Mike Mayock on 2015 NFL Draft

[Marshall]

I will be so happy when we can get passed this whole Pot thing. (It's happening right now) Alcohol is by far a more destructive substance not only mentally, but physically, but they don't test them for booze do they? What these people do on their free time is none of my business, nor anyone else'. If they show up, fulfill their contractual obligations, there should be no infringement of their right to a private life. They are playing sports for phucs sake, not running for the POTUS. Even more ironic is many of our former POTUS have all partaken, but they were not denied the highest office in the land. But let a 20 something athlete smoke a joint, and the whole world is coming unglued.

Spare me any arguments about legality. If you have any idea of the history of cannabis and why it is illegal you won't bother. Let's just say it's not for the betterment of humanity. Anyone who still believes in the "Reefer Mania" propaganda is a stooge. This "Schedule 1" cannabis fairy tale has gone on long enough.

I haven't heard anybody say experimentation should rule any player out. But using it when you know it's about to be tested before your once in a lifetime chance at a career in football indicates much more dependance than mere experimentation. It indicates addiction and/or irresponsibility. That is the RED FLAG.

I happen to agree that alcohol is worse and tobacco is far more addictive. But I don't recommend those either, even though legal. In fact, I can be easily persuaded that all such foolishness should be legal AND avoided by choice rather than compulsion by the government. MADD has helped to show that changing societal views is a more effective pressure than legal prohibition.

 

[Lucky]

I will be so happy when we can get passed this whole Pot thing. (It's happening right now) Alcohol is by far a more destructive substance not only mentally, but physically, but they don't test them for booze do they? What these people do on their free time is none of my business, nor anyone else'. If they show up, fulfill their contractual obligations, there should be no infringement of their right to a private life.

I pretty much agree. But, that is not the situation players encounter when in the NFL. The players union willing entered a contract that has them tested for drugs (including marijuana). All of the draft prospects are aware of this when they go to the scouting combine.

So knowing that he is entering a league that tests for drugs, and knowing that said test would be administered at the scouting combine, what does Gregory do? Smokes enough weed to pop positive. Do I think he was the only guy who smoked reefer in college? Hardly. But, he was the one with the lack of will power, intelligence, commitment, you name it, that got caught. So he gets the gold star by his name. And gets tested at the leagues whim. And enters the NFL on "probation". Gregory's "contractual obligation" once he is in the league is to stay clean.

 

[Nitrofish]

I pretty much agree. But, that is not the situation players encounter when in the NFL. The players union willing entered a contract that has them tested for drugs (including marijuana). All of the draft prospects are aware of this when they go to the scouting combine.

So knowing that he is entering a league that tests for drugs, and knowing that said test would be administered at the scouting combine, what does Gregory do? Smokes enough weed to pop positive. Do I think he was the only guy who smoked reefer in college? Hardly. But, he was the one with the lack of will power, intelligence, commitment, you name it, that got caught. So he gets the gold star by his name. And gets tested at the leagues whim. And enters the NFL on "probation". Gregory's "contractual obligation" once he is in the league is to stay clean.

I would agree with you bro of this were the National Who Can Stay Clean The Longest League. But it's not. Players jobs are to sack the QB, throw TD's, run like the wind. Entertain us. What has this world come to when we frown more on someone who smokes a joint for recreation with his buddies, than someone who abuses their kids, or wife?

How does this make any sense to anyone? I am a firm believer in disciplining children when they get off the path you as their Father has set out for them. But there is a huge difference between discipline, and abuse. To think that fans and the NFL are ready to welcome AP back to football and allow him to play, celebrate his play, but then say Gordon can't because he smoked pot has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And I can assure you, I have heard some really dumb sh!t in my life.

 

[thunderkyss]

What has this world come to when we frown more on someone who smokes a joint for recreation with his buddies, than someone who abuses their kids, or wife?

How does this make any sense to anyone?

What in the world has given you this impression?

I am a firm believer in disciplining children when they get off the path you as their Father has set out for them. But there is a huge difference between discipline, and abuse. To think that fans and the NFL are ready to welcome AP back to football and allow him to play, celebrate his play, but then say Gordon can't because he smoked pot has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And I can assure you, I have heard some really dumb sh!t in my life.

Nobody is saying Gordon can't play. He'll likely fall in the draft because he wasn't smart enough not to get caught when he knew he would be tested. Chances are he won't be smart enough not to get caught when the testing is random.

Most of us don't give a sht about what he smokes or when, but we know it's a rule that he's signing a contract saying he'll abide by. & the next time he gets caught it will cost him games, it will cost our team games, & maybe something more important like championships.

 

[Lucky]

What has this world come to when we frown more on someone who smokes a joint for recreation with his buddies, than someone who abuses their kids, or wife?

"We" don't really enter in the equation. This is between the league and the players. And while the rules have softened a bit regarding the punishment of marijuana use, the testing goes on. And I don't see the players asking for this to be pushed back. As a group, they seem to be OK with it. If the NFL and the NFLPA decided to mutually abandon testing for marijuana, I would have no problem with that. But, they haven't. That's their decision. Not ours.

 

[bah007]

I will be so happy when we can get passed this whole Pot thing. (It's happening right now) Alcohol is by far a more destructive substance not only mentally, but physically, but they don't test them for booze do they? What these people do on their free time is none of my business, nor anyone else'. If they show up, fulfill their contractual obligations, there should be no infringement of their right to a private life. They are playing sports for phucs sake, not running for the POTUS. Even more ironic is many of our former POTUS have all partaken, but they were not denied the highest office in the land. But let a 20 something athlete smoke a joint, and the whole world is coming unglued.

