To the brave NFL players who ran into the hotel

[PhatMack19]

37 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I’m not shocked it didn’t make any sense to you.  Most of your response didn’t make any sense and was largely irrelevant.  

Another guy that loves the 2nd amendment but the first only matters if you agree with the message.

But your Aggies have done a good job leading the charge. 

Please explain what you didn’t understand...

As for your first amendment comment, I don’t see anyone calling for them to be arrested.  Try protesting when you are on the clock and let me know how that works out for you.

The players have every right to protest, just like I have every right not to watch and give them my money.

 

[TxHoops]

5 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Please explain what you didn’t understand...

As for your first amendment comment, I don’t see anyone calling for them to be arrested.  Try protesting when you are on the clock and let me know how that works out for you.

The players have every right to protest, just like I have every right not to watch and give them my money.

 

Making a delineation of an individual athlete vs one in a team sport?  Arguing athletes supporting political candidates is “not anyway relevant” or a “dumb” comparison when the post I quoted directly commented on athletes “offering political opinions”?

i will say that you really tried.  But in so doing, you inadvertently, precisely (and obviously unknowingly) made my point.  If you don’t get that, again, not surprising. 

[TxHoops]

12 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

 

The players have every right to protest, just like I have every right not to watch and give them my money.

 

So is it this or are do we need to discuss the socks again?  Because on your first point, you seemed to absolutely believe they didn’t (not an individual sport, sock jibberish).  Now you are saying they have “every right” just as you have the right to boycott.  On that we absolutely agree.  

[jv_coach]

22 hours ago, six burg said:

me and members of my family work hard, pay taxes, respect others of any race. Raise our kids to do the same . And our depicted as N words by many for no reason at all. and many people in this area can only laugh. Never call out the foolish person for making remarks. I have heard the n word being said all of my life, I still have many good white friends. Some of the same people that I know are upset with kapernick over the kneeling, were mot upset when James byrd was dragged behind a pickup truck.

Good and so do mine....I have heard the N word my whole life too by people and in rap songs but that is diffrent. I no of nobody that was cool with the James Byrd murder. Where you cool with Mona Nelson killing of Jonathan Durham? 

Can we all stop with the self-rightousness of my race over yours. Last I checked there is enough hate and nobody is innocent of it. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[bullets13]

22 hours ago, six burg said:

They chose to take that proffesion. I chose to work in a chemical plant. If I get sick from the chemicals its on me. And I don't respect cops that shoot unarmed folks. 

Well, that's about 10 out of 800,000, so do you respect the other 99.999%?

[bullets13]

33 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

So is it this or are do we need to discuss the socks again?  Because on your first point, you seemed to absolutely believe they didn’t (not an individual sport, sock jibberish).  Now you are saying they have “every right” just as you have the right to boycott.  On that we absolutely agree.  

I agree that athletes have the right to protest.  I don't like the manner in which they're doing it, as both of my grandfathers fought for the flag they're disrespecting, although they also fought for their right to disrespect it. That being said, I have two major issues with their protest: the first is that they're protesting an issue that isn't anywhere near the problem that they'd have you believe.  Based on the most recent fbi statistics, a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be killed by police.  While there undoubtedly are police officers out there mistreating black people, it's nowhere near the issue, especially in this day and age, that the media and BLM would have you believe.  My other issue is with the manner of protest, not because of the disrespect of the flag, but because of its unintended (maybe) consequences.  When you protest in a manner that angers those you're trying to convince to a degree that they have no interest in what you're trying to say, you've accomplished nothing.  The debate no longer has anything to do with police brutality, or mistreatment of African Americans, and instead now centers entirely around the method of protest.  In that sense, I'd say that the protest was wholly unsuccessful, as most of the NFL players' targeted audience now cares even less about what they're trying to protest, and a portion of them no longer tune in to see it.  

[TxHoops]

34 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I agree that athletes have the right to protest.  I don't like the manner in which they're doing it, as both of my grandfathers fought for the flag they're disrespecting, although they also fought for their right to disrespect it. That being said, I have two major issues with their protest: the first is that they're protesting an issue that isn't anywhere near the problem that they'd have you believe.  Based on the most recent fbi statistics, a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be killed by police.  While there undoubtedly are police officers out there mistreating black people, it's nowhere near the issue, especially in this day and age, that the media and BLM would have you believe.  My other issue is with the manner of protest, not because of the disrespect of the flag, but because of its unintended (maybe) consequences.  When you protest in a manner that angers those you're trying to convince to a degree that they have no interest in what you're trying to say, you've accomplished nothing.  The debate no longer has anything to do with police brutality, or mistreatment of African Americans, and instead now centers entirely around the method of protest.  In that sense, I'd say that the protest was wholly unsuccessful, as most of the NFL players' targeted audience now cares even less about what they're trying to protest, and a portion of them no longer tune in to see it.  

I don’t disagree with anything you said here, basically.  Personally, although it’s probably more than 10 (and I’m sure you were just using a number), your point in the previous post is well taken.  The vast, vast majority of cops do an excellent job and have my respect.  I have cops who are friends, clients, etc, so I could never participate in anything disrespecting their honorable profession.  (I also know some who aren’t so honorable but that’s a different issue.) Therefore, I disagree largely with the message and think it’s also a bit misguided.  But I also support their right to bring it and I am sure many bring it with conviction.  I respect that also.  

But I equate the racist cop who kills to the priest/clergy who molest children.  A few bad apples shouldn’t spoil the whole bunch, so to speak.  

I also personally believe that the mass protest a week ago Sunday had more to do with a tweet from the Tweeter-in-Chief than it had to do with any so-called cause.  Maybe I’m wrong but the comments and timing would support that theory, I think.  

[PhatMack19]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

Making a delineation of an individual athlete vs one in a team sport?  Arguing athletes supporting political candidates is “not anyway relevant” or a “dumb” comparison when the post I quoted directly commented on athletes “offering political opinions”?

i will say that you really tried.  But in so doing, you inadvertently, precisely (and obviously unknowingly) made my point.  If you don’t get that, again, not surprising. 

Ali was his own boss. NFL players are not.  There is a difference.  

Tom Brady supported a candidate on his own time. NFL players are disrespecting our country while at work.  Supporting a candidate in which half of the country supports is a little different than disrespecting an entire country.  Doing it while on the clock is a whole other issue. 

 

If Goddell supports players free speech at work, then why did he stop them every other time? 

 

[PhatMack19]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

So is it this or are do we need to discuss the socks again?  Because on your first point, you seemed to absolutely believe they didn’t (not an individual sport, sock jibberish).  Now you are saying they have “every right” just as you have the right to boycott.  On that we absolutely agree.  

You do realize the 1st amendment protects them from prosecution by the government, right?  I don’t believe anyone is calling for them to go to jail.  Aren’t you a lawyer?  I thought you would understand the laws a little better. 

[TxHoops]

9 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Ali was his own boss. NFL players are not.  There is a difference.  

Tom Brady supported a candidate on his own time. NFL players are disrespecting our country while at work.  Supporting a candidate in which half of the country supports is a little different than disrespecting an entire country.  Doing it while on the clock is a whole other issue. 

 

If Goddell supports players free speech at work, then why did he stop them every other time? 

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Ali technically worked for the WBC and WBA since he needed them to sanction any championship fights.  Granted, these players work for a different 3 lettered organization.  

I’m sure the Patriots would take a different stance on whether Tom is at work when he is in the locker room, or preparing on their facilities. 

As for Goodell, you do know that he’s merely a puppet for the owners, right?  His view on the first amendment couldn’t be more irrelevant lol 

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

You do realize the 1st amendment protects them from prosecution by the government, right?  I don’t believe anyone is calling for them to go to jail.  Aren’t you a lawyer?  I thought you would understand the laws a little better. 

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 

[TxHoops]

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.  

[stevenash]

I am not equipped to argue about the constitution and I suspect that the vast majority of folks are in the same boat.  But perhaps I can offer an alternate perspective.  Just as I would not care to have my waitress say grace when she served the food at our table, I would not care for my barber to kneel, thus exercising one of his "rights" just as he was about to cut my hair.  And I am still very troubled by the fact that there is such an uproar about Mr. Kaepernicks "rights" but little if any concern about the NFL refusing to allow Dallas Cowboy players to wear a patch honoring the fallen policemen.  Why is Mr. Kaepernicks "right"  honored and the "rights" of the Cowboys rejected/disallowed?

[jv_coach]

20 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

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 in 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.  

Impressive 

[TxHoops]

25 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I am not equipped to argue about the constitution and I suspect that the vast majority of folks are in the same boat.  But perhaps I can offer an alternate perspective.  Just as I would not care to have my waitress say grace when she served the food at our table, I would not care for my barber to kneel, thus exercising one of his "rights" just as he was about to cut my hair.  And I am still very troubled by the fact that there is such an uproar about Mr. Kaepernicks "rights" but little if any concern about the NFL refusing to allow Dallas Cowboy players to wear a patch honoring the fallen policemen.  Why is Mr. Kaepernicks "right"  honored and the "rights" of the Cowboys rejected/disallowed?

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  

[TxHoops]

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.  

[PhatMack19]

5 hours ago, TxHoops said:

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  

I don’t think the answer is hypocritical.  The players all sign contracts and agree to rules that are collectively bargained by their union.  These rules basically say Goodelll is God and that have to do exactly what he says.  I agree they need to challenge his absolute power like Zeke is doing now.  

[LumRaiderFan]

12 hours ago, TxHoops said:

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 

The Constitution is not that difficult to interpret IMO.

A brilliant document written by brilliant men that laymen can understand.

[stevenash]

30 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The Constitution is not that difficult to interpret IMO.

A brilliant document written by brilliant men that laymen can understand.

Until BG gets involved, the constitution has not been adequately analyzed.

[PhatMack19]

12 hours ago, TxHoops said:

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 

The cases you cited are a public college and a public HS.  Government funded entities are a little different that individuals, but I’m sure you already knew that.  

 

I’m sure you can find some cases of an individual yelling fire in a crowded theater which proves what your point.  

[TxHoops]

7 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

I don’t think the answer is hypocritical.  The players all sign contracts and agree to rules that are collectively bargained by their union.  These rules basically say Goodelll is God and that have to do exactly what he says.  I agree they need to challenge his absolute power like Zeke is doing now.  

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.”

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The Constitution is not that difficult to interpret IMO.

A brilliant document written by brilliant men that laymen can understand.

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

[LumRaiderFan]

54 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

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

Absolutely...you throw a little ideology in there and it gets all messed up...kinda like religion. 

[TxHoops]

10 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Absolutely...you throw a little ideology in there and it gets all messed up...kinda like religion. 

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

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

The cases you cited are a public college and a public HS.  Government funded entities are a little different that individuals, but I’m sure you already knew that.  

 

I’m sure you can find some cases of an individual yelling fire in a crowded theater which proves what your point.  

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:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up