They kneeled for the National Anthem and stood for the Brit anthem.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

Sure.Good for you to use name calling as a crutch to your arguments then call others out for name calling. You are very good at logic girlie.

I'm not calling out anyone for name calling. Just think it's a funny and fitting nickname.

 

Do you think he's sharp? Do you really think he knows policy details?

[mobb_deep 920]

Thanks. We needed another thread about the same thing, but dedicated to your own opinion. You're a special snowflake.

[Donkey 34]

Yeah this is gonna go well. Don't you have some friends you can debate this with.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Coming from someone who keeps saying dotard any chance she gets.

I know all about how horrific Dear Leader is, but "Dotard" just sticks.

 

You have to admit his mental capacity is reduced. Guy can't think of an adjective besides great or very great.

I know. There are plenty of people who don't come off as particularly intelligent, but in fact are - just not in a way that translates into their speech.

 

I think that Trump is a master media hound manipulator. He knows how to get topics steered in a way that assists his purposes. In this case, I believe he consciously elevated the sentiments in order to compel people with whom he (and I, in this case) disagrees, to get them to overplay their hands.

 

I believe exactly that happened, exactly that way - and immediately. Dinesh D'Souza today had a great quote, and one with which I totally agree. He said "I believe Trump knows that one of his greatest weapons is his understanding of the near pathological hatred his political opponents have for him." It makes it extremely easy to manipulate his adversaries into untenable positions.

 

 

I see you writing thoughtful - even if misguided - posts, but you can't try to make an intelligent argument while siding with Trump.

Of course I can, when he's correct. He's correct in this case.

 

 

It's not a political issue.

Of course it is. Trump has been on the public scene for 2 decades plus, but this is the first time the media machine was turned on him and actively promulgated the tapestry of hatred sown against him.

 

For political reasons, and political reasons only.

 

It's not a freedom of speech issue. Guy is just an ignoramus who needs to have his ego stroked constantly or he reacts like a 5 year old brat.

No, that's not what he is. He is regularly steaming up prog glasses not because he's an ignoramus, but because he's the opposite. He's a near savant at getting those who hate him to do and say stupid things and overplay their hands.

 

And it continues.

[Raider 84 29]

I just hope they don't start to kneel at WWE events. I won't have anything exciting to watch anymore.

[brotherbock 349]

It's directed at our country. Find another way and have at it. I won't say a word or do anything. Have a problem with my wife? That's fine too. But you can't say anything you want and not expect a reaction.

 

Flag burning is a protest of something wrong with the country. But it's not a threat to the country. Or to anyone in the country. People in general aren't burning flags to make another person feel physically threatened. And they aren't burning them as a way of saying "we're going to destroy the country." But cross burning by and large has been a way of trying to actually threaten people.

 

Now maybe, when the klan gather in the middle of some field and burn a cross at their own private rally, it's not a tool to threaten someone. And that would in fact be a different sort of case. But burning one in public has always been as a threat, a direct threat at specific people. Flag burning, at least where I've seen it used, is not a threat. I've never seen anyone burn a flag hoping that people will see it and think "man, my life is in danger". That's a huge difference, isn't it?

 

Nooses are another example, like cross burning. Hanging a noose in a public place, at least in the south, has always been a threat. It's not done with any purpose other than to make black people feel physically threatened.

 

That's my take on it, at any rate. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that maybe you do feel actually threatened by flag burning--like the guy burning the flag is saying "I'm coming for you, Troubadour." But I just don't see it that way. Take the people who protested the Vietnam War. They weren't, if you believe what they were saying, trying to destroy America. When they were burning flags, they were as I understand it trying to make the statement that America isn't standing up for its own professed values. I just don't see how that's a threat.

 

Burning crosses are meant to drive blacks out, to make them feel physically unsafe, and to make them stop whatever they are doing that the cross burners don't like by way of threat of violence. Very different.

[brotherbock 349]

 

I dunno I would think that if I stood in front of a white Christian Church and burned a cross that would be equally threatening

 

Oh I would totally agree. But wouldn't the threat be towards people because of their position against blacks? I mean, I suppose if someone who had no knowledge of what a burning cross has meant in this country said to himself "I think I'll threaten those Christians by burning a cross at their church, just because they are Christians", yeah. Definitely a non-racially motivated threat. So if that happens, sure. But that's not generally why crosses get burned. They are almost always as a threat towards black people.

 

So I also suppose that, as I said, someone could try to threaten a soldier by burning a flag on the soldier's property. Also then a threat.

 

But still there are differences. Soldiers are not a minority that has had a history of oppression and violence against them. Meaning that large swaths of people never owned soldiers, and never tried to take away their rights, etc. So I do think the guy who burns a flag as a way to threaten a soldier should be stopped or punished...we shouldn't allow threatening of people. But at the same time, it's not as problematic, on the larger scale. Because it would be a very strange one-off occurernce.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

I know. There are plenty of people who don't come off as particularly intelligent, but in fact are - just not in a way that translates into their speech.

I think that Trump is a master media hound manipulator. He knows how to get topics steered in a way that assists his purposes. In this case, I believe he consciously elevated the sentiments in order to compel people with whom he (and I, in this case) disagrees, to get them to overplay their hands.

I believe exactly that happened, exactly that way - and immediately. Dinesh D'Souza today had a great quote, and one with which I totally agree. He said "I believe Trump knows that one of his greatest weapons is his understanding of the near pathological hatred his political opponents have for him." It makes it extremely easy to manipulate his adversaries into untenable positions.

Of course I can, when he's correct. He's correct in this case.

Of course it is. Trump has been on the public scene for 2 decades plus, but this is the first time the media machine was turned on him and actively promulgated the tapestry of hatred sown against him.

For political reasons, and political reasons only.

No, that's not what he is. He is regularly steaming up prog glasses not because he's an ignoramus, but because he's the opposite. He's a near savant at getting those who hate him to do and say stupid things and overplay their hands.

And it continues.

He's a conman. And for such a master media manipulator, most of his tweets step all over his administration's message. His own tweets have led to his policies being stalled.

 

But I guess you can say he's a savant - kind of like Rain Man if Rain Man couldn't do anything cool like complex math, counting toothpicks or counting cards.

[brotherbock 349]

Imagine if you put a controversial political stance in your work e-mail signature. Do you have the right to do it? Yes. Will it likely have negative consequences? Yes.

 

People that are pro-kneeling want the players to be able to protest without there being any negative consequences what-so-ever

 

Speaking only for myself--personally I think it would be a sh!tty thing to do to let a guy go just because of this issue. But that's not the same thing as saying I am demanding there be no negative consequences.

 

I was never a Kap fan when he was playing. Mostly because I didn't think he was good as a QB :/ I remember getting into a long e-fight on this board with someone because I said that he was the worst starting QB in the league at one point in the past. But I will say I respect him for this: he is not backing down on his position in order to try to get a job. Everyone and their mother knows that he's not on a team because of his political stance. Even Ray Lewis knows that. And so Kap could (perhaps) get a job back if he said "Oh, I'm sorry, I'll stand now, I have learned the error of my ways." But he's not.

 

And that's cool. If he's willing to pay that price, I respect him. Now, again, I think it's sh!tty to not hire him for that reason. Because I do think that blacks face significant oppression in this country, and so generally I think it's the right thing to do to stand up against it. But thinking it's sh!tty to not hire him does not equate to as you said 'wanting there to be no consequences.' There are consequences. And if these guys accept them, so much the better for their character. That's straight-up Thoreau there. The only obligation I have at any time is to do what I think is right. And if that means jail (for Thoreau) or no job (for Kap), then I live with it. I think that's a great stance to take.

 

Again, just speaking for myself. A stance is a more important stance if you have something on the line when you take it.

[ChinaCat 21]

He's a conman. And for such a master media manipulator, most of his tweets step all over his administration's message. His own tweets have led to his policies being stalled.

 

But I guess you can say he's a savant - kind of like Rain Man if Rain Man couldn't do anything cool like complex math, counting toothpicks or counting cards.

He conned all the illegals to flood into Canada and back into Mexico. That's a good start.

[seafoam1 2,912]

I just hope they don't start to kneel at WWE events. I won't have anything exciting to watch anymore.

But I do hope they keep kneeling in the X-rated films. I mean, adult film industry. They really, really, really, like protesting don't they?

[seafoam1 2,912]

He conned all the illegals to flood into Canada and back into Mexico. That's a good start.

Amen to that.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

I know. There are plenty of people who don't come off as particularly intelligent, but in fact are - just not in a way that translates into their speech.

I think that Trump is a master media hound manipulator. He knows how to get topics steered in a way that assists his purposes. In this case, I believe he consciously elevated the sentiments in order to compel people with whom he (and I, in this case) disagrees, to get them to overplay their hands.

I believe exactly that happened, exactly that way - and immediately. Dinesh D'Souza today had a great quote, and one with which I totally agree. He said "I believe Trump knows that one of his greatest weapons is his understanding of the near pathological hatred his political opponents have for him." It makes it extremely easy to manipulate his adversaries into untenable positions.

Of course I can, when he's correct. He's correct in this case.

Of course it is. Trump has been on the public scene for 2 decades plus, but this is the first time the media machine was turned on him and actively promulgated the tapestry of hatred sown against him.

For political reasons, and political reasons only.

No, that's not what he is. He is regularly steaming up prog glasses not because he's an ignoramus, but because he's the opposite. He's a near savant at getting those who hate him to do and say stupid things and overplay their hands.

And it continues.

I agree that his opponents - namely the democrats - do keep getting tricked into taking up losing (or at least controversial) political battles ala kneeling during the anthem, boarder security, gay rights, etc.

 

But that's not to Trump's credit. That's just some smart republican strategists.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

He conned all the illegals to flood into Canada and back into Mexico. That's a good start.

Before or after they voted for Hillary?

[mobb_deep 920]

The KKK was borne from the Democratic Party. Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

 

Do you even know the slightest bit of history?

 

Planned Parenthood was pitched to the KKK as a way of getting rid of black babies. That is why PP is so much in focus in todays Democratic Party. They started it for nefarious racial reasons.

And if you knew the slightest bit about history (actually I'm sure you do, it just doesn't fit your argument here), you would know that the Democratic and Republican parties swapped principles and platforms sometime between the CW and when FDR took office.

 

But, I, digress, in the mid 1800's the heavily Republican north expanded the role of fed to fund the trans continental railroad, create state uni's, and help western expansion. Dems in the south opposed these measures. After the CW, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Dems largely opposed these "expansions of federal power". Sound familiar to the current republican mantra?

 

Fast forward 75 years and FDR is winning a landslide reelection, on the success of the New Deal, welfare reform, financial regulation etc etc. Pulling the country out of our worst financial collapse, brought by fine Republicans like Harding, Coolidge and HH.

[ChinaCat 21]

Here's what the game operations manual says regarding the national anthem, according to an NFL spokesperson:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

 

http://time.com/4955704/nfl-league-rulebook-a62-63-national-anthem-rule/

http://operations.nfl.com/football-ops/league-governance/

 

 

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

Amen to that.

Mexico pay for your wall yet?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,223]

 

Flag burning is a protest of something wrong with the country. But it's not a threat to the country. Or to anyone in the country. People in general aren't burning flags to make another person feel physically threatened. And they aren't burning them as a way of saying "we're going to destroy the country." But cross burning by and large has been a way of trying to actually threaten people.

 

Now maybe, when the klan gather in the middle of some field and burn a cross at their own private rally, it's not a tool to threaten someone. And that would in fact be a different sort of case. But burning one in public has always been as a threat, a direct threat at specific people. Flag burning, at least where I've seen it used, is not a threat. I've never seen anyone burn a flag hoping that people will see it and think "man, my life is in danger". That's a huge difference, isn't it?

 

Nooses are another example, like cross burning. Hanging a noose in a public place, at least in the south, has always been a threat. It's not done with any purpose other than to make black people feel physically threatened.

 

That's my take on it, at any rate. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that maybe you do feel actually threatened by flag burning--like the guy burning the flag is saying "I'm coming for you, Troubadour." But I just don't see it that way. Take the people who protested the Vietnam War. They weren't, if you believe what they were saying, trying to destroy America. When they were burning flags, they were as I understand it trying to make the statement that America isn't standing up for its own professed values. I just don't see how that's a threat.

 

Burning crosses are meant to drive blacks out, to make them feel physically unsafe, and to make them stop whatever they are doing that the cross burners don't like by way of threat of violence. Very different.

No, I don't feel they are coming for me. I know that's a popular charge from liberals, that white males feel threatened by a changing country. It's a simplistic and fabricated charge that just so happens to degrade and reduce those that disagree with modern leftist dogma to selfish, scared infants. Not me. I don't fear the faces of our country changing, but am angered by the disrespectful, me-first ungrateful actions of the left, many of them recent or illegal arrivals to our country. And FYI, I've had my share of go rounds with Irish immigrants who show the same lack of gratitude.

