Trump clashes with sports world over player protests, invitation

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

double sigh.

If the players just double sighed rather than kneeling or sitting or raising a fist I doubt it would offend anyone but that would not really bring attention to the problem with police in America.  I don't see how the President alone can help much either.  It will take a concerted effort by government, education and the majority of socially active people to bring about a cultural change that has been in existence in America since its inception.  LBJ tried with the Great Society and just made things worse.  It is a difficult problem that needs to be tackled (no pun intended) by the great intellects of the United States.  America needs another MLK or Gandhi or someone like that to rally the people behind a cause.  I don't think footballers upsetting folks will go a long way to solving the problem.    

[wayned]

2 minutes ago, amvet said:

If the players just double sighed rather than kneeling or sitting or raising a fist I doubt it would offend anyone but that would not really bring attention to the problem with police in America.  I don't see how the President alone can help much either.  It will take a concerted effort by government, education and the majority of socially active people to bring about a cultural change that has been in existence in America since its inception.  LBJ tried with the Great Society and just made things worse.  It is a difficult problem that needs to be tackled (no pun intended) by the great intellects of the United States.  America needs another MLK or Gandhi or someone like that to rally the people behind a cause.  I don't think footballers upsetting folks will go a long way to solving the problem.    

It might not solve the problem but it certainly has made many aware of the problem.  Would we be discussing it if everybody had stood with their hand on their heart?

[amvet]

7 minutes ago, wayned said:

It might not solve the problem but it certainly has made many aware of the problem.  Would we be discussing it if everybody had stood with their hand on their heart?

Looking at the shootings and riots during the past 5 years when have we not been aware of the problem?  We have just finished 8 years of a our first black President one would have thought we made some progress.  I guess not.

[inThailand]

Hasn't this thread just become another DT bashing opportunity by cry baby Democrats?

 

Or just anti-Americans?

Edited October 2, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 minutes ago, wayned said:

It might not solve the problem but it certainly has made many aware of the problem.  Would we be discussing it if everybody had stood with their hand on their heart?

 

The problem is (and I support the cause the players are protesting over), I don't think they've been clear enough in public in setting the record straight that they're not against the flag or the anthem or the country, but they ARE against civil injustice, police brutality and civil rights violations. They've let other people make their issue something that it's not, and effectively turn it against them.

 

People like Trump and the right-wing zealots and media outlets like Fox have been more than happy to try to portray the issue as a flag/country/patriotism issue, and do their best to ignore what the players are actually protesting over, and that's that innocent black and minority Americans are getting killed and brutalized by police far more than their white fellow countrymen. And when police act illegally like that, more often than not, there's little or no justice meted out.

 

That's what the protest is about. But some folks like the President and his civil rights-impaired attorney general are doing their best to make it seem otherwise.

 

[Publicus]

10 hours ago, amvet said:

Is wearing a mini skirt disrespectful? Is wearing a mini skirt in a Buddhist temple disrespectful? 

 

Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2)  when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

 

No disrespect intended but maybe you shoudda counted how many times "should" and "may" are written into the statement. These are two words of a soft impact. The word "disrespect" is not in the statement. Neither is the word "respect" in the statement. One needs to do a deep dive to find words of a hard impact in it.

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, amvet said:

The disrespect of norms established while the American Anthem is playing is done to express dislike of the American system of treating black people.  To try and insist otherwise flies in the face of logic.  If it was not disrespectful why would they do it?  That's the point.  Showing disrespect.  The same as civil disobedience as opposed to violent protest.  

 

The Constitution is the norm. It is the ultimate value. Which is why an oath contains words of a hard value. The Constitution contains words such as "shall" or "shall not." Moreover, civil disobedience is executed against an existing law. The "Conduct" statement is not law so there is no connection or comparison -- there is only a contrast. NFL protesters employ their right under the Constitution. One needs to respect both. 

