraduate degree. The facts also show that the whole “Science Guy” persona emerged out of a stand-up comedy routine you used to perform on local public-access TV back in the 80’s:

Good science requires valid data, so, here you go:

Read the whole thing.

What to say ^^ . I wish I had the answers.. But I obviously dont.. Lol Nye got you firing on all cylinders

3FEL9 said:

What to say ^^ . I whish I had the answers.. But I obviously dont.. Lol Nye got you firing on all cylinders

Click to expand...

Well...

Anybody who suggests we arrest people for their point of view (other than treason or sedition) gets the back of my hand rapidly followed by the front of my hand.

The consensus on global warming is no more valid than the consensus on the EMDrive thruster. Expertise is so often wrong nowadays that it may pay to bet against it.

That's correct you can complain but you can't refuse to do it, or your fired.

August said:

That's correct you can complain but you can't refuse to do it, or your fired.

Click to expand...

The coach can sit any player they want.

A team can terminate a players contract as well.

And they don't have to give a reason for either decision.

3FEL9 said:

What to say ^^ . I wish I had the answers.. But I obviously dont.. Lol Nye got you firing on all cylinders

Click to expand...

And my final response to Bill Nye:

nivek said:

This isn't about the 1st amendment, obviously...

These guys get paid to do their job and if their job requires them to stand they must, clearly their job isn't defined well enough for the money they make...If I refused to do something my employer expects of me I will be fired, as those players who kneel should also be fired...

Click to expand...

It is indeed a First Amendment issue due to the fact that in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that it's the First Amendment that protects Americans from being forced to participate in patriotic ceremony that offends their belief or conscience.

That said, if standing for the anthem is specified in their contract, and they signed that contract, then certainly they should fulfill their obligation.

But if it's not in their contract, and I do not believe it is, then the law of the land in no way compels them to stand. That is a fact.

My bigger issue however is the glee certain individuals are displaying at the prospect of financially hurting an American business which employs many more Americans, either directly or indirectly, than the players who kneel.

It's a short sighted point of view as nothing the players are doing is illegal or hampers any other Americans from honoring the flag, anthem, etc. how they see fit.

CasualBystander said:

And my final response to Bill Nye:

Click to expand...

Must be something between you and Nye.
I cant get it

Apollo said:

It is indeed a First Amendment issue due to the fact that in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that it's the First Amendment that protects Americans from being forced to participate in patriotic ceremony that offends their belief or conscience.

Click to expand...

Overruling the Minersville School District v. Gobitis decision they made 3 years earlier.
Appears that this was the result of Roosevelt court appointments, not that the Constitution changed in 3 years.

And the decision was about public school (a government institution) and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Since this isn't public school but private enterprise, it is hard to see that the decision has any relevance. But it is nice you do some legal research once in a while.

CasualBystander said:

Overruling the Minersville School District v. Gobitis decision they made 3 years earlier.
Appears that this was the result of Roosevelt court appointments, not that the Constitution changed in 3 years.

And the decision was about public school (a government institution) and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Since this isn't public school but private enterprise, it is hard to see that the decision has any relevance. But it is nice you do some legal research once in a while.

Click to expand...

That last paragraph is an interesting perspective.

So do you agree with the Google firing of James Damore as well then?

Apollo said:

That last paragraph is an interesting perspective.

So do you agree with the Google firing of James Damore as well then?

Click to expand...

James Damore just wrote the bald truth. He was fired for being honest. There are no honest progressives, they are all liars and view honesty as a sin.

Now, this will come back to haunt Google since you can't have the primary search engine filtering out news that doesn't meet the progressive agenda. Anti-trust is the correct approach here.

As a side note: in Mexico if a teacher does not sing the national anthem or even just gets the words wrong, it is a firing offense and they may be fined $400 as well.

The US should emulate Mexico in dealing with the traitorous and disloyal.

CasualBystander said:

James Damore just wrote the bald truth. He was fired for being honest.

