Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-12-2017, 08:09 PM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 33,968
Serious question: regardless of politics, does ANYBODY believe there are 32 better quarterbacks in the NFL than Kaepernick?

EVen if there WERE in week 1 (debatable), there sure aren't NOW.
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 10-12-2017, 08:28 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
Serious question: regardless of politics, does ANYBODY believe there are 32 better quarterbacks in the NFL than Kaepernick?

EVen if there WERE in week 1 (debatable), there sure aren't NOW.
But there's the question of whether his style of play fits the schemes in place in any of the teams with QBs worse than him.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #53  
Old 10-13-2017, 06:10 AM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 33,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But there's the question of whether his style of play fits the schemes in place in any of the teams with QBs worse than him.
That explains why this or that team shunned him. But all 32?

I don't especially like the guy or approve of his actions, but it's still hard to imagine that NOBODY could use him. Not even teams as desperate as, say, the Browns.
  #54  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:23 AM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 21,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
I don't especially like the guy or approve of his actions, but it's still hard to imagine that NOBODY could use him. Not even teams as desperate as, say, the Browns.
Then tell us what team he would be a good fit on. Make your case.
  #55  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:38 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Yes they did but not for the reasons you state.

The owners were not taking a stand on police brutality, they were taking a stand on government censorship and incursion into first amendment rights.
As I said, taking a stand on the players' right to protest, whatever it is they might be protesting.

In any case, the owners and the NFL have repeatedly mishandled the situation, and it looks like they're about to do more of the same.
  #56  
Old 10-13-2017, 10:51 AM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
As I said, taking a stand on the players' right to protest, whatever it is they might be protesting.

In any case, the owners and the NFL have repeatedly mishandled the situation, and it looks like they're about to do more of the same.
I'm curious what you mean by this. While I agree that the owners seem poised to completely mishandle the situation, and Jerry Jones's recent statements have been loathsome, I don't see much else the NFL and owners have done so far to mishandle the situation, other than the implied lockout of Kaepernick. Are there other events I've missed?
  #57  
Old 10-13-2017, 11:19 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munch View Post
Then tell us what team he would be a good fit on. Make your case.
Yes, most of the 32 are ruled out to begin with because they already have a QB they think is better than Kaepernick looked last year. And then you get into the issues of the schemes that fit him. I think Seattle is one of the few that runs such.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #58  
Old 10-13-2017, 03:24 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, most of the 32 are ruled out to begin with because they already have a QB they think is better than Kaepernick looked last year. And then you get into the issues of the schemes that fit him. I think Seattle is one of the few that runs such.
I think Carolina might be a good one, because they have a running QB already. Now, itís not the same because Cam Newton runs through people like a running back and Colin Kaepernick runs away/around like a wide receiver, but I bet a lot of the ďQB keepĒ schemes the Panthers have will work with Colin.

But I canít see a team in North Carolina having fans whoíd be happy to see him on the team. NC is a lovely place and I visit once a year on average (I have family there) but itís the South, and a part of the South thatís unlikely to be very sympathetic to his views. So I wouldnít be shocked if they passed on him for political reasons.
  #59  
Old 10-13-2017, 04:20 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I think Carolina might be a good one, because they have a running QB already. Now, itís not the same because Cam Newton runs through people like a running back and Colin Kaepernick runs away/around like a wide receiver, but I bet a lot of the ďQB keepĒ schemes the Panthers have will work with Colin.

But I canít see a team in North Carolina having fans whoíd be happy to see him on the team. NC is a lovely place and I visit once a year on average (I have family there) but itís the South, and a part of the South thatís unlikely to be very sympathetic to his views. So I wouldnít be shocked if they passed on him for political reasons.
I grew up in NC, and it's a very divided state that's had a huge influx of educated progressives from the Northeast, New York in particular (a longtime friend of mine who moved there last year is one RL example). But I'd say you're right about the Panthers for a simpler reason: their owner has already seemed to be the most hostile to protesting players of any of the 32 owners. So although he reluctantly issued his lukewarm support after some of his star players pressured him, the chance that he would entertain the idea of signing the player who "started all the trouble" is approximately zero.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #60  
Old 10-13-2017, 10:33 PM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
... If Colin Kaepernick had rallied some other popular black players and told them, "We need to start sharing our stories," they might have accomplished something.If DeShaun Watson could tell Dan Patrick about times he's been stopped and hassled needlessly by security guards at the mall... if Russell Wilson could tell Bob Costas about times cops have pulled him over for NO reason (and then begged for an autograph after seeing who he was), he might open some eyes and ears.

Bu disrespecting the flag DOESN'T make anyone listen. It just makes them mad. And why would that be surprising?
I don't get ESPN where I live, but I assume their reporters still interview players. Do the reporters ask "Why do you kneel?" and the players answer that they'd rather talk about football?

Or is it the other way around?
  #61  
Old 10-14-2017, 09:34 PM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Not until someone can reconcile why kneeling is respectful when in church, but disrespectful on a football field.
What's the mystery. Churchgoers do it specifically as a sign of reverence. Football players do it specifically as a sign of irreverence.

Frankly, I think the players should just kneel on the field right before the opening kickoff, after the anthem. I think it's a more powerful message to do it while otherwise doing their job, not just while "appearing."

I don't like this symbol, or any symbol, that suggests an American doesn't like their country, especially from someone with a cush job like theirs. It suggests they're giving up on their country, and in Kaep's own words, are not proud of it. I'm sympathetic to the cause of black equality. I'm not sympathetic to the method of purposefully disrespecting national symbols.
  #62  
Old 10-14-2017, 10:17 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
What's the mystery. Churchgoers do it specifically as a sign of reverence. Football players do it specifically as a sign of irreverence.

Frankly, I think the players should just kneel on the field right before the opening kickoff, after the anthem. I think it's a more powerful message to do it while otherwise doing their job, not just while "appearing."

I don't like this symbol, or any symbol, that suggests an American doesn't like their country, especially from someone with a cush job like theirs. It suggests they're giving up on their country, and in Kaep's own words, are not proud of it. I'm sympathetic to the cause of black equality. I'm not sympathetic to the method of purposefully disrespecting national symbols.
If you ignore that Kaepernick chose kneeling specifically because a veteran told him it was still respectful, then sure, it's disrespectful. The whole "someone with a cush job like theirs" sounds a lot like "Dance for the man!"
  #63  
Old 10-15-2017, 10:43 AM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 33,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I don't get ESPN where I live, but I assume their reporters still interview players. Do the reporters ask "Why do you kneel?" and the players answer that they'd rather talk about football?

Or is it the other way around?
Point is, star athletes have a LOT of access to the media, and have MANY ways to get a political message out. They can go On any number of TV and radio shows and say EXACTLY what they want to say. If they do, they may have a positive impact.

If, instead, they engage in a symbolic act that they should KNOW is only going to piss people off, they shouldn't be surprised if their cause is forgotten.

Last edited by astorian; 10-15-2017 at 10:44 AM.
  #64  
Old 10-15-2017, 12:40 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
What's the mystery. Churchgoers do it specifically as a sign of reverence. Football players do it specifically as a sign of irreverence.
Athletes take a knee when another player, whether a teammate or an opponent, is injured and receiving treatment on the field. It's a sign of respect, a recognition that someone needs help, and a desire that the problem gets fixed soon.

Why would you not think an athlete could have the same sort of feelings toward his country as for his fellows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
If, instead, they engage in a symbolic act that they should KNOW is only going to piss people off, they shouldn't be surprised if their cause is forgotten.
What would you recommend they do instead, other than just shut up and not bother you with all that thought stuff?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 10-15-2017 at 12:41 PM.
  #65  
Old 10-15-2017, 08:08 PM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
If you ignore that Kaepernick chose kneeling specifically because a veteran told him it was still respectful, then sure, it's disrespectful. The whole "someone with a cush job like theirs" sounds a lot like "Dance for the man!"
People keep saying it like he went to the Supreme Court of Veterans and got a favorable judgment sealed with a wax insignia or something. So he got "permission" from a veteran...big deal. This veteran hereby "revokes" said permission.

Because I, a veteran, call it disrespectful, do you now agree that it is disrespectful? Why or why not? Are you just going to ignore that I said it? Are you suggesting the opinion of one, single veteran doesn't mean a whole lot to you?

I don't know what "Dance for the man!" sounds like because I've literally never heard anyone say it before. I have no idea what you're talking about.
  #66  
Old 10-15-2017, 08:31 PM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Athletes take a knee when another player, whether a teammate or an opponent, is injured and receiving treatment on the field. It's a sign of respect, a recognition that someone needs help, and a desire that the problem gets fixed soon.

Why would you not think an athlete could have the same sort of feelings toward his country as for his fellows?
Because he's said otherwise: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told reporters." It's right there. "Not going to show pride in a country." This isn't a sign of respect or a recognition that the nation needs help. It's an outright refusal to be proud to be an American.

What do you think he'd say if you asked Kaep "Are you proud of your country?"
  #67  
Old 10-15-2017, 08:54 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
People keep saying it like he went to the Supreme Court of Veterans and got a favorable judgment sealed with a wax insignia or something. So he got "permission" from a veteran...big deal. This veteran hereby "revokes" said permission.

Because I, a veteran, call it disrespectful, do you now agree that it is disrespectful? Why or why not? Are you just going to ignore that I said it? Are you suggesting the opinion of one, single veteran doesn't mean a whole lot to you?

