Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
NFL Protest Discussion
Comments
-
The US military is not political. They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.Deleted User wrote: »You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
The US military is not political. They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.
Talking about the Military is political no matter what they do for a living. They are a government run organization governed by Politics.
You also realize in this context the Military pay the NFL Millions to do Military event and advertising so this is 100% Political because otherwise the NFL probably wouldn't bother.0 -
The military pay for advertising and do events for recruiting purposes. With that logic erectile dysfunction is political.TOss Sweep wrote: »The US military is not political. They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.
Talking about the Military is political no matter what they do for a living. They are a government run organization governed by Politics.
You also realize in this context the Military pay the NFL Millions to do Military event and advertising so this is 100% Political because otherwise the NFL probably wouldn't bother.You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
The military pay for advertising and do events for recruiting purposes. With that logic erectile dysfunction is political.
Point went way over your head. Simple fact the Military are a body run by the US Government. Every thing they do is politically driven. Recruiting is politically driven. It falls under the category of Politics in football no matter how you want to swing this.
I have friends and family who are military and have every respect for them and have every respect for this country but the difference between me and you is the Patriotism clouding your judgement.0 -
The military pay for advertising and do events for recruiting purposes. With that logic erectile dysfunction is political.
Well if Cialis paid the NFL to make their players take their product and forced them to ehh stand to attention before the game otherwise they would be fined, then yes its the same thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The US military is not political. They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.
Well if respect for the US military is not political, not respecting the US military is not political either and the point still stands. It is simply wrong to single out the actions of Kaep and others as mixing politics and football when demanding that they visibly support the flag, anthem and military association is just as political...or apolitical.0 -
I consider the kneeling protests disrespectful to the nation. If it continues I won’t be watching most of the games. It’s that simple. I really don’t care that the NFL made some rule. The rules about kneeling during the National Anthem can be made by the player’s employer – their respective teams. Teams make their decisions based on NFL rules. If a team won't follow NFL rules then they pay the price. My team, the NY Jets, said the team will pay any fines leveled on players. Not happy about it but it's their decision, and I may stop watching them also, or voice my opinion against them at every opportunity. But the players are on the clock and need to follow employer’s rules. It’s not a free speech issue. Players can protest all they want, on their own time. The biggest fear by the NFL, IMO, is people like me. We stop watching and caring about pro football because of it, and that results in decreased revenues. It’s simply my prerogative.Deleted User wrote: »The US military is not political. They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.
Well if respect for the US military is not political, not respecting the US military is not political either and the point still stands. It is simply wrong to single out the actions of Kaep and others as mixing politics and football when demanding that they visibly support the flag, anthem and military association is just as political...or apolitical.
And so what about the military and football games. If you consider it to be political or it offends you, don’t watch. That’s your prerogative, also.You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
NFL owners admit that Kaepernick was blacklisted for peacefully protesting in accordance with the US flag code.A number of NFL owners have been called to testify in the collusion case. On the Straight Aim podcast this week, Geragos said one owner had admitted under oath that he changed his mind because of Trump’s stance on the anthem protests.
“Maybe you can prove that [New England Patriots owner] Bob Kraft, for example, was scared of what the president might do, but for collusion you would need to show that that fear actually influenced the owners by clear and convincing evidence. So, that’s kind of a high burden,” says Straight Aim host Amy Dash.
“Well, unless you’ve got an owner under penalty of perjury testifying that he changed his mind after he was told what Trump said,” replies Geragos.
When Dash asks Geragos if he has such evidence, he replies: “Yeah. Well, bingo.” Geragos does not imply that Kraft is the owner in question.
Geragos’s statement appears to be backed up by a report in the Wall Street Journal. The newspaper says it received copies of some of the testimony from owners. “I was totally supportive of [the protests] until Trump made his statement,” said Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross in his deposition. In Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s statement he describes how Trump told him: “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”
So there we have it, case closed. This was about nothing other than billionaires currying favour with the snowflake in the White House in order for both to shut down free speech that was done an entirely, literally unquestionably respectful way by a US citizen.0 -
And so what about the military and football games. If you consider it to be political or it offends you, don’t watch. That’s your prerogative, also.
It doesn't offend me at all. I'm not seeking to prevent players either respecting the anthem or protesting.
The on the employers clock doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's not really a work performance issue. If I decided that my employees say a prayer before work and one or two said no, I really doubt I could enforce it in most Western democracies.
As for disrespectful to the nation, I consider compelling people to stand for an anthem disrespectful to democracy and freedom of expression.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not exactly. If the owners were influenced by Trumps statement, that's one thing, but you'd need to prove they then advised each another not to sign Kap (and that will be hard incredibly hard to prove unless they admit to some secret agreement they all signed up to).So there we have it, case closed.
We saw in Baltimore's case it was the backlash from fans that changed their minds, not necessary Trump or some shady owner agreement.
Ray Rice was frozen out, and maybe all 32 owners came to an agreement on that, but would it make for a successful collusion case?
Geragos is right to be bullish on this, but this has a long way to go yet.0 -
If they don't want to stand for the anthem they are allowed to stay in the locker room. Just don't show disrespect during the anthem while on the job. The owners are not asking them to say prayer. And if they did have a prayer before the game similar accommodations would be made. Just not make a disrespectful display of yourself during the anthem or other times of reverence. I can make my employees wear a uniform and greet people coming into the establishment, and discharge them if they refuse. Why is it any different than making a player stand during the anthem?Deleted User wrote: »And so what about the military and football games. If you consider it to be political or it offends you, don’t watch. That’s your prerogative, also.
It doesn't offend me at all. I'm not seeking to prevent players either respecting the anthem or protesting.
The on the employers clock doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's not really a work performance issue. If I decided that my employees say a prayer before work and one or two said no, I really doubt I could enforce it in most Western democracies.
As for disrespectful to the nation, I consider compelling people to stand for an anthem disrespectful to democracy and freedom of expression.You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Shambolic, the league is an absolute disgrace.0
-
Which basically nobody has done. I have a vague memory of the odd player sitting on the bench during the anthem last year which would be classed as disrespectful (it's what Kaepernick did the first time too, the 49ers long snapper was ex-military and advised him to kneel in accordance with the US flag code, so Kaepernick did from that point on).Just don't show disrespect during the anthem while on the job.
You can't make your employees get down on their hands and knees and say a prayer at 12pm every day under the threat of fines or getting the sack.Why is it any different than making a player stand during the anthem?0 -
munstermagic11 wrote: »Not exactly. If the owners were influenced by Trumps statement, that's one thing, but you'd need to prove they then advised each another not to sign Kap (and that will be hard incredibly hard to prove unless they admit to some secret agreement they all signed up to).
We saw in Baltimore's case it was the backlash from fans that changed their minds, not necessary Trump or some shady owner agreement.
Ray Rice was frozen out, and maybe all 32 owners came to an agreement on that, but would it make for a successful collusion case?
Geragos is right to be bullish on this, but this has a long way to go yet.
Yeah apologies, I worded it poorly - especially using 'case closed' when I did not intend to refer to the legal case
. What I meant was that any argument about "he just isn't good enough" is nonsense, and he was point blank refused jobs because of his peacefully protesting in accordance with the flag code (e.g. not even coming close to breaking any flag/anthem rules) with the US President getting involved in the matters of private businesses and their citizens on the matter. 0 -
Lots of Americans disagree with you. Are you just going to dismiss those who have a problem with players kneeling during the anthem?NFL owners admit that Kaepernick was blacklisted for peacefully protesting in accordance with the US flag code.
So there we have it, case closed. This was about nothing other than billionaires currying favour with the snowflake in the White House in order for both to shut down free speech that was done an entirely, literally unquestionably respectful way by a US citizen.
53% of those who voted in a poll over the last few days were in favour of the NFL's new rules on kneeling during the national anthem.
