NFL bans kneeling during the national anthem

[DavidB.]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

My position on this issue is complex. It has been generally acknowledged that private companies (which the NFL is) have the right to regulate the conduct of their employees while they are on the job. Thus, by the legal definition, it is the right of the NFL to regulate what their players and their personnel can and cannot do when they are out on the field. The recent regulations barring them from kneeling would fall within this framework. At the same time, however, people do have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly, and many over our history have utilized these rights to protest against injustice or to push for social change.

The actions taken by Kaepernick and by the other NFL players aren't completely unprecedented; you are definitely aware of what Tommie Smith and John Carlos did at the Mexico City Olympics back in 1968. They did so in protest at the injustices and the discrimination that were (and are) prevalent in the United States at that time. I think that the NFL players have been clearly motivated by a desire to use their public platform to protest for a legitimate cause-that of police brutality. Yes, many of the incidents which they have been protesting involved people who were legitimately violating the law, and were dealt with in the appropriate manner. But many of them also involved people who were treated in a horrendous manner by law enforcement, in ways that clearly violate the precepts of the law and of this country.

Thus, I think that the NFL players shouldn't be barred from speaking out against such injustices. I agree with you that a NFL game may not be the best venue in which to do it; they do have access to other means of communication (i.e. interviews, rallies, television programs, advertisements), that many average people usually don't have access to. But at the same time, I think that attacking NFL players for being "anti-American", or attacking NFL fans for being "racist" is unproductive. There are many NFL fans who support what the players have done, and there are players who haven't participated in the kneeling. A deeper understanding of this situation by both sides would, in my opinion, do much to bring us to a point where we could begin actively addressing the issues involved.

I will grant that Tommie Smith and John Carlos did not have access to the platforms from which to speak out that athletes of all races, but ESPECIALLY black athletes, have access to today.  Having been alive at that time, I remember being peeved at those guys getting grief, and I was even more upset when I found out that the guy who sent them packing from Mexico City was Avery Brundage, the head of the IOC, and a world class racist jackass who blocked a posed boycott of the 1936 Berlin Olympics (granted that they were awarded to Germany prior to Hitler) and let the 1972 Munich Games go on after the massacre of the Israeli athletes there.  Brundage's comment about the Smith-Carlos incident was "Warped mentalities and cracked personalities seem to be everywhere and impossible to eliminate."  (In objecting to the iconic photograph's inclusion into the official IOC's report of the incident, Brundage described the incident as "the nasty demonstration against the American flag by negroes".  Brundage was, in all likelihood, the most racist and reactionary head of a sports organization in my lifetime, excluding POSSIBLY baseball owner Marge Schott and Washington Redskins founder George Preston Marshall.

There was also an aspect of "seizing the moment" with Smith and Carlos that doesn't apply to the current Kneelers.  These guys were track stars, this was the only time they'd be in that kind of spotlight.  (Smith and Carlos both were later on NFL rosters, but despite their speed, they really couldn't play NFL football because they couldn't run pass patterns well and couldn't catch the ball that well; the Olympics were their BIG moment.)  They weren't going to be invited on the talk show circuit, except, perhaps, for an interview with someone like Howard Cosell.  (Indeed, many black athletes had boycotted the 1968 Olympics, including Lew Alcindor nka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.) 

In revisiting the past, I confess that I find myself softened a bit to the Kneelers' line of thinking.  Somewhat.  The issues Smith and Carlos were bringing to light, however, were pretty much a one-sided matter, dealing with injustices done to law-abiding citizens.  That's not exactly the case today, and while I appreciate how the rights of the accused are intertwined with my rights, there are aspects of the narrative of today's issue that I simply don't accept.

[136or142]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

Exactly, like Roseanne Barr or every one of the liars at Fox 'News.'  Oh, hrm...

[Calthrina950]

My position on this issue is complex. It has been generally acknowledged that private companies (which the NFL is) have the right to regulate the conduct of their employees while they are on the job. Thus, by the legal definition, it is the right of the NFL to regulate what their players and their personnel can and cannot do when they are out on the field. The recent regulations barring them from kneeling would fall within this framework. At the same time, however, people do have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly, and many over our history have utilized these rights to protest against injustice or to push for social change.

The actions taken by Kaepernick and by the other NFL players aren't completely unprecedented; you are definitely aware of what Tommie Smith and John Carlos did at the Mexico City Olympics back in 1968. They did so in protest at the injustices and the discrimination that were (and are) prevalent in the United States at that time. I think that the NFL players have been clearly motivated by a desire to use their public platform to protest for a legitimate cause-that of police brutality. Yes, many of the incidents which they have been protesting involved people who were legitimately violating the law, and were dealt with in the appropriate manner. But many of them also involved people who were treated in a horrendous manner by law enforcement, in ways that clearly violate the precepts of the law and of this country.

Thus, I think that the NFL players shouldn't be barred from speaking out against such injustices. I agree with you that a NFL game may not be the best venue in which to do it; they do have access to other means of communication (i.e. interviews, rallies, television programs, advertisements), that many average people usually don't have access to. But at the same time, I think that attacking NFL players for being "anti-American", or attacking NFL fans for being "racist" is unproductive. There are many NFL fans who support what the players have done, and there are players who haven't participated in the kneeling. A deeper understanding of this situation by both sides would, in my opinion, do much to bring us to a point where we could begin actively addressing the issues involved.

I will grant that Tommie Smith and John Carlos did not have access to the platforms from which to speak out that athletes of all races, but ESPECIALLY black athletes, have access to today.  Having been alive at that time, I remember being peeved at those guys getting grief, and I was even more upset when I found out that the guy who sent them packing from Mexico City was Avery Brundage, the head of the IOC, and a world class racist jackass who blocked a posed boycott of the 1936 Berlin Olympics (granted that they were awarded to Germany prior to Hitler) and let the 1972 Munich Games go on after the massacre of the Israeli athletes there.  Brundage's comment about the Smith-Carlos incident was "Warped mentalities and cracked personalities seem to be everywhere and impossible to eliminate."  (In objecting to the iconic photograph's inclusion into the official IOC's report of the incident, Brundage described the incident as "the nasty demonstration against the American flag by negroes".  Brundage was, in all likelihood, the most racist and reactionary head of a sports organization in my lifetime, excluding POSSIBLY baseball owner Marge Schott and Washington Redskins founder George Preston Marshall.

There was also an aspect of "seizing the moment" with Smith and Carlos that doesn't apply to the current Kneelers.  These guys were track stars, this was the only time they'd be in that kind of spotlight.  (Smith and Carlos both were later on NFL rosters, but despite their speed, they really couldn't play NFL football because they couldn't run pass patterns well and couldn't catch the ball that well; the Olympics were their BIG moment.)  They weren't going to be invited on the talk show circuit, except, perhaps, for an interview with someone like Howard Cosell.  (Indeed, many black athletes had boycotted the 1968 Olympics, including Lew Alcindor nka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.) 

In revisiting the past, I confess that I find myself softened a bit to the Kneelers' line of thinking.  Somewhat.  The issues Smith and Carlos were bringing to light, however, were pretty much a one-sided matter, dealing with injustices done to law-abiding citizens.  That's not exactly the case today, and while I appreciate how the rights of the accused are intertwined with my rights, there are aspects of the narrative of today's issue that I simply don't accept.

I see. I understand that there are significant differences between then (which you have first hand-experience of, as you noted) and now, in terms of communication, and of cultural attitudes. The issue of police brutality is definitely one which can raise many conflicting arguments from many different sides. There are those who view activists such as BLM with skepticism, given some of the rhetoric and aggressiveness which has been displayed by members of that organization. There are others who recognize the need for reform, but would prefer for a more "gradualist" approach for implementing it. And there are others who are for bold and aggressive action, using any and all means to achieve their goals.

I do think that it is unfortunate that the NFL became the center of a controversy such as this, but these kinds of issues usually do lead individuals to take action that will bring greater and more focused attention to them. Sometimes a bold public gesture (i.e. the kneeling), is seen by them as the best means of achieving this.

[Cold War Liberal]

Interesting how the President of the United States said that people who don't do a political gesture he likes shouldn't be in the country despite ostensibly serving all Americans, including them, and yet no one (on this forum) bats an eye. Shows how normalized this has become.

Imagine if Obama had said that George Zimmerman "maybe shouldn't be in the country," (which I happen to agree with) after the verdict. Half the country would have been up in arms (perhaps even literally).

[Calthrina950]

Interesting how the President of the United States said that people who don't do a political gesture he likes shouldn't be in the country despite ostensibly serving all Americans, including them, and yet no one (on this forum) bats an eye. Shows how normalized this has become.

Imagine if Obama had said that George Zimmerman "maybe shouldn't be in the country," (which I happen to agree with) after the verdict. Half the country would have been up in arms (perhaps even literally).

I did hear about this earlier today, and I think that comment by Trump was a disgraceful one. It does serve as an example of how severe polarization has become. It also serves as a revival of some of the ugliest divisions (racial, cultural, etc.) that have defined American society.

[7,052,770]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

Fair point, but in America the go-to conservative line is that Kaepernick is unemployed because he isn't good enough, not because of his protests.

[Strudelcutie4427]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

Fair point, but in America the go-to conservative line is that Kaepernick is unemployed because he isn't good enough, not because of his protests.

He was 1-13 in his last year. Would you want a guy that bad? It’s not like he has any excuse either. SF had a good defense at the time too. The guy can’t produce. In the NFL when you don’t produce you get cut

[7,052,770]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

Fair point, but in America the go-to conservative line is that Kaepernick is unemployed because he isn't good enough, not because of his protests.

He was 1-13 in his last year. Would you want a guy that bad? It’s not like he has any excuse either. SF had a good defense at the time too. The guy can’t produce. In the NFL when you don’t produce you get cut

Watch the video.

And after you do, you and I will both say "Yes, Kaepernick would have been better on the field than Brett Hundley, Tom Savage, and some other QBs who started some games in 2017."

No one's saying that Kaepernick is good. Just that he's good enough to have started on several different teams during at least part of 2017.

[Strudelcutie4427]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

Fair point, but in America the go-to conservative line is that Kaepernick is unemployed because he isn't good enough, not because of his protests.

He was 1-13 in his last year. Would you want a guy that bad? It’s not like he has any excuse either. SF had a good defense at the time too. The guy can’t produce. In the NFL when you don’t produce you get cut

Watch the video.

And after you do, you and I will both say "Yes, Kaepernick would have been better on the field than Brett Hundley, Tom Savage, and some other QBs who started some games in 2017."

No one's saying that Kaepernick is good. Just that he's good enough to have started on several different teams during at least part of 2017.

Atleast those guys won more than 1 game

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

Fair point, but in America the go-to conservative line is that Kaepernick is unemployed because he isn't good enough, not because of his protests.

He was 1-13 in his last year. Would you want a guy that bad? It’s not like he has any excuse either. SF had a good defense at the time too. The guy can’t produce. In the NFL when you don’t produce you get cut

Watch the video.

And after you do, you and I will both say "Yes, Kaepernick would have been better on the field than Brett Hundley, Tom Savage, and some other QBs who started some games in 2017."

No one's saying that Kaepernick is good. Just that he's good enough to have started on several different teams during at least part of 2017.

Atleast those guys won more than 1 game

That doesn't mean they themselves are great. A team is more than one guy.

[7,052,770]

https://youtu.be/1I0cUTXwr-k

After viewing that video, you won't be able to argue that Kaepernick's performance (which admittedly isn't that good) is the sole reason for his unemployment

Who cares if it isn't, though? If I were to make some weird divisive political statement on live tv that everyone in the country got to know about, you bet companies would shy away from hiring me to represent them. That's how it works.

Fair point, but in America the go-to conservative line is that Kaepernick is unemployed because he isn't good enough, not because of his protests.

He was 1-13 in his last year. Would you want a guy that bad? It’s not like he has any excuse either. SF had a good defense at the time too. The guy can’t produce. In the NFL when you don’t produce you get cut

Watch the video.

And after you do, you and I will both say "Yes, Kaepernick would have been better on the field than Brett Hundley, Tom Savage, and some other QBs who started some games in 2017."

No one's saying that Kaepernick is good. Just that he's good enough to have started on several different teams during at least part of 2017.

Atleast those guys won more than 1 game

Wamp wamp

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most NFL fans support the new policy


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/poll-nfl-fans-overwhelmingly-support-leagues-national-anthem-policy-193906840.html

[Progressive Pessimist]

Interesting how the President of the United States said that people who don't do a political gesture he likes shouldn't be in the country despite ostensibly serving all Americans, including them, and yet no one (on this forum) bats an eye. Shows how normalized this has become.

