• 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!

Poll: More Americans disagree with Trump's response to NFL protests than the protests themselves

Tangmo said:
NFL is indeed subsidized.

We can probably expect the Player's Association to file in U.S. District Court over violations of collective action provisions in the contracts and of freedom of speech given the NFL has been funded and otherwise subsidized by governments in places throughout the country....


The money exchanged between governments and pro football teams could mean that discipline enforced by the team could be "fairly attributed to a government entity, meaning the employer could not discipline someone for taking a political position," Harvard Law School professor Mark Tushnet said.

A judge could find it "relevant that some of the stadiums have been constructed with public support and may get continuing public subsidies," Tushnet said. "It may be relevant that some of these practices were instituted in cooperation with the national military."

"If the government pays for the patriotic display and the firing is a result of the behavior being deemed insufficiently patriotic, it is conceivable that that a claim could then be articulated," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney in New York.

Public money is inextricably linked with the NFL. The vast majority of NFL stadiums were constructed or renovated with public money, including the Cowboys' home in Arlington, Texas. The Taxpayer Protection Alliance rated AT&T Stadium as one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer money, saying the cost to taxpayers has been about $444 million.

Legal experts split on if NFL can punish for anthem protests - Houston Chronicle


Pence himself burned other people's money (the taxpayer) to the tune of a quarter of a million bucks as he headed off to a personal fundraiser. Pence flew from Las Vegas to Indianapolis to Los Angeles to get his own personal bucks. NFL owners have meanwhile been slurping on the public teat for a long time while only wanting more of it. So perhaps the owners may suddenly find themselves having to read the Constitution for a change.

We see how the government is trying to define patriotism as what it likes and what it wants from Americans. Trump's political correctness is the old cliche' of wrapping himself in the flag while exploiting the flag, the anthem and the citizenry.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the gov can not force the fans to watch, right? Even if they find some far left activist judge to rule in their favor it won't fix the problem.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
You do realize that the gov can not force the fans to watch, right? Even if they find some far left activist judge to rule in their favor it won't fix the problem.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The rightwing led by Trump are campaigning to degrade the NFL financially and as a sport. The contention of the rightwing is that the NFL is fading in popularity if not dying which is more of a numbnuts wish than a fact. The rightwing has pronounced to it be so as it denounces wealthy black guys who are successful. The right considers 'em to be a bit too uppity even in the 21st century.

If the NFL were dying or fading the right could take a quiet comfort in it while standing back to withhold food and water. The right is not doing any such thing however. What we do see are the owners sucking on the public teat to save themselves bucks they instead stuff into their own pockets.

The owners have blackmailed or held hostage cities and states where the clubs enjoy their franchise while not realizing they've become part of the problem we call government -- the big and oppressive government. So now the owners are looking at some conserable blowback to their role in trying to militarize the civilian society to please the military, the mass of veterans who are rightwingers and the civilian right that adores Trump.

The owners are the guyz who laughed as they posited the classic backslapper, i.e., what could go wrong.

The owners are themselves pocketbook patriots who demand their price from governments at all levels to include the Pentagon. Once the owners found out patriotism pays as it is defined by the military they ran up the flag and struck up the anthem. They are discovering however this is not a formula for success. It's not as simple or as straightforward as they'd thought.
 
Tangmo said:
NFL is indeed subsidized.

We can probably expect the Player's Association to file in U.S. District Court over violations of collective action provisions in the contracts and of freedom of speech given the NFL has been funded and otherwise subsidized by governments in places throughout the country....


The money exchanged between governments and pro football teams could mean that discipline enforced by the team could be "fairly attributed to a government entity, meaning the employer could not discipline someone for taking a political position," Harvard Law School professor Mark Tushnet said.

A judge could find it "relevant that some of the stadiums have been constructed with public support and may get continuing public subsidies," Tushnet said. "It may be relevant that some of these practices were instituted in cooperation with the national military."

"If the government pays for the patriotic display and the firing is a result of the behavior being deemed insufficiently patriotic, it is conceivable that that a claim could then be articulated," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment attorney in New York.

Public money is inextricably linked with the NFL. The vast majority of NFL stadiums were constructed or renovated with public money, including the Cowboys' home in Arlington, Texas. The Taxpayer Protection Alliance rated AT&T Stadium as one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer money, saying the cost to taxpayers has been about $444 million.

Legal experts split on if NFL can punish for anthem protests - Houston Chronicle


Pence himself burned other people's money (the taxpayer) to the tune of a quarter of a million bucks as he headed off to a personal fundraiser. Pence flew from Las Vegas to Indianapolis to Los Angeles to get his own personal bucks. NFL owners have meanwhile been slurping on the public teat for a long time while only wanting more of it. So perhaps the owners may suddenly find themselves having to read the Constitution for a change.

We see how the government is trying to define patriotism as what it likes and what it wants from Americans. Trump's political correctness is the old cliche' of wrapping himself in the flag while exploiting the flag, the anthem and the citizenry.
Click to expand...
Nothing you said or provided refutes what I stated.
Again.
This is not and never has been a freedom of speech issue. You have no such Right at work.​
 
Tangmo said:
The rightwing led by Trump are campaigning to degrade the NFL financially and as a sport. The contention of the rightwing is that the NFL is fading in popularity if not dying which is more of a numbnuts wish than a fact. The rightwing has pronounced to it be so as it denounces wealthy black guys who are successful. The right considers 'em to be a bit too uppity even in the 21st century.

If the NFL were dying or fading the right could take a quiet comfort in it while standing back to withhold food and water. The right is not doing any such thing however. What we do see are the owners sucking on the public teat to save themselves bucks they instead stuff into their own pockets.

The owners have blackmailed or held hostage cities and states where the clubs enjoy their franchise while not realizing they've become part of the problem we call government -- the big and oppressive government. So now the owners are looking at some conserable blowback to their role in trying to militarize the civilian society to please the military, the mass of veterans who are rightwingers and the civilian right that adores Trump.

The owners are the guyz who laughed as they posited the classic backslapper, i.e., what could go wrong.

The owners are themselves pocketbook patriots who demand their price from governments at all levels to include the Pentagon. Once the owners found out patriotism pays as it is defined by the military they ran up the flag and struck up the anthem. They are discovering however this is not a formula for success. It's not as simple or as straightforward as they'd thought.
Click to expand...
Emotional blackmail is not going to save the day, but nice try.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Excon said:
Nothing you said or provided refutes what I stated.
Again.
This is not and never has been a freedom of speech issue. You have no such Right at work.​
Click to expand...


That wuz true in the 19th century and it does remain true today, in the present. So what is the good old news for the owners remains good for the owners in their petrified forest.

However, there seems to be a storm coming which may hit the dinasaurs straight on in their habitat.

We are talking the collective action provision in the Player's Association contract and the fact the owners sucking of the public teat for decades leaves 'em open to a challenge based on the First Amendment.

What is also occurring currently is the unprecedented campaign to militarize the civilian society that the military works for and under. The civilian society that pays the armed forces to defend us, not to try to impose themselves on us.
 
Tangmo said:
Expressions that are trite and glib reveal the measure of desperation over there.
Click to expand...
You mean like falsely claiming racism to avoid honest discussion

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
You mean like falsely claiming racism to avoid honest discussion

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The tweetlike question is loaded which makes clear the nature of it as less than above board.

Anytime you'd like to get serious and beyond the tweetlike posts, it would be a welcome change.

In other words a rock tossed into the pool can always be found at its bottom.
 
Tangmo said:
The tweetlike question is loaded which makes clear the nature of it as less than above board.

Anytime you'd like to get serious and beyond the tweetlike posts, it would be a welcome change.

In other words a rock tossed into the pool can always be found at its bottom.
Click to expand...
Got it, I explained to you that i will not submit to emotional blackmail and your response is that's because anyone who demands they stand is a racist. All your doing is attempting to double down on emotional blackmail. Shame on you.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Got it, I explained to you that i will not submit to emotional blackmail and your response is that's because anyone who demands they stand is a racist. All your doing is attempting to double down on emotional blackmail. Shame on you.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


It is beginning to be a succession of loaded accusatory statements. The loaded statements do vary, but only as either an interrogatory or a declaratory. I've been down this road before btw so I'm looking at the Ignore function. My finger hovers above left click.

A serious post would support your strident assertions that are currently out of the blue. So kindly show me where I said what you erroneously said I said thx.

(You exceeded a tweet but only by some so I might commend you and encourage you further, even if I might spare myself all of your future posts.)
 
Tangmo said:
It is beginning to be a succession of loaded accusatory statements. The loaded statements do vary, but only as either an interrogatory or a declaratory. I've been down this road before btw so I'm looking at the Ignore function. My finger hovers above left click.

A serious post would support your strident assertions that are currently out of the blue. So kindly show me where I said what you erroneously said I said thx.

(You exceeded a tweet but only by some so I might commend you and encourage you further, even if I might spare myself all of your future posts.)
Click to expand...


Tell me what you meant when you wrote this

Tangmo said:
The rightwing led by Trump are campaigning to degrade the NFL financially and as a sport. The contention of the rightwing is that the NFL is fading in popularity if not dying which is more of a numbnuts wish than a fact. The rightwing has pronounced to it be so as it denounces wealthy black guys who are successful. The right considers 'em to be a bit too uppity even in the 21st century.

If the NFL were dying or fading the right could take a quiet comfort in it while standing back to withhold food and water. The right is not doing any such thing however. What we do see are the owners sucking on the public teat to save themselves bucks they instead stuff into their own pockets.

The owners have blackmailed or held hostage cities and states where the clubs enjoy their franchise while not realizing they've become part of the problem we call government -- the big and oppressive government. So now the owners are looking at some conserable blowback to their role in trying to militarize the civilian society to please the military, the mass of veterans who are rightwingers and the civilian right that adores Trump.

The owners are the guyz who laughed as they posited the classic backslapper, i.e., what could go wrong.

The owners are themselves pocketbook patriots who demand their price from governments at all levels to include the Pentagon. Once the owners found out patriotism pays as it is defined by the military they ran up the flag and struck up the anthem. They are discovering however this is not a formula for success. It's not as simple or as straightforward as they'd thought.
Click to expand...


Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Tell me what you meant when you wrote this




Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


No poster is required or obligated to reply to a command, an order, a directive or an imperative issued by a peer poster. No poster needs to reply period.

You anyway have not supported or documented your "rascism" claim which is what I asked you to do.

As I'd said, I've been down this road before which now puts you on my paltry Ignore list effective from this post forward thx. Good luck and may God be with you.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
No poster is required or obligated to reply to a command, an order, a directive issued by a peer poster. No poster needs to reply period.

You anyway have not supported or documented your "rascism" claim which is what I asked you to do.

As I'd said, I've been down this road before which now puts you on my paltry Ignore list effective from this post forward thx. Good luck and may God be with you.
Click to expand...
Run, Forest, Run

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom