Patriotism? What do you think?

[Shadow Wolf]

See post #56 & #58

I see the trend of our rights being forfeit at the desires of private corporations as tyranny and something that must end. We have rights, and suited wankers should never be able to strip us of them because they feel like special snowflakes who feel entitled to micromanaged our private lives.

 

[BSM1]

Protest is as American as apple pie-- although apple pie really ain't that "American".

And also just a reminder that Jesus was actively involved with protest as well, plus he didn't seem to be much of a "patriot".

Well, actually he wasn't. This is one reason the Zealots were okay with his crucifixion. As a matter of fact, he taught to "...render unto Caesar..." what belonged to Caesar (the government). Over time, it seems. many people have tried to place "this world" meaning on the teachings of Yeshua.

 

[Wu Wei]

I see the trend of our rights being forfeit at the desires of private corporations as tyranny and something that must end. We have rights, and suited wankers should never be able to strip us of them because they feel like special snowflakes who get to micromanage our lives.

But our rights are not forfeit by this and they never have been, they were never covered by the Constitution. You were never stripped of them because they did not exist in the first place. And micro manage how? Making the statement is one thing, but it is a broad statement and what does that mean.

I frankly don't give a hoot either way about them taking a knee, but there is no 1st amendment protection as far as the league is concerned based on the contract that they signed and there never has been.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Out of curiosity, how does the first amendment apply?

As the immortal Tina Turner sang: "What's the 1st amendment got to do, got to do with it? What's the 1st amendment but a second-hand emotion."

Its not a law.

I know, but I didn't have a "tongue-in-cheek" icon to post and show that I was mocking the tradition.

its etiquette

Right, and the best way to avoid a fight over etiquette is to eliminate the need to worry about it: Stop playing the National Anthem at games.

 

[Wu Wei]

As the immortal Tina Turner sang: "What's the 1st amendment got to do, got to do with it? What's the 1st amendment but a second-hand emotion."


I know, but I didn't have a "tongue-in-cheek" icon to post and show that I was mocking the tradition.


Right, and the best way to avoid a fight over etiquette is to eliminate the need to worry about it: Stop playing the National Anthem at games.

Although, I am not sure Tina Turner actually sang that, I like the usage of it

 

[ChristineM]

I will just get to the point. The 1st amendment is brought into all sorts of things it does not really apply to. And in this case it applies only in one instance. They are only protected by the 1st amendment if the government tries to pressure them or the league to take action against those taking a knee. However should the league itself decide to fire, or suspend, them they may not have any 1st amendment protection at all. The league is a private entity and what they can and cannot do depends solely on the contract the players signed with then joined the league. Private organizations are not subject to the 1st amendment as it applies to those hat work for them, that is all based on contract and things they agreed to as a function of the business. As for what any private individual, or other players think or say, they have as much right to say whatever they want as the players do to take a knee..

Also, as I mentioned in the previous post, there is no "Law" governing what "must be legally" done during the national anthem. Their are rules of etiquette, but not following those is not grounds for arrest

Yes, i was discussing the OP, not business ethics

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But our rights are not forfeit by this and they never have been, they were never covered by the Constitution. You were never stripped of them because they did not exist in the first place. And micro manage how? Making the statement is one thing, but it is a broad statement and what does that mean.

We are Constitutionally protected in our person amd property from unwarranted searches and seizures, and yet some bunghole expects us to submit to pre employement and random drug testing without probably cause or reasonable suspicion? That is us being stripped of our Fifth amendment rights so a corporate baffoon can micromanage our private lives. That has got to go.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe it's okay if he's "poked" at a little bit, for stepping out of line in regards to the way the system operates..?

...I mean, imagine someone complaining about RF. I'm sure it would be okay if we suggested that person go find greener pastures elsewhere.

Same concept, right?

Not really. RF holds a whole lot less power over its users, and has comparably lesser duties as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

But, maybe his goal is to create change here. Because deep down, he likes the people here, and feels comfortable being here.

Probably. And a big part of that is refusing to conform.

I totally relate.

 

[columbus]

Yes, i was discussing the OP, not business ethics

But business ethics are the issue here.
Kaep could get a job with plenty of football teams tomorrow.
The problem is that he still feels entitled to millions, when his value to ball clubs is closer to a hundred grand.

The real problem is that Kaep expects other people to foot the bill for his political activism. Kaep made millions of dollars performing, profitably, for the NFL. Now he doesn't want to do that. He wants to be a BLM aficionado, losing revenues for whatever team he performs for, while also getting paid big bucks. No team wants to pay for his political activism, so they don't.

Nobody is interfering with his rights to free speech. But nobody is willing to pay for it either...

I see Kaep as a very wealthy victim of the culture of victimhood and entitlement. I don't have any sympathy for his problems.
Tom

 

[Wu Wei]

We are Constitutionally protected in our person amd property from unwarranted searches and seizures, and yet some bunghole expects us to submit to pre employement and random drug testing without probably cause or reasonable suspicion? That is us being stripped of our Fifth amendment rights so a corporate baffoon can micromanage our private lives. That has got to go.

The fifth amendment?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think you mean the 4th

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, no. We are guaranteed the 4th amendment right as it applies to the government, not private entities, never were guaranteed that so it was not stripped away.

There is much confusion over the Constitution, it was originally only applicable to citizen/government interactions, that is all. Anything beyond that is a supreme court decision, as with Flag burning, and there it also applies to what the government can do in the event protestors start burning flags. Burning an American flag in the lobby of a Marriott is going to get you arrested for arson...but then burning an American flag in a government building will get you arrested as well....you may call it a protest...but you will be taken away by the authorities just the same.....arson ad likely endangerment and anything else they find that applies. You just can't be tried for burning the American flag

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Patriotism? What do you think?

Patriotism has no place in my life any more. I've been cured of it by my American experience. I no longer have a meaningful concept of country or patriotism. My eyes are on the local only these days - my community (which is not longer in America) and whatever outside influences affect it for the better or worse.

I would fight to defend my community, but not any larger entity such as a country, especially America, where I consider both the government and half the citizens to be uninterested in (if not antagonistic to) the things that matter to me and those I love. These are not friends, and I have no loyalty to either of these. Die for an evangelical Christian in Alabama that despised what is meaningful to me because he has the same passport I have? No.

And I would not be surprised if people like Kaepernick feel the same way about America. Perhaps you think that because he earned a big paycheck that he should have behaved differently. I don't.

Patriotism is just a secular religion, complete with its own myths (cherry tree and log splitting presidents instead of babes in the reeds and virgin births), symbols (flags, eagles and Uncle Sam vs. Jesus, Mary and the cross), sacred documents (original parchments/papyri for each). Patriotism vs. faith. Traitor vs. infidel. The Ten Commandments vs. The Bill of Rights. Manifest destiny and American exceptionalism vs. the Chosen People. The Pilgrims and the Exodus. Godless Communists and suicide bombers. "I pledge allegiance" and "Our Father who art in heaven." "Communism is my enemy" and "Islam is my enemy." Honor vs righteousness. Lapel flags vs. crosses. He died for your rights or he died for your salvation. Serving God and serving country: What's the difference apart from the supernatural elements?

Same BS, different day. It's all fantasy and tribalism, and it exists to convince you and me to underwrite and/or die for somebody else's agenda.

Probably not the kind of answer you were looking for.

 

[ChristineM]

But business ethics are the issue here.
Kaep could get a job with plenty of football teams tomorrow.
The problem is that he still feels entitled to millions, when his value to ball clubs is closer to a hundred grand.

The real problem is that Kaep expects other people to foot the bill for his political activism. Kaep made millions of dollars performing, profitably, for the NFL. Now he doesn't want to do that. He wants to be a BLM aficionado, losing revenues for whatever team he performs for, while also getting paid big bucks. No team wants to pay for his political activism, so they don't.

Nobody is interfering with his rights to free speech. But nobody is willing to pay for it either...

I see Kaep as a very wealthy victim of the culture of victimhood and entitlement. I don't have any sympathy for his problems.
Tom

But he still has the right to take the knee, other people have the right to their reactions.

 

[columbus]

But he still has the right to take the knee, other people have the right to their reactions.

That's exactly what I said.
Kaep has every right to believe and say whatever he wants.

But he wants his cake and to eat it too.

He wants to be a high profile, highly paid, performer. Even more, he wants to be a social activist, while remaining an expensive performer. But he can't have both, because he isn't the only person with rights in this country. The NFL owners also have rights.

I can't help but notice. He could have moved to France, but he didn't.
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

That's exactly what I said.
Kaep has every right to believe and say whatever he wants.

But he wants his cake and to eat it too.

He wants to be a high profile, highly paid, performer. Even more, he wants to be a social activist, while remaining an expensive performer. But he can't have both, because he isn't the only person with rights in this country. The NFL owners also have rights.

I can't help but notice. He could have moved to France, but he didn't.
Tom

There are consciquences to every action

 

[metis]

This is one reason the Zealots were okay with his crucifixion.

Non-sequitur. Jesus was not a Zealot because they were using violence to try and achieve their end.

As a matter of fact, he taught to "...render unto Caesar..." what belonged to Caesar (the government).

Which basically meant "Pay your taxes-- it's only money!".

Over time, it seems. many people have tried to place "this world" meaning on the teachings of Yeshua.

Ya, especially a guy like Trump, but we can include his supporters.

If one can't see Jesus as a "protester", then they have little clue what the Gospel is about. He was trying to reform the status quo, and his turning the tables over at the Temple is just one example of his "protest". But his words demanding change went well beyond even that.

 

[columbus]

consciquences

Lol
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

Lol
Tom

Dyslexia rools, so dont laugh please

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really. RF holds a whole lot less power over its users, and has comparably lesser duties as well.

Nonetheless, RF restricts what we can say.
It can even remove us from the venue.
Is this a 1st Amendment violation?
Of course not.

 

[ChristineM]

I can't help but notice. He could have moved to France, but he didn't.

Maybe he is a lousy rugby player. No good if he can't get a job