YOU'RE FIRED!

[Sommerswerd]

How is the NFL responsible for any of that? What can the NFL do to change that? More people are talking about the flag than what the protest is actually about. So, well-meaning protest, but poorly chosen target.

This so called "poorly chosen target" is a multi-week media spectacle with hundreds of millions of viewers and national reach to get the message out... You couldn't find a better platform to raise awareness on a topic if you tried... Its basically the perfect medium to raise awareness on this topic.

Once again... don't like the who/what, gonna dislike the how, regardless... pfft, please... "poorly chosen topic"... That's nonsense.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah im dropping the charge, because I've been consistent on this point, defend the free speech of whoever you like. Im not defending the Klan cause... eff those Ay-holes...thats why.

I imagine thats the Klan's attitude toward black protesters

free speech requires more consistency than eff those Ay-holes, once all the Ay-holes are effed so is everyone else

 

[Sommerswerd]

I imagine thats the Klan's attitude toward black protesters

free speech requires more consistency than eff those Ay-holes, once all the Ay-holes are effed so is everyone else

Not just the Klan... lots of folks who are not Klan have the exact same attitude as the Klan, apparently.

Something to put in the famous pipe and famously smoke it...

 

[Commodore]

Just curious...how does a player's decision to respect the anthem by kneeling rather than standing affect "game operations?"

Have you not been paying attention? The rule regarding the anthem is in the NFL Game Operations manual.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is anyone really bothered by these protests other than Commodore? I'm over 40 (barely) and I'm not bothered by the protests (to counter an earlier post that said it's generational and 40 was the cut-off point), but I'm not a military man like Commodore. I roll my eyes when I remove my hat for the anthem.

The offense is purely artificial. This has nothing to do with the country, military men, the flag or even the national anthem. These are red herrings Trump had introduced so he can play the part of patriotic country loving America, which he isn't. And you know he isn't because Trump recently used that most sacred of American rituals as a political tool when he send Pence to prance in front of the camera during that Colts game.

This is about police brutality. Period. Anything else is dragged kicking and screaming against it's will into the debate by Trump. Because this is a hot topic he can spin to make himself look good. Diverting attention from his woeful presidency.

 

[metalhead]

Here is a short test you can do at home to figure out if Trump sincerely cares about military members, the flag, or patriotic ritual.

When troops are ambushed and killed in Niger, does he A. comment on their bravery and sacrifice, or B. spend his time attacking athletes?
When those troops' bodies were returned home, was he A. at the airport to solemnly greet the remains & family members, or B. golfing?

If you answered "B" to both questions, well you can probably figure out from that how much those things really mean to him.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Another way is to see who Trump believes is a patriot: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-calls-former-sheriff-a-patriot-idUSKCN1B8277

“Sheriff Joe is a patriot. Sheriff Joe loves our country. Sheriff Joe protected our borders,” Trump said. “So I stand by my pardon of Sheriff Joe, and I think the people of Arizona, who really know him best, would agree with me.”

I mean, Arpaio just broke the law a little, nothing as severe as kneeling during the national anthem.

 

[metalhead]

The people of Maricopa County voted his ass out of office, so no, they don't agree with that at all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If a nazi has his house burn down from faulty wiring, eh, sucks to be him, I won't have much sympathy for him and to me that would be karma kicking him in the rear. If a mob burns his house down that's just not right. Same thing if he walks into a pole and knocks himself out=karma, someone punching him in the face=not the right thing to do, puncher should be arrested.

I don't trust mobs to distribute justice fairly.

So you "don't trust mobs to distribute justice fairly" but you trust "faulty wiring" and "karma kicking him in the rear" to distribute justice fairly? You're really contorting your logic here to defend Nazis on the one hand and say "Meh" to the NFL players on the other.

Children taken away, utilities cut off, those things would suggest things that the government could take away from someone, and then you get into the area of the government telling people what political views they should have, and I would be against that.

Well first off...you don't get your electricity from "the government". But more importantly, losing your utilities, your home and then your children are just some of the potential consequences of losing your livelihood. So I say again, why so apoplectic about a person getting punched for their views but so "meh" about a person losing their livelihood and with it their home, utilities, etc, for those views? Why the arbitrary line around "punched in the face"?

What is the practical difference between taking someone's utilities away by cutting off their source of income or taking it away by pulling a lever? Why do you condemn one but see the other as acceptable? Because an employer can "set forth expectations?" So can the power company. The power company can say "I expect that you will not support Nazi ideology or display Nazi symbols on your property, and if we see them on your property then you cant have our electricity". Would you be fine with that? Or is it only employers who get to "set forth expectations"?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Defending their right to free speech is not the same as defending their cause. You can disagree with a cause while still defending the right of that cause's supporters to express themselves.

Yes, I've heard this argument made many times. It's baloney and I've explained why. You can keep repeating it and I'll keep debunking it. Again... Its not about defending their cause... Its about defending them. If you're defending the Klan's rights, you're defending the Klan. You're defending them. The issue is not whether or not you're defending the Klan... you are defending them. The only relevant issue is why... Why are you defending the Klan?

One easy potential answer to this is "because I am an attorney and they are my clients so its my job to defend them" another is "because I despise SJWs, so since the SJWs are attacking them I'm defending them because I enjoy fighting the SJWs" another is "because I am conservative and the Klan votes conservative so they are my political allies and I'm defending them accordingly"... Any of those make perfect sense to me. But if you're going with "because I'm passionate about Freedom of Speech" then the only way you can back that claim up is if you defend the NFL players with the same vehemence. If you oppose the protest, or take a "meh" stance towards the players/protest then your inconsistency on this issue is laid bare and your claim that you defend the Klan on "Freedom of Speech grounds" is exposed as a sham and a farce.

It's about drawing the line at violence that could escalate to the point that it robs someone of their right to life.

I can't believe you accused me of hyperbole in the same post as the one where you dropped this doozy. At least be consistent. If you can "that could escalate to the point that it robs someone of their right to life" about a punch... why can't I do the same "that could escalate to the point that it robs someone of their right to life" as a result of someone being thrown out of their job? I mean putting aside the collapse of a persons life and health, health insurance, roof over their head, ability to feed their family etc and how that can escalate to blah blah blah... you've never heard of workplace firings that escalate into shootings etc? The argument you're trying to make here is full of holes.

And if I can "find another place to work" then Milo can "find another place" to speak and the Klan can "find another place" to march...

 

[Berzerker]

The offense is purely artificial. This has nothing to do with the country, military men, the flag or even the national anthem. These are red herrings Trump had introduced so he can play the part of patriotic country loving America, which he isn't. And you know he isn't because Trump recently used that most sacred of American rituals as a political tool when he send Pence to prance in front of the camera during that Colts game.

This is about police brutality. Period. Anything else is dragged kicking and screaming against it's will into the debate by Trump. Because this is a hot topic he can spin to make himself look good. Diverting attention from his woeful presidency.

The players 'dragged' the anthem into the debate

Yes, I've heard this argument made many times. It's baloney and I've explained why. You can keep repeating it and I'll keep debunking it. Again... Its not about defending their cause... Its about defending them. If you're defending the Klan's rights, you're defending the Klan. You're defending them. The issue is not whether or not you're defending the Klan... you are defending them. The only relevant issue is why... Why are you defending the Klan?

The Golden Rule... Why do you defend them?

But if you're going with "because I'm passionate about Freedom of Speech" then the only way you can back that claim up is if you defend the NFL players with the same vehemence. If you oppose the protest, or take a "meh" stance towards the players/protest then your inconsistency on this issue is laid bare and your claim that you defend the Klan on "Freedom of Speech grounds" is exposed as a sham and a farce. I can't believe you accused me of hyperbole in the same post as the one where you dropped this doozy. At least be consistent. If you can "that could escalate to the point that it robs someone of their right to life" about a punch... why can't I do the same "that could escalate to the point that it robs someone of their right to life" as a result of someone being thrown out of their job? I mean putting aside the collapse of a persons life and health, health insurance, roof over their head, ability to feed their family etc and how that can escalate to blah blah blah... you've never heard of workplace firings that escalate into shootings etc? The argument you're trying to make here is full of holes.

