Zack Zoll wrote:

I am surprised.

First and foremost, white shootings do outnumber blacks on this database - at least in the 150 or do entries I flicked through. And contrary to what some may say, this is the way it is supposed to be - most people shot in Montana should be white, because most people in Montana are white. If you just walked outside and randomly opened fire, this is probably not too far off from what you'd see.

But there are a couple things that surprised me - one, the race options seem to be white, black, Hispanic, other, or unknown. 'Other' seems to always mean Asian, even if it's an Indian or Middle Eastern sounding name. Which could actually be 'Asian' Asian, but it's far more likely that they just don't keep tabs on anybody but black and white - which is pretty messed up. But maybe there are more options, but those people weren't demographically significant enough to pop up in the first quarter.

Scarier still, of those 150 or so entries, almost half said 'unknown race.' Half! How scary is that?!

I get that maybe you're not sure sometimes, and you can't find out who they are, and you need to enter something. But if HALF are unidentified, that means you're either covering it up, or - far more likely - you just can't be bothered to do the paperwork.

Half! And you (probably) only have black, white, and other! You could literally pick one at random - without even seeing the victims - and have a better chance of being thorough and accurate than the information provided here.

But here's the worst part: it makes the rest of the data borderline worthless. What percentage of police shooting victims were black? The answer is: who the fuck knows? You can say 25%, and you have just as much proof behind that claim as someone that says 75%. How many were Middle Eastern? None, apparently. But we're shooting a lot of Asians. Even though we're not.

I'm sure that there is more data out there - I'm positive of it. But since police reporting is largely voluntary, I wonder if there's any more information we as citizens can actually access.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer … ce_aer.pdf

Zack Zoll wrote:

This was exactly what I had in mind when I read this.

Eddie's not wrong about the media devoting less coverage to white victims, but doesn't seem to care at all about why that might be. Apparently it's only a problem if you see it - just like with the protests.

The reason why there is less coverage when white people are shot by police is because in almost every one of those situations, the officer is charged with a crime, and many of them are found guilty. The reason why people get so 'uppity' about black men being shot by police us because the officers are very rarely even charged, and often aren't even suspended until there is an outcry. And when they ARE suspended, it's usually with pay.

Not true.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/po … bc1cd5d0da

Looknsee Photography wrote:
a)  Why not?
b)  What is the place to protest...
     1)  Police brutality & killing of minorities?
     2)  "Anything"?

Seems to me that the place to protest anything is the place where it'll get the most notice.

Usually with protests, there are two sides, one with the opposing view.
The most notice/attention? It works for a one-sided agenda.

I’m glad that you care about minorities and police brutality. I care too. I however am not going to use a platform however big or small to exploit my personal opinion if it is not directly related to my grievance. If one doesn’t like the way America or the flag is being used at a football game, start an online petition on Chance.org. It will get tons of worldwide attention if you set it up right and spend a lot of time nurturing its growth. The last petition I signed made a real change, women and acid attacks in Uganda.

I had the great opportunity to speak with Mike Ditka in great detail about coaching & the game whilst smoking cigars. It’s not easy being a famous ball player and getting there. He explained how he picked people. Why exploit that platform?

I’m sick of famous people exploiting their pedestal. It kind of reminds me how people on this platform (small) like to remind broke ass models how wealthy they think they are.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
At a recent owners meeting, and without a vote, the ownership decided that if a team has players who take a knee during the Star Spangled Banner will be punished with a fine and/or a 15 yard penalty.

Thoughts?

I think it's disgusting...
...  You can't protect free speech without also protecting unpopular free speech (within limits).
...  To me, there is nothing more patriotic than protest.
...  The protest is about racial inequality & specifically the alarming number of unarmed minorities being
     shot by the police,
...  The protest is not intended to be disrespectful to the flag or the people in the Armed Services.

That being said, I also think that this protest is a poor one because it's actions are open to interpretation and because it doesn't address the source of the discontent.  The 1960 whites-only lunch counter protest was much more direct & much more difficult to "spin".

So again, thoughts?  What do you think or wish the players to do?

The first amendment protects free speech...from the GOVERNMENT! The NFL is not a government entity. They are a private enterprise and can do as they please in this area. They don't have to protect anyone's speech and can ban or limit the speech of their employees (players) while they are working. Any company can do this. If I stood up at my job and started to criticize my employer, they have the right to censor or fire me.

I agree that protest is patriotic, but at the appropriate location and time. When you are being paid to perform a task is not the appropriate time.

I don't care HOW the protest was intended. It IS disrespectful to the flag. Veterans, like myself, have every right to be offended. That is just as much MY right as protesting is theirs.

There is a time and a place for everything. The flag protests are being done in the wrong time, and at the wrong place. These players are public figures. If they want to protest the flag or anthem, they could do it somewhere else and invite the media. They would get plenty of coverage for their pseudo-cause. If they REALLY wanted to do something of substance to combat their perceived inequality, they could mentor  minority children, facilitate dialogue between the police and community leaders, and dozens of other ideas that would actually DO something. These protests aren't about effecting change in this country. They're about getting your face and name in front of the cameras.

Rant Over.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
What about this?

This is not true.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-t … el-anthem/

A Thousand Words  wrote:

The first amendment protects free speech...from the GOVERNMENT! The NFL is not a government entity. They are a private enterprise and can do as they please in this area. They don't have to protect anyone's speech and can ban or limit the speech of their employees (players) while they are working. Any company can do this. If I stood up at my job and started to criticize my employer, they have the right to censor or fire me.

I agree that protest is patriotic, but at the appropriate location and time. When you are being paid to perform a task is not the appropriate time.

I don't care HOW the protest was intended. It IS disrespectful to the flag. Veterans, like myself, have every right to be offended. That is just as much MY right as protesting is theirs.

There is a time and a place for everything. The flag protests are being done in the wrong time, and at the wrong place. These players are public figures. If they want to protest the flag or anthem, they could do it somewhere else and invite the media. They would get plenty of coverage for their pseudo-cause. If they REALLY wanted to do something of substance to combat their perceived inequality, they could mentor  minority children, facilitate dialogue between the police and community leaders, and dozens of other ideas that would actually DO something. These protests aren't about effecting change in this country. They're about getting your face and name in front of the cameras.

Rant Over.

I agree with everything you’ve said here.
Dear Sir, thank you for your service.

A Thousand Words  wrote:
The first amendment protects free speech...from the GOVERNMENT! The NFL is not a government entity. They are a private enterprise and can do as they please in this area. They don't have to protect anyone's speech and can ban or limit the speech of their employees (players) while they are working. Any company can do this. If I stood up at my job and started to criticize my employer, they have the right to censor or fire me.

I agree that protest is patriotic, but at the appropriate location and time. When you are being paid to perform a task is not the appropriate time.

I don't care HOW the protest was intended. It IS disrespectful to the flag. Veterans, like myself, have every right to be offended. That is just as much MY right as protesting is theirs.

There is a time and a place for everything. The flag protests are being done in the wrong time, and at the wrong place. These players are public figures. If they want to protest the flag or anthem, they could do it somewhere else and invite the media. They would get plenty of coverage for their pseudo-cause. If they REALLY wanted to do something of substance to combat their perceived inequality, they could mentor  minority children, facilitate dialogue between the police and community leaders, and dozens of other ideas that would actually DO something. These protests aren't about effecting change in this country. They're about getting your face and name in front of the cameras.

Rant Over.

Thank you for your service.

I agree with some of what you said.  The NFL is a private organization and they are not required to protect the free speech of the employees.  However, they complicated the issue, first by protecting the right to protest by allowing the original protest to proceed and expand, and then with a possible ban on the original protester.  The NFL complicated the protest when the owners and teams showed solidarity when the political tensions rose because a politician or two started using it as a sideshow act.

The issue was further complicated by the sideshow act.  By making it a political football, the protest received that much more attention and because of the divisive nature of the comments being made and the daytime soap scene orchestrated by Pence when the administration preplanned the walkout from the stadium, it was the politicians that blew it out of the water.  Which brings in a troubling aspect.  The government cannot stifle free speech but they did just that.  Can a case now be made by the players association that the government pressured the NFL to end the protest, giving the court system the opportunity, and possibly the responsibility, to overrule the NFL management?

Furthermore, the government is largely responsible for making professional sports a political entity.  Politicians show up for photo ops and the TV crews dutifully show the images of the politicians on the screen.  The  government has paid sports to stage military recruitment public relations and other pro military displays.  Is a football game the appropriate place to have military bands, to honor military people and first responders, to have military flyovers (excluding the academy games) if football games are not an appropriate place for politics?  Fact is, the problem could be that it isn't a problem with having politics inserted into sports, it is having politics inserted that some people don't like.  It is also difficult to tell one party that the football game is an appropriate place for political expression and tell the other party it is not.

One should also consider if it wasn't for attention that the networks lavish on the protests, no one would know about them.  Do the cameras have to show the protests?  Do the commentators have to talk about them?  Do the politicians have to declare them traitors?

Many years ago there was this singer named Sony Bono that got elected to Congress.  He was able to build on his achievements as a sidekick of Cher to parley his fame into public service.  Same thing with dudes named Schwarzenegger, Eastwood and a guy that played a part on the Love Boat.    Some wwf guy became a governor.  A comedian became a US Senator.  A surgeon ran for President and ended up in the cabinet.  Then there are the military personnel (Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush Sr,) that have the audacity to lead men to their deaths, and they turn that experience into political careers.   Rich people like Rockefeller turned his name recognition in to a seat in government as have many more Kennedys and a guy named Heinz.  On the flip side, politicians are on talk shows.  How dare they interfere with my late night comic relief by putting a politician on an entertainment stage!  Except, some of those guys are funny and the interviews are interesting.   What I get from some of the comments people are making:  Sports stars should not be able to use the fame that they have worked hard for, is contrary to what everybody else is doing.  Essentially, it is saying that if a person is not a lawyer and a politician, they have no business in politics, except for stars in the entertainment industry.  Of course, sports are part of the entertainment industry.  As the current administration has proven, politics is show business and show business is politics.

If you don't like the anthem protest, by all means, protest!  But you are wrong about it being the wrong time and place.  It is not about getting the name of the player into the spot light, because other than the first few and POTUS, who knows or even cares who the individuals involved are?  The anthem protest did bring the issue into the mainstream and therefore, was a success in raising awareness.  It has been divisive and strong opinions have been expressed, but this also happened with the protests of the 60s.  It may be time to change directions.  It may not.  In the meantime, there are people doing other things.  How about Black Lives Matter?  Hmm.  Nope.  Because that is disrespectful to the police because Blue Lives Matter, and it is disrespectful to white people because we all know who kills white people (white people kill white people) and All Lives Matter.   Rather than sway public opinion and force people to think about it, a superstar like LeBron James can set up a foundation to send underprivileged kids to school and college.  That's great.  So anyone with a few hundred million dollars can go out and effect a tiny little bit of social change, which most Americans will never hear a word about, and many would consider it racist because he is helping inner city kids.

You are right that some of these figures could organize other media events NOW and get media coverage.  Could they have done that had the protests not happened?  And would they be respected by the mainstream (majority) of the population?  The Laura Ingram debacle says no.  The people whom she told to "shut up and dribble" were not interrupting a game to say their piece.  It is apparent that some people are just not afforded a voice- particularly black athletes.  White actors fine.  A stage is a stage, after all.  Oh yeah- there were other examples I forgot.  Some guy that did cowboy films became the President of the United States, and another that did "Reality"television shows.  Considering that this thread is about politics, can we now start discussing the violation of "norms" elsewhere in the government?

Seriously, though, and I do mean it, thank you for your service.

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:

Not true.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/po … bc1cd5d0da

Wow, I thought cops got convicted for shooting whites far more often than they do. Are they charged more? It certainly seems like they're suspended/investigated more.

What Fun Productions wrote:
All that kneeling ignores the real cause of soaring black homicides

https://nypost.com/2017/09/26/all-that- … homicides/

"In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest.

Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.

Black males have made up 42 percent of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers — committed vastly and disproportionately by black males."

Could this be true?

The question is: is it black males everywhere? Or is it men in inner cities, who are more likely to be black?

Zack Zoll wrote:
Thousand Words,

You make some excellent points, which I won't quote because this is long enough already.

---SNIP---

I know that as a spectator, it's a choice. You might not think it's respectful if I stay in my seat, but I'm not going to start trending on Twitter because of it.

To those of you who have thanked me for my service, I am humbled. I served because it needed to be done.

@Zack Zoll - You also make some good points, but let me hit you with a hypothetical.

You own a business that is very public-facing. Your employees are in full of the public everytime they work. Because you value the reputation of your business, you require your employees to wear blue shirts and safety equipment. One of the employees wears a blue shirt, but he wears it inside out every day. Additionally, he has modified his shirt with a big swastika. Neither of these things are specifically forbidden in the company rules. Your customer don't like it and they complain. You tell them that you don't want to trample on the employees right to free speech. So, your customers start staying away from your business. You begin to lose money.

At what point do you say that the employee must wear his shirt right side out and remove the swastika? Do you have that right? After all, he is technically following the rules. I say you DO have the right. It's YOUR business and you are the one paying the salary. And you can change the rules anytime you want. After all, it's YOUR company.

Zack Zoll wrote:

The question is: is it black males everywhere? Or is it men in inner cities, who are more likely to be black?

I would point you to the following site:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585 … e-by-race/

As it turns out, there were 457 whites shot to death by police in 2017. There were 223 blacks shot to death in the same time period. This includes males AND females. There were also 135 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2016, and 46 in 2017. (The lowest number in 58 years)  There were approximately 74.5 million blacks in America in 2016 and approximately 800,000 law enforcement personnel. So what do these numbers mean?

Blacks shot to death by police = 0.000299% of the black population.
Police killed in the line of duty = 0.0168% of the police population

A cop is much more likely to be killed in the line of duty than a black man is likely to be shot to death by a cop.

Unless my math is wrong. (It may be. High school was a long time ago)

A Thousand Words  wrote:
I would point you to the following site:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585 … e-by-race/

As it turns out, there were 457 whites shot to death by police in 2017. There were 223 blacks shot to death in the same time period. This includes males AND females. There were also 135 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2016, and 46 in 2017. (The lowest number in 58 years)  There were approximately 74.5 million blacks in America in 2016 and approximately 800,000 law enforcement personnel. So what do these numbers mean?

Blacks shot to death by police = 0.000299% of the black population.
Police killed in the line of duty = 0.0168% of the police population

A cop is much more likely to be killed in the line of duty than a black man is likely to be shot to death by a cop.

Unless my math is wrong. (It may be. High school was a long time ago)

I can't help but notice that your statistics differ from others posted - which goes back to what I said before about the massive number of 'race unidentified' entries in the first stats posted. As I said then, there will be posts in many directions, most of them as verifiable as the next. I'm going to refrain from forming an opinion until there's some sort of consensus, though I won't necessarily refrain from questioning.

As to your question about the employee wearing a swastika ... I have a couple comments and a solution.

First, a swastika is an inherently racist symbol - now, at least. Not 100 years ago, maybe not 100 years from now.  But today, that symbol cannot mean anything but Nazis or anti-Semitism. Kneeling isn't an inherently disrespectful gesture; you kneelnin church (some sects) , and you kneel when being knighted ... Though I think they let old guys bow now. We already linked Tim Tebow ... The story is BS, but the point is that it's a less offensive  kneel, even though it's in the middle of the game!! The difference is that the swastika will ALWAYS offend, while kneeling is only offensive if done at the wrong time or for the wrong reason, seen by the wrong people. Assuming that every reason you hear discussed is what the althlete meant.

Second, the swastika DOES affect your employee's ability to do their job. Would you buy a TV from that guy? If there were no other employees around, would you even stay in the store? Safety gear also affects your ability to do a job. Kneeling, not so much.

Lastly, what would I do? I'd fire the kid ASAP. In many states you don't even need to give a reason to anybody but the employment officer and the HR director if they ask. I wouldn't even tell him why - I'd just tell him his services were no longer needed. We actually had a very similar incident in the family business a few years ago, and that's what we did.

And if the various owners wanted, they can let those guys go or bench them. Clearly they're doing so in at least one occasion. The NFL has every right to make standing for the anthem a condition of employment, if they so choose.

But they won't, because they might have to let go of some really good players, and that makes winning harder. We've had players stay on while much more clearly violating morality clauses on camera! Clearly winning is more  important than morality. Wins mean money. Not shitcanning these guys is a purely financial decision - and by giving the team a penalty, they're holding players accountable for what the owners aren't willing to be held to themselves.

So it doesn't affect players' ability to play, and it's not a condition of employment - at least not an enforced one. Very different from the swastika.

Zack Zoll wrote:
---SNIP---

So it doesn't affect players' ability to play, and it's not a condition of employment - at least not an enforced one. Very different from the swastika.

The point of my hypothetical is that, unless you have your business in a "right to work" state, you could be in a lot of trouble for firing your employee if he didn't break the rules. And the employee could (rightly) claim that you violated his 1st amendment rights by doing so. The NFL covers many states, some of which are "just cause" states. Wearing a swastika is perfectly legal, as is kneeling. Yes, it is offensive to people, as is kneeling during the anthem.

It's a minefield. There is no easy answer.

Zack Zoll wrote:
{for the sake of forum brevity, I am cutting most of your thoughtful post}

[...]
As to your question about the employee wearing a swastika ... I have a couple comments and a solution.
[...]
So it doesn't affect players' ability to play, and it's not a condition of employment - at least not an enforced one. Very different from the swastika.

You are right, kneeling for the anthem doesnt affect Kaepernick's "play".  Kaepernick's kneeling did however impact his "job performance". If it hadnt, chances are he would still be in the league.

Bottom line, he is an entertainer. His job is more than his considerable athletic prowess. It is also his ability to put paying customers in stadium seats, and retain loyal fans on the networks. He is fully aware that his "job" involves both sides of the equation, his contract with the team has many clauses governing his public behavior, as well as his athletic performance.

You can say it is unfair for him not to be playing in the league. In an ideal world, maybe you would be correct. Our world is far from ideal.

Just like the 350 pound, heavily tattooed and pierced Nazi biker dude isnt a good fit for your pediatrician's reception desk,  a paid team member who alienates a significant portion of his team's fan base isnt a good fit either...


an aside---- this also points out why I think his choice of forum was so poor.  He needed to get white, uninformed. unthinking people to look at the actual facts of systemic racial bias with as little of the negative racial bullshit attached to the subject as possible. To inform. To educate. Hopefully to start change.

Instead, here we are, months later, discussing Kaepernick, and kneeling for the anthem, and the issue of his protest gets scant mention.

A Thousand Words  wrote:

The point of my hypothetical is that, unless you have your business in a "right to work" state, you could be in a lot of trouble for firing your employee if he didn't break the rules. And the employee could (rightly) claim that you violated his 1st amendment rights by doing so. The NFL covers many states, some of which are "just cause" states. Wearing a swastika is perfectly legal, as is kneeling. Yes, it is offensive to people, as is kneeling during the anthem.

It's a minefield. There is no easy answer.

You yourself said there's no first amendment issue from a private employer. Even if there were, you would be stupid to tell him that's why you were firing him - it's not necessary in a right-to-work state.

As I said, we encountered almost this same thing - only the employee was saying ugly things, not wearing ugly symbols.

rfordphotos wrote:

You are right, kneeling for the anthem doesnt affect Kaepernick's "play".  Kaepernick's kneeling did however impact his "job performance". If it hadnt, chances are he would still be in the league.

Bottom line, he is an entertainer. His job is more than his considerable athletic prowess. It is also his ability to put paying customers in stadium seats, and retain loyal fans on the networks. He is fully aware that his "job" involves both sides of the equation, his contract with the team has many clauses governing his public behavior, as well as his athletic performance.

You can say it is unfair for him not to be playing in the league. In an ideal world, maybe you would be correct. Our world is far from ideal.

Just like the 350 pound, heavily tattooed and pierced Nazi biker dude isnt a good fit for your pediatrician's reception desk,  a paid team member who alienates a significant portion of his team's fan base isnt a good fit either...


an aside---- this also points out why I think his choice of forum was so poor.  He needed to get white, uninformed. unthinking people to look at the actual facts of systemic racial bias with as little of the negative racial bullshit attached to the subject as possible. To inform. To educate. Hopefully to start change.

Instead, here we are, months later, discussing Kaepernick, and kneeling for the anthem, and the issue of his protest gets scant mention.

I didn't say Kaepernick not having a gig was unfair. I said it happened for reasons unrelated to his ability to win football games, just how beating your girlfriend on camera also had nothing to do with your ability to win games. VERY different thing. When you're talking about laws and business, 'fair' isn't always a relevant concept.

What I DID say was unfair was penalizing a team in yardage. As I said, that only serves to allow *something* to happen to a team without requiring the owners or managers to take any responsibility. That one was a moral statement.

ernst tischler wrote:
I say let them kneel for the anthem.  If the fans don't watch football because of the protest, then the fans were not real fans of football anyway.

What Fun Productions wrote:
You've obviously never ran a business.

So now they lose more fans (and possibly sponsors) because of the new rule.  All the while, the fans they have already lost are still not happy because they see the rule as too little too late.  How is that good for business?

You miss the point.  The only reason the kneeling protests grew from one player to so many, and became such a big deal, is because people made a big deal out of it.  Let them protest, go on with the game as usual and it will pass.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I didn't say Kaepernick not having a gig was unfair. I said it happened for reasons unrelated to his ability to win football games, just how beating your girlfriend on camera also had nothing to do with your ability to win games. VERY different thing. When you're talking about laws and business, 'fair' isn't always a relevant concept.

What I DID say was unfair was penalizing a team in yardage. As I said, that only serves to allow *something* to happen to a team without requiring the owners or managers to take any responsibility. That one was a moral statement.

Alas, my poor communication skills bite me in the a** again.

Zack, please accept my apologies, I didnt mean to put words in your mouth, I completely failed to make clear who I was speaking about here.

ernst tischler wrote:
You miss the point.  The only reason the kneeling protests grew from one player to so many, and became such a big deal, is because people made a big deal out of it.  Let them protest, go on with the game as usual and it will pass.

No, you miss the point. People DO NOT WANT politics in their sports. People do not want the flag or the anthem disrespected. People made a big deal out of it because it was un-American by every measure, even though every American has free speech rights. Time and place. Poor decision making by some players.


They weren't going to play the National Anthem before a softball game, so fans started singing

https://www.abc15.com/news/national/the … ed-singing

What Fun Productions wrote:
No, you miss the point. People DO NOT WANT politics in their sports. People do not want the flag or the anthem disrespected. People made a big deal out of it because it was un-American by every measure, even though every American has free speech rights. Time and place. Poor decision making by some players.

https://www.abc15.com/news/national/the … ed-singing

You may want reevaluate your statement that, "DO NOT WANT politics in their sports." In light of this 2015 report from Congress. I'd say it's political when the government pays for patriotism and in that the government is paying the NFL for political speech and the NFL are playing in taxpayer funded facilities, their maybe 1st Amendment issues in blocking the players protests.

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_c … report.pdf

DoD paid $53 million of taxpayers' money to pro sports for military tributes, report says....
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation … 1511060140

E Thompson Photography wrote:

You may want reevaluate your statement that, "DO NOT WANT politics in their sports." In light of this 2015 report from Congress. I'd say it's political when the government pays for patriotism and in that the government is paying the NFL for political speech and the NFL are playing in taxpayer funded facilities, their maybe 1st Amendment issues in blocking the players protests.

https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_c … report.pdf

DoD paid $53 million of taxpayers' money to pro sports for military tributes, report says....
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation … 1511060140

In all fairness to "The People", I doubt any of us would affirmatively vote for these expenditures, and as Flake and McCain conveyed in their letter, the practice has since been discontinued. 

It doesn't surprise me though since the DOD has misplaced what would be about 40% of our current national debt the past 22 years.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/1 … nse-Budget

TEB-Art Photo wrote:
One politician who has made a huge noise about the NFL protests used his Memorial Day address to talk about how great the economy is (and it's, not, actually. Rising interest rates and inflation; overdue for market correction).

Well, that guy is kind of a jerk and he does receive some significant criticism over this sort of behavior.  Not that it matters as he is one of the least self aware people on planet earth.

LightDreams wrote:
I've been trying to rack my brain trying to think of a major set of protests, historically, that didn't upset a significant section of the population.

Women's rights, segregation, the Vietnam war, and so much more...

By the very nature of protests, they're inconvenient and attract attention.  Often, one of the main things they accomplish is to get people to think about things (and keep thinking about things) that they'd really rather not have to think about.

Protests are not the only way that major change happens.  In fact I'd love to say that major change can happen just through polite discussion (if there is such a thing when it comes to the big issues).  But historically, protests have almost always (or always?) been a major part of the process.  Especially when it comes to some of the (at the time) more uncomfortable issues.

Protest is designed to make people upset or uncomfortable. But this protest was ill-conceived. It became about disrespecting the flag and the military and it completely lost it's intended meaning. Nobody thinks about race relations in this country when they see players kneeling. They see disrespect. Once that became evident, the protesters should have changed their tactics. Instead, they doubled down on their failure and then were honestly surprised when people didn't jump on board with them.

Additionally, IMHO, this "protest" was stupid from the start. If these high paid sports figures REALLY wanted to do something meaningful for their cause, they should have invested some of their own time and money and made a difference in the community. This was just for show. It was their way of saying "Look how socially active I am."

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
First threw is no free speech in the workplace. You are hired to a job, not try to convince customers your political/social justice position is correct. The applies to people that make coffee or throw TD passes.

Second an NFL TEAM is a group of people united for a common goal--winning games. Now lets say that the Offense line is really into the flag protest, The Defensive team is really into Southern Heritage and supports flying the Confederate flag. The Special teams are strong animal rights advocates, the QB is strongly anti abortion while the running back and wide receivers are strong advocates of reproductive rights. How do they function as a team if one group is standing, one group kneeling on the right knee, another on the left, some on both all for causes that are important to some but not to the 65,000 people who just want to see a football game and not have to worry about all those important problems for a couple of hours. Or at least they used to buy tickets and watch the game.

My team you stand as a team and support your own causes on your time and your dime and go out and WIN as aTEAM.

This!

A Thousand Words  wrote:
The first amendment protects free speech...from the GOVERNMENT! The NFL is not a government entity. They are a private enterprise and can do as they please in this area.

I could point out that the NFL owners acted in large part because they were goaded into action by this present administration, who called for action against the kneeling players, calling them sons of bitches and saying they should be fired (while calling Neo-Nazis "fine people").  I would also point out that employers don't have carteblache to do whatever they want to their peons employees.

And I don't think anyone is claiming that whether a player chooses to kneel or not to kneel, their performance during the game has not been impacted.  I could also point out that the game doesn't start until kick-off, and the (some will say forced to stand at) national anthem happens before the game starts.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Out of respect for those service people on Memorial Day, I decided not to contribute to this thread yesterday.  But I got some comments:


I could point out that the NFL owners acted in large part because they were goaded into action by this present administration, who called for action against the kneeling players, calling them sons of bitches and saying they should be fired (while calling Neo-Nazis "fine people").  I would also point out that employers don't have carteblache to do whatever they want to their peons employees.

And I don't think anyone is claiming that whether a player chooses to kneel or not to kneel, their performance during the game has not been impacted.  I could also point out that the game doesn't start until kick-off, and the (some will say forced to stand at) national anthem happens before the game starts.

Nonsense. The owners made the changes because it is costing them money. And money is the only thing they care about.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Another opinion:

The players disrespected the flag. They knew what they were doing. They did not care.