It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Trump Hates First Amendment. Also He's An Idiot.

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 11:30 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You make me laugh with the intensity of your fake outrage.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 11:58 AM
OK, so based on your logic, I can also bring my AR-15 to the game with me. 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. If they let me bring a gun to the game I will gladly let them knee because then fair would be fair, right?

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:00 PM
What a terrible post. The NFL is P.A.I.D. by the Federal Government's Armed Forces to stand at attention for the Anthem. Arguing that they should do as they are contracted to do is common sense. Stand, and show respect for your Armed Forces.. You are being PAID to do it.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:04 PM
Respect our country, our flag and our culture. If not, leave.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:06 PM
a reply to: knows_but_doesnt

force respect... wow, sounds scary and definitely anti-American.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:12 PM
First off, President Trump is not an idiot. You may not agree with his political views, but he is certainly not an idiot. I did not agree with President Obama's political views but I never thought of him as an idiot. Secondly, I agree that everyone has the right to protest in this country, so long as they do so peacefully. Which these players are. I also believe that the President has a right to voice his opinion about the protest, so long as he does peacefully. Which, you may recall, President Obama did on a number of occasions. Where I have a problem, is when a group of citizens gather together to stage a peaceful protest, and there shows up a faction who are bound and determined to use violence to prevent those who are protesting peacefully. These players, who are protesting peacefully, have my utmost respect. Because I know it is something they feel strongly about, and because they are protesting in a peaceful manner. However, those of us, myself included, who are choosing to not support the NFL, are also protesting the actions of these players because we too, feel strongly about showing proper respect for our nations flag and anthem. It's a difference in opinion as to when and how to show one's discontent with social injustices. Both side are voicing our opinions, and both sides have every right to.
from a reply to: Xcalibur254

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:18 PM

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: knows_but_doesnt

force respect... wow, sounds scary and definitely anti-American.

Well police haters do use force to infringe the rights of us to own boom sticks.

But that isn't 'anti American'.

Can't have it both ways.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:19 PM
a reply to: MitchL61

trump called the press years ago under an alias to brag about himself - yes, he's an idiot. lol

or, like HIS secretary of state said a f**king moron.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 12:51 PM
It's rhetoric like this that prevents us from coming to any type of compromise. "anybody who doesn't agree with me is an idiot" a reply to: knoxie

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:08 PM

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It's stunning how the the Trump Cult crowd is so willing to compromise their's, and their fellow Americans, 1st Amendment rights!

When Trump was running, and he promised to "change libel laws" so that he could sue the media. I warned people that he would attack the 1st Amendment as president. Several Trump supporters promised me that if that happened, they wouldn't blindly support him, and would speak out against any such movement in that direction from his administration.

I don't see that happening.

As a Paul cultist I totally disagree with you. The ONLY reason I voted DJT was we had no choice when Paul or Cruz didn't win the primary and the Libertarian was a bad Libertarian IMO. I don't seem him attacking the 1st he is attacking the f'n lies, period. The lies are making the little man who was a maybe Trumpster into a Trumpster.
edit on 11-10-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:13 PM
a reply to: neo96

You can't reason with someone who is desperate to be offended.
Given time, all sonwflakes melt.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:14 PM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

What an intolerant thread title and what a daft argument. Try protesting to the public at your workplace for some cause and see how fast they fire you because they don't want customers that might not agree to quit buying their services or products. Free speech on their own time is still the players options. Under the NFL rules that they were hired under they do not have certain freedoms when under the service of their employer. Neither do you. Understand that?
edit on 11-10-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:30 PM

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: seedofchucky

So I want to show you something.

You keep saying those who argue in favor of the protestors are ignorant to reality and "the facts"

There was another thread a while back where I actually brok down "the facts" for everyone.

1. The NFL players are not protesting ignorantly from a position of wealth and entitlement. they are using their platform and their voices for those who ARE NOT THAT LUCKY. They are speaking for those who dont have a voice. They are not kneeling for themselves, they are kneeling for other people who dont have the platform to do so.

2. I went through all of the US police shooting fatality statistics in a post. Its all fact. I will quote my post below for you. Im interested in your response.

This website here track police shootings by all different factors, race, gender etc... its pretty cool
It states as of this year there have been 721 people shot and killed by police this year
323 of them were white
164 were black
112 were hispanic
24 other non-white

Lets add up those totals shall we? 323 white vs a total of 300 non-white..

Ahh.. but you yourself will probably say "SEE!! MORE WHITE PEOPLE GET SHOT! THERE ISNT A RACE PROBLEM!" Wrong..
The US Population as shown here

72.4% white
12.6% black
15% other

So as I did above 72.4% white 27.6% not white Now here is the fun part where I prove what you didnt think I could prove... Whites make up 51.8% of the shootings per the stats above Non whites make up 48.2% of the shootings per the stats above.. Wait a minute... Our population is only made up of 27.6% non-white people yet... they account for 48.2% of those killed by police? ALMOST TWICE THE PERCENTAGE OF THEIR POPULATION!! non white citizens are killed by police at almost twice the rate. You saw it right there. Bazingaa! Wheres my medal>?>

and I continued here... after someone asked me.. "yeah, well how many of those people shot were armed" (because they assumed that the non-white population was more likely to be armed and dangerous..)

You can actually use that first site and filter by that statistic!
Its really cool actually of 721 total people shot and killed... 406 of them had a gun.. of the 406 194 white people had a gun 93 black people had a gun 59 hispanics had a gun and 13 others had a gun

Thats 194 white ppl with guns vs. 165


So again...

Tell me how ignorant I am when I side with the protestors?

It is pretty clear that almost none of the cases are a good example of the problem they wish to correct. The BLM's or the Antfi's (who hate any free speech that they don't like) bring us as evidence of what they think a real reason to blame LEO's and it doesn't pass a jury of 12. That means 12 peers, the standard the rest of the world would like to have, a jury of peers. I can say for the LEO"s found guilty I am walking the walk with Justice. I wouldn't support injustice.

That makes anyone still supporting those misrepresenting the all important facts to be very, very ignorant. Now, is it because you wish to be? I hope not.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:39 PM
I wonder if the cultists would be crying so much if this had all started with predominantly white teams kneeling in support of Donnie?

I suspect not. 1st amendment rights.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:40 PM

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The ongoing drama that is Trump using the NFL protests to distract from his failing presidency continues. In his latest Tweet on the matter Trump posted:


So here we have the sitting President demanding that US law be changed so people exercising their First Amendment right can be punished. There's no other way to take this other than Trump hates people expressing their views and he wants to use the government to make them stop.

It's one thing if the owners/NFL want to start levying punishments because of the actions of the players. The players are their employees and subject to their rules and regulations. The First Amendment doesn't protect against that.

It does however protect against the government curtailing free speech. Now while Trump's threat isn't directed at the players it is an attempt to curtail their free speech. He's attempting to blackmail the NFL into stopping the players from protesting.

The funny thing? The NFL gave up their tax exempt status two years ago. So Trump's threat is actually toothless.

That does not however change the fact that the President is going out of his way to stop people from speaking their mind. While some of what Trump has done in the past has been borderline this is a clear threat against the First Amendment. Anyone that defends this move is clearly just a Trump sycophant who will agree with anything he does regardless of the consequences.
How do you know Donald Trump, is he a friend, because you seem to know him really well, or is this just your opinion. Please clarify

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:44 PM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: seedofchucky

Oh really? There are a lot of "don'ts" that Trump has done anyways that I had and have problems with (like spending time tweeting about a peaceful protest instead of worrying about more pressing issues the government should be working on). Yet none of his supporters seem to care about that. The response has been that what he is doing is technically allowed so it is fine. Well now you got my answer for this issue. It is technically allowed and 100% covered by the First Amendment. Don't like it? Too effing bad.

PS: The only way upsetting the customer matters is if your boss cares. The NFL is for the most part condoning these activities, so the customer argument is moot.

Oh crazy you are wrong yet again. The NFL Commissioner is siding with Trump and the owners are also coming around. Why? Viewer ship is way down. Big bucks are talking and they are listening.

Ps. When you get elected President you are welcome to allocate your time as you see fit. Until then just try to control your emotions.
edit on 11-10-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:46 PM

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell

So if you're a veteran, you can't be criticized?


I'm a veteran!


You can't say anything bad about me or my posts from now on.



I want in on that I am a Veteran too!

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:47 PM
a reply to: whywhynot

If the NFL forces players to stand, instead of kneeling, they'll find another way to protest. A fist in the air, most likely.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:53 PM

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Consider myself corrected.

You're a good man. In fairness, I'm sure there is a segment of Trump's supporters that behave in a cult-like fashion.

You’re a man after my own heart.

Like yourself, I like to defend the unpopular, and liberalism seems to be that... on ATS at least.

I’m really not this passionate about politics in “real life”...
I like a debate though. So I get dragged in from time to time.

On topic (for the first time in this thread);
I really don’t think President Trump’s twitter ramblings are indicative of a nefarious plan to destroy the 1st Amendment.

Hazard, I too like to defend the unpopular when it makes sense to me to do so. Liberalism has actually become Marxism just borrowing the word and so I can't support those claiming Liberal with today's definition. To be fair, I am absolutely a social liberal (do what you want if no one is hurt) and fiscal conservative (be smart with the peoples money, nothing wrong with that). Changing the meaning of Liberal is an MSM thing and it has brainwashed both sides of the argument, it seems.

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:59 PM

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam

The President of the United States stifling political speech is another matter altogether.

Quite right. Only we aren't talking about the same president.

You Can’t Occupy This

H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3. Such a lopsided vote suggests that nobody in Congress is bothered by this, on either side of the aisle. When President Obama signed it on March 8, almost nobody seems to have cared.

... the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period.


Imagine the joy of the Left to ignore the real things Obama did to stifle free speech and then latch onto the fake ones about the current POTUS like a snapping turtle.

Those snapping turtles are reported to only let go during lightening strikes.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in