A different poll has 51% of Americans against kneeling during the national anthem.
These are high numbers against kneeling. How can you be fully supportive of something that is never going to achieve it's goal because it's causing controversy in and of itself.
To me the main reason that nobody wanted Kaepernick was because many players didn't want him in their locker room bas the are against kneeling during the anthem. He would divide any locker room he walked into. That is not good for any team.0 -
53% of those who voted in a poll over the last few days were in favour of the NFL's new rules on kneeling during the national anthem.A different poll has 51% of Americans against kneeling during the national anthem.
Do you have a link to these polls and what were their audience?These are high numbers against kneeling. How can you be fully supportive of something that is never going to achieve it's
High numbers? 3 and 1% are hardly high numbers and heres the thing with Polls they are generally not a true reflection of the overall opinion. The fact it was so close you could say there is an even split.
Ask anyone is does analytics how they feel about such small margins and they will tear your high numbers apart.0 -
I can make my employees wear a uniform and greet people coming into the establishment, and discharge them if they refuse. Why is it any different than making a player stand during the anthem?
The analogy with a uniform is invalid.
James McClean is entitled to decline to wear a poppy. He is entitled to refuse to stand and acknowledge the Union Jack and sing God Save the Queen. He can be criticised for either, but I don't think anyone is arguing that he must be forced to do either.
What he cannot do it refuse to wear the strip of his club.0 -
So long as it is protected by the US flag code, the US constitution and by US laws, then yes.Lots of Americans disagree with you. Are you just going to dismiss those who have a problem with players kneeling during the anthem?
And other polls have the majority agreeing that it is appropriate.53% of those who voted in a poll over the last few days were in favour of the NFL's new rules on kneeling during the national anthem.
A different poll has 51% of Americans against kneeling during the national anthem.
It is a deeply partisan viewpoint, with those who vote Democrat saying it is appropriate and those who vote Republican say it isn't. The irony there is that so many Republicans love nothing more than to bang on about the constitution and first amendment rights, so for them this has nothing to do with kneeling or protesting. It is entirely about what he is protesting. Which is brilliantly ironic again, because what he and others have been protesting is based around inequality in the US based on skin colour.
If this were a white NFL player protesting for more gun rights, they would be all for it.
Because the US enshrines the right to protest in the first amendment and the manner in which Kaepernick was doing so was entirely in accordance with the US flag code; it's that simple. Yet the people who take issue with it are the ones who cannot stop jumping up and down about the first amendment and constitution in general.These are high numbers against kneeling. How can you be fully supportive of something that is never going to achieve it's goal because it's causing controversy in and of itself.
If these Americans continued down the cult-like path they are on and decided they did not want black players in the league at all because Trump said so, by this logic black players should get kicked out of the league too.
I thought it was because he wasn't good enough to match even Branden Weeden or Brett Hundley? Either way, NFL owners have come out to say their stance on the matter is dictated by Trump - and that is why Kaepernick is not in the league.To me the main reason that nobody wanted Kaepernick was because many players didn't want him in their locker room bas the are against kneeling during the anthem. He would divide any locker room he walked into. That is not good for any team.
If someone wants to see these protests banned, they are by default saying they disagree with and are standing against the US Constitution. Which is absolutely fine as the constitution is something that gets amended from time to time (this is the first amendment we are talking about after all). But they won't say that as it puts a lot of those same Republicans in a tricky spot next time there is a school shooting when many of them will be right back banging on relentlessly about how the US constitution needs to be respected and their rights treated as sacred.
As I said the whole thing stinks of wanting constitutional protections for themselves, but not for those pesky black lads protesting against inequality. This whole ordeal is going to be a bad look and a bit of a black eye for the NFL for many, many years from now.0 -
Where are the players union in all this.
If this is a serious issue and the players feel strongly about it then they should call a strike and stick it to the owners and finally get a resolution that they can be happy with.
The players are allowing themselves to be supposedly taken advantage of because the union appears to have no balls and if this is such a big issue then they need to be willing to make sacrifices for it even if that means losing years salary.0 -
Advertisement
-
They criticised the move and said they weren't brought in to discuss the possibility of this happening.Where are the players union in all this.
If this is a serious issue and the players feel strongly about it then they should call a strike and stick it to the owners and finally get a resolution that they can be happy with.
The players are allowing themselves to be supposedly taken advantage of because the union appears to have no balls and if this is such a big issue then they need to be willing to make sacrifices for it even if that means losing years salary.
The Union can't really take sides in this because they have members who are against kneeling.0 -
If there is a huge amount against it, it doesn't have to be majority, then it's going to affect the NFL as a business so they are right to fine players to try and stop it happening.So long as it is protected by the US flag code, the US constitution and by US laws, then yes.
And other polls have the majority agreeing that it is appropriate.
The whole purpose of this is being forgotten about because all everybody is talking about is whether it's right to kneel or not.
So you are anti-Republican, this is all I'm taking from what you said there because it's so biased.It is a deeply partisan viewpoint, with those who vote Democrat saying it is appropriate and those who vote Republican say it isn't. The irony there is that so many Republicans love nothing more than to bang on about the constitution and first amendment rights, so for them this has nothing to do with kneeling or protesting. It is entirely about what he is protesting. Which is brilliantly ironic again, because what he and others have been protesting is based around inequality in the US based on skin colour.
If this were a white NFL player protesting for more gun rights, they would be all for it.Because the US enshrines the right to protest in the first amendment and the manner in which Kaepernick was doing so was entirely in accordance with the US flag code; it's that simple. Yet the people who take issue with it are the ones who cannot stop jumping up and down about the first amendment and constitution in general.
A lot of people who have worked in the army and the reserve forces are unhappy about this. Those people have every right to be unhappy about it. If this was happening over here I'd be very unhappy about it.If these Americans continued down the cult-like path they are on and decided they did not want black players in the league at all because Trump said so, by this logic black players should get kicked out of the league too.
Now you are getting silly.I thought it was because he wasn't good enough to match even Branden Weeden or Brett Hundley? Either way, NFL owners have come out to say their stance on the matter is dictated by Trump - and that is why Kaepernick is not in the league.
I never mentioned Weeden or Hundley at any time. I did state that imo he isn't a good QB but the way some people were talking he should be starting which I don't agree with. I don't think there are many places where he would be a good backup either.
Well Trump is the President of the United States of America so his word is important. I know you are anti-Republican so that probably sickens you.If someone wants to see these protests banned, they are by default saying they disagree with and are standing against the US Constitution. Which is absolutely fine as the constitution is something that gets amended from time to time (this is the first amendment we are talking about after all). But they won't say that as it puts a lot of those same Republicans in a tricky spot next time there is a school shooting when many of them will be right back banging on relentlessly about how the US constitution needs to be respected and their rights treated as sacred.
We are going down the political route here again. This is sport and business. Sport is supposed to be fun for people to watch and it's not with these protests going on.
Take out of it what you will. I'd be of the opinion that in thirty or forty years people will read about it and say how foolish both sides were.As I said the whole thing stinks of wanting constitutional protections for themselves, but not for those pesky black lads protesting against inequality. This whole ordeal is going to be a bad look and a bit of a black eye for the NFL for many, many years from now.
One side managed to annoy a lot of people by kneeling during the national anthem and the whole point they were trying to make was lost in the furore.
The other side, the NFL, could have eliminated the whole thing by just not having the national anthem played at games.0 -
TOss Sweep wrote: »Do you have a link to these polls and what were their audience?
High numbers? 3 and 1% are hardly high numbers and heres the thing with Polls they are generally not a true reflection of the overall opinion. The fact it was so close you could say there is an even split.
Ask anyone is does analytics how they feel about such small margins and they will tear your high numbers apart.
Hey Eagle Eye do you have a link to said polls?0 -
This is the way I see it:
- Taking a knee in front of a flag is not disrespectful in any way.
- Your freedom of speech or protest is only protected if you work for a Government agency BUT not in the private sector and the NFL while morally wrong are doing nothing wrong legally
- This whole thing was blown up by Trump. Before he opened his dumb mouth only a handful of players were doing it. The weekend after he said something the majority of African Americans were taking a knee.
- The majority of those opposing the knee have no idea why the players are doing it and are only now objecting because of what Trump said. Most just hated Kap for what he was doing but because their own teams were not doing it they didn't care. Trump gets involved and boom atomic bomb dropped. Now everyone on both sides has an opinion and it has divided opinions.
- If all of these players were white Trump would not have opened his mouth and I bet you any amount of money the tables would be turned politically.
- This whole debate is Political no matter how anyone wants to swing it.
- This whole thing sums up Politics in this country and puts a glaring spotlight on the nonsense of both the Far Left and Far Right.
My own thought is while I disagree with the NFLs rules they are within their right to do what they are doing. They are in the private sector and anyone who works in the US knows you have very little rights in most states when it comes to working. Take MA considered a Liberal state. MA is a work at will state and there is very little protection for employees. You turn up do your job and get on with it. Anything else and they can fire you. There is some protection but it aint great. If I did what the NFL players were doing I could be sacked on the spot. Private sector as I mentioned above is not protected.0 -
Strongly considering not watching this year, first time since the 90's that would be. I just can't get my head around this organization and how **** they are basically.
Remember when the anthem was done before the players even came out of the locker room?
I know Trump would have you believe it's always been the case that the teams had to be out for the athem but this only actually came about in 2009. As is often the case Trump doesn't have a good working knowledge of, well, anything other than how to make reality TV
The over the top military love is bad enough but my stomach is being turned thinking about doing anything to support the league this year. I'll miss it for sure, I just don't think it's an organization I can support."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
And there are a huge amount who support it that the NFL are now risking losing as viewers, on top of the fact this is something they'll look back on in even just 5-10 years time and want to forget about because it's not going to age well as a law.If there is a huge amount against it, it doesn't have to be majority, then it's going to affect the NFL as a business so they are right to fine players to try and stop it happening.
So what makes people who are against the US constitution more important to the NFL than people who support it? Just on this forum with a small handful of fans they've already lost my subscription for the year and may well have lost StringerBell entirely.
Which is completely intentional, because they didn't want to talk about the issue being protested so they decided to just claim it is disrespectful for people to protesting even if it is done in a manner that the US Constitution and flag code say are 100% acceptable and in no way disrespectful.The whole purpose of this is being forgotten about because all everybody is talking about is whether it's right to kneel or not.
What they should be doing if they were honest about the whole thing is petitioning to get rid of the first amendment as it is currently written, but they won't because of how much they've been banging on about the US Constitution as 'sacred'. Which, like most of what they have claimed to stand for over the last decade, has proven to be complete bullsh*t.
I'm anti-cultism and anti-dictatorship, so clearly that would make me anti-Republican in their current guise.So you are anti-Republican, this is all I'm taking from what you said there because it's so biased.
A party that calls itself the 'party of family values' yet literally came within a whisker of voting in an actual, open and proud pedophile in Roy Moore only last year because he had the letter (R) beside his name, and that voted for someone who brags on camera about molesting women to be President.
A party that claims to want isolationism because the other candidate is a 'war monger' yet cheer on wildly as Trump tries to play the tough guy, threatening war wherever he can. And that pretends the huge ramping up of drone attacks across the middle east hasn't happened despite never shutting up about them through 2015-16.
A party that claims to essentially worship the constitution yet sh*ts all over the first amendment as their president tries to silence and discredit peaceful protesters (the right to peaceful assembly), the media and press wherever he can on a weekly basis, outright claiming that "90% of all bad news about me is fake" just 2-3 weeks back (free exercise of the press), and of religions with his failed Muslim ban (no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).
A party more than happy to look the other way and ignore the undeniable truth that their current president colluded with a hostile foreign entity to influence the election, with even his own son showing he was meeting Kremlin officials to discuss sanctions (also illegal) in exchange for dirt on his political opponent. We've even seen -on multiple occasions- when faced with too much overwhelming evidence to deny any further, claim that "collusion is not a crime". Again this goes back to the fact that the Republican party is essentially a cult at this point, and in a cult reality is not welcome if it does not fit the narrative.
A party that will go after protesters who are exercising their first amendment rights peacefully, yet who will outright threaten serious levels of violence is anyone tries to take their first or second amendment rights from them (the Russian-funded NRA even decided to run a series of ads promoting terrorism because of this), to the point they wanted to make a cult hero out of the absurdly racist guy who thought the US was better with slavery having an armed standoff with the US government itself. But don't you dare kneel during the anthem because in Republican America, it's always one rule for thee, another for me.
A party that when point blank reality faces them with the cold truth, decide to reject reality and instead embrace "alternative facts" - because believing reality is whatever The Leader tells you it is, even though he lies on average more than a half dozen times a day, is how you know you're in a cult.
A party that moans endlessly about wasteful spending or the president playing golf, then completely shut up about anything like that as The Leader puts tends of millions of taxpayer dollars directly into his own businesses. One rule for thee, another for me... it's ok because The Leader said it is.
A party that has literally fought against critical thinking (key sign of a cult, right there) and built up a cult-like propaganda network (for the explicit purpose of propaganda) that are openly hostile to the truth if it does not fit their narrative, leading their average viewer to be less informed than someone who doesn't watch the news at all. Here it is in a 46-second, Hannity sized nutshell.
A party that convinces poor people to vote against their better interests time and again (I wonder why they want critical thinking gone?) as the party of billionaires repeatedly takes away (and fights against) their access to medical care, social services, access to education or better living conditions. Culminating in them voting in the most corrupt person to maybe ever even run for President on an anti-corruption platform (that he immediately backtracked on by stuffing his cabinet with some of the most corrupt people ever in office. See: Ajit Pai, Scott Pruitt for a start) while claiming he was "one of them" (you couldn't find someone further from them if you tried).
A party that stands by quietly as a demagogue tries to built a dictatorship around them, because they value their Cult of (R) more than their country itself. And as this weeks example, here is Trump claiming that he is allowed to shut down any investigation on himself because he is president (hint: he can't, that's why the US government structure has such a high emphasis on separation of powers - explicitly to avoid dictatorships). Will the same party that fetishises the Founding Fathers so much stand up and say "hold on, that's not what Jefferson & co wanted"? No, no they won't - and we both know that full well. Because much like this anthem protest, for most this has nothing to do with the flag or anthem itself and has everything to do with the fact it's black players protesting inequality. Because seemingly as always... one rule for thee, another for me.
If they have an issue with it they should look to petition against the right to peaceful protest in the first amendment, but somehow I feel they won't be doing that because then how would they stage their insanely racist protests they loved so much when the black guy was in office, or when they want to march around with their semi-assault rifles when they feel they might get taken away, or when they want to discriminate against LGBT people because 'religious freedom'?A lot of people who have worked in the army and the reserve forces are unhappy about this. Those people have every right to be unhappy about it. If this was happening over here I'd be very unhappy about it.
But I certainly didn't see them opening their mouths to complain when disabled peaceful protesters were told by Republican Senators to "shut up" before being forcibly removed and arrested. And this is not the first time this happened, not by a long shot but still no peep from them. But hey, that's because The Leaders ordered it to happen and when you're part of the Cult of (R) you absolutely do not question The Leaders under any circumstance or you'll get cut off from the family altogether (as has happened with any Republicans who have dared speak out against the sh*tshow the Republican party has become). Totally not a cult though, totally not a cult.
And that right there is the problem with the Republican party, and why 9/10 of them disagree with the player protests despite them being so heavily in favour of protests (including heavily armed standoffs). It has nothing to do with it being disrespectful (as it is not in any way) and has feck all to do with protesting, but instead everything to do with what they are protesting. As the issue is inequality for minorities, they hate it and want nothing more than for it to be ignored and silenced.
Nope, see above. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.Now you are getting silly.
Some more examples:
- Trump claims, despite clear video evidence, that he had the biggest inauguration ever... Republicans and FOX viewers avidly jump on claiming it was the biggest inauguration ever, and all the video evidence is fake.
- Trump claims, despite his own lawyers saying otherwise, that he only lost the popular vote because of voter fraud... Republicans avidly jump up and down that he only lost the popular vote because of voter fraud.
- Trump makes up terrorist incident in Sweden that never happened... Republicans go mad about terrorist incident in Sweden that never happened.
- Trump claims Obama bugged Trump Tower... this is proven false, and yet Republicans are still claiming Obama bugged Trump Tower.
- Trump, after claiming Neo Nazis to have "very fine people" among them with which Republicans had no apparent issue (shocking, I know) claimed counter protesters at Charlottesville were responsible for a Neo Nazi terrorist attack on US soil, and Republicans felt the need to peddle that one too. Sure, The Leader told us so it must be true.
- In 2016 he claimed Obama founded ISIS, and that Hillary Clinton has been fighting them her entire adult life. Which would mean Obama founded ISIS when he was three years old (when she was 18). Sounds like a bad joke, but hey if you're a Republican... story checks out. They looooved peddling that one during that campaign cycle (the lads in St. Petersburg really had their fingers on the pulse there to be fair to them).
- Ted Cruz's dad assassinated JFK. Yeah, sure, f*** it why not? The Leader said it so it's true.
- The unemployment rate is 42% (2016)... weird, I've not heard that metric used since oh, about January 20th, 2018.
And you can deny this all you want, but Trump himself has even said as much when bragging “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters”. And you know what? He's proven to be largely correct on that one. There is literally nothing the guy could say that tens of millions of Americans wouldn't get behind, from "the sky is purple and the sun is green because Obama" to "if black players want to cause so much trouble in the NFL, maybe the league should just ban them" - the latter wouldn't even cause a furrowed brow of surprise from me at this point, to be honest.
Apologies as I had mixed up Hundley with Matt Flynn who had been out of the league for two years:I never mentioned Weeden or Hundley at any time. I did state that imo he isn't a good QB but the way some people were talking he should be starting which I don't agree with. I don't think there are many places where he would be a good backup either.
Eagle Eye: I'd rate Weeden as a better QB than Kaepernick.
Eagle Eye: Matt Flynn is out there, he has done a job for the Packers before, I think he would be a far more attractive target.
And thank you for leading in to yet another one... small government, and government interference into private businesses. One of the favourite things to bitch and moan about from Republicans for years now, but the moment The Leader does it... well we must not question The Leader so of course they support it.Well Trump is the President of the United States of America so his word is important. I know you are anti-Republican so that probably sickens you.
Now seeing the reaction to the Constitution and US Flag Code we know full well that those complaining about these protests do not care about them whatsoever (or maybe better put, feel only they should have these rights and not those uppity minorities), it's no surprise to me that this doesn't matter to you or to Republicans either, despite them also loving to claim to be the "party of law and order":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227
Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
See section b.3 of that, it explicitly states that because he is the president he cannot try to influence the matter, and his words cannot by law be given importance on this matter. In other words Trump broke the law (again) and Republicans are once again cheerleading for it.
And guess what? It's also not fun watching players forced to stand for an anthem and pretend to not have any issues with it. It's also not fun to watch people be silenced because the US President decided to involve himself directly in it, breaking the law in doing so. But clearly that doesn't matter.We are going down the political route here again. This is sport and business. Sport is supposed to be fun for people to watch and it's not with these protests going on.
I agree that they could have avoided it by not having the anthem involved, but they decided to do so and in the process brought politics into the sport. And then the US President get involved further, probably breaking the law in the process, by directly influencing employment decisions of private entities - if he had not done that, the issue would likely have died off over a few weeks. But he didn't, because the dog whistling opportunity about uppity blacks for his base was as usual, just too much for his fragile ego to pass up on.Take out of it what you will. I'd be of the opinion that in thirty or forty years people will read about it and say how foolish both sides were.
One side managed to annoy a lot of people by kneeling during the national anthem and the whole point they were trying to make was lost in the furore.
The other side, the NFL, could have eliminated the whole thing by just not having the national anthem played at games.
The NFL decided to side with him, and along with the likes of soundbites about "inmates running the prison" it really is not going to be remembered well at all and will be something they will want to be forgotten ASAP (especially with growing international audiences).0 -
This is largely true, though for something like the anthem it's a bit grey as to how it stands - for example can your employer force you to stand in the middle of the office and recite a Christian or Muslim prayer at the start of every work shift? Of course being a legally grey area means the billions of dollars of the owners would probably comfortably win a legal battle against the millions of dollars of the players, and I reckon the option to stay in the locker room probably covers them on that end. Though specifically with regard to Kaepernick while I'm unsure of the league's liability, it would appear that laws have been broken by Trump... again (code 227).TOss Sweep wrote: »My own thought is while I disagree with the NFLs rules they are within their right to do what they are doing. They are in the private sector and anyone who works in the US knows you have very little rights in most states when it comes to working. Take MA considered a Liberal state. MA is a work at will state and there is very little protection for employees. You turn up do your job and get on with it. Anything else and they can fire you. There is some protection but it aint great. If I did what the NFL players were doing I could be sacked on the spot. Private sector as I mentioned above is not protected.
There's a decent, quick breakdown on it here from last year, though the last paragraph is kind of funny given what has come out in recent days - https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/aba-legal-fact-check-can-you-be-forced-to-participate-in-the-national-anthem/0 -
Billy86 wrote:Which is completely intentional, because they didn't want to talk about the issue being protested so they decided to just claim it is disrespectful for people to protesting even if it is done in a manner that the US Constitution and flag code say are 100% acceptable and in no way disrespectful.
No use responding to everything but this piece is important.
There are millions of Americans unhappy with kneeling who don't have agendas. You seem to think that a lot of people are more intelligent than they actually are.
There are many African-Americans that are not happy about the kneeling but who are concerned about police shootings.
Just as an aside, if you are going to walk away from football over political/social issues I pity you. Sport is supposed to be an escape from all that stuff. Stop following the social side of the sport and stick with the football.
I watch the game because I love it. It's a sport and it's fun. I don't read TMZ or any of the other crap magazines which talk about off the field. Unfortunately these days you get to hear things even though you do your best to avoid it but even then I try my best to ignore it.0 -
This is largely true,
This is largely true? No everything I said is very true. If my Employer doesn't like what I said or doesn't want me to protest peacefully they can sack me. Employees are protected on very few things and if you feel you have been dismissed unfairly you will want a fairly air tight case to prove it.for example can your employer force you to stand in the middle of the office and recite a Christian or Muslim prayer at the start of every work shift?
See this right here is a stupid comparison because you 100% know no company is ever going to do that because most if not all companies stay away from religious practices in the work place as they know it is not ethical given the diversity. There is never a case for this to ever happen in any work place that isn't in the entertainment industry or sports.
But if the company I worked for did try **** like that I would know this place is not for me and leave. Why bother go through all the hassle. You have the right to leave and find a different job.
Simple fact what the NFL are doing is not illegal.0 -
Advertisement
-
TOss Sweep wrote: »Simple fact what the NFL are doing is not illegal.
I don't think the vast majority of people think it is illegal. I'm fairly sure they are within their rights to do it (dependent on what exactly is in the CBA - though that still wouldn't make it "illegal").
It is utterly cowardly though.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement