Kapaernick

[ronburgundy]

The fact that you think they're in any way a problem means you have lost your mind. You get just as triggered as the "SJW snowflakes" you despise.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone expressing their political views on their own time. However the workplace is no place to do it. Would you hire someone to present to your broad range of customers that insisted on expressing their opinion on controversial political topics to your customers, alienating half of them?

The NFL praises war every Sunday under the guise of "honoring the troops". The Anthem is 100% political propaganda. The expectation that everyone stand is nothing but political coercion. The one time socks thing has nothing to do with why he doesn't have a job. It is because of the anthem, and because politics are fine on the job in the NFL, but only if they are right-wing.

 

[ronburgundy]

Can I dislike both Kaepernick and the national anthem at games?

Yes. I dislike him b/c he is an idiot who, like the BLM movement more generally, actively encouraged liberals and leftists not to vote, resulting in Trump being elected.

But what you cannot rationally do is deny that the NFL is highly political in its nonstop worship of war and the military, and that teams are refusing to hire him b/c he didn't do along with the NFL propaganda machine. You also cannot rationally deny that the fans the NFL is worried about offending are scumbags who care more about disobedience to military worship than whether a player beats and rapes women.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone expressing their political views on their own time. However the workplace is no place to do it. Would you hire someone to present to your broad range of customers that insisted on expressing their opinion on controversial political topics to your customers, alienating half of them?

The NFL praises war every Sunday under the guise of "honoring the troops". The Anthem is 100% political propaganda. The expectation that everyone stand is nothing but political coercion. The one time socks thing has nothing to do with why he doesn't have a job. It is because of the anthem, and because politics are fine on the job in the NFL, but only if they are right-wing.

Lets play your game then. Assume that the NFL teams and games ARE organized right wing rallies. Why the fuck would or should they hire someone to demonstrate against them? Would you expect and demand that the organizers of a Bernie Sanders rally hire someone who insisted on wearing a Trump "make America great" hat?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The NFL praises war every Sunday under the guise of "honoring the troops". The Anthem is 100% political propaganda. The expectation that everyone stand is nothing but political coercion. The one time socks thing has nothing to do with why he doesn't have a job. It is because of the anthem, and because politics are fine on the job in the NFL, but only if they are right-wing.

Lets play your game then. Assume that the NFL teams ARE organized right wing rallies. Why the fuck would would or should they hire someone to demonstrate against them? Would you expect and demand that the organizers of a Bernie Sanders rally hire someone who insisted on wearing a Trump "make America great" hat?

You sound like you are for companies forcing employees to salute a flag and worship the military. I thought you said you were a libertarian.

 

[skepticalbip]

Lets play your game then. Assume that the NFL teams ARE organized right wing rallies. Why the fuck would would or should they hire someone to demonstrate against them? Would you expect and demand that the organizers of a Bernie Sanders rally hire someone who insisted on wearing a Trump "make America great" hat?

You sound like you are for companies forcing employees to salute a flag and worship the military. I thought you said you were a libertarian.

Yes, I am a libertarian. I am for companies being able to only hire people who agree with their basic business philosophy. Also people are ab;e to choose companies to associate with that are compatible with their philosophy.

 

[Malintent]

Just want to make sure I'm clear on this. The guy protests racial inequality, and now the police are protesting his actions by refusing to participate in a pre game ceremony.

Instead of saying "Yes, we must stop racism and shooting unarmed people within our ranks", they are saying "F*** you fof having a problem with that".

Just wanted to be clear.

Hummmm. First off, I support Colin's right to protest. As an aside, I hear that he is a great guy. But are you surprised that there are some people protesting back? I don't think that the police are paid very well at games.

Who said anything about his right to protest? .. and I am sure you have heard that there are "great people on both sides". If I utilized my company's time and resources (and their visibility and access to public view), in direct violation of their "social media policy" or the litany of other polices about "publicly representing the company", in such a way as to bring negative attention to the organization, then I would be rightly fired... as should he for that violation of trust.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am for companies being able to only hire people who agree with their basic business philosophy.

You mean fascism.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am for companies being able to only hire people who agree with their basic business philosophy.

You mean fascism.

Apparently, you have absolutely no idea what fascism is.

So, by your reasoning, Those organizing a Sanders rally who refused to hire someone who insisted on wearing his Turmp "make America great" hat would be fascists...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You mean fascism.

Apparently, you have absolutely no idea what fascism is.

Apparently, not only do you have absolutely no idea what political rights are but you also think everyone should bend over for The Man when their companies tell them to.

 

[skepticalbip]

Apparently, you have absolutely no idea what fascism is.

Apparently, not only do you have absolutely no idea what political rights are but you also think everyone should bend over for The Man when their companies tell them to.

Repeat..

So, by your reasoning, Those organizing a Sanders rally who refused to hire someone who insisted on wearing his Turmp "make America great" hat would be fascists...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Apparently, not only do you have absolutely no idea what political rights are but you also think everyone should bend over for The Man when their companies tell them to.

Repeat..

So, by your reasoning, Those organizing a Sanders rally who refused to hire someone who insisted on wearing his Turmp "make America great" hat would be fascists...

