Kapaernick

[ksen]

You mean like the President of the United States trying to get people fired for expressing an opinion he doesn't like?

Oh, look, we have another Nazi not comfortable with someone else's free speech.

I agree, Trump was being quite the good, little Nazi.

 

[dismal]

Oh, look, we have another Nazi not comfortable with someone else's free speech.

I agree, Trump was being quite the good, little Nazi.

Yeah, Hitler was always suggesting NFL owners fire players.

Oh wait, that's not right, Hitler was afraid of people's speech -- like you.

 

[Terrell]

No, this is an issue of President Trump having legal power that Mr. Trump (were he not president) wouldn't have and using it against private organizations to demand their employees toe a specific political line. Congress did this a few decades ago, it was called McCarthyism, and it wasn't a good chapter in American history. I think it's wrong for the government to be doing this.

Give up the power to use the law to coerce political compliance with your political views first. .

I've noticed that you have not addressed the actual points of my argument. You howl "free speech" and Nazi, but you don't address the issue of using the power of political office as a means of economic coercion of private citizens employed by private businesses. Do you actually have a substantive argument against my position? If not it's more than fair to call you out on Name calling, as well as using the tactic of "distance & irritation".

@Sharon, it's not the first time I've called people out on name-calling or distance & irritation tactics. I don't participate in every thread.

The man expressed his opinion. He did not use the force of law or send troops to enforce his view. I agree that if he had done that, that would be wrong. But the situation we have is a) he didn't and b) you're pretending he did to silence him.

It was an act of speech, not government.

If you can't handle free speech maybe you need to leave America. We built our country on it.

Those of us who are not Nazis.

Coercion & force aren't necessarily the same thing. The point of "take off the uniform" is to forfeit the ability to use the law or government office to ensure compliance.

Sending in the troops/police isn't the only means to use legal coercion, it's just the least subtle. If the President chooses to he can use various regulatory agencies, whom he appoints the heads of, against the NFL. What pretext he would do that under, should he choose, I don't know. (The Dear Colleague letter that the Obama Administration used on the enforcement of title IX comes to mind as a use of a regulatory agency that I oppose.)

Another thing he can do, with the help of Congress, is decide to sign or veto a proposed law that affects the NFL's bottom line depending on whether the NFL toes the line he wants them to.

He can also use the social power of the office (the oft called bully pulpit) against the employers of the players, or the players themselves.

We'll have to see how far this goes to be sure, but I don't put it past him to use any of the above, or things I didn't think of, that are available through the use of his office.

 

[dismal]

The man expressed his opinion. He did not use the force of law or send troops to enforce his view. I agree that if he had done that, that would be wrong. But the situation we have is a) he didn't and b) you're pretending he did to silence him.

It was an act of speech, not government.

If you can't handle free speech maybe you need to leave America. We built our country on it.

Those of us who are not Nazis.

Coercion & force aren't necessarily the same thing. The point of "take off the uniform" is to forfeit the ability to use the law or government office to ensure compliance.

Sending in the troops/police isn't the only means to use legal coercion, it's just the least subtle. If the President chooses to he can use various regulatory agencies, whom he appoints the heads of, against the NFL. What pretext he would do that under, should he choose, I don't know. (The Dear Colleague letter that the Obama Administration used on the enforcement of title IX comes to mind as a use of a regulatory agency that I oppose.)

Another thing he can do, with the help of Congress, is decide to sign or veto a proposed law that affects the NFL's bottom line depending on whether the NFL toes the line he wants them to.

He can also use the social power of the office (the oft called bully pulpit) against the employers of the players, or the players themselves.

We'll have to see how far this goes to be sure, but I don't put it past him to use any of the above, or things I didn't think of, that are available through the use of his office.

You keep using the words like "legal coercion" to describe a speech.

Speech must really scare you for you to be so against free speech. Maybe America is not for you.

 

[Elixir]

Speech must really scare you for you to be so against free speech.

Every time Cheato opens his mouth, he embarrasses and diminishes the country for which both of my parents fought in a total of three wars.
I'd be all for him making a fool of himself as a citizen, but he is the fucking PRESIDENT. Obviously a fish out of water.

 

[dismal]

Speech must really scare you for you to be so against free speech.

Every time Cheato opens his mouth, he embarrasses and diminishes the country for which both of my parents fought in a total of three wars.
I'd be all for him making a fool of himself as a citizen, but he is the fucking PRESIDENT. Obviously a fish out of water.

I didn't realize people fought those wars to silence people they disagree with. I thought America was built on free speech.

 

[Elixir]

Every time Cheato opens his mouth, he embarrasses and diminishes the country for which both of my parents fought in a total of three wars.
I'd be all for him making a fool of himself as a citizen, but he is the fucking PRESIDENT. Obviously a fish out of water.

I didn't realize people fought those wars to silence people they disagree with.

There seem to be a considerable number of things you don't realize - but that's not one of them. I didn't say that, and you are exhibiting a certain brand of dishonesty with that statement that typifies neo-cons, and that I personally despise. But you are free to express yourself - no honesty is required.

I thought America was built on free speech.

But you didn't think that kneeling was covered by "free speech", right?

 

[dismal]

I didn't realize people fought those wars to silence people they disagree with.

There seem to be a considerable number of things you don't realize - but that's not one of them. I didn't say that, and you are exhibiting a certain brand of dishonesty with that statement that typifies neo-cons, and that I personally despise. But you are free to express yourself - no honesty is required.

I thought America was built on free speech.

But you didn't think that kneeling was covered by "free speech", right?

I have stated my position pretty clearly I think. Kneeling is covered by free speech. The NFL players kneeling before NFL games is not a free speech issue. Free speech means the government can't punish you for speech. It does not mean your employer can't punish you for things you say in your workplace.

Remember way back when "progressives" were all pumped that google engineer got fired for his memo? Or that CEO who said something progressives didn't like?

 

[blastula]

Neo-Nazis were marching in Charlottesville chanting for the death of the Jewish and the President couldn't speak against them for several days. A white woman was murdered by one of them. And the President couldn't speak out against them for days.

Odd how Trump has no trouble finding words to communicate his disgust with players who kneel during the anthem.

Trump's free speech? When a Neo-Nazi murdered a white woman, he didn't seem to be able to find the words.

Yeah, but he happens to be a white supremacists and so are many of his fans. Try to be more understanding.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The man expressed his opinion. He did not use the force of law or send troops to enforce his view. I agree that if he had done that, that would be wrong. But the situation we have is a) he didn't and b) you're pretending he did to silence him.

It was an act of speech, not government.

If you can't handle free speech maybe you need to leave America. We built our country on it.

Those of us who are not Nazis.

Coercion & force aren't necessarily the same thing. The point of "take off the uniform" is to forfeit the ability to use the law or government office to ensure compliance.

Sending in the troops/police isn't the only means to use legal coercion, it's just the least subtle. If the President chooses to he can use various regulatory agencies, whom he appoints the heads of, against the NFL. What pretext he would do that under, should he choose, I don't know. (The Dear Colleague letter that the Obama Administration used on the enforcement of title IX comes to mind as a use of a regulatory agency that I oppose.)

Another thing he can do, with the help of Congress, is decide to sign or veto a proposed law that affects the NFL's bottom line depending on whether the NFL toes the line he wants them to.

He can also use the social power of the office (the oft called bully pulpit) against the employers of the players, or the players themselves.

We'll have to see how far this goes to be sure, but I don't put it past him to use any of the above, or things I didn't think of, that are available through the use of his office.

You're right. He can withdraw or stall money they get for propagandizing. He could also talk to DOJ about anti-trust lawsuit or some other monopoly constraints.

 

[blastula]

And he apologized to his teammates after doing this.

He spit in their faces for what?

To prove he's the biggest sucker of them all? Sent on an immoral mission to do immoral things.

Yes, he "accidentally" walked out onto the field and "accidentally" put his hand over his heart while the anthem was playing. In all the confusion. Of the anthem playing.

Or maybe he's just an oppressed worker who is now desperate to keep his job. Workers are oppressed by their thuggish owners (who support the protests), you know.

So now your all American hero is a dirty liar?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you can't handle free speech maybe you need to leave America. We built our country on it.

Shouldn't you be telling Trump this? He's the one who wants owners to fire players for acts of free speech.

 

[LordKiran]

If you can't handle free speech maybe you need to leave America. We built our country on it.

Shouldn't you be telling Trump this? He's the one who wants owners to fire players for acts of free speech.

Free expression, technically.

 

[dismal]

If you can't handle free speech maybe you need to leave America. We built our country on it.

Shouldn't you be telling Trump this? He's the one who wants owners to fire players for acts of free speech.

Acts of free speech? Huh? Last I checked he suggested owners should fire players for something they did in their workplace.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Shouldn't you be telling Trump this? He's the one who wants owners to fire players for acts of free speech.

Acts of free speech? Huh? Last I checked he suggested owners should fire players for something they did in their workplace.

Where in the NFL rulebook does it say you have to stand for the national anthem? If people don't want to see ball players protesting the anthem, then maybe we shouldn't be having the anthem at a ball game. The players weren't the ones who started having political expression part of the game.

 

[blastula]

Trump is the one who should be fired for what he says and does in the workplace.

 

[sharon45]

@Sharon, it's not the first time I've called people out on name-calling

I'm sure, but it is very common to use that fallacy on this forum, even by many who do name-calling also.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Trump is the one who should be fired for what he says and does in the workplace.

We get that option in 3 years, unfortunately his contract says high crimes and misdemeanors where Kapernick's contract has less strong wording for getting out of a contract.

 

[blastula]

Congress also has the option now, and "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever they want it to be.

 

[Elixir]

It does not mean your employer can't punish you for things you say in your workplace.

But somehow Cheato is justified for demanding that owners (whose own "free speech" on the matter is unequivocal) fire those player for behavior that Cheato doesn't like?
What a fucking clown.