Click to expand...

Does his claims hold up?...


The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo

The problem is, the science in Damore’s memo is still very much in play, and his analysis of its implications is at best politically naive and at worst dangerous.

The memo is a species of discourse peculiar to politically polarized times: cherry-picking scientific evidence to support a preexisting point of view. It’s an exercise not in rational argument but in rhetorical point scoring. And a careful walk through the science proves it.

Click to expand...

Well this is going in a direction that I hadn't intended.

The actual question I asked was "do you agree with the Google firing of James Damore?"

Regardless of the validity of the science in Damore's memo, his firing appears to be more about his bucking of Google's culture. We could speak about liberal culture in silicone valley at length, but that's for another thread.

In the absence of explicit language in corporate policy, as is the case in the NFL as well as Google/Damore, should we default to our God given rights? Or are the protections National Labor Relations Act all we have?

Damore may have a case under the NLRA. Technically some NFL players may as well if they are singled out for kneeling in support of the player/s that initiated the protest.

Apollo said:

Well this is going in a direction that I hadn't intended.

The actual question I asked was "do you agree with the Google firing of James Damore?"

Regardless of the validity of the science in Damore's memo, his firing appears to be more about his bucking of Google's culture. We could speak about liberal culture in silicone valley at length, but that's for another thread.

In the absence of explicit language in corporate policy, as is the case in the NFL as well as Google/Damore, should we default to our God given rights? Or are the protections National Labor Relations Act all we have?

Damore may have a case under the NLRA. Technically some NFL players may as well if they are singled out for kneeling in support of the player/s that initiated the protest.

Click to expand...

If you look at the situation: no conservatives in psychology, few conservatives in academia or the legal profession the problem is obvious.

Conservatives follow ethics guidelines. Progressives don't. Conservatives grade by ability (which is what guidelines are meant to enforce). Progressives grade by ideology or "litmus tests" .

You can't allow progressives to be part of the system because they are dishonest, immoral, unethical, dishonorable,, venal, blackguardly, corrupt, deceitful, deceptive, double-dealing, double-tongued, duplicitous, fallacious, fraudulent, Janus-faced, misleading, picaresque, thieving, insincere, untrustworthy scoundrels, and will eventually dominate any system where competitive pressures don't drive decisions.

They need to be frog marched to the shore or the border of Mexico and be given a push.

Since they got their positions by others of their kind violating ethics guidelines they haven't earned them and don't deserve them.

Google is a de facto monopoly. That is why this environment can exist there.

CasualBystander said:

If you look at the situation: no conservatives in psychology, few conservatives in academia or the legal profession the problem is obvious.

Conservatives follow ethics guidelines. Progressives don't. Conservatives grade by ability (which is what guidelines are meant to enforce). Progressives grade by ideology or "litmus tests" .

You can't allow progressives to be part of the system because they are dishonest, immoral, unethical, dishonorable,, venal, blackguardly, corrupt, deceitful, deceptive, double-dealing, double-tongued, duplicitous, fallacious, fraudulent, Janus-faced, misleading, picaresque, thieving, insincere, untrustworthy scoundrels, and will eventually dominate any system where competitive pressures don't drive decisions.

They need to be frog marched to the shore or the border of Mexico and be given a push.

Since they got their positions by others of their kind violating ethics guidelines they haven't earned them and don't deserve them.

Google is a de facto monopoly. That is why this environment can exist there.

Click to expand...

Wow, tell us how you really feel!

The way I see this very simple. I'm not a fan if forcing people to stand when no law compels them to do so. I'm also not for firing a person for their opinion, even if it runs contrary to their employer's "values."

So long as the activity is not preventing the employee from completing their job in the prescribed manor, none of it bothers me.

This is more than simply expressing an opinion...what they're doing is a deliberate action, if they worked for the company I do and performed deliberate actions against the company they will be fired, but we have strict guidelines and rules, obviously the NFL does not...