[brotherbock 349]

Hold it now, you have no problem with and respect the players right to kneel in protest. Ok. How would you feel if they marched out into the parking lot and burned the flag?

 

That's a good question. What would they be saying when they did it? What's their intention?

 

Here are a few intentions I'd have a significant problem with--if they were trying to communicate any of the following:

1) Down with America!

2) Soldiers are baby-killers

3) All cops are murderers

 

But what if they did it the day after an unarmed 12 year old black kid was shot by the police? The specifics aren't important for this, let's say those facts are at least true, and they burned a flag in the parking lot the next day. And they said things like this:

A) Our country is better than this, we should not be abandoning our freedoms and safety.

B ) No one (or not enough) people are upset about another kid being killed, so we're doing the most drastic thing we can to call attention to it.

C) People of color have been disenfranchised by the government, as so we formally refuse allegiance to this government. (Super-extreme, right?)

 

How would I feel about A, B, or C? Varying degrees of shocked. Upset for a number of reasons--because our society has reached this point, and upset for the emotional turmoil I know soldiers and vets would be feeling watching it. And, depending on which it was--particularly C--I'd be very interested to see what happened. If you formally refuse allegiance to our nation--well, you may have to leave

 

But I would not feel threatened in A, B, or C. I would also not feel personally insulted. Not given those reasons.

 

I'm not sure if that helps anything, but that's my honest answer.

[ChinaCat 21]

 

And if you knew the slightest bit about history (actually I'm sure you do, it just doesn't fit your argument here), you would know that the Democratic and Republican parties swapped principles and platforms sometime between the CW and when FDR took office.

 

 

 

Who told you that garbage? Some idiot professor at Cal Bezerkely? LMAO

[seafoam1 2,912]

Mexico pay for your wall yet?

Not that I know of. I support the effort to keep getting them to pay though. and if nothing else, keep the dems out of office so they can't keep bringing more in. Baby steps chickie.

[brotherbock 349]

No, I don't feel they are coming for me. I know that's a popular charge from liberals, that white males feel threatened by a changing country. It's a simplistic and fabricated charge that just so happens to degrade and reduce those that disagree with modern leftist dogma to selfish, scared infants. Not me. I don't fear the faces of our country changing, but am angered by the disrespectful, me-first ungrateful actions of the left, many of them recent or illegal arrivals to our country. And FYI, I've had my share of go rounds with Irish immigrants who show the same lack of gratitude.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that you are someone feeling threatened by a changing country. I didn't mean for that to sound that way, if it did I'm sorry. I was just trying to prove the point of the distinction I'm making. Something threatening someone is a far cry from something angering someone.

 

The Bill of Rights was created to ensure that we get to do things even if they anger people. We don't get the threaten. But your anger, according to the Bill of Rights, is not a justification for stopping them from doing what they are doing. Again, if you are willing to face the consequences, that at least says something about your integrity. But something merely angering you is when the Bill of Rights is there to protect the actions of others.

 

Defending our government and constitution means being willing to defend the right of someone to say something that severely, but only, angers me. That's vital to our society as we generally have envisioned it.

[mobb_deep 920]

Who told you that garbage? Some idiot professor at Cal Bezerkely? LMAO

Encyclopedia Britanica. Try reading it sometime.

[ChinaCat 21]

 

Fast forward 75 years and FDR is winning a landslide reelection, on the success of the New Deal, welfare reform, financial regulation etc etc. Pulling the country out of our worst financial collapse, brought by fine Republicans like Harding, Coolidge and HH.

The New Deal killed this country and is continuing to kill it.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

No, I don't feel they are coming for me. I know that's a popular charge from liberals, that white males feel threatened by a changing country. It's a simplistic and fabricated charge that just so happens to degrade and reduce those that disagree with modern leftist dogma to selfish, scared infants. Not me. I don't fear the faces of our country changing, but am angered by the disrespectful, me-first ungrateful actions of the left, many of them recent or illegal arrivals to our country. And FYI, I've had my share of go rounds with Irish immigrants who show the same lack of gratitude.

Irish immigrants?? What are you, 170 years old?

[mobb_deep 920]

The New Deal killed this country and is continuing to kill it.

You can only die once. You can't die and then continue to die more. HTH.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

Not that I know of. I support the effort to keep getting them to pay though. and if nothing else, keep the dems out of office so they can't keep bringing more in. Baby steps chickie.

Fine, but Donnie promised you that Mexico was going to pay.

 

And then behind your back, over the phone, he practically begged Pena Nieto to just pretend they would pay. He actually asked Pena Nieto to just stop saying publicly that Mexico wouldn't pay.

 

That didn't bother you?

[ChinaCat 21]

You can only die once. You can't die and then continue to die more. HTH.

Try reading more than one of your posts.

[mobb_deep 920]

Try reading more than one of your posts.

Surprised you can even read. Clearly, history books weren't in your rotation growing up.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,307]

And if you knew the slightest bit about history (actually I'm sure you do, it just doesn't fit your argument here), you would know that the Democratic and Republican parties swapped principles and platforms sometime between the CW and when FDR took office.

 

But, I, digress, in the mid 1800's the heavily Republican north expanded the role of fed to fund the trans continental railroad, create state uni's, and help western expansion. Dems in the south opposed these measures. After the CW, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Dems largely opposed these "expansions of federal power". Sound familiar to the current republican mantra?

 

Fast forward 75 years and FDR is winning a landslide reelection, on the success of the New Deal, welfare reform, financial regulation etc etc. Pulling the country out of our worst financial collapse, brought by fine Republicans like Harding, Coolidge and HH.

 

FDR idolized Mussolini, The majority of what the Nazis did came from democrat bases, Margaret Sanger, The gas chamber, eugenics, were all originated in the democratic party, and Hitler admired their ideas

[brotherbock 349]

 

Dood, I would have a beer with you or anyone here. Well, except one guy at the geek club who is a total putz. Debate is healthy.

 

That being said, I regret to inform you that what you stated is exactly what I'm saying. NASCAR fans with flag do-rags and boxers are attempting to celebrate the flag and country, I don't think this is debatable. You seem intent on the "stated" intentions of the players, what are they? IMO it can be either supporting Kaep or protesting Trump calling him and others who kneel SOBs. If the latter, I would expect that to end this week and next weekend we'll be back to a handful of players kneeling to support Kaep.

 

If the former... Kaep is a POS in my book. Wears socks with pigs in cop uniforms, wears a Castro shirt in Miami... perhaps he is under the influence of the militant Islamic chick, whatever.

 

We'll see what happens next weekend.

 

Cool on the beer part. I get into these kind of debates, and I think I come across angry or flaming sometimes when I'm not (and I'm human, sometimes I am flaming someone ). But when I'm not, I'm glad when people see that.

 

For the record, the pig socks thing...not great. I mean, I have a very complex view on the police. My Father in Law just retired as a deputy sheriff, great guy. And many police I have met and known, some good friends, are good people. But I've known sh!tbag cops too. They are a collection of people, after all. And protesting when some cops kill unarmed black men is one thing--the pig socks certainly looks like the charge that all cops are bad. Which is crap. I will say that I think cops should 1) be held to much higher standards, given the power they have--way too many of these guys in these cases aren't even being brought to trial, and those decisions often come very quickly, but I also think 2) cops should be paid ridiculously high amounts of money in return. They have a crazy difficult and dangerous job. So lots of pay. But they also have a ton of power. So lots of accountability. But anyway...

 

A lot of the players are saying why they are kneeling. Kap said it originally, and I don't think his view has changed--in his opinion, way too many unarmed black men are being killed by police with no repercussions. And that's still happening. It's not a coincidence that it's been mostly black athletes protesting. It's not a Trump thing. It started out, and still is, a call for racial equality and justice. Because, despite what Chinawhatever said, there is still a sh!t-ton of racism in this country.

 

Are there players who are bandwagon jumping? Sure, I'll say why not. It's a big enough group now, maybe someone's doing it to look good with other people. Hell, maybe one of the players is gay is is doing it to get laid by a teammate But when they've been asked, that's been the answer I've been hearing--too many black men getting killed with no consequences.

 

Now this weekend in particular--yeah, a lot of that may have been a middle finger at Trump. I dunno, I haven't absorbed all the news yet.

 

But it makes me disappointed to see so many people, here and in other places, automatically discounting what the players are saying and assuming all sorts of other motivations. And, you have to admit, it falls along ideological lines, right? If people are in agreement that there's not enough accountability for police shootings, then that person will say that every single protesting player is a saint and etc etc. And if the person thinks there's no racism and these people are spitting on soldiers, they'll say "they're all thugs".

 

And it's very hard for people to ask themselves if their opinion is informed, or knee-jerk. And by 'people', I mean all of us

 

Gotta run, peace. Here's a metaphorical beer Thanks for listening and discussing.

[brotherbock 349]

Irish immigrants?? What are you, 170 years old?

 

Okay, I'm sorry...no bashing of Troubadour meant here, setting aside all the politics and bickering and stuff.

 

But that was funny.

[mobb_deep 920]

Looks like Jordan Sparks had a bible verse on her hand.

 

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV) Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

[brotherbock 349]

Looks like Jordan Sparks had a bible verse on her hand.

 

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV) Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

 

Interesting. That Solomon knew his ######. Or King Lemuel. Can't remember which one wrote chapter 31. (EDIT: It was Lemuel.)

[seafoam1 2,912]

You know, I have a dream that all teams keep hugging and kneeling with each other during the anthem where it gets to point that it's just not paid attention to anymore. Then all this talk can die down and football can go back to being its true form of entertainment.

 

And it will get there within about 2 weeks because that is the only action these players will take against whatever it is they are protesting.

And now it's time to watch the Cardinals beat the Cowboys.

[barrett14 0]

 

Speaking only for myself--personally I think it would be a sh!tty thing to do to let a guy go just because of this issue. But that's not the same thing as saying I am demanding there be no negative consequences.

 

I was never a Kap fan when he was playing. Mostly because I didn't think he was good as a QB :/ I remember getting into a long e-fight on this board with someone because I said that he was the worst starting QB in the league at one point in the past. But I will say I respect him for this: he is not backing down on his position in order to try to get a job. Everyone and their mother knows that he's not on a team because of his political stance. Even Ray Lewis knows that. And so Kap could (perhaps) get a job back if he said "Oh, I'm sorry, I'll stand now, I have learned the error of my ways." But he's not.

 

And that's cool. If he's willing to pay that price, I respect him. Now, again, I think it's sh!tty to not hire him for that reason. Because I do think that blacks face significant oppression in this country, and so generally I think it's the right thing to do to stand up against it. But thinking it's sh!tty to not hire him does not equate to as you said 'wanting there to be no consequences.' There are consequences. And if these guys accept them, so much the better for their character. That's straight-up Thoreau there. The only obligation I have at any time is to do what I think is right. And if that means jail (for Thoreau) or no job (for Kap), then I live with it. I think that's a great stance to take.

 

Again, just speaking for myself. A stance is a more important stance if you have something on the line when you take it.

 

I think he doesn't have a job not because of his political stance, but because he is a distraction. NFL teams have historically avoided starting, impact players that are distractions (Terrell Owens), much less a backup player in this situation. The instance where his GF posted that pictures of Ray Lewis and the owner... I am sure the players would have loved to be interviewed about that had he been on the active roster.

 

I am not saying an employee should be fired for kneeling for the national anthem, but there are always stances so extreme that it would warrant a firing. Imagine a member of the Westboro Baptist Church working for you.

[brotherbock 349]

 

I think he doesn't have a job not because of his political stance, but because he is a distraction. NFL teams have historically avoided starting, impact players that are distractions (Terrell Owens), much less a backup player in this situation. The instance where his GF posted that pictures of Ray Lewis and the owner... I am sure the players would have loved to be interviewed about that had he been on the active roster.

 

I am not saying an employee should be fired for kneeling for the national anthem, but there are always stances so extreme that it would warrant a firing. Imagine a member of the Westboro Baptist Church working for you.

 

I think that's part of it, other side of the coin, you're right. His political stance would cause a distraction. And, though, I think a lot of owners at least before this weekend didn't want fans to leave, frankly. All the people who were listening when Trump was talking (I mean really listening)--the owners want their money.

 

It will be interesting to see, now that the owners had to at least briefly take a side, whether Kap will get any calls. I mean, when Kraft calls out Trump...that's a sea change, maybe.

[seafoam1 2,912]

I have a dream that all teams keep hugging and kneeling with each other during the anthem where it gets to point that it's just not paid attention to anymore. Then all this talk can die down and football can go back to being its true form of entertainment.

 

And it will get there within about 2 weeks because that is the only action these players will take against whatever it is they are protesting.

Touchdown Cardinals!!

[brotherbock 349]

And now it's time to watch the Cardinals beat the Cowboys.

 

From your keyboard to God's monitor

[seafoam1 2,912]

 

From your keyboard to God's monitor

Its a good start. 7-0

 

And the Cubs are up 4-0 in the first as an extra bonus.