• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The St. Louis Rams’ ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Protest [W:256]

ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. This is 100% about Brown. What other "hands in the air" case are they referencing? Why was this not done before the Brown non-indictment?
Click to expand...

It refers to privilege/injustice, no matter one case.


tres borrachos said:
Good on them. They won't have any problem if the white Rams come out on the field next week with their hands formed as if they are holding guns and shooting at the crowd in support of Office Wilson.
Click to expand...

I don't think that works in 'support' of police.
 
JoeTrumps said:
if they are doing it WHILE they are doing their jobs then yes, they should be condemned. Have never heard of that happening.
those same players could show up to an Obama rally wearing their jerseys and I wouldn't have a problem with it. but that's not what happened. they made their "political statement" using airtime the NFL provided. Big difference, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

They made an official statement as police officers. They are using their job as a bullhorn to forward their political point of view abut someone else's protest. There is no difference. The NFL can try to bypass the union and discipline these players if the so choose, but the players did nothing inappropriate. Also, those players earned that exposure by being exceptional at their jobs.
 
As with the Rams and their phoney protest, the whole Ferguson thing is the pot calling the kettel black.

Has anyone in the major media stopped to think: Maybe Michael Brown tried to kill the cop because Wilson was a White man?

Now, most know Mr. Brown was a thug who stole cigars and pushed non-black people around, and that he wrote and attempted to sing very nasty rap "tunes."

But is there any evidence to disprove that Mr. Brown was not a black racist? Was he not part of the racially exclusive Crips gang? Did he not sing their music, wear their clothes and make make their gang signs?

Did Mr. Brown have any non-Black friends? Did he belong to any diverse social group in high school?

bigmike.jpg
 
The NFL declined the union's call to action anyway.

Story over.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So, it's ok for the rams to make a political statement, but not ok for another organization to come out with thier own political statement condemning it?
Click to expand...

I think both statements are fine.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
They made an official statement as police officers. They are using their job as a bullhorn to forward their political point of view abut someone else's protest. There is no difference. The NFL can try to bypass the union and discipline these players if the so choose, but the players did nothing inappropriate. Also, those players earned that exposure by being exceptional at their jobs.
Click to expand...

Let's say the KKK decides that a cocked finger is the new symbol for "the black kid got what he deserved". So you would fully support an exceptional white football player coming out with his finger cocked in the air. Good to know.
 
jet57 said:
But the P.O's association didn't run onto the field. They made a supportive statement about their officer's in the propper place for such a statement.

Had the players lined up in a press conference to raise up their hands, they would receive at least my support. People and businesses pay a lot of money to see anad sponsor a professional sporting event in a politically neutral setting, and it's politically neutral for a reason.
Click to expand...

Your objection makes no sense. There is no "proper place" for speech. There are potential consequences of speech, but NFL says its not taking action. So there you go. The players were perfectly within their rights and there will be no direct reprimand for their speech.
 
tres borrachos said:
Let's say the KKK decides that a cocked finger is the new symbol for "the black kid got what he deserved". So you would fully support an exceptional white football player coming out with his finger cocked in the air. Good to know.
Click to expand...

I absolutely would not support that. But I would support the players' right to make political speech. I oppose any government sanction against that player. However, that player would face severe consequences from teammates, the league, the team, the media and likely sponsors as well. I would support those consequences, too.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I absolutely would not support that. But I would support the players' right to make political speech. I oppose any government sanction against that player. However, that player would face severe consequences from teammates, the league, the team, the media and likely sponsors as well. I would support those consequences, too.
Click to expand...

You would not support that? Why not? According to you, it isn't doing anything wrong. Perfectly within their rights. And it's apparently especially not wrong if the players doing it are "exceptional".
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary - not being allowed to engage in political speech as a condition of employment is a decision of the employer, not the employee. It is thus not a right of the employee, otherwise employers would be unable to make those decisions.
Click to expand...

So now all you have to do is demonstrate that there is such a league or team prohibition and it was adopted with the agreement of the players association giving up any claimed right.
 
tres borrachos said:
Let's say the KKK decides that a cocked finger is the new symbol for "the black kid got what he deserved". So you would fully support an exceptional white football player coming out with his finger cocked in the air. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Can you come up with another silly comparison or is that the best you got?
 
tres borrachos said:
Was that when the Colts were really the Colts (as in the days of Ray Berry and the great Johnny U)?
Click to expand...

Yeah they were in Baltimore, but I think that Unitas had retired by then. It was also in the days in the Oakland Raiders were the Raiders and women were glad of it.
 
Texmex said:
Still exciting enough for you to respond though.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting for you to answer this:

tres borrachos said:
Nice.

Example of whose freedom I personally agree with who was protesting incorrectly on national television while in their employer's uniform? I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Since I called your post out for the lie it was this morning, I'm breathlessly awaiting you to finally make good on it. Of course, you can't.

Your posts are still boring, and on occasions, they're also lies.
 
tres borrachos said:
I've been waiting for you to answer this:



Since I called your post out for the lie it was this morning, I'm breathlessly awaiting you to finally make good on it. Of course, you can't.

Your posts are still boring, and on occasions, they're also lies.
Click to expand...

You responded again. How many square feet of space am I getting rent free inside your head? :lamo
 
Texmex said:
You responded again. How many square feet of space am I getting rent free inside your head? :lamo
Click to expand...

You aren't rent free in my head. Your idiotic posts are here in front of me in my thread. Don't flatter yourself.
 
Morons....
 
tres borrachos said:
You would not support that? Why not? According to you, it isn't doing anything wrong. Perfectly within their rights. And it's apparently especially not wrong if the players doing it are "exceptional".
Click to expand...

I espoused a libertarian position on this. These people can make their speech and then deal with the social -- but never legal -- consequences.
 
haymarket said:
So now all you have to do is demonstrate that there is such a league or team prohibition and it was adopted with the agreement of the players association giving up any claimed right.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I would have to do that if I were arguing that they were in violation of the terms of their employment, which I am not doing. I am simply pointing out that your claim that it is a right for them to engage in political speech while at work is incorrect.
 
clownboy said:
No, my argument from the very beginning before you went on to display that you know little about freedom of speech, was that this is not a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

It is related. The government can do nothing to these folk for having spoken out. They are certainly free to express their opinions. If the Rams or the NFL take issue with it, they may. But those organizations are not government and this was done on their time, so they get a say. But that's about it.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I espoused a libertarian position on this. These people can make their speech and then deal with the social -- but never legal -- consequences.
Click to expand...

I'm a libertarian, and I don't see where you "espoused a libertarian position on this." Can you show me where the libertarian position on exceptional black football players being supported in protest and exceptional white football players not being equally supported in protest is documented?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom