Kapaernick

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Good. This is much better than the brainwashing that normally goes on with our country's young children.

 

[dismal]

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

Good. This is much better than the brainwashing that normally goes on with our country's young children.

Well, not good if you're an asshat on the internet arguing the NFL won't employ anthem protesters.

 

[fromderinside]

Would it be better if the asshat argued the NFL won't employ rose bowl winning anthem protesters then, which really seems to be what is going on. A bit of reality helps bigotry go down.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Good. This is much better than the brainwashing that normally goes on with our country's young children.

Well, not good if you're an asshat on the internet arguing the NFL won't employ anthem protesters.

You only think I am an asshat because as a conservolibertarian you have to support the authoritarian corporations.

 

[bilby]

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.

Yup. That's the fundamental flaw in Libertarianism; it has, as an axiom, the demonstrably insane claim that each individual is equally powerful, and that therefore if every individual is subject to the exact same rules, the result will be equitable.

"La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain." - Anatole France

(The majestic equality of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, or stealing loaves of bread).

 

[sharon45]

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

Yup. That's the fundamental flaw in Libertarianism; it has, as an axiom, the demonstrably insane claim that each individual is equally powerful, and that therefore if every individual is subject to the exact same rules, the result will be equitable.

Who here is honestly claiming this?

 

[bilby]

Yup. That's the fundamental flaw in Libertarianism; it has, as an axiom, the demonstrably insane claim that each individual is equally powerful, and that therefore if every individual is subject to the exact same rules, the result will be equitable.

Who here is honestly claiming this?

It is implied by dismal's post. He equates 'NFL owners' and 'people' as though these were sets of entities of approximately equal power, for whom it is completely equitable to have identical sets of rules. 'NFL owners' are, obviously, people; but an average NFL owner clearly does NOT have the same power or influence as the average person.

 

[dismal]

Let me break this down in hopes that even the biggest morons here can understand:

If you are arguing that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters while there are dozens of anthem protesters on NFL rosters you are not offending "libertarianism" or any other political belief, you are offending basic logic and reason.

This is not a political point. This is like arguing the NFL owners won't allow blue uniforms and having some one point out there are lots of teams with blue uniforms.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let me break this down in hopes that even the biggest morons here can understand:

If you are arguing that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters while there are dozens of anthem protesters on NFL rosters you are not offending "libertarianism" or any other political belief, you are offending basic logic and reason.

This is not a political point. This is like arguing the NFL owners won't allow blue uniforms and having some one point out there are lots of teams with blue uniforms.

I know skepticalbip was making the argument you claim, but let's be polite to him here. It's against forum rules to call him a big moron. It could still be that the NFL was making an example out of the most vocal of the anthem protestors. Moreover, what you appear to have missed is that firing people is not the same thing as not hiring them. These players have contracts and cannot be fired because their conduct in peaceful protest does not violate the conduct clause in their contracts.

 

[sharon45]

Who here is honestly claiming this?

It is implied by dismal's post. He equates 'NFL owners' and 'people' as though these were sets of entities of approximately equal power, for whom it is completely equitable to have identical sets of rules. 'NFL owners' are, obviously, people; but an average NFL owner clearly does NOT have the same power or influence as the average person.

Yet he was not saying anything of this sort in that quoted passage, just talking about some rights of free association.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Let me break this down in hopes that even the biggest morons here can understand:

If you are arguing that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters while there are dozens of anthem protesters on NFL rosters you are not offending "libertarianism" or any other political belief, you are offending basic logic and reason.

This is not a political point. This is like arguing the NFL owners won't allow blue uniforms and having some one point out there are lots of teams with blue uniforms.

Generally, coaches and management have a higher standard of behavior for QBs than non-QBs. QB's are really like the second coach of the team. They are expected to be leaders and not outshine the coach. You'll never have a "neon Deion" type of a QB. Non QBs are allowed to be more individualistic. The Seattle Seahawks are probably the most liberal team in the NFL. Individuality is encouraged. Their DE Bennett is one of the guys who doesn't stand during the anthem. But not for QBs. Everyone supports him. Seattle passed on Kap.

 

[dismal]

Let me break this down in hopes that even the biggest morons here can understand:

If you are arguing that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters while there are dozens of anthem protesters on NFL rosters you are not offending "libertarianism" or any other political belief, you are offending basic logic and reason.

This is not a political point. This is like arguing the NFL owners won't allow blue uniforms and having some one point out there are lots of teams with blue uniforms.

Generally, coaches and management have a higher standard of behavior for QBs than non-QBs. QB's are really like the second coach of the team. They are expected to be leaders and not outshine the coach. You'll never have a "neon Deion" type of a QB. Non QBs are allowed to be more individualistic. The Seattle Seahawks are probably the most liberal team in the NFL. Individuality is encouraged. Their DE Bennett is one of the guys who doesn't stand during the anthem. But not for QBs. Everyone supports him. Seattle passed on Kap.

Recall SF allowed Kaepernick to play QB for them for a year after his protests began. It's not like he was instantly terminated. He just lost a lot.

Also, I scanned the list of anthem protesters I linked earlier, and I believe Derek Carr and DeShone Kizer are QBs.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Generally, coaches and management have a higher standard of behavior for QBs than non-QBs. QB's are really like the second coach of the team. They are expected to be leaders and not outshine the coach. You'll never have a "neon Deion" type of a QB. Non QBs are allowed to be more individualistic. The Seattle Seahawks are probably the most liberal team in the NFL. Individuality is encouraged. Their DE Bennett is one of the guys who doesn't stand during the anthem. But not for QBs. Everyone supports him. Seattle passed on Kap.

Recall SF allowed Kaepernick to play QB for them for a year after his protests began. It's not like he was instantly terminated. He just lost a lot.

Also, I scanned the list of anthem protesters I linked earlier, and I believe Derek Carr and DeShone Kizer are QBs.

Yea, but that was because Kap was still under his rookie contract. He had guarantied money. Yea, Derek Carr will be another Tim Tebow. However, he's spectacular! He's probably the most talented QB in the game. I don't know much about Kizer....

 

[blastula]

Let me break this down in hopes that even the biggest morons here can understand:

If you are arguing that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters while there are dozens of anthem protesters on NFL rosters you are not offending "libertarianism" or any other political belief, you are offending basic logic and reason.

This is not a political point. This is like arguing the NFL owners won't allow blue uniforms and having some one point out there are lots of teams with blue uniforms.

Generally, coaches and management have a higher standard of behavior for QBs than non-QBs. QB's are really like the second coach of the team. They are expected to be leaders and not outshine the coach. You'll never have a "neon Deion" type of a QB. Non QBs are allowed to be more individualistic. The Seattle Seahawks are probably the most liberal team in the NFL. Individuality is encouraged. Their DE Bennett is one of the guys who doesn't stand during the anthem. But not for QBs. Everyone supports him. Seattle passed on Kap.

 

[dismal]

Recall SF allowed Kaepernick to play QB for them for a year after his protests began. It's not like he was instantly terminated. He just lost a lot.

Also, I scanned the list of anthem protesters I linked earlier, and I believe Derek Carr and DeShone Kizer are QBs.

Yea, but that was because Kap was still under his rookie contract. He had guarantied money. Yea, Derek Carr will be another Tim Tebow. However, he's spectacular! He's probably the most talented QB in the game. I don't know much about Kizer....

Well, no Kaep signed a 7 year $120+ million contract in 2014.

 

[repoman]

Yea, but that was because Kap was still under his rookie contract. He had guarantied money. Yea, Derek Carr will be another Tim Tebow. However, he's spectacular! He's probably the most talented QB in the game. I don't know much about Kizer....

Well, no Kaep signed a 7 year $120+ million contract in 2014.

This shows how little I follow football, but will Kap still get all or most of the money? Maybe he wants to cut down on body and brain wear and tear and protesting helped with that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, no Kaep signed a 7 year $120+ million contract in 2014.

This shows how little I follow football, but will Kap still get all or most of the money? Maybe he wants to cut down on body and brain wear and tear and protesting helped with that.

The NFL doesn't work the same as the NBA or MLB. The contract that he signed in 2014 only contained a couple years of guarantied money. That ran out in 2016. Kap actually opted out of his contract before SF could cut him.

http://www.businessinsider.com/colin-kaepernick-record-49ers-contract-2017-8

 

[ZiprHead]

Let me break this down in hopes that even the biggest morons here can understand:

If you are arguing that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters while there are dozens of anthem protesters on NFL rosters you are not offending "libertarianism" or any other political belief, you are offending basic logic and reason.

This is not a political point. This is like arguing the NFL owners won't allow blue uniforms and having some one point out there are lots of teams with blue uniforms.

Your argument fails because Kapaernick is the poster boy for anthem protesters. Almost no one know the names of the other protesters. Someone mentions Kapaernick and the anthem protest immediately come to mind in most people.

 

[dismal]

Let me break this down in hopes that even the biggest morons here can understand:

If you are arguing that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters while there are dozens of anthem protesters on NFL rosters you are not offending "libertarianism" or any other political belief, you are offending basic logic and reason.

This is not a political point. This is like arguing the NFL owners won't allow blue uniforms and having some one point out there are lots of teams with blue uniforms.

Your argument fails because Kapaernick is the poster boy for anthem protesters. Almost no one know the names of the other protesters. Someone mentions Kapaernick and the anthem protest immediately come to mind in most people.

My argument is that the argument that the NFL won't hire anthem protesters fails because NFL rosters are full of anthem protesters.

This argument did not fail. What you are doing is called "shifting the goal posts". My argument has caused you to shift the goal posts.

Apparently we are now moving the goal posts to "the NFL won't hire the poster boy for anthem protestors, other than the one year the 49ers paid Kaepernick while he was the poster boy for anthem protestors".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When one has a morally bankrupt opinion, just change the game, I guess, and call everyone "big morons" for agreeing to the tacit premises. So it's better to argue semantics and failed premises than it is to try to champion the idea that corporations can force employees to politically express themselves in a way that is different from their personal views. It's like rearranging the premise chairs on the sinking ship of ConservoLibertarianism.