The Thread Where People Argue About Kneeling in the NFL (merged)

[LSU-SIU]

If the govt does it in response to the exercise of free speech, you've got issues.

Well, for one I have no issue, nor does the government, if that was to come into reality. Not sure what you are trying to say but free speech doesn't guarantee free hand outs -- matter of fact, if one is sucking off the public the best policy is to STFU. (common sense observation)

You are not making sense that I can figure out. A person has a right to freedom of speech, they also generally have right to receive the consequences of their speech.

 

[n_huffhines]

If anyone agrees with this type of crap, just say it now so we can get it all in the open:

Mike Ditka: There has been no oppression in U.S. in last 100 years

What in the ****?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Michael Wilbon compares Jerry Jones to a slave owner - Washington Times

“And the word that comes to my mind―and I don’t care who doesn’t like me using it―is plantation,” Mr. Wilbon said on Monday’s show. “The players are here to serve me, and they will do what I want. No matter how much I pay them, they are not equal to me. That’s what this says to me and mine.”

lol: The gift that keeps giving. I don't even know who these ESPN people are. lol:

 

[volbeast33]

If anyone agrees with this type of crap, just say it now so we can get it all in the open:

Mike Ditka: There has been no oppression in U.S. in last 100 years

I 100% disagree with him but feel the issues today is overblown and we are trying to fix them the wrong way.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Well, for one I have no issue, nor does the government, if that was to come into reality. Not sure what you are trying to say but free speech doesn't guarantee free hand outs -- matter of fact, if one is sucking off the public the best policy is to STFU. (common sense observation)

You are not making sense that I can figure out. A person has a right to freedom of speech, they also generally have right to receive the consequences of their speech.

One has the right to free speech. However, the public can and frequently does have a response for free speech. The government, however, cannot restrict free speech by punishing someone that exercises their free speech rights. If the government, at the behest of Trump, seeks to punish the NFL by removing tax breaks or other actions in retribution, then that would be prohibited behavior. Do you understand yet?

 

[jp1]

If anyone agrees with this type of crap, just say it now so we can get it all in the open:

Mike Ditka: There has been no oppression in U.S. in last 100 years

I would love to hear your comments to what Michael Wilbon said.

To your quote...Ditka has taken too many hits to the head.

 

[Jxn Vol]

So are you pretending to be a gunslinger with TB or a lawman that runs around on his dope head wife. Or you may just be a nerd that resorts to living vicariously through old movie clips. Oh well take a knee you’ve been working too hard.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

So are you pretending to be a gunslinger with TB or a lawman that runs around on his dope head wife. Or you may just be a nerd that resorts to living vicariously through old movie clips. Oh well take a knee you’ve been working too hard.

Is that all you got son? You've been slapped around enough for one afternoon. Regroup and come at me when you have a point.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The government, however, cannot restrict free speech by punishing someone that exercises their free speech rights. If the government, at the behest of Trump, seeks to punish the NFL by removing tax breaks or other actions in retribution, then that would be prohibited behavior. Do you understand yet?

Withdrawing funding is not a punishment its a consequence -- the players are allowed to do whatever their masters the owner allow them to or on what they agree to. Punishment would be, if the government locked all the players up in prison, there is no right to funding, nor special benefits that is a privilege.

You really can't be this dumb? Please tell me you are joking. Literally you have no idea what you are even talking about - zero idea.

Tell you what, you contact the NFL and NFLPA and you tell them to file suit to get a declarative judgment on this -- the court will literally laugh them out of the court.

Tell you what, go buy and sell stock on insider trade secrets and see what the SEC thinks of you foolish free speech talk when you admit to it -- you can then type from your prison cell to me explaining they got it all wrong. Nobody has a right to free stuff and many times there is consequences for free speech, as of right now in this instance the consequences are less viewers, piss off fans, less revenue, and unhappy sponsors.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Withdrawing funding is not a punishment its a consequence -- the players are allowed to do whatever their masters the owner allow them to or on what they agree to. Punishment would be, if the government locked all the players up in prison, there is no right to funding, nor special benefits that is privilege.

You really can't be this dumb? Please tell me you are joking.

Tell you what, you contact the NFL and NFLPA and you tell them to file suit to get a declarative judgment on this -- the court will literally laugh them out of the court.

Tell you what, go buy and sell stock on insider trade secrets and see what the SEC thinks of you foolish free speech talk.

You are showing your ignorance. Get out of my pond.

Your post is so full of errors it would quite literally take me all afternoon to correct. For someone that claims he has not posited any arguments, you sure have stepped in it with this post. Perhaps you should return to your "observations."

 

[LSU-SIU]

You are showing your ignorance. Get out of my pond.

Your post is so full of errors it would quite literally take me all afternoon to correct. For someone that claims he has not posited any arguments, you sure have stepped in it with this post. Perhaps you should return to your "observations."

You're an idiot, you think the government can't stop tax exemption and anti-trust exemption, matter of fact, all Congress has to do is change it. lol:

What recourse would there be? How would they sue and for what relief? So, let me get this right, Congress removes the anti-trust exemption, who is the NFL going to sue?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Withdrawing funding is not a punishment its a consequence -- the players are allowed to do whatever their masters the owner allow them to or on what they agree to. Punishment would be, if the government locked all the players up in prison, there is no right to funding, nor special benefits that is a privilege.

You really can't be this dumb? Please tell me you are joking. Literally you have no idea what you are even talking about - zero idea.

Tell you what, you contact the NFL and NFLPA and you tell them to file suit to get a declarative judgment on this -- the court will literally laugh them out of the court.

Tell you what, go buy and sell stock on insider trade secrets and see what the SEC thinks of you foolish free speech talk when you admit to it -- you can then type from your prison cell to me explaining they got it all wrong. Nobody has a right to free stuff and many times there is consequences for free speech, as of right now in this instance the consequences are less viewers, piss off fans, less revenue, and unhappy sponsors.

In all seriousness...
If you would like to discuss the 1A, please let me know. If you want to learn why you sound foolish, you can either listen or try to continue on with the incoherent ramblings, above. You can ask questions and I will answer. It's up to you, but right now it's clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[LSU-SIU]

In all seriousness...
If you would like to discuss the 1A, please let me know. If you want to learn why you sound foolish, you can either listen or try to continue on with the incoherent ramblings, above. You can ask questions and I will answer. It's up to you, but right now it's clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

There is nothing to ask you, you have no idea what you are talking about now you are trying to get out of your idiot speech by deflecting. You should consider joining the NFLPA, you would fit right in.

Very simple, Congress removes the anti-trust exemption, who exactly is the NFL going to sue and under what authority?

Biting the hand the feeds you welfare seems fairly foolish to me, but if you think the NFL/NFLPA have recourse in such an event -- you actually couldn't join them in Tic Tac Toe.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Is that all you got son? You've been slapped around enough for one afternoon. Regroup and come at me when you have a point.

Slapped around. Come at you. Flex it out big boy.

You sound like a goober.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You're an idiot, you think the government can't stop tax exemption and anti-trust exemption, matter of fact, all Congress has to do is change it. lol:

What recourse would there be? How would they sue and for what relief? So, let me get this right, Congress removes the anti-trust exemption, who is the NFL going to sue?

If it is done in response to espousing a view that the government finds objectionable?

Do you realize that municipalities have been sued and lost because they refuse to grant a zoning exception because of issues with free speech? A zoning exception...

Have you ever heard of an action to declare a law unconstitutional?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Slapped around. Come at you. Flex it out big boy.

You sound like a goober.

What are all the periods about? I can't make sense of your first 3 sentences.

 

[LSU-SIU]

If it is done in response to espousing a view that the government finds objectionable?

Do you realize that municipalities have been sued and lost because they refuse to grant a zoning exception because of issues with free speech? A zoning exception...

Have you ever heard of an action to declare a law unconstitutional?

So, now you are saying the Anti-Trust Act is unconstitutional? That is a completely different argument, you might want to contact Microsoft, they could have used your help. lol: Who would have thought that you know more than all of Microsoft's attorneys.

You don't even understand what the difference is between what you initially claimed and now saying the whole statute is unconstitutional. They have actually received a benefit for not being under the Act, the Act is completely constitutional.

So, who they are going to sue again? Congress is a political body, the Executive branch carries out the statute as written, if Congress remove the anti-trust act exemption -- there is NO RECOURSE. Statutes can be declared unconstitutional, but there is nothing unconstitutional about the Act, generally. All Congress would be doing is removing the exemption and then they are playing on the same ball field as most corporations.

Congress can remove the whole exemption portion if they wanted to.

Your example of property is not on point, meaning someone (the executive branch/local boards) are not enforcing the existing statute correctly, the reason why they are not is they want payback. In this instance, it is fully within the powers of Congress to remove the exemption or even better yet, remove that whole portion of the Act. They are not being punished, meaning treated differently than others - they are the ones that are receiving benefits others don't presently.

Who are they going to sue? Congress? Haha. Congress doesn't need anyone permission to remove the exemption. If the statute is unconstitutional, that is a different argument -- right now, generally the NFL is even subject to it.

 

[Jxn Vol]

What are all the periods about? I can't make sense of your first 3 sentences.

You.
Are.
A goober.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

So, now you are saying the Anti-Trust Act is unconstitutional? That is a completely different argument, you might want to contact Microsoft, they could have used your help. lol: Who would have thought that you know more than all of Microsoft's attorneys.

You don't even understand what the difference is between what you initially claimed and now saying the whole statute is unconstitutional. They have actually received a benefit for not being under the Act, the Act is completely constitutional.

So, who they are going to sue again? Congress is a political body, the Executive branch carries out the statute as written, if Congress remove the anti-trust act exemption -- there is NO RECOURSE. Statutes can be declared unconstitutional, but there is nothing unconstitutional about the Act, generally. All Congress would be doing is removing the exemption and then they are playing on the same ball field as most corporations.

Congress can remove the whole exemption portion if they wanted to.

If Congress removes protections, be tax or anti-trust, that had previously been provided in response to this speech issue that will likely be found to be an unconstitutional attempt to regulate speech. That would be unconstitutional. I have never said that the act was unconstitutional. Hell, I've never even considered the possibility.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You.
Are.
A goober.

That is cute. It's been awhile since I've heard anyone use the word goober. I think it's rad.

 

[LSU-SIU]

If Congress removes protections, be tax or anti-trust, that had previously been provided in response to this speech issue that will likely be found to be an unconstitutional attempt to regulate speech. That would be unconstitutional. I have never said that the act was unconstitutional. Hell, I've never even considered the possibility.

Who are they going to sue? I would love to know who they are going to serve this on -- Congress. LOL

I am trying to simply this for you.

Your point on property was an enforcement problem - meaning an executive branch or sub-division was unconstitutional enforcing a statute. So, the statute is constitutional but the enforcement isn't. In this instance, the acts of Congress could be enforced as they simple removed the exemption -- that is why Congress is considered a political body.

What the court is going to do is dismiss the complaint under dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Let's discuss the tax protections. By removing the protections in response to the speech issue they have damaged the NFL. The NFL would then seek declarative and injunctive relief because the amended law is unconstitutional as applied to them. The argument would be essentially that the tax protection was removed to punish the NFL for voicing an opinion that the government disagreed with.


It is far different than simply changing the tax code to simplify it. It is far different than simply removing the anti-trust exemption. It was a specific action done to punish for a speech issue.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Let's discuss the tax protections. By removing the protections in response to the speech issue they have damaged the NFL. The NFL would then seek declarative and injunctive relief because the amended law is unconstitutional as applied to them. The argument would be essentially that the tax protection was removed to punish the NFL for voicing an opinion that the government disagreed with.


It is far different than simply changing the tax code to simplify it. It is far different than simply removing the anti-trust exemption. It was a specific action done to punish for a speech issue.

If its an act of Congress its not reviewable, the statute can be as to whether its constitutional but that is pretty much the end of it. Congress is a political body, they give favors and benefits to some while taking more from others.

Your point on property issues could be a problem, but that is enforcement I would say -- so some part of the executive branch is unconstitutionally enforcing a otherwise constitutional act. That is not what is happening here.

The courts can't tell Congress what to do, they can void a statute or even parts of one, but they really have no say so as to what Congress does other than that -- political favors are given and with them there is a loser somewhere else.

Generally, the Courts judicial review the situation i.e. facts they may review the statute as to whether its constitutional -- but if Congress wants to screw A and give a benefit to B, well good luck with that.

I'm sure every other large corporation would love the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

If the statute is being unconstitutional enforced than that could be a problem -- but why would they need to do that if they can re-write it, add taxes, or remove exemptions?

A person or entity can contest whether the statute is constitutional or the enforcement is, if you believe the statute is already constitutional -- I fail to see where remedy would exist, if the executive branch was enforcing in an unconstitutional manner than that can be challenge but the NFL would not exist in its present form without the exemption so its moot -- all those contracts would have to go the way of the dinosaur.

Congress is a political body of the U.S. government, with that they give benefits to some and take from others -- ask Elon Musk. He has benefited just as the NFL has -- political favors to billionaires. The NFL shouldn't be crying if this ever comes to be -- I suspect it won't anytime soon, but nobody thought the Orange man would win last year either.

 

[n_huffhines]

Let's discuss the tax protections. By removing the protections in response to the speech issue they have damaged the NFL. The NFL would then seek declarative and injunctive relief because the amended law is unconstitutional as applied to them. The argument would be essentially that the tax protection was removed to punish the NFL for voicing an opinion that the government disagreed with.

It is far different than simply changing the tax code to simplify it. It is far different than simply removing the anti-trust exemption. It was a specific action done to punish for a speech issue.

He's been dumbing down this thread for 2 weeks. He's not worth it. He claims to not care much about the issue but he's completely obsessed with it. Plot twist, he also thinks authoritarian law enforcement is a huge problem in America.

 

[LSU-SIU]

He's been dumbing down this thread for 2 weeks. He's not worth it. He claims to not care much about the issue but he's completely obsessed with it. Plot twist, he also thinks authoritarian law enforcement is a huge problem in America.

No, you are just dumb and can't read - literally I have said probably a dozen times I do care - about their welfare program, I also get enjoyment out of this i.e. entertainment.

As far as the players or the owners, no, can't say I care about them.