Schaaf
Well-known member
Charles, you left off the end of that quote. “Out. He’s fired. He’s fired!”
Last edited:
Stand for the Anthem
- Thread starter mtmuley
- Start date
Tradewind
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,174
Exactly why I refrained from reading the thread (til I got bored). It won' change anything. But it is interesting to see where everyone stands on the issue.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I agree that name calling and yelling rarely solve anything, but I do believe intelligent discussions (as this one has largely been) that result in a number of different view points being shared, do begin to move a discussion/thinking forward. In any one day/week/month/year little changes, but over several years or longer there has been an amazing amount of social/legal/political change/progress. And it starts with hearing thoughtful perspectives that are new to us or to which we initially disagree but continue to hear.
Tradewind
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,174
What has come of it, is the anomaly of Fin's forum that teaches - or at least enforces - a reasonable degree of civility not found on any other forum.
Up yours
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
What has come of it, is the anomaly of Fin's forum that teaches - or at least enforces - a reasonable degree of civility not found on any other forum.
Up yours
Agreed -- and 'yo momma back at ya.
Justin, I had no intent to leave anything off... It is what was quoted within the article from, The Hill (linked below) Why it was not included... I do not know though it was not intentional on my part to omit.
I do not see a change taking into account what you omitted related to the quoted portion, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners...." He is not directing an NFL player to be fired.
Edit - to share the quoted portion: What is most amazing... I heard only pride for the flag and disdain for Kaepernick's actions by my liberal friends back mid 2016 - however the dynamics changed when Trump made his comment.
[video=youtube_share;GhPWVFHqm7s]https://youtu.be/GhPWVFHqm7s[/video]
Last edited:
Schaaf
Well-known member
The dynamics changed because POTUS is continually using this issue to divide the American people and energize his base. Mike Pence’s trip to Indianapolis last year was no different.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Yup - that why I continued with that example.
No good binding SCOTUS answer to this. For many years folks have just acted as if "congress" means "government" without much commentary, but recently some academics have been poking around this question. I think the reason that this has remained a dormant issue for 200+ years is likely because most scenarios that lead to 1st amendment concerns related to the executive branch come from the executive branch executing on congressional laws, which themselves are clearly constrained by the 1st amendment.
Generally the current legal view is that technically 1st amend does not apply to POTUS, but doesn't really matter because POTUS has very limited defined powers. As mentioned before, most of what the POTUS and executive branch do is to act upon congressional laws, which, since congress cannot abridge free speech they can not authorize the president to abridge free speech via statute. The three other big POTUS constitutional roles are commander in chief, where courts have given POTUS great deference for decades, including the ability to limit free speech that creates military risk; appointment power, which typically doesn't have a big 1st amendment angle; and treaty powers, but since those require congressional consent they would fall back to the congressional limitation to constrain those.
greatwhitebuffalo
Active member
This issue was final reason for me to stop watching the NFL.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
That's your choice, but I would guess every company you buy a product from that has more than 500 employees has at least a few who have now refused to stand at their local event too, you just don't know about it. So your boycotting has about as much effect as their kneeling - you both have the right to do so, but in my view neither are very effective tools.
greatwhitebuffalo
Active member
Thanks for reminding me that this was my choice.
What were the others? mtmuley
greatwhitebuffalo
Active member
Lawsuits/fines, conduct of the players, other rules, and a lot of other BS; like the bickering on this thread.
It is the reason I am now a Jerry Jones, Cowboy fan. Up until this point I referred to them as the Cowgirls in the usual rowdy friendly "The League" type fun banter... Now? Jones long time vocal pride in America and support of our law enforcement mothers and fathers, sisters and sons who choose to place boots between our law abiding citizens and the evil that lurks... I am now a Cowboys fan. Prior I'd been a 49er fan... yep. Montana, Rice - Young, Taylor & Rice - Smith & Gore... etc.
Meh, good discussion. Least the portion that did not resort to personal attacks.
Hmmmm…. mtmuley
T
tjones
Guest
Jerry Jones-the voice of reason. Who would have thunk.
rollseyes
rollseyes
Honestly, I don't give 2 chits about what the NFL players do during the anthem. I don't particularly like it but it won't stop me from watching a game if I want to. While I know many players do things and have foundations that do try and give back to their communities I look at kneeling as nothing more then a publicity stunt as was the President's speech and the VP's little theater show. It's all BS now.
I have no doubt racial profiling exists and there are serious issues between blacks and the PD in many communities. Nfl players could do something more effective as could the President. Now it's just another issue to identify what tribe you're in.
I have no doubt racial profiling exists and there are serious issues between blacks and the PD in many communities. Nfl players could do something more effective as could the President. Now it's just another issue to identify what tribe you're in.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
+1.
Colorado kid
Member