Sanders versus Clinton versus trump versus Cruz versus etc, show the diversity allowed in political opinions of the electorate and the campaign's employees. You can choose a political campaign that fits your political criteria.

The football situation disallows diverse political expression, no, favors one--no, as a practicable matter, forces one and only one. And that's okay with you because you like saluting the flag.

So you've forsaken your libertarian principles for conservative ones. You might as well be for One Party communism--a thing I bet you abhor. But your inconsistency allows for it just because you like the military and the American flag.

 

[dismal]

Repeat..

So, by your reasoning, Those organizing a Sanders rally who refused to hire someone who insisted on wearing his Turmp "make America great" hat would be fascists...

Sanders versus Clinton versus trump versus Cruz versus etc, show the diversity allowed in political opinions of the electorate and the campaign's employees. You can choose a political campaign that fits your political criteria.

The football situation disallows diverse political expression, no, favors one--no, as a practicable matter, forces one and only one. And that's okay with you because you like saluting the flag.

So you've forsaken your libertarian principles for conservative ones. You might as well be for One Party communism--a thing I bet you abhor. But your inconsistency allows for it just because you like the military and the American flag.

The libertarian principle to be applied here is that is people -- including NFL owners -- can associate or not associate with whom they like.

 

[ronburgundy]

The NFL praises war every Sunday under the guise of "honoring the troops". The Anthem is 100% political propaganda. The expectation that everyone stand is nothing but political coercion. The one time socks thing has nothing to do with why he doesn't have a job. It is because of the anthem, and because politics are fine on the job in the NFL, but only if they are right-wing.

Lets play your game then. Assume that the NFL teams and games ARE organized right wing rallies. Why the fuck would or should they hire someone to demonstrate against them? Would you expect and demand that the organizers of a Bernie Sanders rally hire someone who insisted on wearing a Trump "make America great" hat?

My "game" is merely to point out an undeniable empirical fact that the NFL engages in rampant political propaganda.
No, I don't expect the NFL to have any ethical or moral decency. They continually prove they do not. So, I don't expect them to do anything that doesn't increase their profits . Given the demands of the immoral scum that comprise the a large % of their fanbase, that means hiring rapists and abusers but not a person who doesn't stand during the salute to war.

Note that my lack of expectations to act ethically is NOT because they are a business, but because they immoral shitbags. Despite the tenets of the pseudo-libertarian free-market religion, ethics and business can go together.

Also, the large majority of NFL owners share the immoral values of fans, and thus support for right wing politics (within which disobedience to nationalistic sentiments is viewed as worse than rape and wife beating). That's why they donated over 4 times as much to McCain than Obama in 2008, and again to Romney over Obama in 2012. They also donated over 7 million just for Trump's inauguration party. The fact that the NFL and most owners have no problem blackmailing taxpayers to give them corporate welfare in the form of publicly funded stadiums, proves their GOP support is not rooted in any actual conservative economic principles.

 

[dismal]

that means hiring rapists and abusers but not a person who doesn't stand during the salute to war.

Tip: there are 30 anthem protestors on NFL rosters right now.

Try hitting reset and coming out with a rant a little more in line with reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

Lets play your game then. Assume that the NFL teams and games ARE organized right wing rallies. Why the fuck would or should they hire someone to demonstrate against them? Would you expect and demand that the organizers of a Bernie Sanders rally hire someone who insisted on wearing a Trump "make America great" hat?

My "game" is merely to point out an undeniable empirical fact that the NFL engages in rampant political propaganda.
No, I don't expect the NFL to have any ethical or moral decency. They continually prove they do not. So, I don't expect them to do anything that doesn't increase their profits . Given the demands of the immoral scum that comprise the a large % of their fanbase, that means hiring rapists and abusers but not a person who doesn't stand during the salute to war.

Note that my lack of expectations to act ethically is NOT because they are a business, but because they immoral shitbags. Despite the tenets of the pseudo-libertarian free-market religion, ethics and business can go together.

Also, the large majority of NFL owners share the immoral values of fans, and thus support for right wing politics (within which disobedience to nationalistic sentiments is viewed as worse than rape and wife beating). That's why they donated over 4 times as much to McCain than Obama in 2008, and again to Romney over Obama in 2012. They also donated over 7 million just for Trump's inauguration party. The fact that the NFL and most owners have no problem blackmailing taxpayers to give them corporate welfare in the form of publicly funded stadiums, proves their GOP support is not rooted in any actual conservative economic principles.

Gotcha... So, for you, this whole discussion has nothing to do with Kapaernick and whether or not he has the right to be hired by a NFL club? It is about your visceral hatred of the NFL so any troubles the furor causes them is welcome?

 

[ronburgundy]

that means hiring rapists and abusers but not a person who doesn't stand during the salute to war.

Tip: there are 30 anthem protestors on NFL rosters right now.

Try hitting reset and coming out with a rant a little more in line with reality.

There are 0 knowledgeable NFL analysts who don't know that Kapaernick is better than most current back-ups and a few starters. That leaves his anthem protests as the sole plausible basis for him not being on a roster.

Also, your "30" stat is invented bullshit. Only 3 players sat in week one, and one knelt. In the minds of the idiots who think the Anthem is important, as long as your standing they can pretend your a good obedient dog.

And the current protesters were NOT hired while protesting. There is nothing comparable about a team simply avoiding drawing attention by firing a start player like Lynch because they are protesting (although Jerry Jones said he would do just that), versus a team drawing attention by hiring a player known to even every casual fan as protesting during every game last year. Ask people who has sat during the Anthem, and almost every person in the US will say Kaepernick, and few will be able to say anyone else.

The issue for the teams is the reaction of the amoral irrational morons within their fanbase. If you are already a star on a team, fans don't care what you do. If you're not on a team and hoping one will sign you, then your better off being caught on video knocking your girlfriend out (like Mixon) than sitting during the Anthem to highlight people getting murdered by the cops.

 

[ronburgundy]

My "game" is merely to point out an undeniable empirical fact that the NFL engages in rampant political propaganda.
No, I don't expect the NFL to have any ethical or moral decency. They continually prove they do not. So, I don't expect them to do anything that doesn't increase their profits . Given the demands of the immoral scum that comprise the a large % of their fanbase, that means hiring rapists and abusers but not a person who doesn't stand during the salute to war.

Note that my lack of expectations to act ethically is NOT because they are a business, but because they immoral shitbags. Despite the tenets of the pseudo-libertarian free-market religion, ethics and business can go together.

Also, the large majority of NFL owners share the immoral values of fans, and thus support for right wing politics (within which disobedience to nationalistic sentiments is viewed as worse than rape and wife beating). That's why they donated over 4 times as much to McCain than Obama in 2008, and again to Romney over Obama in 2012. They also donated over 7 million just for Trump's inauguration party. The fact that the NFL and most owners have no problem blackmailing taxpayers to give them corporate welfare in the form of publicly funded stadiums, proves their GOP support is not rooted in any actual conservative economic principles.

Gotcha... So, for you, this whole discussion has nothing to do with Kapaernick and whether or not he has the right to be hired by a NFL club? It is about your visceral hatred of the NFL so any troubles the furor causes them is welcome?

What people have a right to do and what they should do or what is ethical have little to do with each other.
When it comes to the law, I think it should be limited to restricting actions that cause direct tangible harm to other's person or property (which includes property that is inherently public and communal no matter what pseudo-libertarians claim).

So no, I don't object to the NFL's right to hire rapists and wife beaters but not hire a person trying the reduce acts of murder.
I'm just pointing out that is objectively what they are doing and pointing out their lack of human decency behind it and behind the fanbase they are trying to profit off of. Unlike most conservatives who pretend to be "libertarians", I don't equate what a company should be able to get away with legally with what they should actually do or what is ethical, or how the public should react to that company for those actions.

 

[laughing dog]

Tip: there are 30 anthem protestors on NFL rosters right now.

Try hitting reset and coming out with a rant a little more in line with reality.

There are 0 knowledgeable NFL analysts who don't know that Kapaernick is better than most current back-ups and a few starters. That leaves his anthem protests as the sole plausible basis for him not being on a roster.

Also, your "30" stat is invented bullshit. Only 3 players sat in week one, and one knelt. In the minds of the idiots who think the Anthem is important, as long as your standing they can pretend your a good obedient dog.

. Kaepernick is QB, so unless the 30 are QBs, the number is irrelevant to the issue of his hiring. One would hope after the awful performance of the Vikings' 3rd string QB on Sunday that Kaepernick might get a good look by the Vikings.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gotcha... So, for you, this whole discussion has nothing to do with Kapaernick and whether or not he has the right to be hired by a NFL club? It is about your visceral hatred of the NFL so any troubles the furor causes them is welcome?

What people have a right to do and what they should do or what is ethical have little to do with each other.
When it comes to the law, I think it should be limited to restricting actions that cause direct tangible harm to other's person or property (which includes property that is inherently public and communal no matter what pseudo-libertarians claim).

So no, I don't object to the NFL's right to hire rapists and wife beaters but not hire a person trying the reduce acts of murder.
I'm just pointing out that is objectively what they are doing and pointing out their lack of human decency behind it and behind the fanbase they are trying to profit off of. Unlike most conservatives who pretend to be "libertarians", I don't equate what a company should be able to get away with legally with what they should actually do or what is ethical, or how the public should react to that company for those actions.

I mostly agree but I'd be a little tougher here. First, people have a right to political expression or non-expression. Second, the NFL is a *poly or monopoly. Third, the NFL is requiring a particular type of political expression. Since the NFL is a monopoly or *poly, only one type of political expression is allowed by anyone who wants to be a pro football player. While the two ought not be related ethically or a requirement for an individual company legally, that this is a monopoly makes it a bit worse and makes political rights of players more of an issue.

 

[dismal]

Also, your "30" stat is invented bullshit. Only 3 players sat in week one, and one knelt. In the minds of the idiots who think the Anthem is important, as long as your standing they can pretend your a good obedient dog.

The good news is your ignorance has a cure.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...ing-the-national-anthem-of-the-2017-preseason
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/22/national-anthem-protests-list-players-kneel