They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Monker]

Wow, I agree with FOX News, they are just like me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F-vmhC ... e=youtu.be

[Memorex]

By the way, glad Trump kicked the NFL's ass.

Yeah, well, Rush disagrees with you:

"There’s a part of this story that’s starting to make me nervous, and it’s this: I am very uncomfortable with the president of the United States being able to dictate the behavior and power of anybody. That’s not where this should be coming from,"

"Trump is continually tweeting; I know what he’s doing, and I understand why he’s doing it, and his motives are pure; don’t misunderstand. But I don’t think that it is useful or helpful for any employee anywhere to be forced to do something because the government says they must,” Limbaugh added.

That damn liberal Rush Limbaugh, essentially saying Trump the Tyrant is acting like a dictator. He sounds just like me.

I completely agree with this. I think it's ok for Trump to state his opinion. But the NFL should act based solely on their fans. Trump has energized many of those fans to make their voices heard, but this issue should not be about Trump. At all.

However, it is Trump that comes out on top here because it will not be him that adjusts in the face of this, it will be the NFL. And I think what Rush is saying is that it now puts Trump in this role of having "demanded" the change. He didn't, but that's how it appears.

[Monker]

By the way, glad Trump kicked the NFL's ass.

Yeah, well, Rush disagrees with you:

"There’s a part of this story that’s starting to make me nervous, and it’s this: I am very uncomfortable with the president of the United States being able to dictate the behavior and power of anybody. That’s not where this should be coming from,"

"Trump is continually tweeting; I know what he’s doing, and I understand why he’s doing it, and his motives are pure; don’t misunderstand. But I don’t think that it is useful or helpful for any employee anywhere to be forced to do something because the government says they must,” Limbaugh added.

That damn liberal Rush Limbaugh, essentially saying Trump the Tyrant is acting like a dictator. He sounds just like me.

+

Like demanding the size of soda the public can buy?

No, not quite.

But, similar.

Your governor saying what size of soda you can buy, or more accurately, what size of soda can be legally sold. is wrong. If somebody wants to sell a 100oz soda for $20, and people are willing to buy it...what the fuck does government care? The governor telling people to not buy it is silly. Saying he is going to punish those who sell it is also wrong.

The difference is, a soda does not have rights guaranteed under the Constitution. If an NFL player wants to protest the treatment of blacks in America by not standing for the national anthem - that is his guaranteed right. If the NFL wants to allow players to do it, that is their right as well. The President attempting to force people (both the players and the NFL Itself) to act as he wishes goes beyond his power and he is really acting like a dictator when he does it.

As for the soda example, all state government has to do is add a $.25/oz tax to any size soda over 12oz. Use the funds to offset the high heath care costs that obese people unfairly keep high...like treatments for diabetes, heart attack, and stroke.

[Monker]

Trump didn't dictate shit. He said it was disgraceful and the players should be ashamed. The "Trump is dictating" is liberal spin bullshit.

RUSH used the word "dictate'. So, I guess his words are "liberal spin bullshit"....you make perfect sense.

Trump also called for owners to pull the "son of a bitch" off the field and fire the kneelers. He called for a boycott of the NFL and sent his slave Pence to prove his point by him leaving a game early. He also wants to "repeal" an NFL tax break...which HE says is "massive", bit it isn't. In other words, he is acting like whiny baby who is not getting his way...so he has to cry and pout about it and make life miserable for everybody who has to deal with him.

[Boomchild]

No, not quite.

But, similar.

Your governor saying what size of soda you can buy, or more accurately, what size of soda can be legally sold. is wrong. If somebody wants to sell a 100oz soda for $20, and people are willing to buy it...what the fuck does government care? The governor telling people to not buy it is silly. Saying he is going to punish those who sell it is also wrong.

The difference is, a soda does not have rights guaranteed under the Constitution. If an NFL player wants to protest the treatment of blacks in America by not standing for the national anthem - that is his guaranteed right. If the NFL wants to allow players to do it, that is their right as well. The President attempting to force people (both the players and the NFL Itself) to act as he wishes goes beyond his power and he is really acting like a dictator when he does it.

As for the soda example, all state government has to do is add a $.25/oz tax to any size soda over 12oz. Use the funds to offset the high heath care costs that obese people unfairly keep high...like treatments for diabetes, heart attack, and stroke.

