It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Slaves...... Really?

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nik0laTesla
All White People are racist. *(Except for TWIAJ) Hmmm. Makes sense.

*(Those Who Identify As Jews)

(fixed it for you)





posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

Just because some people have restrictive contracts doesn't mean everyone does. Should corporations be allowed to stifle free speech? I think that goes against our nations principles myself. Yes, there should be a distinction that the person isn't speaking for the company... but nowhere have the players claimed to speak for their team or the NFL so I don't see how that is coming into play.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Slaves? !!!!!
Well...... Im brown (not latino), and these players can go find employment in the CFL, Im sure they will be happy to have them. Or they can be REAL SLAVES and come pick pineapples in fields. Im sure I can find a whip and shackles somewhere.

PS....I was actually a professional athlete.
I always stood humbled when the national anthem was played or sang before my fights.
edit on 10-10-2017 by johnjohn808 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
I'm nowhere near big enough, but I'm in great shape, I'll go take any of those "slaves" spots in the NFL for their paycheck and they can do my job in the Marine Corps.

Let's do this!

Edit : nevermind, you couldn't pay me enough to play for the cowboys.

Fly Eagles fly!


In other words, you don't meet the qualifications, and you're bitter that they can do it while you can't.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

In this case, the imaginary chains come with million dollar contracts; the slave labour consists of playing their favourite sport for millions of fans. It's a clear smear tactic.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Nah, these days they own the dogs. See Michael Vick.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: neo96

Nah, these days they own the dogs. See Michael Vick.


Forgive me.

I finally broke down and watched Tarantinos Django.

A complete bastardization of the original.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: watchitburn
I'm nowhere near big enough, but I'm in great shape, I'll go take any of those "slaves" spots in the NFL for their paycheck and they can do my job in the Marine Corps.

Let's do this!

Edit : nevermind, you couldn't pay me enough to play for the cowboys.

Fly Eagles fly!


In other words, you don't meet the qualifications, and you're bitter that they can do it while you can't.


Bitter?

More like pointing out the absurdity. Most people would gladly sign up for that "slavery" if they could make that kind of money doing it. Talent level has nothing at all to do with it.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You have to meet the physical standards and have the talent in order to do it though. Saying you would do it, when you don't possess the ability means nothing because you're not actually in the position to walk away from the job if it were offered.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
I'm nowhere near big enough, but I'm in great shape, I'll go take any of those "slaves" spots in the NFL for their paycheck and they can do my job in the Marine Corps.

Let's do this!

Edit : nevermind, you couldn't pay me enough to play for the cowboys.

Fly Eagles fly!


You're more of a hero staying in the Marines anyways, brother.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: norhoc

Just because some people have restrictive contracts doesn't mean everyone does. Should corporations be allowed to stifle free speech? I think that goes against our nations principles myself. Yes, there should be a distinction that the person isn't speaking for the company... but nowhere have the players claimed to speak for their team or the NFL so I don't see how that is coming into play.


You have the right to speak as you see fit. You DO NOT have the right to employment. Employment as an NFL player is a voluntary arrangement between the owner and player. The 1st Amendment doesn't enter into it.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cenpuppie


Really? you know a thing or two? So you were a slave at one point?



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

You have to meet the physical standards and have the talent in order to do it though. Saying you would do it, when you don't possess the ability means nothing because you're not actually in the position to walk away from the job if it were offered.


Affirmative action comes to mind when you say that.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
You have the right to speak as you see fit. You DO NOT have the right to employment. Employment as an NFL player is a voluntary arrangement between the owner and player. The 1st Amendment doesn't enter into it.


Exactly, so why should the employer get to dictate your speech if that's outside the scope of the job?



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: watchitburn
I'm nowhere near big enough, but I'm in great shape, I'll go take any of those "slaves" spots in the NFL for their paycheck and they can do my job in the Marine Corps.

Let's do this!

Edit : nevermind, you couldn't pay me enough to play for the cowboys.

Fly Eagles fly!


In other words, you don't meet the qualifications, and you're bitter that they can do it while you can't.


No, the source directly refers to Jerry Jones and the cowboys.

I have honor and integrity and wouldn't soil my reputation by being associated with those scumbags who condone domestic violence and sexual assault.
edit on 10-10-2017 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Affirmative action comes to mind when you say that.


Affirmative action has nothing to do with it. The concept of affirmative action is that there are qualified people of other races/genders, the theory behind it doesn't promote hiring under qualified people. Now, there's plenty of reasons to attack AA such as the fact that black women simply don't apply to certain jobs as much as white men, so creating artificial diversity in the work place puts people at a disadvantage based on race. But at no point in that assumption are we saying someone is unqualified.

What I was talking about was that if you're not qualified for a job in the first place, saying that you would take it under XYZ conditions is a meaningless statement, because you aren't qualified to have any hypothetical leverage to be offered the job, or to decline it, in the first place. It's the rallying cry of the something for nothing crowd who want all the advantages of having a high end job without possessing the requirements to actually do that job.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: cenpuppie
I wonder how hard folks got triggered reading that article, it seems some could barely contain their rage as they typed their response.

What do you know about slavery that allows you to brush off his opinion? Oh, nothing. So your opinion on this subject is just as valid as his. And before you ask, yes, I do know a thing or two.
Are you, or have you ever been a slave?
edit on 08/022017 by MantheDevilsApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

If you are representing the brand of that employer, are the public face of that employer, and via your actions are negatively affecting the bottom line of that employer, then that employer does have an interest in curtailing certain activities.

Don't like it, quit and get another job.

I'd gladly warm a bench, stand for the pledge/anthem, and keep my mouth shut for a fraction of what these players get paid.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
In other words, you don't meet the qualifications, and you're bitter that they can do it while you can't.


No, the source directly refers to Jerry Jones and the cowboys.

I have honor and integrity and wouldn't soil my reputation by being associated with those scumbags who condone domestic violence and sexual assault.

And yet, as you admitted... you don't have the physique (and I'm guessing you don't have the talent either). So how can you really say you're too good for them? You aren't even a potential one of them. It's like the enlisted guy who thinks he's too good to be an officer. Or the technician who looks down on the engineer.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Because they are doing it while on company time. Think of it this way. if your employer was a Christian family and you stood on their company property , while being paid by them and made a spectacle to the general public denouncing everything they believe in, let's say holding up a sign to passers by that put down Christianity and they asked you to please stop doing that on company time, and you do not stop, they can fire you right? People mistake who their rights are with, your rights lie with the government not private organizations . Same way if you were walking around your workplace on company time protesting, or saying inflammatory things, they can fire you.




top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join