CDZ Do I have to allow you to post on my website?

[strollingbones]

if you dont like the nfl protests...use the on off button on your remote simple as that...funny how now you must censor people and deny their rights so you can watch a football game...funny how having flat out thugs playing football doesnt bother anyone...but kneeling in protest and people just cant handle it

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why? Do they not have a right to protest?
Does he not have a right to comment?
Do we not have a right to boycott?

1)No right exists
2)No right exists
3)Yes right exists

1)NFL work rules state every behavior and action during the pre-game ceremonies. Violation of contract.
2) Terms of Service you agreed to give them the ability to make the rules of content and social engagement.
3) Go for it. When everybody is boycotting everything maybe they'll STOP ADVERTISING and ruining our Football viewing and Social Media surfing experience.

Number one false because the NFL has verbally agreed that no punishment will be levied for this breach of contract so they have been given the right. Number two Trump has the first amendment to back up his right to free speech as does the NFL players and Alex Jones for that matter. Number three thanks, for a minute there I thought you were going to force me to buy a ticket!

The NFL HAS put sanctions in place for this season. They are just chickenshit to enforce them because they are STILL negotiating with the player's union. It''s in the Game Day manual. NFL is not gonna back down. The military and pledge is a PART of the NFL brand.

Twitter could CUT the tweeter out of the hands of the Prez and there would be NOTHING he could do about it. He's the biggest troll ever to have an official throne. Only thing he could do is to start a competitor to Twitter and SPLIT their membership in half. That would cost less than he spends on plumbing/landscaping every 10 years at Mar A Lago.

Why is the military anything to do with the NFL? I fail to see any connection between the two.

That's a telling question and maybe why you don't understand the outrage.. The Nation anthems are a regular feature worldwide at sporting events of national significance. It's a moment to put aside disunity and declare that we are NOT IN REBELLION to our countries. The military presence is provided by color guards or heroes or even impressive fly-overs because we HONOR those who make the most visible sacrifices for this country. This even applies to LOCAL and regional heroes in the emergency services. It's not too much to ask to show that you are NOT in rebellion and not giving up on the system.

The NFL is in the ENTERTAINMENT biz. Sporting events are the ONE type of national event that consistently draws both sides of the tribal political wars and it's important to remind folks of that unity. As opposed to say the Oscars and other ceremonies where REBELLION runs rampant. Not to mention Washington DC Correspondence Dinner and other "TV entertainment" like "The View".

The folks that OWN the sporting franchises like the NFL and NASCAR have made the calculated decision to INCLUDE this statement of non-partisan support of the USA in there programming.

National anthems are present at sporting events of NATIONS.

The Premier League in English soccer does NOT play the English national anthem. The English national team does because it's a national thing.

As far as I know the Americans are the only ones who will play the anthem for domestic sport.

The other problem is you think you've decided the rules. The problem is, you don't get to decide the rules. It's not "the anthem's playing, you have to stop everything you're doing and respect the anthem, no matter what."

I think that might happen in Thailand, which just happens to be a military dictatorship with a king you can't criticize.

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

I understand that you've taken the sales pitch, hook, line and sinker, but the military pays the NFL to play the anthem and have the players stand for it too. It's not an honor thing or a respect thing, it's about promoting patriotism.

The problem is the flag represents something, it represents the govt, and it is one of the objects that is open for protest, seeing a protest is protected by the Constitution which guides the federal govt.

Oh, you want unity in the NFL. Well, when there isn't unity on the streets (This is what they're protesting) then why would there be unity in the NFL. And it's telling that the unity you want is the unity where you get what you want and others don't.

You want unity, accept their right to protest the anthem. That's unity, the sort of unity that's written into the Constitution.

 

[flacaltenn]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

"Wow.. Just Wow." being you don't actually have anything to respond to.

Look, the military PAYS to have the anthem played.

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

"
The military paid pro sports teams $10.4 million for patriotic displays, troop tributes"

"The fact that teams like the New York Jets had taken military money to honor hometown troops was revealed this spring, "

If you're being paid to do it, you're not really honoring anyone, are you? You're carrying out a business transaction that enriches you. Honoring someone comes from the heart, not from the pocket.

"While the report concedes that some of the money appears to have been spent on legitimate recruiting efforts, a large portion went to "paid patriotism" at games."

I'm sorry if ignoring the truth makes you think I'm somehow wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

"Wow.. Just Wow." being you don't actually have anything to respond to.

Look, the military PAYS to have the anthem played.

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

"
The military paid pro sports teams $10.4 million for patriotic displays, troop tributes"

"The fact that teams like the New York Jets had taken military money to honor hometown troops was revealed this spring, "

If you're being paid to do it, you're not really honoring anyone, are you? You're carrying out a business transaction that enriches you. Honoring someone comes from the heart, not from the pocket.

"While the report concedes that some of the money appears to have been spent on legitimate recruiting efforts, a large portion went to "paid patriotism" at games."

I'm sorry if ignoring the truth makes you think I'm somehow wrong.

So go impeach the military. You're too far "out there" in what you're posting to reason with.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

"Wow.. Just Wow." being you don't actually have anything to respond to.

Look, the military PAYS to have the anthem played.

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

"
The military paid pro sports teams $10.4 million for patriotic displays, troop tributes"

"The fact that teams like the New York Jets had taken military money to honor hometown troops was revealed this spring, "

If you're being paid to do it, you're not really honoring anyone, are you? You're carrying out a business transaction that enriches you. Honoring someone comes from the heart, not from the pocket.

"While the report concedes that some of the money appears to have been spent on legitimate recruiting efforts, a large portion went to "paid patriotism" at games."

I'm sorry if ignoring the truth makes you think I'm somehow wrong.

So go impeach the military. You're too far "out there" in what you're posting to reason with.

And why is that, exactly?

I'm not seeing you make arguments. You're just using emotional crap to try and "beat" me.

I could do the same, only it's difficult (and pointless) to use emotional crap against someone who doesn't actually have an argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

This:
That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Yes, it is illegal to squelch freedom of speech. It is also illegal for huge corporations who control the means by which we communicate, to deliberately limit the ability of people to engage in free speech and public discourse. PARTICULARLY for the purpose of overthrowing the government. It is illegal.

Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with.

Unless they are removing the only, or all, platforms that are used by ordinary people to exchange information and ideas. As I've explained ad nauseum, if corporations come together to deny people their constitutional right to free speech..which is what is happening...then those corporations are breaking the law. And they know it.

Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

This is just a lie. Nobody is clamoring for big government. You people like to pretend that protecting our government from being OVERTHROWN by leftists who daily state their desire to overthrow our government and eliminate the constitution and our protected, human rights..is the same as using the government to violate people's human rights. It isn't.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER your commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.Their free speech is not impinged by ending their ability to squelch the free speech of others. They can say anything they like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

Libel is not considered *free speech* and in fact is a lie.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

And fake press who call themselves *journalists* but who are busted again and again lying and hiding information for the purpose of destroying the credibility of REAL journalists, or for the purpose of overthrowing a president or government...are not *off limits* when it comes to prosecution. Just because they're speaking doesn't mean that they can say anything they want and have it be protected speech. You can't tell people lies about a business or a person for the purpose of causing financial or political harm to that person, and call it *free speech*. It isn't. It's actually ILLEGAL to do that.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

No more than Infowars is interfering with the free speech of others when they refuse to post my comment on their website. No platform- no newspaper- no business has any obligation to assist others in broadcasting their speech.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

You seem to confuse 'slander and libel' with trying to overthrow the U.S. government. Lots of people commit slander and libel frequently- like Don the Con does- but he does it to public figures so he can get away with it.
Now if you know of anyone trying to overthrow the U.S. Government- you should contact law enforcement- they would I am sure be fascinated to hear from you.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

America has a long and proud tradition of lies to discredit presidents- going all the way back to our founding fathers. Of course now we have a President telling lies to discredit not only the press- but any of his perceived enemies.

And no- it isn't breaking the law to try to discredit the President- no matter how much you fascists think it should be.

 

[Syriusly]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Google+, I'm sure there are tons more.

And they're all owned by a small handful of people working overtime to squelch free speech.

Twitter still.kets both Jones and tRump tweet, and as far as I know Jones hasn't been removed from any of the rest.

Facts matter.

Facts don't matter to you. Don't lie.

Meanwhile, the fake press is working hard to silence the real press:

Twitter says InfoWars hasn't 'violated our rules.' It looks like that's not the case

Meanwhile Don the Con is working hard to silence the real press- because the real press is a threat to his lie factory.

 

[Syriusly]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

AFAIK, you certainly can.

Though the term would be hire. Can you cite a single example where a private citizen was prosecuted for discrimination when hiring a service provider?

Why cant the homeowner rent to a Christian plumber?

Why do you think that a homeowner can't rent to a Christian plumber?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

This:
That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Yes, it is illegal to squelch freedom of speech. It is also illegal for huge corporations who control the means by which we communicate, to deliberately limit the ability of people to engage in free speech and public discourse. PARTICULARLY for the purpose of overthrowing the government. It is illegal.

Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with.

Unless they are removing the only, or all, platforms that are used by ordinary people to exchange information and ideas. As I've explained ad nauseum, if corporations come together to deny people their constitutional right to free speech..which is what is happening...then those corporations are breaking the law. And they know it.

Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

This is just a lie. Nobody is clamoring for big government. You people like to pretend that protecting our government from being OVERTHROWN by leftists who daily state their desire to overthrow our government and eliminate the constitution and our protected, human rights..is the same as using the government to violate people's human rights. It isn't.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER your commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.Their free speech is not impinged by ending their ability to squelch the free speech of others. They can say anything they like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

Libel is not considered *free speech* and in fact is a lie.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

And fake press who call themselves *journalists* but who are busted again and again lying and hiding information for the purpose of destroying the credibility of REAL journalists, or for the purpose of overthrowing a president or government...are not *off limits* when it comes to prosecution. Just because they're speaking doesn't mean that they can say anything they want and have it be protected speech. You can't tell people lies about a business or a person for the purpose of causing financial or political harm to that person, and call it *free speech*. It isn't. It's actually ILLEGAL to do that.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

No more than Infowars is interfering with the free speech of others when they refuse to post my comment on their website. No platform- no newspaper- no business has any obligation to assist others in broadcasting their speech.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

You seem to confuse 'slander and libel' with trying to overthrow the U.S. government. Lots of people commit slander and libel frequently- like Don the Con does- but he does it to public figures so he can get away with it.
Now if you know of anyone trying to overthrow the U.S. Government- you should contact law enforcement- they would I am sure be fascinated to hear from you.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

America has a long and proud tradition of lies to discredit presidents- going all the way back to our founding fathers. Of course now we have a President telling lies to discredit not only the press- but any of his perceived enemies.

And no- it isn't breaking the law to try to discredit the President- no matter how much you fascists think it should be.

I agree with most everything you said. But --- there is a HUGE army of media that are now ACCOMPLICES in helping a limited conspiracy in the Federal govt to subvert and overthrow a legitimately elected president. That's why you didn't get "a winner".

 

[Syriusly]

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

This:
That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Yes, it is illegal to squelch freedom of speech. It is also illegal for huge corporations who control the means by which we communicate, to deliberately limit the ability of people to engage in free speech and public discourse. PARTICULARLY for the purpose of overthrowing the government. It is illegal.

Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with.

Unless they are removing the only, or all, platforms that are used by ordinary people to exchange information and ideas. As I've explained ad nauseum, if corporations come together to deny people their constitutional right to free speech..which is what is happening...then those corporations are breaking the law. And they know it.

Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

This is just a lie. Nobody is clamoring for big government. You people like to pretend that protecting our government from being OVERTHROWN by leftists who daily state their desire to overthrow our government and eliminate the constitution and our protected, human rights..is the same as using the government to violate people's human rights. It isn't.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER your commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.Their free speech is not impinged by ending their ability to squelch the free speech of others. They can say anything they like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

Libel is not considered *free speech* and in fact is a lie.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

And fake press who call themselves *journalists* but who are busted again and again lying and hiding information for the purpose of destroying the credibility of REAL journalists, or for the purpose of overthrowing a president or government...are not *off limits* when it comes to prosecution. Just because they're speaking doesn't mean that they can say anything they want and have it be protected speech. You can't tell people lies about a business or a person for the purpose of causing financial or political harm to that person, and call it *free speech*. It isn't. It's actually ILLEGAL to do that.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

No more than Infowars is interfering with the free speech of others when they refuse to post my comment on their website. No platform- no newspaper- no business has any obligation to assist others in broadcasting their speech.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

You seem to confuse 'slander and libel' with trying to overthrow the U.S. government. Lots of people commit slander and libel frequently- like Don the Con does- but he does it to public figures so he can get away with it.
Now if you know of anyone trying to overthrow the U.S. Government- you should contact law enforcement- they would I am sure be fascinated to hear from you.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

America has a long and proud tradition of lies to discredit presidents- going all the way back to our founding fathers. Of course now we have a President telling lies to discredit not only the press- but any of his perceived enemies.

And no- it isn't breaking the law to try to discredit the President- no matter how much you fascists think it should be.

I agree with most everything you said. But --- there is a HUGE army of media that are now ACCOMPLICES in helping a limited conspiracy in the Federal govt to subvert and overthrow a legitimately elected president. That's why you didn't get "a winner".

Well thanks- sort of. Even though I think you are completely whackadoodle in believing that there is a conspiracy to overthrow in the Federal government to overthrow Don the Con.

Even though Don the Con himself attempted to undermine the Presidency of the legitimately elected President Obama.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

"Wow.. Just Wow." being you don't actually have anything to respond to.

Look, the military PAYS to have the anthem played.

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

"
The military paid pro sports teams $10.4 million for patriotic displays, troop tributes"

"The fact that teams like the New York Jets had taken military money to honor hometown troops was revealed this spring, "

If you're being paid to do it, you're not really honoring anyone, are you? You're carrying out a business transaction that enriches you. Honoring someone comes from the heart, not from the pocket.

"While the report concedes that some of the money appears to have been spent on legitimate recruiting efforts, a large portion went to "paid patriotism" at games."

I'm sorry if ignoring the truth makes you think I'm somehow wrong.

Makes it an empty gesture.
Its the same as the anthem. Why is it played in a domestic game ?

We had a whizzy commercial manager a few years back who thought that it would get the crowd pumped up by playing Land of My Fathers before the game. It flopped because a fourth division game against Hartlepool United was deemed inappropriate. There is a time and a place.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

"Wow.. Just Wow." being you don't actually have anything to respond to.

Look, the military PAYS to have the anthem played.

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

"
The military paid pro sports teams $10.4 million for patriotic displays, troop tributes"

"The fact that teams like the New York Jets had taken military money to honor hometown troops was revealed this spring, "

If you're being paid to do it, you're not really honoring anyone, are you? You're carrying out a business transaction that enriches you. Honoring someone comes from the heart, not from the pocket.

"While the report concedes that some of the money appears to have been spent on legitimate recruiting efforts, a large portion went to "paid patriotism" at games."

I'm sorry if ignoring the truth makes you think I'm somehow wrong.

Makes it an empty gesture.
Its the same as the anthem. Why is it played in a domestic game ?

We had a whizzy commercial manager a few years back who thought that it would get the crowd pumped up by playing Land of My Fathers before the game. It flopped because a fourth division game against Hartlepool United was deemed inappropriate. There is a time and a place.

Yeah, usually it's just pop music before that sort of game.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

"Wow.. Just Wow." being you don't actually have anything to respond to.

Look, the military PAYS to have the anthem played.

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

"
The military paid pro sports teams $10.4 million for patriotic displays, troop tributes"

"The fact that teams like the New York Jets had taken military money to honor hometown troops was revealed this spring, "

If you're being paid to do it, you're not really honoring anyone, are you? You're carrying out a business transaction that enriches you. Honoring someone comes from the heart, not from the pocket.

"While the report concedes that some of the money appears to have been spent on legitimate recruiting efforts, a large portion went to "paid patriotism" at games."

I'm sorry if ignoring the truth makes you think I'm somehow wrong.

Makes it an empty gesture.
Its the same as the anthem. Why is it played in a domestic game ?

We had a whizzy commercial manager a few years back who thought that it would get the crowd pumped up by playing Land of My Fathers before the game. It flopped because a fourth division game against Hartlepool United was deemed inappropriate. There is a time and a place.

Yeah, usually it's just pop music before that sort of game.

Our PA system is so bad it could be Dolphin mating noises or anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The military presence is there to honor anyone. It's there to put a bit of awe into young kids to make them want to be cannon fodder so the rich can send them off to die in oil rich countries.

Wow.. Just Wow. You're not ashamed to be asserting that opinion in front of gawd and everyone? Is THIS the alternative to the GOP? Then this country is massively fucked.. .

Have a nice rant.

"Wow.. Just Wow." being you don't actually have anything to respond to.

Look, the military PAYS to have the anthem played.

Military paid sports teams $10.4M for tributes

"
The military paid pro sports teams $10.4 million for patriotic displays, troop tributes"

"The fact that teams like the New York Jets had taken military money to honor hometown troops was revealed this spring, "

If you're being paid to do it, you're not really honoring anyone, are you? You're carrying out a business transaction that enriches you. Honoring someone comes from the heart, not from the pocket.

"While the report concedes that some of the money appears to have been spent on legitimate recruiting efforts, a large portion went to "paid patriotism" at games."

I'm sorry if ignoring the truth makes you think I'm somehow wrong.

Makes it an empty gesture.
Its the same as the anthem. Why is it played in a domestic game ?

We had a whizzy commercial manager a few years back who thought that it would get the crowd pumped up by playing Land of My Fathers before the game. It flopped because a fourth division game against Hartlepool United was deemed inappropriate. There is a time and a place.

Yeah, usually it's just pop music before that sort of game.

Our PA system is so bad it could be Dolphin mating noises or anything.

Yes, I've never understood what is being said, especially in supermarkets. In stadia I don't even bother listening, though I haven't been to one for a long time.

I went to the Vetch once, that's how long ago.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

AFAIK, you certainly can.

Though the term would be hire. Can you cite a single example where a private citizen was prosecuted for discrimination when hiring a service provider?

Why cant the homeowner rent to a Christian plumber?

Why do you think that a homeowner can't rent to a Christian plumber?

Because it's a Fair Housing violation and illegal to advertise as such.

Bake the cake, Zuck

 

[Skull Pilot]

All Facebook is is a place to sell advertising.
People have been duped into thinking it's more than that

 

[koshergrl]

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

This:
That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Yes, it is illegal to squelch freedom of speech. It is also illegal for huge corporations who control the means by which we communicate, to deliberately limit the ability of people to engage in free speech and public discourse. PARTICULARLY for the purpose of overthrowing the government. It is illegal.

Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with.

Unless they are removing the only, or all, platforms that are used by ordinary people to exchange information and ideas. As I've explained ad nauseum, if corporations come together to deny people their constitutional right to free speech..which is what is happening...then those corporations are breaking the law. And they know it.

Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

This is just a lie. Nobody is clamoring for big government. You people like to pretend that protecting our government from being OVERTHROWN by leftists who daily state their desire to overthrow our government and eliminate the constitution and our protected, human rights..is the same as using the government to violate people's human rights. It isn't.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER your commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.Their free speech is not impinged by ending their ability to squelch the free speech of others. They can say anything they like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

Libel is not considered *free speech* and in fact is a lie.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

And fake press who call themselves *journalists* but who are busted again and again lying and hiding information for the purpose of destroying the credibility of REAL journalists, or for the purpose of overthrowing a president or government...are not *off limits* when it comes to prosecution. Just because they're speaking doesn't mean that they can say anything they want and have it be protected speech. You can't tell people lies about a business or a person for the purpose of causing financial or political harm to that person, and call it *free speech*. It isn't. It's actually ILLEGAL to do that.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

No more than Infowars is interfering with the free speech of others when they refuse to post my comment on their website. No platform- no newspaper- no business has any obligation to assist others in broadcasting their speech.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

You seem to confuse 'slander and libel' with trying to overthrow the U.S. government. Lots of people commit slander and libel frequently- like Don the Con does- but he does it to public figures so he can get away with it.
Now if you know of anyone trying to overthrow the U.S. Government- you should contact law enforcement- they would I am sure be fascinated to hear from you.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

America has a long and proud tradition of lies to discredit presidents- going all the way back to our founding fathers. Of course now we have a President telling lies to discredit not only the press- but any of his perceived enemies.

And no- it isn't breaking the law to try to discredit the President- no matter how much you fascists think it should be.

I agree with most everything you said. But --- there is a HUGE army of media that are now ACCOMPLICES in helping a limited conspiracy in the Federal govt to subvert and overthrow a legitimately elected president. That's why you didn't get "a winner".

There's a difference between trying to discredit...and committing slander, fraud, libel, and sedition.

Which is what the leftist media engages in every single day.in addition to shutting down free speech.

Crimes. No, it isn't *free speech* to collude to overthrow our government. It's a crime.

 

[WillowTree]

if you dont like the nfl protests...use the on off button on your remote simple as that...funny how now you must censor people and deny their rights so you can watch a football game...funny how having flat out thugs playing football doesnt bother anyone...but kneeling in protest and people just cant handle it

Incorrect. If we don’t like the kneeling we should stand up and say so, boycott the games and we should boycott the sponsors! No one that I know of that has a job has the right to protest at work, on the job in front of the customers they serve. Without the fans these players don’t have the money or the opportunity that this shitty country gives them.

 

[dblack]

if you dont like the nfl protests...use the on off button on your remote simple as that...funny how now you must censor people and deny their rights so you can watch a football game...funny how having flat out thugs playing football doesnt bother anyone...but kneeling in protest and people just cant handle it

Incorrect. If we don’t like the kneeling we should stand up and say so, boycott the games and we should boycott the sponsors! No one that I know of that has a job has the right to protest at work, on the job in front of the customers they serve. Without the fans these players don’t have the money or the opportunity that this shitty country gives them.

Well, I think all that was implied by using the "off button". The main thing is, don't go whining to the government to fix it for you.