NFL Caves, Pence Claims Victory For Trump.

[Tristan Scott]

This of course has nothing to do with Patriotism. Trump, Pence and all the others who had a problem with this know zero about patriotism. This country started as a protest. I wish these fuckers would at least read the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fine isn't set. The team gets fined.

And Trump definitely gets a victory over peaceful expression by a football player.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This of course has nothing to do with Patriotism. Trump, Pence and all the others who had a problem with this know zero about patriotism. This country started as a protest. I wish these fuckers would at least read the Declaration of Independence.

I hate the fact that they are giving into bullying tactics of Donald Trump.

 

[dismal]

Caves?

I think this has more to do with the NFL caring about its product's appeal to its fans than Trump or Pence.

Just because Trump Derangement has a large place in your life doesn't mean there aren't others going about their lives and their businesses with little or no thought of him.

 

[southernhybrid]

As a person who hasn't stood for the flag or the anthem since the Viet Nam War, I hope the players unite and rebel against this attack on their freedom on speech. Considering the reason for their very mild, peaceful protest, this is also racist. It may have nothing to do with Trump, although he's claiming victory. This is just another attack on Americans freedom to express themselves. These things sure seem to be happening more often lately. I wonder why?

Are sports fans and sponsors really going to stop supporting football because some little snowflakes can't stand to see some players kneel for the flag? I doubt it. Maybe they need to go to their safe space during the anthem if the players kneel.

 

[Elixir]

I will stand for this guy:

Jets Owner Says He’ll Pay Fines If Players Defy New Anthem-Protest Ban

 

[dismal]

As a person who hasn't stood for the flag or the anthem since the Viet Nam War, I hope the players unite and rebel against this attack on their freedom on speech. Considering the reason for their very mild, peaceful protest, this is also racist. It may have nothing to do with Trump, although he's claiming victory. This is just another attack on Americans freedom to express themselves. These things sure seem to be happening more often lately. I wonder why?

Are sports fans and sponsors really going to stop supporting football because some little snowflakes can't stand to see some players kneel for the flag? I doubt it. Maybe they need to go to their safe space during the anthem if the players kneel.

I hope our educational system starts doing a better job of explaining what "freedom of speech" means.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Caves?

I think this has more to do with the NFL caring about its product's appeal to its fans than Trump or Pence.

Just because Trump Derangement has a large place in your life doesn't mean there aren't others going about their lives and their businesses with little or no thought of him.

Trump derangement? You simply don't know me well enough to make that or any other judgement about me. I will say that I do have utter disdain for those who allowed such an incompetent person to be elected president, and for those that continue to support or appease him.

Furthermore, germane to the topic of this thread I have disdain for those who don't understand that protest is bedrock of freedom of speech.

Trump's or anyone else's advocating that people should be forced to pay homage to a symbol of liberty and freedom is oxymoronic.

If I'm deranged thinking this shit, then I guess I'm deranged.

(at least I'm not deplorable)

 

[dismal]

Caves?

I think this has more to do with the NFL caring about its product's appeal to its fans than Trump or Pence.

Just because Trump Derangement has a large place in your life doesn't mean there aren't others going about their lives and their businesses with little or no thought of him.

Trump derangement? You simply don't know me well enough to make that or any other judgement about me. I will say that I do have utter disdain for those who allowed such an incompetent person to be elected president, and for those that continue to support or appease him.

Furthermore, germane to the topic of this thread I have disdain for those who don't understand that protest is bedrock of freedom of speech.

Trump's or anyone else's advocating that people should be forced to pay homage to a symbol of liberty and freedom is oxymoronic.

If I'm deranged thinking this shit, then I guess I'm deranged.

(at least I'm not deplorable)

I can observe you ranting about Trump in issues that have little or nothing to do with Trump.

So, there's that.

 

[laughing dog]

I can observe you ranting about Trump in issues that have little or nothing to do with Trump.

So, there's that.

Since this issue was initiated by Trump and promoted by Trump, one wonders who actually has Trump derangement syndrome.

 

[untermensche]

This is unconstitutional.

A government supporting through inaction infringements on freedom of expression is as if the government is suppressing the expression.

If the government did not outlaw rape the government is sanctioning rape.

But who cares about that?

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is unconstitutional.

A government supporting through inaction infringements on freedom of expression is as if the government is suppressing the expression.

If the government did not outlaw rape the government is sanctioning rape.

But who cares about that?

It is constituitonal though. It might be against the CBA between the players and owners though.

 

[untermensche]

This is unconstitutional.

A government supporting through inaction infringements on freedom of expression is as if the government is suppressing the expression.

If the government did not outlaw rape the government is sanctioning rape.

But who cares about that?

It is constituitonal though. It might be against the CBA between the players and owners though.

It is government sanctioned suppression of expression. If the government sits back and permits it.

If the government sits back and permits murder it is sanctioning murder.

It is as if the government were doing it.

And that's not unconstitutional?

The US Constitution has a First Amendment.

 

[arkirk]

I can observe you ranting about Trump in issues that have little or nothing to do with Trump.

So, there's that.

Since this issue was initiated by Trump and promoted by Trump, one wonders who actually has Trump derangement syndrome.

There are posters here who feel it is their place to get angry at other posters when they bring up topics they do not wish to discuss. Trump has weighed in on this issue and it is a Trump issue. He has suggested that the owners decide to throw the bastards out if they do not properly salute his piece of soiled rag. This is a Trump associated issue and it is at the center of his proposition to the American people that he have the power to eject, deport, kill with fire and fury, etc. etc. those he does not like. It really is about that simple. Dismal is wrong. There is such a thing as a "Trump derangement " that is Trump's derangement. It is reasonable to object to his nuclear brinksmanship, international provocations, and inability to face criticism. Trump is like a peevish child with a toy he doesn't understand can hurt him or others. He demonstrates that it is possible to be insane and still be a successful capitalist, with excessive powers to hurt others.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

This is unconstitutional.

A government supporting through inaction infringements on freedom of expression is as if the government is suppressing the expression.

If the government did not outlaw rape the government is sanctioning rape.

But who cares about that?

It is constituitonal though. It might be against the CBA between the players and owners though.

It is government sanctioned suppression of expression. If the government sits back and permits it.

If the government sits back and permits murder it is sanctioning murder.

It is as if the government were doing it.

And that's not unconstitutional?

The US Constitution has a First Amendment.

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

I love what the Jets CEO said, especially since his brother, the owner, turned over control to him in order to become 45’s ambassador to the UK. That’s a big F U.

 

[untermensche]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

 

[coloradoatheist]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

Actually in some cases it does, but the court has allowed limited political speech at work.

 

[arkirk]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

It is a lot more than merely a defect in the law. It was a defect that was engineered into the law by people who kept indentured servants and slaves. You are right, it is a defect, but it is one that was consciously added to the law to protect exploitation of working people. It actually is a defect in the interpretation of the law by a very defective branch of our government...the Supreme Court.

 

[coloradoatheist]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

It is a lot more than merely a defect in the law. It was a defect that was engineered into the law by people who kept indentured servants and slaves. You are right, it is a defect, but it is one that was consciously added to the law to protect exploitation of working people. It actually is a defect in the interpretation of the law by a very defective branch of our government...the Supreme Court.

Huh? You are paid to do a job. You have the freedom not to show up for work but by that reasoning they couldn't fire you for not showing up.

 

[dismal]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

I'm occasionally amazed at the level of ignorance here. This is one of those times. The first amendment prevents the government from punishing you for the content of your speech. It does not prevent an employer from firing you for speechifying on your job. The logic of this ought to be blindingly obvious. When you go to work for McDonalds you say what McDonalds wants you to say to customers. You are not free to deliver lectures about how horrible McDonalds food is to customers. You'd have to be serioisly mentally challenged to think otherwise.