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

#2,852
#2,852
volinbham said:
Punishing them into silence? Any of them have more outlets to express themselves than any non-athlete would ever have. Even the Commish offered any number of different ways to address the issues important to these players. One owner has offered to match dollar for dollar any cause a specific player on the team has.

I think the whole thing is silly and your post is one more in the silly pile. No one is being silenced in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

And remember, Trump’s approach included none of what the commissioner said; just, “Get that son of a ***** off the field” so the other players will shut up.
 
#2,854
#2,854
NashVol11 said:
“You’re getting cut if you kneel” absolutely is punishment.
Click to expand...

They aren't being made silent - they can speak all they like, they can support any cause they like, they can take any action they like.

Haven't heard about people being cut either - just benched.

Sheesh talk about over reaction

I guess Jemele Hill was "punished into silence" along with Kurt Schilling and every other schlub who made some commentary in a specific way, in a specific forum and faced consequences from their employer. Funny thing is none of them were made silent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,855
#2,855
volinbham said:
They aren't being made silent - they can speak all they like, they can support any cause they like, they can take any action they like.

Haven't heard about people being cut either - just benched.

Sheesh talk about over reaction

I guess Jemele Hill was "punished into silence" along with Kurt Schilling and every other schlub who made some commentary in a specific way, in a specific forum and faced consequences from their employer. Funny thing is none of them were made silent.
Click to expand...

Jesus, yes, no one is cutting their tongues out and never allowing them to speak again. Thanks for making that very useful point.

If a group makes a statement using one particular form of expression, and your only response is to ban that particular form of expression rather than acknowledge their concerns, the voices will only grow louder. Telling them to fall in line isn’t going to make everything stop.
 
#2,856
#2,856
ClearwaterVol said:
Absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...
So says the person that didn't know that the government can and does regulate speech. Jesus at least most dumb people know when to shutup.
Access Denied

The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.
Click to expand...

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
Click to expand...
 
#2,861
#2,861
volfannbama said:
Apparently there is specific langauge about how they are supposed to stand during the NA.
Click to expand...

I think some are staying the language make it appear that its optional which they league may have a problem enforcing. idk

Labor union files complaint against Cowboys owner Jerry Jones over anthem ultimatum | NFL | Sporting News

The gift that keeps giving.

An article back a few weeks saying people can get fired for just about anything.
Fire NFL Players for Protesting? Union Deals Make That Unlikely - Bloomberg
 
#2,862
#2,862
ClearwaterVol said:
apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
More like dumb and dumber.

Your post implies I would think that I am comparing the NFL to churches 501(c), literally most dumb people - even most of these stupid player know when to stop digging. Congress can actually regulate speech when an entity is operating in a "public right". And yes, a church can be fined for running political speeches and they can also be fined and their tax exemption withdrawn - Congress has been regulating speech at churches for like 60 years. Yeah, I'm sure they'll hire you and get it all straightened out. :eek:lol: You'll tell me some organization is going to sue Congress. LOL

How bout those apples. At least you gave up your "free speech this and free speech that" stuff -- a vast majority of your posts are factually incorrect. Its very clear you had no idea that the federal government can regulate speech, oh boy, I am sure they are real scared that someone will hire you to find the laws that have been around for many decades are all of sudden unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
#2,863
#2,863
LSU-SIU said:
More like dumb and dumber.

Your post implies I would think that I am comparing the NFL to churches 501(c), literally most dumb people - even most of these stupid player know when to stop digging. Congress can actually regulate speech when an entity is operating in a "public right". And yes, a church can be fined for running political speeches and they can also be fined and their tax exemption withdrawn.

How bout those apples.
Click to expand...

Political candidates can and do speak at a church. The law is designed to prevent a church from becoming the fundraising arm of a political party or candidate. The church solicits donations which are deductible and the distributes them as campaign donations which are not.

While I do agree that this has the effect of chilling free speech, that was not the primary purpose of the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,864
#2,864
ClearwaterVol said:
Political candidates can and do speak at a church. The law is designed to prevent a church from becoming the fundraising arm of a political party or candidate. The church solicits donations which are deductible and the distributes them as campaign donations which are not.

While I do agree that this has the effect of chilling free speech, that was not the primary purpose of the law.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are setting up a strawman.

Politicians can speak at churches -- the speeches can't be one of a political nature or the churches can be fined and or the tax exempt status can be withdrawn, if investigated. The law doesn't regulate all speech but it precludes "political speech". Stop digging.
 
#2,865
#2,865
Dallas Cowboys: NAACP: Jerry Jones' anthem comments are 'tone-deaf,' violate Cowboys' constitutional rights | SportsDay

"Jerry Jones' comments are more than tone-deaf, more than misinformed and misguided - they are a public commitment by an NFL owner to violate his players' Constitutional right to free speech - one of the principles on which our nation was founded,"*said Tony Covington, the NAACP's*Senior Director of Corporate Affairs at the NAACP.
Click to expand...

This guy needs to wear a shirt that says, "I'm a box of rocks". :eek:lol: Maybe he should suggest the players wear a shirt after a game that says, "I slept with Goodell's wife and she wasn't that good." And see how all that free speech works out for them. :eek:lol:

This particular type of person can't be helped.
 
Last edited:
#2,866
#2,866
LSU-SIU said:
Dallas Cowboys: NAACP: Jerry Jones' anthem comments are 'tone-deaf,' violate Cowboys' constitutional rights | SportsDay



This guy needs to wear a shirt that says, "I'm a box of rocks". :eek:lol: Maybe he should suggest the players wear a shirt after a game that says, "I slept with Goodell's wife and she wasn't that good." And see how all that free speech works out for them. :eek:lol:

This particular type of person can't be helped.
Click to expand...

The NAACP and Al Sharpton are nothing but racist crocks who do nothing but jump into situations to stir up tension. It would be amazing to see some of these people who act like they care actually go into some of these violence stricken communities and try to make a positive change instead of spewing hate.

Its groups and men like these today who are keeping our culture from progressing in the right direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,867
#2,867
Smokey'sHandler said:
The NAACP and Al Sharpton are nothing but racist crocks who do nothing but jump into situations to stir up tension. It would be amazing to see some of these people who act like they care actually go into some of these violence stricken communities and try to make a positive change instead of spewing hate.

Its groups and men like these today who are keeping our culture from progressing in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I generally agree there, as soon as some white guy claims he represents "the white community" is probably the day I start throwing rocks at some white dude. I'm with you -- I don't get it.
 
#2,868
#2,868
LSU-SIU said:
Once again, you are setting up a strawman.

Politicians can speak at churches -- the speeches can't be one of a political nature or the churches can be fined and or the tax exempt status can be withdrawn, if investigated. The law doesn't regulate all speech but it precludes "political speech". Stop digging.
Click to expand...

No strawmen. All speeches by a candidate all political. Give that a rest.
 
#2,869
#2,869
ClearwaterVol said:
No strawmen. All speeches by a candidate all political. Give that a rest.
Click to expand...

Literally, you have no idea what you are talking about - no they will not say a political candidate can't speak about God, or the weather at a 501(c) church. Stop digging you look beyond silly. Whether the person speaking is a politician is actually irrelevant -- no political speak, but of course I am trying to explain this to someone that didn't know the government regulated speech. (Oh its unconstitutional.:eek:lol:)

Instead of getting on your soapbox, it might be wise for you to actually go to the library first, or in this particular instance you can go speak with the IRS - good luck and all about being right.

You are actually worse of the worse - you won't admit when you are wrong, maybe its time for you to take a knee.

26 U.S. Code SS 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Here is the full text. Like you said, its probably another one of those unconstitutional laws. :eek:lol:
 
Last edited:
#2,870
#2,870
LSU-SIU said:
Dallas Cowboys: NAACP: Jerry Jones' anthem comments are 'tone-deaf,' violate Cowboys' constitutional rights | SportsDay



This guy needs to wear a shirt that says, "I'm a box of rocks". :eek:lol: Maybe he should suggest the players wear a shirt after a game that says, "I slept with Goodell's wife and she wasn't that good." And see how all that free speech works out for them. :eek:lol:

This particular type of person can't be helped.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see if the black players and liberals in the country would talk about freedom of speech if the white players waved Confederate flags during the national anthem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,871
#2,871
1972 Grad said:
It would be interesting to see if the black players and liberals in the country would talk about freedom of speech if the white players waved Confederate flags during the national anthem.
Click to expand...

Nothing like a Nazi salute to raise the bar. Trying to explain this to those players is like trying to teach a rock, nothing is going in. Interesting enough many of the players are throwing up black power fists - yeah, I am sure they love white people. :)
 
#2,872
#2,872
NashVol11 said:
Jesus, yes, no one is cutting their tongues out and never allowing them to speak again. Thanks for making that very useful point.

If a group makes a statement using one particular form of expression, and your only response is to ban that particular form of expression rather than acknowledge their concerns, the voices will only grow louder. Telling them to fall in line isn’t going to make everything stop.
Click to expand...



Who said anything about making everything stop? Most people I've seen here and elsewhere have no problem with players promoting cause - it's just the the manner of expression has gotten wrapped up in a way that angers some, bothers some or costs the League viewership.

The Commish hasn't tried to make everything stop. To the contrary, he's suggested ways to assist them in getting there message out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,873
#2,873
volinbham said:
Who said anything about making everything stop? Most people I've seen here and elsewhere have no problem with players promoting cause - it's just the the manner of expression has gotten wrapped up in a way that angers some, bothers some or costs the League viewership.

The Commish hasn't tried to make everything stop. To the contrary, he's suggested ways to assist them in getting there message out.
Click to expand...

Most people here think the cause isn't worth promoting and/or isn't real.

Saying, "you can protest, but only within parameters carefully defined not to upset me" is not "assistance." Some people understand the problems with that line of thinking and some don't, but Trump and Goodell would be much better off listening and asking questions than trying to control the method of expression.
 
#2,874
#2,874
golfballs said:
Par for the course from the left. They claim to be in favor of "women and gay rights" but their candidate will gladly accept millions from nations who treat women and gays like animals
Click to expand...

It's because many of that ilk don't have core principles through which they see the world and form the basis of their opinions about certain things. In my view, their entire shtick is about virtue signaling and trying to gain a perceived moral high ground over their opponent in an argument. When that is your "argument," you tie yourself up in knots because eventually you will contradict yourself or have hypocritical opinions.

It's like the situation of the gay couple that sued the bakery that wouldn't bake a cake for their wedding because it was against their religious beliefs. The owner of that bakery is a Christian. They'd never admit it, but for many on the left, their opinion on that situation is totally different if the owner of the bakery is a Muslim. They'd have a much, much harder time telling a Muslim that their religion doesn't matter in this situation, they are being discriminatory, and they have to bake the cake. But they sure are quick to tell that to a Christian, or whatever the religious majority happens to be.

Their silence on things like the treatment of women, gays, and religious minorities in various Muslim countries around the world is deafening, but they are extremely quick to talk about sexism, homophobia, or Islamophobia in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,875
#2,875
NashVol11 said:
Most people here think the cause isn't worth promoting and/or isn't real.

Saying, "you can protest, but only within parameters carefully defined not to upset me" is not "assistance." Some people understand the problems with that line of thinking and some don't, but Trump and Goodell would be much better off listening and asking questions than trying to control the method of expression.
Click to expand...

Generally, employers have a legal duty to make money for their shareholders, the NFL has a duty to look after the interest of the NFL as it pertains to the teams and their revenue stream. What the employees want is almost always a secondary concern - money is #1. If employees get in the way of #1, most likely they will be gone at some point because they have a legal duty.

Whether they hate cops, or white people, or they don't like peanut M&Ms is not really material, generally.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top