• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump and NFL boycott

dudalb said:
A;Pence is from and was Governor of Indiana and is a Indianipolis Colts fanB:The Indianapolis Colts were retiring Peyton Manning's number today.That is a big thing is US sports the highest honor a team can pay to one of it's great players.The 49ers just happned to be the team that Colts were playing.
Click to expand...

Suppose you've seen this complaint by now: Stunt or not, Pence upstaged Peyton
Sunday’s 49ers-Colts game included an unexpected, Animal House-style walkout from the Vice President, who apparently was shocked that a team with at least one player kneeling during the anthem since the issue first emerged in 2016 would have one or more players kneeling during the anthem....

Peter King of TheMMQB.com put it in plain terms: “[T]he Vice President of the United States slapped Manning and Pence’s beloved Colts in the face. Whether he’s a puppet for the President or his own man, Pence trumped a day that belonged to the greatest football hero the state of Indiana has ever seen, and he did it for political purposes. He stole Manning’s last great day as a Colt. Mike Pence will have to live with himself for that.”
Click to expand...

So much for Pence just being a Manning fan when Pence's honor overcame him. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, no. Those are his constitutionally mandated duties. Our expectations are more expansive than that. You can argue that they shouldn't be, but if so, the problem is in no way unique to Pense or to this particular event, and that issue would best be addressed in an entirely different thread.
Click to expand...


As always, a Lehrer for every occasion;

 
Ziggurat said:
I never said the players. That was entirely your own insertion.

(snip)
Click to expand...

Hardly my "insertion"- it was my specific question- the very one to which you responded. I asked if any of the players had referred to the walkout as oppression. You responded with your quote from someone's Op Ed. Which makes it particularly silly for the right wing to use this quote in their attempts to belittle the players by implying that they have unreasonable radical-chic viewpoints.

I presume you've read the Reid quote? You may disagree with his views from your own political perspective but he is clearly a thoughtful, patriotic American seeking to peacefully protest what he sees as an injustice with the goal of correcting it. He respects the country, the military, the goals and principles we profess as Americans and seeing us falling short he hopes to set our course right. Trump and Pense on the other hand undermine so much of what has made this country great and wrap themselves in the flag to hide their actions. And they dare to talk about respecting the flag!

Let's face it: the walkout = oppression vie is quoted out of context, irrelevant to the players own views and actions, and a distraction from the issues that are important.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ok. I stand corrected.

ETA: Not quite so fast.

That is the current code. The "hand over the heart" section was added in 1976. So, while it has been official for some time, I stand by my previous observation, that it was done in imitation of the manner of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, by people who didn't understand the symbolism of the hand over the heart. And it managed to get codified into the US code, because who really will argue against it?

(I knew I was never taught to put my hand over my heart during the national anthem, and I knew it was something that seemed to grow more common recently. By the time the code was revised to add the hand over heart, I had reached the advanced age of 14 years and so knew everything I needed to know.)
Click to expand...
'Hand over the heart' (for everyone) was added in 1942 (provided the flag was present). The 1976 amendment was to give the same guidance when the flag was not present.

It really is unnecessarily complex.
 
Giordano said:
Hardly my "insertion"- it was my specific question- the very one to which you responded. I asked if any of the players had referred to the walkout as oppression. You responded with your quote from someone's Op Ed. Which makes it particularly silly for the right wing to use this quote in their attempts to belittle the players by implying that they have unreasonable radical-chic viewpoints.
Click to expand...

Only two people here have used that quote, Skeptic Ginger (who agreed with it) and me. I haven't used it to say anything about the players, but about some leftists like the author and SG.

Let's face it: the walkout = oppression vie is quoted out of context
Click to expand...

False. It was quoted in context.

irrelevant to the players own views and actions
Click to expand...

True, but I never said otherwise.

and a distraction from the issues that are important.
Click to expand...

False. It may be a distraction from what YOU consider important, but you don't get to decide what's important to other people.
 
President Trump is now asking, via Twitter, why NFL receives tax breaks. :rolleyes:


edited to add...

