Feedback from NFL fans on facebook, etc..

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: angeldoll
This was a non-issue until Pwesident Tweet turned it into one.

He's given the Russians an "assist" with turning us against each other.

False.

Myself and many others were already boycotting the NFL.

No. It's true. That's not surprising about you. Not sure about the "many others".

I think the issue didn't become important to you until it became more of an anti-Trump message. The disrespecting of the flag was a big deal to conservatives before Trump became involved.

I suppose it is all about individual priorities.

BINGO.

More...

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released this week shows that the league’s favorability has fallen from 30 percent on September 21 to a low of 17 percent only a week later. The poll takers said that this month’s numbers are the lowest favorability ratings the poll has ever measured since it first began polling on the question.

Meanwhile, Trump job approval rating has risen to 45% in Rasmussen's latest poll, up from a low of 38%, 8 weeks ago.

originally posted by: intrepid
Yeah it may be 80% but of what sampling? You know who posts mostly? Pissed off people. The silent multitude that are OK with it or don't care dont bother

Hmmm?

Espn Nfl Poll

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
As a Brit I find the while thing a bit weird, its the thought police out in force, which seems weird in a country that castigates others for oppressive policies. Non violent political protest is the right way to do things.

So do you really think the intent is only non-violent protest? That there wasn't some other means of that 'non-violent' protest?

There hasn't been any significant problem with other forms of non-violent protest. Getting in my face isn't going to be tolerated by me. Nor others. They can find the own version of Hyde Park.

Not my flag. Not my anthem. No response by us and this will only get worse, IMO.

"Some folks are saying ... "

"Guys in my fantasy football league are pissed that ..."

"Facebook ... "

Wow, our standards of evidence really are in the gutter, aren't they?

Look. If you feel that these players are in the wrong, say so. Try to realize at the same time that others, just as proudly American, just as fond of football and the NFL, feel differently.

This is not rocket science.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Some folks are saying ... "

"Guys in my fantasy football league are pissed that ..."

"Facebook ... "

Wow, our standards of evidence really are in the gutter, aren't they?

Look. If you feel that these players are in the wrong, say so. Try to realize at the same time that others, just as proudly American, just as fond of football and the NFL, feel differently.

This is not rocket science.

You are correct. I haven't seen any comments on this thread that suggests the players don't have the 'right' of peaceful protest. This is our 'peaceful' protest...and peaceful vent....in response. Equally our 'right'. You are correct. Not rocket science.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Absolutely. You can protest all day long. You can say what you wish. Welcome to freedom!

Like my freedom to point out that your argument or claim or notation or declaration or whatever you intended yet another thread on this divisive topic to be is based on spurious hearsay that really does nothing to move the discussion forward.

Ain't America great!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nwtrucker

Absolutely. You can protest all day long. You can say what you wish. Welcome to freedom!

Like my freedom to point out that your argument or claim or notation or declaration or whatever you intended yet another thread on this divisive topic to be is based on spurious hearsay that really does nothing to move the discussion forward.

Ain't America great!

LOL. The reality is it's none of your adjectives is accurate, at all. It IS occurring. It IS having an effect. Denying that obvious fact or merely marginalizing it won't change the facts of it.

While I can't speak for everyone on this side of the issue, I for one, grow tired of universities banning the flag due to not wanting to offend immigrants. Banning free speech, selectively, as any other view is 'divisive'. Denying our history via statue removal, be that history good or bad, the list goes on and on.

Yes, in the overall scheme of things, this is small potatoes.

Yet in this small act, the start of a much bigger pushback may have begun. Then again maybe not. It could fizzle out with some lip-service reversal of the NFL's policy.

Ignore it's potential as you will.

Which is more important, the anthem or freedom of speech?

originally posted by: lightedhype
a reply to: nwtrucker

Fair enough argument. In my opinion, with Trump they have simply found a way to get the 'alt' and majority of the conspiracy minded crowd on board without them even realizing it.

On board with the government again I mean. Supporting the corruption by extension again.

I wont say onboard with "the degradation of our original culture, morays and institutions" because i can see and admit there are simply different opinions and schools of thought naturally regarding those matters.

Sorry about the delay in responding. Speaking for myself only, I am not onboard with the gov't. I'm on board with Trump and his platform of draining the swamp. By definition, a disgust of the way things are being handled by that gov't.

No significant change will occur without pressure from the base. The majority base has been marginalized for decades while the minority issues are magnified, hyperbolized and foisted on that majority. The election of Trump was the starting point. This event is confirmation that that base is still pissed, or even more so.

originally posted by: BadBoYeed
Which is more important, the anthem or freedom of speech?

Obviously freedom of speech....Ours as well in response.

originally posted by: BadBoYeed
Which is more important, the anthem or freedom of speech?

When did the government step in and take away their freedom of speech?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: BadBoYeed
Which is more important, the anthem or freedom of speech?

Obviously freedom of speech....Ours as well in response.

That argument is a logical fallacy. They have their Freedom of Speech, hence them protesting. Some of us just find their form of protest repugnant.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm on board with Trump and his platform of draining the swamp.

Huh. His cabinet choices seem to bring into question his devotion to that particular plank.

originally posted by: Dudemo5
You mean conservative old men are pissed off about something?

I can't believe it. That's outrageous.

And I cannot believe pissed off young liberals go around trashing buildings? Play paramilitary?

Campus investigates, assesses damage from Feb. 1 violence

news.berkeley.edu...

It's not so much the not standing for the anthem, but the hypocrisy and politicizing of everything. Especially in that the NFL would no let players wear items to honor those murdered during 9/11. But allows protesting during the national anthem?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: BadBoYeed
Which is more important, the anthem or freedom of speech?

Obviously freedom of speech....Ours as well in response.

That argument is a logical fallacy. They have their Freedom of Speech, hence them protesting. Some of us just find their form of protest repugnant.

Really? Then let's get right down to it, if that's the case. The Constitution says Government shall not infringe....It doesn't say no one shall not infringe. Ergo, none of gov't's business if anyone else outside of gov't infringes or not.

Your 'logical fallacy' is intellectual double talk, from what I can see. There are consequences for actions. Cause and effect. In this instance, the Founding Fathers saw fit to let the people decide what was acceptable or not, as long as gov't stayed out of it. Yes?

Go ahead and call your boss an idiot and see the results. ( Of course, there were duels in those days. Freedom of speech had it's own built-in 'qualifier'.....)

a reply to: nwtrucker

There could be an argument to be made that the president of the United States (who is sort of important in the government) has "suggested" that a private enterprise take action against free speech.

But I wouldn't make that argument.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm on board with Trump and his platform of draining the swamp.

Huh. His cabinet choices seem to bring into question his devotion to that particular plank.

Open front door, open back door.....

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: nwtrucker

There could be an argument to be made that the president of the United States (who is sort of important in the government) has "suggested" that a private enterprise take action against free speech.

But I wouldn't make that argument.

Nice of you....LOL.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: nwtrucker

There could be an argument to be made that the president of the United States (who is sort of important in the government) has "suggested" that a private enterprise take action against free speech.

But I wouldn't make that argument.

Look, I don't doubt that Trump's style stretches the envelope. That's part of his appeal, IMO.

Tweets can be labelled personal opinion as it changes nothing from a gov't standpoint. 'Suggesting' is permitted, last time I checked. Even though there is a movement to suppress even that option.