Iowa marching band walks off field national anthem

[Anathema]

If that ever happens this will no longer be the land of the free. And the Jehovah's Witnesses .would become criminals.

Let me know where I've ever promoted FREEDOM as a mainstay of my sociopolitical philosophy.

 

[JQPublic1]

If that ever happens this will no longer be the land of the free. And the Jehovah's Witnesses .would become criminals.

Let me know where I've ever promoted FREEDOM as a mainstay of my sociopolitical philosophy.

Let me know where I've ever accused you of
promoting FREEDOM as a mainstay of your sociopolitical philosophy.[

 

[Anathema]

Let me know where I've ever accused you ofpromoting FREEDOM as a mainstay of your sociopolitical philosophy.[

You suggested that the reason my prior comment wouldn't be appropriate was related to the loss of Freedom. That's not even a consideration for me.

 

[JQPublic1]

Let me know where I've ever accused you ofpromoting FREEDOM as a mainstay of your sociopolitical philosophy.[

You suggested that the reason my prior comment wouldn't be appropriate was related to the loss of Freedom. That's not even a consideration for me.

You misread my post. You insisted the word "shall" should replace the word "should" in the code cited for instructing individuals in how to conduct themselves at public events when the NA is played. I merely noted the consequences of adopting your draconian concept highlighted by the word "shall" To hell with any personal philosophical spin you want to attach to that... It doesn't matter... When you promulgate laws telling some one they shall do something, thats a mandate. Mandates usually. are accompanied by a loss of freedom.

 

[Anathema]

You misread my post. You insisted the word "shall" should replace the word "should" in the code cited for instructing individuals in how to conduct themselves at public events when the NA is played. I merely noted the consequences of adopting your draconian concept highlighted by the word "shall" To hell with any personal philosophical spin you want to attach to that... It doesn't matter... When you promulgate laws telling some one they shall do something, thats a mandate. Mandates usually. are accompanied by a loss of freedom.

All true. You have to realize that Freedom is NEVER a consideration in my mind. I don't believe thst Government should be issuing any sort of Code or Stipulation which does not carry the weight of LAW. Anything without that weight is worthless.

 

[JQPublic1]

You misread my post. You insisted the word "shall" should replace the word "should" in the code cited for instructing individuals in how to conduct themselves at public events when the NA is played. I merely noted the consequences of adopting your draconian concept highlighted by the word "shall" To hell with any personal philosophical spin you want to attach to that... It doesn't matter... When you promulgate laws telling some one they shall do something, thats a mandate. Mandates usually. are accompanied by a loss of freedom.

All true. You have to realize that Freedom is NEVER a consideration in my mind. I don't believe thst Government should be issuing any sort of Code or Stipulation which does not carry the weight of LAW. Anything without that weight is worthless.

But FREEDOM was foremost in the minds of those who wrote this:

"Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Anathema]

But FREEDOM was foremost in the minds of those who wrote this:

"Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They were incredibly naive individuals who somehow believed that the Morals and Values which were at the heart of their Society would carry on in perpetuity. If those Morals and Values had remained, Freedom might still be a useful concept. Unfortunately the Founders failed to enshrine the duties of a Citizen along with the Rights, and the loss of the Morals and Values that are part of the Duty of a Citizen have made Freedom a significant danger to thjs nation and humanity as a whole.

 

[JQPublic1]

But FREEDOM was foremost in the minds of those who wrote this:

"Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They were incredibly naive individuals who somehow believed that the Morals and Values which were at the heart of their Society would carry on in perpetuity. If those Morals and Values had remained, Freedom might still be a useful concept. Unfortunately the Founders failed to enshrine the duties of a Citizen along with the Rights, and the loss of the Morals and Values that are part of the Duty of a Citizen have made Freedom a significant danger to thjs nation and humanity as a whole.

What lost morals and values did our founders have back then ? Focusing on the backdrop of your aversion to freedom, for the masses i assume, any argument pertaining to the immorality intrinsic to slavery and taxation without representation would fall on deaf ears. Your sense of value would center on
wealthy landowners of the day who owned slaves and. gave themselves exclusive rights to vote. Your only response, considering your views on FREEDOM, would be to reflect your
disdain for universal sufferage and civil rights
for the general population. But wait. The founders knew what it was like to be victimized by a feudal monarchy.
They knew where that would lead if implemented here. How could they ask their constituents to fight for autonomy from Britain and then turn around and instill their own brand of tyranny? Pondering the foregoing, I believe you would have enjoyed the company of loyalists during the American Revolutionary era. They wete content to live under the shadow of royalists.

 

[Anathema]

What lost morals and values did our founders have back then ? Focusing on the backdrop of your aversion to freedom, for the masses i assume, any argument pertaining to the immorality intrinsic to slavery and taxation without representation would fall on deaf ears. Your sense of value would center on wealthy landowners of the day who owned slaves and. gave themselves exclusive rights to vote. Your only response, considering your views on FREEDOM, would be to reflect your disdain for universal sufferage and civil rights for the general population. But wait. The founders knew what it was like to be victimized by a feudal monarchy. They knew where that would lead if implemented here. How could they ask their constituents to fight for autonomy from Britain and then turn around and instill their own brand of tyranny? Pondering the foregoing, I believe you would have enjoyed the company of loyalists during the American Revolutionary era. They wete content to live under the shadow of royalists.

Actually my family members fought in the Continental Army and were involved in the lynching of a Tory in Essex, CT after the conflict.

They were not, however, thrilled with the nation they helped birth. They were, as I am, strong believers in earned privileges instead of Rights. That would apply to the entire, non-slave population. Those who could and did live proper lives would be granted privileges like Free Speech, Trial by Jury, Ownership of Property, etc...

This would be carried out by granting Citizenship only to those people who have earned it and immediately removing it from those who failed to earn it or failed to maintain that standard afterward, leaving them as Residents instead of Citizens.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Attention stupid liberals:

The first amendment does not apply to:

Anyone who is at work at the time. The supreme court has already ruled that the first amendment does not apply to employment. NFL players are employed by the NFL, and thus considered at work when at a game.

Any children

Any inmates

 

[JQPublic1]

Attention stupid liberals:

The first amendment does not apply to:

Anyone who is at work at the time. The supreme court has already ruled that the first amendment does not apply to employment. NFL players are employed by the NFL, and thus considered at work when at a game.

Any children

Any inmates

Then consider that standing for the Anthem is a ritual...not part of your employment. That ritual takes time away from the job ...so in effect that ritual time belonged to Kaepernick
because he isn't paid to stand for the anthem. He was paid to play football.

 

[JQPublic1]

What lost morals and values did our founders have back then ? Focusing on the backdrop of your aversion to freedom, for the masses i assume, any argument pertaining to the immorality intrinsic to slavery and taxation without representation would fall on deaf ears. Your sense of value would center on wealthy landowners of the day who owned slaves and. gave themselves exclusive rights to vote. Your only response, considering your views on FREEDOM, would be to reflect your disdain for universal sufferage and civil rights for the general population. But wait. The founders knew what it was like to be victimized by a feudal monarchy. They knew where that would lead if implemented here. How could they ask their constituents to fight for autonomy from Britain and then turn around and instill their own brand of tyranny? Pondering the foregoing, I believe you would have enjoyed the company of loyalists during the American Revolutionary era. They wete content to live under the shadow of royalists.

Actually my family members fought in the Continental Army and were involved in the lynching of a Tory in Essex, CT after the conflict.

They were not, however, thrilled with the nation they helped birth. They were, as I am, strong believers in earned privileges instead of Rights. That would apply to the entire, non-slave population. Those who could and did live proper lives would be granted privileges like Free Speech, Trial by Jury, Ownership of Property, etc...

This would be carried out by granting Citizenship only to those people who have earned it and immediately removing it from those who failed to earn it or failed to maintain that standard afterward, leaving them as Residents instead of Citizens.

And just who would be deemed worthy to sit in judgement of us all to determine fitness for
all the benefits of citizenship? Are you proposing fascism as the cornerstone of your utopian society?

 

[Spare_change]

Attention stupid liberals:

The first amendment does not apply to:

Anyone who is at work at the time. The supreme court has already ruled that the first amendment does not apply to employment. NFL players are employed by the NFL, and thus considered at work when at a game.

Any children

Any inmates

Then consider that standing for the Anthem is a ritual...not part of your employment. That ritual takes time away from the job ...so in effect that ritual time belonged to Kaepernick
because he isn't paid to stand for the anthem. He was paid to play football.

You SERIOUSLY believe this?
Kaepernick is paid the represent his team - in all facets - on the field, off the field, charitable work, marketing, etc.

But, you intentionally lose sight of the real issue ----------

They protest against police brutality - they choose to do that during the Anthem.

The people they are trying to reach can't hear their protest, because the players picked the wrong vehicle. All the people hear is anti-patriotic, anti-military, anti-American.

Doesn't it seem just a wee bit logical to you that if they aren't hearing your message, you should change your method of delivery??

 

[airplanemechanic]

Attention stupid liberals:

The first amendment does not apply to:

Anyone who is at work at the time. The supreme court has already ruled that the first amendment does not apply to employment. NFL players are employed by the NFL, and thus considered at work when at a game.

Any children

Any inmates

Then consider that standing for the Anthem is a ritual...not part of your employment. That ritual takes time away from the job ...so in effect that ritual time belonged to Kaepernick
because he isn't paid to stand for the anthem. He was paid to play football.

Standing for the anthem has been a part of every NFL game for decades. It's part of the game, it's part of the employment. It's even explicitly mentioned in the game manual.

 

[Anathema]

And just who would be deemed worthy to sit in judgement of us all to determine fitness for all the benefits of citizenship? Are you proposing fascism as the cornerstone of your utopian society?

I choose Authoritarianism as the foundation of my Utopian Society. An Authoritarian Government where the decisions on what is acceptable or unacceptable are made not by an Elected Executive or Legislature but by an unalterable Founding Document (Constitution) itself and rigidly enforced by a professional Legal/Court System on a Guilty until Proven Innocent basis.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Then move to North Korea, kooky.

 

[JQPublic1]

Standing for the anthem has been a part of every NFL game for decades. It's part of the game,

Standing for the anthem has become a tradition. But can one not obligated contractually to do so be compelled to uphold or abide by a tradition unrelated to employment? You say the ritual of standing for the anthem is part of the game but that's just your opinion. Where is it written?

it's part of the employment. It's even explicitly mentioned in the game manual.

The game manual only requires that players and coaches be on the sidelines when the anthem is played. There is no requirement to stand for the NA therein but there is a paragraph describing how players should carry themselves during the ritual.

 

[Anathema]

Then move to North Korea, kooky.

The weather there is not favorable to my preferences and there are very few English speakers in the country.

I'd prefer Iran, but they have those annoying religious requirements.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This thread has been cleaned up. It is not about illegal immigration. Furthermore, if the insults and vulgarity don't stop I'm going to start kicking people out of the thread.

 

[The Derp]

I've discussed police brutality, liberal claims about it, false cases, ect, when the issue has come up in other cases.BUt not this time. FUCK THE KNEELERS.

What you've done is provide excuses (some of which are based on questionable data), but you haven't actually heard the grievances. You haven't accepted them, you've just denied them. So we can't have a conversation until you actually accept that it's happening. All you've done in "discussing it" is denying it exists. Denial is what we're trying to overcome. You don't seem to think, despite the statistics, that black people are more targeted, arrested, and imprisoned at a higher rate than whites. Despite virtually identical drug use, despite virtually identical crime rates, blacks are more heavily arrested and incarcerated than whites. That's by design. And we can look at arrest and incarceration rates and see that play out.

When this issue comes up again, with a messenger that is not using anti-Americanism as his method of communication, I will be happy to discuss the issue.

It's your personal invented standard that kneeling during the anthem is "Anti-American". You have no authority or credibility to invent that standard, and it seems you only did so in order to shift the debate from what it's actually about (police brutality) to something it's not about (fake patriotism). If you measure patriotism by how tall you stand for the flag, then you're doing it wrong. You're just looking for any excuse you can to avoid the discussion.

I've expressed my opinion on what should be done. What I HOPE to have happen is for this anti-American behavior to continue and to wake up the tens of millions of white people that are still somehow unaware of how the Left thinks of them.

That opinion is tantamount to telling the black players to simply "get over it". And you keep trying to make the protest about patriotism because you're too scared to acknowledge the legitimate grievances these players have. It's never been about patriotism...you've only made it about that because you can't deny institutional racism exists. Like I said, you lose nothing by acknowledging the players' grievances are legitimate. It causes no harm to you at all; so your denial is just bizarre unless you have a personal stake in it. And you don't. You are trying to make it like you have a personal stake in it by making the whole thing about "patriotism", because you think those are grounds you can win the debate. But you cannot. Because forced patriotism is fascism.

The sport of Football is a small price to pay for that.And I've listened to this complaints before and addressed them at great length, and will again.But not for the anti-American pieces of shit in question today.

You haven't addressed them; you've just denied their legitimacy despite all the evidence to the contrary, or you've blamed the victim. Not sure why. I think you're just doing it at this point to be a contrarian, which feeds your insatiable need for attention.

They are part of the rich and the super rich, they are certainly part of the Political Status Que. The issues and their methods fit in nicely with the norm of the Political Class.othing they are doing is disruptive or change at all.

How do you figure that just because someone is wealthy they are a part of the status quo? And if they are just a part of the status quo, why are they putting their careers on the line in order to express their grievances? If they were a part of the status quo, then they wouldn't be protesting at all. But they are. These guys aren't any kind of political class...they're players using the platform they achieved in order to express their grievances. That threatens you because you don't have that same power, even though you think you're entitled to it. This is what I mean when I say you haven't earned the entitlement.

1. You messed up my quote there. I didn't ask about who he defined as Americans.2. Americans are a group. That group exists. What are we going to call it? Anything we call it becomes a "label". The Kneelers have expressed enmity with that group. Your pretend confusion about language is just a dodge of that valid point. You asshole.

Americans are a group, but there are subsets of Americans as well. Part of the problem with pretending to be colorblind is that you become blind to everything. And no, you're once again trying to make Kaep's protest about something it's not about. You do that because you know you can't have a debate on the grounds of what he's protesting, that's why you have to bend and redefine parameters from post to post. So you started off by saying the protest was "Un-American" because the protest, what, lays out that despite their success, black men and women are still subject to institutional racism? How does that affect you at all by acknowledging it?

I'm not claiming Authority status that you should just defer to my judgement. I've repeatedly explained my reasoning for my conclusion, and you have not been able to refute it at all. But the fact remains, Kaepernick has clearly stated that he does not stand because he considers American an "oppressive" place.

But that's exactly what you're doing when you apply the invented personal standard for anthem protests. It is an oppressive place, and that bears out in the arrest stats that show black people are arrested at a far higher rate than white people for the same crimes. The problem is that there are no stats to prove that black people aren't disproportionately targeted by police, but plenty evidence exists to support that they are.

Not that it is a good place with a problem with police brutality, but that that nation as a whole is oppressive.

And you don't think the nation is oppressive? Really?

That shows that his actions ARE against the nation as a whole, not a specific issue.

So you gotta do some rhetorical stretching to go from "protesting police brutality" to "protesting this country in general". No, the actions of police are not representative of the actions of the country as a whole, and if they were, then it only goes to prove Kaep's point!