For the most part I have been ignoring this whole "kneeling NFL players" story. For several reasons. Mostly it's because I couldn't give a shit. It really has started to become a "monkey see, monkey do" act. In my opinion these players could be doing other more effective things to bring attention to the issues that are concerning them. I do believe that no one can force someone to participate in a patriotic ritual. The principles of this nation and it's Constitution provides you that freedom. It also provides you with the freedom to not support something or in this case a business if you do not like what the business or those associated with it are doing.
But with like a lot of issues in this country, a persons entertainment and making money supersedes their beliefs or principles.

On the subject of adding more tax to soda or any other food, it won't actually solve the problem. Some just think you can tax away what ills this country and it's people. These kinds of taxes won't change people's habits. In Philadelphia, they have added a high soda tax. All it has done is steered people to buy it outside of the city. Additionally, it has negatively effected small businesses in the city. It has even caused some small business to close their doors. The size limiting of soda was something the mayor of NYC instituted. I believe he also instituted a law that restaurants are not no longer allowed to put salt shakers out on their tables. If a customer wants salt they have to ask for it.

[Boomchild]

[Monker]

The word "Dictate" is thrown around. It's how your liberal media works.

I guess I should not have assumed you knew who Rush Limbaugh is. He is a conservative radio talk show host. In fact, I would say he was probably the first and most well know. He is definitely NOT "liberal media".

It was CONSERVATIVE MEDIA, via Rush Limbaugh, who used the word dictate as quoted.

Is there an executive order? Have troops surrounded the NFL offices? Trump bashed how they were acting and where they were doing it. He is right. From what I hear about ratings, people agree. All Trump has done is make his OPINION on the matter

That is not true. Making threats of removing tax exemptions and calling for boycotts is not just stating your opinion...it is attempting to manipulate people to behave as you wish...dictating to them

If the Presidentp told you that in his opinion you should rename yourself to Pee Wee and if you didn't, he would force you to pay higher taxes and direct everyone in your life to ignore you, I'll bet you would not think it was just his "opinion', but trying to force you to do something you don't want to do. Well, if it were Obama you would feel that way.

Now your saying Pence didn't have a right to be offended.

Please quote where I said that - because I do not believe I did.

I am accusing the President of the United States of staging an event where Pence walked out of a football game. Ironically, he did this in act of protest...funny that it is OK to protest when you agree.

The only ones forcing anything are the paying customers. The players have told their income to go fuck themselves. We'll see how that works out for them. Now they are threatening to quit. BYE!.

I haven't really heard about that. But, if they are threatening a strike, that will hurt everybody. If it is individual players threatening to quit...why do you care?

Again, the proper response is for the NFL players and owners to all kneel during the anthem. The President can not stop this. If it continues to be an issue, they should go back to the policy where they do not even enter the field until after it is over.

Also, as for ratings, the NFL has had falling ratings dating back to last season...I doubt there is much proof that Trump is the reason.

[Monker]

On the subject of adding more tax to soda or any other food, it won't actually solve the problem.

That is true. It doesn't "solve" the problem. But, it addresses the issue of rising health care prices due to obesity. It's no different than taxing cigarettes or alcohol.

These kinds of taxes won't change people's habits.

That's not true. I directly know some people who quit smoking because of how much cigarettes now cost. It does not affect EVERYBODY, but it does change some people.

In Philadelphia, they have added a high soda tax. All it has done is steered people to buy it outside of the city.

Well, I said governor, not mayor...at the state level that would not be an issue.

Additionally, it has negatively effected small businesses in the city. It has even caused some small business to close their doors.

If that is even true, I'd bet the number is very small. And, that is something the city would have to consider before adding the tax. But, I think it is silly to drive to another city just because you want a large fountain drink...when you could get a 2liter at a grocery story for about the same price, or less...generic 2l of sode is < $1 here. And, resturants generally have free refills...so you don't need a huge cup if you can drink all you want anyway.

The size limiting of soda was something the mayor of NYC instituted. I believe he also instituted a law that restaurants are not no longer allowed to put salt shakers out on their tables. If a customer wants salt they have to ask for it.