I don't know what "Dance for the man!" sounds like because I've literally never heard anyone say it before. I have no idea what you're talking about.
The point is that he specifically altered what he was doing in order to be more respectful, based on what a veteran told him. That means that he's not doing it to be disrespectful to veterans. If he was, then he would not have changed his actions.

So any claim he is doing this as an insult to our troops is false. He adopted a way of showing his displeasure in a way specifically designed not to offend you. If you choose to be offended anyways, that is your own problem.
  #68  
Old 10-15-2017, 09:11 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
Because he's said otherwise: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told reporters." It's right there. "Not going to show pride in a country." This isn't a sign of respect or a recognition that the nation needs help. It's an outright refusal to be proud to be an American.

What do you think he'd say if you asked Kaep "Are you proud of your country?"
What in the world does pride in one's country have to do with anything being discussed here? You are the first one to bring that up. He believes his country is doing a bad thing. Of course he isn't proud of his country while it is doing a bad thing. I'm not proud of my nephew when he makes fun of little kids, either.

That doesn't mean I don't love my nephew. It doesn't mean I disrespect my nephew by letting him know that I'm not proud of his actions.

I don't expect anyone to be proud of their country right now. Even if this police racism wasn't a problem, our country is in disarray. Even if you are on Trump's side, there's not really anything to be proud of. What has America done since Trump came into office that you can actually say "You know what? I want to proclaim I am an American to everyone, because we did something so good!"

Claiming a lack of pride in one's country as if it is some bad thing is stupid. It's just used to discredit those who have a legitimate grievance. It's just a lack of morality to always be proud of something, regardless of whether they are doing good or evil.

If the fact that at least 50% of our country is not proud to be an American right now bothers you, then the only solution is to join us in trying to fight to make America something we can be proud of again.

Trump failed to do it, but we could in fact Make America Great Again. Then we can be proud of it again.

The idea that people are required to like their country is absolutely disgusting. It means they can do no wrong in their eyes. That is horrible, and leads to authoritarianism.

Last edited by BigT; 10-15-2017 at 09:13 PM.
  #69  
Old 10-15-2017, 11:02 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
The idea that people are required to like their country is absolutely disgusting. It means they can do no wrong in their eyes. That is horrible, and leads to authoritarianism.
Starting to get into IMHO/GD territory but Iíll agree here. I consider myself pretty patriotic, Iím proud of this country and think it never stopped being great, but I understand if others disagree. This country was founded by people who broke away from a nation they no longer wanted to be part of and they officially put the right to dissent against your country or anything else you believe in into the foundation of the nation. The Constitution supports what Kaepernick is doing. Others donít have to, and thatís their right too. We all have these rights because we respect freedom of speech and expression and we continue to be world leader in those freedoms (by objective analysis). Those wanting to shut down Colin are ironically trampling over what this country stands for.

Okay my non-sports rant is over.
  #70  
Old 10-15-2017, 11:10 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
People keep saying it like he went to the Supreme Court of Veterans and got a favorable judgment sealed with a wax insignia or something. So he got "permission" from a veteran...big deal. This veteran hereby "revokes" said permission.

Because I, a veteran, call it disrespectful, do you now agree that it is disrespectful? Why or why not? Are you just going to ignore that I said it? Are you suggesting the opinion of one, single veteran doesn't mean a whole lot to you?

I don't know what "Dance for the man!" sounds like because I've literally never heard anyone say it before. I have no idea what you're talking about.
He got advice from a veteran. He's gotten support from veterans (including myself). Does your opinion invalidate my own? You can feel its disrespectful, and that's because you choose to ignore exactly what he's doing and why.

I've said it elsewhere. I enlisted to defend a country, its ideals, and its people. I never signed up to defend a patterned piece of fabric. I didn't sign up to protect a tune. I gave an oath to defend the Constitution, and the very first change they made to it was to enshrine the right to protest. I have zero problems with people exercising that right, even if I choose not to join them. And I'm sure as hell not gonna pull my "I SERVED, SO RESPECT ME!" card just because I want to ignore their views on what's happening in our society.
  #71  
Old 10-15-2017, 11:15 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
Point is, star athletes have a LOT of access to the media, and have MANY ways to get a political message out. They can go On any number of TV and radio shows and say EXACTLY what they want to say. If they do, they may have a positive impact.

If, instead, they engage in a symbolic act that they should KNOW is only going to piss people off, they shouldn't be surprised if their cause is forgotten.
When NBA players wore hoodies as a sign of unity with Trayvon Martin, they got blasted for it. When athletes wore shirts saying, "I Can't Breathe", they got trashed. If you haven't noticed, a portion of our country and media simply don't care how they're protesting, they're always doing it wrong. At some point, a lot of other people are seeing only one similarity in all the protests and the accompanying anger.

Then someone says, "Screw it, why show pride in a country that seems to only want to shit on people like me," and everyone loses their minds.
  #72  
Old 10-15-2017, 11:27 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
When NBA players wore hoodies as a sign of unity with Trayvon Martin, they got blasted for it. When athletes wore shirts saying, "I Can't Breathe", they got trashed. If you haven't noticed, a portion of our country and media simply don't care how they're protesting, they're always doing it wrong. At some point, a lot of other people are seeing only one similarity in all the protests and the accompanying anger.

Then someone says, "Screw it, why show pride in a country that seems to only want to shit on people like me," and everyone loses their minds.
Nah, all they have to do is acknowledge that all those incidents they're protesting were totally justified and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with racism. Easy, huh?
  #73  
Old 10-16-2017, 07:30 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,108
When Germans are protesting racial injustice in solidarity with you, it just may be time to consider that the problem is real.
  #74  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:02 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
People keep saying it like he went to the Supreme Court of Veterans and got a favorable judgment sealed with a wax insignia or something. So he got "permission" from a veteran...big deal. This veteran hereby "revokes" said permission.

Because I, a veteran, call it disrespectful, do you now agree that it is disrespectful? Why or why not? Are you just going to ignore that I said it? Are you suggesting the opinion of one, single veteran doesn't mean a whole lot to you?

I don't know what "Dance for the man!" sounds like because I've literally never heard anyone say it before. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Why do you find it disrespectful? If Colin Kaepernick explains that he doesn't intend for his message to be disrespectful to veterans and that he is instead simply using it to protest something that has really no relationship to the role of armed services, then why isn't that good enough? It seems to me that some people are intentionally imposing their own worldview and trying to dictate to someone what his protest means rather than listening to the actual source of the protest explain what it means?

FWIW, I can understand that people don't like the manner and the platform Kap uses to express his protest. Yes, there probably are ways to express protest that would be less offensive to veterans, but at the same time, the aim of protest is to get people's attention, to stir the pot. It's a balance, in my view: trying to stir the pot without unnecessarily provoking or going to far in the process.

As an example, I think taking a knee during the anthem is going to get people to take notice and to start a conversation. But I strongly disagree that it's the same as burning or urinating on a flag - degree matters here, and it's dishonest to, as I believe at least one or two posters on SDMB have opined, say that taking a knee during an anthem is in the same category as more extreme examples of hostility toward national symbols.

I do understand that veterans, police officers, and many civilians alike wish Colin Kaepernick would find a different way to protest, but quite honestly, the degree of outrage indicates to me that something is a little off. And in any case, if conservatives would just ignore him, he'd probably just go away. Nobody would be talking about Kaepernick if he were a 2nd or 3rd-string QB and taking a knee because nobody would care after a while - he becomes old news. But he's news because he's being blackballed by conservative owners and he's even bigger news because an idiotic administration uses his protests to divide the country along racial lines. So if you want to blame people, maybe blame the ones who refuse to let the controversy die in the first place.
  #75  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:50 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 9,762
Back to the "Did anyone offer him a backup position?" question - Kaepernick has filed a grievance against the NFL owners, claiming they colluded to prevent him from getting a job in the NFL this year. The text of the grievance states:
Quote:
Mr. Kaepernick became a free agent on or around March 3, 2017. Based on his
consistently exceptional career performance, his age, and all other objective metrics, Mr.
Kaepernick was an ideal candidateóand, in fact, the best-qualified candidateóto fill the
vacant starting quarterback positions on many NFL teams, or at the very least, the numerous
vacant backup positions. Goodell himself has been quoted as stating that the NFL "is about
―meritocracy and opportunity."
So it sound like he's claiming he would have been willing to take a backup position but was never offered that opportunity either. At the very least, if the Seahawks did make him a backup offer, that should come out as soon as the hearing starts, since it would be a concrete event the owners could point to to refute his complaint.
  #76  
Old 10-16-2017, 11:23 AM
Intergalactic Gladiator Intergalactic Gladiator is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
He got advice from a veteran. He's gotten support from veterans (including myself). Does your opinion invalidate my own? You can feel its disrespectful, and that's because you choose to ignore exactly what he's doing and why.

I've said it elsewhere. I enlisted to defend a country, its ideals, and its people. I never signed up to defend a patterned piece of fabric. I didn't sign up to protect a tune. I gave an oath to defend the Constitution, and the very first change they made to it was to enshrine the right to protest. I have zero problems with people exercising that right, even if I choose not to join them. And I'm sure as hell not gonna pull my "I SERVED, SO RESPECT ME!" card just because I want to ignore their views on what's happening in our society.
+1.

Unfortunately, there is a narrative being driven that conflates kneeling because of racial issues with being disrespectful to veterans.
  #77  
Old 10-16-2017, 03:53 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
So it sound like he's claiming he would have been willing to take a backup position but was never offered that opportunity either. At the very least, if the Seahawks did make him a backup offer, that should come out as soon as the hearing starts, since it would be a concrete event the owners could point to to refute his complaint.
Agreed, Iím curious myself how this turns out.
  #78  
Old 10-16-2017, 07:49 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 19,996
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker wants some attention

Quote:
The Republican former presidential hopeful sent a letter Monday to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith saying he believes players are showing disrespect for the flag and veterans. Players should drop the ďdivisive political sideshowĒ and speak out against domestic violence instead, the governor wrote.

NFL league meetings Tuesday offer an opportunity to strongly condemn domestic violence, Walker added.

ďMy request is simple: stand for the American flag and the national anthem out of respect for those who risk their lives for our freedoms, and then take a stand against domestic violence to keep American families safe,Ē Walker wrote. ďThatís something we can all agree on, and that just might help the NFL reunite with many of its devoted fans.Ē
  #79  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:26 PM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That means that he's not doing it to be disrespectful to veterans. ...
So any claim he is doing this as an insult to our troops is false.
I never mentioned anything about veterans or troops. Neither did Kaep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
What in the world does pride in one's country have to do with anything being discussed here? You are the first one to bring that up.
No, Kaep brought it up first. It's in his quote, explaining why he does what he does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
He believes his country is doing a bad thing. Of course he isn't proud of his country while it is doing a bad thing. I'm not proud of my nephew when he makes fun of little kids, either. I don't expect anyone to be proud of their country right now.
That's because you and he are bad Americans.

Quote:
there's not really anything to be proud of.
That's absurdly false, and I'm embarrassed and ashamed that you could think so, and think yourself a worthy citizen of this country.

Quote:
Claiming a lack of pride in one's country as if it is some bad thing is stupid.
No, it isn't. It's a very bad thing, a moral failing. If you are not proud to be American, you do not deserve my respect. It's that simple.

Quote:
The idea that people are required to like their country is absolutely disgusting. It means they can do no wrong in their eyes. That is horrible, and leads to authoritarianism.
Horseshit. The liberal left just has a hard-on for self-hate of all varieties, and they want to make sure you hate yourself as much as possible for everything you do and everything you are. Your "it means" statement is completely non sequitur. What's disgusting is that you think it's OK to not be proud of the United States of America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Starting to get into IMHO/GD territory but Iíll agree here. I consider myself pretty patriotic, Iím proud of this country and think it never stopped being great, but I understand if others disagree. This country was founded by people who broke away from a nation they no longer wanted to be part of and they officially put the right to dissent against your country or anything else you believe in into the foundation of the nation. The Constitution supports what Kaepernick is doing. Others donít have to, and thatís their right too. We all have these rights because we respect freedom of speech and expression and we continue to be world leader in those freedoms (by objective analysis). Those wanting to shut down Colin are ironically trampling over what this country stands for.

Okay my non-sports rant is over.
Nobody's arguing about rights to do things. Bringing up the Constitution is a distraction. You're taking "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" and completely ignoring the first part. Do we now have to agree with everything everyone says? Someone says "I'm not proud to be an American," and I'm supposed to say "That's totally cool, not offensive at all."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
He got advice from a veteran. He's gotten support from veterans (including myself). Does your opinion invalidate my own? You can feel its disrespectful, and that's because you choose to ignore exactly what he's doing and why.
Don't tell me what I consider and what I ignore. "And why" is exactly what's disrespectful about it. If he just felt like kneeling to get time off his feet, I'd say nothing. I'd support the guy. He doesn't do it because his legs are tired; he specifically does it because he's not proud of his country. That's not OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
I've said it elsewhere. I enlisted to defend a country, its ideals, and its people. I never signed up to defend a patterned piece of fabric. I didn't sign up to protect a tune.
The flag and the song don't need defending, as they aren't under threat. Kaep's speech is distasteful and offensive. Words needn't imperil the flag, the song, or the Constitution to be offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
I gave an oath to defend the Constitution, and the very first change they made to it was to enshrine the right to protest. I have zero problems with people exercising that right, even if I choose not to join them.
Nobody's talking about violating the Constitution. But you seem to have a problem with people like me who do choose not to join him and actively denounce him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
And I'm sure as hell not gonna pull my "I SERVED, SO RESPECT ME!" card just because I want to ignore their views on what's happening in our society.
I don't need him to respect me. Bringing veterans into this is a red herring, tossed by the dickhead in chief. Kaep isn't focusing on veterans and neither am I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
When NBA players wore hoodies as a sign of unity with Trayvon Martin, they got blasted for it. When athletes wore shirts saying, "I Can't Breathe", they got trashed. If you haven't noticed, a portion of our country and media simply don't care how they're protesting, they're always doing it wrong. At some point, a lot of other people are seeing only one similarity in all the protests and the accompanying anger.

Then someone says, "Screw it, why show pride in a country that seems to only want to shit on people like me," and everyone loses their minds.
A lot of people are flailing about, trying to change what's actually being done here. It's slippery slope this, non sequitur that, red herring the other thing. Did I mention anything at all about hoodies or shirts? Did I blast anyone or trash anyone for those protest actions? Did I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Why do you find it disrespectful? If Colin Kaepernick explains that he doesn't intend for his message to be disrespectful to veterans and that he is instead simply using it to protest something that has really no relationship to the role of armed services, then why isn't that good enough?
I never mentioned anything about veterans or troops. Neither did Kaep.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It seems to me that some people are intentionally imposing their own worldview and trying to dictate to someone what his protest means rather than listening to the actual source of the protest explain what it means?
That's my argument in its entirety. We've got people talking about veterans, Constitutions, free speech, hoodies, and tshirts. I am "listening to the actual source of the protest explain what it means," and I don't like what I hear. It's repugnant. By all means, tell me again I don't think what I think I think, that I haven't considered the truuuuuuue meaning, that it's about something it's not, and I will tell you once again...saying you are not proud of America is something you just don't say.

Quote:
FWIW, I can understand that people don't like the manner and the platform Kap uses to express his protest. Yes, there probably are ways to express protest that would be less offensive to veterans, but at the same time, the aim of protest is to get people's attention, to stir the pot. It's a balance, in my view: trying to stir the pot without unnecessarily provoking or going to far in the process.
Thing is, I don't care if you do offend veterans. That's not really the point in this case.

Quote:
As an example, I think taking a knee during the anthem is going to get people to take notice and to start a conversation. But I strongly disagree that it's the same as burning or urinating on a flag - degree matters here, and it's dishonest to, as I believe at least one or two posters on SDMB have opined, say that taking a knee during an anthem is in the same category as more extreme examples of hostility toward national symbols.
I don't know who these "one or two" posters are, but they aren't me.

Quote:
I do understand that veterans, police officers, and many civilians alike wish Colin Kaepernick would find a different way to protest
I don't really care about the way he protests. I care about what he says he stands (well, kneels) for. He had one of the best jobs in the entire nation, and has the gall to say he's not proud of the nation that gave him what he has. If he'd just acknowledge that the nation, for all its faults, allowed him to secure the Blessings of Liberty to himself and his Posterity, it'd be a different story, but it doesn't seem like he does.
  #80  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:46 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
I never mentioned anything about veterans or troops. Neither did Kaep.



No, Kaep brought it up first. It's in his quote, explaining why he does what he does.



That's because you and he are bad Americans.



That's absurdly false, and I'm embarrassed and ashamed that you could think so, and think yourself a worthy citizen of this country.



No, it isn't. It's a very bad thing, a moral failing. If you are not proud to be American, you do not deserve my respect. It's that simple.



Horseshit. The liberal left just has a hard-on for self-hate of all varieties, and they want to make sure you hate yourself as much as possible for everything you do and everything you are. Your "it means" statement is completely non sequitur. What's disgusting is that you think it's OK to not be proud of the United States of America.



Nobody's arguing about rights to do things. Bringing up the Constitution is a distraction. You're taking "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" and completely ignoring the first part. Do we now have to agree with everything everyone says? Someone says "I'm not proud to be an American," and I'm supposed to say "That's totally cool, not offensive at all."



Don't tell me what I consider and what I ignore. "And why" is exactly what's disrespectful about it. If he just felt like kneeling to get time off his feet, I'd say nothing. I'd support the guy. He doesn't do it because his legs are tired; he specifically does it because he's not proud of his country. That's not OK.



The flag and the song don't need defending, as they aren't under threat. Kaep's speech is distasteful and offensive. Words needn't imperil the flag, the song, or the Constitution to be offensive.



Nobody's talking about violating the Constitution. But you seem to have a problem with people like me who do choose not to join him and actively denounce him.



I don't need him to respect me. Bringing veterans into this is a red herring, tossed by the dickhead in chief. Kaep isn't focusing on veterans and neither am I.



A lot of people are flailing about, trying to change what's actually being done here. It's slippery slope this, non sequitur that, red herring the other thing. Did I mention anything at all about hoodies or shirts? Did I blast anyone or trash anyone for those protest actions? Did I?



I never mentioned anything about veterans or troops. Neither did Kaep.




That's my argument in its entirety. We've got people talking about veterans, Constitutions, free speech, hoodies, and tshirts. I am "listening to the actual source of the protest explain what it means," and I don't like what I hear. It's repugnant. By all means, tell me again I don't think what I think I think, that I haven't considered the truuuuuuue meaning, that it's about something it's not, and I will tell you once again...saying you are not proud of America is something you just don't say.



Thing is, I don't care if you do offend veterans. That's not really the point in this case.



I don't know who these "one or two" posters are, but they aren't me.



I don't really care about the way he protests. I care about what he says he stands (well, kneels) for. He had one of the best jobs in the entire nation, and has the gall to say he's not proud of the nation that gave him what he has. If he'd just acknowledge that the nation, for all its faults, allowed him to secure the Blessings of Liberty to himself and his Posterity, it'd be a different story, but it doesn't seem like he does.
Get some sleep.
  #81  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:53 PM
lord arcturus of 88 lord arcturus of 88 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by astorian View Post
Serious question: regardless of politics, does ANYBODY believe there are 32 better quarterbacks in the NFL than Kaepernick?

EVen if there WERE in week 1 (debatable), there sure aren't NOW.

I'm not a huge fan of the NFL or sports in general, never have been. So take my opinion lightly , please.

I think he may be better than some of the 32 you mentioned, but imagine if he insisted on playing with a banana stuck in his bum. It would be off-putting. Sure he can throw a football fair enough....but the banana...in his...bum. And to make it worse, other buffoons are copying and playing with bananas in their bums. dreadful!

I know is a crude metaphor, but for many what he has done has been equally off-putting. even more so.
  #82  
Old 10-17-2017, 02:04 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
Nobody's arguing about rights to do things. Bringing up the Constitution is a distraction. You're taking "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" and completely ignoring the first part. Do we now have to agree with everything everyone says? Someone says "I'm not proud to be an American," and I'm supposed to say "That's totally cool, not offensive at all."
Iím not ignoring it. I was offended when Colin wore socks with pigs wearing police hats on them. To me that discredits much of the message heís trying to put out. I also think at least some of the extrajudicial killings heís protesting were cops defending themselves (Michael Brown in particular should never be brought up by anyone who wants to advance Black Lives Matter) and I donít support his message without reservations (though of course I hate the idea of racially-motivated killing like any decent person). But Iím okay with him or others kneeling and not okay with suggestions that people should be forced to pretend to express sentiments they donít have.

So yes Iím fine with your distaste for his protests, I get where youíre coming from, and of course you have as much right to protest his protest as he does to protest in the first place. Any suggestion that the government should act to stop these protests directly or indirectly (as the president suggested) are unconstitutional. The whole reason I brought up the Constitution were just as a reminder that this country was founded on the idea that itís okay to protest what bothers you, even if (especially if!) itís the country itself. I donít really get the heated response to anyone who has a problem with things the US does or has done (either the federal government or citizens of the country). That was my objection; I love my country but itís okay if other citizens donít.
  #83  
Old 10-17-2017, 10:27 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Michael Brown in particular should never be brought up by anyone who wants to advance Black Lives Matter
Hear, hear--I just made this point in another thread. It drives me nuts that with all the other more fitting poster boys for the cause they could focus on instead, they stubbornly stick with "Maniac Mike" Brown.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #84  
Old 10-17-2017, 10:30 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Any suggestion that the government should act to stop these protests directly or indirectly (as the president suggested) are unconstitutional.
AFAIR, Trump suggested that the NFL stop these protests. Is NFL "the government"?
  #85  
Old 10-17-2017, 10:34 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
AFAIR, Trump suggested that the NFL stop these protests. Is NFL "the government"?
Trump is.
  #86  
Old 10-17-2017, 10:45 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Trump is.
I hate to start a sentence "In fairness to Trump..." but:

In fairness to Trump, he said the owners should fire the players who refuse to stand, and suggested to his fans that they boycott the NFL if the protests continue. Neither of those involve governmental interference (unlike his threats to NBC and CNN, for instance, or firing Bob Mueller...etc.).
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #87  
Old 10-17-2017, 10:46 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Trump is.
Trump didn't suggest "the government" should stop these protests. He suggested the NFL should.
  #88  
Old 10-17-2017, 10:50 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Trump didn't suggest "the government" should stop these protests. He suggested the NFL should.
Incorrect. He stated that the government should stop giving the NFL tax breaks if they continued to let players disrespect the country.

https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTr...94644481413120

Direct link to his tweet.

So yes, he suggested that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should intervene directly if players continued to protest. Thatís authoritarianism and Iím not okay with that.
  #89  
Old Yesterday, 03:40 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Incorrect. He stated that the government should stop giving the NFL tax breaks if they continued to let players disrespect the country.

https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTr...94644481413120

Direct link to his tweet.

So yes, he suggested that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should intervene directly if players continued to protest. Thatís authoritarianism and Iím not okay with that.
Aha, I didn't know that. Fair point then!
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #90  
Old Yesterday, 08:09 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
https://www.twitter.com/realDonaldTr...94644481413120

Direct link to his tweet.

So yes, he suggested that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should intervene directly if players continued to protest. Thatís authoritarianism and Iím not okay with that.
That's one interpretation. Another is that NFL should not be getting tax breaks, period. I don't think it should. No matter what they do about the kneeling stupidity.
  #91  
Old Yesterday, 08:29 AM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
That's one interpretation. Another is that NFL should not be getting tax breaks, period. I don't think it should. No matter what they do about the kneeling stupidity.
That interpretation requires you to ignore half of the tweet. Thatís not what he said and clearly not what he meant when taken in context with his repeated criticism of the NFL allowing players to protest. You can brush it off as ďstupid things Trump says that wonít happenĒ and I do, but that doesnít change the fact that he said it.
  #92  
Old Yesterday, 12:37 PM
Munch Munch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 21,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
That's one interpretation. Another is that NFL should not be getting tax breaks, period. I don't think it should. No matter what they do about the kneeling stupidity.
Other than the idiotic tax subsidies to pay for stadiums (none of which are federal, as far as I'm aware), what tax breaks are you referring to?
  #93  
Old Yesterday, 12:44 PM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I hate to start a sentence "In fairness to Trump..." but:

In fairness to Trump, he said the owners should fire the players who refuse to stand, and suggested to his fans that they boycott the NFL if the protests continue. Neither of those involve governmental interference (unlike his threats to NBC and CNN, for instance, or firing Bob Mueller...etc.).
I would say that The President giving an official statement telling the public to boycott a company is the definition of government interference.
  #94  
Old Yesterday, 01:11 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munch View Post
Other than the idiotic tax subsidies to pay for stadiums (none of which are federal, as far as I'm aware), what tax breaks are you referring to?
Stadiums arenít purchased by the NFL, theyíre purchased by teams which are separate entities. The NFL used to be a non-profit but arenít anymore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lping-them-out

Maybe Trump isnít aware that the NFL is no longer tax-exempt, or maybe he meant he wants to go after the teams, who knows? I donít know what tax breaks the teams get.
  #95  
Old Yesterday, 02:43 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
I would say that The President giving an official statement telling the public to boycott a company is the definition of government interference.
I disagree. It's something that has heretofore been considered something that is not done, but I don't believe there's any fundamental reason a president can't urge the public to boycott a company, unless perhaps there is some issue of potential emoluments to foreign powers or something like that. But to urge a boycott simply because the president doesn't like the company? I think that should be allowed, even if frowned upon.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #96  
Old Yesterday, 02:46 PM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I disagree. It's something that has heretofore been considered something that is not done, but I don't believe there's any fundamental reason a president can't urge the public to boycott a company, unless perhaps there is some issue of potential emoluments to foreign powers or something like that. But to urge a boycott simply because the president doesn't like the company? I think that should be allowed, even if frowned upon.
It's not a question of whether or not it's allowed. It's a question of "Is the government acting to stop these protests?" in which case the answer is yes.
  #97  
Old Yesterday, 03:51 PM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 19,923
The closest this would come to violating the law would be 18 U.S. Code ß 227 but I think you'd have a hard time proving the solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation clause. And I can't see any penalties for the offense, but that could be captured elsewhere.
  #98  
Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
It's not a question of whether or not it's allowed. It's a question of "Is the government acting to stop these protests?" in which case the answer is yes.
Question.

If Trump sent federal marshals in to arrest any player that knelt for the anthem, would that actually be a violation of the 1st amendment?

The amendment only says congress cannot take action, says nothing about the executive branch.

I assume there is case law or law or something that bridges the gap and extends the 1st to all branches of govt, but I've not come across it.
  #99  
Old Yesterday, 05:06 PM
Atamasama Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The amendment only says congress cannot take action, says nothing about the executive branch.
Technically itís even narrower than that, as written it specifically says they will ďmake no lawĒ. But itís understood that ďmaking lawsĒ is how Congress does anything, so thereís no real difference in reality.

After the 14th Amendment, the ďdue processĒ clause added the protections of the Constitution to the states. Basically, the federal government wanted to force states (mainly southern) to comply with equal rights put into federal law after the Civil War. So this amendment prevented state governments from violating the Constitution.

Then in 1952 there was the Youngstown case that established what is known as the Justice Jackson Test which says that the President canít act against the ďexpressed or implied will of CongressĒ. Since Congress is restrained by the First Amendment, any action that violates that amendment is opposed to Congressís implied will, and therefore the President canít take action in violation of the First Amendment. That is the precedent used now to prevent the President from issuing executive orders that infringe upon citizensí rights.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017