Trump clashes with sports world over player protests, invitation

[attrayant]

9 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

[Re:] the first amendment of the USA Constitution.  One thing I didn't read is that it gives someone the right to do things and say things that hurt feelings of others.  I may be wrong, maybe you could point this specific aspect out if I am.

 

The constitution also does not give someone the right to own a dog either. The constitution is not a long list of things we can and can't do.  It exists solely to grant the government with specified powers.  It sets limits on what the federal government may and may not do.

 

You don’t have “Constitutional Rights.” You have Rights.
 

Quote

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers.

 

Finally, the Ninth Amendment makes the limiting nature of the Constitution clear. The federal government may not exercise any powers not granted. And it makes clear that the few rights specifically highlighted in the Bill of Rights do not count as an all-inclusive list. The federal government cannot exercise ANY powers other than those granted.

 

 

[amvet]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Your accusations direction news outlets are based on nothing and pathetic.

I think you are trying to hurt my feelings. The following link is what they are based on. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-tv-networks-deliberately-avoided-booing-fans-cbs-nbc-fox-espn-monday-night-football/wp37jk7eoiha1p7ktogwfftzs

[amvet]

55 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

The constitution also does not give someone the right to own a dog either. The constitution is not a long list of things we can and can't do.  It exists solely to grant the government with specified powers.  It sets limits on what the federal government may and may not do.

 

You don’t have “Constitutional Rights.” You have Rights.
 

 

12% of Americans believe the Constitution guarantees ‘the right to own a pet.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/16/12-americans-says-bill-rights-includes-right-own-p/

 

The First Amendment obviously gives football players the right to kneel down during the playing of the American National Anthem.

[FritsSikkink]

Don't moan about disrespect for a flag fix your racist issues like this:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at-air-force-academy-black-students-told-to-‘go-home’/ar-AAsAuh6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

 

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, amvet said:

The First Amendment obviously gives football players the right to kneel down during the playing of the American National Anthem.

 

No, it doesn't.  That was the whole point of my post. The first amendment simply states that there isn't a damn thing Congress  can do about it.

[amvet]

11 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

No, it doesn't.  That was the whole point of my post. The first amendment simply states that there isn't a damn thing Congress  can do about it.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) [Later overturned]

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

United States v. Eichman (1990)

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) [Later overturned]

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

United States v. Eichman (1990)

Why are you quoting cases of flag burning and flag desecration? What part of kneeling down in protest of police brutality falls in to flag burning and flag desecration? You are another of the Trump supporters I hope is never given jury service.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, amvet said:

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) [Later overturned]

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

United States v. Eichman (1990)

 

Why don't you provide some commentary and explain why any of these decisions support your assertion?  The first is about mandating patriotic gestures in public schools.  Since that's so far off topic, I didn't both looking at the others.

 

If you don't want to do that, you can always withdraw your statement.  

Edited September 29, 2017 by attrayant

[amvet]

43 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Why don't you provide some commentary and explain why any of these decisions support your assertion?  The first is about mandating patriotic gestures in public schools.  Since that's so far off topic, I didn't both looking at the others.

 

If you don't want to do that, you can always withdraw your statement.  

When American football player Colin Kaepernick began sitting (and later kneeling) during the National Anthem to protest racial injustices in the country, he intended to draw attention to race relations in the United States. What constitutes protected speech.  Burning a U.S. flag in protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.   If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable

 

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/texas-v-johnson-1989/

 

 

[amvet]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Why are you quoting cases of flag burning and flag desecration? What part of kneeling down in protest of police brutality falls in to flag burning and flag desecration? You are another of the Trump supporters I hope is never given jury service.

When Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the National Anthem to protest racial injustices in the country his actions sparked a discussion of the individual liberties of American Citizens and has since extended to other symbols of patriotism beyond the national anthem such as respect for the American flag. You might want to read Texas vs Johnson as the news orgs will be telling you about it soon.  It is the stick they will use to whip Trump.  Have you figured out which side of this debate I'm on?  PS. Trump is in error and the football players are pawns of the media. 

 

An Anthem, A Flag, and Individual Liberties  http://billofrightsinstitute.org/anthem-flag-individual-liberties/

Edited September 29, 2017 by amvet

[Slip]

7 minutes ago, amvet said:

When American football player Colin Kaepernick began sitting (and later kneeling) during the National Anthem to protest racial injustices in the country, he intended to draw attention to race relations in the United States. What constitutes protected speech.  Burning a U.S. flag in protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.   If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable

 

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/texas-v-johnson-1989/

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, amvet said:

When Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the National Anthem to protest racial injustices in the country his actions sparked a discussion of the individual liberties of American Citizens and has since extended to other symbols of patriotism beyond the national anthem such as respect for the American flag. You might want to read Texas vs Johnson as the news orgs will be telling you about it soon.  It is the stick they will use to whip Trump. 

What's your point?  You can just come out and say it- we're all friends here after all.

[amvet]

Just now, Slip said:

 

What's your point?  You can just come out and say it- we're all friends here after all.

The Bill of Rights and the Supreme court are on the side of the football players and CNN in this foolishness. 

[Slip]

11 minutes ago, amvet said:

The Bill of Rights and the Supreme court are on the side of the football players and CNN in this foolishness. 

Thanks for your reply and the information.  I had to look back again where it all came from and it was a nonsense post about the first amendment 'giving the right to say and do things that hurt the feelings of others'.  Free speech is just that, and has nothing to do with the right to say things that may or may not offend people.  I screwed my face up when I originally read that comment, and see now that it has led us down a ridiculous blind alley.

 

I was guilty of going off topic as a result of an ongoing conversation in this thread yesterday, and my post was quite rightly deleted with a warning to stay on topic or else. I hope I haven't just made the same mistake, but may I humbly suggest we all move on from this red herring.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Slip

[Scott]

Let's stick to the issue of kneeling.   Flag burning (or burning anything) is sometimes covered under other laws and codes set up by local fire departments.   Kneeling, other than probably in the middle of a road, isn't.  

[amvet]

Just now, Scott said:

Let's stick to the issue of kneeling.   Flag burning (or burning anything) is sometimes covered under other laws and codes set up by local fire departments.   Kneeling, other than probably in the middle of a road, isn't.  

Colin Kaepernick and a Landmark Supreme Court Case.  https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/colin-kaepernick-and-a-landmark-supreme-court-case

 

The best answer to the anthem conundrum, however, can be found in the most eloquent opinion in the history of the Supreme Court.

Edited September 29, 2017 by amvet

[Publicus]

On 9/28/2017 at 3:01 PM, amvet said:

I don't like much of what Trump does.  I liked even less what LBJ and NIxon did to me personally.  I'm a vet and don't kneel down during the playing of the National Anthem of America.  I honestly don't see what that has to do with football players disrespecting the American Anthem.  I'm a member of the 1.7 million member VFW who also slammed the small minority of football players who disrespected the American flag. 

 

I don't like Trump but unlike you and many people commenting on this thread I do respect the President because he is the President and the Anthem because it is the American Anthem. 

 

These guys are football players and owners though it certainly is not all of 'em. They and we over here are civilians. So I would ask respectfully that former military personnel accept civilian society, its mores, values, beliefs, behaviors. It is risky to the Constitution to try to militarize the civilian society as too many former military personnel campaign to do in their retirement or after they have concluded their active duty military service. It's the veterans and the retired career military personnel especially who need to adjust to civilian society rather than try to make the civilian society more like the military. 

 

While the post uses the word "disrespect" twice it also manufactures and packages a lot of fudge. 

 

The bottom line is that civilian Americans decide how each of us regards our president and each of we who are civilian Americans decide how to conduct him/her self when the national anthem is played. VFW and other national veterans organizations need to concern themselves with veterans programs only while leaving individual civilian Americans to their particular convictions in respect of the national anthem, the flag, the Constitution. The Constitution guides and determines our interactions with the anthem and the flag not vice-versa.  

[inThailand]

NFL has common to its senses.

 

The first game this week, Thursday night football neither team knelt before, after, or during the anthem. 

 

[Publicus]

 

NFL players, coaches and officials may have a consensus at this point that it's time to put the baby to bed.

 

Let Trump find a new nipple to slurp on even if he might continue to suck on this one a little while longer.

 

Perhaps it's grown past the point of diminishing returns for each side. Trump has schmoozed his base more and the participating players and NFL officials on up have made their point that black lives do matter. Each side is reinforced.

 

Trump will find more and new ways to divide and also to fracture. This isn't Trump's critical mass of chaos but it is inevitable Trump will eventually go white hot.

[inThailand]

2 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

NFL players, coaches and officials may have a consensus at this point that it's time to put the baby to bed.

 

Let Trump find a new nipple to slurp on even if he might continue to suck on this one a little while longer.

 

Perhaps it's grown past the point of diminishing returns for each side. Trump has schmoozed his base more and the participating players and NFL officials on up have made their point that black lives do matter. Each side is reinforced.

 

Trump will find more and new ways to divide and also to fracture. This isn't Trump's critical mass of chaos but it is inevitable Trump will eventually go white hot.

Final score....

Trump 1, NFL 0

[Publicus]

18 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Final score....

Trump 1, NFL 0

 

We need a new scorekeeper who knows how to score the game.

 

You're fired.  

 

Try baseball or hockey instead where the numbers seldom get big. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Publicus

[inThailand]

1 minute ago, Publicus said:

 

We need a new scorekeeper who knows how to score the game.

 

You're fired.

 

Try baseball or hockey instead where the numbers never get big. 

a whiner who doesn't like the outcome.

[Publicus]

Just now, inThailand said:

a whiner who doesn't like the outcome.

 

I see we have another sore winner from November.

 

It's a long time to stay sore, it is.

 

Youse won. Get over it.

[inThailand]

The silence is deafening when DT is right that patriotism is still alive in American's hearts.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, inThailand said:

The silence is deafening when DT is right that patriotism is still alive in American's hearts.

He's right that he still has his deplorable base that he can rile up with racist dog whistles to deflect from the reality that his agenda has nothing to do with addressing economic inequality among whites or anyone else. 

[funandsuninbangkok]

Stopped watching football many years ago. Used to be real characters playing a hard hitting sport. 

 

Now punks who should be on probation running around and acting like punks

[Opl]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

The silence is deafening when DT is right that patriotism is still alive in American's hearts.

It's difficult for a non American to understand where DT's patriotism begins ("stand for the National Anthem")  and ends ( "'Russia, I hope you can find Hillary's missing emails"). 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Opl

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Stopped watching football many years ago. Used to be real characters playing a hard hitting sport. 

 

Now punks who should be on probation running around and acting like punks

Given their bigger size and greater speed, today's football players would trample those "real characters playing a hard hitting sport."

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, inThailand said:

The silence is deafening when DT is right that patriotism is still alive in American's hearts.

Is that what Donald Trump has been saying? Is that what a call to fire those "sons of bitches" means? Really, this remark of yours seems to be unusually clueless.

[wayned]

7 hours ago, inThailand said:

The silence is deafening when DT is right that patriotism is still alive in American's hearts.

Where was his patriotism when  he got a medical deferment from military service for having sore feet and going to Vietnam?

 

I'm the same age as Trump and if you didn't want to get drafted then you basically had a choice:

1. Flee to Canada and call yourself a "conscientious objector"

2. Become a professional student and continue to get deferred until you graduated.

3.  Pay a doctor to provide  a medical excuse for not being able to serve, usually reserved for the rich elite.

 

Which one do you think might apply to POTUS?