45 said:
Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!
Click to expand...

IMO taking a knee isn't "disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country" in any case.
 
Last edited:
First, the President of the United States demanded that American citizens who exercise their right to free speech in a manner which he finds objectionable should be fired from their jobs.

When that didn't work, he's now issuing threats to their employers.

Nope, no oppression there at all.
 
johnny karate said:
First, the President of the United States demanded that American citizens who exercise their right to free speech in a manner which he finds objectionable should be fired from their jobs.

When that didn't work, he's now issuing threats to their employers.

Nope, no oppression there at all.
Click to expand...
More than that: he now demands that the state, via tax law, takes coercive (oppressive) action against black not sufficiently submissive.

I expect Zig to now join those who find that Trump is acting in an oppressive manner against a select minority to coerce them into not taking advantage of constitutional rights.
 
johnny karate said:
First, the President of the United States demanded that American citizens who exercise their right to free speech in a manner which he finds objectionable should be fired from their jobs.

When that didn't work, he's now issuing threats to their employers.

Nope, no oppression there at all.
Click to expand...

No more than the oppression that can be created by fellow Americans exercising their freedom of speech.
 
Oystein said:
More than that: he now demands that the state, via tax law, takes coercive (oppressive) action against black not sufficiently submissive.
Click to expand...

First off, it's the owners, not the players, who are currently getting the tax breaks and who would get hit directly by a removal of those tax breaks.

Second, it's interesting to see you take the position that having to pay normal tax rates is oppressive. I won't try to dissuade you of this opinion, but it is interesting.

I expect Zig to now join those who find that Trump is acting in an oppressive manner against a select minority to coerce them into not taking advantage of constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

While the owners are indeed a "select minority", I'm not sure why that matters. And while I don't like the idea of connecting tax policy to political positions (but did that bother you when the IRS was targeting conservatives?), I'm not too worked up about it here specifically because I'm not of the opinion the owners should have been getting special tax breaks to begin with, independent of the current kerfuffle.
 
Ziggurat said:
While the owners are indeed a "select minority", I'm not sure why that matters. And while I don't like the idea of connecting tax policy to political positions (but did that bother you when the IRS was targeting conservatives?), I'm not too worked up about it here specifically because I'm not of the opinion the owners should have been getting special tax breaks to begin with, independent of the current kerfuffle.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Threats by the President to punish speech he doesn't like are okay as long as the thing he's threatening to take away is something you don't like. I'm pretty sure that's in the Constitution somewhere.
 
johnny karate said:
Exactly. Threats by the President to punish speech he doesn't like are okay as long as the thing he's threatening to take away is something you don't like. I'm pretty sure that's in the Constitution somewhere.
Click to expand...

The president doesn't make tax policy, so it's not up to him anyways. And yes, as a matter of fact, I don't really care about someone losing something they weren't actually entitled to in the first place. Why do you?
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, it's the owners, not the players, who are currently getting the tax breaks and who would get hit directly by a removal of those tax breaks.

Second, it's interesting to see you take the position that having to pay normal tax rates is oppressive. I won't try to dissuade you of this opinion, but it is interesting.



While the owners are indeed a "select minority", I'm not sure why that matters. And while I don't like the idea of connecting tax policy to political positions (but did that bother you when the IRS was targeting conservatives?), I'm not too worked up about it here specifically because I'm not of the opinion the owners should have been getting special tax breaks to begin with, independent of the current kerfuffle.
Click to expand...
Wow - strawmen, coming from you?

I didn't say paying normal tax rates is oppressive (Trump, or generally GOP fans, would be much more likely to feel this way, which underscores that Trump likely INTENDED for this message to sound oppressive), my claim is that threatening a tax hike to force submission in a topic wholly unrelates to fiscal issues is oppressive.

Secondly, you cannot in your right mind disagree that this threat ultimately targets the black players who originally protested racism. Abusing the owners as proxies cannot change that obvious fact one bit.

Stop the denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom