NFL to Outlaw the 'N' Word?

[RiverDog]

I will restate what you and I already said: that private employers like the NFL can do whatever they want legally re free speech in the workplace.
No doubt about it.

That doesn't mean it makes sense.

It didn't used to make sense to me either, but it does now. Today if the boss tells me to keep my cake hole shut, I'll keep my cake hole shut. I wish I would have figured that out 30 years ago.

[monkey]

I'm actually happy about this. I hate that word, and wish it would die along with racism.

You know what the problem with thinking this way is?
You hate that word and want it banned, but what about homosexuals who want to ban the word fag, because they just don't like it, and the feminists who dislike the myriad insulting phrases used to describe female genitalia and to describe women, and then what about Mexicans who dislike the terms wetback, and Illegal immigrant, and the irish who then counter, that no one should be able to call them drunk Irish, and then whites who hate the words cracker and honky, and etc....

Just stop already! It's just freaking words!!! Grow a backbone America, quit being so butthurt over words!
Are those words crude, cruel and intended to hurt? Yes, but they are also words usually only spoken by complete dipsticks of whose IQ it could be said that, if their IQ were dynamite, they wouldn't have enough to blow up an ant hill.

So consider the source, and get a backbone instead of running to big sis (the government) and expecting her to fight your battles for you, because whenever big sis gets involved, you ALWAYS lose more freedom...always.

Americans - "Oh no, we're scared of terrorists!"
US Govn't - "Don't worry about it, we have this idea that if you just subject yourselves to all kinds of invasive searches at airports, and give up a whole bunch of freedoms in all kinds of areas, you'll be MUCH safer!"
Americans - "Duhh....OK!"

[Eaglehawk]

I will restate what you and I already said: that private employers like the NFL can do whatever they want legally re free speech in the workplace.
No doubt about it.

That doesn't mean it makes sense.

It didn't used to make sense to me either, but it does now. Today if the boss tells me to keep my cake hole shut, I'll keep my cake hole shut. I wish I would have figured that out 30 years ago.

Definitely feel your point on that one!

[RiverDog]

I'm actually happy about this. I hate that word, and wish it would die along with racism.

You know what the problem with thinking this way is?
You hate that word and want it banned, but what about homosexuals who want to ban the word fag, because they just don't like it, and the feminists who dislike the myriad insulting phrases used to describe female genitalia and to describe women, and then what about Mexicans who dislike the terms wetback, and Illegal immigrant, and the irish who then counter, that no one should be able to call them drunk Irish, and then whites who hate the words cracker and honky, and etc....

Just stop already! It's just freaking words!!! Grow a backbone America, quit being so butthurt over words!
Are those words crude, cruel and intended to hurt? Yes, but they are also words usually only spoken by complete dipsticks of whose IQ it could be said that, if their IQ were dynamite, they wouldn't have enough to blow up an ant hill.

So consider the source, and get a backbone instead of running to big sis (the government) and expecting her to fight your battles for you, because whenever big sis gets involved, you ALWAYS lose more freedom...always.

Americans - "Oh no, we're scared of terrorists!"
US Govn't - "Don't worry about it, we have this idea that if you just subject yourselves to all kinds of invasive searches at airports, and give up a whole bunch of freedoms in all kinds of areas, you'll be MUCH safer!"
Americans - "Duhh....OK!"

If I get insulted at a bar or some other random place, I usually have an option. I can move to another table or leave entirely. Or maybe I'll tell the A-hole to tone it down, or challenge him to a fight. But in the work place, people have very limited options. No way can I challenge the a-hole to a fight, I'd lose my job. I can't leave my work station, and the cafeteria is small. Getting up and leaving is out of the question. I could get fired.

The NFL is a work place for thousands of employees. Their proposed work place rule does not take away one single right from any one of us and is no different than the tens of thousands of work places around the country, and in reality, the NFL's work place is far more liberal on the type of language and behavior they'll allow than almost any other work place I can think of, except perhaps a prison.

On second thought, I can think of a workplace that's much more abusive than the NFL. My wife is a nurse in a nursing home, deals with a lot of Alzheimer and dementia residents. She told me of an incident where one resident of hers told a black doctor to his face that she didn't want any "N's" touching her. Residents will quite often hurl personal insults at the staff, and the staff has no choice but to tolerate it.

That doesn't have anything to do with any of the issues we're discussing. I just thought I'd bring it up.

[monkey]

It's a good point Riv, one I would counter with this: I've read the constitution, the whole thing, and nowhere in it did I read that we have the right to not feel insulted.
If I feel insulted, even if I cannot immediately "do something about it" (personally I think there's always something you can do), then I just need to wipe the sand out of my mangina and get over it.
No one said that life was fair, or that you had the right to never feel insulted. I DO have the right to free speech though!
And BTW, that right, is NOT given to me by the government!!!
It is a GOD given right, according to our Declaration of Independence.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to free speech.
The government has nothing to do with granting us our rights, the only thing they can do is take away those rights. When people whine for government interference because they are not thick skinned, and adult enough to handle feeling insulted, that's when you LOSE rights, not gain! We have all the rights we're ever going to have now, granted to us by our Creator, the government cannot add anything to that...only take away.

[RiverDog]

It's a good point Riv, one I would counter with this: I've read the constitution, the whole thing, and nowhere in it did I read that we have the right to not feel insulted.
If I feel insulted, even if I cannot immediately "do something about it" (personally I think there's always something you can do), then I just need to wipe the sand out of my mangina and get over it.
No one said that life was fair, or that you had the right to never feel insulted. I DO have the right to free speech though!
And BTW, that right, is NOT given to me by the government!!!
It is a GOD given right, according to our Declaration of Independence.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to free speech.
The government has nothing to do with granting us our rights, the only thing they can do is take away those rights. When people whine for government interference because they are not thick skinned, and adult enough to handle feeling insulted, that's when you LOSE rights, not gain! We have all the rights we're ever going to have now, granted to us by our Creator, the government cannot add anything to that...only take away.

You might have read the Constitution, but you'd better go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence because the right to free speech is not one of the unalienable rights referred to in that document. There were three: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Eaglehawk]

It's a good point Riv, one I would counter with this: I've read the constitution, the whole thing, and nowhere in it did I read that we have the right to not feel insulted.
If I feel insulted, even if I cannot immediately "do something about it" (personally I think there's always something you can do), then I just need to wipe the sand out of my mangina and get over it.
No one said that life was fair, or that you had the right to never feel insulted. I DO have the right to free speech though!
And BTW, that right, is NOT given to me by the government!!!
It is a GOD given right, according to our Declaration of Independence.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to free speech.
The government has nothing to do with granting us our rights, the only thing they can do is take away those rights. When people whine for government interference because they are not thick skinned, and adult enough to handle feeling insulted, that's when you LOSE rights, not gain! We have all the rights we're ever going to have now, granted to us by our Creator, the government cannot add anything to that...only take away.

You might have read the Constitution, but you'd better go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence because the right to free speech is not one of the unalienable rights referred to in that document. There were three: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution protects "liberty" River. An unalienable right. Without liberty you don't have free speech, right to bear arms, right to a jury, right to privacy, etc.
The Declaration of Independence, delineates liberty as our unalienable right. River, in your opinion, what does liberty mean to you?
Two documents are related in the formation of the laws of our country. When Madison wrote the Constitution, he did not do so in a vacuum. The Declaration of Independence was on everyone's minds, and in everyone's hearts. Madison sought to protect those rights, including liberty.

[RiverDog]

It's a good point Riv, one I would counter with this: I've read the constitution, the whole thing, and nowhere in it did I read that we have the right to not feel insulted.
If I feel insulted, even if I cannot immediately "do something about it" (personally I think there's always something you can do), then I just need to wipe the sand out of my mangina and get over it.
No one said that life was fair, or that you had the right to never feel insulted. I DO have the right to free speech though!
And BTW, that right, is NOT given to me by the government!!!
It is a GOD given right, according to our Declaration of Independence.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to free speech.
The government has nothing to do with granting us our rights, the only thing they can do is take away those rights. When people whine for government interference because they are not thick skinned, and adult enough to handle feeling insulted, that's when you LOSE rights, not gain! We have all the rights we're ever going to have now, granted to us by our Creator, the government cannot add anything to that...only take away.

You might have read the Constitution, but you'd better go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence because the right to free speech is not one of the unalienable rights referred to in that document. There were three: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution protects "liberty" River. An unalienable right. Without liberty you don't have free speech, right to bear arms, right to a jury, right to privacy, etc.
The Declaration of Independence, delineates liberty as our unalienable right. River, in your opinion, what does liberty mean to you?
Two documents are related in the formation of the laws of our country. Wnen Madison wrote the Constitution, he did not do so in a vacuum. The Declaration of Independence was on everyone's minds, and in everyone's hearts. Madison sought to protect those rights, including liberty.

What in your opinion does the pursuit of happiness mean?

You can read into the Declaration of Independence a whole litany of other more specific rights, but the fact is that it only mentions three, and speech is not one of them.

[Eaglehawk]

My point is that liberty was interpreted by our founding fathers as free speech. Although not mentioned explicitly as you may want to see it in the Dec of Independence, its impact in our laws today definitely comes FROM the basic rights in the Dec of Independence. In fact these rights were originally espoused by Locke not Jefferson with the exception that Jefferson changed "property" to the "pursuit of happiness"

[RiverDog]

My point is that liberty was interpreted by our founding fathers as free speech. Although not mentioned explicitly as you may want to see it in the Dec of Independence, its impact is in our laws today definitely comes FROM the basic rights in the Dec of Independence. In fact these rights were originally espoused by Locke not Jefferson with the exception that Jefferson substituted "property" for the "pursuit of happiness"

I understand your point and agree with your analysis. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making, which was that the Declaration of Independence contains nothing specifically about freedom of speech. Only through interpretation of the three basic rights that were listed, as you have done, can we derive that they meant to include freedom of speech.

[Eaglehawk]

My point is that liberty was interpreted by our founding fathers as free speech. Although not mentioned explicitly as you may want to see it in the Dec of Independence, its impact is in our laws today definitely comes FROM the basic rights in the Dec of Independence. In fact these rights were originally espoused by Locke not Jefferson with the exception that Jefferson substituted "property" for the "pursuit of happiness"

I understand your point and agree with your analysis. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making, which was that the Declaration of Independence contains nothing specifically about freedom of speech. Only through interpretation of the three basic rights that were listed, as you have done, can we derive that they meant to include freedom of speech.

Riv, you are good at splitting hairs aren't you?
And yes, you are technically correct. The term FOS is not in the DOI. But its umbrella term: liberty, is.
When you look at laws Riv, you look at legislatures intent, and what the founders were thinking when they enacted the law. For example, sometimes the law has unintended consequences, and to find the answer you have to go back to the original debate on the floor, and notes either in the Congressional record, or in the State Legislature archives to find out what they meant when they enacted the law. Here you have the term "liberty". Its a term that is very general. Do you think that the Founding Fathers did not have in mind freedom of speech when they approved the term "liberty"?

And this time answer my question with an answer, not with another question okay?

[RiverDog]

My point is that liberty was interpreted by our founding fathers as free speech. Although not mentioned explicitly as you may want to see it in the Dec of Independence, its impact is in our laws today definitely comes FROM the basic rights in the Dec of Independence. In fact these rights were originally espoused by Locke not Jefferson with the exception that Jefferson substituted "property" for the "pursuit of happiness"

I understand your point and agree with your analysis. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making, which was that the Declaration of Independence contains nothing specifically about freedom of speech. Only through interpretation of the three basic rights that were listed, as you have done, can we derive that they meant to include freedom of speech.

Riv, you are good at splitting hairs aren't you?
And yes, you are technically correct. The term FOS is not in the DOI. But its umbrella term: liberty, is.
When you look at laws Riv, you look at legislatures intent, and what the founders were thinking when they enacted the law. For example, sometimes the law has unintended consequences, and to find the answer you have to go back to the original debate on the floor, and notes either in the Congressional record, or in the State Legislature archives to find out what they meant when they enacted the law. Here you have the term "liberty". Its a term that is very general. Do you think that the Founding Fathers did not have in mind freedom of speech when they approved the term "liberty"?

And this time answer my question with an answer, not with another question okay?

Did the signers of the DOI have in mind freedom of speech when they said "Liberty"? Don't know for sure. My guess is that they were not thinking of free speech as is now known as the 1st amendment to the Constitution when they said "Liberty", and here's why I say that:

If you go back and read the entire document, the word "speech" never appears anywhere, nor is free speech issues implied even though there were a number of other grievances that were very specifically enumerated, such as taxation without representation, cutting off trade, control of courts of law, no trial by jury, hosting standing armies without their consent, et al in what was a relatively long list of some 25 or 30 points of contention. If they were thinking of freedom of speech, they didn't spell it out like they did just about everything else.

Go back and read the entire DOI document and see if you can find anything that pertains directly to freedom of speech.

[Hawktawk]

I see where the flavor of the month reciever Riley Cooper of the famous N word uproar has resigned with the Eagles for about 5 million per season. Wow he went from a pariah to a must have player. Why? Because he can play. This whole N word controversy is a bridge too far and it looks like even the league is backing away from it a little bit. It should be able to be enforced through the taunting rules already in place. We've been bombarded ad nauseum with the difference between the N word with "er" as opposed to "ah". following the double gs. Are we really going to ask refs to make a distinction between a malicious slur and a player using an inner city term of endearment? Cmon the refs have enough trouble getting the calls they have responsibility for right as it is. Its a fine idea in theory but the reality is its never going to be eradicated.

[savvyman]

I don't usually venture onto the social areas however I am procrastinating today....

The N word should not be used period. Any old school black person will not use that word. And for good reason. People who used it in the past meant serious harm to the recipient.

Now I understand that the N word can be used:

1. With an "a" at the end
2. As a sign of affection from one person to another.

However - there is no if or ands about it - and I have not used this word in the last four years but I will use it now - it is ghetto or low class behavior.

Again I "get it" - two brothers are being affectionate towards each other in most of the current use of the N Word. However the word has one of the nastiest historical and negative events attached to it and people who use it should find another word to display their "affection"

After all if the N word is OK to use in everyday conversation then why can't the following words also be used?

1. What if people start using the word "Motherfucker" as a term of endearment to another? And I will substitute an "a" for the "r" so that when people here it they will know when i refer to my close friend as "Motherfucka" or "My Motherfucka" they will know I am being affectionate? Would society accept this too in everyday conversation?

2. How about if girls started to use the word "Cunt" towards each other as a way of affection? Imagine Junior high girls greeting their close friends in the school hallways as hey "Cunt" or "My Cunt" - and when horrified school administrators question them about the cunt word the junior high girls can then educate them as to how she is using this word as a "term of endearment" and not anything derogatory and then continue on her way to the next class.

See how stupid 1 & 2 sounds. Civilized people should not tolerate groups of people creating their own meaning and then using obscene or hateful and destructive words in public - even if they choose to use the obscene words in an "affectionate manner".

The N word is the same way - People of all colors should start to behave in a little more classy way by immediately dropping the use of the N word period. It is a bad idea that has gone on for too long.

[monkey]

It's a good point Riv, one I would counter with this: I've read the constitution, the whole thing, and nowhere in it did I read that we have the right to not feel insulted.
If I feel insulted, even if I cannot immediately "do something about it" (personally I think there's always something you can do), then I just need to wipe the sand out of my mangina and get over it.
No one said that life was fair, or that you had the right to never feel insulted. I DO have the right to free speech though!
And BTW, that right, is NOT given to me by the government!!!
It is a GOD given right, according to our Declaration of Independence.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to free speech.
The government has nothing to do with granting us our rights, the only thing they can do is take away those rights. When people whine for government interference because they are not thick skinned, and adult enough to handle feeling insulted, that's when you LOSE rights, not gain! We have all the rights we're ever going to have now, granted to us by our Creator, the government cannot add anything to that...only take away.

You might have read the Constitution, but you'd better go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence because the right to free speech is not one of the unalienable rights referred to in that document. There were three: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Riv, the implication in the DOI was that ALL of our rights are granted us by our creator...you caught that right??
Also, there were NOT just three, it says that "AMONG THESE" are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, clearly implying there are others. They used those three because of the all-encompassing nature of the three mentioned.
Sheesh...

[Eaglehawk]

Did the signers of the DOI have in mind freedom of speech when they said "Liberty"? Don't know for sure. My guess is that they were not thinking of free speech as is now known as the 1st amendment to the Constitution when they said "Liberty", and here's why I say that:

If you go back and read the entire document, the word "speech" never appears anywhere, nor is free speech issues implied even though there were a number of other grievances that were very specifically enumerated, such as taxation without representation, cutting off trade, control of courts of law, no trial by jury, hosting standing armies without their consent, et al in what was a relatively long list of some 25 or 30 points of contention. If they were thinking of freedom of speech, they didn't spell it out like they did just about everything else.

Go back and read the entire DOI document and see if you can find anything that pertains directly to freedom of speech.

Read it many times, liberty is just that liberty. Freedom of speech, i.e. those literal words were not in the DOI. So on that point I agree with your point.
However to not have liberty you don't have freedom to do many of the things later enumerated in the Constitution which was designed to protect our liberty.
If you can't see that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

[RiverDog]

Look, you guys. I agree that freedom of speech is a right that was recognized very early in the formation of our Constitution and is one of the bedrock principles of our country. I'm just trying to keep everyone straight and not to get carried away with the embellishments.

Freedom of Speech was never a hot button issue with the signers of the DOI. It didn't make their top 10, their top 20, or even their top 30 lists of things that flamed their asses. Not unlike today, they cared more about money, and the major thing they were upset with was taxes. "No taxation without representation" was the battle cry. Furthermore, those basic rights that we cherish today were not included in the original Constitution. They were added as amendments when the framers realized they were going to need to place restrictions on the government they had just formed. And the freedom of speech they were thinking of had nothing to do with how people spoke to each other, ie the 'N' word. What they were concerned about was an attempt by the government to mute anyone that dared to speak out against the government. We've since read into that amendment an interpretation that fit our contemporary needs, and rightfully so. But you cannot convince me that the free speech we have been talking about in this thread was something that the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

[monkey]

Look, you guys. I agree that freedom of speech is a right that was recognized very early in the formation of our Constitution and is one of the bedrock principles of our country. I'm just trying to keep everyone straight and not to get carried away with the embellishments.

Freedom of Speech was never a hot button issue with the signers of the DOI. It didn't make their top 10, their top 20, or even their top 30 lists of things that flamed their asses.

Where are you getting your information from? Are you making this stuff up???
Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that freedom of speech wasn't a HUGE hot button issue of the day, when the DOI was written. That's why just eleven years later with many of the same people involved in the thinking that went behind the DOI, at the constitutional convention, the first thing on their minds was freedom of speech. Literally first thing as in #1 one on their list.

[Eaglehawk]

Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.

Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood, No. 8, July 9, 1722

At the time the DOI was written River there was the fear of establishing a government that could become too powerful and controlling over its people. Some English kings had had a reputation of jailing and/or executing those who spoke out against policies of the Crown.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington


"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." "We have staked the whole future of America civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison

[Oly]

On the rule, I'm in the camp that says the NFL can do whatever it wants to regulate its workplace. As to the argument that if they ban the N word they also have to ban other words that people don't like (fag, wetback, cunt, etc.), I say...whatever. It's their workplace. If they think only one is problematic, then just ban one. If they think they need to ban them all, then do it. The NFL already bans perfectly legal activity, like smoking weed in WA and CO, and even though I think it's stupid, that's their prerogative.

But while it's their prerogative, I think it's a logistical nightmare. As I've heard it, it sounds like the rule is meant to apply to heated arguments and scrums, but there are a lot of people whose faces are partially hidden behind facemasks, and I can't imagine how they'd figure out who said it.

Additionally, what about "good" use of the -a variant? Whether or not people like the fact that n****a is a term of endearment, it is, and I can imagine a guy who is pulling his teammate away from a fight saying "hey, my n****a, back up." As an analogy, when my wife is getting upset about something, instead of saying "hey "Kate" just let it go" I say "hey babe, just let it go." I don't know why I do that, but I know that I do. Similarly, in my example above, some player would be using the word to pull his teammate away from conflict. Would we want that flagged? Fined? Of course we could say that he could pick a different word, but if that's what they are used to using when they hang out, it's going to come out in the heat of the moment. Do we want refs to have discretion over whether or not the word was used in the right way?

The NFL can do what it wants, because I see it being more about workplace regulations than my American liberties. That said, I think they'd be stupid to do it, and I say that as someone who would like both variants of the word to die.

[RiverDog]

Look, you guys. I agree that freedom of speech is a right that was recognized very early in the formation of our Constitution and is one of the bedrock principles of our country. I'm just trying to keep everyone straight and not to get carried away with the embellishments.

Freedom of Speech was never a hot button issue with the signers of the DOI. It didn't make their top 10, their top 20, or even their top 30 lists of things that flamed their asses.

Where are you getting your information from? Are you making this stuff up???
Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that freedom of speech wasn't a HUGE hot button issue of the day, when the DOI was written. That's why just eleven years later with many of the same people involved in the thinking that went behind the DOI, at the constitutional convention, the first thing on their minds was freedom of speech. Literally first thing as in #1 one on their list.

I've studied it, in college, long ago. Taxation was the root cause of the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, the Stamp Act, and the Townshed Acts, all events that led up to the Revolutionary War. Taxation was the lightning rod issue of the day back in the 1770's. If you don't trust me, go research it yourself. But don't sit there and muse about whether or not I'm making it up.

Here's the complete text of the DOI. Highlight or underline the part you think applies DIRECTLY to free speech (and no, you can't highlight "Liberty". Too vague.)

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[monkey]

Riv, copy pasting the DOI in no way takes away from my assertion that, freedom of speech was in fact a huge hot button topic at the time of the DOI, as evidenced by the fact that just 11 short years later, it was the number one issue at the constitutional congress.

Remember, Riverdog, this was your quote.

Freedom of Speech was never a hot button issue with the signers of the DOI. It didn't make their top 10, their top 20, or even their top 30 lists of things that flamed their asses.

All I want you to do is somehow, someway, try to prove that ridiculous statement.
Prove it or walk it back, and just admit you caught carried away with the rhetoric there.

[RiverDog]

Riv, all you did there was copy paste a whole bunch of stuff that in now way either proves what you said or disproves what i said.

What you copy pasted in no way takes away from my assertion that, freedom of speech was in fact a huge hot button topic at the time of the DOI, as evidenced by the fact that just 11 short years later, it was the number one issue at the constitutional congress. What you copy pasted just informed us all that (as everyone already knew) taxation without representation was a root cause of the revolutionary war...DUH! Every little kid in elementary school gets taught that much... but not one word you pasted disproves my assertion that freedom of speech was in fact a HUGE hot button issue in the period of time when the DOI was written just 11 years before the constitution.

Remember, Riverdog, this was your quote.

Freedom of Speech was never a hot button issue with the signers of the DOI. It didn't make their top 10, their top 20, or even their top 30 lists of things that flamed their asses.

All I want you to do is somehow, someway, try to prove that ridiculous statement.
Prove it or walk it back, and just admit you caught carried away with the rhetoric there.

A "bunch of stuff"? I posted the actual text of the Declaration of Independence. Where on Earth do you come off calling the DOI "a bunch of stuff"?

Quit being so fricking lazy. Go do your homework before you sit back and take pot shots at me by calling my statements "ridiculous" without offering a shred of evidence to support your claims. I've offered my proof. You're the one that caught making statements that you knew nothing about and that needs to take a step back.

[monkey]

Riverdog, quit changing the subject, you offered NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.
You copy pasted the DOI...how in the bloody hell does that prove that freedom of speech wasn't a hot button issue at the time of the DOI?!?

Try again RIverdog, or just admit you got carried away with your rhetoric, and quit changing the subject.

[NorthHawk]

Where's a Time Tunnel when we need one?