Imagine if Obama had said that George Zimmerman "maybe shouldn't be in the country," (which I happen to agree with) after the verdict. Half the country would have been up in arms (perhaps even literally).

I wish we could deport Trump for all the political gestures that millions of Americans dislike. It's a two-way street, Mr. President.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Trump: "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country" if you don't stand for the flag

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disgusting totalitarianism espoused from the President yet again.

My opinion on this issue:

There need to be actual reasons to feel national pride before symbols of pride mean anything.

I know (or knew; many are now dead) many men of the WWII generation who would wholeheartedly agree with Donald Trump on this issue, including some who never voted Republican in their lives.  These are the men that defended our country and defeated REAL facism during WWII.  Men like the REAL JFK, not posers with a red avatar.  A few I knew were Ellis Island immigrants; many were first generation American born.  To a man, they'd agree with Trump.

Their reasons for national pride was the freedom it gave them.  Their reasons for national pride was that they were citizens of a nation that took them in, made them one of their own, and was a GOOD nation as well as a GREAT nation.

You have no idea as to what either goodness or greatness is.

While I am not a big fan of having the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem leading off every public meeting or sporting event I attend, others disagree with me, and I may well be in the minority in our society on this issue.  When the National Anthem is part of the venue, I stand for the flag because I love my country, and I revere its ideals, even when they're honored in the breach more than in the observance.  And there is something wrong with someone who has been given the opportunity the NFL affords its players when they can't stand for the National Anthem as far as I'm concerned.  I stand to honor both our nation and the flesh-and-blood men who fought to defend it, and especially those who fought in the most terrible war in history, WWII. 

[Calthrina950]

Trump: "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country" if you don't stand for the flag

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disgusting totalitarianism espoused from the President yet again.

My opinion on this issue:

There need to be actual reasons to feel national pride before symbols of pride mean anything.

I know (or knew; many are now dead) many men of the WWII generation who would wholeheartedly agree with Donald Trump on this issue, including some who never voted Republican in their lives.  These are the men that defended our country and defeated REAL facism during WWII.  Men like the REAL JFK, not posers with a red avatar.  A few I knew were Ellis Island immigrants; many were first generation American born.  To a man, they'd agree with Trump.

Their reasons for national pride was the freedom it gave them.  Their reasons for national pride was that they were citizens of a nation that took them in, made them one of their own, and was a GOOD nation as well as a GREAT nation.

You have no idea as to what either goodness or greatness is.

While I am not a big fan of having the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem leading off every public meeting or sporting event I attend, others disagree with me, and I may well be in the minority in our society on this issue.  When the National Anthem is part of the venue, I stand for the flag because I love my country, and I revere its ideals, even when they're honored in the breach more than in the observance.  And there is something wrong with someone who has been given the opportunity the NFL affords its players when they can't stand for the National Anthem as far as I'm concerned.  I stand to honor both our nation and the flesh-and-blood men who fought to defend it, and especially those who fought in the most terrible war in history, WWII. 

I would say that the claims bandied about on this forum and elsewhere, that Trump is a "fascist", and that Republicans are "fascist", are way blown out of proportion. When you look at actual historic fascism, such as that displayed by the Italians under Mussolini and the Nazis under Hitler, you can find little, if any comparison, to the policies being pursued by the Trump Administration in the present day. Yes Trump has said many offensive and/or politically incorrect things (and some of that depends on who you talk to), but I don't really see anything in Republican policies that would approach anywhere near the level of something as horrendous as the Holocaust or all out state direction of national resources, nor anything that would suggest wanton military conquest and the exploitation of helpless peoples.

Trump has his antagonistic relationship with the press, but ultimately, he seems to be motivated by a desire for ratings, above all else, and less by a desire to actually destroy the press as an institution. Though Trump's motives may not be the most desirable, they cannot be compared to the actions taken by men like Goebbels, who used the press as a propaganda outlet to spread their lies and to legitimize the terror of their regime.

As for the veterans that you speak of, I can understand their position. I myself do recognize the sacrifices which have been made, by men in uniform, by men out of uniform, of all races and backgrounds, to advance the ideals which were set by our Founding Fathers. I acknowledge the symbolic importance of our nation's symbols, and the need to preserve our freedoms. But I also think that it is not necessary to give absolute adherence to the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem, at least not in the sense of slavishly worshiping them, and I think that one can be patriotic while calling attention to serious social issues.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Trump: "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country" if you don't stand for the flag

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disgusting totalitarianism espoused from the President yet again.

My opinion on this issue:

There need to be actual reasons to feel national pride before symbols of pride mean anything.

I know (or knew; many are now dead) many men of the WWII generation who would wholeheartedly agree with Donald Trump on this issue, including some who never voted Republican in their lives.  These are the men that defended our country and defeated REAL facism during WWII.  Men like the REAL JFK, not posers with a red avatar.  A few I knew were Ellis Island immigrants; many were first generation American born.  To a man, they'd agree with Trump.

Their reasons for national pride was the freedom it gave them.  Their reasons for national pride was that they were citizens of a nation that took them in, made them one of their own, and was a GOOD nation as well as a GREAT nation.

You have no idea as to what either goodness or greatness is.

While I am not a big fan of having the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem leading off every public meeting or sporting event I attend, others disagree with me, and I may well be in the minority in our society on this issue.  When the National Anthem is part of the venue, I stand for the flag because I love my country, and I revere its ideals, even when they're honored in the breach more than in the observance.  And there is something wrong with someone who has been given the opportunity the NFL affords its players when they can't stand for the National Anthem as far as I'm concerned.  I stand to honor both our nation and the flesh-and-blood men who fought to defend it, and especially those who fought in the most terrible war in history, WWII. 

I would say that the claims bandied about on this forum and elsewhere, that Trump is a "fascist", and that Republicans are "fascist", are way blown out of proportion. When you look at actual historic fascism, such as that displayed by the Italians under Mussolini and the Nazis under Hitler, you can find little, if any comparison, to the policies being pursued by the Trump Administration in the present day. Yes Trump has said many offensive and/or politically incorrect things (and some of that depends on who you talk to), but I don't really see anything in Republican policies that would approach anywhere near the level of something as horrendous as the Holocaust or all out state direction of national resources, nor anything that would suggest wanton military conquest and the exploitation of helpless peoples.

Trump has his antagonistic relationship with the press, but ultimately, he seems to be motivated by a desire for ratings, above all else, and less by a desire to actually destroy the press as an institution. Though Trump's motives may not be the most desirable, they cannot be compared to the actions taken by men like Goebbels, who used the press as a propaganda outlet to spread their lies and to legitimize the terror of their regime.

As for the veterans that you speak of, I can understand their position. I myself do recognize the sacrifices which have been made, by men in uniform, by men out of uniform, of all races and backgrounds, to advance the ideals which were set by our Founding Fathers. I acknowledge the symbolic importance of our nation's symbols, and the need to preserve our freedoms. But I also think that it is not necessary to give absolute adherence to the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem, at least not in the sense of slavishly worshiping them, and I think that one can be patriotic while calling attention to serious social issues.

I certainly agree with the highlighted concept.  But there is a difference between a person that cares about America and is sincerely concerned for its direction, and someone who deeply resents America and despises what it is.  Quite frankly, a decent number of the Kneelers I sense are in the 2nd category.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Most NFL fans support the new policy


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/poll-nfl-fans-overwhelmingly-support-leagues-national-anthem-policy-193906840.html

And once upon a time most Americans supported slavery. Doesn't make it right.

[Calthrina950]

Trump: "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country" if you don't stand for the flag

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disgusting totalitarianism espoused from the President yet again.

My opinion on this issue:

There need to be actual reasons to feel national pride before symbols of pride mean anything.

I know (or knew; many are now dead) many men of the WWII generation who would wholeheartedly agree with Donald Trump on this issue, including some who never voted Republican in their lives.  These are the men that defended our country and defeated REAL facism during WWII.  Men like the REAL JFK, not posers with a red avatar.  A few I knew were Ellis Island immigrants; many were first generation American born.  To a man, they'd agree with Trump.

Their reasons for national pride was the freedom it gave them.  Their reasons for national pride was that they were citizens of a nation that took them in, made them one of their own, and was a GOOD nation as well as a GREAT nation.

You have no idea as to what either goodness or greatness is.

While I am not a big fan of having the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem leading off every public meeting or sporting event I attend, others disagree with me, and I may well be in the minority in our society on this issue.  When the National Anthem is part of the venue, I stand for the flag because I love my country, and I revere its ideals, even when they're honored in the breach more than in the observance.  And there is something wrong with someone who has been given the opportunity the NFL affords its players when they can't stand for the National Anthem as far as I'm concerned.  I stand to honor both our nation and the flesh-and-blood men who fought to defend it, and especially those who fought in the most terrible war in history, WWII. 

