Who stood and kneeled for the anthem?
- Thread starter Louis_Skunt
- Start date
Debatable....they are most likely damaging the product they sell and breaking the rules as described and have been levied on other personal expression events in the past. I do not think he should have waded in but the owners have a right to take action not to alienate a good portion of their customer base. You and others on the left keep conflating rights on the job versus on personal time.
![[banana]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682178.gif "banana [banana]")
And pics or video of the hooker peeing on DT if you have them, TIA!
Exactly.
It's insane that we allow the marketplace to dictate how much these guys get paid.
I agree.
Here's a question to all that I haven't seen debated yet:
Do you think Trump's tweeting at the NFL is a bit of sour grapes from his USFL days? Apparently, he also had a chance to buy an NFL team but went his own way with the USFL. That's a huge investment blunder that probably stings just a bit.
I've thought about that. Probably. I don't understand why he did this...
Unless he just hates Goodell like 99% of people. That i totally understand and support. Goodell is total POS commissioner who has habitually line stepped and made a mockery of rules and stuff, so he deserves the headache.
Not at all. Owners are free to decide as they see fit, but they shouldn't get any public or private pressure from the president of the country.
I will say, I wonder how long Obama would put up with the media and celebs constantly berating him? If Obama got as much hate as Trump on a public level, does he start to get into pissing matches with people? I think there's a good chance he does. So i'm not completely faulting Trump, because he gets unfairly skewered on the regular.
But still, dude, just let it go. You responding like this is exactly what they want and it's really fueling both sides. IDK about anyone else, but I'm starting to get the sense we are nearing powder keg levels.
But still, dude, just let it go. You responding like this is exactly what they want and it's really fueling both sides. IDK about anyone else, but I'm starting to get the sense we are nearing powder keg levels.
No, he smiles and then sends a drone to your house, or audits you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.4bba3b6b770c
Yes, I realize it isn't definitive, concrete, everyone involved admits guilt and it's clear they weren't pressured or forced or coerced into admitting it, yada yada yada that constitutes political "truth," but it's another in a long line of reasonable people accepting that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, along with all of the facebook ad discussion lately, that seems to suggest they favored a Trump presidency.
Combined with the meetings, etc. that Trump and company denied before admitting, it's plenty fair to say he was "backed by Russia" whether or not he asked for it or was aware of it.
I don’t how Trump could be any easier on them than Obama.
Think about it, why would they support someone that’s motto is America First, that you know is going to be more of a hard ass, over the party that just let you run rough shod over Ukraine, absorb Crimea, and take the mantle of leadership in the Middle East, and negotiated for your ally in Iran to get nukes?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-in-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.4bba3b6b770c
Like I said to Q, I realize it isn't going to be the level of iron-clad proof these debates always "require" from a total unbiased source who never reported a single thing incorrectly, but it's a credible story where the president himself says Russia played a role in trying to influence the 2016 election.
I think we've also seen enough to believe they weren't acting in favor of a Clinton presidency, therefore, Trump was "backed by Russia."
I also contend if it were the opposite, Trump supporters would be losing their minds about treason, communism, etc. Which was my initial point of my post in this thread.
You tell me.
Maybe he has lots of business dealings there and they know they can influence him once he's in the White House because of those financial ties? Maybe it's blackmail. Maybe they just think he's stupid and easily tricked.
I don't think the why matters, really. That it seems to be something that occurred is problematic, regardless of the reason.
Okay, pick another protest then. It's just the most famous example. I'm open ears to all of the protests that follow every rule and procedure and don't make anyone uncomfortable, but that seems to be the entire point of protesting.
Doing just fine, thanks. Disagreement doesn't equate someone being an indoctrination specialist, but feel free to see the world as a giant battle between democrats and republicans. It's put the country in wonderful shape.
No, it's about destabilizing America. Just like Europe.
And Russia has been working for many decades to destabilize America.
Just like we do to other countries.
But for some reason it only became a problem when a Clinton lost.
And Russia has been working for many decades to destabilize America.
Just like we do to other countries.
But for some reason it only became a problem when a Clinton lost.
And you easily argue trump destabilizes America more than Hillary would have. You yank the country one way with Obama, then yank hard back with Trump. That's a lot of tension. Will lead to more social unrest and it sets up Dems perfectly for 2020...if they get their shit together and find their next Obama who can really convince the people, unlike Hillary.
I don't know if Russia backed Trump or not, and Trump has no bearing on who supports him.
Obama publicly spoke out on foreign elections constantly, was that wrong on his part?
However, Russia wanting Trump to win, is far different than Trump colluding with Russia.
I don't think they wanted Trump to win, I think they had a known commodity in Hillary, a favorable commodity.
The Dems just gave Russia their very own North Korea,with the Iran deal.
I didn't see a barrage of fake news articles (like real fake news, not the term it's becoming) all over the place targeting Trump though. It seemed like the foreign influence onslaught was very one sided. I'm not even debating whether Trump wanted it or accepted it or whatever, just that Russia seemed to clearly favor Trump.
That's a statement that would have been the end of a campaign in 1988, or even 2008. Russia wants so-and-so to be the next president would have pushed every red blooded American the other way.
That's all I was saying. You won't hear me argue that either party has handled foreign policy well in my lifetime. Too many moving parts and former alliances that become enemies. It's a disastrously messy job.
And my favorite part about the e-hacking, or e-influencing of the election, is the fact that the left is hell bent on a) moving elections to the e-world and b) are publically colliding with fn Facebook to censor and manipulate political "stuff". That is so rich.
Gonzo, There was fake news all over the place. Hell, how many sexual assault threats were there against Trump, remember the 13 year old? What happened to all those cases?
Or the constant polls showing Trump down 5-15 points in the days leading up to the election?
Or the constant polls showing Trump down 5-15 points in the days leading up to the election?
Yet you unequivacally back battles such as ESPN political garbage and sports protests with no real goal.
Fuzz/RQ still owes Brady $1000
Sure.
Lebron campaigning in street clothes for Hillary = fine
Lebron in uniform protesting a questionable Trayvon killing = not fine
Tried to influnce? Sure. Hacked voting machines? Nope, and careless to state as much.
and pssssttt....we try to influence elections around the globe and our own media colluded at great lengths to fix this election. It is all muddy.
Yep. like how Antifa does it, right?
Antifa=Good
Trump supporters=Bad
Yep. "protesting"
signed, sealed and delivered.
Might want to look up 1st amendment protections at work. As I have stated protest at work, get fined or suspended. Period. The NFL has done that with innocent things such as cleats and stickers.
In Lebron's case, change it to attending and lending his name to a protest in downtown Cleveland....fine.
But hey you guys keep arguing that actions that do nothing that help a cause and hurt the product you represent is productive, that is stellar reasoning.
Fine, tried to hack voting machines and may or may not have succeeded to various lengths and degrees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.b9f111b02b68
Regardless, the point was that citizens knowing a candidate was the choice of Russian agents would have been a hard task to overcome.
I'm aware that we, in all of our benevolence, decide what's best for other countries all of the time, and sometimes even try and persuade our own people of that, but imagine Bush 41 finding out Dukakis had Russian agents acting on his behalf. He'd have landed 95% of the vote.
So I just find it weird that a president whose foray into politics featured so much questioning of Obama's birth and citizenship, and who is supported by such staunch national pride "patriots," could be knowingly supported by Russia and it not bother those voters.
I expect a certain level of hypocrisy and blindness in political allegiance, that one just surprised me.
What am I unequivocally backing? That I think ESPN is losing business moreso due to new technology than political discussion on their website and programming? That I think people should be allowed to peacefully protest without the president calling for their jobs?
Guilty.
I would hope whoever teaches my future children also looks at issues critically and doesn't just yell about political nonsense.
You didn't address my question at all.
What successful protests have failed to break any laws/rules/regulations/procedures? You called the Rosa Parks comparison a false equivalency, so tell me when people have protested without doing something they weren't supposed to do.