[monkey]

You don't think that folks like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, etc... who were writing and saying things that could get them KILLED FOR TREASON thought that freedom of speech was a top issue???

Again, it was the #1 issue in the bill of rights, which was just 11 years after the DOI, so I'd say it was a VERY hot button issue!

[RiverDog]

Riverdog, quit changing the subject, you offered NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.
You copy pasted the DOI...how in the bloody hell does that prove that freedom of speech wasn't a hot button issue at the time of the DOI?!?

Try again RIverdog, or just admit you got carried away with your rhetoric, and quit changing the subject.

So the Declaration of Independence isn't enough for you? Then how about the original US Constitution before the amendment process. Where was Freedom of the Speech mentioned in it?

Go back and brush up on your history. Here's some help:

The Stamp Act was passed by the British Parliament on March 22, 1765. The new tax was imposed on all American colonists and required them to pay a tax on every piece of printed paper they used.

http://www.history.org/history/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm

Taxes on glass, paint, oil, lead, paper, and tea were applied with the design of raising £40,000 a year for the administration of the colonies. The result was the resurrection of colonial hostilities created by the Stamp Act.


http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/re ... nshend.htm

At its core, the Boston Tea Party was a conflict over taxation.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolu ... party1.htm

The Boston Massacre saw a mob clash with British troops as part of a larger protest against taxation without representation.


http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/ame ... ssacre.htm

It is clear that the number one issue in events leading up to the Revolutionary was taxes. After the Revolution when it came time to form a new government, only then did freedom of speech become one of the bedrock principles that guides our nation today. But the fact is that it was not a major impetus leading to the Revolution.

I've dedicated a bunch of time and posted a whole bunch of stuff, but I seriously doubt that either you or Eagle will bother to read any of it. You both have your preconceived ideas and refuse to face facts when presented to you in black and white while offering ABSOULETLY NOTHING to support your own claims.

I'm done with this subject. I'm getting extremely frustrated with both of you.

[HumanCockroach]

Wow, it is definitely the off season. Disagreements over religion, liberties ( politics) and a Niner implosion watch. Damn I wish the season was already starting back up, or at least some serious offseason moves.... LOL.

[NorthHawk]

In the great tradition of the old PI Forum this thread has taken a gradual turn into the ditch.
What was once an football point of discussion has now turned into an argument about the intent of historical figures.

Then again, it is interesting to read some of the discussion points in an otherwise bland time of year.

[Hawktawk]

Sherman doesn't like it. Quoted as saying he thinks its racist to only outlaw the N word and that if they are going to do that they should outlaw all swearing. Leave it to Sherman. I love that guy...

[Eaglehawk]

Sherman doesn't like it. Quoted as saying he thinks its racist to only outlaw the N word and that if they are going to do that they should outlaw all swearing. Leave it to Sherman. I love that guy...

Agreed, he says exactly my point, and I am sure most of the people on this forum probably agree as well.

[Eaglehawk]

I'm done with this subject. I'm getting extremely frustrated with both of you.

RD,

I never called your statement ridiculous. I read your information as well. Good stuff.

I agree, lets move on. You and I agree to disagree with each other. My intent was never to get you frustrated.

[monkey]

Sherman doesn't like it. Quoted as saying he thinks its racist to only outlaw the N word and that if they are going to do that they should outlaw all swearing. Leave it to Sherman. I love that guy...

I agree, I think Sherman is exactly right.

Oh and yes, Riverdog, taxation without representation certainly was a huge hot button issue. Everyone knows that FFS. I wasn't aware they were only allowed one issue.

[NorthHawk]

It's an ugly, ugly word, but within the athletic community it seems like it's acceptable if used within the proper context.
I think the use of it naturally regulated - meaning if it is used as a slur it will be known quickly as things will escalate rapidly.
The other aspect as brought up either in this thread or somewhere else is how much of a burden will this add to the Officials.
They have enough to concern themselves with and adding this component will in my opinion make it even harder for them to do their jobs.
With tinted visors and melees occurring, how will they know who actually said what?

Maybe the next position to be added to the team will be a designated voice thrower to get a penalty called on the other team.