You don't even understand patriotism...

[fmw]

How do you respect a symbol of freedom by denying freedom itself?

That is the basic question behind the entire NFL / National anthem idiocy.

We have people who are insisting others be stripped of their right as Citizens to decent and to protest the actions of government because it is disrespectful of a symbol of that right.

I have supported some of the positions of Trump, but this one shows he does not have the slightest understanding of the relationship between government and the Citizens, and brings into question his fitness to hold office.

The fact is that the propaganda that we are subjected to during sporting events has no place in that venue to begin with. It is only there to allow government to claim some sort of legitimacy in its actions despite the fact that much of the public vehemently opposes much of the governments policies.

The real fear is that the rest of the world will see that the American people do not support the policies of government and the government will no longer be able to claim the legitimacy they lost long ago.

The issue we are faced with at present though, is what is it in America that we truly value? Is it the symbols like the anthem, and the flag that are most important? Or is it the actual freedoms those symbols represent and that we suppress on a daily basis?

It seems like we have our priorities badly confused.

It sounds like you do. Nobody questions the players's right to protest. They just don't like them using the national anthem as a platform for doing it. Why is that so difficult for left leaning partisans to understand. The first amendment doesn't even apply to the NFL since it isn't government.

 

[jdog]

If it's part of your job to partake in a political show for 30 seconds... you do that job... or, you don't and get fired for it. It is YOUR choice. You won't be punished for it, other than you don't get to work for the place you don't want to do all the guidelines.

Let's say I put in a offer on craigslist to hire someone to pledge the allegence for 8 hours every day.... for 30 dollars an hour... and someone takes up on that job offer....

then they decide to not pledge the allegiance... they are not doing the job, and will be fired...but according your your logic, I cannot fire the person at all!!!! I also can't fire a person for telling my customers that they disagree with their political opinions. As an employer, you can deem what is appropriate for your employee while on the job. It is in the nfl contract to pledge the allegiance during the anthem.

Stupid statement. Show where in any NFL players contract it is stipulated that they must do anything other than be on the sidelines during the National Anthem.

 

[jdog]

Or when the land of freedom has more incarcerated citizens than any other nation. Yet these patriots are throwing fits about a symbol but don't ask why we have a for profit prison industry.

I want one of these idiots to explain how the hell you respect a symbol of freedom by denying the freedom itself.

 

[jdog]

Do employeers have to rights to fire people because of what they do with their freedoms?
Let me ask that another way, do employeers have the right to fire people for bad publicity and hurting their product?
The answer here is yes. So every team owner is within their right to kick these guys off their team. If they so choose to. And everyone else is with in their rights to protest and chant to push the teams owners to do such a thing.

The answer is no. The SCOUS has already determined that to deny someone's rights in the workplace is a crime punishable by law.
To force someone to conform to any religion or politics as a condition of employment is completely and absolutely illegal, not to mention immoral, but the immoral part does not "bother" you.

 

[jdog]

Considering that you claimed the ****ing KKK was a self defense force, you have literally zero crediblity on this or any other subject.

Your statement is a logical fallacy and therefore a blatant lie, and therefore it is you who have no credibility. But then we already know that...

 

[jdog]

I think polarization in politics has divided this country more today than at anytime in the past I have been alive. Perhaps since the civil war. It has become the old divide and conquer strategy for both parties. Politics, elections used to be about ideas, visions, solutions, today it has become mostly personal attacks against each other. The idea is to get the voter to hate the other guy more than they hate you. This constant painting your political opponents as evil finally has the results of people actually believing that one party or the other, president, elected official actually are evil. That the other party is out to destroy America.

As for buying these commercials during football, baseball games and other sporting events by the government, that has been going on for quite a long time. With the beginning of the all volunteer military, running government paid for, sponsored recruiting ads became normal. Patriotic ads has been run on TV every so often as far back as I can remember, on the radio before that and in movie theaters before the invention of TV. That in itself is nothing new.

There was a mild whoopie do when it was discovered a couple of years back that the government was paying certain baseball teams to honor soldiers before the game who returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. That was a two or three day story and then disappeared. I think that was stopped once it became public. But there is nothing new here.

