Trumps NFL tweet

[calfoxwc]

16 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

 

So... you are against the players who choose to speak, but you support the right of "people" to freely speak.  Except for the players, of course.. because to you, they aren't people any more.

And you don't recognize the inherent contradiction between "supporting freedom when it doesn't align with your opinion" and "telling the players that they don't get to have an opinion" ?

Got it!

 

News flash: The fact that you only want to give the label of "people" to protest that you approve of...... shows that you don't actually believe one word you posted.

The only issue at hand is whether or not you support governmental clampdowns on the expression of the players.  And frankly, if you do, everything you posted about believing in the constitution is complete and total bullshit.

you are a pathetic asswhole. The obeyance of president orders are "conditional" ? LOL you are a stupid asswhole to boot.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/president5.htm

Here's a clue - the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.

[The Gipper]

Its just another case of:    WFSTDTST

[The Gipper]

17 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

you are a pathetic asswhole. The obeyance of president orders are "conditional" ? LOL you are a stupid asswhole to boot.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/president5.htm

Here's a clue - the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.

(If the "orders" were coming from say President Barack Obama, you would probably agree that the obeyance of presidential orders are "conditional".

Fair to say?

[calfoxwc]

8 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

Might that include Russia?

 

Interesting how civil the conversation has been... with the notable exception of one post.

"Squirrel hunter"... lol... good one.

thank you - that's my login for the fantasy football leagues. Where I played you and you beat me by 5 points. dammit. lol

[calfoxwc]

2 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

(If the "orders" were coming from say President Barack Obama, you would probably agree that the obeyance of presidential orders are "conditional".

Fair to say?

no, it's stupid to say. Although, in the military - you do NOT obey an illegal order, which would have come from obaMao the terrible.

and yes, lol, I used "obeyance" because I consider it a commonly used word that means "obedience". I never promised you a rose garden.

[bbedward]

Idc about the rest of the league

But these dumb cunts on the Browns need to stand up and win some football games.

Kneel during the anthem on your own time - or even better, use some of your millions to help make things better - on your own time.

If these jackasses could actually win some football games then idgaf what they wanna do during the national anthem.

[The Gipper]

17 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

no, it's stupid to say. Although, in the military - you do NOT obey an illegal order, which would have come from obaMao the terrible.

and yes, lol, I used "obeyance" because I consider it a commonly used word that means "obedience". I never promised you a rose garden.

So? You DO agree then that obeying an order of the POTUS IS conditional on it being legal.

And, I see, you now want to give President's titles like they did King's of old?  Well, there are a couple of such titles for our current guy:

The Unready and the Unworthy.

 

[OldBrownsFan]

I've said all along this is a terrible and divisive way to protest. It seems to me if you are protesting something you would want to win people over to your side and all this does is to make a large number of people angry and that is counter productive to their cause. It is made even worse  by a Browns team that is 0-3 and should be more focused on winning football games. I thought they had figured it out with the team coming on the field with the police, military and first responders and respectfully standing for the national anthem with their arms locked together. They got a lot of POSITIVE response for that.

[calfoxwc]

So? You DO agree then that obeying an order of the POTUS IS conditional on it being legal.

And, I see, you now want to give President's titles like they did King's of old?  Well, there are a couple of such titles for our current guy:

The Unready and the Unworthy. Gipper

*****************************************

no, you inferred the president can issue orders, and the military folks can use their discretion to apply conditions

whether or not to comply. The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ, and applies to any superior across the military who issues an illegal order. After eight years, obaMao still deserves nicknames. "illegal" is not subjective.

It was sour grapes to give them to Trump when he was in office for a week.

[The Gipper]

Basic question though: why is the playing of the National anthem needed at a sporting event? To me, going to or watching a sporting event (NFL or otherwise), is just another form of entertainment. Americans, being people of leisure enjoy many forms of entertainment. We go to movies, we go to concerts (rock, jazz, classical or otherwise), we go to plays, we watch videos, we go to festivals and fairs and amusement parks, We turn on the radio and the TV, we turn on our computers and view various matters for our entertainment. Why is there not a 'rule' that the national anthem must be played when you choose to engage in all these other forms of entertainment? Sports, sporting events are just entertainment. Why mandate the national anthem for them and not all the others? I guess if you want a "simple solution" ..just don't give people the opportunity to engage in such protests...if you feel offended by such (constitutionally protected) form or speech. It is a simply tradition to play the anthem at these events. There is no law mandating it. The rule that the league has about it is just a league rule. They change rules all the time. They have rules now against hitting the QB that they have changed. They recently changed the celebration rules. The have rules relating to the length of a player's sock length.  Like I said: why just have the anthem at sporting events but not at other entertainment events? Purely tradition.

[The Gipper]

8 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

no, you inferred the president can issue orders, and subordinates can use their discretion to apply conditions

whether or not to comply.

I  was not the one to infer that..it was someone else (and quite frankly...I was not really following your conversation). 

The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ, and applies

to any superior across the military who issues an illegal order. After eight years, obaMao still deserves nicknames.

It was sour grapes to give them to Trump when he was in office for a week.

Oh, it was not sour grapes. Quite the opposite.  It is more like DJT is  a sex slave feeding grapes to an orgy of comedians.  He is a comedian's dream.  No one in history has been more amenable to being made fun/light of. 

[Canton Dawg]

5 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

He is a comedian's dream.  No one in history has been more amenable to being made fun/light of. 

Obama was a clown, he was just handled with kid gloves by the MSM.

Jay Leno poked fun at the Kenyan, and he lost his job.

[The Gipper]

Just now, Canton Dawg said:

Obama was a clown, he was just handled with kid gloves by the MSM.

Jay Leno poked fun at the Kenyan, and he lost his job.

Trump is an incompetent, inept, irrational, irresponsible  asshat (who LOOKS more like a clown than just about anyone I have ever seen...and who should have stuck to being what he was good at....being a game show host).  Leno retired because he was over the hill...had nothing to do with any college in Ohio.

[The Gipper]

Move to the Political Boards where the asshats can all congregate together...and not bother the rest of us with their RRRRRRRRhetoric.

[Unsympathetic]

55 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

The stipulation that illegal orders shall not be followed is huge in the UCMJ

Thanks for admitting that I'm right, as usual - but you just wanted to call someone an asshole, as usual.

Here's a clue: Following the President's orders is conditional on those orders both being legal and meeting the conditions of the UCMJ.

Which is exactly what I stated the first time.

 

Try reading before you reply next time, ignorant asshole.

 

Clue #2: When you type your inevitable clusterfuck of a reply, your assertions of "what I really meant even though I explicitly didn't say it" will be wrong.  Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem.

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, bbedward said:

Idc about the rest of the league

But these dumb cunts on the Browns need to stand up and win some football games.

Kneel during the anthem on your own time - or even better, use some of your millions to help make things better - on your own time.

If these jackasses could actually win some football games then idgaf what they wanna do during the national anthem.

I agree with that. There are reasons that the NFL is losing viewership and support. This is only one of them. Those of us who follow bad teams like our beloved Cleveland Browns should at least be able to pretend that they care about us and that means our country our city our tradition etc etc. Maybe that's naive but if we learn they don't give a shit either way, or even worse actively dislike us, and just want our money it's not as much fun to watch them. And it's certainly not as much fun to make excuses when they suck.

And as I noticed again and will mention again yesterday while I was watching the game with the Gipper I think we both noticed a handful of bad calls. Did the bad calls shift the game one way or the other? Hard to tell but they can certainly turn the tide when a phantom holding call or an overlooked helmet-to-helmet allows your opponent to advance.

WSS

[Unsympathetic]

Just now, Westside Steve said:

should at least be able to pretend that they care about us

They're not your trained monkeys, dude..

Time for you to at least be able to pretend you care about them as people, because in this entire thread all I see is the projection of expectations onto them..

The only time ""freedom of speech" is actually a thing is when it concerns an issue you disagree with.  You don't get to define who is and who isn't a person, you don't get to define what is and what isn't an issue important enough to protest about..

 

How many fights have you started with neighbors in seats who were eating nachos instead of standing with their hand and elbow at an appropriate angle?

[200lbMumford]

17 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

 

Clue #2: When you type your inevitable clusterfuck of a reply, your assertions of "what I really meant even though I explicitly didn't say it" will be wrong.  Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem.

This is my favorite response so far.  Well done.

[calfoxwc]

7 minutes ago, Unsympathetic said:

Thanks for admitting that I'm right, as usual - but you just wanted to call someone an asshole, as usual.

Following the President's orders is conditional on those orders both being legal and following the conditions of the UCMJ.

Which is exactly what I stated.

 

Try reading before you reply next time, ignorant asshole.

conditional is subjective, you idiot.

" subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms: "

There is no subjectivity . It's concrete - you know the UCMJ, and abide by it. That's it. There are no "certain terms" made or granted.

  There are no "conditions" where you follow an illegal order, there are no conditions where an illegal order is allowed

to be issued. None. Were you in the military? You are wrong.  There is NO condition where you don't have to follow a legal order.

There is no condition where you are allowed to obey an illegal order. Not conditional.

[Unsympathetic]

That's three repeats around the same topic!

 

You are all now sentenced to watch the Key and Peele excessive celebration sketch.

Please resume your normally scheduled flame wars on the politics board where I'll never see it.

[calfoxwc]

Thank you for conceding. Have a nice day. and this thread should have been put on the politics board.

[The Gipper]

Well....what do you feel about what I posted earlier:    why bother at all to even have the anthem played at sporting events  (since, like I said...it is not played at any other entertainment venues).

As I see it....if people are going to get their panties in a bunch over it...either way.....then just eliminate it.  Simply a superfluous gesture.

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I've said all along this is a terrible and divisive way to protest. It seems to me if you are protesting something you would want to win people over to your side and all this does is to make a large number of people angry and that is counter productive to their cause. It is made even worse  by a Browns team that is 0-3 and should be more focused on winning football games. I thought they had figured it out with the team coming on the field with the police, military and first responders and respectfully standing for the national anthem with their arms locked together. They got a lot of POSITIVE response for that.

Well, now, isn't that a bit Pollyanna?  I think the whole point of a "protest" is to disturb the thought of others over the issue that you are protesting. I don't think Rosa Parks was looking to sing Kumbaya with the bus company or the city of Montgomery when she refused to go to the back of the bus. Same with the guys that sat down at the Woolworth counter.  Protesting the Vietnam War was certainly not aimed at making LBJ, Nixon etc. happy campers.  The opposite is the same. People that protest against abortion are not really trying to win abortionists to their side, are they.  I mean, when the KKK and the Nazis came to protest the removal of Confederate statues.....were they trying to sing Kumbaya as well?   A protest is DESIGNED to make people angry.....the people who support what you have to say to get angry on your behalf...and the people you oppose to get angry at  what you do in order to show their positions.

Are there ways to accomplish things that might be better? Yes, certainly.  (e.g. remember...the whole thing started as a way to protest the killing of young unarmed black men by police.  There are no doubt better ways to reduce those events.....training, community outreach, education).  The protest is often, however, the thing that brings "the issue" into the forefront so that those other methods of resolving some of these issues may be looked into and come to fruition. Without the protests, would the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights act have ever been passed?

Its like an analogy:  If the Cuyahoga River had never caught fire, would this country have ever gotten serious over clean air and clean water?

So...sometimes you gotta burn a river to get things done.

Fair to say?

[OldBrownsFan]

5 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Well, now, isn't that a bit Pollyanna?  I think the whole point of a "protest" is to disturb the thought of others over the issue that you are protesting. I don't think Rosa Parks was looking to sing Kumbaya with the bus company or the city of Montgomery when she refused to go to the back of the bus. Same with the guys that sat down at the Woolworth counter.  Protesting the Vietnam War was certainly not aimed at making LBJ, Nixon etc. happy campers.  The opposite is the same. People that protest against abortion are not really trying to win abortionists to their side, are they.  I mean, when the KKK and the Nazis came to protest the removal of Confederate statues.....were they trying to sing Kumbaya as well?   A protest is DESIGNED to make people angry.....the people who support what you have to say to get angry on your behalf...and the people you oppose to get angry at  what you do in order to show their positions.

Are there ways to accomplish things that might be better? Yes, certainly.  (e.g. remember...the whole thing started as a way to protest the killing of young unarmed black men by police.  There are no doubt better ways to reduce those events.....training, community outreach, education).  The protest is often, however, the thing that brings "the issue" into the forefront so that those other methods of resolving some of these issues may be looked into and come to fruition. Without the protests, would the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights act have ever been passed?

Its like an analogy:  If the Cuyahoga River had never caught fire, would this country have ever gotten serious over clean air and clean water?

So...sometimes you gotta burn a river to get things done.

Fair to say?

It is not Pollyanish to say the type of protest these players are taking is divisive and counter productive. Below are some comments I read from other posters and probably relate to a great many others who feel the same:

 

"How many other jobs are you allowed to publicly make political protests without repercussions? The NFL is a sports league. The players are being paid to perform on the field. They need to take the political protests OFF THE JOB like the rest of Americans have to do. If the NFL doesn’t enforce the common sense rules the rest of us have to abide by, then they deserve to go bankrupt and the sooner, the better."

 

"There is no “right” to protest in the workplace on the employers time. When you protest at work and damage the business by doing so you should be FIRED.

The employer is putting up with it in this case, but the “customers” are NOT. The boycott is growing larger every day, and revenue is plummeting."

 

[Ghoolie]

They are sunsabitches. 

These guys call each other every fucking name imaginable on and off the field, andnow they are offended? Fuck this topic. Fuck anyone who is offended.

[The Gipper]

21 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

It is not Pollyanish to say the type of protest these players are taking is divisive and counter productive. Below are some comments I read from other posters and probably relate to a great many others who feel the same:

It IS Pollyanish to think that a Protest is not designed to be Divisive.  It  IS designed to be thought provoking.  It IS designed to be disturbing to you.    If this protest being engaged in here by the NFL players was not that....then you wouldn't be here talking about it. As to whether not it is counter productive...THAT remains to be seen.  Rosa Parks protest was not counter productive. The Woolworth sit ins were not counter productive. Protests against Vietnam had a lot to do with the ending of the war. The results of those protests were a long time in the making..but they were productive. 

IF in fact communities come together....get better training for police....and the result is many fewer bad incidents as has happened...then maybe it will have been a very productive protest.  It has people talking.  Of course, like with those other protests....the "productivity" of the protest may be a long time in the making.

 

"How many other jobs are you allowed to publicly make political protests without repercussions? The NFL is a sports league. The players are being paid to perform on the field. They need to take the political protests OFF THE JOB like the rest of Americans have to do. If the NFL doesn’t enforce the common sense rules the rest of us have to abide by, then they deserve to go bankrupt and the sooner, the better."

How many other jobs start their workday with the National Anthem?  No job I have ever held has ever done that...including government jobs. (On the other hand...one job I had...in government....city councilman...did start our sessions with the Pledge of Allegiance). Like I said before...the solution to your problem of not wanting the National Anthem to be "marred" with protests....is to simply not play the National Anthem.  Like those jobs, as I said, no other entertainment venue/event that I ever attend plays the national anthem....only sports.

 

"There is no “right” to protest in the workplace on the employers time. When you protest at work and damage the business by doing so you should be FIRED.

The employer is putting up with it in this case, but the “customers” are NOT. The boycott is growing larger every day, and revenue is plummeting."

Well, now you are certainly going into the area of Pollyana. The NFLs revenue has grown from 9 Billion a year to now around 13 billion.  They ain't going bankrupt...there revenue is rising.  The customers mostly ARE putting up with it.  Are there a few "boycotters". Perhaps No one forces them to go to the games, watch the games.  No one is forcing you to be here talking about the games. WE want our football.  This is not going to change that.   Personally, I don't give a shit if they protest, or don't protest or whatever.  I am not really taking a side in this. I don't see them on TV...and if I do, it don't matter to me.  Besides....what are you going to do, switch to watching soccer?   GGGGuh.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, Unsympathetic said:

They're not your trained monkeys, dude..

Time for you to at least be able to pretend you care about them as people, because in this entire thread all I see is the projection of expectations onto them..

The only time ""freedom of speech" is actually a thing is when it concerns an issue you disagree with.  You don't get to define who is and who isn't a person, you don't get to define what is and what isn't an issue important enough to protest about..

 

How many fights have you started with neighbors in seats who were eating nachos instead of standing with their hand and elbow at an appropriate angle?

At first I was tempted to insult you but I wont. I pay my money I watch the games I look at the commercials. I'm a customer they are entertainers when you come right down to it. So it's up to me whether or not I want to watch the games or buy the products. I'm an Entertainer. Now if there was something in this world that deeply offended me and I thought was a great Injustice I might decide to protest by beginning each show with a paper American flag ripping it to shreds and stopping on the pieces. That's My First Amendment right isn't it? I would explain to the Press that I wanted to draw attention to whatever perceived slight was eating away at me.

Not only would people have less enjoyment of my show but do you think I'm actually making things better by insulting people who might possibly agree with me if I sat down and explained? I doubt it. I think you doubt it too but you are just too invested and being contrary on this board.

And as far as being trained monkeys every performer has a role they are expected to play.

WSS

[The Gipper]

5 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

At first I was tempted to insult you but I wont. I pay my money I watch the games I look at the commercials. I'm a customer they are entertainers when you come right down to it. So it's up to me whether or not I want to watch the games or buy the products. I'm an Entertainer. Now if there was something in this world that deeply offended me and I thought was a great Injustice I might decide to protest by beginning each show with a paper American flag ripping it to shreds and stopping on the pieces. That's My First Amendment right isn't it? I would explain to the Press that I wanted to draw attention to whatever perceived slight was eating away at me.

Not only would people have less enjoyment of my show but do you think I'm actually making things better by insulting people who might possibly agree with me if I sat down and explained? I doubt it. I think you doubt it too but you are just too invested and being contrary on this board.

WSS

Well, many people have  their way of protesting, if they are that passionate about something.  Some may do what you say or similar.  Remember Sinead O'Connor tearing up a photo of the Pope...it didn't engender her to a lot of people....but it was her way to show her passion over an issue.  She was, apparently, willing to burn a lot of bridges with that act...possibly...probably at the expense of a lot of her fan base. 

But you (and I) are more like what you said...preferable to sitting down, discussing things, trying to work them out..whatever that may be. But though, sometimes I do understand what I said above  (a phrase that I like and should get a copyright on...:

Sometimes you gotta  burn a river to get things done.

[The Gipper]

9 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Plus from the standpoint of NFL revenue, and I'm just guessing here, the people who buy Budweiser and Bud Light and drive Ford or Chevy pickup trucks would prefer not to watch their team disrespect the flag or the national anthem.

WSS

Do you give them that much credit for being so thoughtful?

[The Gipper]

And, if you don't think Protests don't sometimes work.....look at this:

3. Lysistrata

Though Aristophane’s comedy was fictional, it held real-life lessons for future generations: In the 5th-century-BC play, the protagonist organizes Greek women to agree not to have sex with their husbands and lovers until they can forge peace and end the Peloponnesian War. Silly as the concept may sound, sex strikes have been used as peacekeeping measures in modern societies from Colombia to the Philippines. Perhaps most notably, women in Liberia included a sex strike in their Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace that successfully ended the 13-year Second Liberian Civil War—and got a female president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, elected. Sirleaf and organizer Leymah Gbowee won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work.

Other successful protest movements (including the above)

http://time.com/3741458/influential-protests/