• 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.

Why I hate America

Brainster said:
Sigh. For the umpteenth time, yes, Kaepernick had a right to protest, and as far as I know, nobody has suggested throwing him in jail, which is essentially all that right guarantees. He does not have a right to protest free of consequences from potential employers.

And while I note that many sportswriters seem to assume that Kaepernick has been blackballed, none of them know what type of deal Kaepernick wants. Yes, there was an outcry from the media sob-sisters when the 49ers signed Blaine Gabbert, who is pretty clearly a worse quarterback. But what we don't know is whether Kaepernick would have signed the same deal (I doubt it).
Click to expand...

You think that it is okay for someone to be blacklisted from their industry for voicing the opinion that cops shouldn't murder people?

Imagine if liberals were able to get someone kicked out for supporting pulling out of the Paris Accord? You don't think that would be sad?
 
acbytesla said:
I guess we see things differently. Freedom of speech, particularly when it involves political speech is sacred to me. That an employer should be able through financial coercion limit the speech of their employees is antithetical to that right.
Click to expand...

Suppose you were an employer. What would your speech line be?
 
Travis said:
You think that it is okay for someone to be blacklisted from their industry for voicing the opinion that cops shouldn't murder people?

Imagine if liberals were able to get someone kicked out for supporting pulling out of the Paris Accord? You don't think that would be sad?
Click to expand...

Isn't the issue with the guy that his protest appeared to be more of an F.U. to the flag and anthem, essentially flipping off America as a whole? Playing the anthem is not exactly synonymous with police brutality.
 
mumblethrax said:
My favorite moment from the Kaepernick controversy was reading someone who said "People died for our national anthem!"

It's standard for American nationalists to confuse the map for the territory, but they don't usually think it's the tune on the car radio.

That's just one of the reasons America is the hilariousest.
Click to expand...

What an odd thing to say. As far as I'm aware, the only people who died in connection to the national anthem were the ones being turned into smoldering wet spots by the artillery while it was being written.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Suppose you were an employer. What would your speech line be?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're asking. If I'm the employer, I'm concerned about job performance. I don't care what you espouse unless it's violence or something illegal. Then we could have a problem.

Let's go back to Kapernick for a moment. Did he commit violence? Did he do something awful? No, he kneeled during the National Anthem. And now, no one will hire him. He didn't beat his wife or molest a child. He kneeled. So what!

What bothers me the most is I think people's reaction to him kneeling is far more unpatriotic than him kneeling.
 
Travis said:
You think that it is okay for someone to be blacklisted from their industry for voicing the opinion that cops shouldn't murder people?

Imagine if liberals were able to get someone kicked out for supporting pulling out of the Paris Accord? You don't think that would be sad?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Employers should always have a reasonable right to fire or refuse to hire employees for whatever reason they choose with the obvious exceptions (not based on race, gender, etc.)

And I note that you put a very kind spin on what Kaepernick did. He refused to stand for the National Anthem in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter dolts. And he compounded that by wearing socks with police portrayed as pigs. He did a couple of very stupid things in a league that is hugely publicity-conscious (especially with TV ratings falling recently). He's not so good that his athletic ability outweighs the PR and marketing nightmare that accompanies him. Certainly not at the salary he was making with San Francisco ($20 million).

And that's really the big point. How much would Kaep take? He has some ability, there's no doubt about it. I'd rate him as an above-average backup, low-end starter. That's probably worth $5 million or more. But what about the effect on ticket, food, beverage, parking and merchandise sales? Suppose that you would lose that much in profit by hiring him?

Well, then he's essentially worthless. And that, I suspect more than any blackballing, is what is going on. He is going to cost any team more than he is worth. He may get signed, but I suspect it will be to a team with an early- to mid-season QB injury that is already looking at disaster and decides to see if he can catch lightning in a bottle again.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't know what you're asking. If I'm the employer, I'm concerned about job performance. I don't care what you espouse unless it's violence or something illegal. Then we could have a problem.

Let's go back to Kapernick for a moment. Did he commit violence? Did he do something awful? No, he kneeled during the National Anthem. And now, no one will hire him. He didn't beat his wife or molest a child. He kneeled. So what!
Click to expand...

Money, money, money.

What do you think Kaep is worth for a season? I guessed above around $5 million is probably his market value. That might be high, probably not low, just based on performance so far.

But suppose your merchandising head tells you that you will lose $8 million in profit from hat and tee-shirt sales alone if you sign him? Then what is he worth?
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I don't know what you're asking. If I'm the employer, I'm concerned about job performance. I don't care what you espouse unless it's violence or something illegal. Then we could have a problem.

Let's go back to Kapernick for a moment. Did he commit violence? Did he do something awful? No, he kneeled during the National Anthem. And now, no one will hire him. He didn't beat his wife or molest a child. He kneeled. So what!

What bothers me the most is I think people's reaction to him kneeling is far more unpatriotic than him kneeling.
Click to expand...

And what if you are the NFL commissioner, and one of the athletes says they are kneeling for something non violent and not illegal, but still something abhorrent? Is there any limit there?
 
Brainster said:
No, not at all. Employers should always have a reasonable right to fire or refuse to hire employees for whatever reason they choose with the obvious exceptions (not based on race, gender, etc.)

And I note that you put a very kind spin on what Kaepernick did. He refused to stand for the National Anthem in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter dolts. And he compounded that by wearing socks with police portrayed as pigs. He did a couple of very stupid things in a league that is hugely publicity-conscious (especially with TV ratings falling recently). He's not so good that his athletic ability outweighs the PR and marketing nightmare that accompanies him. Certainly not at the salary he was making with San Francisco ($20 million).

And that's really the big point. How much would Kaep take? He has some ability, there's no doubt about it. I'd rate him as an above-average backup, low-end starter. That's probably worth $5 million or more. But what about the effect on ticket, food, beverage, parking and merchandise sales? Suppose that you would lose that much in profit by hiring him?

Well, then he's essentially worthless. And that, I suspect more than any blackballing, is what is going on. He is going to cost any team more than he is worth. He may get signed, but I suspect it will be to a team with an early- to mid-season QB injury that is already looking at disaster and decides to see if he can catch lightning in a bottle again.
Click to expand...

What if I'm union organizing or supporting a political candidate? Should you be able to get me to stop campaigning for a candidate you oppose? We just had a Congressman attempt to get someone fired at a bank. I don't believe you should have an unfettered right to fire an employee for holding or expressing a political opinion opposing your own. By suggesting an employer should have that right you are de facto increasing the power of money in politics.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Money, money, money.

What do you think Kaep is worth for a season? I guessed above around $5 million is probably his market value. That might be high, probably not low, just based on performance so far.

But suppose your merchandising head tells you that you will lose $8 million in profit from hat and tee-shirt sales alone if you sign him? Then what is he worth?
Click to expand...

You think that's true? That people won't buy merchandise or stay away from the games? I don't believe that for a second. If the NFL owners wanted players to stand they should put it in the contracts.
 
BobTheCoward said:
And what if you are the NFL commissioner, and one of the athletes says they are kneeling for something non violent and not illegal, but still something abhorrent? Is there any limit there?
Click to expand...

You'd have to be more specific for me to provide an answer.
 
acbytesla said:
You think that's true? That people won't buy merchandise or stay away from the games? I don't believe that for a second.
Click to expand...

Okay, so suggest another reason for his "being blackballed" as you called it? Are teams just cutting their own throats financially?
 
acbytesla said:
What if I'm union organizing or supporting a political candidate? Should you be able to get me to stop campaigning for a candidate you oppose? We just had a Congressman attempt to get someone fired at a bank. I don't believe you should have an unfettered right to fire an employee for holding or expressing a political opinion opposing your own. By suggesting an employer should have that right you are de facto increasing the power of money in politics.
Click to expand...

But where does stopping that end? If you're talking about a government job, that's different. The government does have fewer rights than a normal employer, at least as far as salaried, career positions go. And union organizing comes with its own set of laws.

To take a simple example, suppose Monsanto sees one of their employees participating in an anti-GMO demonstration? Or a staffer for the Democratic Party starts publishing pro-Republican articles online?
 
Brainster said:
No, not at all. Employers should always have a reasonable right to fire or refuse to hire employees for whatever reason they choose with the obvious exceptions (not based on race, gender, etc.)

And I note that you put a very kind spin on what Kaepernick did. He refused to stand for the National Anthem in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter dolts. And he compounded that by wearing socks with police portrayed as pigs. He did a couple of very stupid things in a league that is hugely publicity-conscious (especially with TV ratings falling recently). He's not so good that his athletic ability outweighs the PR and marketing nightmare that accompanies him. Certainly not at the salary he was making with San Francisco ($20 million).

And that's really the big point. How much would Kaep take? He has some ability, there's no doubt about it. I'd rate him as an above-average backup, low-end starter. That's probably worth $5 million or more. But what about the effect on ticket, food, beverage, parking and merchandise sales? Suppose that you would lose that much in profit by hiring him?

Well, then he's essentially worthless. And that, I suspect more than any blackballing, is what is going on. He is going to cost any team more than he is worth. He may get signed, but I suspect it will be to a team with an early- to mid-season QB injury that is already looking at disaster and decides to see if he can catch lightning in a bottle again.
Click to expand...


Good post and entirely reasonable, but I'd say it goes even a little farther than it needs to.

Because I doubt Kaep's situation even rises to the level that team ownership would necessarily even be involved in his signing. Fact of the matter is, GMs and coaches typically have free reign to make roster decisions outside of multimillion, franchise altering mega deals. And we're talking about a backup caliber player here, which is the heart of the problem.
Team chemistry is a huge part of the equation in the NFL, and a backup QB has a special roles in not only readying himself to play in the event of an injury, but also supporting the starter but acting as another coach on the sidelines/QB room. Kaepernick may be fully justified in his actions, but it doesn't matter. His JOB is not to be a sideline protestor and create all kinds of controversy that swirls around the team, causes undue media attention, detracts from the actual field performance of the players who actually play. His job is to work in a support capacity, not draw attention to himself. He pretty clearly chose other priorities.

Also, I think the Jay Cutler situation pretty much proves this point. He's a better player and a better fit for most offenses throughout the league. Better than several starters. But he didnt get a job because, really personality and reputation-wise, he's not fit to be in a supporting role.
 
Brainster said:
But where does stopping that end? If you're talking about a government job, that's different. The government does have fewer rights than a normal employer, at least as far as salaried, career positions go. And union organizing comes with its own set of laws.

To take a simple example, suppose Monsanto sees one of their employees participating in an anti-GMO demonstration? Or a staffer for the Democratic Party starts publishing pro-Republican articles online?
Click to expand...

There is a certain amount of common sense that needs to be applied. If it's a spokesman or someone with a high profile job at Monsanto I don't think you have a choice but if it is a secretary or dock worker you have a responsibility to ignore it. If you are working for one political party and promoting the opposite party that's easy too. There is a difference between situational ethics and core principles.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
And of course, cheeseburgers are equivalent to seething a kid in its mother's milk, and therefore just as prohibited by the Bible as a man lying with a man as with a woman.
Click to expand...

Well yes. I've never understood why Christian "conservatives" don't get as upset about cheeseburgers and cotton-polyester blends as they do about gay sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom