Congrats America

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Well, there are a lot of reasons this is ongoing.  Sure Trump made a comment at a campaign rally and tweet and everyone "Must" react to that!  There are a lot of people now claiming that this is now a First Amendment issue (raised by Trump) which it clearly isn't; who has suggested laws be passed by the State or Federal government?  Certainly not Trump.  There is a "sports" channel that feels the need to repeat the entire Kaepernick story almost daily, and lastly, I am not sure if the players and owners really understand that they are tacitly supporting a Marxist that really doesn't like the US and would rather tear up the constitution.

 

What is clear is that no matter what these folks do, the fans (not Trump, not the players, not the owners) will have the final say. 

He's the President...I think when the President either says out loud or tweets that a certain group of individuals should be fired, that is something that we must react to.

 

He isn't just some random twitter troll (though sometimes he acts like it). So yes unfortunately people "must" react to what he says because what he says has the weight of his office (unfortunately).

 

Trump suggested owners should enforce a mandatory behavior that doesn't exist. They can't just fire their players for kneeling. In fact I would wonder if they would even be able to get away with voiding a contract over that. I doubt any of the contracts have language that would support them in firing their places over taking a knee.

 

Again this is all such a non-issue. Our President has brought it to the forefront of people's minds when we have so many more important things to talk about (like the healthcare bill etc...). Most likely it was a calculated action.

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, MacUK said:

When the unfortunate but inevitable day comes when HMtQ is no longer with us I'll have no problem with King Charles III.

He'll probably be a rather inconsequential monarch who won't be noticed much by history.

That is a good point. Fortunately he won't be around long.

 

My wife was talking about his name the other day. Do you really think he'll be King Charles III? He has the precedent set by his mother for using his own name, but his grandfather change names upon succession. The name Charles doesn't have the greatest history for Kings in Britain. I mean Charles II as a King wasn't bad, but he had a tumultous time getting there. Charles I was executed...

 

If he becomes Charles III I'm not sure anyone will want to use Charles IV in the future. You'll have one executed King, one King that had to force his way back from exile, and one King that was fairly inconsequential and short lived who followed one of the greatest Monarchs the country has known.

Edited September 25, 2017 by bcking

[MacUK 983]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

That is a good point. Fortunately he won't be around long.

 

My wife was talking about his name the other day. Do you really think he'll be King Charles III? He has the precedent set by his mother for using his own name, but then again the name Charles doesn't have the greatest history for Kings in Britain. I mean Charles II as a King wasn't bad, but he had a tumultous time getting there. Charles I was executed...

Apparently he is deciding if he should go with Charles III or possibly George VII. Not because previous Charles' haven't had the best of luck but because they don't want him to be confused with Bonnie Prince Charlie (known as Charles III amongst his supporters)

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, MacUK said:

Apparently he is deciding if he should go with Charles III or possibly George VII. Not because previous Charles' haven't had the best of luck but because they don't want him to be confused with Bonnie Prince Charlie (known as Charles III amongst his supporters)

Oh good point. I forgot about that.

 

They will need to come up with more names though. If Charles is off the list because they dont' want to use Charles III, all they have is George, William and Edward (which has its own baggage).

[Dashinka 23,235]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

He's the President...I think when the President either says out loud or tweets that a certain group of individuals should be fired, that is something that we must react to.

 

He isn't just some random twitter troll (though sometimes he acts like it). So yes unfortunately people "must" react to what he says because what he says has the weight of his office (unfortunately).

 

Trump suggested owners should enforce a mandatory behavior that doesn't exist. They can't just fire their players for kneeling. In fact I would wonder if they would even be able to get away with voiding a contract over that. I doubt any of the contracts have language that would support them in firing their places over taking a knee.

 

Again this is all such a non-issue. Our President has brought it to the forefront of people's minds when we have so many more important things to talk about (like the healthcare bill etc...). Most likely it was a calculated action.

So the President is devoid of First Amendment Rights?  I hate to differ with you, but the only reason I would react is if the President actually suggested creating laws to limit our rights,  This did not happen here.  Trump did suggest that the owners take action which is their right, (within the confines of the CBA) but it appears that the owners much like the players believe the Left Wing media in thinking this is a First Amendment issue.  I thought these folks were smarter. 

 

We have had a lot of this for the past several years (Presidents injecting themselves into issues when they shouldn't).  Just take a look at how many times Obama made dumb comments during his two terms (I will get you started "the police acted stupidly").  I am sure there were a lot by Bush and Clinton as well.  The extreme hatred for Trump appears to be the big difference here.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

So the President is devoid of First Amendment Rights?  I hate to differ with you, but the only reason I would react is if the President actually suggested creating laws to limit our rights,  This did not happen here.  Trump did suggest that the owners take action which is their right, (within the confines of the CBA) but it appears that the owners much like the players believe the Left Wing media in thinking this is a First Amendment issue.  I thought these folks were smarter. 

 

We have had a lot of this for the past several years (Presidents injecting themselves into issues when they shouldn't).  Just take a look at how many times Obama made dumb comments during his two terms (I will get you started "the police acted stupidly").  I am sure there were a lot by Bush and Clinton as well.  The extreme hatred for Trump appears to be the big difference here.

I'm not saying he can't say what he did, I'm saying that you can't argue that people shouldn't have made a big deal out of it. He is the President. What he says has a lot of weight, and if it is calling out for people to be fired then there should be a response.

 

What right do the owners actually have to take action? Anyone have a copy of a contract for the average NFL player. Does it state they MUST stand?

 

Bottom line - Our President brought up a pretty stupid, pointless "protest" that people are now "re-obscessing" about. While yes people could have just ignored what he said, he is the President and that comes with some added weight. He was kicking up dust, and shouldn't be surprised that people are responding.

As I said before, this is likely "smoke and mirrors" so people focus on other issues other than the fact that he can't get any of his plans done and the health care proposals will likely fail a 3rd time.

[Dashinka 23,235]

I wonder if Villanueva will be fined by his team?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4917046/Only-one-Steelers-player-takes-field-anthem.html

[Dashinka 23,235]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm not saying he can't say what he did, I'm saying that you can't argue that people shouldn't have made a big deal out of it. He is the President. What he says has a lot of weight, and if it is calling out for people to be fired then there should be a response.

 

What right do the owners actually have to take action? Anyone have a copy of a contract for the average NFL player. Does it state they MUST stand?

 

Bottom line - Our President brought up a pretty stupid, pointless "protest" that people are now "re-obscessing" about. While yes people could have just ignored what he said, he is the President and that comes with some added weight. He was kicking up dust, and shouldn't be surprised that people are responding.

As I said before, this is likely "smoke and mirrors" so people focus on other issues other than the fact that he can't get any of his plans done and the health care proposals will likely fail a 3rd time.

And it is still a pretty stupid pointless "protest" even with Trump bringing it up, but it is not a free speech issue as these folks keep saying.

[Umka36 781]

I just want to watch football, and enjoy my 3+ hours of entertainment. I believe people have the right to protest or what not, but it's making not want to watch the games anymore.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Umka36 said:

I just want to watch football, and enjoy my 3+ hours of entertainment. I believe people have the right to protest or what not, but it's making not want to watch the games anymore.

How does the actions of a few people on the field, which you may only see a few seconds of and lasts at most 3 minutes at the beginning of the game, and involves them merely changing their body position significantly alter your enjoyment of the games? Why does it make you not want to watch?

 

Instead of enjoying 3+ hours of entertainment, you enjoy 3+ (-3 minutes) of entertainment. Heck you could even change the channel for those 2 minutes and still enjoy the game.

 

Seriously this seems like such an over reaction from people. They are freaking kneeling. It's not like they are carrying tiki torches yelling "Jews will not replace us" in a mob.

 

I don't watch football but if I enjoyed it I don't see why the mundane actions of a few people for 3 minutes (or less?) At the beginning of the game would alter my enjoyment.

[Umka36 781]

Just now, bcking said:

How does the actions of a few people on the field, which you may only see a few seconds of and lasts at most 3 minutes at the beginning of the game, and involves them merely changing their body position significantly alter your enjoyment of the games? Why does it make you not want to watch?

 

Instead of enjoying 3+ hours of entertainment, you enjoy 3+ (-3 minutes) of entertainment. Heck you could even change the channel for those 2 minutes and still enjoy the game.

 

Seriously this seems like such an over reaction from people. They are freaking kneeling. It's not like they are carrying tiki torches yelling "Jews will not replace us" in a mob.

 

I don't watch football but if I enjoyed it I don't see why the mundane actions of a few people for 3 minutes (or less?) At the beginning of the game would alter my enjoyment.

Whether it's 3 minutes or not, I hear enough US/world issues that goes on and prefer to just enjoy a game without such distraction. It's also talked about constantly in the news. This may not make sense to you, but that's not my problem as there are probably things you do/say that does not make sense to me.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

What is of concern is the fit thrower in chief cussing up a storm and acting like a vulgar "fire them" entertainer that he was. Looser.
I can't repeat here what he said or I will go to VJ jail, why should he spew vulgarity and parents have to hold the ears of their children
when he opens his mouth.
Our vets gave their lives to allow free speech and peaceful protest. End of story. Get over it.

 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

25 minutes ago, bcking said:

How does the actions of a few people on the field, which you may only see a few seconds of and lasts at most 3 minutes at the beginning of the game, and involves them merely changing their body position significantly alter your enjoyment of the games? Why does it make you not want to watch?

 

Instead of enjoying 3+ hours of entertainment, you enjoy 3+ (-3 minutes) of entertainment. Heck you could even change the channel for those 2 minutes and still enjoy the game.

 

Seriously this seems like such an over reaction from people. They are freaking kneeling. It's not like they are carrying tiki torches yelling "Jews will not replace us" in a mob.

 

I don't watch football but if I enjoyed it I don't see why the mundane actions of a few people for 3 minutes (or less?) At the beginning of the game would alter my enjoyment.

Exactly.

[Boiler 43,428]

They can do what they want in their spare time, but for a bunch of Millionaires to 'protest' when they are being paid to 'entertain' is obnoxious.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

They can do what they want in their spare time, but for a bunch of Millionaires to 'protest' when they are being paid to 'entertain' is obnoxious.

I disagree.

It has backfired on Trump. The owners, coaches, players stand as one and will only become stronger and more united against King Trump's "declaration"

and vulgarity.