How do you feel about the new NFL ruling requiring players on the field to stand during the playing of the national anthem. This ruling was not brought about by any government influence. It occurred because of economic pressure placed on the NFL by the fans of the NFL. These are fans who made a bold statement telling NFL players, we fans pay to watch you play football and not watch your political grandstanding. If you want to play politics do it on your own time. If you do it during the time you should be playing football, we won't pay for it. NFL players need to learn that NFL fans ALSO have rights and can spend their money wherever they choose. It was economics that caused this to happen and nothing else.
But, Mike, conservatives wouldn't have a problem if they all, say, skipped the ceronomy and stayed in the locker room in protest? What NFL fans can't see shouldn't bother them....
If their cause meant so much to them NFL players would protest on their own time. They would not take advantage of the people who pay them money to play football. If they stay inside during the national anthem, that's fine. I seen the actions of the NFL players bringing much economic woe to the NFL. What happens when so many fans leave...the owners can't afford to pay the NFL players their high salaries? The game is funded by its customers and not the government. When the customers leave, the game dies.
Actually you are just partially correct, the federal government does indeed fund the NFL and racist team owners to a certain degree, they all just received corporate welfare tax cuts from their racist pal Mr. Trump and racist republican congresspersons while the average worker got a few measly crumbs that will be eaten up by Mr. Trump's higher gas prices:
Why would a player protest on their own time when they get the most exposure for their cause by exercising their 1st amendment rights protesting before the game begins, a game which is still played in its entirety from whistle to whistle regardless of protests?
I believe one of my favorite commentators says it best. Let me introduce Henry Davis. A black man from Saint Louis.
A tax cut is "funding the NFL"? Only if you think that income actually belongs to you rather than the company and owners that earned it. As that is obviously false, it can in no manner be considered to be funding anything at all.
I don't know of any gas stations President Trump owns; can you describe how the normal spring rise in prices is his? And aren't you happy that he has given you a welfare check, via reduced taxes, to absorb that yearly increase in gas costs? Or are you ashamed to be on the dole, taking welfare from the government?
The NFL and other sports organizations get unique opportunities when it comes to issuing bonds to build stadiums. It is the type of tax break only offered to sports organizations. Regular businesses don't won't get it.
"The experts we spoke with disagreed on whether to call it a subsidy, as the federal government isn’t pumping money to team owners to build stadiums. Rather, it’s not taxing the bonds issued by local governments to help build stadiums. While it might not be a subsidy, the experts agreed that it still qualified as a tax break."
Even Politifact felt President Donald Trump was right on this issue.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … rump-said/
All of the money the NFL makes is only owned by them if we didn't have a country to run and operate: If Mr. Trump's elite NFL owners don't pay to maintain our nation who does? Yup, the little guy does:
Some extremely rich greedy individuals just think they're entitled to 'free load' off of the USA, make millions nad even billions then shift the burden on to everyone else who usually can't afford it: Yes, gargantuan corporate welfare tax cuts given to racist NFL owners by Spanky Trump does indeed fund the operation:
"Some extremely rich greedy individuals just think they're entitled to 'free load' off of the USA, make millions nad even billions then shift the burden on to everyone else who usually can't afford it"
LOL "Shift the burden"??!!?? When the rich contribute a thousand times what the poor man does the burden has been shifted all right - onto the backs of those that earn the most. When half the country makes no net contribution to federal coffers the burden has not been shifted to them, and only a socialist that feels they own what others have earned would ever consider that it was.
Jake, you can claim a thousand times, or a million, that the poor are the ones providing for the needs of the country and it will still be a false statement.
And as usual Liberals need multi-million dollar celebrity spoiled football players, highly entitled hollywood actresses and reality cushioned political officeholders to tell you that yes , you might be racists too?
And your point and answer in regard to my comment?
There can be a case for requiring players to show due deference during the loyalty pledge ceremony, as part of employment but the compromise is that they are not required to attend. If they do not appear at all during the ceremony, it is a form of protest that I might guess will still stick in the conservative's craw. That would allow the players to say that their 'gratitude' has limits and their absence will be seen as a political statement in itself.
So if I know my righties, we have not seen the end of this matter.
Anyone who thinks this is OK doesn't know or doesn't care about the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
And yes, Trump had a lot to do with the new rule by inflaming his anti-Constitution supporters.
I'm always amazed at the people who claim they love the Constitution and then are so quick to violate it.
Do liberals grasp the concept that NFL owners (the fans of the NFL) also have rights? An employer has a right to set rules of conduct in their work space. Should the NFL players believe in their cause so much they would have protested on their own time. They didn't. Proving it was just a show and image. There was no substance to it. The bottom line is if the NFL fans no longer pay for the NFL, it will no longer exist. As a business, they must cater to their customers who pay to watch them play football and watch their politics.
The fans aren't the ones being threatened with fines for expressing a Constitutionally protected opinion.
While true, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, for no one else is either. The Constitution does not guarantee that we can say whatever we wish, whenever and wherever we wish to say it, and it certainly doesn't say we can do that without fear of repercussions from anyone.
Thousands of court rulings protecting free speech over more than 200 years don't agree with you.
I'm not aware of any workplace or public place in America where I can get fined simply for kneeling.
I think you left out one detail. Kneeling during the national anthem. Here is an interesting article from a Human Resources magazine.
"Employees don’t have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution’s right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it’s not absolute. There is no free speech in your house; ask your mom. And there is no legal right to free speech or expression at work. (If you work for the government, there is a special set of rules that apply.)
So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work."
https://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-fre … h-at-work/
Point well taken. So the issue is whether Trump had a role in the new rule.
Mike said it better than I did, but that was the point I was trying to make. Free speech does not apply whenever and wherever one wishes to speak. There are most definitely limitations, and sometimes ones large enough to completely eliminate the concept of free speech entirely.
Has anyone every owned a business? NFL players are employees. The NFL is a business. The NFL fans are what makes the NFL possible. It's not the NFL or the coaches or the team owners. It is the NFL fans. They have protected rights. They have a right to not attend partake in what the NFL is offering. The NFL is trying to appease its fan base. The players can express their opinions, but they have a boss called the NFL fans. If their boss, the NFL fans don't want to pay to watch politics, they don't have to pay to watch politics. Anyone who has or has had a business knows a customer's desires must come first.
I own a business and have managed hundreds of employees over a 40-year career. I agree that customer's desires come first -- to a point. But I have never agreed to a customer's demand for free service, do something illegal etc.
I have never fined or fired anyone for expressing a political opinion, and I don't know anyone who has done it either.
More to the point, we are mixing the Constitutional issue and business issue together. They are two separate issues.
You haven't fired or disciplined anyone...yet. But what would your reaction be if your checkout counter was staffed by someone wearing a T-shirt that had a large swastika and the words "The only good N**** is a dead one"? There are people out there that would wear that, using your business to become more visible (and not be mugged!) - would you allow it to destroy your company or would that person be shown the door in 3 seconds flat?
Yes, there is constitutional protection of free speech...and there is protection for the owner of the venue chosen for that free speech, too.
I agree with you that I would take action in that extreme case. But I would not fire someone for kneeling.
And that is certainly your choice...although you might change your mind if your business income suddenly dropped 20% or you began to hear a lot of rumblings from the public about boycotting your store because of the action being take by your employees that the public finds offensive.
Owners have used their business as a protest platform before - Hobby Lobby comes to mind - and they have every right to do so as long as they willingly suffer any consequences.
The point is that it is your choice, not that of the employee that likes using your store as their venue for protesting. Extending the NFL case beyond what it is, the NFL has every right to say "Part of your job is to stand, hand over heart and facing the flag, and pay respect to the flag while the anthem is playing". It is their business, their field, their venue and their job description. Not the players.
1. Whether "government influence" played a part in the creation of this rule is debatable, and likely the crux of any legal challenge related to the first amendment. The question will be (assuming a more direct form of influence is not discovered) how much do Trump's public comments about these protests represent "government influence"? The White House and the DoJ have previously said Trump's tweets should be treated as official statements(1)(2)(3), so there will be a lot to go on.
2. If employees are represented by a union (as NFL players are) then their employer must "confer in good faith" on matters relating to ". . . wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment"(4). The NFL Players Association has said they were not consulted on this rule(5). Therefore the rule is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, and can be challenged by players and the NFLPA on that basis(6).
(1) https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics … index.html
(2) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- … ys-n768931
(3) https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume … 111317.pdf
(4) https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national … s-act-nlra
(5) https://www.nflpa.com/news/statement-on … hem-policy
(6) https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national … s-act-nlra
You don't seem to understand this occurred as a result of economic pressure because the NFL was losing its fan base. All of this doesn't matter if people don't buy what the NFL is offering. It's a business. If they don't appeal to their customers, they will no longer exist. You can have all of the rules and allegations you want, but if people don't pay to watch the NFL, it just doesn't matter. The NFL exists because the fans of the NFL permit it to exist with the money they pay for it. Is this fact of life difficult to understand?
1. And I'm sure that's what the defense will say if/ when they have to defend the case. But it may not be how a Federal judge sees it. Trump's tweets alone (which are official statements according to the White House) show the President explicitly calling on the NFL to change its policy, and telling the NFL to implement a rule prohibiting players from kneeling during the anthem.
It can also be argued that Trump unduly influenced the NFL by adding to the "economic pressure" you mention by suggesting fans boycott the NFL over the issue, and implicitly threatening to punitively remove tax breaks unless the NFL does what he wants:
And then retweeting messages calling for a boycott of the NFL
If a judge takes the view that Trump influenced the NFL on this specific issue, then that will be a violation of the player's first amendment rights.
2. The law is very clear. Under the National Labor Relations Act, if employees are represented by a union, employers must consult with them in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment. The NFL Players Association has stated the NFL has not done this. If so, then regardless of anyone's opinions about the rule, its introduction is illegal.
It all doesn't matter if the fans don't partake of the NFL. You can NOT legally require fans to pay for what the NFL is offering. The NFL fans are the ones who made this decision. We could go on about how Obama's words and deeds caused several race riots, but that's another topic. So, if the NFL fan base evaporates and the owners can't pay the players or support teams what does it matter? It doesn't...there won't be an NFL.
1. You have suggested several times that economic pressure derived solely from a fan boycott is the reason the NFL changed its policy, as though it were a matter of fact. Please either provide evidence from reliable sources that this claim is true, or clarify that this is just your opinion.
2. The NFL's success or failure as a business, is irrelevant to whether it broke the law. If it changed terms and conditions without consulting the NFLPA, then it may have broken the law and should be subject to whatever measure the justice system deems appropriate. Or are you suggesting the NFL should be exempt from the law, because the law is inconvenient to its business?
3. If the decision to prohibit kneeling was driven by economic pressures, then the government threat of punitive tax measures and incitement to boycott the company are a possible violation of the NFL players' first amendment rights. Are you suggesting government should be allowed to put pressure on a private company to stop employees peacefully protesting in a way the government doesn't like? Or are you suggesting possible violations of the Constitution should be selectively overlooked depending on whether you agree with what's being said?
4. I agree, President Obama's words and actions are another topic, and are irrelevant to whether the NFL has broken labor laws, and whether the current administration has violated the first amendment..
The NFL was losing its fan base long before a small number of players kneeled at a handful of games. Even the right-wing Forbes magazine says so.
http://fortune.com/2017/09/20/nfl-monda … s-decline/
Promisern, what you provided is an opinion piece. Here is a Forbes article stating some hard facts.
"Losing 20-25% of viewership in less than two years isn't about long-term trends, though: They may siphon off viewers, but not in such large quantities. No, a sizable chunk of this decline has to be attributed to more recent factors."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briangoff/ … 2c881d4212
All right, here is my take on this issue.
The players are protesting against the words in the National Anthem, not the flag.
The white people in charge want to stop this protest as soon as possible, before it turns into a big movement.
How do they do it?
They twist the meaning of the protest, pointing out that they are disrespecting the flag and all it stands for, freedom, patriotism, all that died for us, etc etc
1. the flag had nothing to do with the protest
2. kneeling has always been a form of respect and devotion, in history and in church.
Yet, they sold the story so well every good American feels offended by the kneeling, though it is a peaceful and non-disrespectful act.
As I said, this is how I read it. I don't mean to start a heated discussion, just sharing my point of view. We are being brain-washed.
If people start trolling, I won't reply...
Well said, Robie. Some want to make this a big deal, but if you ask them if they stand at home when the anthem is played, they develop an attitude. Apparently, true patriots only act that way in public. I didn't know that, did you?
That's pretty odd, because the players themselves say they are protesting police violence, not the anthem.
You're right that the flag had nothing to do with the protest...except that by disrespecting it players gained the attention they wanted. Unfortunately their "message", their protest, was lost in the other message their actions spoke; the message that "I have no respect for the country or its people". Intended or not, that was the loudest message received by millions of people, but that's what happens when your choice of methodology to gain notoriety is offensive.
I'm glad I didn't have to tell my father--D-Day Omaha beach and Battle of the Bulge veteran--he wasn't patriotic because he didn't jump to his feet every time the anthem was played. As far as I know he didn't wriggle a toe when this happened at home. Sacrilege!!
I think the NFL made a mistake. If players refuse, en masse, to take the field it will just be another uproar.
The ban on freedom of speech by Roger Goodall will presumably be challenged in court for 1st amendment violations but establishing a blatant illegal rule is no surprise during the most corrupt impostor presidency in human history:
There will still be NFL players who take a knee despite the attack on them and it appears as if the fight has just begun: Players should just walk off the field until the new rule is rescinded but until then, there are NFL owners who will facilitate their players freedom of speech right by paying the fine imposed:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … nthem.html
Trump says owners of player who don't push the flag at football game should be fired.(A fabric symbols for the symbol minded. What a self serving investor and promoter. Too bad he doesn't like the majority of Americans.
Same for the national song hypnotizeing Nationaism, a danger worst than their Religion.
What next? What else could get you fired. Not eating fast foods, drinking beer and not supporting the troops.
A couple questions.
Does the new NFL rule deny the player's Right to Free speech if t only restricts that free speech on the playing field? Because the players can still express their point by remaining off-field during the anthem, which will obviously be noted by viewers - similar to their kneeling being noted, does that make a difference? My first thoughts are yes, and their Right of free speech is not being denied - just restricted.
Does that restriction amount to denial? My first thoughts are no, public protests have also been restricted to certain areas and conditions before. If certain restrictions are Constitutionally valid, (as municipally permitted protests have, and as the ban on yelling fire in a theater has), does this NFL rule fall within those guidelines?
A question for you, GA. Do you believe this whole kneeling business would be at the point it is if not for Spanky's comments against the protests? Should a POTUS get involved in any type of legal protest to the point he sways a commercial enterprise to make it prohibited?
To your first question Randy; Pres. Trump's vocal interjection into the issue makes a quick, "No, it wouldn't be at this point without his actions" a first thought, but then, a second thought that considers how many folks might see this kneeling protest as disdainfully as they would a flag burning protest, causes me to pause and wonder if that first "quick answer" is really as logically right as it seems. So my bottom line is a "probably not" answer.
To your second question I will bow to history's answer, and let you determine the presidents that did, or took actions that had the same effect. I will add the caveat that I don't recall any that did so in such a blunt manner as Pres. Trump did.
But neither of your questions address the post content you responded to. What do think of those questions?
"Restricting" the right to protest? Is that the premise of your questions, GA? I see restricting one's right to protest the same as prohibiting it, especially at the behest of the POTUS. And for commercial advantage, even worse. A peaceful protest is legal IMHO!
At least I wasn't surprised with my term "restricting" getting jumped on Randy. To explain my intent was the purpose of the two examples I offered. Do you see them as also "prohibiting" a Right?
Is your view the same concerning the rules that allow peaceful protest on the sidewalk outside a restaurant, but "restrict" the Right of those protesters to carry their "peaceful" protest into the restaurant's dining area, and around the customer's tables?
And regarding that "restriction" context, I made no connection to the President's actions, I was speaking to to the NFL rule itself. The Trump connection is all yours, and doesn't carry any water regarding my comment.
This may help. Different scenario, but some useful clues as to which way a court might go, especially the third point. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff:
"1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.
3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514."
(Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969)
You DON'T have a right to protest at work.
"Employees don’t have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution’s right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it’s not absolute. There is no free speech in your house; ask your mom. And there is no legal right to free speech or expression at work. (If you work for the government, there is a special set of rules that apply."
So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.
https://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-fre … h-at-work/
There are MANY articles about how the NFL protests have had a negative impact on its revenue.
"TV ratings are down in most cases and attendance has been spotty in many markets, from many of the California stadiums to Jacksonville. Even local ratings are down in markets like Dallas, where the Cowboys are an institution and viewed as Super Bowl contenders."
https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/new … -hurt.html
1. This is not about whether an employer can restrict its employees' speech. It's about whether the government can restrict an employees speech by telling their employer to do so.
If Trump had said nothing, this would be an internal NFL matter, but Trump's public comments like "Tell them to stand" and "NFL should change policy" make it a first amendment issue, because it constitutes the government telling the NFL to restrict its employees speech on the grounds that it doesn't like what the employees are saying. That's a potential violation of the first amendment.
Again, are you suggesting government should be allowed to put pressure on a private company to restrict an employee's speech just because the government doesn't like what the employee is saying?
2. The first amendment is not the only issue though. As I've said, the introduction of the new rule does not appear to comply with labor laws, making its introduction illegal. Again, are you suggesting the NFL should be exempt from the law, because the law is inconvenient to its business?
3. Thanks for the source. I'm interested in how you arrived at the emphatic statement that "this ruling was not brought about by any government influence", i.e. it was solely because of the fan boycott and not because of undue influence from Trump. This source does not tell me that. In my opinion, none of the sources I have seen would allow anyone to reasonably conclude what you have, and state it as a matter of fact. So again, please share whatever evidence leads you to such complete certainty, or clarify that this is just your opinion.
You have no proof the NFL was unduly influenced by President Trump's comments. NO NFL owner has come out and said they voted based on Trump's comments. This assumption is called conjecture. It is also known as smoke and mirrors. I think its easy to prove all you've provided is opinion and nothing but opinion. You have no facts...FACTS...that prove President Trump had any influence in the NFL's decision. In my opinion, the NFL broke NO labor laws with this decision.
Trump swayed NFL owners on anthem rules, Kaepernick case depositions reveal
President Trump's public and personal pressure on NFL owners reportedly played a big role in the league's decision to change its National Anthem rules amid controversial player protests.
The Wall Street Journal obtained depositions from NFL owners, including Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, as part of a grievance case filed by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick.
According to Jones’ deposition, reviewed by the Journal, the president personally told him, “You can’t win this one.”
“This is a very winning, strong issue for me,” Trump reportedly said in a call with Jones. “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”
Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross reportedly said in his deposition that he thought Trump “changed the dialogue.”
“I was totally supportive of [the players] until Trump made his statement,” Ross reportedly said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 … eveal.html
That is still nothing more than opinion. Nobody said President Trump ordered anything. It's obvious President Trump only provided his opinion. With a standard of a president providing their opinion on issues...Obama can then be held responsible for race riots and attacks on police. If that's the standard.
Wait a minute Ralph, Fox News is all opinion and you go for their junk, don't you?
Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross
“I was totally supportive of [the players] until Trump made his statement"
So? That's what an attorney would say with this question. "So what?" An analogy would be something I saw in court once. I'll spare you the details, but a driver tried to claim a passenger was responsible for an accident because of something the passenger said to her. The defendant's attorney said "So, you're not responsible because of what other people tell you? You have no ability to act independently on your own and do what is right? You're a victim because of words someone spoke to you?" Then he established there was no actual or implied threat of a consequence. President Trump is not responsible for any NFL owner's actions or how his opinions made them feel. They're still responsible for their actions.
Couldn't care less. Your argument was proved wrong, that's all.
Would you acknowledge that?
How? I know analogies are difficult for many people to grasp. President Trump is not responsible for how the NFL owners feel. Unless you can show that a direct threat was made, unless President Trump said "You do this or else." Unless you can prove the NFL owners were given a direct consequence by President Trump, it's nothing. This is nothing. Would you acknowledge that?
1. "You have no proof the NFL was unduly influenced by President Trump's comments" . . .
. . . and that is why I have not stated it as a matter of fact. Instead I said the government's involvement in this issue represents a "possible" violation of the first amendment, which it does. I also pointed out that the issue of "government influence" is debatable/ arguable, which it is:
In contrast, you have stated emphatically that "This ruling was not brought about by any government influence. It occurred because of economic pressure placed on the NFL by the fans of the NFL", as if it were a fact. So I'm keen to understand what source of information allows you to say it as a fact. If you are just expressing your opinion, that's fine, but please clarify that. Are you stating it as fact, or is it just your opinion?
To help you further, here is a list of all the things I have said which are matters of fact, and things that are my opinions:
1. The first amendment protects people's speech from government restrictions.
2. The White House and the DoJ have stated that Donald Trump's tweets are official statements.
3. Donald Trump explicitly told the NFL to prohibit NFL players kneeling during the national anthem.
4. Donald Trump implied he would use tax laws to take punitive measures against the NFL if it did not comply with his wishes.
6. Due to the involvement of Donald Trump, what should have been an internal matter for the NFL, has now become a possible violation of the first amendment.
7. Under the National Labor Relations Act, if employees are represented by a union, their employer must consult the union if it changes employees' terms and conditions.
8. The NFLPA has stated the NFL did not consult with them on prohibiting players from kneeling during the anthem.
And here are my opinions:
1. If NFL players bring a civil rights case against the government on the basis of the first amendment, it will likely be found to have merit, i.e. won't be dismissed out of hand. Whether it succeeds or not is another story.
2. If NFL players challenge the NFL on the bases of labor laws, there is a good chance that challenge will succeed, barring some legal loophole or contractual arrangement we are not aware of that limits the application of the relevant legislation.
3. Governmental officials should be free to voice their opinions on issues like anyone else. But they should never be free to restrict citizens' speech, directly or indirectly through their employer, using the machinery of government, just because they don't like what those citizens are saying.
If you could point out exactly which of these facts or opinions you consider to be "smoke and mirrors", that would be much appreciated.
Don, guess what is the bottom line in all of this? The NFL has to do something to bring back the NFL fans. If the players pursue the actions you mentioned, the NFL fans will abandon the NFL at even higher levels. It doesn't matter if you're the best football player in the world. If nobody is willing to pay to watch you play football...it doesn't matter. So, there comes a time when you have to deal with the reality of your fan base. The fans pay for the NFL. Without them there is no NFL. The fans of the NFL are leaving. The NFL has to do something to get them back. That is the bottom line.
No, I think the bottom line can be represented by these four questions:
1. Should government be allowed to put pressure on a private company to stop employees peacefully and legally expressing themselves in a way the government doesn't like?
2. Should possible violations of the Constitution be selectively overlooked depending on whether you happen to agree with what people are saying?
3. Should the NFL be exempt from labor laws because it is inconvenient to its business?
4. Is maintaining the NFL more important than upholding the Constitution?
Also, I'm still waiting for clarity on your emphatic statement: "This ruling was not brought about by any government influence. It occurred because of economic pressure placed on the NFL by the fans of the NFL". This looks like a statement of fact, but how could you possibly know for a fact that this is the case? It's also confusing because some owners are now saying they were influenced by Trump(1). So could your statement simply be wrong?
Also, if I were a player right now, I'd be seriously thinking about trying to establish a new player-owned league. It may get less revenue than the NFL did, but so what?
(1) https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps … 1527685321
Don , I think you're over complicating things a bit , could I ask what you do or did for a living ? In that question I ask because- don't you think the owner of the business is the boss , the rule writer , the enforcer , the ultimate say on employee affected profitability ?
Within the rules and laws of the legally stated owner / employee relations that is ?
The owners of the NFL have to act within the limits of the law, just like the owners of any other business.
Likewise, the president has to act within the limits of the Constitution just like other citizen.
So this is about 2 issues:
1. Did the NFL act within the law when it created this rule without first consulting the relevant union?
2. Did the president act within the limits of the Constitution when he told the NFL to restrict its employees speech because he didn't like what they were saying?
Both those questions can (and probably will) be decided in court.
But in my opinion, whatever anyone thinks of players kneeling during the anthem, a president should never be able to use the instruments of government to threaten an employer and dictate what individuals can/ cannot say in their workplace, or even give the impression that is what they are doing. Such things are a matter for the employer, their employees, the customers (if they want to express their views) and the law. Government assistance is not required.
You and Readmikenow seem to disagree with that view, and I would like to know why. That is what prompted my questions:
"Do you think it's acceptable for a president to tell a company to stop its employees saying something just because the president doesn't like it?"
If not, why aren't you criticising Trump for doing exactly that?
"Should the NFL be exempt from labor laws because it is inconvenient to its business?"
If not, why aren't you criticising the NFL for what appears to be a breach of the National Labor Relations Act? Should all companies be allowed to ignore laws that are inconvenient for them?
The fact I have not seen you and Readmikenow make any criticism of Trump or the NFL on this issue is what prompted my other two questions:
"Should possible violations of the Constitution be selectively overlooked depending on whether you happen to agree with what people are saying?"
In other words, are you overlooking a possible violation of a group of people's first amendment rights just because you don't like what those people are saying?
"Is maintaining the NFL more important than upholding the Constitution?"
In other words, if the NFL is ordered to suspend this rule while the case goes through the courts, and NFL profits suffer as a result, do you think those lost profits are more important than determining whether someone's Constitutional rights have been violated?
I believe those are all relevant questions, and rather than over-complicating things, I think they get to the heart of the matter.
Feel free to answer them, so I can get a better understanding of your view. At the moment it sounds like you are in favor of government telling companies what its employees can or can't say, and companies ignoring the rule of law because it doesn't suit them.
Don, you're really over complicating this matter. What would YOU suggest the NFL do to stop losing its fan base? It's a fact the NFL is losing revenue. This article from Forbes magazine provides evidence of it.
"Through two weeks of football the NFL’s television ratings are down across the board. The drop in ratings and viewership is unprecedented in recent years and has occurred during the protest of the national anthem, started by San Francisco 49ers backup QB Colin Kaepernick."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozania … 8f94b7226c
My next question is if you felt the same way about the fossil fuel industry Obama attacked during his administration? He made some very disparaging public comments about them. They lost significant revenue. Did that cause you the same level or concern? Were you worried about President Obama's public comments hurting the fossil fuel industry? Did you feel that matter should be taken to court?
I think the questions I have asked are relatively simple, and fair, but I'm happy to re-phrase them in a way that is a bit less complicated if you'd like:
Your comments indicate that you believe the profits of the NFL are more important than protecting some people's first amendment rights. Is that the case or not?
Your comments indicate that you believe it is acceptable for a president to tell a company to stop its employees saying something, because that president doesn't like it. Is that the case or not?
Your comments indicate that you believe a possible violation of a group's first amendment rights should be ignored because you don't like what that group is saying. Is that the case or not?
Your comments indicate that you think we should ignore the possibility that the NFL has broken labor laws, because those laws may reduce its profits. Is that the case or not?
Your Obama comparison is a false equivalence ("disparaging" does not equate to possibly violating a group of people's first amendment rights) but I can rephrase my questions to make them equivalent if you would find that easier. Lets time-warp back to 2010. And let's pretend an equivalent situation to the current one has happened involving Obama. Answer these questions honestly:
Should President Obama be allowed to tell an oil company that it must stop its employees from criticising his policy on climate change, just because he doesn't like what those employees are saying about it?
Should people ignore the above action, because they don't like what those employees are saying, even though it could be a violation of those employee's first amendment rights? Or should everyone call Obama out regardless of what they think about what the employees are saying?
To re-frame the other question in a similar way:
If Amazon allegedly violates a labor law, should we just ignore it on the grounds that Amazon's profits might be reduced if it complies with the law? Or should Amazon have to comply with labor laws just like everyone else?
I hope this makes things a bit easier for you. If you're still finding any of the questions too complicated, let me know and I'll be happy to simplify further if I can. Look forward to your answers.
Your questions would make a lot more sense if they didn't include the assumptions that first amendment rights were violated (they weren't) and that President Trump ordered the NFL to stop the player's actions (he didn't do that). Perhaps if you asked them without the false-to-fact assumptions they would just disappear (which they in fact do)?
1. I've made no such assumptions. I have referred to a "possible" violation of the first amendment and have talked about "protecting" first amendment rights, i.e. criticizing Trump (at least) for telling a private company to stop its employees saying something he doesn't like (pending a court case). I have also said from the start it's for a federal judge and ultimately the Supreme Court to decide if the players' rights have been violated, not me (or you). But Trump can still (and in my opinion should) be criticized for making those comments.
2. Not once have I said Trump "ordered" the NFL to do something. My question was: "Your comments indicate that you believe it is acceptable for a president to tell a company to stop its employees saying something, because that president doesn't like it. Is that the case or not?"
It is a fact that Donald Trump told the NFL to tell players to stand, change its policy on players kneeling, and "fire or suspend" players who kneel (if you want citations I'm happy to give them). I believe he should be criticized for that (as a minimum).
You, ahorseback, and Readmikenow apparently disagree, which is fine. All I am asking is whether that is because you all believe it is acceptable for a president to tell a private company to stop its employees saying something perfectly legal, because the president doesn't like it.
So far none of you have given me a straight answer.
It's not "over-complicated", it's relatively simple. Do you all believe that or not?
Don W , apparently only Hubpage Liberals , North Koreans , porn stars who can't plan their finances and hollywood comedians are hyper aggravated with this Trump Derangement syndrome , As for the laws traditions and etiquette of the US Flag , the rituals of national anthems , parades and now 5 year olds selling lemon aide , no one seems to understand why you all disrespect patriotism to the point of insanity ?
Let's clear a few things up , The US Flag , the pledge of allegiance , the national anthem , All were in existence long, long before Trump was even a gleam in the eye's of his creators . First , there are actual laws about flag etiquette , like most laws they are ignored , tromped on , spit on , burned folded and mutilated daily to no or little legal consequence . that's a problem of law enforcement and plain disrespect on many sides .
My feelings are strongly patriotic but matter little outside of my home about that .
The NFL owners finally grew a pair about managing their employees , wow , big deal , no matter what color the man ........could it possibly be because they lost millions of dollars because of a couple of dumber than posts football players ,apparently hit in the head to many times fell to their knees ? Believe me it is nothing more than profits , money and downright incredible riches for all !
Trump's involvement ? A leader finally comes along who represents the majority ,the masses of the U.S. voter that put him and his ideals there ? So ? Don't give him too much credit for it , look to the checkbooks of the NFL owners , the contractual media that covers and so enjoys the same profiteering . The TV contracts and viewers .
You seriously think this is about first amendment rights ? Tell that to your boss the next time you get laid off because of a recession , a downturn in regional manufacturing jobs , corporate cuts or what ever your employment is . I'm sure he'll care . First amendment rights are for parades , protests , radio ,news papers , the moment you mix free speech with the bosses checkbook and win , let me know , I want your job !
This is not rocket science. Trump's tweets are official statements. When he tweets something, he is speaking as the head of state, and as head of the government of the United States. He is not speaking as plain old Donald Trump.
That's why a Federal judge has just told him it's "unconstitutional" for him to block people on Twitter when he doesn't like what they are saying(1)(2); it's because that is the equivalent of the US government restricting people's speech.
So when Donald J Trump says to the NFL "make [NFL players] stand" or tells the NFL to "fire or suspend" players for kneeling (kneeling in protest is considered political expression and therefore a form of speech) it is in fact the US government saying those things.
Now if the NFL was significantly influenced by Trump (the government) in its decision to stop players kneeling, then that is a possible violation of the first amendment. Whether it is, is for a judge to decide, but that's not the point.
The point is this: regardless of the Constitutional question, Trump (the government) has as a matter of fact been telling a private company to stop its employees saying something, because he (the government) doesn't like it.
Your collective comments suggest that you, wilderness and Readmikenow believe that is acceptable. I don't want to assume that's the case, so I am asking you all directly:
Do you believe it is acceptable for the government to tell a private company to stop its employees saying something, because the government doesn't like it?
I have read everything you've said, which is all very interesting, but you haven't answered the question.
Do you believe the above is acceptable or not? That's a straight question that deserves a straight answer.
(1)https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/busi … block.html
(2)https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/defaul … dgment.pdf
No , I don't believe the government should tell anyone ,especially a business to do anything , BUT , You are giving Trumps influence too much power , one , " Trumps tweets are official statements ............." where ? In N.K ., China ? Come on , everybody has a F=B account , Twitter ......
No ! I disagree completely .
One lower court Fed Judge tells you ...."Trumps tweets are official ......" and you believe it's gospel , biblical ? Don , you are smarter than that and I know it ! Wait till that one gets to the high courts .
A hundred years ago , yes , It could be influential , today however no ?
YOU still ignore the "employment" factor in this so , Scenario ; Don W. works for McDonalds burger joints , during the noon hour traffic , cars wrapped around the building , Don W decides to stop serving french fries and bends down on his knees for some political protest ? Manager says " What are you doing ?" Who is in the wrong ? The Boss ---or Don W?
I answered yours -you answer mine .
Thank you for giving a straight answer and not trying to swerve the question as others appear to have done.
Your answer confirms what I suspected, which is that your general view about government doesn't seem to fit your comments on the issue with Trump and the NFL.
You admit you "don't believe the government should tell anyone, especially a business to do anything" (which goes further than my own view) yet you see the head of the government literally doing exactly that, and somehow you manage to convince yourself that it's different because Trump's tweets are not official statements(?) and don't have much influence(?). I'm not exactly clear on your reasoning for why its different, but it seems like a huge effort just to say that government interference is bad, except when Trump does it.
For your information it was the White House(1) and the Department of Justice(2) that said Trumps tweets are official statements. And even though it was a "lower court Fed Judge" who determined that Trump blocking people on Twitter violates the first amendment, that ruling has the weight of law unless and until it is overturned.
I'm happy to answer your question. If McDonald's staff started kneeling in the restaurant as some form of protest before work started, then McDonald's would be perfectly within its rights to tell them to stop. It would also be completely unacceptable for the President of the Unites States to tell McDonald's to stop its staff kneeling because he doesn't like. It would be unacceptable for the president to threaten McDonald's with tax laws if it didn't stop its staff kneeling. And it would be unacceptable for the president to tell McDonald's to change its policies to stop staff kneeling because he doesn't like it.
There is a difference between a company telling its employees to stop saying something, and the government telling a company to make its employees stop saying something because it doesn't like it. The latter is the very thing you say you believe the government should not do.
I believe you can see that, and are creating false justifications for why your principles don't apply to Trump. As to why you are doing that, I can only speculate.
And of course none of this answers the question: do you believe companies should be able to ignore the law just because those laws might be inconvenient for them? I assume you believe in the rule of law?
(1) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps- … d=47871334
(2) https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume … 111317.pdf
Don , With your help , liberals have sure learned well here how to micro-channel Trump hate and derangement into every issue known to modern man . So let's see if I can turn on my politi-emoting radar and commiserate with you guys .
First , only the left would attempt to" hang their hat" on a social re-engineering creating a new national holiday perhaps ,Wealth day at the NFL and White house ?
I'm not surprised that liberals see only black and white in the NFL and Trump issue , "either the government tells us what to do or they don't and can't " -- really ,one or the other ? Trump essentially says in a tweet ' Get off your knee or get out " to the NFL and you cry foul but local government tells you you can't paint your house purple and it matters not ?
Those opposed here sound like typical whiners , So what really is happening here Don W ? Trump Derangement plain and simple , Did Obama have a twitter account ? Face Book ? Did Obama TELL the Cambridge Ma. cop to mellow out when he threatened to arrest the wayward professor creating the famous " Beer Garden "? Did Obama TELL the I.C.E. people to "stand down " at the border ? Did Reagan Tell Gorbachev to "Tear Down this Wall" ?
No Don , this issue isn't about"....... the government telling business what they can and can't do " This is about channeling your Trump hate into the media day by day by day by day .................for the next seven years .
Want some advice from an old guy that saw the changes from the "radical sixties " and their effects on our modern society then ? Find a REAL cause and stop whining about a couple of rich NFL players and a Presidential personality and leadership style that you haven't yet begun to predict and are totally melting down over .
"Creating false justifications .......Why my principles don't apply to Trump .........." Don ,You don't know me or my principles . What I like about Trump mostly IS that the left is totally in the dark about what Trump will do in ANY given situation . However one thing you shouldn't do is comment on my principles , You might actually have to have them yourself to recognize them in others .Next you'll attempt tell me that Trump Obstructionists like these NFL players are principled people ?
Thanks for your thoughts. You asked "what really is happening here". Unsurprisingly what I think is happening is a bit different to what you think, so seeing as you asked I'll share some observations made with my own "politi-emoting radar":
I think you see Trump as your champion, and I think you consider yourself part of the "silent majority" ignored by "the left" and "the elite", but who now has a voice in Trump.
I think you are afraid that if you lose Trump, you'll lose that voice. And for you that would mean losing to "the left" and "socialism" and "immigrants" and all the other boogeymen you have allowed conservative media to convince you to be fearful of.
So I think you willingly overlook something you know is against your own political views, because you feel that having Trump as a voice is better than the alternative as you see it: no voice at all.
This would explain the contradiction between what you believe (government should not tell companies what to do) and what you say (it's fine for the president to tell the NFL what to do).
I also think that in an effort to ease the discomfort of holding these obviously contradictory views, you go further and further into the realms of the absurd. Like your suggestion that a president setting out enforcement rules for a federal agency, is the same as a president telling a private company to stop its employees saying something he doesn't like. None of the examples you have given have been even remotely close to the situation with Trump and the NFL.
But I think you know how absurd these comparisons are, but it just doesn't matter, because you'll grasp at anything to avoid facing up to a simple reality: your comments about Trump are inconsistent with your own political beliefs, or at least this particular one.
I'm not doubting that belief. It's the opposite. I think you are sincere when you say you believe government should not tell anyone what to do. That's a core conservative (and libertarian) political view which I've heard many times. But you apply it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't, e.g. when Trump does it.
I believe Trump was wrong to tell the NFL to stop its employees saying something he doesn't like. Not because it's Trump (though I freely admit I think the man is an oaf) but because it spits in the face of the first amendment, and is too close to the Office of the President becoming dictatorial.
And if you bring me a clear example where Obama explicitly told a private company to stop its employees saying something he didn't like, I'll condemn that action right here and now also.
Because even though I believe there are times when it's appropriate for government to intervene in civic society (that's a core liberal belief) I draw the line at a president (conservative or otherwise) telling a company to curtail its employees' speech because he doesn't like it. If the company wants to tell its employees to stop, fine. But I don't think any president should get to tell a company to stop its employees saying something perfectly legal because he doesn't like what they are saying.
This should be something you and I can agree on, but sadly you seem more interested in cheer-leading for Trump than the implications his actions have for protected speech and government overreach. I'll leave you to decide whether that's a good thing or not.
And again none of that addresses the issue of legality. Do you believe companies should be able to ignore a law just because it's inconvenient for their business? Barring any issues we're not aware of, the way the NFL introduced its new rule seems to be a breach of the National Labor Relations Act. If that's the case, why is that acceptable? Do you believe in the rule of law or not?
Don, that's the smoke and mirrors. Based on what you've written, I don't think you grasp what is going on and I do applaud your imagination. The NFL has a problem. They're losing money. They're trying to do something to get their business to stop losing money. If keeping players from kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem does this, it's a good business move. Everything else is nonsense. Let the players go form their own league. I'd like to see them try. Oh, if they had face that it would be fun to watch.
Readmikenow, KABOOOOOOOOM ,You nailed ! Why does anyone think the NFL is in business ? To make Money , lots of money and when they see the ratings dropping off because a punk kid stupidly takes a knee for his poor poor systematically discriminated friends .....ya right , The reason , the only reason the rule is invoked ; MONEY !
It turns out that Trump did put pressure on at least some of the owners.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nf … smsnnews11
Who cares AND who cares more than the owners ? Except that is for liberals looking for causational politics and Liberals are very good at causational politics . They are the very best at that in fact . So if liberals are blaming Trump for a corporate profiteering maneuver , Isn't it the same then for liberals and Hollywood , liberals and Starbucks , liberals and the NRA , Liberals and Roseanne Barr ?
Note ;I Ahorseback just learned an incredible lesson today about one of my favorite accusations against liberals ; Hypocrisy . American liberals are the only political ideology known to man that could actually care less about the fact that hypocrisy is actually the DNA within their ideology . Not within the DNA but the actual DNA itself .
Somebody tell me I'm so wrong about that ?
You are right Don, your link could contain some clues as to a Court's position if the NFL law is challenged -- which is probably a certainty.
However, as close as the link's and the NFL rule topic's parameters seem, I am left wondering if the difference between a school and commercial environment might matter. Does a captive vs. voluntary arena provide different perspectives for interpretation? Does an employer/employee relationship affect the interpretation? I am still doubtful, as I first said, and Justice Black's dissenting opinion seems to offer foundation for that doubt, particularly given the different environments.
If those two "ifs" don't bear on the perspective of interpretation, then your link's finding does not support doubt as to the Constitutionality of the rule, the nature of the actions are too similar - the rule doesn't pass muster, but if either of those "ifs" matter, than I don't think the case in your link applies at all.
Either way, your link did help. It reduced the confidence of a first thought, to a qualified reasoning of a second thought.
Liberals seem ecstatic whenever they can conjure up in whatever ways possible the ripping and tearing of traditional patriotisms right down to shreds . Fine ! And yet , now wish for what ?
Some kind of justification from the ideological opposition for doing so ?
Want to tear traditional America down - don't expect "compromise " on the ideological front from those on the right , in fact don't expect any political compromise at all !
Tell us something we didn't know, horse. The left cannot compromise with Spanky fans, nor do they wish to.
Dammit, no more Roseanne for you!
I don't really care two shots about Roseanne , As to ".......Nor do we wish to ....... ", Oh but how you lie ; By the time November is through , the left will be begging the newly conservative courts , the electoral college , the Republican congress , house and the President for ANY compromise for at least six more years .
The phony outrage, blind hindsight and head shaking that got you here today ? Will live on for a decade or more for Spanky Haters .
Pence , Ryan 2024
No one has the birth right to do as they wish while at work , no one except the owner that is . And guess what , that's life . Whether you make fifty million a year or seven dollars an hour . This isn't Greece or Venezuela where nationalized business makes them politically owned and so politically operated .
Team Owner---You work for ME, NFL player , I pay you a fifty million dollar contract , I own you ,your image , your success , your car , your house your family , want to lose all of that ? I find it hard to see an NFL player as a slave on a fifty million dollar contract !
I'll bet you don't jump to your feet every time the National Anthem is played on TV, or do you, Mike? I can just picture it in my mind your springing to your feet and saluting like crazy.
I remember we were force to sing God save the Queen, everyday at school. I ask why, she is the riches woman in the World. Then I got strapped.
Never did learn my lesson about questioning everything.
Randy, it is a true statement to my self control to not respond to you. My ability to be sarcastic and use people words against them to make them appear less than intelligent is being held at bay. I think I'll let your statement stand on its own merits and be a representation of you. That will probably be enough.
Did you think I expected you to give a true answer to my question, Mike? I'll let your non-answer stand on its own merits as representative of your hypocrisy on this subject.
And I'm terribly frightened of you using your intellectual skills to put me in my place.
I doubt anyone on this thread jumps to their feet at home when the anthem is played, Castle. "Yes, but I'm not in public," they say. I assume they're not patriotic when not in public areas. Too much trouble...
I probably don't count, being a world citizen.
One American tried to burn his US passport three times. Even slave papers will never let you go. You are off, I living in the Bush.
Auto edit again.
You are better off living in the bush.
Not too bright, was he? Couldn't start a fire, or didn't realize that he had to put the passport in the flame to light it?
This former Marine Ken O'Keeffe knows well how to start a fire. He is on this Jewish supremacisty and Banker cult kick. A real bad as* chasing down mother load of bad ideas and bringing to the light.
Well, if it's all about profit for the NFL owners, I suppose they could order the players and cheerleaders to appear nude to up the attendance at the games. Would that be okay, Mike? If they didn't do so they should be fired, right?
Let's cut to the truth , Kneeling for the national anthem is simply a disrespect to the crowds of people who stand either hat in hand , hand over heart , saluting or pledging allegiance . Kap and all the rest meant nothing more and nothing less than that total disrespect .
It's totally about "Here , look at me diss you ,diss all that you are and all that you stand for " for whatever passive aggressive meaning . It's a flagrant disregard for the moral masses . The masses by the way that chose and are not forced to pledge allegiance to the flag and listen to the anthem themselves.
If you can't bring attention to your cause without disrupting and highjacking another mans display of respect in America , Shame on you and the phony outrage of your own cause[s].
I didn't realize they played the Anthem at McDonalds, horse? And since when are French fries political, except when Dubya called them Freedom Fries!
And YOU are not only totally ignoring established law but popular opinion .
I realize that perhaps you've maybe never worked but never read an employee agreement either .
Let me see if I can abbreviate this WTH don't you get about working for the brand and devoting your time , your hours at work to the job ? Football or not .
I've always worked for myself, horse. I've had others working for me and wouldn't dare tell them they had to stand up for anything. The right to protest in America is a sacred thing to me, and it should be to you too. Your father and mine fought for the right to protest.
The first American revolution stated over the Tea party 3℅tax .
Should people be satisfied with 30℅ to 50℅taxes today.
The founding fathers forgot to mention to the people. They much continuious revolution the system. Or absolute power is the ultimate corruption.
Randy, I hope you realize you are not the only one with a father who served in WWII. My father was also part of D-Day. The military service in my family is extensive. Since the World War I my family has about 10 purple hearts, 3 deaths in combat, a few silver stars and more. NONE of us fought for overpaid athletic entertainers to disrespect the flag we fought under and defended. The government didn't tell these overpaid athletic entertainers to not protest. They only thing they need to realize is to do it on their own time. They get paid to entertain and that's their job. If they did protest on their own time, their cause would seem to have substance. As it is, they seem like they are putting on a show that appeals to the weak-minded.
Hogwash Randy , You would fire them in a minute for affecting your profit income margin by thirtyish percent and your lying saying otherwise . My Father loved his country at the same time hating the government and in truth you have no right saying my father fought for your right to protest . I KNOW my father wouldn't take the time to spit on the NFL players for taking a knee . He would've just shook his head at the lack of total respect for others and the outrageous amount of entitlement idealism born of false cause .
It is interesting how conservatives 'love the country' yet hate the government at its very foundation.
Trying to figure it out, you people are opposed to government in principle, aren't you? What sort of world do you advocate in its place?
You love your body, but hate your heart?
Did your Dad jump to his feet every time the Anthem was played on TV at home?
I' can only tell you this , My Father had more love for his country than any one hundred of the new liberals today as I suspect your Father did too , Enough said.
Why can you only tell me that, Horse? Don't you even know if your father stood for the anthem when not in public, or is it simply you don't want to give a real answer to my question? You can try again if you can answer truthfully this time.
Mike refuses to answer as well as I've asked him once before.
Randy , So what ? because Randy asks were all supposed to jump through a Randy hoop and answer , when was the last time you answered anything you've been asked . I'm not talking about a leftie pupited response , I mean a independent answer .
I'll say this my Father would take a bullet before ever " taking a knee" .In fact he did , several .
Aren't you making an apples to oranges comparison Randy? What does private behavior - such as seeing the flag and hearing the anthem on TV in your living room, have to do with public behavior in the context of a symbolic ritual?
GA, all of these so-called patriots are making such a big deal out people not standing for the anthem, but they don't do it themselves in private. If they're so hell bent for others to stand, they should take every opportunity to do so themselves, not just when someone's watching them. Unless of course, you feel patriotism is only for those in the public eye.
We've already witnessed Olympic athletes standing for the anthem with a fist raised high years ago, so I suppose they can go back to that.
I still see it as an invalid comparison Randy. I do understand the point, (and intent), of your question, but I don't think it makes sense. By your logic my patriotism would also be in question.
Also, whether you agree with it or not, not standing for a public display of the flag and the anthem is a big deal for a lot of people. I think those "so-called patriots" you are pointing to offer plenty of more valid targets for you to shoot at.
Love for country can be expressed in many ways....
And one way is to humbly show respect by joining with the moral majority of those peaceful people who do respect the anthem , this isn't about what can we do to intentionally divide but to humbly attempt to bring hearts together . There is , to my knowledge , no law about the national anthem , it's called a tradition , simply a peaceful , common and shared tradition .
So I'm sitting here thinking about what the reaction would be or if it would invoke a similar reaction if perhaps on MLK day some people sponsored a nationally televised marathon that would ultimately detract attention away from MLK and towards something , someone , somewhere else ? Would that bother you ?
If so , what's the difference ?
There are several items on the anthem etiquette both public and private .
I've noticed in public for a couple of decades that many just ignore the anthem , neither standing , facing the flag , saluting or removing hats , as is etiquette guided . There seems to be a big difference between those in uniform and out of uniform AND in traditional rural situations or in the more crowded urban arenas . Go to a rodeo , watch true patriotism . Go to the game in NYC , another story .
Hey ,so its not law , Just don't expect me to pay the ticket price to watch some not just ignore the proper etiquette BUT to display obvious disrespect for ALL etiquette . NFL is doing the right thing , Trump has no hand in it other than displaying his loud egocentric opinion as usual. But note this , the NFL has the right to control the time , the acts and the attitudes of its employees.
I don't give anyone the authority to control my 'attitude' Ahorseback. I have a rebellious attitde but go through the motions only for expediency purpose.
By the way , Next time you go to work with your" rebellious attitude " tell your boss you are going to take a paid hour or two and protest something with all the other rebels in town......................
I'm really not so sure he's going to say ......."Sure "!
Gets popcorn and an extra adult beverage for the wait........
Why don't you ever offer ....well ...anything besides sophomoric one liners ?
Don't even bother answering .
You refuse to answer my queries, horse. What do you expect, a one sided conversation in your favor? Oh yeah, you do!!
Apparently you need a more specific answer somewhere , I'll try , I don't recall my Father ever sitting and listening to the anthem at home , why ? We hardly had a TV as kids in our home . My home experiences are in rural sixties , No TV actually wasn't unusual then , unlike your today's "side of head - attached big screen or smart -phone " days .
Close enough ? Either way , for you to question yesterday's patriotism of our father -vets is kind of immature , you or I aren't anywhere near equal to them .
I also asked if YOU stood at attention at home when the anthem was played, do you? And despite your recollections, were you too poor to own a radio, even in a vehicle? The anthem was played often on it as well.
So by all hypocritical indication I can tell patriotism is a nasty word to you , I'm sure your dad's proud , Is basic patriotism then all one way OR the other , no decency between the rails ? Another of course is the sensationalized regurgitation in front of the camera . I'd be willing to bet your 50 million dollar , armchair celebrity activists wearing uniforms pressed and washed by illegals would have to get out of the leather recliner to go look out at the patriots flag on the other side of the wall next door to count how many stripes on the flag too. Or go to your ideological friendly google to define the meaning behind the red ,white and blue .
"Keep on keepin on " Kap somebody's impressed I'm sure.
I'll just have to assume you don't jump to attention when the anthem plays then , horse. Apparently you cannot get the question figured out in your mind clearly enough to answer with a yes or no. Don't worry, I won't ask you again. Typical Spanky fan!
Case you haven't noticed there are different points of etiquette for respecting the anthem , in public , in uniform , radio or TV , flag present or not . Get a grip Randy , you're losing your focus , get back to the issue at hand . This is about the NFL players public display and absolute disrespect for the national anthem . This isn't about me or my veteran father . This is about real "role" models for one , public displays for another and now whether Trump has officially "Told , ordered or directed" the NFL owners officially to cease and desist . Whether they are employees bound to certain behaviours . Stop trying to bring attention to your being a radical Randy we've already tried to pay attention to you.
I get it horse, you believe the NFL players should stand at attention during the anthem, but you don't do it yourself at home. With such strong patriotic feelings you should set an example for your family by jumping up and saluting, and also make them --or anyone else present-- do the same. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical about true patriotism and its rituals. You cannot get around that.......
This makes sense - what one does in public should be done at home. And vice versa, of course...
I occasionally curse like a drunken sailor at home, so should do so during my 6 year old's "graduation" ceremony from the first grade.
I run around the house in my underwear, so I should do so at the Red Lobster restaurant, too.
My wife and I make out on the living room couch, so we should do so on the subway, too.
Whatever we do in private we should do in public, just as what we do in public should be done in private, right?
Randy, We all know that liberals like yourself shamelessly embrace hypocrisy , And as hypocrisy is your power as a liberal we are not confused at all by the highly proven and continued presence and use of it . You have no clue of my patriotism , what I do at home or in public , if I had my way there might even be an executive order demanding a federal law directing the standing at the NFL, at an anthem and yes , at the risk of fines and jailing . I feel the same about the cowards who burn and disrespect flags too.
That is the patriotism I learned from my Father , not some supposedly intellectual elitist way to disrespect or show mindless independence of it , nor disrespect of their sacrifices in WWII For that matter , the same for my brothers in Korea and Vietnam . Support what cowardly act you will and I will do as I must . Sadly however , this IS THE COST in the blood of many for the entitlement of others . So just enjoy those entitlements Randy.
I enjoy the right to protest because my father and yours fought for it horse, despite your spin on the wars. Can you imagine Spanky trying to get his tremendous ass off the sofa during the anthem--despite his being a draft dodger--while calling the players standing SOBs? I mean really, you think he actually gets that Wurlitzer of a rear end of his off the sofa during the anthem? Enjoy the picture of your hero doing so!
Special sauce from Mickey Dee's running down his chin, "Get those SOBs off of the field" !
Somebody's doing the shock jock marathon as usual . Enjoy away ! Those entitlements look great on you Randy , don't forget your other accessories .
You sound very thirteenish .
Are you sure you don't get more entitlements than I, horse? I hope you don't accept a Social Security check or use Americas highways because I know how bad you hate any kind of socialism. I suppose you didn't go to public school either, eh? That explains a lot!
Time to grow beyond your " Either or Or" mentality Randy ..............come on ...You can do it . It's within your grasp , Try just a little bit harder .
Just read that NFL players are considering "sitting out " in the upcoming season until the unsigned Kap is signed by an NFL team ? So a question for readers here is this :
You all seem offended by the TDS of Trump "officially telling " NFL owners what to do , Yet you are unfazed by this actual politically correct extortion by NFL players ?
I guess this amounts to "don't mess with my football heroes".
No, it's simply "stay out of my business" by the players.
No, Like all corporate entities , the NFL business doesn't belong to the players , like the car MFG's isn't owned by the autoworkers , like the Starbucks chain isn't the freeloaders franchise , these are business' sometimes regulated by governments sometimes not but never dictated by employees.
Spanky shouldn't dictate anything to the owners as well then! And only white folk can loiter in Starbucks, right?
Kinda playing the good old identity politics there Randy ...........again. everything boils down to racism?
You brought up Starbucks horse, do you know of any white people being treated unfairly in Starbucks? I know your propensity of ignoring questions about your claims so please don't disappoint me by answering the question.
Scream it out Randy ......"Racism , Misogyny, Bigotry , Islamophobe " come on don't hold it in like that , Chick/ Fillet owners said last week "....We don't need sensitivity training We get all of ours on Sundays ........"
and I'm not disappointed again! You simply want to preach and not be bothered answering questions, horse. Like Shar, I'm done with you. You never want to explain yourself so our conversations are at an end. Adios hombre!
What? Those two ladies are not gonna pick up their firearms and protect the homeland! How can we win without those tough customers taking part? Is that your wife and mom, Mike?
I'm so proud of a couple old ladies who love their country -------------------------by kneeling at NFL games -----------------And I'm REALLY proud of these ladies as well !
Of course I love these two more . You don't ? Then you just don't get it !
I would absolutely hate to be those two man -boys with he -hives on top .
Spanky the draft dodger should be up there as well then, Mike.
Randy, President Trump has done more for our military in his time in office than Obama did his entire time in office. People in the military love him because he respects them and their work. Obama was the first president to EVER suggest members of the military pay for their own health insurance. Once of THE most ignorant things a U.S. president has ever done. Providing medical care and services for our military goes back to when Washington was recruiting troops for the Revolution.
" Veterans groups are angry after President Obama told them Monday that he is still considering a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans' private insurance plans."
So you don't see the hypocrisy of a draft dodger telling others what to do during the anthem? He was afraid to go fight and claimed to have bone spurs as an excuse. Of course, those terribly painful bone spurs didn't prevent him from playing tennis and golf on a regular basis. And how do you know he didn't simply dictate his medical report as he's done so in the recent past? I do not trust anything this sleaze ball says and I don't understand how you can either.
After Obama President Trump is a breath of fresh air. Obama didn't serve, Bill Clinton was a draft dodger. The picture of a decorated Marine who earn a purple heart being forced to hold an umbrella over Obama will forever be in my mind. THAT was a very high form of disrespect for our military. Obama let the Veterans Administration go...and Trump is working to fix it. As long as he keeps taking care of our people in the military and showing them the utmost respect, I don't care about him not serving in the military.
I'll take your answer as a "No, you don't care if Spanky dodged the draft with fake injuries." What does that say to the average veteran who didn't have the money to buy his way out of the war. You really have respect for such a hypocrite? No wonder you don't care about an American citizen's constitutional right to peacefully protest either. The ex-dishwasher Hannity tells you not to.
And where do these cornball cartoons come from, Mad Magazine?
Hypocrisy is all the lefts , every single Trump hate rant you guys have spewed forth with , not one good thing to say at all means only one thing , TDS is your entire political knowledge , full blown Trump hate .
Funny, Mike, I am a veteran and I don't have this jingoistic attitude about patriotism and such. Why do conservatives have it. Conservatives always seem to imply that the Left is not patriotic because of situations like this and it is not warranted.
What can I tell you? There are many of us veterans who do have this attitude. I guess you and the veterans who see things my way just see things differently. It all comes down to respect. You want respect, you give it. You take a knee for the flag me and my family have sacrificed so much to defend, it's personal. If you have to protest by disrespecting something that means so much to so many, it's not much of a protest. It's intentional disrespect and it's ignorant.
" I have asked NFL players to recommend people unjustly imprisoned for me to possibly pardon "
Enough said .
by Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago
What do you think about the NBA/NFL players who kneel when our national Anthem is played?Is it to show their disdain for the lawmen of our country when they enforce our laws? Or their disrespect for our country?Are they teaching our children to disobey our country’s laws, teaching them there should...
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
A recent survey showed the favorability rating for the NFL has been cut in half. I never thought I'd see the day with Pittsburgh Steeler fans would take videos of themselves burning their Steeler gear, which is not cheap. There was even a man who burned his season tickets. How does the...
by Thelma Raker Coffone 7 years ago
Do you think we need a new national anthem?There is a movement to replace our national anthem with a new one. A poll last week indicated that many Americans think that Bruce Springsteen would be the best choice to compose a new national anthem. Do we need a new one?
by Eastward 3 weeks ago
The Emoluments Clause has been the subject of much debate (and legal action) considering how Trump's significant business interests may overlap with his duties as President. The House did not include violations of the Emoluments Clause in the Articles of Impeachment, but lawsuits continue to this...
by JAKE Earthshine 6 months ago
Just the messenger here relaying the hardcore news: That’s what investigative reports are apparently revealing and I suppose it would be safe to assume that NONE of his BRILLIANT Minds within this Circus Clown Show of a nightmarishly chaotic white house has told Donald that when you impose trade...
by ptosis 2 years ago
Donald Trump is thorough, organized and controlled. He talks freely and gets along well with others. Donald Trump stays fixed on goals, despite interference. He is secure with himself and is free from doubts. Donald take a firm stand and acts with certainty. He is authentic and inspires...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|