Opinions on the NFL’s recently approved national anthem policy

8 years ago

I think this was the right move, business-wise. Here’s the gist:

The NFL will enact a national anthem policy for 2018 that requires players and league personnel on the sideline to stand but gives them the option to remain in the locker room if they don't want to stand, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced Wednesday.

Under the change approved by team owners at the Spring League Meeting, individual clubs will have the power to set their own policies to ensure the anthem is being respected during any on-field action. If a player chooses to protest on the sideline, the NFL will fine the team. The player also could be fined by his team, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport and NFL Network's Judy Battista reported.

Full story can be found here.

Featured Answer

maddielee

8 years ago

Have to agree with former NFL quarterback Sage Rosenfels, who said:

“forced patriotism is the opposite of freedom.”

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (65)

artemis_ma
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
If people kneel in churches, and it is seen as respectful, I'm not sure I understand what the problem ever was.

As far as the NFL goes, since I'm bored out of my gourd by football, they can do whatever they want, although I find the rule on the silly side. They've never gotten a dime of my money anyway. (The last time I ever paid for cable was late 1980's, and a tree took out my unused cable line in 1992, no loss. ESPN wasn't included on the service I did get before that.)

EDIT: before anyone assumes... I cancelled cable because the prices were going up faster than my income, and I'd always rather read books, and I didn't see the point in paying over $100 to get anything I'd actually like to see the four or five times a month I'd actually have time to watch. TV is not a bad or evil media, just was overpriced (for me) back in that day. And, well, I got out of the habit.
Sammy thanked artemis_ma
Sammy
Original Author
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
Its clear from your posts about "Idea to reduce the number of gun massacres" that you are strongly against any abrogation of your rights, as you see them, under the Constitution. But apparently you are fine with others rights as guaranteed by the Constitution being quashed so that you don't feel uncomfortable.

bob_cville: I’m not even going to try to set you straight on that first part regarding what I said — on a different post — vis-à-vis my rights. As for the rest of it, this is what I said: “I think this was the right move business-wise.”
Related Discussions
Big companies wanting approval for 2,4,D!
Q
Comments (38)
The following was stated: "Are you just simply going to ignore it because I'm not going to go search around Google for links? You couldn't even "keep up" in that thread (because it's out of your realm of study/knowledge), yet you chose to dismiss all of it because I didn't hunt down some Google links for you." H.Kuska comment. Yes, without scientific documentation, it is merely your opinion. Please note how the Podevin and du Jardin, 2012 paper was commented on in this very recent review reported in Google Scholar: PDF][PDF] SCOPING REPORT C Marris, C Jefferson - 2013 - kclpure.kcl.ac.uk 169 days ago - ... Document Version Preprint ��" the version submitted for publication Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Marris, C., & Jefferson, C. (2013). ... This report should be cited as: Marris, C. and Jefferson, C. (2013). ... "One reason for the scepticism displayed by some actors in response to such declarations is that at the time when genetic engineering first merged, strong claims were also made by proponents of the field about the precision of the new techniques. Thus, molecular biologists in the 1980s emphasised the lack of sophistication of previous techniques to emphasise the enhanced predictability of the then new recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, as exemplified in the seminal OECD report of 1986 (OECD, 1986)11:" H.Kuska comment, the following is a quote from the 1986 report. "While rDNA techniques may result in the production of organisms expressing a combination of traits that are not observed in nature, genetic changes from rDNA techniques will often have inherently greater predictability compared to traditional techniques, because of the greater precision that the rDNA technique affords to particular modifications. […] It is acknowledged that additional research and experience with rDNA micro-organisms, plants, and animals, should certainly increase our ability and precision to predict the outcome of introductions of rDNA organisms into the many varied ecosystems." (H.Kuska comment, end of 1986 quote, now back to recent review quote.) "Despite these claims of greater predictability and precision, studies have now found that unintended additional fragments of DNA are often present (Rang et al., 2005; Windels et al., 2001), and that unintended re-arrangements of sections of the host genome flanking the genetic insert were present in GM crops that have been placed on the market (Hernández et al., 2003; Windels et al., 2001). Also, a recent study by scientists from the European Food Safety Authority demonstrated that some long versions of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter, very commonly used in genetic constructs and present in a number of GM crops on the market, unexpectedly contain an overlapping viral open reading frame which, when expressed, might result in unintended phenotypic changes (Podevin and du Jardin, 2012). This demonstrates that even seemingly well-characterised and routinely used noncoding regulatory DNA sequences can produce unpredicted, unintended effects, yet such sequences are commonly assumed to present little risk when assessed within the EU regulatory framework, and “intergeneric microorganisms resulting only from the addition of well-characterized, non-coding regulatory regions” are excluded from the US Biotechnology Coordinated Framework. Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided about whether any future forms of genetic engineering, including synthetic biology, could ever result in the creation of organisms with reliably predictable behaviours, especially when released into complex, diverse and variable natural ecosystems; and this is directly related to divergent evaluations of the prospects for GMMO products that would need to be released into the environment in order to perform their intended function" H.Kuska comment. Please notice the use of the word "opinions" in the following: "Opinions among scientists and other stakeholders are sharply divided........" i.e. it is my "opinion" that the public is being used as beta testers. ------------------------------------------ Here is a link that might be useful: link to above review
...See More
Our foundation is 'illegal'!
Q
Comments (60)
Hi Caterinms, I sort of agree with brickeye in the respect of the 'One Solid' wall enclosure is a bad thing in a flood area. I believe the reason is that your foundation may float in a bad storm. Imagine your basement as a large bathtub. You have walls and a concrete slab. I agree that it will not be 100% water tight and some water will seap in. The failure mode is if the water rises sufficiently fast such that your basement become bouyant enough to shift. That will essentially take out your foundation. I think it may be worth looking into housing building techniques in Dubai. The artificual island homes build on reclaimed land have water tables just below the surface, lots of sea water pressures. The technology I used is Dutch which allows for basements below the water line. Granted however that there are fewer storms of Katrina magnitude in that area of the world. In your situation what would it take to add the extra four feet of concrete height? Also could you try and divide your basements into smaller enclosed chunks? This will add cost, the question is how much? Also I guess is will it look different to what you have already in mind. 4 Feet of fill is alot of fill dirt, and trucking will be expensive. Just an idea, say you did not fill. Your house would not be anchored, and your door will be say 4 feet above grade. For aestetics, you would like your house anchored to grade. Maybe there is a deck, porch, or other structure that may facilite this? Difficult to suggest in that I cannot see your picture for some reason. From the height requirments, it is almost as if the best solution for your location would be to build the house on some sort of stilts, almost like a pier. Then you would not have to bring in all that fill. Stilt houses are quite nice. One example is the Farnsworth house by Miles van der Rohe. This is sort of late into the process to think about a redesign, but I think some sort of redesign is required in that I think the local inspectors are not going to sign off as is. For piece of mind, I think building it higher is better. Also you would get a better view. Warmest regard, Mike.
...See More
Dangerous Unintended Consequences
Q
Comments (41)
Hi Bethesdamanman, My apologies then, Dave. I thought that I had recalled you posting on the other board that mortgage rates would stay low for years and years, and that we would never return to the high rates of years past. My error. Eeeesschhh .... well.... actually... kinda sorta, YES.... your apologies in this case are NOT warranted. Herein lies a case of "text failing where a verbal conversation *may* have worked better." I've never said rates would stay low "well... forever".... I HAVE said rates (30 FRM rates to be precise) will unlikely climb over 7% in our lifetimes. I *STILL* stand by that.... albeit, I am now offering that we are entering a territory of government-induced inflation at levels I (perhaps naively) thought the United States political system was above. If we continue down the path of dollar-dilution that we've begun accelerating along, there are only two end-game results; A) we reverse course back out of it before we self-destruct in revolution, B) we self-destruct (and the devil we do not know is always a potential problem.) *IF* we successfully reverse and dig ourselves out of the hole of trouble our most recent past and our current government administrations are hell-bent on digging us into... there are only two ways of "sopping back & vacuuming up" the diluted unbacked funny-money that has been injected out into the system; A) The Treasury collects more taxes than it provides to the government to spend, and/or, B) The Fed increases interest rates higher than its blended payout on the treasury bonds (and then some... the greater the positive income spread to the Fed, the more painful to the "fixed-income retired crowd" which is our baby-boomer bubble... who will rally with AARP-sponsored pitchforks.) Both A & B will be met with *MASSIVE* resistance from the only crowd that the poloticos *KNOW* will consistently show up to vote, and have almost unlimited spare time to write, call, email, and generally pester the daylights out of the politicians; The Seniors. SO.... I've learned to never rely on "common sense" when it comes to anticipating "government logic" (an oxymoron if there ever was one.) Obama has enlisted the original architect of option B... Paul Volcker... as a "senior economic advisor." ("Senior" may (MAY) work somewhat to our advantage here... as Gramps Volcker *MIGHT* have some age-gained sensitivity to his classmate comrade's plight.) Volcker is the one who decided to fight inflation in the 1970's by driving short-term interest rates up to the 20%'s... The late '70's and early '80's result was that Volcker recaptured (in a VERY painful way) the excess liquidity (flooding of funny money) our country created by going off the gold standard and adopting a "weak dollar" policy through the 1960's. WHAT WILL WA DC DO??????????????? I dunno.... (I know what I pray/chant/meditate they will do...) *IF* the government (both the loonie left & jackthug right) get OUT of the way of the naturally balancing markets... then my expectations and predictions stand, with virtually my 100% confidence. My fears are that the United States idea of a market-based capitalist self-righting system has been a grand and wonderful social experiment... but that the human frailties (compounded in mob psychology) are sabotaging the underlying DNA strands that made it possible to stand. My COMFORTING REALIZATION... is that despite my egoistic pride for being part of a "successful system".... even if that system turns out to be a decaying failure, INDIDIVIDUALLY I and my family, and those I guide, can still retain their own personal success and quality of life. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner
...See More
Who's to Blame for the Mortgage Mess? Banks, Not Homeowners
Q
Comments (46)
Berniek is right: Much of the blame here falls upon the shoulders of the politicians (led by then-President Clinton), who forced banks to begin some rather foolish lending practices. Alan Greenspan certainly did his share to push this concept of "everyone can borrow" during his time as Fed chairman. Between creative financing, no money down offers, and other such options, the government has given people plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. We Americans haven't proven ourselves to be particularly strong in the moderation and self-discipline categories over the last 30-40 years. Also, remember the climate that existed in the 90s, when I bought my first house: Spurred on by the soaring housing prices, people were convinced that buying "as much house as you can afford" was a good move. Housing was considered an investment that couldn't fail. Yes, the experts began preaching about "the housing bubble" long before it hit, but the masses couldn't grasp how this sure-thing could ever fall. And there's always been a (faulty) basic belief that "If I couldn't afford it, the bank wouldn't lend it to me." I fully agree with those who say that Real Estate agents will push buyers to their upper limits and beyond, and banks will lend what they can -- it's all about profits for them. Yet, the home owner DOES also bear the brunt of personal responsibility. After all, who cares most about whether I can afford my mortgage -- and still buy groceries and other things I need? Clearly, it's ME! I reap the rewards or punishments of my decisions, so I should do the math and know whether I can comfortably afford a house (or anything else) before I buy it. However, we've sort of left that thinking behind in today's buy-now-pay-later society. We're constantly told that "we deserve" this or that thing. That if we're going to finance it, we deserve to have exactly what we want. That "everyone" has debt. We've got to get past that.
...See More
User
8 years ago
Dear Bob, I am all for their right to protest. No where did I say they did not have the right to protest.

Just like those of us who DO respect the Constitution AND the symbols of our country, have the right to protest against the protestors. Apparently you think only YOU have the right to decide who can and can not protest.

When one of your loved ones comes home in a coffin under that flag they fought for maybe you would have a different view of the disrespect shown. Apparently you think I do not have the same rights they do. So laughable and hypocritical.
Sammy thanked User
Chi
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
It's just a difference of opinion whether the gesture is disrespectful or not. Many people, including veterans, do not believe it is disrespectful.

I just think it's interesting that the NFL brushes off domestic violence and health issues like concessions, but when it comes to people exercising constitutional rights, they are really quick to make a change.

Money has been more important than the Constitution on our country for a very, very long time. The Constitution is used as a means of justification of financial decisions.
Sammy thanked Chi
chisue
8 years ago
Huh? Just what does a flag-draped coffin have to do with this?

My ancestors defended our nation in active service in every war from the Revolution up to the Korean War. How does that have any bearing on the inequalities and indignities imposed upon some Americans for no reason other than the color of their skin -- while you support our most prominent citizen draft dodger?
eld6161
8 years ago
This has been battered around for a while. The truth is, because of the original taking a knee, they lost revenue. Bottom line. The paying customer did not approve of this show of protest at a game. They had to figure out a way to fix it.

My take on this is that sports are entertainment. I really don't want to know about an athlete's political view when I am there to watch a game that I paid hard earned money for. Same if I go to see a Broadway Show or a concert.

Yes, everyone has the right to protest, but does that mean anywhere and everywhere?

So, now what? Should we take the tradition of the National Anthem out of the equation?
Sammy thanked eld6161
Chi
8 years ago
I think that's the core of the issue though. Minimizing it to a "political view" when it's a life or death daily reality for African Americans.

It's just very telling that people are more upset about their sports being interrupted than the message that is being sent.
Mrs Pete
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
Though If I was an owner, I’d have pushed for making it mandatory that all players and personnel stand — respectfully — for the anthem.

Agree.

It is the right of an employer to subject his employees to rules. I expect to see a band of brother athletes only emerging on the playing fields when it is time for them to do what their employers hired them to do...play a game.

Agree. It wasn't a place for a political demonstration.

It seems like a simple choice you can support the flag and the national anthem which are mere symbols of our country, or you can support the Constitution which is the foundation on which our country was built, and the reason why the "symbols" have any importance, whatsoever.

Fallacy of forced choice. You present this argument as if only two choices exist -- as if you may value one or the other thing. In reality, you can support BOTH the flag /anthem /symbols AND the Constitution.
Sammy thanked Mrs Pete
amylou321
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
My employer would have a problem with me wearing my "Dogfighting is for pussies" t-shirt, complete with picture of a cat flying through the air at a dog, to work.

They have a policy that if you go to a political rally or protest,you are not to wear anything with their company name on it.

While I really don't see what the big deal was, it is an employer's decision as to what is appropriate behavior while on the clock,or representing them, I guess. I agree it was a business decision. The players have plenty of time,money and influence to make an impact off the field,if they are that passionate about it.

All that being said, I agree that it was made into a big issue by politicians and in doing so,they just made it grow and grow. I didnt care that they took a knee during the anthem,but it was unprofessional,like my shirt.
Sammy thanked amylou321
ratherbesewing
8 years ago
Everyone has the right to protest, but do they have the right to protest AT WORK? Why can't the players make their political statement on their own time?
Sammy thanked ratherbesewing
arcy_gw
8 years ago
When this began I was rather SHOCKED the owners one at a time didn't remind the players they are AT WORK and will behave as TOLD when AT WORK. Then reading the decision, who abstained and why I learned there are owners who agree as the players do. It's a sticky wicket to be sure. My dad gave 20+ year to the USAF--flew missions over Vietnam. Many of those men came home to atrocious behavior. Is it really too much to ask for Patriotism to be shown in the public arenas? I am hearing it is. FREEDOM means different things to different people, sadly. It makes my heart sore that AMERICANS turned off their TVs in the face of this display of "freedom". THAT is freedom at work!!
Sammy thanked arcy_gw
eld6161
8 years ago
Then my next question is, why do we include the anthem in a sports event?

Most of us remember growing up starting the day at school pledge allegiance. What is happening now? I know there were many isssues of protests.

Racial tensions have gotten so much worse. I am not quite sure why. We have raised a whole generation of eco-friendly, politically correct sustainable children.

When do these values start "trickling up?"
Sammy thanked eld6161
Michael
8 years ago
The NFL's sexist policies toward women should be enough for real men to protest by not viewing or buying the latest greatest football jersey. They're not. Says a lot about men who support the NFL.

.
Sammy thanked Michael
diane_nj 6b/7a
8 years ago
Why can't the owners "make them stand?" The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the NFL Players Association is silent on this issue, that's why. On the other hand, the NBA CBA is very specific on this issue: players must stand during the playing of the anthem, but they are allowed to wear shirts that express their opinions before the game starts.
Sammy thanked diane_nj 6b/7a
User
8 years ago
Given that a gesture meant as a reminder of a social injustice, meant to be conveyed in a respectful way, has been blown up into a political issue ... I think the NFL was correct to address it. But, their business decision largely "punts" responsibility back to the teams, so I don't see it as resolving the political issue.
Sammy thanked User
User
8 years ago
"I stand to honor the promise the flag represents.
You kneel because that promise has been broken.
I stand to affirm my belief that all are created equal, and to fight alongside you for that promise.
You kneel because too few stand with you.
I stand because we can be better.
You kneel to remind us to be better.
I stand to honor all that have fought and died so that we may be free.
You kneel because not all of us are.
I stand because I can.
You kneel for those who can't.
I stand to defend your right to kneel.
You kneel to defend my right to stand.
I stand because I love this country.
You kneel because you love it too."

Andrew Freborg
Sammy thanked User
Michael
8 years ago
Freedom. Won by some for all. Strange thing, Freedom. It's free to those who would never, ever die for it. Precious to those who fought to defend it.
Sammy thanked Michael
Elmer J Fudd
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
Hmm, Brushworks, I don't think your dramatic words fit all circumstances. I was in the military, my mother was too, neither of us in combat. My father was in combat. I don't think any of us thought of it as fighting for freedom nor regarded freedom as particularly precious at the time or thereafter. I made sure my life wouldn't be in jeopardy when I was in, I was unwilling to do that. Especially not for the phony baloney going on at the time (inducted in 1970). I don't think my views are either extreme or unusual, certainly most of the people who joined reserve units as I did to remove draft jeopardy (and there were millions of us) did so as a safe haven, not as an opportunity to be in the military.

Most people in developed countries these days (without totalitarian regimes) have freedom and aside from those that were behind the Iron Curtain, very very few people alive today in Europe or elsewhere (including the US, excluding Vietnam vets) have fought in combat.

I'm not offended by anyone protesting anything, that's a global human right. I even think the UN statement on human rights says so. It happens everywhere (reference same countries as above).
User
8 years ago
Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the anthem to draw awareness to issues of “social inequality against minorities”.

What social inequalities are they lacking? Are they referring to black lives matter or something else now?

The average salary of an NFL player is $2.1 million, according to Forbes! Are they having salary issues?
Sammy thanked User
Michael
8 years ago
Elmer,

I'm a veteran too. Active duty, 1st Marine Division, 1969-1975.

My son served three deployments (Army Reserve officer) in Middle East mess.

I don't mind anyone/everyone protesting.I encourage it.

That doesn't change my position on willingness to die for freedom, like the men of 4 July, 1776.
Sammy thanked Michael
Elmer J Fudd
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
Check your history, Brushworks.

The colonists were fighting for independence, not freedom. They had freedom as colonies but felt they were economically disadvantaged by and also disliked the rule of the distant English monarch and Parliament (in which they had no representation).

Members of the Continental Army were mostly mercenaries doing it for pay, The poorer working classes were very over-represented. More affluent people, those who had most to gain from independence, mostly didn't join the army. Washington was a notable exception, he saw his role (for which he volunteered) as an opportunity to gain political power big time. He was right about that.

1776 was early days for the fighting, which continued through 1782. The significance of July 4th is the Declaration of Independence, not anything to do with the war or any battle. I don't believe many, if any, of the men who signed the Declaration were in the Army. Maybe none at all.

The war came to an unexpectedly easy end for the colonists because a number of European countries declared war on Britain, causing them to have to pull back and redeploy forces. Why did this happen? A version of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", they did it to help the US and maybe take advantage of Britain's distraction.
diane_nj 6b/7a
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
JeCrigler

Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the anthem to draw awareness to issues of “social inequality against minorities”.

What social inequalities are they lacking? Are they referring to black lives matter or something else now?

Mr. Kaepernick was using his status to bring awareness of issues that affect Black people in America. And before anyone asks "why he couldn't have found a better way", additionally, he has donated $1M+ to charities.

If you think that being a wealthy athlete makes a person immune from these issues, I'll direct you to view the video of the Milwaukee PD tasing a Milwaukee Bucks player, Sterling Brown, over a parking violation.
Sammy thanked diane_nj 6b/7a
phoggie
8 years ago
I agree with former NFL player, Jack Brewer...."The players have to realize...and the public has to realize...these guys are at work...There is no job in America that you can go into and protest your political views in the middle of your job."
Sammy thanked phoggie
User
8 years ago
Phoggie, I think that is a very valid point.
Sammy thanked User
blfenton
8 years ago
It is a valid point but how many jobs do you have to stand for the national anthem every time you report for work.
Sammy thanked blfenton
Uptown Gal
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
Every job has it's own requirements, Bifenton....that's the employer's right. You

agree to these requirements when you ask them to hire and pay you. Well,

I never had a job that after I was hired, I was allowed to agree or refuse to

do any of the requirements, anyway. Lucky old football players with that choice? Yes, sir....I want your money....no sir...do not expect me to follow

any of your rules, though...I'm special.
Sammy thanked Uptown Gal
Chi
8 years ago
If the owners didn't like it, they could have fired the players. But since that would hurt their bottom line, they didn't and instead pushed to have the league be the bad guys with the new rules. I think it's cowardly and selfish.
Sammy thanked Chi
User
8 years ago
I think it's just another distraction. The situation may have resolved itself had trump stayed out of it.
Sammy thanked User
Elmer J Fudd
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
"There is no job in America that you can go into and protest your political views in the middle of your job"

This isn't the case, it isn't true at all.

Anyway, people in the public eye (for whatever occupational reason) often take any public exposure opportunity to communicate/broadcast their opinions, no matter what the situation and no matter what the opinion. It's nothing unique, it happens every day.
Chi
8 years ago
The Presidency, for one!
Frosted Charisma
8 years ago
“I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Sammy thanked Frosted Charisma
Elmer J Fudd
8 years ago
No reason to defend it to the death, frosted, anyone living in a democratic country anywhere in the world has freedom of speech. It's not unique to the US. Even some living in non-democratic countries do too.
Alisande
8 years ago
I thought this was interesting. And disturbing.
Sammy thanked Alisande
Elmer J Fudd
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
Why is this disturbing? Hitler became chancellor in Germany in January 1933, the country was ruled by a dictatorship thereafter and this appears to have happened in 1934.

The Snopes site says that this article is misleading, the team's action in their view had nothing to do with a political protest. Rather, it was to take politics out of the match being played in France, to avoid a negative reaction from an opponent and its fans. The ban covered all German football (soccer) teams and related ONLY to playing in France.

Funny enough, the article also compares this "forced patriotism" to the NFL matter. Maybe this is how you got to the incident and the clipping? If so I hope you read the whole piece.

Ban on international matches
Alisande
8 years ago
I found it disturbing because it's yet another example of similarities between Hitler's dictatorship and the leaning-toward-dictatorship tendencies of the current president. And that's all I'm going to say. I have no desire to engage with you, Elmer. I had more than enough of that yesterday.
Sammy thanked Alisande
sonni1
8 years ago
I don't understand how the argument about standing for the anthem is more important than the reason for the protest. Shouldn't we care more about the mistreatment of our fellow citizens?
Sammy thanked sonni1
User
8 years ago
last modified: 8 years ago
It’s not the protest itself that is the issue at debate, it’s the timing and the method.

There’s no question that the mistreatment of fellow citizens and in light of recent immigration policies, non citizen’s as well, is a very important and concerning issue. Sadly, it was a concern long before mr cheeto head was in office and it will continue to be a concern after he’s gone. I don’t think those who disagree with the taking of a knee at a sports event disagree with that.

Some say that like it or not, this particular protest was a success simply because it gained national attention. To the contrary, IMO it was a complete fail because the attention it’s received is not focused on the message at all. Folks are angered by it for a variety of reasons so the message has been lost on that.

The fact is is that Mr. Kaepernick chose the wrong platform by which to protest. His employer, the NFL lost revenue and as a result, Mr. Kapernick is no longer employed. That in itself is not a black or white issue because it’s no different from anyone else who causes a substantial loss to the company they work for. The efforts taken by the league to try to appease their fan base, ie their customers, is also angering people with their continuing change of policy and still the reason for the protest is lost among the masses.

If Mr. Kaepernick had protested in a way that didn’t impose negatively on the very people he was trying to get the attention of, he’d still have a job and the conversation would instead be focused on his message. He was fortunate in that he had a platform that offered him a variety of choices, which is something a lot of people who want to protest something don’t have. I wish he would have used that platform more wisely so his message could be the topic of debate but he didn’t.

As for Brushworks and others who’ve served our country, especially by stepping into harms way, your service is so appreciated. I think it takes a special kind of person to do that. My father served 22 years in the US Navy, he fought in Korea and Vietnam. He had just joined the Merchant Marines so he could return to service when he passed and he too was a special kind of person.
Sammy thanked User
diane_nj 6b/7a
8 years ago

Here's how Nate Boyer got Colin Kaepernick to go from sitting to kneeling
joyfulguy
8 years ago

One could respect the NFL leadership more if they were to show some concern for domestic violence on the part of their workers ... or the drastic effects, including life-long major disability, or even shortened life, caused by those concussions that they've been ignoring for these many years.

This latest appears to be something of a tempest in a teapot, in comparison.

ole joyful
Sammy thanked joyfulguy
bleusblue2
8 years ago
Diane -- Here's another video on the topic;

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/28/nate-boyer-ex-green-beret-nfl-player-nfl-anthem-bts.cnn

Just in case some don't have time to watch -- here's the gist of what he said at the end, slightly paraphrased:

"I'll say this -- what most of them died for was not the right to protest, for patriotism, the American flag, the anthem or any of that. What they died for is the man on their left and their right. And if we can't live for the man on our left and our right back at home, respectfully, despite our differences, then what in the hell did they die for?"
Sammy thanked bleusblue2
diane_nj 6b/7a
8 years ago
45 now says that those who stay in the locker room are disrespectful. The NFL got played.
User
8 years ago
For those who served, I appreciate your service. (no matter what the capacity)
Sammy thanked User
katrina_ellen
8 years ago
I see a lot of people posting here who post regularly in Hot Topics. Please don't bring that stuff over here, this is a peaceful forum.
Sammy thanked katrina_ellen
rob333 (zone 7b)
8 years ago
I appreciate the military's service who protects our right to protest. Ask me how I know. I come from a military family who believes in the right to take a knee. They're not offended by protesting. It's very American to protest. Not allowing someone to protest because a group disagrees with what they're saying isn't American. Broaching a politically charged topic is the problem, not forum participation. Peace out!
Sammy thanked rob333 (zone 7b)
Elmer J Fudd
8 years ago
I agree completely with rob's preceding comment, with one added thought:

Along with the nearly 50,000 killed during the Vietnam War, there have been hundreds and some thousands killed in various other actions since the Korean War. Including most recently in the Middle East. If I were King, I would have assessed every one of these military actions to be NOT NECESSARY. It would be my responsibility as King, and it is the responsibility of the American public, to make sure that military lives are protected and not wasted on useless military incursions.

That's how to best respect and honor those who serve. Keep them safe.
User
8 years ago
This is the second thread where the above poster has told people who post on Hot Topics that they are not welcomed to post here on political topics. What nerve.
ronminsouthga
8 years ago
I can't get beyond the snopes.
lindyluwho
8 years ago
This is easily fixed. Don't play the national anthem at any ball game. Problem solved.
Elmer J Fudd
8 years ago
lindylu, that's a very, very good idea. I've never understood why it's played to begin with.

I've long had the same thought about the Pledge of Allegiance at public events. Both have always seemed odd and awkward in those situations. Avoid the controversies, there's nothing to lose.
raee_gw zone 5b-6a Ohio
8 years ago
It has been a very long time since I attended any professional sport (other than a cycling race) but I seem to remember being very annoyed with fellow spectators who continued to chat, walk about, and stuff their mouths during the national anthem. Are these the same folks who are so upset about the kneeling, or has spectator behavior changed?

Opinions on the NFL’s recently approved national anthem policy

Comments (65)

SammyOriginal Author

Related Discussions

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Sammy
Original Author