The salt thing is actually not a bad idea...because sick people could add arsenic or whatever...and I have SEEN kids lick the top of salt shakers. I never use them for those reasons.

[Boomchild]

That is true. It doesn't "solve" the problem. But, it addresses the issue of rising health care prices due to obesity. It's no different than taxing cigarettes or alcohol.

And just how much has it addressed this? The costs are still rising on healthcare related to issues these products cost.

That's not true. I directly know some people who quit smoking because of how much cigarettes now cost. It does not affect EVERYBODY, but it does change some people.

Sure that could be the case. But the question is what is the overall result. It's not as effective as one may think it is.

If that is even true, I'd bet the number is very small. And, that is something the city would have to consider before adding the tax. But, I think it is silly to drive to another city just because you want a large fountain drink...when you could get a 2liter at a grocery story for about the same price, or less...generic 2l of sode is < $1 here. And, resturants generally have free refills...so you don't need a huge cup if you can drink all you want anyway.

Your response shows you know little to nothing about the tax implemented in Philadelphia. There are articles online discussing the businesses that have closed because of it. Mainly small businesses. No tax should cause this to happen. Especially to local small businesses. The tax is centered around bottled soda and some other drinks. It's more about bottled soda then fountain soda. Hence the trend of those in the city going just outside the city to purchase it to avoid the tax. The tax itself was not instituted to even address healthcare costs. It was instituted to shore up the city's failing public school system.

The salt thing is actually not a bad idea...because sick people could add arsenic or whatever...and I have SEEN kids lick the top of salt shakers. I never use them for those reasons.

It's government over-reach. The government has no business in dictating to restaurants what condiments they can put on their counters and tables. When you look at the sodium and sugar content in foods served in restaurant this action is a drop in the bucket. Gee there's an idea, have the government dictate to restaurants the amount salt and sugar then can include in their foods.

[Monker]

Monker wrote:
That is true. It doesn't "solve" the problem. But, it addresses the issue of rising health care prices due to obesity. It's no different than taxing cigarettes or alcohol.

And just how much has it addressed this? The costs are still rising on healthcare related to issues these products cost.

The point is that it adds to the budget to whatever programs the state has to deal with such issues. That is money that a person who acts in a healthy way does not have to give to the state via other taxes (probably income or property tax).

Monker wrote:
That's not true. I directly know some people who quit smoking because of how much cigarettes now cost. It does not affect EVERYBODY, but it does change some people.

Sure that could be the case. But the question is what is the overall result. It's not as effective as one may think it is.

This is also not the main purpose...and I wouldn't expect it to be that affective. I am just saying that it CAN happen.

All I am saying is if the ISSUE is healthy people paying for other people to be obese, than it is better to tax the people who choose to buy unhealthy things like super large sodas than to ban them so nobody can buy it. Then, the tax money earned can be used to offset the cost.

Your response shows you know little to nothing about the tax implemented in Philadelphia. There are articles online discussing the businesses that have closed because of it. Mainly small businesses. No tax should cause this to happen. Especially to local small businesses. The tax is centered around bottled soda and some other drinks. It's more about bottled soda then fountain soda. Hence the trend of those in the city going just outside the city to purchase it to avoid the tax. The tax itself was not instituted to even address healthcare costs. It was instituted to shore up the city's failing public school system.

Well, I was talking about fountain drinks you can buy at QT, etc.

If the city chooses to tax bottled soda, I think it's a stupid thing and would not be for that. But, it is up to that specific city to manage such things - they can vote the people out of their offices, mayor, city counsel, whatever. But, if the people vote differently, then they have decided they don't mind losing some grocery business to neighboring towns...and it's none of my concern. I have no real influence over such a local issue.

It's government over-reach. The government has no business in dictating to restaurants what condiments they can put on their counters and tables.

Yes, they do. They can say it is a matter of public health and safety...just as they can ban people from smoking in public places, or selling cigarettes in vending machines, or where alcohol is sold. I actually think it's a good idea...and should not be a big deal if it is available on request.

The next time you are in a resturant and want to use the salt, imagine a sickly 3yr old with the salt shaker in his mouth. It happens, honestly.

When you look at the sodium and sugar content in foods served in restaurant this action is a drop in the bucket. Gee there's an idea, have the government dictate to restaurants the amount salt and sugar then can include in their foods.

I don't think they can legally do that...and I wouldn't be for it. But, there ARE rules defining what food is named depending on ingredients. What makes something "diet" or "low calorie" or "low fat", etc.

[Monker]

1. More then likely Limbaugh was talking about lying liberal media.

You're wrong. Even by reading what I quoted you can tell that Rush was choosing his words very carefully. He was critiquing the President and how he is handling the NFL situation. HE used the word "dictate". He was not quoting someone else.

2. Where is Trump acting like a dictator like you are accusing?

The very fact that he is complaining about how we react to the flag and anthem is acting like a dictator. He does not respect our RIGHT to protest. You do understand that dictators do not respect other people's rights, correct? You do understand that dictators try to force their will on the people, correct? You do understand that is exactly what Trump is doing, correct?

3. Pence acted on his own, although him and Trump did talk about it. Pence also DID IT ON HIS OWN TIME AND NOT HIS EMPLOYERS.

His EMPLOYERS? He is employed by the American people, or did you forget that?

The President told him to go to the game and he should leave if anybody took a knee. It was a bunch of staged BS.

4. Why should the NFL get tax breaks? They make billions.

Good question. it doesn't go directly to the NFL players/owners...but some part of the NFL. The fact is that for many years they have refused to take it anyway...which is why Trump's threat has no real impact.

But, he shouldn't even be making such threats. It's what dictators do.

[Monker]

Boomchild, be careful with that "monkey see, monkey do" stuff. You'll have the liberals on here calling you a racist. It wasn't just a tax, New York regulated the size of the container. It couldn't be over 16 ounces. As you can see, Monker is fine with that.

I never said I was in favor of banning certain sized containers. I said I was in favor of taxing it.

If QT wants to start selling a 50oz container for $5...I don't care. I don't care if people buy it. Hell, bring back "super size" meals, I don't care. People have the right to be stupid and make stupid choices.

But, if there is a concern about it, don't ban it, tax it and force those who make unhealthy choises to pay for their medical issues. People have the right to be stupid and make stupid choices, but that doesn't mean that other people should have to pay a consequence for that stupidity. THAT is what I am saying.

[tj]

Boomchild, be careful with that "monkey see, monkey do" stuff. You'll have the liberals on here calling you a racist. It wasn't just a tax, New York regulated the size of the container. It couldn't be over 16 ounces. As you can see, Monker is fine with that.

I never said I was in favor of banning certain sized containers. I said I was in favor of taxing it.

If QT wants to start selling a 50oz container for $5...I don't care. I don't care if people buy it. Hell, bring back "super size" meals, I don't care. People have the right to be stupid and make stupid choices.

But, if there is a concern about it, don't ban it, tax it and force those who make unhealthy choises to pay for their medical issues. People have the right to be stupid and make stupid choices, but that doesn't mean that other people should have to pay a consequence for that stupidity. THAT is what I am saying.

I love QT. Their first store was behind my grandmother's house. They are consistently one of the top 100 employers in the country to work for.

[slucero]

The 1st Amendment was enacted to restrict the government from suppressing free speech, in the public domain... NOT guarantee "free speech" to employees of privately owned corporations... including NFL players... or people who frequent this, or any privately owned website...

The NFL teams are privately owned (except the Packers)... and the players are employees, and subject to the rules of employment their employers give them. The have ZERO rights and can be fired without cause...

If the NFL players had the "right"... then Goodell wouldn't have had to issue the following statement Wednesday:

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday that "there has been no policy change" regarding players standing for the national anthem before games.

People need to go back to fucking civics class....

[Boomchild]

The 1st Amendment was enacted to restrict the government from suppressing free speech, in the public domain... NOT guarantee "free speech" to employees of privately owned corporations... including NFL players... or people who frequent this, or any privately owned website...

The NFL teams are privately owned (except the Packers)... and the players are employees, and subject to the rules of employment their employers give them. The have ZERO rights and can be fired without cause...

If the NFL players had the "right"... then Goodell wouldn't have had to issue the following statement Wednesday:

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday that "there has been no policy change" regarding players standing for the national anthem before games.

People need to go back to fucking civics class....

So in effect the NFL can force a player to perform a patriotic ritual. I won't be holding my breath waiting for a team to fire a player over it. Frankly if enough fans are concerned over this and had a pair of balls they would stop watching or going to games, not buying NFL branded products and pressuring sponsors. For me there are A LOT of more serious issues going on in this country then what professional athletes or celebrities are doing.

[Memorex]

The 1st Amendment was enacted to restrict the government from suppressing free speech, in the public domain... NOT guarantee "free speech" to employees of privately owned corporations... including NFL players... or people who frequent this, or any privately owned website...

The NFL teams are privately owned (except the Packers)... and the players are employees, and subject to the rules of employment their employers give them. The have ZERO rights and can be fired without cause...

If the NFL players had the "right"... then Goodell wouldn't have had to issue the following statement Wednesday:

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday that "there has been no policy change" regarding players standing for the national anthem before games.

People need to go back to fucking civics class....

So in effect the NFL can force a player to perform a patriotic ritual. I won't be holding my breath waiting for a team to fire a player over it. Frankly if enough fans are concerned over this and had a pair of balls they would stop watching or going to games, not buying NFL branded products and pressuring sponsors. For me there are A LOT of more serious issues going on in this country then what professional athletes or celebrities are doing.

You haven't heard? That is what's happening. The NFL has declined in all aspects since this began. Even before Trump's comments. Which is why they are addressing it at all.

It's my understanding that the NFL changed the policy slightly that said a team CAN punish a player for not standing, but did not say they have to stand as an NFL rule. I think it's a little off the mark, but correct in that you cannot force a player to stand. That would be a violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.

[Boomchild]

Boomchild, be careful with that "monkey see, monkey do" stuff. You'll have the liberals on here calling you a racist. It wasn't just a tax, New York regulated the size of the container. It couldn't be over 16 ounces. As you can see, Monker is fine with that.

Frankly I could care less what someone wishes to "label" me. It doesn't make it true. I am aware that the mayor banned the sale of soda over a certain size. This is just a politician going after "low hanging fruit" to give the impression that they are actually addressing or making an impact on a problem.

[Boomchild]

You haven't heard? That is what's happening. The NFL has declined in all aspects since this began. Even before Trump's comments. Which is why they are addressing it at all.

It's my understanding that the NFL changed the policy slightly that said a team CAN punish a player for not standing, but did not say they have to stand as an NFL rule. I think it's a little off the mark, but correct in that you cannot force a player to stand. That would be a violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.

As I stated in an earlier comment I have not been paying particular attention to this debate. In my opinion, the players that are doing this are getting way more attention then they deserve. Which only benefits them and their "message". I would be willing to bet that if this was not happening at a national sporting event people wouldn't even be talking about it as much as they are. Furthermore, I think that our President has a lot more important things to address then this.

[Memorex]

You haven't heard? That is what's happening. The NFL has declined in all aspects since this began. Even before Trump's comments. Which is why they are addressing it at all.

It's my understanding that the NFL changed the policy slightly that said a team CAN punish a player for not standing, but did not say they have to stand as an NFL rule. I think it's a little off the mark, but correct in that you cannot force a player to stand. That would be a violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.

As I stated in an earlier comment I have not been paying particular attention to this debate. In my opinion, the players that are doing this are getting way more attention then they deserve. Which only benefits them and their "message". I would be willing to bet that if this was not happening at a national sporting event people wouldn't even be talking about it as much as they are. Furthermore, I think that our President has a lot more important things to address then this.

Yea - it's actually the opposite right now. Everyone is talking about it, but it's framed in "Is it right or wrong to kneel during the National Anthem and should a president interject his opinion?", or "What affect is this having on the NFL?" No one is talking about inequality and systemic issues anymore. So the publicity they are getting is either entirely negative or positive, but based on a first amendment/brave/weak/boycott sense.

It's like when my wife gets angry and goes overboard in yelling at me. It is no longer about what I did wrong, but why she has to react and yell so damn loud. Then that becomes the issue.

[Boomchild]

Yea - it's actually the opposite right now. Everyone is talking about it, but it's framed in "Is it right or wrong to kneel during the National Anthem and should a president interject his opinion?", or "What affect is this having on the NFL?" No one is talking about inequality and systemic issues anymore. So the publicity they are getting is either entirely negative or positive, but based on a first amendment/brave/weak/boycott sense.