And if I can "find another place to work" then Milo can "find another place" to speak and the Klan can "find another place" to march...

I started a thread about internet vigilantes trying to get people fired etc for protesting in Virginia, I'm glad you agree the practice is over the line. But the issue is a bit more complicated - when its the owners vs the players standing for the anthem their 'deal' involves an exchange and free speech that violates that deal can be cause for termination. I'd support the owners right in that case but I'd reserve the right to decide if the owner (or player) acted appropriately. Not that I can do much from my little corner of the universe, but I can boycott them and raise a fuss. Thats what keeps corporations in line when politicians wont.

edit: someone mentioned the politicians have been paying owners to have the players stand for the anthem - now that violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I know, I know "b-b-b-but Trump said...". Who the hell cares what Trump said? Does he have the power to fire NFL players? No? Then what he says on the matter carries about as much weight as what I have to say on the matter, which is none.

I care what Trump said... hes the freaking President of my freaking country. He is our representative to the people of the country, the world. He is the living Avatar of America, of you, me... all of us together. He is our voice, that, more than anything else is his job.

So when he says fire those guys ... that is the American people saying "fire those guys"... so is he misrepresenting you? Cause he's definitely representing you... That's our President soldier, show some respect... that is to say.. at least acknowledge that the POTUS speaks for the US people and the US government. Stop trying to pretend "Oh its just Trump"... his words carry "as much weight as what I have to say".. dude that's hogwash and you know it. You aren't the freaking President of the United States.

The Golden Rule

That's a religious thing isn't it?... Yeah I think (know) it is a religious thing... Now who's not paying attention to whose posting history? .

 

[Zkribbler]

I mean, Arpaio just broke the law a little, nothing as severe as kneeling during the national anthem.

Just systematic violations of civil rights and due process, torture, at least one case of manslaughter, and what he was pardoned for: intentional violation of a lawful court order.

By the way, the U.S. Flag Code does not require anyone to stand during the national anthem.

 

[Berzerker]

That's a religious thing isn't it?... Yeah I think (know) it is a religious thing... Now who's not paying attention to whose posting history? .

I dont understand your 2nd question, but you dont have to be religious to believe in equal treatment. So, why do you defend the Klan?

 

[Commodore]

The only relevant issue is why... Why are you defending the Klan?

Because they are still human beings who have rights. They are also being physically assaulted for expressing their opinions whereas the worst NFL players are facing are boos from the crowd and people saying mean things about them. When someone punches an NFL player in the face for kneeling during the anthem, then you can talk to me about how their rights are under attack.

I care what Trump said... hes the freaking President of my freaking country. He is our representative to the people of the country, the world. He is the living Avatar of America, of you, me... all of us together. He is our voice, that, more than anything else is his job.

So when he says fire those guys ... that is the American people saying "fire those guys"... so is he misrepresenting you? Cause he's definitely representing you... That's our President soldier, show some respect... that is to say.. at least acknowledge that the POTUS speaks for the US people and the US government. Stop trying to pretend "Oh its just Trump"... his words carry "as much weight as what I have to say".. dude that's hogwash and you know it. You aren't the freaking President of the United States.

"And the Oscar for Best Impassioned Speech That Totally Misses The Point goes too..."

My "who the hell cares" point was in relation to his ability to fire NFL players. Does he have that authority? No,he doesn't. Does he have the authority to force the NFL to exercise their authority on the matter? Again, no. In that context, Trump's words carry the same weight as mine on the matter since I also do not possess the authority to fire NFL players or make the NFL do it.

If you oppose the protest, or take a "meh" stance towards the players/protest then your inconsistency on this issue is laid bare and your claim that you defend the Klan on "Freedom of Speech grounds" is exposed as a sham and a farce.

Or, you know, because their right to free speech isn't under attack. Again, expressing disagreement with a method of protest does not constitute suppression of the protestor's right to free speech. You have still yet to demonstrate exactly how the NFL's players are having their right to free speech suppressed. I know you think you have, but there are several points I have raised that you haven't addressed and I can only assume you are doing so because you don't have a suitable answer for them.

First and foremost would be the fact that your main point seems to be their livelihoods are under attack but haven't provided any evidence to support this claim. Meanwhile, I have shown that this assertion is simply not true by pointing out that the worst players are facing from this is possible suspensions. Not loss of employment, but suspension. They sit down for a week and then come back as if nothing happened. And that's even if the suspensions are upheld, which there's a significant chance they won't be. Now you could claim that players may lose endorsement deals over this, but is that really an attack on free speech? Are you really going to try to claim that advertisers have an obligation to continue to work with someone they disagree with politically? If so then one of us here is against free speech, and it isn't me.

Another problem with your "their free speech is being suppressed" narrative is that as of right now, not a single NFL player has faced any kind of repercussions for their anthem protest. Not only that, but no NFL team, nor the league office itself, has even tried to punish players for their anthem protest. So tell me: In what universe does being allowed to protest without consequence constitute suppression of free speech? Are you starting to see why I'm thinking your just upset that a cause you believe in isn't supported by the wider population and that there's not any real attack on rights going on here? You know how you and several other posters here said in the numerous threads about Nazis that they have the right to free speech but not the right to be heard? I agreed with that, and that's exactly what we are seeing right now. We are seeing the wider population telling these players that they don't want to hear it. And that's not an attack on free speech, it's simply the population exercising their right to choose what message they want to listen to and which one they don't.

I dont understand your 2nd question,

I think he confused you with me for a second there since I'm the one who said he doesn't pay attention to my posting history.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The players 'dragged' the anthem into the debate.

Did they now? So in what way do the players argue the national anthem factors into police brutality?

I'll give you a hint. It's the stage used. It's idiots like Trump who include the national anthem in the debate. "These players kneel during the national anthem because they despise what the national anthem represents".

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Did they now? So in what way do the players argue the national anthem factors into police brutality?

I'll give you a hint. It's the stage used. It's idiots like Trump who include the national anthem in the debate. "These players kneel during the national anthem because they despise what the national anthem represents".

Just for the record since I dont think it should be too cheap to insult others. Trump may be an idiot but he is still in many aspects way better then you...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Just for the record since I dont think it should be too cheap to insult others. Trump may be an idiot but he is still in many aspects way better then you...

Oh snap. What a burn. I will need a moment to recover being on the receiving end of that monumental witticism.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Oh snap. What a burn. I will need a moment to recover being on the receiving end of that monumental witticism.

its fine to dissect things to reveal their nature but its even better to keep them in perspective...

 

[Sommerswerd]

I dont understand your 2nd question, but you dont have to be religious to believe in equal treatment. So, why do you defend the Klan?

The second question was referencing your pointing out to me that you were the one who started the thread. Now I don't understand your second question. It sounds a little like youre projecting your position onto me, then asking me to defend your position as if it was my own... but maybe I missed something. Again, my position on the Klan is thus... Eff those Ay-holes. I'm not sure what is vague or ambiguous about that. Maybe you're trying to be cute or clever somehow? Let me know...

"And the Oscar for Best Impassioned Speech That Totally Misses The Point goes too..."

My "who the hell cares" point was in relation to his ability to fire NFL players. Does he have that authority? No,he doesn't. Does he have the authority to force the NFL to exercise their authority on the matter? Again, no. In that context, Trump's words carry the same weight as mine on the matter since I also do not possess the authority to fire NFL players or make the NFL do it.

No, you are dead wrong about this, but we aren't going to agree... I think the POTUS exerts considerable influence and the concept of implied orders applies to Trump's comments... "Will no one rid me of these meddlesome NFL players?!?"... on the other hand you want to make a technical argument about his black letter legal authority as if that was all the power he had. Its the classic internets oldie-but-goodie... technical vs. practical... and in my experience, the argument goes round and round with both people repeating themselves... so let's get off this merry go round... its going nowhere.

I think he confused you with me for a second there since I'm the one who said he doesn't pay attention to my posting history.

Nah I didn't... see above.