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, amvet said:

Nothing to do with symbolism rather polite deference to tradition like taking off one's shoes before going into a Buddhist Temple or women not wearing shorts or short skirts.  There are many places in Buddhism where women are not allowed.  Maybe right maybe wrong and you may protest but know everyone knows you are showing disrespect if you wear shoes or a short skirt in a Temple.

 

The Constitution is on a respectful display at the National Archive and it is okay to view it while wearing shoes and shorts, male and female alike. The Constitution is the real deal. The Constitution is the fundamental document. The anthem and the flag are credenda and symbols that exist under the Constitution. Religion exists under the terms and conditions of the Constitution.  

 

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 minutes ago, amvet said:

Looking at the shootings and riots during the past 5 years when have we not been aware of the problem?  We have just finished 8 years of a our first black President one would have thought we made some progress.  I guess not.

 

No... Sadly, if anything, the racists and haters simply used the Obama years to mobilize and strengthen their movement, and that's now being realized with the election of Trump and the emergence of his sympathizers. It's regression, not progress.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

43 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Protest all you want but Not during the anthem.

The players hear an anthem that is about 3 minutes long out of 7 days x 24 hours, 10,080 minutes minus 3 minutes. So 10,077 minutes is not enough protest time versus 3 minutes of showing respect?

 

Maybe I missed it. Is there some law in the U.S. that prescribes when a person can and can't legally, peacefully protest?  Like only when the National Anthem isn't being played. Or not on the Fourth of July?  What about Veteran's Day? D-Day?

 

Can you only protest when no U.S. flag is nearby or visible? Not when you can be shown on national television? Not around any federal government facilities. Not anywhere President Trump might see you? Why don't you make up a list of when and where people should and shouldn't be able to protest, and talk to Congress about it?

 

Ahh... but then there's that pesky U.S. Constitution and its central, fundamental statement about Americans having the right to free speech -- not only on Tuesdays, not only when you think it's a good idea, not only when it doesn't make some people upset, not like in Thailand, etc etc. What were those silly Founding Fathers thinking when they came up with a ridiculous document like that???

Edited October 2, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[amvet]

4 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

No disrespect intended but maybe you shoudda counted how many times "should" and "may" are written into the statement. These are two words of a soft impact. The word "disrespect" is not in the statement. Neither is the word "respect" in the statement. One needs to do a deep dive to find words of a hard impact in it.

 

The Constitution is the norm. It is the ultimate value. Which is why an oath contains words of a hard value. The Constitution contains words such as "shall" or "shall not." Moreover, civil disobedience is executed against an existing law. The "Conduct" statement is not law so there is no connection or comparison -- there is only a contrast. NFL protesters employ their right under the Constitution. One needs to respect both. 

 

The Constitution is on a respectful display at the National Archive and it is okay to view it while wearing shoes and shorts, male and female alike. The Constitution is the real deal. The Constitution is the fundamental document. The anthem and the flag are credenda and symbols that exist under the Constitution. Religion exists under the terms and conditions of the Constitution. 

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Civil disobedience is a form of protest as is disrespect for the National Anthem.  I respect both.  I would point out that sitting, kneeling or raising a fist in protest during the National Anthem is just that protest and protected speech. 

[inThailand]

23 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Maybe I missed it. Is there some law in the U.S. that prescribes when a person can and can't legally, peacefully protest?  Like only when the National Anthem isn't being played. Or not on the Fourth of July?  What about Veteran's Day? D-Day?

 

Can you only protest when no U.S. flag is nearby or visible? Not when you can be shown on national television? Not around any federal government facilities. Not anywhere President Trump might see you? Why don't you make up a list of when and where people should and shouldn't be able to protest, and talk to Congress about it?

 

Ahh... but then there's that pesky U.S. Constitution and its central, fundamental statement about Americans having the right to free speech -- not only on Tuesdays, not only when you think it's a good idea, not only when it doesn't make some people upset, not like in Thailand, etc etc. What were those silly Founding Fathers thinking when they came up with a ridiculous document like that???

Yes the law allows you to be d...head, but even they mostly respect the flag. You don't see fans kneeling at the game? 

Some teams even got booed for kneeling before the anthem.

The NFL is on the losing side of this argument which will ultimately be determined by the fans and sponsors vs some players. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

32 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Yes the law allows you to be d...head, but even they mostly respect the flag. You don't see fans kneeling at the game? 

Some teams even got booed for kneeling before the anthem.

The NFL is on the losing side of this argument which will ultimately be determined by the fans and sponsors vs some players. 

 

I'm a fan of the NFL. I support the players. I support equal civil rights and treatment under the law for all Americans, regardless of their color or ethnicity. And I support the players' and everyone else's free speech rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. 

 

It's kind of the ultimate irony to have people like you complaining about national anthem protests, when the players' protest and what they're protesting about illuminate core values that the flag, country and Constitution are supposed to stand for -- equal justice under the law, civil rights, freedom of speech, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not ending up dead at a police traffic stop.

.

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, amvet said:

Same as the anthem.  You just have to stand there.

 

This is where we disagree.  You've made an arbitrary decision about what I should do, with no good reason to support it.  Why do you get to decide, but I don't?  It seems like you want to have the freedom to decide what you should do, but you don't want me to have the same freedom.

 

3 hours ago, amvet said:

Nothing else.

 

Why not?  If somebody can decide that I need to stand, what stops them from deciding that I should salute too?  

 

3 hours ago, amvet said:

No one would say anything if a person just stands there. 

 

You're making assumptions.  There are people more fervently nationalistic than you who think we should be singing and saluting.  Some of those people might take offense that I'm not saluting, and they won't care one bit when I tell them amvet said it was okay not to salute.  Then you'll find yourself in my position, wondering why certain people want you to salute when you feel that simply standing is sufficient.

 

Rather than all of us arguing about what degree of nationalistic display is appropriate, why don't we just let everybody respect the country in their own way?  You've somehow got it in your head that I don't respect my country if I don't perform the same ceremonial semantics you do.  How did you even get that into your head, and why does it matter?

[Publicus]

20 hours ago, amvet said:

I have no problem with protests against the way America handles race relations.  It's legal.  I don't care.  Protesting by showing disrespect of the American Anthem or flag or President is legal.  I could care less.  But it is what it is.  Anyone can disrespect any American symbol and any American including the President can have an opinion about it.  It don't bother me.   

 

Methinks you yourself may be approaching a hundred posts to the thread that indicate your feelings and thoughts in the matter. Plus engendering three times that number of posts in reply and response to your, er, indifference -- or your stated state of not being in a bother.

 

Methinks further you do proud the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Y'know, the professional veterans. What does bother me about those guyz is that they have become what they once fought against. If you know what I mean.

 

Just sayin.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Civil disobedience is a form of protest as is disrespect for the National Anthem.  I respect both.  I would point out that sitting, kneeling or raising a fist in protest during the National Anthem is just that protest and protected speech. 

 

NFL expressing themselves in this are not engaged in a civil disobedience. Indeed, you yourself confirm the participating NFL personnel from the owners' booth to the field are not violating any law, consciously or unconsciously.

 

There is no connection whatsoever between the NFL-anthem protests and violating a law. Doing a civil disobedience confirms a willingness to violate a law and to accept the consequences -- participating NFL personnel do neither. Fact is these guys are a lot smarter and culturally agile than youse over there could imagine them to be.

[amvet]

56 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Methinks you yourself may be approaching a hundred posts to the thread that indicate your feelings and thoughts in the matter. Plus engendering three times that number of posts in reply and response to your, er, indifference -- or your stated state of not being in a bother.

 

Methinks further you do proud the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Y'know, the professional veterans. What does bother me about those guyz is that they have become what they once fought against. If you know what I mean.

 

Just sayin.

The reason for the plethora of posts is there are 6 or 7 people attacking my position and me.  Your latest is I have become what I once fought against.  Of course, you say that without knowing what I fought against.  I fought against the people trying to kill me and for the most part that was the US Army.  I am not now trying to kill anything.  I don't even squash bugs it's a Buddhist thing - I live in Thailand.

 

The only thing I have maintained steadfastly is that sitting, raising a fist or kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem is disrespectful and it is meant to be disrespectful because if it wasn't disrespectful it wouldn't be a protest.  

[amvet]

19 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

NFL expressing themselves in this are not engaged in a civil disobedience. Indeed, you yourself confirm the participating NFL personnel from the owners' booth to the field are not violating any law, consciously or unconsciously.

 

There is no connection whatsoever between the NFL-anthem protests and violating a law. Doing a civil disobedience confirms a willingness to violate a law and to accept the consequences -- participating NFL personnel do neither. Fact is these guys are a lot smarter and culturally agile than youse over there could imagine them to be.

Disrespecting the totems of America will cause a negative reaction among many people.  The NFL footballers are doing that and are willing to accept the consequences in Kaepernick's case he had a 129 million dollar contract now he does not.  Would you call that smart?

[amvet]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

This is where we disagree.  You've made an arbitrary decision about what I should do, with no good reason to support it.  Why do you get to decide, but I don't?  It seems like you want to have the freedom to decide what you should do, but you don't want me to have the same freedom.

 

 

Why not?  If somebody can decide that I need to stand, what stops them from deciding that I should salute too?  

 

 

You're making assumptions.  There are people more fervently nationalistic than you who think we should be singing and saluting.  Some of those people might take offense that I'm not saluting, and they won't care one bit when I tell them amvet said it was okay not to salute.  Then you'll find yourself in my position, wondering why certain people want you to salute when you feel that simply standing is sufficient.

 

Rather than all of us arguing about what degree of nationalistic display is appropriate, why don't we just let everybody respect the country in their own way?  You've somehow got it in your head that I don't respect my country if I don't perform the same ceremonial semantics you do.  How did you even get that into your head, and why does it matter?

You asked how I got it into my head.  I maybe the last generation to have done so except for folks in Texas.

 

Since the amount of salutations of the flag or Anthem has not measurably increased in 250 years I would think your concern is not a mentally sound fear.  

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by amvet

[Thakkar]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

Protest all you want but Not during the anthem.

The players hear an anthem that is about 3 minutes long out of 7 days x 24 hours, 10,080 minutes minus 3 minutes. So 10,077 minutes is not enough protest time versus 3 minutes of showing respect?

 

I sing everyday in thenprivacy of my shower. I’m really, REALLY good. “Everybody” says so.

 

When do I get my Grammy??

Edited October 2, 2017 by Thakkar

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

The reason for the plethora of posts is there are 6 or 7 people attacking my position and me.  Your latest is I have become what I once fought against.  Of course, you say that without knowing what I fought against.  I fought against the people trying to kill me and for the most part that was the US Army.  I am not now trying to kill anything.  I don't even squash bugs it's a Buddhist thing - I live in Thailand.

 

The only thing I have maintained steadfastly is that sitting, raising a fist or kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem is disrespectful and it is meant to be disrespectful because if it wasn't disrespectful it wouldn't be a protest.  

 

Well now what you call a "plethora" of posts when quantified exceeds a hundred. Your one note theme is disrespect. Numerous fellow posters have reacted with myriad takes in rejecting your thesis. So we see that despite a vast counter presentation of diverse arguments you will not be moved to include possibly moving on. You instead keep beating the drum of disrespect. Indeed, you can it being "steadfast" while I might dissent respectfully from the self-characterizing of your posts. I would characterize your proliferation of posts as  redundant. One might also say fixated. You have the right of course -- the privilege indeed. It becomes problematical however when it becomes self-defeating. 

 

Just sayin.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

You asked how I got it into my head.  I maybe the last generation to have done so except for folks in Texas.

 

Since the amount of salutations of the flag or Anthem has not measurably increased in 250 years I would think your concern is not a mentally sound fear.  