Spare me any arguments about legality. If you have any idea of the history of cannabis and why it is illegal you won't bother. Let's just say it's not for the betterment of humanity. Anyone who still believes in the "Reefer Mania" propaganda is a stooge. This "Schedule 1" cannabis fairy tale has gone on long enough.

Whether they did use or not, you think those former POTUS would have shown up to a presidential debate and failed a test for it?

It's not a question of morality and it's not a question of whether it should be legal or not. In some places it is not and the league tests for it. And you know you are going to get tested when you show up to the combine.

It's not so much a drug test as it is an intelligence test. And Gregory failed it.

 

[Kaiser Toro]

"We" don't really enter in the equation. This is between the league and the players. And while the rules have softened a bit regarding the punishment of marijuana use, the testing goes on. And I don't see the players asking for this to be pushed back. As a group, they seem to be OK with it. If the NFL and the NFLPA decided to mutually abandon testing for marijuana, I would have no problem with that. But, they haven't. That's their decision. Not ours.

I would agree with you bro, but I am all up in that equation.

 

[Nitrofish]

Whether they did use or not, you think those former POTUS would have shown up to a presidential debate and failed a test for it?

It's not a question of morality and it's not a question of whether it should be legal or not. In some places it is not and the league tests for it. And you know you are going to get tested when you show up to the combine.

It's not so much a drug test as it is an intelligence test. And Gregory failed it.

You miss the point. Were they tested? One might think it more important to drug test the man with his finger on the button, rather than the man with a cup in his jock strap.

"We" don't really enter in the equation. This is between the league and the players. And while the rules have softened a bit regarding the punishment of marijuana use, the testing goes on. And I don't see the players asking for this to be pushed back. As a group, they seem to be OK with it. If the NFL and the NFLPA decided to mutually abandon testing for marijuana, I would have no problem with that. But, they haven't. That's their decision. Not ours.

We, as in Society. Not we as fans.

 

[Playoffs]

2015 NFL Draft: Mike Mayock's top 100 prospects

1. Leonard Williams, DT, USC
2. Dante Fowler, Jr., DE, Florida
3. Kevin White, WR, West Virginia
4. Amari Cooper, WR, Alabama
5. Marcus Mariota, QB, Oregon
6. Jameis Winston, QB, Florida State
7. Trae Waynes, CB, Michigan State
8. Brandon Scherff, OT, Iowa
9. DeVante Parker, WR, Louisville
10. Melvin Gordon, RB, Wisconsin

11. Bud Dupree, DE, Kentucky
12. Danny Shelton, DT, Wisconsin
13. Vic Beasley, LB, Clemson
14. Arik Armstead, DE, Oregon
15. Breshad Perriman, WR, UCF
16. La'el Collins, OT, LSU
17. Randy Gregory, DE, Nebraska
18. Shane Ray, DE, Missouri
19. Todd Gurley, RB, Georgia
20. Malcom Brown, DT, Texas

21. Ereck Flowers, OT, Miami (Fla.)
22. Kevin Johnson, CB, Wake Forest
23. Nelson Agholor, WR, USC
24. Marcus Peters, CB, Washington
25. D.J. Humphries, OT, Florida
26. Cameron Erving, C, Florida State
27. Jalen Collins, CB, LSU
28. Andrus Peat, OT, Stanford
29. Eddie Goldman, DT, Florida State
30. Damarious Randall, S, Arizona State

31. Dorial Green-Beckham, WR, Oklahoma
32. Landon Collins, S, Alabama
33. T.J. Clemmings, OT, Pittsburgh
34. Phillip Dorsett, WR, Miami (Fla.)
35. Jordan Phillips, DT, Oklahoma
36. Eli Harold, DE, Virginia
37. Byron Jones, CB, Connecticut
38. Jaelen Strong, WR, Arizona State
39. Jake Fisher, OT, Oregon
40. Donovan Smith, OT, Penn State

41. Ameer Abdullah, RB, Nebraska
42. Paul Dawson, LB, TCU
43. Shaq Thompson, LB, Washington
44. Eric Rowe, CB, Utah
45. Eric Kendricks, LB, UCLA
46. Duke Johnson, RB, Miami (Fla.)
47. Carl Davis, DT, Iowa
48. Tevin Coleman, RB, Indiana
49. Preston Smith, DE, Mississippi State
50. Stephone Anthony, LB, Clemson

51. Nate Orchard, DE, Utah
52. Cedric Ogbuehi, OT, Texas A&M
53. Laken Tomlinson, G, Duke
54. Owamagbe Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
55. T.J. Yeldon, RB, Alabama
56. A.J. Cann, G, South Carolina
57. Devin Smith, WR, Ohio State
58. Maxx Williams, TE, Minnesota
59. Doran Grant, CB, Ohio State
60. Denzel Perryman, LB, Miami (Fla.)

61. Mario Edwards, Jr., DE, Florida State
62. Senquez Golson, CB, Mississippi
63. Benardrick McKinney, LB, Mississippi State
64. Quinten Rollins, CB, Miami (Ohio)
65. Devin Funchess, WR, Michigan
66. David Johnson, RB, Northern Iowa
67. Jay Ajayi, RB, Boise State
68. Bryce Petty, QB, Baylor
69. P.J. Williams, CB, Florida State
70. Tyler Lockett, WR, Kansas State

71. Sammie Coates, WR, Auburn
72. Clive Walford, TE, Miami (Fla.)
73. Mitch Morse, C, Missouri
74. Rashad Greene, WR, Florida State
75. Ronald Darby, CB, Florida State
76. Grady Jarrett, DT, Clemson
77. Brett Hundley, QB, UCLA
78. Jaquiski Tartt, S, Samford
79. Javorius Allen, RB, USC
80. Michael Bennett, DT, Ohio State

81. Tyler Kroft, TE, Rutgers
82. Daryl Williams, OT, Oklahoma
83. Za'Darius Smith, DE, Kentucky
84. Markus Golden, DE, Missouri
85. Ty Sambrailo, OT, Colorado State
86. Henry Anderson, DE, Alabama
87. Ali Marpet, OT, Hobart
88. Tre McBride, WR, William & Mary
89. Trey Flowers, DE, Arkansas
90. Tre' Jackson, G, Florida State

91. Alex Carter, CB, Stanford
92. Josh Shaw, CB, USC
93. Xavier Cooper, DT, Washington State
94. Jeremiah Poutasi, OT, Utah
95. D'Joun Smith, CB, Florida Atlantic
96. Ibraheim Campbell, S, Northwestern
97. Ty Montgomery, WR, Stanford
98. Charles Gaines, CB, Louisville
99. Hroniss Grasu, C, Oregon
100. Danielle Hunter, DE, LSU

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ks-top-100-prospects?campaign=Twitter_nfl_cfb

 

[mussop]

Going off his list Would be happy with any of these guys at 16

16. La'el Collins, OT, LSU
17. Randy Gregory, DE, Nebraska
19. Todd Gurley, RB, Georgia
20. Malcom Brown, DT, Texas
21. Ereck Flowers, OT, Miami (Fla.)
22. Kevin Johnson, CB, Wake F
24. Marcus Peters, CB, Washington
25. D.J. Humphries, OT, Florida
26. Cameron Erving, C, Florida State
45. Eric Kendricks, LB, UCLA


51
53. Laken Tomlinson, G, Duke
54. Owamagbe Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
57. Devin Smith, WR, Ohio State
60. Denzel Perryman, LB, Miami (Fla.)
64. Quinten Rollins, CB, Miami (Ohio)
66. David Johnson, RB, Northern Iowa
67. Jay Ajayi, RB, Boise State
69. P.J. Williams, CB, Florida State
70. Tyler Lockett, WR, Kansas State
79. Javorius Allen, RB, USC

82
89. Trey Flowers, DE, Arkansas
90. Tre' Jackson, G, Florida State
91. Alex Carter, CB, Stanford
94. Jeremiah Poutasi, OT, Utah
97. Ty Montgomery, WR, Stanford
99. Hroniss Grasu, C, Oregon
100. Danielle Hunter, DE, LSU

 

[Playoffs]

Mike Mayock's 2015 NFL Draft position rankings 5.0

Quarterback
1. Marcus Mariota, Oregon
2. Jameis Winston, Florida State
3. Bryce Petty, Baylor
4. Brett Hundley, UCLA
5. Sean Mannion, Oregon State

Rise: Hundley (5), Mannion (NR)
Fall: Garrett Grayson, Colorado State (4)

Running back
1. Melvin Gordon, Wisconsin
2. Todd Gurley, Georgia
3. Ameer Abdullah, Nebraska
4. Duke Johnson, Miami (Fla.)
5. Tevin Coleman, Indiana

Fall: T.J. Yeldon, Alabama (T-5)

Wide receiver
1. Kevin White, West Virginia
2. Amari Cooper, Alabama
3. DeVante Parker, Louisville
4. Breshad Perriman, Central Florida
5. Nelson Agholor, USC

Fall: Dorial Green-Beckham, Missouri (T-5)

Tight end
1. Maxx Williams, Minnesota
2. Clive Walford, Miami (Fla.)
3. Tyler Kroft, Rutgers
4. Blake Bell, Oklahoma
5. Jeff Heuerman, Ohio State

Rise: Kroft (4)
Fall: Bell (3)

Interior offensive linemen
1. Brandon Scherff, Iowa
2. Cameron Erving, Florida State
3. Laken Tomlinson, Duke
4. A.J. Cann, South Carolina
5. Mitch Morse, Missouri

Rise: Morse (NR)
Fall: Tre' Jackson, Florida State (5)

Offensive tackle
1. La'el Collins, LSU
2. Ereck Flowers, Miami (Fla.)
3. D.J. Humphries, Florida
4. Andrus Peat, Stanford
5. T.J. Clemmings, Pittsburgh

Fall: Cedric Ogbuehi, Texas A&M (T-5)

Interior defensive linemen
1. Leonard Williams, USC
2. Danny Shelton, Washington
3. Arik Armstead, Oregon
4. Malcom Brown, Texas
5. Eddie Goldman, Florida State

Rise: Shelton (4)
Fall: Armstead (2), Brown (3), Jordan Phillips, Oklahoma (T-5)

Edge rusher
1. Dante Fowler, Jr., Florida
2. Bud Dupree, Kentucky
3. Vic Beasley, Clemson
4. Randy Gregory, Nebraska
5. Shane Ray, Missouri

Rise: Dupree (4)
Fall: Gregory (2)

Linebacker
1. Paul Dawson, TCU
2. Eric Kendricks, UCLA
3. Stephone Anthony, Clemson
4. Denzel Perryman, Miami (Fla.)
5. Benardrick McKinney, Mississippi State

Cornerback
1. Trae Waynes, Michigan State
2. Kevin Johnson, Wake Forest
3. Marcus Peters, Washington
4. Jalen Collins, LSU
5. Byron Jones, Connecticut

Rise: Johnson (4)
Fall: Collins (2), Eric Rowe, Utah (T-5)

Safety
1. Damarious Randall, Arizona State
2. Landon Collins, Alabama
3. Shaq Thompson, Washington
4. Quinten Rollins, Miami (Ohio)
5. Jaquiski Tartt, Samford

Fall: Alex Carter, Stanford (T-5)

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...position-rankings-50?campaign=Twitter_nfl_cfb

 

[Marshall]

I would agree with you bro of this were the National Who Can Stay Clean The Longest League. But it's not. Players jobs are to sack the QB, throw TD's, run like the wind. Entertain us. What has this world come to when we frown more on someone who smokes a joint for recreation with his buddies, than someone who abuses their kids, or wife?

How does this make any sense to anyone? I am a firm believer in disciplining children when they get off the path you as their Father has set out for them. But there is a huge difference between discipline, and abuse. To think that fans and the NFL are ready to welcome AP back to football and allow him to play, celebrate his play, but then say Gordon can't because he smoked pot has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And I can assure you, I have heard some really dumb sh!t in my life.

How can you do this if you're on the sidelined for testing positive for banned substances? You may have a right to take a substance like steroids, but not if you want to play in the NFL. So staying eligible IS a part of your job. But you have a right to walk away from your job if you don't like it.

 

[Nitrofish]

How can you do this if you're on the sidelined for testing positive for banned substances? You may have a right to take a substance like steroids, but not if you want to play in the NFL. So staying eligible IS a part of your job. But you have a right to walk away from your job if you don't like it.

The fact is, corporations of any kind have no right to take away a person right to privacy before they have done something wrong. As I said, if the person is acting in an unusual manner, or not performing then test him. But to treat an American as a criminal before they have done anything wrong by violating their right to privacy with a pre employment drug test is unAmerican. It is everything this country is against. Granting corporations special rights to violate a persons 4th amendment right because they have money at risk is fascism, not freedom.

I understand what the contract says, but it's in violation of the bill of rights IMHO.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As I read that, nobody has the right to search for something unless there is probable cause. Applying for a job is not probably cause. It is treating someone as a criminal before they have done anything criminal. Teams could just as easily add a clause to a players contract that voids any deals if illegal substances are found after probably cause has been established.

How primitive of a society are we when we ask people to urinate in a cup before entering into an business agreement with them? When you incorporate, as you asked to piss in a cup? No. Were any of the owners asked to piss in a cup, or do they take random tests now? If not, why the double standard? Surely the NFL as a whole has a lot to lose if one or more of their owners are drug users, no? After I pass my piss test, do I get to see my employers piss test? If not, why? Do students get tested before being allowed into school? If not, why not? Do you get drug tested before you get a drivers license, or a pilots license? What about drug testing to own a firearm? You see this is where it is headed when we allow these transgressions on our rights as US Citizens.

Corporations are granted way to many liberties with our rights as citizens IMHO.

You, and others may feel differently.

 

[Marshall]

The fact is, corporations of any kind have no right to take away a person right to privacy before they have done something wrong. As I said, if the person is acting in an unusual manner, or not performing then test him. But to treat an American as a criminal before they have done anything wrong by violating their right to privacy with a pre employment drug test is unAmerican. It is everything this country is against. Granting corporations special rights to violate a persons 4th amendment right because they have money at risk is fascism, not freedom.

I understand what the contract says, but it's in violation of the bill of rights IMHO.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As I read that, nobody has the right to search for something unless there is probable cause. Applying for a job is not probably cause. It is treating someone as a criminal before they have done anything criminal. Teams could just as easily add a clause to a players contract that voids any deals if illegal substances are found after probably cause has been established.

How primitive of a society are we when we ask people to urinate in a cup before entering into an business agreement with them? When you incorporate, as you asked to piss in a cup? No. Were any of the owners asked to piss in a cup, or do they take random tests now? If not, why the double standard? Surely the NFL as a whole has a lot to lose if one or more of their owners are drug users, no? After I pass my piss test, do I get to see my employers piss test? If not, why? Do students get tested before being allowed into school? If not, why not? Do you get drug tested before you get a drivers license, or a pilots license? What about drug testing to own a firearm? You see this is where it is headed when we allow these transgressions on our rights as US Citizens.

Corporations are granted way to many liberties with our rights as citizens IMHO.

You, and others may feel differently.

You, like many others these days, confuse limitations on the GOVERNMENT with the personal liberties and choices we are permitted to make. Employment is not a right. If employed, you have agreed to do something that cannot be demanded of you. The terms are set before you take the job, whether it is written down or not. Pre-employment screening is part of the process of setting out those terms. You are not obligated to seek employment there if you do not like their terms. You may walk away because you are free to do so. They are free to require their employees limit their exercise of some freedoms while they are employed.

My problem is that many think the government is a master and should make people do what we want them to do rather than recognizing that personal liberty is superior, even with it's accompanying insults and discomforts, to forced conformity to the preferences of even a majority.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

Like Marshall said, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about the relationship between the Government of the US and its citizens.

Those documents don't apply to Corporations and their employees or their employee-candidates, just as it doesn't apply to our Government and the citizens of other countries or between you and me.

I can assume everyone around me is guilty until proven innocent if I want. So can a corporation. So can our Government when dealing with people in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Nitrofish]

You, like many others these days, confuse limitations on the GOVERNMENT with the personal liberties and choices we are permitted to make. Employment is not a right. If employed, you have agreed to do something that cannot be demanded of you. The terms are set before you take the job, whether it is written down or not. Pre-employment screening is part of the process of setting out those terms. You are not obligated to seek employment there if you do not like their terms. You may walk away because you are free to do so. They are free to require their employees limit their exercise of some freedoms while they are employed.

My problem is that many think the government is a master and should make people do what we want them to do rather than recognizing that personal liberty is superior, even with it's accompanying insults and discomforts, to forced conformity to the preferences of even a majority.

There is no confusion. I realize the bill of rights pertains to the federal government. My question is why should corporations not have to follow the same rules? Why is it they deserve to trample on the right of citizens that their own government are not supposed to trample on? Please explain why you think there should be a double standard when it comes to corporations? Clearly you do not see the conflict of interest that exists between government and corporations vs the average US citizen.

When I am on company time, they have every right to monitor me, or expect me to conform to their rules. But when the clock strikes 5 and I am on my own time. The corporation should have nothing to say what I do in the privacy of my own home. For the record I have no problem with pre-employment screening. i.e. interviews, education, background check, references. Where I draw the line is when you ask me to piss into a cup. That is one step too far unless I have exhibited unusual behavior after being hired.

Like Marshall said, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about the relationship between the Government of the US and its citizens.

Those documents don't apply to Corporations and their employees or their employee-candidates, just as it doesn't apply to our Government and the citizens of other countries or between you and me.

I can assume everyone around me is guilty until proven innocent if I want. So can a corporation. So can our Government when dealing with people in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As I stated, I fully understand the bill of rights, and to whom it was directed. But as I stated above, you failed to explain why Americans should be willing to allow corporations to have a 2nd set of rules than their government. Especially considering that corporation spend billions lobbying the government and have politicians in their pockets. They have laws passed that favor them, and the citizens take it up the @$$.

So since the corporations own the government (and they do), why are they not accountable to the bills of rights?

You can assume anything you want, you do not hold the livlihood of thousands or tens of thousands of people in your hands. And Iraq and Afghanistan citizens are are not protected by the US Constitution and the Bill of Right. Apples and oranges.

 

[disaacks3]

There is no confusion. I realize the bill of rights pertains to the federal government. My question is why should corporations not have to follow the same rules?

Because the worker "willingly" gave up some of those rights under the guise of a Collective Bargaining agreement which allows certain things to transpire which otherwise would not be permitted. this is no different than many other union jobs.

https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EmployeeRightsPoster11x17_Final.pdf

You can assume anything you want, you do not hold the livlihood of thousands or tens of thousands of people in your hands. And Iraq and Afghanistan citizens are are not protected by the US Constitution and the Bill of Right. Apples and oranges.

Other than voting and running for office, they are afforded the same protections as a citizen when on American soil.

 

[Marshall]

Being free to choose our terms for association, whether it is employment, religious affiliation, political affiliation or drinking buddy means we cannot IMPOSE our desire on others. This is because they have the same rights. If their terms are too onerous, then we are free not to meet those terms or enter into the association. It is not a call to arms to limit their freedom. Unfortunately, the desire to correct wrongs by statute rather than by persuasion has led to a general erosion of freedoms. And as usual, it is those whose intentions are good who led the charge.

 

[The Pencil Neck]

If there comes too big of a hue and cry against the tyranny of corporations, then you could see more and more laws passed to limit what businesses can and cannot do in their hiring and firing practices. It was this sort of thing that led to the creation of labor unions, laws against monopolies, and a myriad of other laws.

In then end if you pass too many laws by following that path too far, you wind up with socialism and all of the corporations taken over by the government.

And that's the danger.

If you want the capitalistic freedoms that this country was founded on, then you have to minimize the amount of laws you place on the corporations and limit the amount of government involvement. OTOH, if you don't place at least some limitations on corporations, they will be absolutely cut-throat and will grind down all but the highest echelons of the people down in a bloody, socially darwinistic manner like we saw back in the late 1800's. The companies and corporations themselves will fight it out and create all kinds of chaos as they fight for market shares.

So there's a careful balancing act that has to be performed there -- too much capitalism vs. too much government.

For me, I don't see any reason why a corporation would have to act and abide by the concepts created for governments. They're two different creatures.

 

[Playoffs]

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/the-no-spin-zone.23/

 

[Fred]

There is no confusion. I realize the bill of rights pertains to the federal government. My question is why should corporations not have to follow the same rules? Why is it they deserve to trample on the right of citizens that their own government are not supposed to trample on? Please explain why you think there should be a double standard when it comes to corporations? Clearly you do not see the conflict of interest that exists between government and corporations vs the average US citizen.


As I stated, I fully understand the bill of rights, and to whom it was directed. But as I stated above, you failed to explain why Americans should be willing to allow corporations to have a 2nd set of rules than their government. Especially considering that corporation spend billions lobbying the government and have politicians in their pockets. They have laws passed that favor them, and the citizens take it up the @$$.

So since the corporations own the government (and they do), why are they not accountable to the bills of rights?

There is confusion, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no comprehension of the bill of rights or the constitution. They are limits on the GOVERNMENT. THE ENTITY THAT CAN TAX YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE and/or THROW YOU IN JAIL.

Corporations and other free citizens are free to do as they please. If you want to hire someone to work in your home, you can make them take a drug test (or don't, just don't come whining to me when they steal everything in your house that is not bolted down to support their habit). If you incorporate you still have that same right. Whether you are a one man company or WalMart. If you use the power of the government to make a law to restrict the rights of WalMart, you didn't help the "citizens". You just restricted the rights of all the citizens. By the only entity that can restrict citizen's rights (not corporations) - the government.

And all this whining about "corporations own the government" boo-effing-who. (And if the government would abide by the rest of the constitution they would not have enough power that anyone would be interested in buying them - that is the real problem.) There are millions of corporations in the country (can't believe they all "own" a politician) and a hundred million voters. If you are so weak that you will only vote for a politician who is supported by 'corporations" that is a personal problem. Corporations and other citizens are the ones PROTECTED by the bill of rights not accountable to it.

Because the worker "willingly" gave up some of those rights under the guise of a Collective Bargaining agreement which allows certain things to transpire which otherwise would not be permitted. this is no different than many other union jobs.

https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EmployeeRightsPoster11x17_Final.pdf

Other than voting and running for office, they are afforded the same protections as a citizen when on American soil.

Better than Nitrofish, but still wrong. Corporations can hire for non-union jobs and require drug tests, that you do the chicken dance, and sing your arch-rivals alma mater. These things are otherwise permitted. If through Collective Bargaining a union gets a corporation to agree not to drug test, then they can't drug test - because of the CONTRACT - nothing to do with the CONSTITUTION.

Being free to choose our terms for association, whether it is employment, religious affiliation, political affiliation or drinking buddy means we cannot IMPOSE our desire on others. This is because they have the same rights. If their terms are too onerous, then we are free not to meet those terms or enter into the association. It is not a call to arms to limit their freedom. Unfortunately, the desire to correct wrongs by statute rather than by persuasion has led to a general erosion of freedoms. And as usual, it is those whose intentions are good who led the charge.

The only guy getting this right - although your signature is ignorant - see my Lombardi thread.

If there comes too big of a hue and cry against the tyranny of corporations, then you could see more and more laws passed to limit what businesses can and cannot do in their hiring and firing practices. It was this sort of thing that led to the creation of labor unions, laws against monopolies, and a myriad of other laws.

In then end if you pass too many laws by following that path too far, you wind up with socialism and all of the corporations taken over by the government.

And that's the danger.

If you want the capitalistic freedoms that this country was founded on, then you have to minimize the amount of laws you place on the corporations and limit the amount of government involvement. OTOH, if you don't place at least some limitations on corporations, they will be absolutely cut-throat and will grind down all but the highest echelons of the people down in a bloody, socially darwinistic manner like we saw back in the late 1800's. The companies and corporations themselves will fight it out and create all kinds of chaos as they fight for market shares.

So there's a careful balancing act that has to be performed there -- too much capitalism vs. too much government.

For me, I don't see any reason why a corporation would have to act and abide by the concepts created for governments. They're two different creatures.

Forget the bill of rights - just throw the whole effing constitution down the crapper!!!! Eff the hue and cry! I don't want the government ignoring the constitution to restrict freedom in this country although I realize that you and most people will trash the constitution in a heartbeat if you think if helps a strike a "balance". Once you do that, the government is off the leash forever.

 

[Nitrofish]

There is confusion, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no comprehension of the bill of rights or the constitution. They are limits on the GOVERNMENT. THE ENTITY THAT CAN TAX YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE and/or THROW YOU IN JAIL.

Corporations and other free citizens are free to do as they please. If you want to hire someone to work in your home, you can make them take a drug test (or don't, just don't come whining to me when they steal everything in your house that is not bolted down to support their habit). If you incorporate you still have that same right. Whether you are a one man company or WalMart. If you use the power of the government to make a law to restrict the rights of WalMart, you didn't help the "citizens". You just restricted the rights of all the citizens. By the only entity that can restrict citizen's rights (not corporations) - the government.

And all this whining about "corporations own the government" boo-effing-who. (And if the government would abide by the rest of the constitution they would not have enough power that anyone would be interested in buying them - that is the real problem.) There are millions of corporations in the country (can't believe they all "own" a politician) and a hundred million voters. If you are so weak that you will only vote for a politician who is supported by 'corporations" that is a personal problem. Corporations and other citizens are the ones PROTECTED by the bill of rights not accountable to it.

Oh I see, so corporations who can keep you from earning a living and condemn you to a life of poverty are different than an "ENTITY THAT CAN TAX YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE and/or THROW YOU IN JAIL." Would you care to explain the difference in those two realities? Oh and typing in ALL CAPS does not make your OPINION any more valid. It just makes you look like an obnoxious know-it-all. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make it right. I would wager you are not a constitutional lawyer, but rather an message board lawyer who is full of himself. Be that as it may, a corporation is not a citizen, and they should not be afforded the same right as an individual citizen. That is something that the government has now granted them when it's a good bet the founding father never intended to bestow individual right to a giant corporation.

You paint with a pretty wide brush when it comes to fellow human beings. I mean it's utterly ridiculous to say anyone who is not drug tested are thieves and liars. Like homosexuals, drug users are all around you. They make your coffee, they clean your pool, they drive your kids to school, they are pilots and doctors, and they are politicians. If you deny this, you are completely delusional and I will waste no more time with you.

I have hired literally hundreds of people not only in my home for various things, but also as the head of several IT departments. And while I will not claim a 100% success rate. I will tell you I have never been robbed blind, murdered or any other such nonsense. In fact I always came in on time, and under budget. And I never forced a sing one of those people to be drug tested. I relied on their resume, my interviews, and a few phone calls to former employers to base my decision on whether to hire them or not. I did not need to take away their dignity by asking for some of their urine, or a blood sample.

And why would I come whining to you anyway? While it's clear based on your post that you think highly of yourself and your opinion. I would never come crying to you, or any other know-it-all who thinks in black and white terms.

You completely missed my point. If I want to incorporate, do I have to take a drug test? If someone wants to run for congress, do they have to drug test? How about the POTUS? Do you think the person who has their finger on the nuclear button should have to take a drug test? The last 3 POTUS's have admitted to taking drugs, but were they drug tested or denied the job? But if John or Sally want to work at 7-11 they MUST be drug tested to ensure the corporation is not at risk right? What complete joke that thinking is.

But then again your idea of drug users are people who will steal everything that is not bolted down to support their habit. When the truth is drug users are all around you every single day in every profession you can think of and yet the world keeps spinning.

My point is the corporations rights are not more important than the citizens rights. If a player or any employee wants to smoke a joint in their free time in the privacy of their own home, who the hell are you, or anyone else to say they can't?

I am not asking to pass a law to restrict a companies rights even though I see no rights for corporation in the Bill of Rights. I am asking that they not violate my rights as if their rights are more important. that's the point.

 

[Marshall]

If you want to start a campaign to eliminate the Corporation from existence, then I could be easily convinced to do so. I know limitation of personal liability to the investment was the reason for it's creation, but there is probably a better way of achieving the end than that which was taken. Perhaps we need to return a portion of that risk in order to get a bit of responsibility back into the hands of those investors who now let management completely off the hook for risky and dangerous policy since the personal liability doesn't filter down to them.

But the Constitution ceased to be our governing document as soon as the Supreme Court decided IT and ONLY IT had the right to interpret the Constitution. It took a couple of hundred years, but they now understand the Constitution can be used or ignored to the point it is useless. We are governed by an Oligarchy of a simple majority of the Supreme Court since we let them get away with it in Marbury vs Madison. The living, breathing Constitution is the Manure they use when they can't even disguise their decision to ignore the plain meaning of it's authors. We now have what we deserve for buying the CON that we are free when we aren't. We have the right to vote for people who can be ignored by the true government. Whoop de do!

 

[disaacks3]

Better than Nitrofish, but still wrong. Corporations can hire for non-union jobs and require drug tests, that you do the chicken dance, and sing your arch-rivals alma mater. These things are otherwise permitted. If through Collective Bargaining a union gets a corporation to agree not to drug test, then they can't drug test - because of the CONTRACT - nothing to do with the CONSTITUTION..

Time for some remedial reading on the Constitution, the Courts and Collective Bargaining. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/08-regulation-of-labor-conditions.html

Key passage -

Still, the Court was committed to the principle that freedom of contract is the general rule and that legislative authority to abridge it could be justified only by exceptional circumstances.

 

[Marshall]

Both circumstances are bargaining (general agreement - not the restrictive W/L negotiation style). One is done individually, whether with a written contract or verbal, with the employer and one is done Collectively. Both simply lay out terms. I like employment at will because it preserves the most freedom for all.

I recommend self employment if you do not like the terms normally required from employers. Then YOU will be free to make those demands or not from those YOU are responsible to and for.

They are forced only by their own desire for employees to lessen any restrictions which cause them to have trouble filling their required positions.

 

[Fred]

Oh I see, so corporations who can keep you from earning a living and condemn you to a life of poverty are different than an "ENTITY THAT CAN TAX YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE and/or THROW YOU IN JAIL." Would you care to explain the difference in those two realities? Oh and typing in ALL CAPS does not make your OPINION any more valid. It just makes you look like an obnoxious know-it-all. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make it right. I would wager you are not a constitutional lawyer, but rather an message board lawyer who is full of himself. Be that as it may, a corporation is not a citizen, and they should not be afforded the same right as an individual citizen. That is something that the government has now granted them when it's a good bet the founding father never intended to bestow individual right to a giant corporation.

You paint with a pretty wide brush when it comes to fellow human beings. I mean it's utterly ridiculous to say anyone who is not drug tested are thieves and liars. Like homosexuals, drug users are all around you. They make your coffee, they clean your pool, they drive your kids to school, they are pilots and doctors, and they are politicians. If you deny this, you are completely delusional and I will waste no more time with you.

I have hired literally hundreds of people not only in my home for various things, but also as the head of several IT departments. And while I will not claim a 100% success rate. I will tell you I have never been robbed blind, murdered or any other such nonsense. In fact I always came in on time, and under budget. And I never forced a sing one of those people to be drug tested. I relied on their resume, my interviews, and a few phone calls to former employers to base my decision on whether to hire them or not. I did not need to take away their dignity by asking for some of their urine, or a blood sample.

And why would I come whining to you anyway? While it's clear based on your post that you think highly of yourself and your opinion. I would never come crying to you, or any other know-it-all who thinks in black and white terms.

You completely missed my point. If I want to incorporate, do I have to take a drug test? If someone wants to run for congress, do they have to drug test? How about the POTUS? Do you think the person who has their finger on the nuclear button should have to take a drug test? The last 3 POTUS's have admitted to taking drugs, but were they drug tested or denied the job? But if John or Sally want to work at 7-11 they MUST be drug tested to ensure the corporation is not at risk right? What complete joke that thinking is.

But then again your idea of drug users are people who will steal everything that is not bolted down to support their habit. When the truth is drug users are all around you every single day in every profession you can think of and yet the world keeps spinning.

My point is the corporations rights are not more important than the citizens rights. If a player or any employee wants to smoke a joint in their free time in the privacy of their own home, who the hell are you, or anyone else to say they can't?

I am not asking to pass a law to restrict a companies rights even though I see no rights for corporation in the Bill of Rights. I am asking that they not violate my rights as if their rights are more important. that's the point.

Please explain how a corporation can keep you from earning a living or condemn you to a life of poverty. Just because a corporation doesn't hire you, they can't stop you from working for another corporation, the government, or even from getting off your backside and working for yourself. While I am an obnoxious know-it-all, that is better than being an obnoxious know-nothing. What I put in all caps are facts. I didn't realize anyone would be too stupid to know that, but hey, I guess that proves I don't know everything!

I'm not a constitution lawyer, but compared to you I'm James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton all rolled up into one. And legally, a corporation is (very close to being) a person (can't vote, etc.).

I never said "anyone who is not drug tested are thieves and liars". But some drug addicts are. So you are OK with your kid's school bus driver being drunk and your airplane pilot being on LSD?

So you were the head of IT several departments? Were any of these outfits a (gasp!) corporation? You think a corporation looking to hire someone should be subject to the same rules as a police department looking for a suspect - no searches without probably cause. So you are OK with the government digging into people's backgrounds like you do without any probable cause, as long as they don't do a drug test?

You are the one who is completely missing the point. If you incorporate, you don't have to take a drug test unless you want to. You - the corporation - get to decide if you want your founders or employees to take a drug test. The government does not force you to take a drug test. Although you think corporations appoint congress and the POTUS, actually they are voted for by the people. If a candidate thinks taking a drug test will help his chances of getting more votes, he is free to do that. 7-11 doesn't hire the POTUS. If they did, maybe they would require a drug test. Are there lots more drug tests being given than really needed? Of course there are. Probably pointless to drug test potential IT employees when their main job is to reduce the efficiency of the corporation by screwing up the computer systems. But if you are hiring school bus drivers who get drunk or high and kill and a bunch of kids, you might want to have a record showing "they were sober when we hired them".

The point is that corporations rights are citizens rights are not that easy to separate. The math is: there is the government and there is everyone else. If you start trying to protect one citizen's rights versus another citizen, then the government (the only entity that can really infringe on citizen rights) is infringing on the second citizen's rights. If you don't choose to work for a company that may fire you for failing a random drug test then don't! It's still (in spite of your efforts) a free country! Only people who choose to work for an employer that does drug tests are working for employers that do drug tests.

The rights for corporations are the same as for other people in the Bill of Rights especially:

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[steelbtexan]

I thought this was the draft section?

 

[Fred]

Time for some remedial reading on the Constitution, the Courts and Collective Bargaining. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/08-regulation-of-labor-conditions.html

Key passage -

Good to see you are doing your remedial reading and now agree with what I said "because of the CONTRACT". Nothing in the constitution to override parties entering into a contract. And if there is no Collective Bargaining contract, then the corporation and the individual enter into their own "contract". Which can require drug testing. Even for non-union jobs.

 

[disaacks3]

Good to see you are doing your remedial reading and now agree with what I said "because of the CONTRACT". Nothing in the constitution to override parties entering into a contract. And if there is no Collective Bargaining contract, then the corporation and the individual enter into their own "contract". Which can require drug testing. Even for non-union jobs.

Glad to see you haven't kept up with my statements. In ABSENCE of a CBA, your Constitutional rights couldn't be abridged in that manner. Let me know when you catch up and understand what you've read.

 

[Marshall]

Glad to see you haven't kept up with my statements. In ABSENCE of a CBA, your Constitutional rights couldn't be abridged in that manner. Let me know when you catch up and understand what you've read.

Your Constitutional Rights have not been abridged in any way, whether under Collective Bargaining or Individual Bargaining. You either agree to the terms of employment or not. You are not compelled to work for that employer and the employer is not compelled to have you work for them (unless there is an unconstitutional, feel good, law which demands it).

I understand not liking the terms you would have to agree to. But there is not a RIGHT to IMPOSE on others to satisfy your desire.

 

[Fred]

Glad to see you haven't kept up with my statements. In ABSENCE of a CBA, your Constitutional rights couldn't be abridged in that manner. Let me know when you catch up and understand what you've read.

I have kept up with your statements. Just because you are repeating something that is not true doesn't make it true, or mean those that realize it is not true aren't "keeping up".

I will repeat the truth, try to keep up: 1. Constitution rights are protections of people (and corporations) from the government. 2. If a corporation insists someone take a drug test as a condition of employment they can do so (unless a collective bargaining agreement says no drug test allowed). People who don't wish to do so will not be hired there, but are free to consider employment elsewhere. Only people who agree to take the test (no rights violated! they agreed!) will get hired there.

But you don't have to believe me. Ask any of the tens of millions of Americans working in a job not covered by collective bargaining, who have had to agree to take a drug test as a condition of employment. Oh wait - I would be one of those.