charrob
Member

The forced patriotism is what started all of this. I agree with Ron that before 2009 players didn’t even participate in the singing of the national anthem: they were in the locker rooms. That the origination of all this was pentagon money for recruitment; if that never occurred, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. I agree with Ron that this is not a freedom of speech issue and that it’s up to the NFL owners whether they demand their employees to worship a piece of cloth that, to them, represents death by cop for black people. Insisting that employees worship a religious God or a state God is political: if I were made in my job to worship anybody’s state or religious God, I would quickly find another job. I want to focus on my job field at work not some ridiculous religious or state crap. I was interviewed/offered a job in the south many years ago and was flown down there over several days with others as they were hiring numerous people. On one day we all sat in a circle for lunch and the owners of the company stood up and said “let’s bow our heads in prayer” at which time they went into this long prayer. I knew that minute I could not work for them. I am a Christian but on the job I want nothing to do with religious worship or state worship; I want to simply do my job. imho forcing religious or state worship is completely inappropriate for a job that has nothing to do with religion or the state. Can the owners force their employees to worship the state God by forcing them to stand for the anthem? Yes they can. I agree with Ron: there is no free speech rights at work. But then the employees also have the right to pick up and leave to find work where they are simply allowed to play football. I also agree about the globalism agenda of the left and strongly oppose it. But Colin Kaepernick started all this and his statement is clear that for him this is about black people being killed by militarized police:

:)

Yes. While you were writing this post I was adding to mine. Yes I am against quotas and hate-crimes being distinguished from other crimes. I think that is what you are asking now. i had misunderstood your original question.

I guess I don't understand your question. Here was the original post: As far as I know the only thing the KKK marches for is white supremacy. The KKK is discriminated against by leftists who try to repress their freedom of speech. I would support them in an effort to stop this discrimination because I strongly oppose any repression of speech. I was opposed to what the leftists did in Charlottesville; they had a right to counter-protest, but i didn't agree with it because their point was to repress the speech of others. I'm looking at your original sentence again. It can be read 2 ways. If your question is am i against quotas and 'hate' crimes being distinguished from other crimes, yes I am opposed to all that.

I never changed any parameters. I would support people on the issues I agree with them on. Here was my post: I think that would be a perfectly valid statement on a sign. Another possibility: "Libertarians against Police Brutality". By virtue of being Libertarian, others know we don't believe in communism and aren't racist.

I would stand with the ACLU in their support of the KKK and their right to freedom of speech. Would I actually march with them? If I did my sign would say: "I don't agree with the KKK on race, but freedom of speech should never be suppressed and on those grounds, and only those grounds, I stand with them."

Brian even Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams stated in today's Liberty Report that the meaning of this forced patriotism during sports games is completely related to militarism. That was the whole point to today's Liberty Report. Here are excerpts from today's Report:

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Ron Paul separates himself from traditional Republicans on issues of war and civil liberties. He aligns himself on those issues with people he agrees with... Kucinich and Glenn Greenwald respectively because traditional Republicans believe the exact opposite of what he believes on those issues. While economic issues can be fought out over years in congress, the more immediate concern imho is war and police violence because lives are being lost in this country and elsewhere everyday. You actually seem to equate the violence of looting with the violence of murdering a human life. Broken windows can be replaced; over 1000 lives being violently taken per year by out of control cops cannot be replaced. While both are wrong, one is far worse than the other. That you equate the two as if they are somehow equal just makes my head spin.

Not all those in the Black Lives Matter movement, especially the leaders, believe in violence. In fact I would argue those perpetrating violence are the minority not the majority of this movement. Of course the MSM centers completely on those that are violent and plays their violence over and over and over again so that white people will not respect them. There are many individuals in that movement that oppose the violence; I listened to many videos where people who have peacefully protested stated that those caught doing violence were actually from out of state and not from their local communities. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Again: I find the silence of boot-licking whites to be more of a threat than any social justice claims those taking the knee allude to. Everyone knows this movement started and continues mainly because of police brutality. People are still currently protesting in St. Louis Missouri not "for social justice" but because yet another cop got off the hook for murdering a black man that was no threat to him. Your concerns: Blocking traffic is never okay. A driver should not have to stop their vehicle for more than a couple of seconds for these people. Looting is never okay. Anyone who breaks into a store and steals something should back that up with their life. A store owner should not have to tolerate being robbed and have their merchandise destroyed.

You have specifically chosen to ignore Kaepernick's entire statement; instead you sliced off the part of his statement which proves his main concern is about police violence and police brutality not social justice concerns. Here is Kaepernick's entire statement that you alluded to including the part which you sliced off: I disagree. It has already put body cameras on cops in this country. Just imagine how much more could be changed if white people would stand with those who kneel to protest police brutality and cops would see that they are truly on notice.

I think you are taking the cart before the horse. Those issues you state are issues that will take years to wind through congress; during this time if we stand with those who kneel against police brutality we can discuss solutions with them. Choosing to stand with the bootlickers and state worshipers (the way some here have said they would) immediately gives cops the extra incentive to be even more violent. If white people choose to stand with those who kneel and carry signs against police brutality that gives a strong signal to cops to step back and reconsider their violence. Exactly what I've believed since the start of the Black Lives Matter protests. And that would be that white people stand with them against police brutality and carry signs that are against police brutality. And through aligning with them we can show them the statistics that cops are battering white people as much as black people. That it is not a racial problem but instead a problem with out of control cops. A lot of them only see what's going on in their own neighborhoods and are unaware of what the true statistics are.

I'm sorry my answer is the same. I find the silence of boot-licking whites to be more of a threat than any social justice claims those taking the knee allude to. Everyone knows this movement started and continues mainly because of police brutality. People are still currently protesting in St. Louis Missouri not "for social justice" but because yet another cop got off the hook for murdering a black man that was no threat to him. For me, the much greater threat is the boot of government. Change to our tax laws, living wage, etc., would take years to wind itself through our congress. The more immediate threat (at over 1000 lives lost every year from cops in this country and many more maimed for the rest of their lives) imho is the boot of government and the incredible violence cops have perpetrated on the American people.

I don't agree with everything the Democracy Now news hour suggests in their daily programming. However they have had the leaders of Black Lives Matter on their show several times in which these leaders stated that when they say "Black Lives Matter" in regards to police brutality, what they are really saying is "Black Lives Matter too". From their standpoint and view of the criminal justice system, they feel blacks are battered, targeted, and killed by out of control cops and that white people don't care (and side with the cops) because of the color of their skin. They said they believe all lives matter, but that black lives matter too, when it comes to out of control cops. I find the silence of boot-licking whites to be more of a threat than any social justice claims those taking the knee allude to. Everyone knows this movement started and continues mainly because of police brutality. People are still currently protesting in St. Louis Missouri not "for social justice" but because yet another cop got off the hook for murdering a black man that was no threat to him.

Exactly. If I could +rep you I would but the system won't let me.

I would argue: The anthem is extremely partisan; it is the epitome of 'bringing politics into the equation'. It is not tradition for players to participate in the anthem. 1. The anthem is extremely partisan; it is the epitome of 'bringing politics into the equation': Since the mid-1990's we have taken my Dad every year without exception to see professional baseball on Father's Day. Once the U.S. invaded Iraq I could no longer stomach the anthem. And every year since I have excused myself and gone to the bathroom during the anthem and any other patriotic bullshit they force on the fans. I find it heartening to see players and staff stand up to the Orange Clown and everyone else who became so incensed when ‘taking a knee’ began. The US flag does not represent freedom or bravery. Instead it is a symbol of a bellicose and murderous nation so impressed with itself that it claims to be ‘fighting the good fight’ while raining death and destruction around the world. The players are protesting police brutality against blacks. Perhaps if stupid boot licking white people came out in force against police brutality, we could have a united front against it. All you need to do is watch videos of the alt-right in Charlottesville VA. chanting "Blue Lives Matter. Blue Lives matter. Blue Lives matter." as cops marched past them as they were walking to the park that morning. I'm disgusted that white people worship cops. And I'm happy to see that, at least, one group of people in this country have said "Enough!" to this endless police brutality. Their protests have increased body cameras and have started necessary conversations about this issue which would never have occurred with white people. And for that I am thankful. They may believe in other things as well; but the police in this country know the source of their protests relate to them and so they have been put on notice. For that, small an achievement as it is, I am grateful.

So it is optional. Religion and politics are known to be hotly contested subjects; it makes no sense to me to include either one in a work place since it has nothing to do with the skills and the talents of the people that work there nor the mission of the employer. I can understand countries anthems in international sporting events like the Olympics when different countries compete. The inclusion in a local sporting event makes no sense to me. And so I would agree with the NFL employers that something like this should be optional. It will be interesting to see where this goes. imho the best outcome would be to completely separate sports from politics and save the anthem for political rallies and such.

Do NFL employers require this?

Wouldn't that depend on what their contract and rule book says? If their contract with the NFL only involves playing football and says nothing about participating in this patriotic bullshit, then that would mean their participation in the latter would be optional... as it should be.

+1 rep. Totally agree. My question is is standing for the National Anthem actually a condition of their employment? Is it written in their contracts? Thousands of posts all over the internet have angry people saying they can 'protest on their own time' but not on their employer's time. But where in their contracts is it explicitly written that they have to do anything more than play football?

Is the president as ignorant of the world as he displayed in this speech? Wow. Just wow. He speaks of respecting the sovereignty and independence of other nations yet threatens to invade and overthrow the leaders of nations that have not threatened us. Iran has not invaded another country in hundreds of years and they have been completely compliant with the Nuclear deal. Hezbollah is a result of Israel's illegal invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s; they are a political party in Lebanon and even the Christian Lebanon president has stated they work directly with the Lebanese military forces and he is thankful for them. Venezuela, seriously Mr. President? You're going to invade Venezuela next? What happened to "respecting the sovereignty of other nations"? How has Cuba threatened us? More sanctions on yet another country that has not threatened us? What happened to "America First" instead of being the policeman of the world? If you are talking about invading other countries due to their human rights abuses against their own people, how about looking at the U.S. criminal justice system which treats U.S. prisoners the way they are treated in 3rd world banana republics? How about looking at our ""allies"" in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey whose rights abuses against their own populations far exceed Venezuela? Do you blame the North Korean government for clinging onto nuclear weapons after Gaddafi got rid of his weapons & yet was murdered by U.S. backed jihadists? No, Mr. President, there is no proof Assad used sarin gas against his own people, but there's plenty proof the U.S. military used white phosphorus and depleted uranium against the Syrians and Iraqis -- neither of which was any threat to the U.S. at all. What about the U.S. backed genocide against the Yemeni people? A country that has never threatened us, the humanitarian crisis there is larger by far than any country on earth right now due to the U.S. military backed war against the indigenous Houthi's who simply want political representation in a U.S. puppet state. What an arrogant buffoon you are Mr. President.

Thanks!!!

Totally agree with you. It wasn't until about a year before he ran for president that he changed his voting choices. Prior to that he almost always voted with the Democrats no matter how warmongering a senate bill was. My gut tells me he will again run for potus in 2020 and that's why his votes continue to be dovish. He is no Dennis Kucinich who actually is a principled non-interventionist.

Thanks, that's the House bill which still needs to be reconciled with the Senate bill.