It's like when my wife gets angry and goes overboard in yelling at me. It is no longer about what I did wrong, but why she has to react and yell so damn loud. Then that becomes the issue.

I think it's due in part that the players actions are not productive in effecting what their "cause" is. In my opinion they could be doing other things to put a better focus on their "issues". For those that feel compelled to rail against their "protests", what have they been really doing? Has anyone confronted these players face to face? If any of these players do personal appearances, has anyone showed up to confront them? Has anyone held protests about it in front of their city's team headquarters? Even if the NFL could in a sense force the players to stand it doesn't mean they should do it. All that would do is create a false sense unity. It wouldn't change the kneeling players opinions.

[Memorex]

Yea - it's actually the opposite right now. Everyone is talking about it, but it's framed in "Is it right or wrong to kneel during the National Anthem and should a president interject his opinion?", or "What affect is this having on the NFL?" No one is talking about inequality and systemic issues anymore. So the publicity they are getting is either entirely negative or positive, but based on a first amendment/brave/weak/boycott sense.

It's like when my wife gets angry and goes overboard in yelling at me. It is no longer about what I did wrong, but why she has to react and yell so damn loud. Then that becomes the issue.

I think it's due in part that the players actions are not productive in effecting what their "cause" is. In my opinion they could be doing other things to put a better focus on their "issues". For those that feel compelled to rail against their "protests", what have they been really doing? Has anyone confronted these players face to face? If any of these players do personal appearances, has anyone showed up to confront them? Has anyone held protests about it in front of their city's team headquarters? Even if the NFL could in a sense force the players to stand it doesn't mean they should do it. All that would do is create a false sense unity. It wouldn't change the kneeling players opinions.

Yea, I know Colin didn't donate any money or do anything active until he got called out, Then he pledged a million dollars over time. Other players, I have no idea because no one is talking about it. I've read that several owners are bribing the players now. They are saying we will donate to a cause/charity if you stand. Which is not unreasonable and probably do a lot more good.

The other problem is the cases that they choose to highlight. Most of them are terrible examples. In most of those cases, the victims would have been shot if they were white, black, or whatever. The Rams with hands up don't shoot - something that never happened. Here's this thug that decides to take on a cop and somehow he's the poster child for injustice? There are far better cases than that. And of course Colin is becoming radicalized by his GF, praising people that not need be praised and his GF compares Ray Rice and the Ravens owner to Samuel L. Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio's characters in Django Unchained.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2725 ... -ray-lewis

Things like that will find you support only in the smallest of corners.

If Trump had of tweeted his opinion, and the media didn't try and turn it into something, it would have just laid there. I'm surprised that people and the media have not learned that highlighting Trumps words has so far backfired tremendously.

[slucero]

You haven't heard? That is what's happening. The NFL has declined in all aspects since this began. Even before Trump's comments. Which is why they are addressing it at all.

It's my understanding that the NFL changed the policy slightly that said a team CAN punish a player for not standing, but did not say they have to stand as an NFL rule. I think it's a little off the mark, but correct in that you cannot force a player to stand. That would be a violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.

The NFL owners still have to meet on Tuesday at their Fall Owners Meeting... so they can change policy then (doubt they will). Simple reason... they are trying to figure out a way out of this without making themselves look like the bad guys... they want the flag protests over and the focus to be on football (i.e. ratings), or more specifically, and indirectly - revenue.

As far as 1st amendment rights go.. the players HAVE NONE whilst they are on the job.. they only have the rights they are bound to via their contracts and the union agreement. Just like most other employees they are "at will"... they can leave at anytime, and can be fired at any time.


Freedom of speech is an "immutable" and "inalienable" right.. but the 1st Amendment does not grant us that right. That is because we already have it. We are born with it. The 1st Amendment only applies when we are in our own person, not when we willfully subject ourselves to the terms and conditions of a person or corporation. Employment is one example. Joining a website is another.

Liberal fucktards have brainwashed people into thinking that our "rights" come from the Constitution. They don't.

The Constitution is designed to do one thing. LIMIT the federal government.

Thats it.

