Don't Expect Any Protests During National Anthem from Hawkeyes

Much ado about Nothing. Why get so worked up about this issue. Those who kneel are not disrespecting America by kneeling. Kneeling is a form of respect, honor, and submission anyway. Kneel before the Cross in Church, Kneel before your King. Kneel before your conquerers. The players who kneel as a visual demonstration of their political views is merely a minor irritant and should be treated as such or simply accepted.....

The media simply loves this. Nothing like firing the flames of dissent to provoke everyone on both sides of this "controversy". Sell some more papers, garnish some more clicks on the web, and keep the viewers raptly watching the "newscasters" fan the flames......

I personally have no horse in this race. Doesn't matter to me a bit. Those who kneel are still being silent, kneeling instead of standing for the National Anthem. Big Deal. People certainly could find more pertinent items to distress over.....

I always stand but never have put my hand over my heart. I fold one hand over the other below my belt line.....

My father who served in WW2, and received three purple hearts. Went to the Fourth Division Marine Corp Reunion every year, and had his picture taken with the Generals who were still with us. He never put his hand over his heart, simply put one hand over the other below his belt line.....

My father received a rifle volley and a folded American Flag when he passed, and I know for a fact that he would have no problem with this issue.....
 
thedukeofearl said:
Much ado about Nothing. Why get so worked up about this issue. Those who kneel are not disrespecting America by kneeling. Kneeling is a form of respect, honor, and submission anyway. Kneel before the Cross in Church, Kneel before your King. Kneel before your conquerers. The players who kneel as a visual demonstration of their political views is merely a minor irritant and should be treated as such or simply accepted.....

The media simply loves this. Nothing like firing the flames of dissent to provoke everyone on both sides of this "controversy". Sell some more papers, garnish some more clicks on the web, and keep the viewers raptly watching the "newscasters" fan the flames......

I personally have no horse in this race. Doesn't matter to me a bit. Those who kneel are still being silent, kneeling instead of standing for the National Anthem. Big Deal. People certainly could find more pertinent items to distress over.....

I always stand but never have put my hand over my heart. I fold one hand over the other below my belt line.....

My father who served in WW2, and received three purple hearts. Went to the Fourth Division Marine Corp Reunion every year, and had his picture taken with the Generals who were still with us. He never put his hand over his heart, simply put one hand over the other below his belt line.....

My father received a rifle volley and a folded American Flag when he passed, and I know for a fact that he would have no problem with this issue.....
Click to expand...

That is pretty much the same story with most all WW2 vets.
 
vork22 said:
Why would they be Aholes? Any business in America would fire people that hurt the brand and offend 70% of their base. Patriot and a good businessman maybe? And Kaepernick basically was fired, he's better than several QBs that started this year and guess what nobody cares. The NFL would be more popular if they required them to stand.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't know why I got so involved in this discussion. I really couldn't care less if those players take a knee during the National Anthem.
 
CP87 said:
It seems to me that it becomes a government issue when POTUS starts deriding free expression.
Click to expand...

So you think POTUS has the constitutional authority to dictate what takes place in a private workspace... no... he doesn't.... and expressing his opinion doesn't constitute government action subject to the protection of the First Amendment.

Again... these players can be fired. The courts will uphold their firing. Hence, they are not protected by the Constitution. Simple as that.
 
CP87 said:
I know it is not technically government infringement, but it is definitely entering a gray area. I think one could argue that POTUS has enough influence that if he starts to criticize free speech, it will have tangible impacts.
Click to expand...

It is not the least bit gray. POTUS is not criticizing free speech... this is not a free speech issue. What these players are doing is not being done as a matter of free right... it's a matter of tolerance by their employers.
 
CP87 said:
I am not saying he is violating a constitutional law in the strictest sense. I am saying it is way out of bounds for him to make those comments from the Oval Office. Do you think POTUS should be suggesting that private business owners fire employees for engaging in non-violent protest?
Click to expand...

He did not make those comments in the oval office. He made them at a political rally in Alabama. Why is it out of bounds for POTUS to express his opinion but not out of bounds for the players to express theirs? I think he's free to suggest anything he believes is appropriate just as those private employers should take whatever action they believe is appropriate.
 
HawkGold said:
There could be challenges on discrimination on freedom of speech in the workplace. The Constitution is a living document and does morph.
Click to expand...

WOW! I don't know where you learned ConLaw but you couldn't be more wrong...

There is no freedom of speech in the workplace... if you have a job go ahead and try that... report back on your results.
 
Stanzi said:
Yes and the owner would then have to pay a hefty chunk of money to said player. It's a unique situation with professional athletes.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Every player contract has a clause prohibiting the player from acting in a way that brings negative effects on the team, the owners, and the league. These players could be fired for cause. The owners would owe them nothing. At this point the owners are tolerating their behavior for reasons of their own.
 
BlindDogScooter said:
He did not make those comments in the oval office. He made them at a political rally in Alabama. Why is it out of bounds for POTUS to express his opinion but not out of bounds for the players to express theirs? I think he's free to suggest anything he believes is appropriate just as those private employers should take whatever action they believe is appropriate.
Click to expand...

By "from the Oval Office," I meant as the sitting POTUS (not sure where he was when he sent the tweets). I agree with everything you say regarding the legality of what he is doing. I disagree, and we will probably just have to leave it at that, that POTUS criticizing free expression is equivalent to another citizen making a political statement. I think it is inappropriate, and you obviously don't, to each their own.

I echo the sentiments of others on here that this has been a good discussion, and I have enjoyed reading other's viewpoints. Although the media frenzy regarding this is over the top, I think it does raise some good talking points for those actually willing to listen and discuss.
 
BlindDogScooter said:
WOW! I don't know where you learned ConLaw but you couldn't be more wrong...

There is no freedom of speech in the workplace... if you have a job go ahead and try that... report back on your results.
Click to expand...

There could be challenges period. Our nation allows that. Any real challenges if any will come from discrimination which could get traction. That is where I went. The constitution is a changing living document. That is not wrong. The work place cannot be in discrimination in part to he who has the most clout. It is possible the players could win. Don't know why you are so offended by that possibility.
 
Are there other examples of the POTUS criticizing the free speech of private citizens through history? There probably are, and perhaps if someone can provide some examples, that will provide better context for how to interpret Trump's tweets. Okay presidential history buffs, go to work...
 
So how's the football team this year? You guys watch football? You know, the thing that's going to happen Saturday regardless of a song that gets played beforehand?

And before you guys inevitably rip me to shreds, remember that the SSB has exactly as much meaning left in it as a Christmas tree you get at Walmart or Lee Greenwood.
 
EstronHawkKing said:
The last 3 times I have gone to church the minister has actually stood at the podium and made negative remarks about President Trump. He's entitled to his opinion, but I thinks it's wrong what he is doing and I don't care to hear his remarks or personal opinion in a house of worship. I also heard that the NFL game on NBC Sunday night Raiders/Redskins was the lowest rated in like 12 years.
Click to expand...
Our Pastor told me he is not allowed to give his personal opinion on politics in a Sermon.
 
I am not saying if I am for or against the knee. One reason for watching sports is to not be concerned with politics, not be offended with your opinion of global warming, or if Wadley likes Nike or Addidas. I just want to watch the game, enjoy the cheerleaders and question coaching decisions. Otherwise I would just turn on CNN or FoxNews.
 
CP87 said:
Are there other examples of the POTUS criticizing the free speech of private citizens through history? There probably are, and perhaps if someone can provide some examples, that will provide better context for how to interpret Trump's tweets. Okay presidential history buffs, go to work...
Click to expand...
Here are several examples from the last Administration. I'd be willing to bet the majority of administrations have had their share of constitutional issues arise. All politics aside, this discussion has been good. We are lucky to live in a country that has a Constitution and Bill of Rights that have stood the test of time. I used to travel a lot to China on business and it's interesting to talk to them over a beer, they are very envious of our political system and freedoms.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._obama_is_a_quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/07/t...-of-blaming-free-speech-for-islamic-backlash/

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...inistration-tried-to-use-bureaucrats-to-crack
 
Last edited:
If Kappernick, who started this whole mess, had done his homework beforehand he would have seen that the topic of his derision is, statistically, quite low on the list of crimes and injustices against black people.

Where's the outcry of black on black crimes?

Where's the outcry of the CIA funneling drugs into the the poorest of US neighborhoods, which are predominantly black?

I could go on and on but you get the point. If Kappernick really wants to accomplish something he first has to get up off his knees and focus on something that will really make a difference.

And he has to be willing to do so with or without the possibility of publicity.
 
Hawk1960 said:
Here are several examples from the last Administration. I'd be willing to bet the majority of administrations have had their share of constitutional issues arise. All politics aside, this discussion has been good. We are lucky to live in a country that has a Constitution and Bill of Rights that have stood the test of time. I used to travel a lot to China on business and it's interesting to talk to them over a beer, they are very envious of our political system and freedoms.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._obama_is_a_quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/07/t...-of-blaming-free-speech-for-islamic-backlash/

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...inistration-tried-to-use-bureaucrats-to-crack
Click to expand...

Thanks, I thought the second link especially provided a comparable example. I would be interested to see others if anyone else can think of examples from other administrations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top