2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: ren on September 02, 2016, 07:57:41 AM
-
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/colin-kaepernick-protests-national-anthem-is-joined-by-teammate-021726337.html (https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/colin-kaepernick-protests-national-anthem-is-joined-by-teammate-021726337.html)
I think that if he didn't take a paycheck it would've made a bigger statement. Only in this country where this sport is played can he make that much money.
Let's see how much he made
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/colin-kaepernick-7751/ (http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/colin-kaepernick-7751/)
There is much inequality there.
-
My cooncern is that he did this while he was working and earning a paycheck. I wonder how many of us here can go out and do a political protest during working hours without getting punished or fired by our bosses?
-
He has the right to not participate. How many jobs make you say the pledge of allegiance or stand for the National anthem?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Yep, most employers require that you participate in political activities and behavior on your own time. The national anthem is a tradition for all pro sports in the US. The networks, owners and team managers support it because the people who write their checks support it.
The players are expected to demonstrate good sportsmanship especially while cameras are recording. They didn't schedule the event so each individual player could make a statement of their own choosing. He should already understand sportsmanship, since he was fined $11,000 for calling another player a n*@@er on the field, and the team was given a 15 yard penalty on that play for unsportsmanlike conduct. He's bringing all kinds of negative attention to the whole team and creating a distraction from the real reason they are there together.
Most people watch sports in person or at home because they don't want to watch something else -- like C-SPAN or MSNBC. They want their politics separated from their recreational sports which is a diversion from the normal stress and frustration felt when watching or discussing politics.
I read he's not going to be retained beyond this season due to his injuries, surgeries, and weight loss -- nothing to do with the political statements. But, with that baggage, he's going to have a tough time getting another team to take him. Unless he's a superstar player, no one wants to deal with the negative publicity.
-
There's nothing political about the national anthem.
It is appreciating the country we live in.
Another example of sitting and pouting because things don't go your way.
-
There's nothing political about the national anthem.
It is appreciating the country we live in.
Another example of sitting and pouting because things don't go your way.
We have a BINGO!
He's terrible. He had some success early on, but now that other teams have figured him out, I don't see him having the same effectiveness he had before. He cashed in a got a fat contract. Good for him. Now, he's just trying to stay relevant.
Even my die hard 49er fan friends want him gone. That's saying a lot.
Yeah, he's free to express himself in whatever way he feels. He just needs to be prepared for the full consequences of those actions. Though from his reactions and actions since this started, it's obvious that he didn't think this through and is just another entitled young punk.
-
Hmm, lets see...
CONTRACT: 6 yr(s) / $114,000,000
SIGNING BONUS$12,328,766
AVERAGE SALARY$19,000,000
GUARANTEED:$61,000,000
Fairness of this country, the flag and what it stands for? He gets paid to play a game and gets extremely rich off of it. Lets see him pull that off living in another country. He better pull his head out of his ass and unfuck himself.
-
He has the right to not participate. How many jobs make you say the pledge of allegiance or stand for the National anthem?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
It is extremely amazing for the few on this forum who champion the 2nd Amendment as it defends the 1st Amendment to chastise individuals who are exercising their 1st Amendment rights when it goes against their personal feelings on a particular issue. :wtf:
It is one thing to disagree with Kaepernick's actions, which is another perfect example of expressing one's 1st Amendment rights to rebuttal, but to call for the deportation of Kaepernick as such is irresponsible as the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression no matter what that message is.
For those guilty of this lack of understanding of 1st Amendment are showing that they are no different than the dictatorial anti-2nd Amendment supporters who use similar half-truth arguments to demonize and in some cases call for the outright elimination of the 2nd Amendment practicing community.
The Bill of Rights are absolute and not a Bill of Privilege Rights with stipulations for use. :shaka:
Kuleana
-
It is extremely amazing for the few on this forum who champion the 2nd Amendment as it defends the 1st Amendment to chastise individuals who are exercising their 1st Amendment rights when it goes against their personal feelings on a particular issue. :wtf:
It is one thing to disagree with Kaepernick's actions, which is another perfect example of expressing one's 1st Amendment rights to rebuttal, but to call for the deportation of Kaepernick as such is irresponsible as the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression no matter what that message is.
For those guilty of this lack of understanding of 1st Amendment are showing that they are no different than the dictatorial anti-2nd Amendment supporters who use similar half-truth arguments to demonize and in some cases call for the outright elimination of the 2nd Amendment practicing community.
The Bill of Rights are absolute and not a Bill of Privilege Rights with stipulations for use. :shaka:
Kuleana
I can chastise anyone I want to because its in the Bill of Rights.
In this case, I think that Kaepernick is a self-centered idiot who is unappreciative of this country and the freedoms it affords ALL OF US. If I had his opportunity would I turn around and say FUCK YOU this isn't fair?
I didn't do anything contrary to the Bill of Rights. I did not take away his right to express himself. I expressed my 1st amendment right to think and state he is an idiot.
I exercised my 1st amendment rights.
and you have too.
The difference between you and me is that I will stand and fight for this country. It's not perfect but its the best country to live in. Hawaii is an awesome state. Not perfect but awesome to live here.
Mic drop.
-
I can chastise anyone I want to because its in the Bill of Rights.
In this case, I think that Kaepernick is a self-centered idiot who is unappreciative of this country and the freedoms it affords ALL OF US.
I didn't do anything contrary to the Bill of Rights. I did not take away his right to express himself. I expressed my 1st amendment right to think and state he is an idiot.
I exercised my 1st amendment rights.
and you have too.
Mic drop.
For whatever its worth, I did not, nor was referring to you. So relax, no need to panic.
I simply stated, as in my post, that position statements and counter statements leading to debate are healthy examples for 1st Amendment fitness. It is only when statements that call for immediate actions that lead to violence against an individual or group(s) are when people are crossing the line and can be argued to be abusing their 1st Amendment Rights.
Kuleana
-
It is extremely amazing for the few on this forum who champion the 2nd Amendment as it defends the 1st Amendment to chastise individuals who are exercising their 1st Amendment rights when it goes against their personal feelings on a particular issue. :wtf:
It is one thing to disagree with Kaepernick's actions, which is another perfect example of expressing one's 1st Amendment rights to rebuttal, but to call for the deportation of Kaepernick as such is irresponsible as the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression no matter what that message is.
For those guilty of this lack of understanding of 1st Amendment are showing that they are no different than the dictatorial anti-2nd Amendment supporters who use similar half-truth arguments to demonize and in some cases call for the outright elimination of the 2nd Amendment practicing community.
The Bill of Rights are absolute and not a Bill of Privilege Rights with stipulations for use. :shaka:
Kuleana
I don't know who is "calling for deportation." He was born in Wisconsin and adopted by a white family. You can't "deport" a citizen!
Maybe you refer to the calls for him to find another country that doesn't "oppress him" as he says the US does. Or that he should find a country he CAN pledge allegiance to where he'd be happier and go live there.
Those statements are all covered under the same First Amendment. To say "deportation" is disingenuous.
I think you like :popcorn: too much!
-
It is extremely amazing for the few on this forum who champion the 2nd Amendment as it defends the 1st Amendment to chastise individuals who are exercising their 1st Amendment rights when it goes against their personal feelings on a particular issue. :wtf:
It is one thing to disagree with Kaepernick's actions, which is another perfect example of expressing one's 1st Amendment rights to rebuttal, but to call for the deportation of Kaepernick as such is irresponsible as the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression no matter what that message is.
For those guilty of this lack of understanding of 1st Amendment are showing that they are no different than the dictatorial anti-2nd Amendment supporters who use similar half-truth arguments to demonize and in some cases call for the outright elimination of the 2nd Amendment practicing community.
The Bill of Rights are absolute and not a Bill of Privilege Rights with stipulations for use. :shaka:
Kuleana
What are you talking about? No one here said he couldn't do what he is doing as a protest. No one said anything about deporting the guy. He probably needs a reality check as he wouldn't have nearly achieved the fame and fortune he did for playing football while doing it in another country. We also have the ability to call it like it is. 114 million dollars and he thinks this country is unfair. Ya right. He couldn't have accomplished that anywhere else but here.
-
I concur with Kuleana. The rest of you guys are free to criticize Kaepernick's unpopular opinion, just as he is free to sit during the national anthem. But, it is disturbing and partially contradictory that those who support the 2nd Amendment do not also support the 1st Amendment strongly enough to defend Kaepernick. Would you guys at least support Kaepernick if he were fired, fined, jailed, or deported as a result of his actions?
Personally, I approve of Kaepernick's actions as I dislike this country as well, but for different reasons. Both the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are shams as both our populace and government intrude on them whenever and however they please.
I don't think there is racial inequality worthy of protest though, I agree with ren on that. But that's just my opinion and I respect Kaepernick's opinion even though his is different from mine.
I don't think you are obligated to honor and cherish your country, despite how much money you make. I disagree with you guys on that. That sort of thinking creates dictatorships.
-
I concur with Kuleana. The rest of you guys are free to criticize Kaepernick's unpopular opinion, just as he is free to sit during the national anthem. But, it is disturbing and partially contradictory that those who support the 2nd Amendment do not also support the 1st Amendment strongly enough to defend Kaepernick. Would you guys at least support Kaepernick if he were fired, fined, jailed, or deported as a result of his actions?
Personally, I approve of Kaepernick's actions as I dislike this country as well, but for different reasons. Both the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are shams as both our populace and government intrude on them whenever and however they please.
I don't think there is racial inequality worthy of protest though, I agree with ren on that. But that's just my opinion and I respect Kaepernick's opinion even though his is different from mine.
I respect Kaepernick's right to protest. He has every right to as civil servants and service members who have paid the ultimate sacrifice ensured that all citizens have rights.
With that in mind - he's a dumb ass. Albeit a very rich dumb ass. It's up the NFL to fine him if they feel they should. He can't go to jail or be deported for sitting down or taking a knee.
Why I think he's a dumb ass and not a symbol of oppression? He is bi racial but was given an opportunity to play and have a career in America's sport: football. If America was so oppressive why was he given this opportunity? Why do we have black people playing in America's sport? They should be the very ones championing America nationalism instead of rehashing racism ideas propagated by BLM and other aligned orgs. The NFL isn't the only organization and industry that has offered minorities lucrative opportunities. How many famous and rich black musicians are there?
And to further his hypocrisy: his father was black ...but left him and his mother before he was born...his mom then put him up for adoption. The Kaepernicks - who were 2 WHITE people adopted him.
What country allowed this stuff to happen? That's right - AMERICA!
Pea Shooter and Kuleana - there is a difference in defending one's rights and one's actions.
A right is also a responsibility. You have a 1st amendment right to go up to someone and say "FUCK YOU" . You can also go up to Chinese person and say "chink" or to a black person and say "n-word"
You can also legally and rightfully wear this:
(http://actionagogo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Bamn-3-Page-21.jpg)
Should you?
As a citizen of an American society we should be grateful for what we have instead of what "I" want. In today's culture it seems that we focus on the latter.
Kennedy had a great speech about this country.
-
Where is anyone not supporting the 1st amendment? Kap is free to express himself in whatever way he wishes. No, I don't agree with it, but I never said that it wasn't his right to express his viewpoints. I don't see anyone here is calling for Kap to be arrested, censored, etc.
People have rights. Of course. However, don't expect society to accept you if you go against the grain. Sure, it's one's right to exercise their freedoms, but where does it say that society, or anyone for that matter, has to accept those actions.
Like all those counter culture and non-conformist people that like to express themselves in socially provocative ways. They are proud of their free thinking ways and their lifestyle that goes against society. It's their right to express themselves in that manner. Then the same people come out as saying society doesn't treat them fairly when society doesn't accept them for who they are, when they can't find a good paying job, etc.
ETA: Then again, just another distraction that the MSM is pressing to keep your (or anyone's) mind off of other more important things going in this country.
-
Where is anyone not supporting the 1st amendment? Kap is free to express himself in whatever way he wishes. No, I don't agree with it, but I never said that it wasn't his right to express his viewpoints. I don't see anyone here is calling for Kap to be arrested, censored, etc.
People have rights. Of course. However, don't expect society to accept you if you go against the grain. Sure, it's one's right to exercise their freedoms, but where does it say that society, or anyone for that matter, has to accept those actions.
Like all those counter culture and non-conformist people that like to express themselves in socially provocative ways. They are proud of their free thinking ways and their lifestyle that goes against society. It's their right to express themselves in that manner. Then the same people come out as saying society doesn't treat them fairly when society doesn't accept them for who they are, when they can't find a good paying job, etc.
ETA: Then again, just another distraction that the MSM is pressing to keep your (or anyone's) mind off of other more important things going in this country.
i heard a sports anchor say something interesting:
would the NFL and the 49'ers be writing statements supporting his right to free speech and sitting for the Anthem if he would've said "i cannot stand for the national anthem because i am a christian and i don't like the direction america is going in regards to gay marriage" or "i cannot stand for the national anthem because i support the police and do not like the direction the country is taking by believing what BLM says"
NO, he would've gotten fined /suspended for not being PC
-
i heard a sports anchor say something interesting:
would the NFL and the 49'ers be writing statements supporting his right to free speech and sitting for the Anthem if he would've said "i cannot stand for the national anthem because i am a christian and i don't like the direction america is going in regards to gay marriage" or "i cannot stand for the national anthem because i support the police and do not like the direction the country is taking by believing what BLM says"
NO, he would've gotten fined /suspended for not being PC
:thumbsup:
Many ways to spin, highlight, negate, etc the "story". How quickly speculation started on conversion to Islam, Muslim GF, etc. Only serves to stir an emotional response and in this case serves to "charge" the situation.
In this case, he's nothing more than a privileged punk kid. . . who deserves every right to express his views. Still a punk kid.
-
Individuals can disagree with Kaepernick's actions, but when society as a whole wants to punish his actions, that is a First Amendment problem. Society as a whole elects the government. This in turn selects judges and creates the law. American society does not truly believe in either the First or Second Amendment, and that is exactly why both rights are fake. Judges and the Supreme Court make rulings according to how they believe things should be, they do not care what the Amendments actually say.
That is why I asked the question "would you guys support Kaepernick if he were fired, fined, jailed, or deported as a result of his actions?" Everyone said they would not support imprisonment or deportation. But is that sufficient to protect his rights? I say it is not. Unless we also protect him from being fined and fired, then we've failed to protect Kaepernick's First Amendment rights. And in turn, we've failed to protect our own First and Second Amendment rights.
-
Individuals can disagree with Kaepernick's actions, but when society as a whole believes his actions should be punished, that is a First Amendment problem. Society as a whole elects the government. This in turn selects judges and creates the law. American society does not truly believe in either the First or Second Amendment, and that is exactly why both rights are fake. Judges and the Supreme Court make rulings according to how they believe things should be, they do not care what the Amendments actually say.
That is why I asked the question "would you guys support Kaepernick if he were fired, fined, jailed, or deported as a result of his actions?" Everyone said they would not support imprisonment or deportation. But is that sufficient to protect his rights? I say it is not. Unless we also protect him from being fined and fired, then we've failed to protect Kaepernick's First Amendment rights. And in turn, we've failed to protect our own First and Second Amendment rights.
Ok. How would you go about "protecting Kap's First Amendment rights"? Not being sarcastic here, just trying to understand where you're coming from and where you're going with that train of thought.
That said, what happened to him? Nothing. At least not yet. You feel he's at risk of losing his job? His contract is guaranteed. Do I think he should be fired or jailed? Not for what he did WRT to not standing during the National Anthem. Don't believe he can be deported. Do I think he's a little dipshit? ABSOLUTELY!
-
Individuals can disagree with Kaepernick's actions, but when society as a whole wants to punish his actions, that is a First Amendment problem. Society as a whole elects the government. This in turn selects judges and creates the law. American society does not truly believe in either the First or Second Amendment, and that is exactly why both rights are fake. Judges and the Supreme Court make rulings according to how they believe things should be, they do not care what the Amendments actually say.
That is why I asked the question "would you guys support Kaepernick if he were fired, fined, jailed, or deported as a result of his actions?" Everyone said they would not support imprisonment or deportation. But is that sufficient to protect his rights? I say it is not. Unless we also protect him from being fined and fired, then we've failed to protect Kaepernick's First Amendment rights. And in turn, we've failed to protect our own First and Second Amendment rights.
His employment is at will.
His rights are protected by the govt. Govt. can't do anything to suppress his 1st amendment rights. His job isn't.
If you went up to your boss and called him/her an asshole or a bi*tch , can they fire you? 1st amendment doesn't protect you there. If you think so, go right now up to your boss and say that.
His rights were protected. He wasn't arrested. He played and continues to play and get paid $$$. The NFL isn't the govt. They also have rules. uniforms. etc. Can they wear any kind of clothes when they play in a game? Can they wear a Black Panther shirt when playing a game? How about a helmet with swastika? Those are 1st amendment issues there.
-
In a nutshell:
When he's in his uniform, on TV, during the opening for a scheduled game, he's representing more than himself. He represents the team, the conference, the league and to the degree they support him financially, his fans. He also represents his sponsors.
He has the right to protest however he thinks is going to make a difference. That in no way means his choice is without consequences -- not for stating his opinion, but for the place, time and manner in which he chose to do it.
Remember Congressman Joe Wilson? He interrupted Obama's speech with "You lie!", and was rebuked formally by the House of Representatives. He wound up apologizing:
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill.
While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."
-
Kaepernick's 1st Amendment rights have not been violated yet. I'm just saying that the train of thought exhibited opens him up to that possibility. That's why I asked what if questions. And some of you might be okay with him being fined or fired.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired by a private organization, but it should in a scenario like this. That's part of why 1st Amendment law in the United States is crap. The other reason why it's crap is that the government and courts inconsistently violate established law at their whim on a case-to-case basis such that it's meaningless.
There is case law regarding what you can and cannot be fired for when you are employed in government jobs. You can be fired for calling your boss names, but supposedly cannot be fired for speech on matters of public concern, such as political speech. Of course, judges break the established case law in this area all the time, too.
The time, place, and manner criteria is a different free-speech argument that I can accept. If Kaepernick were to be punished under that guise, it would have to be shown that indeed his actions were in violation of that.
-
Kaepernick's 1st Amendment rights have not been violated yet. I'm just saying that the train of thought exhibited opens him up to that possibility. That's why I asked what if questions. And some of you might be okay with him being fined or fired.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired by a private organization, but it should in a scenario like this. That's part of why 1st Amendment law in the United States is crap. The other reason why it's crap is that the government and courts inconsistently violate established First Amendment law at their whim on a case-to-case basis such that it's meaningless. Just like how courts don't give a crap what the text of the 2nd Amendment says.
There is case law regarding what you can and cannot be fired for when you are employed in government jobs. You can be fired for calling your boss names, but supposedly cannot be fired for speech on matters of public concern, such as political speech. Of course, judges break the established case law in this area all the time, at their whim.
Sounds like you'd be okay with the government forcing a private company to keep you employed even after someone at work saw White Supremacist blogs on your social media accounts.
The company has no right to protect their public image, but the individual can do anything they want under the 1A protection as long as it's "political?".
Talk about a slippery slope! Pretty soon assassination will be covered under political expression with absolute protection from consequences.
-
Companies exist for profit.
Govt. exist to govern its people.
-
I didn't make the established case law regarding what kind of speech can or cannot get you fired by a government employer. Extending such restrictions to private companies would only put them in the same boat. We already force private companies to hire without discriminating by race, gender, etc. Before we forced that upon them, which perhaps we should not have, we should have forced them to hire without discriminating based on political ideology.
-
I didn't make the established case law regarding what kind of speech can or cannot get you fired by a government employer. Extending such restrictions to private companies would only put them in the same boat. We already force private companies to hire without discriminating by race, gender, etc. Before we forced that upon them, which perhaps we should not have, we should have forced them to hire without discriminating based on political ideology.
Right now, the opposite is happening. In some companies, they require you to "friend" them on FB and accept connections on any other social media accounts you have so they can see what you post, both publicly and privately to friends.
If they see something they don't like (use your imagination), your application for employment can be declined.
Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. They want to see (1) private things about you that tell them more about who you really are, and (2) anything you're interested in that might be a problem for their brand, image, or risk of liability. So, if you're a gun collector trying to get hired at a gun free establishment, you might want to start a parallel FB account with cat videos and health food recipes!
-
That's correct. Not only do private companies do that, I'm sure our government does that too.
That's why I first said "I approve of Kaepernick's actions as I dislike this country as well, but for different reasons. Both the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are shams as both our populace and government intrude on them whenever and however they please."
Whether or not the current trends are illegal or unconstitutional is semantics. They are legal because Americans allowed it. If the government officially repealed both the 1st and 2nd Amendment today, which they already have in secret, then the trends likewise become constitutional.
-
That's correct. Not only do private companies do that, I'm sure our government does that too.
That's why I first said "I approve of Kaepernick's actions as I dislike this country as well, but for different reasons. Both the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are shams as both our populace and government intrude on them whenever and however they please."
Whether or not the current trends are illegal or unconstitutional is semantics. They are legal because Americans allowed it. If the government officially repealed both the 1st and 2nd Amendment today, which they already have in secret, then the trends likewise become constitutional.
I disagree. Until and unless the Supreme Court is Liberal-leaning, the protections of the Constitution still have a "safety valve." Once we get Social Justice Warriors sworn in to the SCOTUS, all bets are off!
I guess they would be Social Justice Justices?
-
An Open Letter to Colin Kaepernick,
Dear Colin guess you have been pretty busy these last few days. For the record I don’t think any more or less of you for not standing for the national anthem.
Honestly, I never thought that much about you, or any professional athlete for that matter, to begin with. I’ve read your statement a few times and want you to
know I am one of the reasons you are protesting. You see I am a retired police officer that had the misfortune of having to shoot and kill a 19-year-old African-American
male. And just like you said, I was the recipient of about $3,000 a month while on leave, which was a good thing because I had to support a wife and three children
under 7 years old for about 2 months with that money. Things were pretty tight because I couldn’t work part-time. Every police officer I’ve ever known has worked
part-time to help make ends meet.
You know, Colin, the more I think about it, the more we seem to have in common. I really pushed myself in rehab to get back on the street, kind of like you do to get
back on the field. You probably have had a broken bone or two and some muscle strains and deep bruising that needed a lot of work. I just had to bounce back from
a gunshot wound to the chest and thigh. Good thing we both get paid when we are too banged up to “play,” huh? We both also know what it’s like to get blindsided.
You by a 280-pound defensive end, ouch! Me, by a couple of rounds fired from a gun about 2 feet away into my chest and thigh. We also both make our living wearing
uniforms, right? You have probably ruined a jersey or two on the field of play. I still have my blood-stained shirt that my partner and paramedics literally ripped off my
back that cold night in January. Fortunately, like you I was given a new one. Speaking of paramedics aren’t you glad the second we get hurt trainers and doctors are
standing by waiting to rush onto the field to scoop us up. I’m thankful they get to you in seconds. It only took them about 10 minutes to get to me. By the grace of God,
the artery in my thigh didn’t rupture or else 10 minutes would have been about 9 minutes too late. We also have both experienced the hate and disgust others have
just because of those uniforms we wear. I sure am glad for your sake that the folks who wear my uniform are on hand to escort you and those folks that wear your
uniform into stadiums in places like Seattle!
I guess that’s where the similarities end, Colin. You entertain for a living, I and almost 800,000 others across this country serve and protect. Are there some bad
apples within my profession? Absolutely, and they need to be identified and fired or arrested! But you know what, the vast majority do the right thing, the right way,
for the right reason. Did I mention that seconds before I was shot, an elderly African-American gentleman walking down the sidewalk, turned to my partner and I
as we rode past and said, “Get them.” Get who, you ask? The thugs terrorizing an otherwise good and decent neighborhood, home to dozens of good, decent
African-American families trying to raise those families in communities not protected by gates and security guards. No these folks and families depend on America’s
law enforcement officers.
Colin, I have buried 7 friends killed in the line of duty and three others who have committed suicide. I have attended more funerals than I care to remember of neighboring
departments who have lost officers in the line of duty, during my career. Law enforcement officers with different backgrounds, upbringings and experiences united by
their willingness to answer the call to protect and serve their fellow citizens.
Colin, I am sorry for the endorsement deals you may lose and the dip in jersey sales, but please know you will NEVER lose what these men and women and their
families have lost. And so whether you stand or sit during the national anthem means very little to me. As for me and the men and women on whose team I was
privileged to serve, we will put on our ballistic vests, badge and gun, kiss our loved ones goodbye, for some tragically for the last time, and out into a shift of uncertainty
we will go. We will continue to protect and continue to serve and we will be standing at attention, Colin, not just for the playing of our national anthem, but far more
importantly for the playing of Taps.
V/R (very respectfully),
Chris Amos
http://conservativetribune.com/cop-shot-minority-sends-kaepernick/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Huckabee&utm_content=2016-09-02&utm_campaign=manualpost
-
For whatever its worth, I did not, nor was referring to you. So relax, no need to panic.
I simply stated, as in my post, that position statements and counter statements leading to debate are healthy examples for 1st Amendment fitness. It is only when statements that call for immediate actions that lead to violence against an individual or group(s) are when people are crossing the line and can be argued to be abusing their 1st Amendment Rights.
Kuleana
Amen.
The problem is that this has become an attack Kaepernick topic instead of disprove Kaepernick's position topic. Emotions are flaring instead of intellect.
-
Amen.
The problem is that this has become an attack Kaepernick topic instead of disprove Kaepernick's position topic. Emotions are flaring instead of intellect.
For some of us who have served in a civil or military capacity, yes, there are emotions involved because to us the national anthem and the flag symbolize more than just a piece of fabric.
As that open letter was penned to Kaepernick, few of us can relate to that officer's experience.
-
https://youtu.be/0VDcN7yeLLk
-
https://youtu.be/0VDcN7yeLLk
She has a number of excellent points. However, is that an AK that is being held by the Statue of Liberty on her shirt? If so, it is kind of ironic that although she abhors and, rightfully so, dictators, the weapon of choice for many of those regimes was the AK, but I digress.
On the serious side, she really needs to educate herself with dictators of the 20th century. In her commentary, she goes on a tirade on how it is very distasteful to wear anything that shows any likeness to dictators of the 20th century. She is morally justified in her in position as in her legal right to do so.
She needs to be reminded, however, that it is totally American to support dictators. The US has and still supports some of the most oppressive regimes on this planet. Need we remember America's support of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, the Shaw of Iran, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq prior to loosing favor to President Bush? All of these human butchers were politically and financially supported by the US, even with the knowledge of the dictatorial nature of their rule as well as the police state apparatus that they employed in their respective regimes.
Consequently, in light of these facts, the only thing Kaepernick is guilty of doing in the aftermath of wearing the likeness of Fidel Castro on his shirt is that he should have worn a shirt that depicted one of America's past or present supported dictators. So the lesson for today boys and girls is: "Human butchers supported by America are GOOD, while human butchers not supported by America are BAD." :crazy:
Very Orwellian indeed...
Kuleana
-
She has a number of excellent points. However, is that an AK that is being held by the Statue of Liberty on her shirt? If so, it is kind of ironic that although she abhors and, rightfully so, dictators, the weapon of choice for many of those regimes was the AK, but I digress.
On the serious side, she really needs to educate herself with dictators of the 20th century. In her commentary, she goes on a tirade on how it is very distasteful to wear anything that shows any likeness to dictators of the 20th century. She is morally justified in her in position as in her legal right to do so.
She needs to be reminded, however, that it is totally American to support dictators. The US has and still supports some of the most oppressive regimes on this planet. Need we remember America's support of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, the Shaw of Iran, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq prior to loosing favor to President Bush? All of these human butchers were politically and financially supported by the US, even with the knowledge of the dictatorial nature of their rule as well as the police state apparatus that they employed in their respective regimes.
Consequently, in light of these facts, the only thing Kaepernick is guilty of doing in the aftermath of wearing the likeness of Fidel Castro on his shirt is that he should have worn a shirt that depicted one of America's past or present supported dictators. So the lesson for today boys and girls is: "Human butchers supported by America are GOOD, while human butchers not supported by America are BAD." :crazy:
Very Orwellian indeed...
Kuleana
-
She has a number of excellent points. However, is that an AK that is being held by the Statue of Liberty on her shirt? If so, it is kind of ironic that although she abhors and, rightfully so, dictators, the weapon of choice for many of those regimes was the AK, but I digress.
On the serious side, she really needs to educate herself with dictators of the 20th century. In her commentary, she goes on a tirade on how it is very distasteful to wear anything that shows any likeness to dictators of the 20th century. She is morally justified in her in position as in her legal right to do so.
She needs to be reminded, however, that it is totally American to support dictators. The US has and still supports some of the most oppressive regimes on this planet. Need we remember America's support of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, the Shaw of Iran, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq prior to loosing favor to President Bush? All of these human butchers were politically and financially supported by the US, even with the knowledge of the dictatorial nature of their rule as well as the police state apparatus that they employed in their respective regimes.
Consequently, in light of these facts, the only thing Kaepernick is guilty of doing in the aftermath of wearing the likeness of Fidel Castro on his shirt is that he should have worn a shirt that depicted one of America's past or present supported dictators. So the lesson for today boys and girls is: "Human butchers supported by America are GOOD, while human butchers not supported by America are BAD." :crazy:
Very Orwellian indeed...
Kuleana
No. all human butchers are bad. unless you are a cannibal. No country , society or past populations are perfect.
But going back to topic.
I still think Kaepernick is an ungrateful idiot.
If I was left by black parents to be raised by white parents and given the opportunities he had - I'd be extremely grateful.
Not many Americans are afforded his opportunities. Not many people on this planet are as fortunate as he is.
But its OK.
I hope one day he realizes how fortunate he is to be an American.
Curious Kuleana - given your disdain for America - I'm glad you exercise your 1st amendment rights. But do you exercise your 2nd? What kind of firearms do you own? I'm guessing you are an AK guy. :thumbsup:
-
Where did anyone state that Kaepernick cannot express his opinions? Where did anyone suggest that his right to free speech be infringed upon? Where did anyone say that he should be fined or fired? Where did anyone say he should be deported and I will also echo what was said earlier how do you deport a citizen? Is no one here who is equally able to express their beliefs that his is an idiot for his actions? Hate speech? Give me a break. What if's? Really, now we're what iffing?
We can be supportive of his 1st amendment right but that sure as hell does not mean that we need to support or even remotely like the manner in which he chooses to express himself.
If he were born and raised outside of the US, let's not kid anyone about the fact that he would have had nowhere near the opportunities that he has had as an American. Many people paid in blood so he can play a game and get extremely wealthy from it.
No one asked for him to be fired or even fined, but if myself and others don't like the manner in which he chooses to protest then we are also not obligated to support him or his employer financially. If this affects him financially then that is on him.
I have stood between opposing groups on more than one occasion helping to protect one groups 1st ammendment right. Every ounce of me vehemently disagreed with the message but I would not let anyone stop them from speaking. Kaepernick can say what he wants but that does not mean I have to like him or his actions either. I sure as he'll don't need to support his employer or him financially either.
-
No. all human butchers are bad. unless you are a cannibal. No country , society or past populations are perfect.
But going back to topic.
I still think Kaepernick is an ungrateful idiot.
If I was left by black parents to be raised by white parents and given the opportunities he had - I'd be extremely grateful.
Not many Americans are afforded his opportunities. Not many people on this planet are as fortunate as he is.
But its OK.
I hope one day he realizes how fortunate he is to be an American.
Curious Kuleana - given your disdain for America - I'm glad you exercise your 1st amendment rights. But do you exercise your 2nd? What kind of firearms do you own? I'm guessing you are an AK guy. :thumbsup:
Outside of the proud American Ruger family of firearms I own, I tend to favor foreign manufactured firearms. While the highly battle proven AR may be THE weapon of choice in the First World, it is the Kalashnikov family of rifles that is THE immortal weapon of the Whole World. Long live the AK! :worship:
Kuleana
-
Outside of the proud American Ruger family of firearms I own, I tend to favor foreign manufactured firearms. While the highly battle proven AR may be THE weapon of choice in the First World, it is the Kalashnikov family of rifles that is THE immortal weapon of the Whole World. Long live the AK! :worship:
Kuleana
Ah The AK. Same instrument used by the butcher Saddam Hussein
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d2/c9/4e/d2c94e1a29f970de1477b268d98e562c.jpg)
OK. I understand whole wheat bread - what is the "Whole World"?
The AK is not legal in the Whole World so it is not so immortal.
I don't think you can own one in Japan, Australia, UK...they are mortally banned.
but...
you can still own one in the good ole USA :thumbsup:
isn't this country amazing?
-
Ah The AK. Same instrument used by the butcher Saddam Hussein
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d2/c9/4e/d2c94e1a29f970de1477b268d98e562c.jpg)
OK. I understand whole wheat bread - what is the "Whole World"?
The AK is not legal in the Whole World so it is not so immortal.
I don't think you can own one in Japan, Australia, UK...they are mortally banned.
but...
you can still own one in the good ole USA :thumbsup:
isn't this country amazing?
I never ever said that there was nothing great about the US. In fact, I have always praised and still praise the many progressive things America had the honor of introducing into the World. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are still two of the most prolific documents ever created by man.
Having said that, America is no longer the greatest nation in the World.
It is still leaps and bounds ahead of most countries in terms of standard of living, technological progress, and legal systems; but since it began displaying its desire for global empire and allowing crony capitalism go unchecked after WWII, that was when this country began its fall from grace. Since that time, we have and continue to see the ongoing decline of not equal, but equitable income distribution, individual freedoms, and erosion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Can America change to its former glory? Maybe, but it seems unlikely at this point.
The point is that the US that many on this forum was born and raised with as well as loved, for all tense and purpose, no longer exists. Today's America for many older citizens is a totally foreign country.
Kuleana
-
I'd like to understand why people feel like this is not the greatest country on earth and what country they feel is the best. If they feel another country is better why the hell don't they go over there?
I know the answer to this question. It is because this IS the best country in the world and even with the shortcomings it remains a FACT. The issues we face is that ASSHOLES like this rich entitled spoiled brat think they need to make some kind of INSULT to the very nation that enabled him to achieve what he has achieved.
I do not subscribe to the notion that because of a certain race, color, or creed a person is exempt from attaining greatness. Yes, I concede, is may be harder for some than others, however, with will and work it can, and has, been done.
http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422#influential-mother
-
I like many countries better than the present America (but maybe not the original America, as Kuleana said). I would surely move to such other countries if not for the fact that I was born here, only speak English, etc. If that's not good enough of an answer, should we start deporting US citizens who aren't patriotic?
Patriotism is what really created this debate on Kaepernick. Pretty much all of us here agree that his views on racism and oppression are silly, especially given his position. But some of us defend his actions nevertheless, while others choose to ridicule him. I wonder what each of us would have said if Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem simply because he hates this country, and he didn't give any reason why. What if Ichiro Suzuki was the one who sat for the anthem instead?
Where did anyone say that he should be fined or fired? Where did anyone say he should be deported and...how do you deport a citizen? Really, now we're what iffing?
What if's are great here because asking the question helps to clarify each of our positions. A few people in this thread are coming very close to suggesting that Kaepernick should be deported, or fined for his actions. Since the government isn't supposed to punish him, let's have his employer or society punish him in its place.
It's easy to deport a US citizen. Just elect Trump, maybe it will happen a lot. And didn't we deport Snowden? I guess they say Snowden committed a "crime" but with how inconsistent the courts are, they could say Kaepernick committed a crime if they wanted to. Stuff like that happens.
You probably don't support free speech as strongly as you think you do, if you are okay with Kaepernick being fined or fired, or even publicly ridiculed by society en-masse for his actions. Yes, technically that's allowed by our 1st Amendment as it is interpreted today, but remember that freedom of speech is a global idea that is not limited to modern America's lacking understanding of it.
-
I like many countries better than the present America (but maybe not the original America, as Kuleana said). I would surely move to such other countries if not for the fact that I was born here, only speak English, etc. If that's not good enough of an answer, should we start deporting US citizens who aren't patriotic?
Patriotism is what really created this debate on Kaepernick. Pretty much all of us here agree that his views on racism and oppression are silly, especially given his position. But some of us defend his actions nevertheless, while others choose to ridicule him. I wonder what each of us would have said if Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem simply because he hates this country, and he didn't give any reason why. What if Ichiro Suzuki was the one who sat for the anthem instead?
What if's are great here because asking the question helps to clarify each of our positions. A few people in this thread are coming very close to suggesting that Kaepernick should be deported, or fined for his actions. Since the government isn't supposed to punish him, let's have his employer or society punish him in its place.
It's easy to deport a US citizen. Just elect Trump, maybe it will happen a lot. And didn't we deport Snowden? I guess they say Snowden committed a "crime" but with how inconsistent the courts are, they could say Kaepernick committed a crime if they wanted to. Stuff like that happens.
You probably don't support free speech as strongly as you think you do, if you are okay with Kaepernick being fined or fired, or even publicly ridiculed by society en-masse for his actions. Yes, technically that's allowed by our 1st Amendment as it is interpreted today, but remember that freedom of speech is a global idea that is not limited to modern America's lacking understanding of it.
Nope your conclusions are all wrong, IMHO. I don;t think we should deport him or anyone else who is a US citizen for excising their rights. Weather or not I or other support him being fined and/or fired is irrelevant to the whole topic.
Like others have pointed out you have the right to free speech, you also have to live with the consequences of what you incur.
We have free speech to oppose gun control and disdain for Hawaii's infringement of the 2nd amendment. Do you not think we suffer the consequences for that? We endure it because we feel it is right and just and a noble cause. Now he must endure the consequences if that is what he believes.
-
I like many countries better than the present America (but maybe not the original America, as Kuleana said). I would surely move to such other countries if not for the fact that I was born here, only speak English, etc. If that's not good enough of an answer, should we start deporting US citizens who aren't patriotic?
Patriotism is what really created this debate on Kaepernick. Pretty much all of us here agree that his views on racism and oppression are silly, especially given his position. But some of us defend his actions nevertheless, while others choose to ridicule him. I wonder what each of us would have said if Kaepernick didn't stand for the anthem simply because he hates this country, and he didn't give any reason why. What if Ichiro Suzuki was the one who sat for the anthem instead?
What if's are great here because asking the question helps to clarify each of our positions. A few people in this thread are coming very close to suggesting that Kaepernick should be deported, or fined for his actions. Since the government isn't supposed to punish him, let's have his employer or society punish him in its place.
It's easy to deport a US citizen. Just elect Trump, maybe it will happen a lot. And didn't we deport Snowden? I guess they say Snowden committed a "crime" but with how inconsistent the courts are, they could say Kaepernick committed a crime if they wanted to. Stuff like that happens.
You probably don't support free speech as strongly as you think you do, if you are okay with Kaepernick being fined or fired, or even publicly ridiculed by society en-masse for his actions. Yes, technically that's allowed by our 1st Amendment as it is interpreted today, but remember that freedom of speech is a global idea that is not limited to modern America's lacking understanding of it.
Snowden committed a crime. He knowingly leaked classified information to the public and fled to Hong Kong. He broke laws. When you are a cleared professional as he was, you sign a binding contract with the government that you are trusted with certain types of information. His actions put lives in danger and ended many careers. He is a wanted person for the crimes he committed against the United States.
Kaepernick committed no crime. He did something disrespectful but that's not a crime. Fuck you PeaShooter. You don't any guns GTFO forum! Now was that a crime?
The NFL is free to fine him as they see fit because they are not a govt. agency or body and Kaepernick voluntarily joined it.
Like I said, they have other rules too that are not congruent with the 1st amendment. They can't wear any kind of uniform they want to when they play. Can a 49ers player wear a hockey uniform to a game? Can a football player wear a goalie mask instead of a football helmet? How about a Kangol hat during a game? What if the player decides to exercise his 1st amendment right by wearing a German helmet to a game? He won't get arrested but he'll surely get fined or other punitive actions. Should we support a player if they want to wear a Black Panther uniform to a game to protest / bring attention to BLM?
How about this:
What if the entire 49ers team decided to re enact Beyonce's half time superbowl performance instead of playing the game?
Should we support them with "Likes" because well you know black lives matter.
We can ridicule a person for being an ungrateful dumb ass. He made a decision to bring attention to himself with his disrespect for our flag. This country gives you the freedom to do things but it doesn't protect you from the consequences you reap from your actions. You can slap a lion all you want. Expect to get bit. We forget about the latter. Like these people.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/09/mizzou-protesters-to-media-stay-out-of-our-safe-space-or-we-ll-call-the-cops.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/09/mizzou-protesters-to-media-stay-out-of-our-safe-space-or-we-ll-call-the-cops.html)
Can't handle the debate or rhetoric? Then don't protest.
-
Today's America for many older citizens is a totally foreign country.
You eventually wrote something I can agree with, though probably not with the meaning you intended.
-
I'd like to understand why people feel like this is not the greatest country on earth and what country they feel is the best. If they feel another country is better why the hell don't they go over there?
With all due respect Heavies, one reason, as to why the US is no longer the greatest country on Earth, can be readily seen in many of the socio-economic statistics when compared to the rest of the World. Please see https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/ for details. IF those stats are indeed accurate, America is not in the top five things of most items on that site and actually leading in many negative categories.
The most important reason, however, as to why America is no longer great as it once was, is the fact the very foundations of the United States is being or has been destroyed. What I am talking about is the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the electoral process of government officials. These three items is essentially what America was all about, which was the main and only reason that made America GREAT. Not sports, not the money, not American Idol, not Britany Spears, not the NRA, not the NAACP, not the ACLU, none of those things.
As such, as many on this and many other similar forums know, those hallmarks of America have been either already eradicated (e.g., Fourth Amendment), or in the process of eradication (e.g., First and Second Amendment), corrupted (e.g., Congress and Judicial Branches, Presidential electoral process), and/or subverted beyond recognition (e.g., US Constitution).
As a result, the destruction of those foundations makes the US nothing more than a banana republic, not in form as the American infrastructure still is intact, but rather in substance. Our elections are being stolen right in front of every American's face and no one is protesting to the level that should be taken for God's sake!
That, above all else, is the compelling reason as to why the US is no longer the greatest nation on Earth.
As to your second question, there is no other country that would make sense to immigrate. The reason is not because those other nations are far worse than America, but rather, America is not far better than those countries. Hence, it makes no sense to pick-up and leave the US, if the overall experience in the emigrating country is relatively the same.
Kuleana
-
Wholly crap China is 80%+ satisfied with their country?
What about the remaining 20%?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/31/article-0-144C3340000005DC-58_306x434.jpg)
(http://currentworldprobs.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/0/9/17093868/7225539_orig.jpg)
(https://tibettruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/execution.png)
They better be satisfied..... or else!
-
Wholly crap China is 80%+ satisfied with their country?
What about the remaining 20%?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/31/article-0-144C3340000005DC-58_306x434.jpg)
(http://currentworldprobs.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/0/9/17093868/7225539_orig.jpg)
(https://tibettruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/execution.png)
They better be satisfied..... or else!
Like I said, IF those statistics are correct.
Kuleana
-
Like I said, IF those statistics are correct.
Kuleana
Why base it in your argument that America sucks ass, if you don't give it credence?
-
For some of us who have served in a civil or military capacity, yes, there are emotions involved because to us the national anthem and the flag symbolize more than just a piece of fabric.
As that open letter was penned to Kaepernick, few of us can relate to that officer's experience.
I think as conservatives we should uphold our standard to sticking to logic and reason instead of emotion. That is certainly what we preach on the gun control debate.
I do understand there is emotion involved but it distracts us from the heart of the issue.
-
I think as conservatives we should uphold our standard to sticking to logic and reason instead of emotion. That is certainly what we preach on the gun control debate.
I do understand there is emotion involved but it distracts us from the heart of the issue.
I think that is very much the case here. You don't see conservatives rioting, looting, and burning down the city even though this jerk off pretty much spits in ALL free America's face.
-
Why base it in your argument that America sucks ass, if you don't give it credence?
Because, as I said in my previous post, the almost total elimination/corruption/subversion of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Electoral process of our government officials are the main reasons as to why America is no longer the greatest nation on Earth.
The stats presented were supplementary evidence to justify my position.
Kuleana
-
I think that is very much the case here. You don't see conservatives rioting, looting, and burning down the city even though this jerk off pretty much spits in ALL free America's face.
Do you think Kaepernick could walk into your average american bar in a red state and yell America sucks without being assaulted by at least someone who would call themselves a republican? I don't like speculative questions so I don't expect an answer. I think that in the right setting you would see violence from people who identify as republicans. Did you see the episode of Top Gear where they were somewhere in the south USA? They wrote nascar sucks and various other things that would be popular among the crowd there. Looked like they barely escaped violence from a crowd that you would guess are republicans. (I know, this is anecdotal)
Or are conservatives just too lazy to get out and riot?
-
I'd like to understand why people feel like this is not the greatest country on earth and what country they feel is the best. If they feel another country is better why the hell don't they go over there?
Great/best can be defined in many ways which makes the question fairly subjective.
But more on topic I think that people incorrectly think that just because something is there greatest doesn't mean there are no grounds for criticism. We might be the greatest country on this planet but there are plenty of valid criticisms to be had. I don't think the valid criticisms should be ignored under the guise of patriotism.
Where is the line crossed from loving the country despite its problems to no longer liking this country? If the greatness of our constitution exists only in concept and no longer in concept are we still a great country?
-
Do you think Kaepernick could walk into your average american bar in a red state and yell America sucks without being assaulted by at least someone who would call themselves a republican? I don't like speculative questions so I don't expect an answer. I think that in the right setting you would see violence from people who identify as republicans. Did you see the episode of Top Gear where they were somewhere in the south USA? They wrote nascar sucks and various other things that would be popular among the crowd there. Looked like they barely escaped violence from a crowd that you would guess are republicans. (I know, this is anecdotal)
Or are conservatives just too lazy to get out and riot?
I think it is wrong blanket assumption that Republicans are violent patriots.
Why can't a Democrat love America as much and punch a guy for saying that?
-
If you guys ridicule Kaepernick's opinions on racism, that's fine. When you guys chastize Kaepernick's method of protest because it's not patriotic, that's not good because you are suppressing free speech. If I say "the 1st Amendment should be repealed" that is likewise an attack on free speech, even though my words do not violate the 1st Amendment. When you say Kaepernick should face "consequences" that means you want to punish his speech.
So some guys here are partly acting like liberals without realizing it. Liberals also like this country. They especially love what this country is becoming. They want to erode the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendment. Everyone here supports the 2nd Amendment, but now we are seeing who truly supports free speech, and who does not.
-
If you guys ridicule Kaepernick's opinions on racism, that's fine. When you guys chastize Kaepernick's method of protest because it's not patriotic, that's not good because you are suppressing free speech. If I say "the 1st Amendment should be repealed" that is likewise an attack on free speech, even though my words do not violate the 1st Amendment. When you say Kaepernick should face "consequences" that means you want to punish his speech.
So some guys here are partly acting like liberals without realizing it. Liberals also like this country. They especially love what this country is becoming. They want to erode the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendment. Everyone here supports the 2nd Amendment, but now we are seeing who truly supports free speech, and who does not.
His act was not patriotic. We are discussing this in an open forum an dI think he is an ungrateful idiot. Did I write to the NFL to get him fired or the like? Nope. The NFL can deal with it the way they see fit. There's nothing illegal to scold Kaepernick. You do this with your kids when they misbehave.
Like I mentioned before there are consequences regardless of what your rights are. We all live in a society under the USA. Most of us feel grateful for this country. To disrespect it is unpopular - not illegal. If your kid goes up to his teacher at the end of the day and says,"Fuck you" would you pat him/her on the back for exercising their free speech? It's not nice to say Fuck You to the teacher but its not illegal. If you punish your child you are suppressing free speech.
Or how about this. Your kids say Fuck You Dad for all this light, rent and food in this house. You punish him. You suppress free speech.
-
If you guys ridicule Kaepernick's opinions on racism, that's fine. When you guys chastize Kaepernick's method of protest because it's not patriotic, that's not good because you are suppressing free speech. If I say "the 1st Amendment should be repealed" that is likewise an attack on free speech, even though my words do not violate the 1st Amendment. When you say Kaepernick should face "consequences" that means you want to punish his speech.
So some guys here are partly acting like liberals without realizing it. Liberals also like this country. They especially love what this country is becoming. They want to erode the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendment. Everyone here supports the 2nd Amendment, but now we are seeing who truly supports free speech, and who does not.
I'm sure I did not say he "should" face consequences. I don't believe any one else did either. (I did not re look at every post.)
I did say he must face the consequences. Which is not the same thing.
I still don't see where you are coming up with anyone not supporting the 1st Amendment.
-
Reads like theirs not a lot of football fans out there.
Kaepernick's been with the 9'rs since 2011 and he never had an issue with anybody's "rights" until this year when he might have been/was supposed to be replaced.
Several options were on the table.
Check is record, he's done nothing but go down hill and basically, he's a shitty quarter back who can't scramble or throw.
Now because of what he said, if he is replaced, it's racial discrimination.
His donation is a stunt and if he wanted to do something, he could have sold his foot locker garage full of every pair of Nike shoes ever made to make a statement.
He makes too much money for what he cannot do.
Da Bears and Vikes. :love:
-
Reads like theirs not a lot of football fans out there.
Kaepernick's been with the 9'rs since 2011 and he never had an issue with anybody's "rights" until this year when he might have been/was supposed to be replaced.
Several options were on the table.
Check is record, he's done nothing but go down hill and basically, he's a shitty quarter back who can't scramble or throw.
Now because of what he said, if he is replaced, it's racial discrimination.
His donation is a stunt and if he wanted to do something, he could have sold his foot locker garage full of every pair of Nike shoes ever made to make a statement.
He makes too much money for what he cannot do.
Da Bears and Vikes. :love:
ahh that makes sense.
Crappy performance so he prepares the stage to throw down the race card.
-
Whether or not you support free speech or the 1st Amendment, is not a pure yes/no answer. The application of free speech varies from country to country, and even within our country the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by courts changes with time. The question is: how strongly do you support free speech? Some here "support" it to the bare minimum extent, just enough to comply with lackluster American law and no more.
In the teacher/parent examples, yes free speech is being suppressed. But perhaps that type of suppression is more acceptable. At least in the teacher example, the courts have classified such speech as violating "time, place, and manner" restrictions that Flapp brought up earlier and I agreed with. If the kid badmouths his teacher outside of school, that should be protected, right? (But these days, it is not! Hence the continuing erosion of the 1st Amendment).
If you say that Kaepernick "must face the consequences" that means you accept that it's okay for his speech to be punished in certain ways by unspecified entities: a gray and unimpressive level of support for free speech. At least until you clarify what the acceptable "consequences" are.
-
Whether or not you support free speech or the 1st Amendment, is not a pure yes/no answer. The application of free speech varies from country to country, and even within our country the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by courts changes with time. The question is: how strongly do you support free speech? Some here "support" it to the bare minimum extent, just enough to comply with lackluster American law and no more.
In the teacher/parent examples, yes free speech is being suppressed. But perhaps that type of suppression is more acceptable. At least in the teacher example, the courts have classified such speech as violating "time, place, and manner" restrictions that Flapp brought up earlier and I agreed with. If the kid badmouths his teacher outside of school, that should be protected, right? (But these days, it is not! Hence the continuing erosion of the 1st Amendment).
If you say that Kaepernick "must face the consequences" that means you accept that it's okay for his speech to be punished in certain ways by unspecified entities: a gray and unimpressive level of support for free speech. At least until you clarify what the acceptable "consequences" are.
there are consequences for whatever action you take! Good or bad. I did not advocate for consequences for Kaepernick nor did anyone here. Do you suggest a "safe zone" for him???? In this case the consequences of his selfish actions are the undue negative publicity he brought to the team. If I was there just to play and my teammate wants a soapbox for his selfish needs wouldn't I get a bit upset?
On the flip side if I prepare myself for a game well enough then the consequence of preparing is hopefully a win...right?
In this situation there are so many interpretations and opinions. You don't chastise him but I do. That's fine.
By the way, you do acknowledge that Snowden is a criminal on the run right?
-
His act was not patriotic.
I think some might disagree, at least he does.
We don't own the word patriotism and being a patriot can mean different things to different people. In his own misguided way he may believe he is being patriotic. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks that he is standing up (by sitting down) for injustice. We know that it is a fake injustice but he may not. I think in a way his act was patriotic in intent, just that he was fed a lie. That is why I don't like blind patriotism but that is another topic.
-
Whether or not you support free speech or the 1st Amendment, is not a pure yes/no answer. The application of free speech varies from country to country, and even within our country the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by courts changes with time. The question is: how strongly do you support free speech? Some here "support" it to the bare minimum extent, just enough to comply with lackluster American law and no more.
In the teacher/parent examples, yes free speech is being suppressed. But perhaps that type of suppression is more acceptable. At least in the teacher example, the courts have classified such speech as violating "time, place, and manner" restrictions that Flapp brought up earlier and I agreed with. If the kid badmouths his teacher outside of school, that should be protected, right? (But these days, it is not! Hence the continuing erosion of the 1st Amendment).
If you say that Kaepernick "must face the consequences" that means you accept that it's okay for his speech to be punished in certain ways by unspecified entities: a gray and unimpressive level of support for free speech. At least until you clarify what the acceptable "consequences" are.
The 1st amendment protects against government regulation of free speech. I personally believe this means in all but the very narrowest of situations. (fire in a crowded building, etc) The government cannot and should not have any say in Kaepernick's actions.
But when it comes to a private individual or company, there really is no freedom of speech, at least not from the 1st amendment. The boss can punish you and so can the free market.
-
Bill Maher and Gilbert Gottfried are anxiously waiting to see what this forum decides!
>:D
-
Whether or not you support free speech or the 1st Amendment, is not a pure yes/no answer. The application of free speech varies from country to country, and even within our country the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by courts changes with time. The question is: how strongly do you support free speech? Some here "support" it to the bare minimum extent, just enough to comply with lackluster American law and no more.
In the teacher/parent examples, yes free speech is being suppressed. But perhaps that type of suppression is more acceptable. At least in the teacher example, the courts have classified such speech as violating "time, place, and manner" restrictions that Flapp brought up earlier and I agreed with. If the kid badmouths his teacher outside of school, that should be protected, right? (But these days, it is not! Hence the continuing erosion of the 1st Amendment).
If you say that Kaepernick "must face the consequences" that means you accept that it's okay for his speech to be punished in certain ways by unspecified entities: a gray and unimpressive level of support for free speech. At least until you clarify what the acceptable "consequences" are.
What rule of law would we live under if all free speech had no consequences?
In the parent teacher example you are arguing against yourself. "perhaps it is more acceptable" As was stated many times, there are no criminal law against what he has done, nor should there be. Therefore, it is our responsibility as a culture to do what is right in that situation.
Same in this case. I think pride in national identity is an "acceptable" reason for consequences. It is what absolutely binds all Americans, who are of all races, colors, and creeds, together as a force. This is what make our country great and what has banned us together in times of crisis, even with all our issues and problems. If the forces of the left have there way there will be no national identity and pride. With that, they can now come through and decimate the remaining rights we hold dear. Wouldn't you suppose that is a cause to be angered and cause to ridicule and punish in the public eye?
I for one, am glad that the public has come out to voice opposition to this turd. It shows that this nation is not as far gone as many would like to believe. It shows there is still hope to turn things around.
-
His one act of defiance in the spotlight got more national attention on a topic of discussion than whole protests and shutting down of freeways.
(Not saying I agree with it but just saying)
-
What rule of law would we live under if all free speech had no consequences?
Yes, I agree that there should be consequences should any laws be broken. However, it is difficult to provide consequences to Unalienable Rights to all People that is the First Amendment. If not carefully crafted, you will eventually have public-approved Permitted Speech and not Free Speech.
In the parent teacher example you are arguing against yourself. "perhaps it is more acceptable" As was stated many times, there are no criminal law against what he has done, nor should there be. Therefore, it is our responsibility as a culture to do what is right in that situation.
The issue in this example concerns more the rights and responsibilities of the teacher-student relationship rather than in the context of Free Speech. Hence, the justification of schools to take disciplinary action of students who verbally harass their teachers is in compliance of the conduct accepted within the teacher-student relationship and not a violation of that student's First Amendment rights.
Same in this case. I think pride in national identity is an "acceptable" reason for consequences. It is what absolutely binds all Americans, who are of all races, colors, and creeds, together as a force. This is what make our country great and what has banned us together in times of crisis, even with all our issues and problems.
Although I agree on your contention that pride in national identity can create patriotism that results in national unity; however, true patriotism to a flag or anthem should not be the primary factor for any critical-thinking citizen to blindly follow. Stalin and Hitler were two notable examples that utilized national identity and national pride to get their citizenry to go along with their genocidal acts in their respective countries.
If the forces of the left have there way there will be no national identity and pride. With that, they can now come through and decimate the remaining rights we hold dear. Wouldn't you suppose that is a cause to be angered and cause to ridicule and punish in the public eye?
Critical-thinking citizens of any nation should be upset with anyone or group that is trying to eliminate/subvert/corrupt the established laws within their nation. Hence, those on the left should be passionately ostracized in the public eye, not in the context of their personal beliefs or what kind of America they wish to see, but rather their overt and covert actions to manipulate or eliminate the established laws within the US in trying to achieve their goals.
I for one, am glad that the public has come out to voice opposition to this turd. It shows that this nation is not as far gone as many would like to believe. It shows there is still hope to turn things around.
Let us hope things still can be turned around.
Kuleana
-
There should be no "safe zone" for Kaepernick. That would indeed go against free speech. You guys are free to criticize Kaepernick. You guys are free to attack the 1st Amendment. All I point out is that your choice to criticize his lack of patriotism, is an attack on the 1st Amendment, even though your words don't violate it. Indifference towards "consequences" and over-concern for "negative publicity" is liberal thinking.
Claiming to support the 1st Amendment by saying you support the current interpretation of it in America, is the same as Hillary Clinton saying she supports the 2nd Amendment.
What rule of law would we live under if all free speech had no consequences?
I think pride in national identity is an "acceptable" reason for consequences...If the forces of the left have there way there will be no national identity and pride.
I'm not as concerned about what the reasons for consequences are. I'm more concerned with what the actual consequences are. If a person employed in a government job says "America sucks" and is fired, is that an acceptable consequence? It happens all the time, even though it's not supposed to. Soon, it will be explicitly allowed by case law.
National identity and pride, aka patriotism, is featured in most countries, even dictatorships. I'm not sure it is related to left/right politics in America in particular.
-
There should be no "safe zone" for Kaepernick. That would indeed go against free speech. You guys are free to criticize Kaepernick. You guys are free to attack the 1st Amendment. All I point out is that your choice to criticize his lack of patriotism, is an attack on the 1st Amendment, even though your words don't violate it. Indifference towards "consequences" and over-concern for "negative publicity" is liberal thinking.
Claiming to support the 1st Amendment by saying you support the current interpretation of it in America, is the same as Hillary Clinton saying she supports the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not as concerned about what the reasons for consequences are. I'm more concerned with what the actual consequences are. If a person employed in a government job says "America sucks" and is fired, is that an acceptable consequence? It happens all the time, even though it's not supposed to. Soon, it will be explicitly allowed by case law.
National identity and pride, aka patriotism, is featured in most countries, even dictatorships. I'm not sure it is related to left/right politics in America in particular.
So our opinions are suppressed? We shouldn't say anything in response to what another person does or say? Any criticism is an attack on the 1st? Should we applaud him? Criticism goes both ways. Service members are prohibited from saying anything negative about the President. That's a given. Hence, certain rights are suspended when you are in military uniform.
A private company employing a person under at-will employment can fire people for other reasons. You have no right to employment.
Now we know the true reason Kaepernick is doing all this. In this case, he sucks and the team is likely to let him go because of poor performance as a player. He is shaping the media to to turn this into a race / equality issue if he gets let go by the team because of his poor performance. His true intention has nothing to do with nationalism or race/equality issues. It's a charade. And we fell for it.
-
His one act of defiance in the spotlight got more national attention on a topic of discussion than whole protests and shutting down of freeways.
(Not saying I agree with it but just saying)
I hope he survived.
If that was North Korea they'd give him a mortar shell and have him walk far far away.
-
Your opinions and criticism of Kaepernick should not be suppressed. If I gave off that feeling, it was my mistake. However, I am suggesting that you reconsider parts of your opinion. I am not forcing you to. If you weren't a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I would not bother trying to convince you. But folks who support the 2nd Amendment should realize that it's related to the 1st Amendment, and reconsider if criticism of Kaepernick's lack of patriotism is consistent with conservative or libertarian values. That was Kuleana's initial point.
I wasn't aware that service members are prohibited from saying anything negative about the President. Is this true?
-
Your opinions and criticism of Kaepernick should not be suppressed. If I gave off that feeling, it was my mistake. However, I am suggesting that you reconsider parts of your opinion. I am not forcing you to. If you weren't a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I would not bother trying to convince you. But folks who support the 2nd Amendment should realize that it's related to the 1st Amendment, and reconsider if criticism of Kaepernick's lack of patriotism is consistent with conservative or libertarian values. That was Kuleana's initial point.
I wasn't aware that service members are prohibited from saying anything negative about the President. Is this true?
HA!
That's ironic. You're telling me to change MY opinion? As a champion of 1st amendment rights you are "suggesting" I change my opinion? Don't you see the irony of your arguments? The spirit of the 1st amendment is the freedom to opine without fear of prosecution. Now I understand you are not a govt. entity but your "suggestion" that I change my opinion goes against the very grain of the 1st amendment.
May I suggest that your turn in all if any firearms you have to the nearest police station PeaShooter.
Yes, it is true.
-
There is no irony in what I said, though I don't blame you for seeing it that way. The next sentence after the one you underlined/bolded explains why.
I accept that I've failed to convince you of the inconsistency of your stance through logical argument.
-
There is no irony in what I said, though I don't blame you for seeing it that way. The next sentence after the one you underlined/bolded explains why.
I accept that I've failed to convince you of the inconsistency of your stance through logical argument.
Your argument is weak because on one hand you say that my opinions should not be suppressed; as you introduced a clause with a "however".
Which part of my opinion do you wish me to reconsider?
I think Kaepernick is an idiot.
-
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/09/04/santa-clara-police-may-boycott-working-49ers-stadium-if-colin-ka/21465341/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D869786359_htmlws-sb-bb.
I guess as they would be there under "private contract" the also have "the right" to refuse service to anybody. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Headline....BLM riot @ 49'rs game
I love it ! :love:
-
So more of the same.... Even the clown-in-chief at the White House says that Kaepernick's reasons are legit... </sarc>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-colin-kaepernick_us_57cd5f57e4b078581f13853b?section=us_politics
-
So more of the same.... Even the clown-in-chief at the White House says that Kaepernick's reasons are legit... </sarc>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-colin-kaepernick_us_57cd5f57e4b078581f13853b?section=us_politics
One man's patriotism is another man's sedition.
-
He's like many QB's that can't make the transition to the NFL
he isn't as good as the SF franchise thought he would be
now he is being like a Kardashian. creating drama without any actual talent or substance behind the drama.
I don't even think about this guy that much. not a good QB. and he's just another drama queen.
he should just go away.
just bc you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
-
This thread is but a small microcosm of where and why our country is where it is today and it is absolutely disgusting.
Defenders of the 1st amendment and Kaepernicks right to free speach? What a joke. NO ONE in this thread said Kaepernick couldn't speak his mind or protest in the manner he chooses to do so. Hell I would help him facilitate or safeguard him doing it. But I sure as hell don't have to like the message or his manner of peaceful protest.
On the other side of things, as soon as some people here invoked their right to speak freely about Kaepernick being an idiot, the exact opposite happened. Some individuals tried to shut down anything negative that was being said about Kaepernicks actions or make them feel guilty for having an opinion contrary to his. Deportation, fines, firing, financial considerations? Typical tactics, twisting facts, changing the narrative, guilt trips and putting words in people mouths. NONE of this was said. Hell if I don't want to spend another dime on the 49ers and others happen to feel the same way, I sure as hell won't feel that I have slighted the 49ers or Kaepernick. They are not OWED or have a RIGHT to any of my support.
It is those individuals who coddle the Kaepernicks of this world and veil his actions behind a right to free speech that create the problem. Let him speak. Give him a venue to speak. But if the free society disagrees with his message and it affects him professionally, than that is on him. We are NOT telling him to shut up and we are NOT trying to shut him up. But we sure as hell have just as much of a right to express our opinions as he does. Some of you need to defend that just as vehemently as your defend Kaepernick. I defend his right to speak and peacefully protest, but I sure as hell DO NOT agree with him either.
-
I'm hearing sales of his Jersey has skyrocketed
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Whose coddling him ?
If free society disagrees ?
Appears to be pretty split.
Kaepernick jersey now best selling 49ers jersey.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000695751/article/hot-item-colin-kaepernick-jersey-sales-skyrocket
Among tops in NFL jerseys.
Additional players have joined him in sitting/kneeling, including a National Team women's soccer player.
I haven't noticed anyone coddling him or enabling him from protection from the backlash.
Articles out there that pretty much no other owner in the league would touch him due to this.
And he had a pretty good last pre-season game.
Won an NFC Championship and got to another when healthy and he's not very good ?
-
Kaepernick jersey now best selling 49ers jersey.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000695751/article/hot-item-colin-kaepernick-jersey-sales-skyrocket
Among tops in NFL jerseys.
People are buying them for pure speculation. Probably most people had never heard of him before this. Now they know this is going to be his last season due to his sitting and all the publicity. Time to buy all the jerseys you can and dump them on eBay. Remember the Twinkie scare? Same thing.
-
cashing in on drama. its the Kardashian way. they have millions this way.
maybe Kaepernick will be the next Caitlyn
-
Maybe they're buying his jersey to support his protest.
-
If this happened 20 years ago, I wonder his team mate Bill Romanowski would do?
-
No one in this thread said Kaepernick couldn't speak his mind or protest in the manner he chooses to do so. Hell I would help him facilitate or safeguard him doing it. But I sure as hell don't have to like the message or his manner of peaceful protest.
Some individuals tried to shut down anything negative that was being said about Kaepernicks actions...
It is those individuals who coddle the Kaepernicks of this world and veil his actions behind a right to free speech that create the problem.
A couple people in this thread said that Kaepernick "should" not have done his protest. Depending on how such are words interpreted, that's close to demanding that he shut up.
Trying to point out (claimed) inconsistencies in the critical opinions, is not attempting to shut down criticism of Kaepernick. That's rational discussion and welcome debate. For someone accusing others of putting words in peoples' mouths, you seem to do the same.
Invoking "free speech" is "veiling" Kaepernick's actions?
-
Quote from: Surf on Today at 10:47:31 AM
No one in this thread said Kaepernick couldn't speak his mind or protest in the manner he chooses to do so. Hell I would help him facilitate or safeguard him doing it. But I sure as hell don't have to like the message or his manner of peaceful protest.
Some individuals tried to shut down anything negative that was being said about Kaepernicks actions...
It is those individuals who coddle the Kaepernicks of this world and veil his actions behind a right to free speech that create the problem.
A couple people in this thread said that Kaepernick "should" not have done his protest. Depending on how such are words interpreted, that's close to demanding that he shut up.
Trying to point out (claimed) inconsistencies in the critical opinions, is not attempting to shut down criticism of Kaepernick. That's rational discussion and welcome debate. For someone accusing others of putting words in peoples' mouths, you seem to do the same.
Invoking "free speech" is "veiling" Kaepernick's actions?
You cut out a lot of what Surf said and you accuse of him of putting words in peoples' mouths???
-
A couple people in this thread said that Kaepernick "should" not have done his protest. Depending on how such are words interpreted, that's close to demanding that he shut up.
Trying to point out (claimed) inconsistencies in the critical opinions, is not attempting to shut down criticism of Kaepernick. That's rational discussion and welcome debate. For someone accusing others of putting words in peoples' mouths, you seem to do the same.
Invoking "free speech" is "veiling" Kaepernick's actions?
I refer you back to an earlier comment to clarify your misconceptions:
JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD.
It has nothing to do with "Shut up" and everything to do with poor judgement.
-
This thread is but a small microcosm of where and why our country is where it is today and it is absolutely disgusting.
Defenders of the 1st amendment and Kaepernicks right to free speach? What a joke. NO ONE in this thread said Kaepernick couldn't speak his mind or protest in the manner he chooses to do so. Hell I would help him facilitate or safeguard him doing it. But I sure as hell don't have to like the message or his manner of peaceful protest.
On the other side of things, as soon as some people here invoked their right to speak freely about Kaepernick being an idiot, the exact opposite happened. Some individuals tried to shut down anything negative that was being said about Kaepernicks actions or make them feel guilty for having an opinion contrary to his. Deportation, fines, firing, financial considerations? Typical tactics, twisting facts, changing the narrative, guilt trips and putting words in people mouths. NONE of this was said. Hell if I don't want to spend another dime on the 49ers and others happen to feel the same way, I sure as hell won't feel that I have slighted the 49ers or Kaepernick. They are not OWED or have a RIGHT to any of my support.
It is those individuals who coddle the Kaepernicks of this world and veil his actions behind a right to free speech that create the problem. Let him speak. Give him a venue to speak. But if the free society disagrees with his message and it affects him professionally, than that is on him. We are NOT telling him to shut up and we are NOT trying to shut him up. But we sure as hell have just as much of a right to express our opinions as he does. Some of you need to defend that just as vehemently as your defend Kaepernick. I defend his right to speak and peacefully protest, but I sure as hell DO NOT agree with him either.
I think the point of concern for some is the personal attacks instead of the attacks on the issue. For example if you and I disagree on an issue I won't disparage you personally. Then it becomes bitter and the actual issue is lost to the drama.
Our patriotism makes us think he is making a bad decision but in his mind I would hazard to guess that his patriotism makes him think he should make a statement.
Patriotism can be a very messy line to draw and I don't think we need to make it so personal when someone draws the line in a different place. Look at how galvanizing Snowden was.
I disagree with Kaepernick, I think his protest is founded on a lie, one he may be ignorant of though. But I don't hate him for what he did and I won't be blinded with anger. All that does is make the division wider and harder to fix.
-
I actually don't mind the personal attacks on Kaepernick. In this thread various people have called him an asshole or a turd. I have no objection to that in the slightest.
I mainly object to the couple of statements where it was (seemingly) implied that Kaepernick's actions, though (seemingly) permitted by the Constitution, "should" not have been done, with an (interpreted) threat of "consequences" thereafter.
This article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/colin-kaepernick-and-the-_b_11874638.html) written today illustrates why I am concerned with the vagueness of the Constitution and the fact that the 1st Amendment is NOT applied as consistently in America as most believe. The U.S. Supreme Court...by an 8-1 vote upheld the mandatory flag salute...Justice Frankfurter’s opinion found that the law did not infringe on any constitutional liberty of the individual. It was a “secular regulation" enacted to encourage patriotism...The need for everyone to stand and salute the flag outweighed the claims of individual religious liberty
Yeah that decision is old but today we have worse decisions than that on the books, we are losing 1st Amendment rights. What Kaepernick did could be made illegal at any point. Politicians or judges can even say "We make an exception and new rule starting today, and deport Kaepernick." They have done things like that before.
-
I actually don't mind the personal attacks on Kaepernick. In this thread various people have called him an asshole or a turd. I have no objection to that in the slightest.
I mainly object to the couple of statements where it was (seemingly) implied that Kaepernick's actions, though (seemingly) permitted by the Constitution, "should" not have been done, with an (interpreted) threat of "consequences" thereafter.
This article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/colin-kaepernick-and-the-_b_11874638.html) written today illustrates why I am concerned with the vagueness of the Constitution and the fact that the 1st Amendment is NOT applied as consistently in America as most believe. The U.S. Supreme Court...by an 8-1 vote upheld the mandatory flag salute...Justice Frankfurter’s opinion found that the law did not infringe on any constitutional liberty of the individual. It was a “secular regulation" enacted to encourage patriotism...The need for everyone to stand and salute the flag outweighed the claims of individual religious liberty
Yeah that decision is old but today we have worse decisions than that on the books, we are losing 1st Amendment rights. What Kaepernick did could be made illegal at any point. Politicians or judges can even say "We make an exception and new rule starting today, and deport Kaepernick." They have done things like that before.
No they can't.
Due process
-
No they can't.
Due process
You can't DEPORT a citizen. If you kick someone out of the country, it's called EXILE or BANISHMENT.
Since unclaimed land is virtually nonexistent, the gov't would have to find another nation willing to accept the exiled person. This makes exiling difficult, which is why nations do not do this any longer.
Some US states have banished criminals for a period of time, i.e. one year, but that is based on the state's constitution.
-
You can't DEPORT a citizen. If you kick someone out of the country, it's called EXILE or BANISHMENT.
Since unclaimed land is virtually nonexistent, the gov't would have to find another nation willing to accept the exiled person. This makes exiling difficult, which is why nations do not do this any longer.
Some US states have banished criminals for a period of time, i.e. on year, but that is based on the state's constitution.
I agree with you.
I disagree with PeaShooter. You can't deport Kaepernick and lawmakers can't go back make a law to deport Kaepernick. That's dumb (my opinion).
-
Yeah going back and changing the law on the spot to get a desired result is dumb. And is a violation of due process (the 14th Amendment). I wish I could say it never happens. Maybe I can explain how it does.
1) Even though they aren't supposed to, the courts can reverse even binding precedents at any time they like, and it probably happens more often than legal scholars want to admit. Example: the very same cases (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/colin-kaepernick-and-the-_b_11874638.html) in my previous post. The first Supreme Court case as quoted above, ruled that saluting the flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is mandatory, and that patriotism overrides the 1st Amendment.
Just 3 years later, it seems the following (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette) happened. Immediately after the first decision, a lot of people got beat up. Some beaten up people sued again, and a lower court stated: Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not. … however ... we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority. The Supreme Court followed by accepting the lower courts' defiance and reversed themselves.
So courts can reverse themselves and make up whatever law, whenever they want.
2) When decisions are reversed, or new interpretations of law are made, the courts generally do not say "Well it used to be this way, so because we've changed the law as we considered your case, you get to have the old law applicable to you." Instead, it's tough cookies and the new law applies immediately. There are some instances where they might apply the "old law" on a one-time basis, when considering sovereign and qualified immunity (11th Amendment and Section 1983) but that is unfairly only allowed to go in the government's favor.
-
Yeah going back and changing the law on the spot to get a desired result is dumb. And is a violation of due process (the 14th Amendment). I wish I could say it never happens. Maybe I can explain how it does.
1) Even though they aren't supposed to, the courts can reverse even binding precedents at any time they like, and it probably happens more often than legal scholars want to admit. Example: the very same cases (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/colin-kaepernick-and-the-_b_11874638.html) in my previous post. The first Supreme Court case as quoted above, ruled that saluting the flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is mandatory, and that patriotism overrides the 1st Amendment.
Just 3 years later, it seems the following (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette) happened. Immediately after the first decision, a lot of people got beat up. Some beaten up people sued again, and a lower court stated: Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not. … however ... we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority. The Supreme Court followed by accepting the lower courts' defiance and reversed themselves.
So courts can reverse themselves and make up whatever law, whenever they want.
2) When decisions are reversed, or new interpretations of law are made, the courts generally do not say "Well it used to be this way, so because we've changed the law as we considered your case, you get to have the old law applicable to you." Instead, it's tough cookies and the new law applies immediately. There are some instances where they might apply the "old law" on a one-time basis, when considering sovereign and qualified immunity (11th Amendment and Section 1983) but that is unfairly only allowed to go in the government's favor.
so how does this apply to Kaepernick? He is not in custody for not standing during the playing of the National Anthem.
-
Kaepernick's 1st Amendment rights have not been violated yet. I'm just saying that the train of thought exhibited opens him up to that possibility. That's why I asked what if questions. And some of you might be okay with him being fined or fired.
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired by a private organization, but it should in a scenario like this. That's part of why 1st Amendment law in the United States is crap. The other reason why it's crap is that the government and courts inconsistently violate established law at their whim on a case-to-case basis such that it's meaningless.
There is case law regarding what you can and cannot be fired for when you are employed in government jobs. You can be fired for calling your boss names, but supposedly cannot be fired for speech on matters of public concern, such as political speech. Of course, judges break the established case law in this area all the time, too.
The time, place, and manner criteria is a different free-speech argument that I can accept. If Kaepernick were to be punished under that guise, it would have to be shown that indeed his actions were in violation of that.
This is going back a ways.
Anyways, how/why did you make the jump from NFL to government employment? And btw, it's not THAT easy to get fired from many government jobs, especially after one passes the probationary period. I've had the supervisor that sits next to me get pretty heated with one of the people in his group and let's just say that I would've fired the person, if I could. Sure, you can't break laws or violate rules of the organization. That said, when you sign on for the position (at least in positions that I have first hand knowledge of), you agree not to take certain actions, like using your position to endorse a politician or political party or actively campaigning for a candidate in the work place. You're free to do that outside the work place while you are not acting in an official capacity.
Regarding consequences, as mentioned above, one is ALWAYS responsible for the consequences of their actions. I didn't mean that Kap should be arrested, censored, deported, etc. However, there are many potential consequences that don't involve the legal system.
-
I think the point of concern for some is the personal attacks instead of the attacks on the issue. For example if you and I disagree on an issue I won't disparage you personally. Then it becomes bitter and the actual issue is lost to the drama.
Our patriotism makes us think he is making a bad decision but in his mind I would hazard to guess that his patriotism makes him think he should make a statement.
Patriotism can be a very messy line to draw and I don't think we need to make it so personal when someone draws the line in a different place. Look at how galvanizing Snowden was.
I disagree with Kaepernick, I think his protest is founded on a lie, one he may be ignorant of though. But I don't hate him for what he did and I won't be blinded with anger. All that does is make the division wider and harder to fix.
While I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure that Kap's patriotism had nothing to do with his motivations or reasons for making "a statement".
And I'm not angry with Kap. I did watch part of one of SF's preseason games and waiting for him to get pummeled by a DE or LB. But that's part of the game. ;D
-
The first amendment protects a person from the government trying to silence speech in opposition.
It does not protect one from other repercussions due to things said... such as being thought of by other people as being dumb/unpatriotic/ungrateful/etc.
-
Maybe they're buying his jersey to support his protest.
I'd imagine that's exactly the case. At the very least he's caused a discussion and he did it without the use of violence. In that sense, I commend his actions more than BLM, etc.
-
The first amendment protects a person from the government trying to silence speech in opposition.
It does not protect one from other repercussions due to things said... such as being thought of by other people as being dumb/unpatriotic/ungrateful/etc.
Maybe repercussions was a better term than consequences, at least for some. :thumbsup:
-
For me at least, it means the same. But consequences are fine, it just depends what they are and who they are from. In my opinion, if there are no-holds-barred consequences from anything other than a government source, that's not good enough protection of free speech. No-holds-barred consequences from individuals (chastize Kaepernick, don't buy tickets) is fine. No-holds-barred consequences from large companies (NFL fine or firing) is something I think our country should re-examine.
Also, we as individuals need to know that our criticism of Kaepernick has weight. If everyone spoke against him, and he had no supporters at all, he very well could be deported/exiled/executed for this very action. Even though it seems like that violates due process, as I illustrated via case example our law system can be unfair, unforgiving, and inconsistent.
-
While I have no proof, but I'm pretty sure that Kap's patriotism had nothing to do with his motivations or reasons for making "a statement".
And I'm not angry with Kap. I did watch part of one of SF's preseason games and waiting for him to get pummeled by a DE or LB. But that's part of the game. ;D
He may have ulterior motives,, who knows. But it is plausible that he truly believes this injustice exists. Maybe his girlfriend has him whipped?
-
Also, we as individuals need to know that our criticism of Kaepernick has weight. If everyone spoke against him, and he had no supporters at all, he very well could be deported/exiled/executed for this very action. Even though it seems like that violates due process, as I illustrated via case example our law system can be unfair, unforgiving, and inconsistent.
NO THEY CAN'T!
He is an American citizen not a North Korean one! I still maintain MY OPINION that he is an ungrateful, spoiled man-child but I would never support an American citizen being executed, deported, or exiled because he exercise his 1st.
Where did you go to school PeeShooter?
-
We just had those case examples presented, but alright you refuse to acknowledge that possibility. I admire your idealistic nature.
As for your position, you insist that so long as you do not write letters asking that Kaepernick be deported by the government or that the NFL fine him, that your feelings go no further and are in full support of the 1st Amendment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with that.
-
For me at least, it means the same. But consequences are fine, it just depends what they are and who they are from. In my opinion, if there are no-holds-barred consequences from anything other than a government source, that's not good enough protection of free speech. No-holds-barred consequences from individuals (chastize Kaepernick, don't buy tickets) is fine. No-holds-barred consequences from large companies (NFL fine or firing) is something I think our country should re-examine.
Also, we as individuals need to know that our criticism of Kaepernick has weight. If everyone spoke against him, and he had no supporters at all, he very well could be deported/exiled/executed for this very action. Even though it seems like that violates due process, as I illustrated via case example our law system can be unfair, unforgiving, and inconsistent.
Where is the government imposing any sort of consequences or repercussions on Kap? Why do you keep going back to that? Seems like you have a bone to pick with the gov, but I don't think there's a connection here between the issue of Kap's protest and the government.
If the 49ers want to get rid of him, they can for any number of reasons, none of which they need to disclose to anyone. Well, I guess if the 49ers came out and said that they cut Kap because of his views on the National Anthem, then I guess you would have a case. He's too expensive to just cut from the team, not that he's real marketable right now.
Sure, peoples' criticism carries weight, especially if there's a large enough group that share that same view. Say a group that chooses to boycott a restaurant because they expressed their distain for gun owners and not allow for CC in their establishment (assuming they are carrying legally) and that reduces revenue to the point that it makes them go out of business. Are those people who boycott somehow suppressing the restaurant's freedom of speech? The restaurant owners are certainly free to express their views and I truly respect their right. That doesn't mean that I am going to support that business. Would you be arguing that our criticism of the restaurant is against the 1st and 2nd amendment?
-
This is an example of a deportation. Non US citizen. Committed a crime in US. In this case, his country doesn't want to take him, so he remains here.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/07/laos-refused-to-take-back-ex-con-gunman-who-shot-fresno-sheriffs.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/07/laos-refused-to-take-back-ex-con-gunman-who-shot-fresno-sheriffs.html)
-
This thread is reminding me of psycho criminals and mass murderers who use their actions to gain national attention.
As long as this thread runs, he's getting exactly what he wants. :closed:
-
This thread is reminding me of psycho criminals and mass murderers who use their actions to gain national attention.
As long as this thread runs, he's getting exactly what he wants. :closed:
as an author you should understand
don't suppress the 1st...
-
I heard that some high school teams will emulate Kaepernick. Anyone witness?
-
He's still a Ying in the NFL? Huh....small miracles I guess... (sarcasm)
-
and here we go...
https://gma.yahoo.com/texas-youth-football-team-continue-protesting-anthem-despite-024900841--abc-news-topstories.html (https://gma.yahoo.com/texas-youth-football-team-continue-protesting-anthem-despite-024900841--abc-news-topstories.html)
Which local teams here will likely follow? East side or west side high schools?
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/25/jim-harbaugh-claims-support-for-michigan-players-who-raised-fists-during-anthem/#comments
Especially relevant considering who Jim Harbaugh is and what his personality is supposedly like. I encourage people to read all his words carefully though, he does NOT support this anthem protest. If anything I think he is angrier about it than anyone in this thread.
But as he said and showed, he has thought a lot about this and partially changed his mind over time. That's all that a couple of us were asking people to do, to reconsider various parts of their stance on this matter. And even if someone won't change their mind one bit that's fine (and maybe there was no reason to, depending on what the initial stance was exactly).
Harbaugh is in a unique position better than the rest of us, to demonstrate and prove his feelings. He arguably has the authority (according to him) to prevent this action if he chooses to. And he chose not to, despite how he hates it. It wouldn't be "illegal" for him to prevent it, as he is not the government.
People here can likewise be angry, and think and say Kaepernick is a turd. But if you take the same stance as Harbaugh, you would still watch football or buy tickets regardless. This goes beyond just keeping in compliance with what current First Amendment law in America dictates: you would be going further. Unlike with Harbaugh though, whatever you choose to do, or wish upon Kaepernick, can't be seen by the rest of us, that's why there was some feeling of uncertainty and unease.
-
I find it hard to correlate 1st Amendment and buying tickets or subscriptions for foolsball.
I won't watch it or any other idiotic 'bread and circuses' distractions thus further.
If I go to a restaurant and I am personally insulted, I will not return AND I would let everyone I know my experience there.
It not me suppressing any persons right to free speech or protest. It's me exercising my right to the same.
-
A football stadium is a waste of a 1000 yard world class range.
I don't have to watch football or like Kaepernick.
I don't have his talent, money, opportunities but I am a lot more grateful to the USA for what opportunities that were afforded me than he will ever be. I served with men that had more courage than he will ever have in his lifetime. Some of them gave far more than he will ever comprehend. His kneeling is an insult to all those that served and sacrificed. We serve because we believe in this country and its citizens. I don't care what color you are. God bless the USA.
-
For me at least, it means the same. But consequences are fine, it just depends what they are and who they are from. In my opinion, if there are no-holds-barred consequences from anything other than a government source, that's not good enough protection of free speech. No-holds-barred consequences from individuals (chastize Kaepernick, don't buy tickets) is fine. No-holds-barred consequences from large companies (NFL fine or firing) is something I think our country should re-examine.
Also, we as individuals need to know that our criticism of Kaepernick has weight. If everyone spoke against him, and he had no supporters at all, he very well could be deported/exiled/executed for this very action. Even though it seems like that violates due process, as I illustrated via case example our law system can be unfair, unforgiving, and inconsistent.
i just heard on sports radio that colin kaepernick admitted he didn't vote
smh
-
https://youtu.be/iLSMk7OmqRE
-
Seems to me that not voting reinforces his cause. If he doesn't like this country, why should he waste his time unless there is a candidate he supports?
The incoming President himself suggested that Kaepernick leave this country...