[Boomchild]

Yea, I know Colin didn't donate any money or do anything active until he got called out, Then he pledged a million dollars over time. Other players, I have no idea because no one is talking about it. I've read that several owners are bribing the players now. They are saying we will donate to a cause/charity if you stand. Which is not unreasonable and probably do a lot more good.

The other problem is the cases that they choose to highlight. Most of them are terrible examples. In most of those cases, the victims would have been shot if they were white, black, or whatever. The Rams with hands up don't shoot - something that never happened. Here's this thug that decides to take on a cop and somehow he's the poster child for injustice? There are far better cases than that. And of course Colin is becoming radicalized by his GF, praising people that not need be praised and his GF compares Ray Rice and the Ravens owner to Samuel L. Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio's characters in Django Unchained.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2725 ... -ray-lewis

Things like that will find you support only in the smallest of corners.

If Trump had of tweeted his opinion, and the media didn't try and turn it into something, it would have just laid there. I'm surprised that people and the media have not learned that highlighting Trumps words has so far backfired tremendously.

I think President Trump could have handled his viewpoint on the matter differently. Instead of criticizing these players he could have said that it is concerning to him that any person should feel the need to do such a thing and offer to meet with them to hear them out. Whether or not he believes their concerns are justified or not. That's open dialog. The President is supposed to represent ALL people not just those he shares the same opinions and beliefs. That would have put the ball in their court. If they refused to do it then that would not look good for them from a public perspective.

[Boomchild]

K.C., What do you think of Pompeo's statement that the fed needs to "take down" Wikileaks?

[Memorex]

You haven't heard? That is what's happening. The NFL has declined in all aspects since this began. Even before Trump's comments. Which is why they are addressing it at all.

It's my understanding that the NFL changed the policy slightly that said a team CAN punish a player for not standing, but did not say they have to stand as an NFL rule. I think it's a little off the mark, but correct in that you cannot force a player to stand. That would be a violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.

The NFL owners still have to meet on Tuesday at their Fall Owners Meeting... so they can change policy then (doubt they will). Simple reason... they are trying to figure out a way out of this without making themselves look like the bad guys... they want the flag protests over and the focus to be on football (i.e. ratings), or more specifically, and indirectly - revenue.

As far as 1st amendment rights go.. the players HAVE NONE whilst they are on the job.. they only have the rights they are bound to via their contracts and the union agreement. Just like most other employees they are "at will"... they can leave at anytime, and can be fired at any time.


Freedom of speech is an "immutable" and "inalienable" right.. but the 1st Amendment does not grant us that right. That is because we already have it. We are born with it. The 1st Amendment only applies when we are in our own person, not when we willfully subject ourselves to the terms and conditions of a person or corporation. Employment is one example. Joining a website is another.

Liberal fucktards have brainwashed people into thinking that our "rights" come from the Constitution. They don't.

The Constitution is designed to do one thing. LIMIT the federal government.

Thats it.

Agreed. So let me re-phrase. I think it would be bad policy to make a player stand because just as they have that inalienable right to stand, they also have the same right to not stand. To have that right dictated by an employer goes against what I think American values are. But I do think the employer has the right to say don't disrespect the moment that our team is sharing with our customers. So I think asking players who want to protest to remain in the locker room is the right decision.

As I said before, if a dude is sitting on the bench because he is Jehovah's Witness I have no issue with that. He is not using the anthem to make some statement, but rather simply exercising his religious beliefs in a non-disruptive way. In fact, when they made Colin switch from sitting on the bench to kneeling, I think that's when it actually looked more disrespectful. It became less passive and looked like he was hijacking the moment for his own protest.

[Monker]

The NFL teams are privately owned (except the Packers)... and the players are employees, and subject to the rules of employment their employers give them. The have ZERO rights and can be fired without cause...

I do not believe this to be completely true. I could see if it was being done or said in representation of the NFL. But, it's not. These people are doing it as their own expression of their own thoughts and feelings. We no longer have slavery in this country...which is essentially what you are describing here. And, if that is how the NFL decides to treat its players, then the player's union should go on strike....it's not right.

If it was decided to play the national anthem every day at work at noon....and if people did not stand, that is their choice and I do not believe that is grounds to fire somebody.

If the NFL players had the "right"... then Goodell wouldn't have had to issue the following statement Wednesday:

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday that "there has been no policy change" regarding players standing for the national anthem before games.

He released that in response to a Trump Tweet saying the NFL had started to discipline players....which was a lie, NO POLICY CHANGE HAD OCCURED.

[Memorex]

The NFL teams are privately owned (except the Packers)... and the players are employees, and subject to the rules of employment their employers give them. The have ZERO rights and can be fired without cause...

I do not believe this to be completely true. I could see if it was being done or said in representation of the NFL. But, it's not. These people are doing it as their own expression of their own thoughts and feelings. We no longer have slavery in this country...which is essentially what you are describing here. And, if that is how the NFL decides to treat its players, then the player's union should go on strike....it's not right.

If it was decided to play the national anthem every day at work at noon....and if people did not stand, that is their choice and I do not believe that is grounds to fire somebody.

If the NFL players had the "right"... then Goodell wouldn't have had to issue the following statement Wednesday:

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday that "there has been no policy change" regarding players standing for the national anthem before games.

He released that in response to a Trump Tweet saying the NFL had started to discipline players....which was a lie, NO POLICY CHANGE HAD OCCURED.

There is a difference between not standing while remaining quiet as to the why and using that moment to push your agenda. The moment is not yours, it's for those that want to share in it. I promise you, 99% of companies out there would punish an employee or at least ask them not to attend if that employee used that moment to call attention to some protest they were participating in. If he simply sat at his desk, no problem. But they would not let him show up and then kneel.

The NFL is a perfect example why. Favorability down 47%. Now rated the 3rd favorite sport in a poll that used to have them number one above all. Ticket and ratings decline. All in just the last few weeks, not to mention it was already a steep slide last year. So in a regular workplace, it would go over the exact same.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The 1st Amendment was enacted to restrict the government from suppressing free speech, in the public domain... NOT guarantee "free speech" to employees of privately owned corporations... including NFL players... or people who frequent this, or any privately owned website...

The NFL teams are privately owned (except the Packers)... and the players are employees, and subject to the rules of employment their employers give them. The have ZERO rights and can be fired without cause...

Nailed it! Thanks for posting.

[Monker]

Moker, you have "rights" at work. One of them would be freedom of speech, so when you go to work tomorrow, scream the "N" word at the top of your lungs and say you have rights. Let me know how that works out for you. Show me what rights you have at work.

Be reasonable. Doing that almost anywhere would not be acceptable. It's the "screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument.

If I am having a reasonable and decent political conversation with a coworker, I doubt very much that a manager can fire me because I am reasonably stating my political opinion that he disagrees with.

[Monker]

There is a difference between not standing while remaining quiet as to the why and using that moment to push your agenda. The moment is not yours, it's for those that want to share in it. I promise you, 99% of companies out there would punish an employee or at least ask them not to attend if that employee used that moment to call attention to some protest they were participating in. If he simply sat at his desk, no problem. But they would not let him show up and then kneel.

I would like to see this challenged in court then. If I told my manager and any who ask that I am not standing for the national anthem because of how this country has been treating black people...I doubt very much I would be fired. And, if that happens somewhere, I think it should be challenged in court. What if it is a Christian who takes this ritual as worshipping an idol, which Christians are NOT supposed to do according to commandments from God, does not stand? What if a Jew does the same? What if foreign contractors do the same because this is not their country and do not wish to worship our flag?

Forcing people to worship our flag is WRONG. It is what happens in dictatorships. Period.l

The NFL is a perfect example why. Favorability down 47%.

And, that is for management to deal with...but spreading the fire by firing players is not going to help. Like I said, go back to the early 90's when the players were not even on the field while the anthem was playing.

Now rated the 3rd favorite sport in a poll that used to have them number one above all. Ticket and ratings decline. All in just the last few weeks, not to mention it was already a steep slide last year. So in a regular workplace, it would go over the exact same.

And, like I said, the NFL was having falling rating well into last season. This is NOT the only issue at play here. Let's say they tell players to stand or be fired, so they go on strike. Do you think that will help the situation?

This is only an issue because dickhead Trump would rather the nation talk about this then debate his attempt to end Obamacare, or him leading us to war in North Korea, or the Russia investigation, or "Pworto Reeco" (Puerto Rico to the rest of the world). Everything is burning around him so all he knows to do is to start a fire somewhere else and point to that.