I would say that the claims bandied about on this forum and elsewhere, that Trump is a "fascist", and that Republicans are "fascist", are way blown out of proportion. When you look at actual historic fascism, such as that displayed by the Italians under Mussolini and the Nazis under Hitler, you can find little, if any comparison, to the policies being pursued by the Trump Administration in the present day. Yes Trump has said many offensive and/or politically incorrect things (and some of that depends on who you talk to), but I don't really see anything in Republican policies that would approach anywhere near the level of something as horrendous as the Holocaust or all out state direction of national resources, nor anything that would suggest wanton military conquest and the exploitation of helpless peoples.

Trump has his antagonistic relationship with the press, but ultimately, he seems to be motivated by a desire for ratings, above all else, and less by a desire to actually destroy the press as an institution. Though Trump's motives may not be the most desirable, they cannot be compared to the actions taken by men like Goebbels, who used the press as a propaganda outlet to spread their lies and to legitimize the terror of their regime.

As for the veterans that you speak of, I can understand their position. I myself do recognize the sacrifices which have been made, by men in uniform, by men out of uniform, of all races and backgrounds, to advance the ideals which were set by our Founding Fathers. I acknowledge the symbolic importance of our nation's symbols, and the need to preserve our freedoms. But I also think that it is not necessary to give absolute adherence to the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem, at least not in the sense of slavishly worshiping them, and I think that one can be patriotic while calling attention to serious social issues.

I certainly agree with the highlighted concept.  But there is a difference between a person that cares about America and is sincerely concerned for its direction, and someone who deeply resents America and despises what it is.  Quite frankly, a decent number of the Kneelers I sense are in the 2nd category.

That is a valid concern, and there are many people on both sides of the ideological spectrum who do seem to have an aversion to the principles underlying our democracy (i.e. white supremacists, far-left worshipers of communism and fascism).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most NFL fans support this policy


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/poll-nfl-fans-overwhelmingly-support-leagues-national-anthem-policy-193906840.html


Reason NFL did implemented this rule was not because of Trump but their fans

[Calthrina950]

Most NFL fans support this policy


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/poll-nfl-fans-overwhelmingly-support-leagues-national-anthem-policy-193906840.html


Reason NFL did implemented this rule was not because of Trump but their fans

That is what this decision comes down to. One thing that no one should lose sight of is that the NFL is a business, and as a business, the NFL's primary concern is to make money. Rightly or wrongly, they saw the kneeling as hurting their profits and costing them fans. Thus, they decided to implement the new rules.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most NFL fans support this policy


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/poll-nfl-fans-overwhelmingly-support-leagues-national-anthem-policy-193906840.html


Reason NFL did implemented this rule was not because of Trump but their fans

That is what this decision comes down to. One thing that no one should lose sight of is that the NFL is a business, and as a business, the NFL's primary concern is to make money. Rightly or wrongly, they saw the kneeling as hurting their profits and costing them fans. Thus, they decided to implement the new rules.

Yup exactly


This had very little to do with Trump or else they would have taken action months ago

[IndustrialJustice]

[T]his unilaterally-enacted policy is pretty blatantly an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. You have to at least consult the union over mandatory terms of bargaining.

Driving home this point:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/25/17394422/nfl-knee-kneeling-labor-law-kaepernick-free-speech-protest-owners

[Green Line]

Hispanics stand for the flag.  We should listen to them.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Most NFL fans support this policy


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/poll-nfl-fans-overwhelmingly-support-leagues-national-anthem-policy-193906840.html


Reason NFL did implemented this rule was not because of Trump but their fans

It really doesn't surprise me at all.  This is America.  We don't like to talk about real social injustice in this country.  Instead we would rather avoid it, or steer the conversation around how a person protests rather than what it is they are protesting.  Something make you uncomfortable?  Either ignore it or outright ban it.  Because my comfort is more important than your safety.  Also, we're a Christian nation.

No matter.  The athletes will find other ways to protest, and we'll be having a conversation about that soon enough.  But the people this white PR move is meant to appeal to and the social justice warriors who just do things for brownie points are on different sides of the same ugly coin.

America.