Purchasing advertisement for the military is unethical in itself, but to pay celebrities to act out false shows of patriotism and support for controversial subjects like support for a military that is engaged in forcing the Citizens literally at gunpoint to pay taxes to support wars of mass murder for profit is completely criminal.

 

[jdog]

Only a small group actually endorse the players being fired. Like some here, he likes hyperbole, but words matter so I disagree with him on this and other comments he spews without thought.

I understand his "madman" technique, and have no problem with its use when he is putting the interests of the United States ahead of other countries, but to use this technique against American citizens is to commit a crime against the people he was hired to serve, and that is traitorous.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your statement is a logical fallacy and therefore a blatant lie, and therefore it is you who have no credibility. But then we already know that...

Nope, not a "blatant lie" in the slightest. When an individual proves themselves to be as historically ignorant as you have, you lose all credibility.

Go back to fantasizing about how the north "encouraged former slaves to kill whites".

 

[jdog]

It sounds like you do. Nobody questions the players's right to protest. They just don't like them using the national anthem as a platform for doing it. Why is that so difficult for left leaning partisans to understand. The first amendment doesn't even apply to the NFL since it isn't government.

Why don't you try answering the first question I asked? How do you respect the symbol of freedom by denying the freedom itself?

You may not like the players exercising their rights, but your act of attempting to deny them is not respect for the symbols, it is simply proving that the symbols are false and that the rights it represents really do not exist at all.

The first and foremost freedom any of us have is the freedom and the right to life itself, and that is what is being denied to people who are shot down by police who are then not even held responsible for their actions. When you watch a men being shot in the back by police time and time again and the court system refuses to do anything to dissuade these murders, how can you respect the symbols of rights and freedoms? Like I keep saying the symbols of freedom and rights are not important, what is important is that our government protect those rights and freedoms as they have been entrusted to do.

 

[FastPace]

The answer is no. The SCOUS has already determined that to deny someone's rights in the workplace is a crime punishable by law.
To force someone to conform to any religion or politics as a condition of employment is completely and absolutely illegal, not to mention immoral, but the immoral part does not "bother" you.

Back on page 4 I think you and Fenton where alluding to the modern day work force being slavery, or that is to say the upper-class or at minimum employers want to own everyone beneath them as property. Maggie then disagreed with you two.

There are a couple or few things here--and as they also relate to your post above.

Okay...

#1. In Kensyian (spelling?) economics, slavery would be understood as a condition in which, a person's labor is not only owned by another but that person's body, person, is owned by another. Whereas in that same modern thought of economics, a free person is not owned by another but their labor is owned by their employer if they are employed by another.

Most Americans work for someone else rather than being self employed, so, most Americans negotiate a price for their labor and sell it to their employer. In such a case when one is so called "on the job" they are no longer "free" to act and behave or dress as they please. Not usually anyways. Some have to wear uniforms as a requirement of their employment, say like uniformed police officers, soldiers in the US Army, NBA and NFL players, or waitresses at many restaurants.

In some professions--like working as a cop, FBI agent, or US Marine--even when "off duty" you are contractually required to not behave or dress in certain ways. I got a disciplinary Page 11 (I never got the more severe Office Hours, which I either General Gray or Chesty Puller said was a requirement to becoming a "real Marine"), only one ever in my Service Record Book, when I was in the Marines for having an earring in my ear off base while off duty. It came about in relation to some MP's pulling me over on base grounds for drunk driving. My command did not give a damn about the drunk driving :lol: but they did about the earring. All of which evidences I was thought well of in the Marines otherwise they would have crucified me.


#2. The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled that employers can not require a code of conduct by employees, while on the job, that reflects congruently with the company or organizations policies. So, for example, just because one has per Freedom of Speech the right to hang up a Confederate Flag in the window of their home, that does not mean if they are employed by the NAACP that that organization can not terminate their employment with the NAACP if said employ pins up the Confederate Flag in their office at the NAACP.


#3. Prior to this whole controversy why is it that Americans both liberal and conservative rarely had a problem with the NFL penalizing NFL players for their conduct out in town on their own time while not "on duty"?