 

Remember when you claimed my report about the origins of all this flag saluting nonsense was irrelevant? This quote from you clearly shows it is not:

"Since the amount of salutations of the flag or Anthem has not measurably increased in 250 years I would think your concern is not a mentally sound fear. " 

 

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Disrespecting the totems of America will cause a negative reaction among many people.  The NFL footballers are doing that and are willing to accept the consequences in Kaepernick's case he had a 129 million dollar contract now he does not.  Would you call that smart?

 

Yes.

 

NFL owners are not dumb either. For one thing a good number of the owners are currently backtracking from their punishment of Kaepernick's despite the fact the super bowl twice-MVP never violated a law, a rule, a regulation local, state, federal. The QB never for a moment engaged in a civil disobedience nor did he call anyone and his mother SOB.

 

$61 million of $129m is for a career ending injury only. It's guaranteed in the contract so the number is seized upon by media which rarely state the caveat. It wuz a seven year contract by which he loses pay each year he doesn't do any super bowl snaps. Each year the team can cut him by April 1st for any reason. Guess what?

 

Never mind anyway cause Kaepernick wuz sent home to stay with $29 million bucks in his pockets. The long and the short of it is that Colin Kaepernick is a guy who turned out to be a SJW of impact and smarts.

 

Perfect.

[amvet]

20 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Yes.

 

NFL owners are not dumb either. For one thing a good number of the owners are currently backtracking from their punishment of Kaepernick's despite the fact the super bowl twice-MVP never violated a law, a rule, a regulation local, state, federal. The QB never for a moment engaged in a civil disobedience nor did he call anyone and his mother SOB.

 

$61 million of $129m is for a career ending injury only. It's guaranteed in the contract so the number is seized upon by media which rarely state the caveat. It wuz a seven year contract by which he loses pay each year he doesn't do any super bowl snaps. Each year the team can cut him by April 1st for any reason. Guess what?

 

Never mind anyway cause Kaepernick wuz sent home to stay with $29 million bucks in his pockets. The long and the short of it is that Colin Kaepernick is a guy who turned out to be a SJW of impact and smarts.

 

Perfect.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but Ruth and I think he's dumb.

Edited October 2, 2017 by amvet

[thaihome]

2 hours ago, amvet said:

...

The only thing I have maintained steadfastly is that sitting, raising a fist or kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem is disrespectful and it is meant to be disrespectful because if it wasn't disrespectful it wouldn't be a protest.  

 

So, what about the thousands of people at every stadium that continue to buy beer and nachos, talked a piss in restrooms, hold their phones high in the air taking video during the anthem? Are they being disrespectful?

 

You are being very hypocritical in your criticism of the players as being "disrespectful " for doing a protest while not being even more critical of people that are actually being disrespectful while the Anthem is being played.

TH 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/sports/football/nfl-anthem-protest.html?emc=edit_nn_20171002&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=72731681&te=1

[amvet]

9 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

So, what about the thousands of people at every stadium that continue to buy beer and nachos, talked a piss in restrooms, hold their phones high in the air taking video during the anthem? Are they being disrespectful?

 

You are being very hypocritical in your criticism of the players as being "disrespectful " for doing a protest while not being even more critical of people that are actually being disrespectful while the Anthem is being played.

TH 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/01/sports/football/nfl-anthem-protest.html?emc=edit_nn_20171002&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=72731681&te=1

There is a difference between being purposefully disrespectful by sitting or raising a fist or kneeling as opposed to coincidentally occupied by purchasing items in a different part of the stadium.  Motive. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by amvet

[thaihome]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

There is a difference between being purposefully disrespectful by sitting or raising a fist or kneeling as opposed to coincidentally occupied by purchasing items in a different part of the stadium.  Motive. 

 

So ,let me get this straight, in your view,   standing there with your dick in your hand taking a piss during the anthem is not disrespectful but doing a constitutionally protected protest about a serious problem in US society is. 

 

Got it. You know what you are so I won't bother naming it.

TH 

[amvet]

1 minute ago, thaihome said:

 

So ,let me get this straight, in your view,   standing there with your dick in your hand taking a piss during the anthem is not disrespectful but doing a constitutionally protected protest about a serious problem in US society is. 

 

Got it. You know what you are so I won't bother naming it.

TH 

You do know that the footballers were trying to be disrespectful to the American Anthem and that was the idea of their action?  As opposed to answering a call of nature.  Can you tell the difference?  Protest is intentional.  Pee pee is nature and is a call that can't be ignored. 

[Slip]

22 minutes ago, amvet said:

You do know that the footballers were trying to be disrespectful to the American Anthem and that was the idea of their action?  As opposed to answering a call of nature.  Can you tell the difference?  Protest is intentional.  Pee pee is nature and is a call that can't be ignored. 

 

I know you have seen the following quote, so your continued 'disrespectful' tub-thumping strawman is dishonest and unacceptable.  You and people that agree with you are not sole arbiters of what is or isn't respectful.

 

From the horse's mouth:
 

Quote

After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.

 

(Eric Reid: Why Colin Kaepernick and I Decided to Take a Knee)

Edited October 2, 2017 by Slip

[Thakkar]

5 hours ago, amvet said:

Looking at the shootings and riots during the past 5 years when have we not been aware of the problem?  We have just finished 8 years of a our first black President one would have thought we made some progress.  I guess not.

 

I guess not as well. Because the next guy to get elected was someone who launched his political career by questing the first black president’s right to be an American and launched his campaign by demonizing Mexicans.

 

It’s quite possible that Obama’s election led directly to the White Backlash that gave us Trump. With a little help from the Russians (allegedly) and a lotta help from Comey (quite likely), not to mention less than competent campaigning by HRC and the DNC.

 

Whether or not there has been sufficient awareness of the problem of police treatment of blacks, it is clear the problem hasn’t even been fully recognized, let alone properly addressed.

 

It’s not about eliminating racism—that may never happen. It’s about addressing institutional racism. Any dispassionate look at the data will show that it exists in spades. Any decent person would agree that it’s a problem that needs to be corrected.

 

Americans don’t need a Gandhi or MLK; America needs a majority of whites—those who voted for Trump—to realize that for Whites to win, Blacks don’t have to lose and vice versa. America needs a collective white male leadership—because, frankly, they’re the ones with the power—to stop with the divide and conquer political tactics. But above all, African Americans need to be more strident and insistent in peacefully demanding their rights as Americans. As Steven Biko said, “The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

 

That is where Colin Kaepernick’s simple, dignified protest, however uncomfortable it makes some people feel, come in.

 

Trump may be a bombastic buffoon, but I think he instinctively understands what’s happening and knows how to use it to sow division and prevent unity. Because unity and harmony are his bane.

 

For those defending Trump on this issue—and I think you are not, but you *are* enabling him by buying into this “disrespectful” meme—think about which side of history you want to be on.

 

“When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it, always.” - Mohandas Gandhi

[amvet]

5 minutes ago, Slip said:

 

I know you have seen the following quote, so your continued 'disrespectful' tub-thumping strawman is dishonest and unacceptable.  You and people that agree with you are not sole arbiters of what is or isn't respectful.

 

From the horse's mouth:
 

 

(Eric Reid: Why Colin Kaepernick and I Decided to Take a Knee)

Tell me are the photos below kneeling? Or are the photos lying? 

[Slip]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

Tell me are the photos below kneeling? Or are the photos lying? 

 <photos snipped for brevity>

 

 

The issue is not whether or not they are kneeling, it is about whether or not it is disrespectful.  The thing is you don't get to decide what is or isn't respectful.  You can have an opinion but you can't force that on your compatriots.  If enough people object to the practice then that will impact on the money men and players in the league, but many many people agree with the stand the players (and clubs) are taking.