Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Sunday June 03, @10:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the naughty-naughty dept.

The Center for American Progress reports

Last month, the NFL announced a new policy for its players during the national anthem: Players are permitted to stay in the locker room during the anthem, but if they go out onto the field during it, they must stand. If any of the players takes a knee, the team will be fined.

Soon afterwards, a Wall Street Journal report confirmed what most have long suspected: That President Donald Trump's public outrage about NFL players protesting police brutality and systemic racism during the national anthem at football games heavily influenced NFL owners to change the rule, and discouraged them from signing players who would protest.

It's all terrible news for those in favor of free speech and peaceful protest, and for those against white nationalism and police brutality.

However, Mark Geragos, the lawyer representing Kaepernick in his collusion lawsuit against the NFL, [...] believes [...] that Trump's direct influence over NFL owners on this issue violates federal law. U.S. Code 227 [which] says that members of Congress or the executive branch cannot "wrongfully influence a private entity's employment decision ... solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation".

A few revelations from the last couple of weeks strongly support Geragos' case here, and it's important to remember that Geragos knows much more about the case than we do--he has taken the depositions of more than a dozen NFL owners, while the public only knows about the depositions that have leaked.

[...] Of course, influencing the private hiring decisions of a company isn't the only part of U.S. Code [227] that needs to be proved; it would also have to be shown that Trump did it for partisan political purposes.

That sounds trickier to prove, but in this case, that's not necessarily true. First of all, Trump's comments were made at a political rally supporting an Alabama Republican candidate for US Senate--an expressly partisan environment. And according to the WSJ, Trump told Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in private conversations that the issue was a "winning" one for him.

Previous: NFL: New National Anthem Rule; NY Jets CEO: Break the Rule and I'll Pay the Fine


Original Submission

Related Stories

NFL: New National Anthem Rule; NY Jets CEO: Break the Rule and I'll Pay the Fine 91 comments

Al Jazeera reports

The National Football League (NFL) announced a new policy that will fine teams an undetermined amount if players on the field fail to stand during the national anthem.

[...] The new policy does not require players be present during the anthem, allowing those who wish to protest and not attend the ceremonial act to remain in the locker room.

Players said they were not consulted and threatened to challenge the policy in the courts. A statement by the NFL Players Association said its athletes had shown ample patriotism by way of their social activism and community support initiatives.

[...] New York Jets chairman Christopher Johnson said he supported the measure out of obligation to the membership, but said players can take a knee or perform another type of protest without fear of repercussion from the team. He will pay their fines.

"If somebody [on the Jets] takes a knee, that fine will be borne by the organisation, by me, not the players. I never want to put restrictions on the speech of our players," Johnson said.

New York Magazine notes

The monetary risk to Johnson isn't huge, since no Jets players took a knee last season. [...] Johnson is currently acting as owner of the team while his brother, Woody Johnson, serves as Trump's ambassador to Britain.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 03, @10:54PM (24 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @10:54PM (#688123) Homepage Journal

    Respecting our great Flag isn't partisan. Respecting our great Country isn't partisan. But, anyone can sue over anything. That's part of what makes America great!!!!

    --
    #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Bilb Ono on Sunday June 03, @11:08PM (21 children)

      by Bilb Ono (2680) on Sunday June 03, @11:08PM (#688124)

      Our flag is okay at best.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:16PM (15 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:16PM (#688128)

        Let's switch out the stars for christian crosses, and switch out the stripes for mushroom clouds.
        We can keep the same colors if we go with a blue sky, white crosses in the sky, red soil, and white mushroom clouds.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:03AM (14 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:03AM (#688152)

          Back in the day, there were some (hippie) versions of Old Glory [google.com] which had the stars arranged as a peace sign. [google.com]

          I was just reading
          JFK, the Pentagon, and Two Roads Diverged [commondreams.org]

          Vietnam veteran [retired infantry colonel] and foreign policy historian [and college professor] Andrew Bacevich asserts that the goal of the United States since the fall of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War has been to remake the world in its own image: to "align everybody from A to Z--Afghanistan to Zimbabwe--with American values and the American way of life". With this goal, the U.S. embroiled itself for decades now in "a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars". Millions have been killed; countries, broken; trillions in U.S. war debt, accumulated; and terrorism abroad and at home, fueled.

          Two generations ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. identified USA.gov as the most heinous aggressor on the planet. [google.com]
          For most people on the planet, THAT is -still- what the USAian flag [google.com] represents.

          ...and that doesn't even touch on the generations of people of color who served in USA.mil and upon returning to civilian life were treated like shit by racists, with their gov't looking the other way.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 04, @12:40AM (12 children)

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @12:40AM (#688165) Homepage Journal

            Martin Luther King, fabulous guy, I proclaimed a holiday to honor him. And in a way, it honors all the blacks who worked so hard -- sometimes for free -- to make our Country great. And maybe Martin doesn't agree, but I think the Flag represents patriotism.

            Let me tell you, I had the BIGGEST POLE in Palm Beach. At Mar-A-Lago, my Southern White House. And the city told me it was too big. They wanted to fine me -- big fine because of "laws." They said poles can be 42 feet, max. And mine was 80 feet. Very hard for them to accept that.

            But I sued them, I said freedom of speech. I said selective enforcement. And I said a smaller flag and pole on Mar-A-Lago’s property would be lost given its massive size, look silly instead of make a statement, and most importantly would fail to appropriately express the magnitude of Donald J. Trump’s and the Club’s members’ patriotism.

            Well, we did the arbitration on that one. And I made the pole not so big, I cut 10 feet off it. But, I put it on a mound. And the pole and the mound, when you put them together, they're tremendous. Very tall. And I donated $100,000 to our terrific veterans. Which, believe me, I would have done anyway. Great deal!!!

            --
            #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
            • (Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @01:33AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @01:33AM (#688177)

              Every time Donald J. Trump Sr tries to show how big he is, he just reveals, yet again, how he doesn't measure up.

              A generation ago, there was a SoCal guy who got in dutch with the city gov't because of his ridiculously sized flag and flagpole. [google.com]
              The damned thing made so much noise that the neighbors couldn't stand it.

              ...and his thing wasn't done out of patriotism either.
              It too was done for commercial reasons.
              (He was in the big-flag-selling business.) [google.com]
              It sounds like you didn't even get one of his top-of-the-line products.

              Heh. Old joke:
              The USAians wanted a propaganda coup so they ordered a bunch of product from a Soviet condom manufacturer.
              The dimensions specified were enormous.
              The Soviets didn't bat an eye.
              They filled the order, stamped the boxes "Medium", and shipped them.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04, @06:55PM (1 child)

                by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 04, @06:55PM (#688509)

                Why do you keep linking to Google search pages rather than just a single website? You can't be afraid somebody will bitch about your choice of sources?

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:24PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:24PM (#688551)

                  1) It shows that multiple sources have covered the story.
                  2) Some Soylentils get the point just by hovering over the link.
                  3) I'm lazy.

                  -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 04, @04:08AM (6 children)

              "... unjust laws."
              -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

              --
              Remember: Soggy Jobs is your one stop shop for fake jobs that don't exist.
              • (Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Monday June 04, @05:05AM (5 children)

                by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04, @05:05AM (#688232) Journal

                Actually, MLKjr., in his erudition, was quoting St. Augustine [wikipedia.org], who said:

                Lex iniusta non est lex.

                For those of you who are Germanic of otherwise white and illiterate, the Latin translates as "An unjust law is not a law".

                Now what will really cook the ammosexuals noodles is that the divine Augustine was referring to laws that allow self-defense. If you defend yourself, you value your life over your attacker, and that is not very Christian of you. Suck on that, Islamophobes.

                --
                #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
                • (Score: 2) by VanessaE on Monday June 04, @07:48AM (4 children)

                  "If you defend yourself, you value your life over your attacker, and that is not very Christian of you."

                  Except that you forget something: Christianity is derived from Judaism, and one of the most important rules there is "Therefore, choose life." (as it is usually summarized). You're expected to do your best to preserve both your own life and those around you, including an attacker if it's safe and practical to do so, but to defend yourself with lethal force is acceptable if there's no safe way to apply non-lethal force and no chance of getting the attacker to back down; shoot/stab the attacker in the arm or leg to stop them, if you can. Put one in their chest if you have to. That also means to contact the proper authorities, call 9-1-1/9-9-9/whatever, that sort of thing, if you can do so without jeopardizing lives (it also extends to life-saving actions such as calling an ambulance or performing CPR).

                  I'm pretty sure that Christians have something similar in their dogma. It's just that they make up a huge portion of the gun nuts, who just seem to love to make every potential altercation an excuse to wield lethal force (rifle slung across the back while grocery shopping, anyone?), when they could just leave their firearms at home and *gasp* rely on a Taser and their phone. Of course even if they do so, so many are just plain trigger-happy regardless of the weapon.

                  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday June 04, @08:38AM (3 children)

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04, @08:38AM (#688288) Journal

                    Except that you forget something: Christianity is derived from Judaism, and one of the most important rules there is "Therefore, choose life." (as it is usually summarized).

                    No, I never forget anything. Or at least rarely. 2400 years of repetition makes that difficult. So the proper principle is "choose innocent life", for the Christians, anyway. But that is the point, if you prefer your own life over that of another, you are guilty of the sin of self-love, avarice, so your life is no longer innocent. Tough standard, eh? Only Buddhists and Muslims go as far!

                    I'm pretty sure that Christians have something similar in their dogma. It's just that they make up a huge portion of the gun nuts, who just seem to love to make every potential altercation an excuse to wield lethal force (rifle slung across the back while grocery shopping, anyone?),

                    So, you are not Christian? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it does cause you to mistake all these ammosexuals who worship Dios de Muerta, the god of Death, for Christians. They not only do they love their selves too much, but they wish for opportunities to do back-flips and shoot people without even meaning to. So let's get this straight, a law that allows lethal force in self-defense in no law at all. This is where Christians like Augustine depart from Cicero and his "inter arma leges silent" [wikipedia.org]. Milo set that rumble up, on purpose.

                    --
                    #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @10:46AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @10:46AM (#688308)

                      ...without even meaning to

                      That was a pretty funny story [soylentnews.org]--if you'll allow me a moment of twisted mirth.

                      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 05, @02:06AM

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday June 05, @02:06AM (#688686) Journal

                        Sorry, it is Santa Muertos, a mere saint and not a god, although it may be a covert Aztec god.

                        --
                        #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VanessaE on Tuesday June 05, @10:08AM

                      So, you are not Christian?

                      Nope, Jewish. That said, it's no mistake. There's a huge overlap between Christians (and general fundies), and gun nuts - at least in my experience. I don't care to try to explain it, as it baffles me completely.

                      As for sins? Bleh. I don't ascribe to the concept; fuck-ups can be righted, usually.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by captain normal on Monday June 04, @05:37AM (1 child)

              by captain normal (2205) on Monday June 04, @05:37AM (#688241)

              You seem to have your facts mixed up (not unusual for you). "...on November 2, 1983, Reagan signed a bill, proposed by Representative Katie Hall of Indiana, to create a federal holiday honoring King.[8][9] The bill had passed the House of Representatives by a count of 338 to 90, a veto-proof margin.[4] The holiday was observed for the first time on January 20, 1986."
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Day [wikipedia.org]

              • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 04, @07:24AM

                by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @07:24AM (#688264) Homepage Journal

                You didn't hear about my proclamation from the Fake News Media. But it's on my White House website, it's in my journal on SoylentNews, I wrote about it on my Twitter, I put the video on Twitter -- you can see me signing the proclamation. With many people in the room. I said, let's have a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, a man that I've studied and watched and admired for my entire life.

                You read all about Martin Luther King when somebody said I took a statue out of my office. And it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favorite things -- and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson -- Thomas Jefferson, not Jefferson Davis, he's great too -- and we have Dr. Martin Luther King. His incredible example is unique in American history. Absolutely unique, very special guy. I gave him a shout-out when I opened the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum. And I proclaimed a National Historic Park for him. I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall -- that's another museum, two really extraordinary museums -- where people can learn about Reverend King. So many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Sgt. Medgar Wiley Evers and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact. I have a great relationship with the blacks, believe me. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks. whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-signing-proclamation-honor-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-day [whitehouse.gov] pic.twitter.com/samlJsz1Nt [t.co]

                --
                #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:52PM (#688466)

            "that doesn't even touch on the generations of people of color who served in USA.mil and"...

            Fuck you, you anti-white propagandist. White is a color. When you use "people of color" you are trying to unite all people except whites, against whites. You are the genocidal racist. We reserve the right to exist and will defend ourselves against subversives like you.

      • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 03, @11:44PM (2 children)

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @11:44PM (#688139) Homepage Journal

        Your first tweet! I don't agree -- obviously I don't agree -- but, welcome to SoylentNews!!

        --
        #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
        • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday June 04, @06:26AM (1 child)

          by captain normal (2205) on Monday June 04, @06:26AM (#688249)

          Let's see now: your UID is 6641, his is 2680. And you are calling him a newbe!

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 04, @06:37AM

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @06:37AM (#688252) Homepage Journal

            I didn't say "newbe," whatever that is. I said welcome, I see this is your first tweet. Because the website is saying that. And because I didn't see another. Show me another, you won't be able to unless the cyber is bad. And maybe it is!!!

            --
            #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @04:40AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @04:40AM (#688220)

        I always preferred the Confederate one, personally. But you say that and everyone assumes you mean all the political fights it has been used in to bash one side or another.

        No, I mean that set of colored cloth in that particular pattern looks nicer, to me, than that other set of colored cloth in that other particular pattern.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @11:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @11:57PM (#688649)

          Ah, another History aliterate.

          The Confederacy didn't have "one" flag.
          There was The Star and Bars: 3 fat horizontal stripes (red/white/red) with a blue field in the corner containing white stars in a circle, much like USA's flag.

          There was also The Southern Cross (red flag with blue diagonal stripes with stars on the crossed blue things).
          It is sometimes called The Confederate Battle Flag.
          It was square, BTW.
          (With e.g. all the smoke from the black powder of the time, the rebels needed to make their thing look very different from what the Union guys had.)

          The one that you seem to be referencing is The Naval Jack which was a rectangular flag that looked like The Southern Cross.
          It was intended to be used on ships, not battlefields.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:14PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:14PM (#688126)

      Fuck you and fuck the flag. [wikipedia.org]

      The ambiguity with regard to flag-burning statutes was eliminated in Texas v. Johnson (1989).[117] In that case, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag at a demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Charged with violating a Texas law prohibiting the vandalizing of venerated objects, Johnson was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction in a 5–4 vote. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote in the decision that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."[118] Congress then passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990).[119][120] A Flag Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been proposed repeatedly in Congress since 1989, and in 2006 failed to pass the Senate by a single vote.[121]

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 03, @11:41PM

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @11:41PM (#688138) Homepage Journal

        Dumb tweet. Saying "fuck the Flag" or burning the flag isn't partisan either. It's not an R thing and it's not a D thing. And maybe it's a nobody thing. Really, who does that?

        Scalia, great guy (RIP!!!), went the wrong way on that one. He said if he was the King he wouldn't allow it. But he decided to allow it! Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag -- if they do, there must be consequences -- perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

        --
        #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:11PM (43 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:11PM (#688125)

    Now, instead of nerdy stuff, we get hateful anti-American socialist nonsense. It's not even reasonable!

    First, "wrongfully" is nonsense. Americans -- all of them, not just Trump -- have a duty to oppose unpatriotic shit. He's in the right.

    Second... what do you mean by "partisan political affiliation" here? Are you claiming that black people are owned by the democratic party? Are you claiming that a platform position of the democratic party is to disrespect the country or to stop policing our country?

    Third, it sure seems that the NFL could have just imposed fines on the players. There is no need to fire anybody. Heck, the best answer might be to hire Kaepernick with an agreement that he stand perfectly at attention with his helmet held at his side, with perfect posture and everything. The agreement could include fines that are a whole season's worth of pay for serious failure, and a game's worth for minor slouching.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:18PM (20 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:18PM (#688130)

      > First, "wrongfully" is nonsense. Americans -- all of them, not just Trump -- have a duty to oppose unpatriotic shit. He's in the right.

      Bullshit. They have a duty to uphold the Constitution. Try reading it once, it's quite a fine document.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday June 03, @11:55PM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @11:55PM (#688142) Journal

        Couldn't find anything in there about not being allowed to have and express an opinion.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:43AM (#688242)

          Whoosh...

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday June 04, @05:38PM (17 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @05:38PM (#688456) Homepage Journal

        > First, "wrongfully" is nonsense. Americans -- all of them, not just Trump -- have a duty to oppose unpatriotic shit. He's in the right.

        Bullshit. They have a duty to uphold the Constitution. Try reading it once, it's quite a fine document.

        Thank you!

        Yes. Do read the constitution. Note that amendments to the constitution are incorporated into that document:
        The First Amendment:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        Mr. Bierce, in his lexicographic tour de force [wikipedia.org] noted:

        “Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first.”

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:45PM (16 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:45PM (#688459)

          He didn't make a law he gave his opinion.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 04, @06:02PM (15 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @06:02PM (#688469) Homepage Journal

            He didn't make a law he gave his opinion.

            What are you blathering on about?

            A public official made statements that run counter to the highest law of the land, in the name of "patriotism."

            Calling him out on that is not just our right, it's the duty of all freedom-loving people.

            Don't shut up, as you're free to blather on to your heart's content. Just as I'm free to call out your idiocy.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:39PM (10 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:39PM (#688489)

              Right just like your opinion ( classless and crude as it was) was not a law he did not make a law. He gave his opinion on the disrespect of our country. Q

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @07:06PM (9 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @07:06PM (#688514)

                Except his opinion is an attempt by a government official to limit the 1st amendment rights of a citizen specifically by having their employment terminated, and the comments were made at a political rally. It wasn't just an opinion, it was a direct call for action.

                You trump apologists are going to need some serious therapy once this house of cards falls down.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:47PM (8 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:47PM (#688561)

                  Nobody had their employment terminated. Kapernick made the dumb choice to exercise free agency. He exercised himself out of a nice job.

                  On March 3, 2017, Kaepernick officially opted out of his contract with the 49ers, an option as part of his restructured contract, therefore making him a free agent at the start of the 2017 league year.

                  And then his idiot girlfriend screwed his chances of being picked up.

                  In late July and early August 2017, the Baltimore Ravens were reportedly working to extend an offer to Kaepernick. According to former African American Ravens player Ray Lewis, the offer was terminated after Kaepernick's girlfriend Nessa Diab—who works as a radio host— posted an incendiary tweet that compared Ravens team owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave owner and player Ray Lewis to a slave.

                  Football is a business. When your employees begin to affect the bottom line and offend your customers, you find new employees. For some reason, the lefty loonies seem to think that employees are unrestricted in their first amendment rights while on the clock when it suits them. The same ones seem to praise shit like James Damore getting fired by Google. Funny that they are too damn stupid to see the irony...

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @09:11PM (7 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @09:11PM (#688572)

                    Ah yes, the stupid conservative who thinks that privatizing everything is great and that Constitutional rights are somehow limited by employment. They are free to fire him if they can legally do so, but that doesn't make Trump's involvement any less illegal.

                    Suck it up buttercup, your spine needs some hardening. Also, might want to do some squats to try and firm up your butthole after the decades of rape you've been so "happy" to receive.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @09:44PM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @09:44PM (#688598)

                      If he's a buttercup you're sour cream for sure. You can't just impeach someone because you don't like him and what he does... We are a nation of laws. I yearn for the day when the REEEEEEing stops.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @11:47PM (2 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @11:47PM (#688645)

                        Sure I jumped the shark with "but that doesn't make Trump's involvement any less illegal" but you imagining that I'm calling for impeachment just because I don't like him makes you the moron going REEEEEEEE. Irony is a bitch, guess that's why you get along with it so well.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:34AM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:34AM (#688681)

                          Nevermind, you're a salty salty pretzel

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @04:13PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @04:13PM (#688907)

                            Ah yes, the superior intellectual who dispassionately stands back and points fingers while offering nothing of substance. Communication is often hard around sensitive issues, misunderstandings are very common, but it is sure a hell of a lot better than ignoring everything and hoping humanity suddenly morphs into perfectly reasonable people. Best of luck with your useless approach to criticism.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @12:02AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @12:02AM (#688652)

                      Ah yes, the stupid conservative who thinks that privatizing everything is great and that Constitutional rights are somehow limited by employment.

                      Ah yes. The simple minded entitled millennial. If you think your first amendment rights aren't limited by employment, try going to work and calling your boss a fucking fascist asshole. I'll be you'll still be claiming he's violating your rights as he throws you out the door.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @02:16PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @02:16PM (#688864)

                        Not what I said, keep practicing that reading comprehension.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @06:27PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @06:27PM (#688982)

                          Read what I quoted from you. Yes it is exactly what you said.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:01AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:01AM (#688668)

              A public official made statements that run counter to the highest law of the land, in the name of "patriotism."

              Calling him out on that is not just our right, it's the duty of all freedom-loving people.

              Let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump should have no right to free speech because you disagree with him saying NFL players should have no right to free speech.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 05, @04:53AM (2 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 05, @04:53AM (#688724) Homepage Journal

                A public official made statements that run counter to the highest law of the land, in the name of "patriotism."

                        Calling him out on that is not just our right, it's the duty of all freedom-loving people.

                Let me see if I get this straight. You think Trump should have no right to free speech because you disagree with him saying NFL players should have no right to free speech.

