TxHoops

That is a perspective and/or conclusion many have. And I don’t think anyone but each individual player knows the actual answer. BUT I also don’t think it’s logically possible that every player who knelt did it for the same reason/cause. Not trying to be cynical

Absolutely. Precisely what I meant by the last sentence of my post you quoted, although I did a poor job of spelling it out.

Your example is a more extreme example (I think) of my ISIS example. It’s a valid argument. Not sure this is security issue though. And again, technically any law that is in contravention of a federal can be argued to be outside a State’s rights.

Pretty impressive showing for the Bulldogs against a previously unbeaten (5-0) Lions squad.

I started reading up on this after your original post about his gambling, etc. REB will tell you I HATE conspiracy theories. But like you, things just don’t add up. The massive gambling, the planes. I convinced myself there is more to this story. As baddog said, I need it to “make sense” to me. I hope we are told enough that it does at some point, but eventually I stopped reading because these situations make me nuts.

Let’s assume it’s a difficult decision. I can’t say that it was for Kaepernick because I don’t know him and certainly not his convictions. I know what he says and can choose to take him at his word or not. For me personally, to do something so extreme for a “cause” would have been exceedingly difficult. I can imagine taking this particular action in any scenario that exists today, but that’s my belief system and views. But if it IS something you struggle with, it is completely rational and logical to not expect it to happen the moment you feel “injustice.” It might be something you contemplate, feel strongly about, but struggle finding the “courage.” I am not labeling Kap or anyone doing this as courageous because only they know their hearts and true motives. But I would offer an example that would illustrate what I am trying to say. Many people have been raised in a Christian church. They might be their every Sunday, or even every time the “doors are open.” They have listened to 100s of sermons, and figured out at some point what they believe they should do. But for many people, it was years and years before they truly had a conversion experience where they”became a Christian,” as believers in Bible-based denominations believe. I suppose the same question you ask would apply to them. And before I get lambasted, I am NOT comparing the NFL situation with Christianity! Just offering an example of a delayed demonstration of conviction.

Serious question (it’s a shame I have to preface with that - and that is not a slam on the “right” on this board, applies just as much if not more to “left” posters who like to “troll”): I don’t like labels in any form or fashion because I agree and identify with certain principles that are generally identified with one “side” or the other. But one of the tenets of the GOP that I wholeheartedly agree with is “state’s rights.” Even if it happens to be counterintuitive to what I believe is good for the country. I am a proud Texan, love my state, but sometimes disagree with our State’s laws. But we live in a democracy and I will honor and respect those laws, even though I might philosophically disagree. I choose to live here and wouldn’t have it any other way. So if California chooses to be a sanctuary state, is that not their right? I realize a counter-argument is compromising the security of our country as a whole (e.g., a state offering sanctuary to ISIS members). But to narrow, if they want to offer sanctuary to undocumented Mexicans, should they not have that right? Marijuana is now “legal” in over half the states. Some of which have made it legal recreationally, even though it is still illegal under federal law. So I’m not sure saying California passed an illegal law is unique, although maybe technically true. Of course, the federal government can always respond to a renegade State with its wallet, but that’s another discussion.

Forgot Knoxville. Haven’t been to a game there but they are up there by all accounts in CFB’s Best gamedays. Would guess they still trail the Cajuns.

Woo hoo! Gainesville! Been there, done that. Was okay but the town sucks (by Florida standards. Best two towns by far in SEC are Nashville and Athens. Oxford isn’t bad either. But the always important road trips are the most important thing. Been to Columbus and South Bend. Both better in terms of CFB than anything in the SEC (although - gulp - LSU would be the best atmosphere and is close). But I ramble. I’m sure you are glad you don’t have to go to Lubbock anymore since they kicked your arse on a regular basis before you guys ran to be the recruiting b!t€h of the SEC.

Gotta remember though that WOS has a 5A fan base for a small 4A school. Great win Stangs!

May have something to do with his diet as well. Have you seen it? (Spoiler alert: we don’t have a shot pal.)

I will say it’s a bit ironic that one of our most litigious citizens (who happens to be President) may end up caught up in this foolishness but right is right and dumb is dumb. I would summarily throw each and every such case out with a three word ruling - GET A LIFE

I don’t know how on earth I missed this and apologize if already posted earlier. Somehow I’m a few months late to this party. But this is one of the dumbest things I’ve read in awhile. And while i think it’s extremely “weak” for Trump and any politician to block someone on social media, this is a colossal waste of precious Court time. It’s a sad state of affairs when we are litigating who is blocking whom on Twitter. [Hidden Content]

i hope you’re wrong but I wouldn’t be shocked. Judge was great in spurts, especially September, but I don’t think it’s that close.

Most championships of any team in any sport. They are a lot of things but overrated is silly. Regardless, like the Cowboys and Pats in football, no one pulls ratings like the Yankees. Although the Stros are playing one of the other teams that do well ratings-wise, as far as baseball ratings go.

Because the most popular franchise in baseball plays the AL top seed in the nightcap. Easy call.

You stole my thunder Eng! Specifically why I headed here. How can you not find a channel in the low 200 bank with the ESPNs but you have to flip up in the middle of the 600s with the likes of Fox Sports Lower Montana to find aggy games lately (SEC Network). Only someone realllllly special would have that problem!

Why would I cite a case that is “not relevant” to our discussion? I wouldn’t cite Schenck because we aren’t arguing whether the speech itself discussed is protected, but whether the speakers are protected. But it is THE free speech case virtually everyone knows so not surprised you would reference it And before you were making some dubious argument about the players not being arrested. But again, not part of the discussion so according to you (I.e., dumb/irrelevant). The point about the two cases involving “public” entities is well taken, as has been the general rule. However, even a private employer must be careful with Title VII issues when “chilling” any workplace issues. And while firings have been allowed in the past for conduct like Brady’s (I.e., the infamous Lynne Gobbell case), the reaches of freedom of speech have been extended to the private sector in many recent rulings, including Hispanics United of Buffalo and Kroger Co. of Michigan cases. For your convenience, the NLRB decisions are linked below: [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

To your point, I have found that the human race has the uncanny ability to mess most things up!

I would generally agree with you. Obviously the “difficulty” is variable depending on the individual

Nash was speaking to the “League”, I believe. And whether that is the puppet Goodell or the owners, that is where the hypocrisy lies. To allow one and not the other can’t be otherwise explained. If you understand what “hypocritical means.”

Another good example would be the Kountze cheerleader case. I believe the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont correctly ruled in their recent opinion that the signs containing scripture were protected by the 1st Amendment. The counter argument was a separation of church and state but the signs were made by the students, not promulgated by the school. In fact, ultimately it was a fight that the district was on the other side of. As such, the signs and the cheerleaders’ rights to make and display the signs were found to be protected under the BoR.

That is a very valid point Nash. And the answer, as I know you know, is that it too is hypocritical. The cowboys should have had every right to wear or not wear the patch. They do it all the time for teammates who are killed. Even those who had a hand in their own death (i.e., drunk driving). To honor fallen policemen would have been a noble tribute and one I would have supported. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around And to your first statement, I wouldn’t presume to argue market strategies with you

Ok, I’m feeling charitable so I will actually engage in this “dumb” argument. I will admit though that in your attempt to “educate” me on the First Amendment protections, you gave one of the most simplistic views of the Bill of Rights I think I’ve ever seen. Try Healy v James and cases citing it to see instances having nothing to do with “arrests” where the 1st A was invoked. You might want to file an amicus brief the next time the SCOTUS hears a 1st A case to let them know where they’ve been off track all these years.

I would happy to test my knowledge of the constitution or “the laws” against yours any day of the week. Or most any subject for that matter, other than maybe peddling houses lol