Catholics and Orthodox have the cult of the saints. So, I don't look to professional sports players to be "role models" of saintly behavior, but apparently hundreds of millions of Protestant and secular Americans do. But Americans seem to think NFL and professional sports celebrities need to be fired from their jobs for "off duty" behavior they find objectionable (e.g., getting caught with marijuana and a pistol in their car while intoxicated and operating their personal vehicle), because they are "held to a higher standard" than Joe Blow Plumber. Yet, some of those same people think when those NFL players are suited and "on the clock" that they ought to not be subject to scrutiny or potential firing for their conduct.

 

[jdog21]

The answer is no. The SCOUS has already determined that to deny someone's rights in the workplace is a crime punishable by law.
To force someone to conform to any religion or politics as a condition of employment is completely and absolutely illegal, not to mention immoral, but the immoral part does not "bother" you.

Your wrong cuz there are dozen of examples every year of people being fired for protesting something outside of work. Or having an opinion thats different then your work place. Look at the people who were fired that where attending that chartletsville or that guy who was fired from google for his memo or how about the countless people who get fired for what they say on facebook. I dont like these types of firings either but it is the employers right to protect itself from harm from bad publicity due to individuals public actions.

 

[Chillfolks]

Is Jdog and Jdog21 the same person arguing with themselves or two suspiciously similar screen names owned by separate people?

 

[fmw]

Why don't you try answering the first question I asked? How do you respect the symbol of freedom by denying the freedom itself?

You may not like the players exercising their rights, but your act of attempting to deny them is not respect for the symbols, it is simply proving that the symbols are false and that the rights it represents really do not exist at all.

The first and foremost freedom any of us have is the freedom and the right to life itself, and that is what is being denied to people who are shot down by police who are then not even held responsible for their actions. When you watch a men being shot in the back by police time and time again and the court system refuses to do anything to dissuade these murders, how can you respect the symbols of rights and freedoms? Like I keep saying the symbols of freedom and rights are not important, what is important is that our government protect those rights and freedoms as they have been entrusted to do.

I haven't denied any freedoms. Read carefully. I have criticized the venue at which that freedom was exercised. Clear now?

 

[fmw]

I understand his "madman" technique, and have no problem with its use when he is putting the interests of the United States ahead of other countries, but to use this technique against American citizens is to commit a crime against the people he was hired to serve, and that is traitorous.

Spare me the hyperbole. Traitorous? Give me a break. If your statement was that Trump shouldn't have used that language I would have agreed completely.

 

[jdog]

Back on page 4 I think you and Fenton where alluding to the modern day work force being slavery, or that is to say the upper-class or at minimum employers want to own everyone beneath them as property. Maggie then disagreed with you two.

There are a couple or few things here--and as they also relate to your post above.

Okay...

#1. In Kensyian (spelling?) economics, slavery would be understood as a condition in which, a person's labor is not only owned by another but that person's body, person, is owned by another. Whereas in that same modern thought of economics, a free person is not owned by another but their labor is owned by their employer if they are employed by another.

Most Americans work for someone else rather than being self employed, so, most Americans negotiate a price for their labor and sell it to their employer. In such a case when one is so called "on the job" they are no longer "free" to act and behave or dress as they please. Not usually anyways. Some have to wear uniforms as a requirement of their employment, say like uniformed police officers, soldiers in the US Army, NBA and NFL players, or waitresses at many restaurants.

In some professions--like working as a cop, FBI agent, or US Marine--even when "off duty" you are contractually required to not behave or dress in certain ways. I got a disciplinary Page 11 (I never got the more severe Office Hours, which I either General Gray or Chesty Puller said was a requirement to becoming a "real Marine"), only one ever in my Service Record Book, when I was in the Marines for having an earring in my ear off base while off duty. It came about in relation to some MP's pulling me over on base grounds for drunk driving. My command did not give a damn about the drunk driving :lol: but they did about the earring. All of which evidences I was thought well of in the Marines otherwise they would have crucified me. .

First, when you enlist in the Military, you relinquish your rights as an American Citizen and indenture yourself to the US Government.
You are theirs to do with what they want.
Secondly when I speak of our system being one of slavery, it is not the employers who enslave their employees, it is the government by way of the Federal Reserve, and the Income Tax act.

In order for the government to claim they have the right to a percentage of the fruit of your labor, they must claim that they own your person. It is only legal to claim the fruit of a mans labor when you actually own the person to begin with. It is theft and robbery to take money from someone by force if you have no legal claim on it, or if they are truly a free person.

This is why there was no Income Tax prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The formation of the Federal Reserve was the event that instituted slavery and began the dissolution of the Constitution and the rights the Citizens once claimed.
Today there is no denying that almost nothing remains of the rights and freedoms the American Citizens once enjoyed.

#2.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled that employers can not require a code of conduct by employees, while on the job, that reflects congruently with the company or organizations policies. So, for example, just because one has per Freedom of Speech the right to hang up a Confederate Flag in the window of their home, that does not mean if they are employed by the NAACP that that organization can not terminate their employment with the NAACP if said employ pins up the Confederate Flag in their office at the NAACP

.

We are not talking about a code of conduct, we are talking about forcing people to engage in a political activity against their will.
The pledge and the National Anthem at sporting events is a government scheme often paid for to create the appearance of solidarity of the Citizens with the policies of government. It is a eerily reminiscent to the forced patriotism of the Soviet Union or North Korea.



#3.

Prior to this whole controversy why is it that Americans both liberal and conservative rarely had a problem with the NFL penalizing NFL players for their conduct out in town on their own time while not "on duty"?

Catholics and Orthodox have the cult of the saints. So, I don't look to professional sports players to be "role models" of saintly behavior,

Penalizing players for criminal acts of which they have been convicted is very different than forcing them to put on a show of solidarity with a government which is committing crimes against its Citizens and peoples throughout the world.
When you become a supporter of authoritarianism, it does not matter which flag or symbol you wrap that authoritarianism in, it is still the same suppression of the rights of the people and it is still everything this country used to oppose....

 

[jdog]

Is Jdog and Jdog21 the same person arguing with themselves or two suspiciously similar screen names owned by separate people?

We are not the same person, he has simply stolen my screen name in hopes of confusing people. You do not find people of the highest ethical level in these forums.....

 

[iguanaman]

The constitutional right does not protect you from being fired, fined suspended, etc. for protesting at your job. So no one rights are being violated. Also the NBA forces all players to stand during the anthem and no one is claiming that they are denying rights to their players.

But the Constitution protects us from the Govt. infringing on our right to protest. Trump is the Govt. and he has failed on his oath to protect the Constitution. The fact that you do not understand this is quite troubling and indicates that you have also failed in your duties as an American. It is up to every citizen to protect our rights or we will lose them.

 

[Crovax]

But the Constitution protects us from the Govt. infringing on our right to protest. Trump is the Govt. and he has failed on his oath to protect the Constitution. The fact that you do not understand this is quite troubling and indicates that you have failed in your duties as an American.

How exactly has the govt infringed on anyone's right to protest?

 

[iguanaman]

How exactly has the govt infringed on anyone's right to protest?

So Trump has not called for players to be fired?

 

[Crovax]

So Trump has not called for players to be fired?

That's not infringement. The constitution only protects from criminal and civil penalties it's doesn't protect you from tweets

 

[iguanaman]

That's not infringement. The constitution only protects from criminal and civil penalties it's doesn't protect you from tweets

That does not change the fact that the POTUS is advocating infringement of the players right to protest. Your rights may be next.

 

[Crovax]

That does not change the fact that the POTUS is advocating infringement of the players right to protest. Your rights may be next.

Again it's not infringement, if the owners wanted to fire someone for a protest they can regardless if the president tweets it or not.

 

[iguanaman]

Again it's not infringement, if the owners wanted to fire someone for a protest they can regardless if the president tweets it or not.

The owners support the players rights. It is the Govt. that is advocating infringement and your rights may be next. Maybe you don't deserve them.

 

[yankintx]

Yes they are. Antifa, Berkley, and such want laws restricting speech or actions they disagree with. Just go back a few weeks on here and look at the confederate monument debate. You will see many on the left supporting restricting citizens rights to protest the actions of government.

It happens just as much on the Right, you have the Liar in Chief making something out of nothing. Why? Perhaps to deflect from his terrible 8 months in office.

 

[Cable]

That does not change the fact that the POTUS is advocating infringement of the players right to protest. Your rights may be next.

Trump has the right to say or tweet his own opinions. He's using his platform to some degree to give them more weight. Kind of like the NFL players...
Same thing....