                Hmmm...Where exactly did I say "Trump should have no right to free speech"?

                I said he should be called out for saying others shouldn't have free speech rights. Are you not fluent in English, or are you trying to twist my words to support your point of view, or are you just not so bright? Perhaps all three?

                Given that L'Orange took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States," it's interesting that he makes statements that run counter to that document.

                As such, those who love freedom and wish to preserve it, should take Trump to task by using the freedom of speech that jackass spat on.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:40PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:40PM (#688839)

                  Given that L'Orange took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States," it's interesting that he makes statements that run counter to that document.

                  I'm not the Constitutional scholar like you are. Can you show me where the President exercising his right to free speech with his personal opinions is "counter to that document" excluding the fact you just don't like what he has to say?

                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @06:54PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @06:54PM (#688998)

                  I can always count on a left leaning nutcase to respond to a honest conversation by trying to shut down the other party. While you espouse and defend the freedom of speech of those that conservatives find offensive, you mod me troll when I ask you to back up your Trump assertions with proof. You behave exactly the same way as the object of your irrational hatred and are too dense to see it.

                  As such, those who love freedom and wish to preserve it, should take Trump to task by using the freedom of speech that jackass spat on.

                  You seem to love freedom of speech only when it agrees with you. Your original statement:

                  A public official made statements that run counter to the highest law of the land, in the name of "patriotism."

                  is objectively wrong. It violated no principle of the Constitution. You just don't approve of the content. It is no more "counter to the highest law of the land" than me claiming NotSanguine should be deported to Guantanamo Bay. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but emotions are not facts.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Captival on Sunday June 03, @11:30PM (1 child)

      by Captival (6866) on Sunday June 03, @11:30PM (#688135)

      Nobody fired Kaepernick. Ever. He was offered a contract and turned it down. He had a shit year and was offered less than what he wanted. The same thing happens to countless players. Notice how he wasn't a Justice Warrior his entire career until he knew the end was near.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:08AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:08AM (#688155)

        Link?

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:56PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:56PM (#688144)

      A few Q's,

      What's patriotic about being forced to stand far a national anthem?

      What's patriotic about being forced to stand for a national anthem at arbitrary sporting events?

      When did kneeling become less respectful than standing?, I man really when, ever, in history?

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Monday June 04, @03:56AM (3 children)

        by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @03:56AM (#688212) Journal

        What's patriotic about being forced to stand far a national anthem?

        Standing for something denotes your reverence to that topic. Hence, the stand to attention in the military, religious practise schools etc.

        What's patriotic about being forced to stand for a national anthem at arbitrary sporting events?

        Clearly the sports association behind that sport wants their sport to be synonymous with being a patriotic sport. One that is played by patriots. Or watched by patriots. Or something patriotic really. Also it might be worth reading the history of how it was played [washingtonpost.com] at sporting events.

        When did kneeling become less respectful than standing?, I man really when, ever, in history?

        When it standing for the anthem became more of a commercial affair, in wanting the "'Murica!" associated with a commercial product much more than actually respecting what it stood for. It's great to be totally 100% patriotic and do all the sporting anthem stuff as long as it is generating money and making everyone feel good. When someone starts to use that meaning for another reason, better get out of the way of their lawyers. Even more so when it is actually a divisive topic which people feel strongly about. Unhappy patrons don't buy tickets and/or booze. And they stop watching. That's when kneeling became less respectful. Right then in history is when it did.

        • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday June 04, @04:24AM (1 child)

          by MostCynical (2589) on Monday June 04, @04:24AM (#688219)

          so, you're saying it unpatriotic to do soemthing that hurts (or might hurt) profits?

          --
          tau = 300. Greek circles must have been weird.
          • (Score: 2) by tfried on Monday June 04, @09:29AM

            by tfried (5534) on Monday June 04, @09:29AM (#688298)

            I believe what GP was trying to say is that it's silly to even think about this in terms of "patriotic" or "unpatriotic". Whichever side you take, you're falling for a marketing trick.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday June 04, @09:43AM

          by c0lo (156) on Monday June 04, @09:43AM (#688299)

          reverence... the stand to attention in the military

          It would be hilarious if it wouldn't be crass ignorance.
          You stand for attention because the superior rank ordered you to... a thing that happens in the army quite a lot.

          reverence ... Religious practise

          In enough cases, reverence in religious practice is shown by kneeling or even bowing while kneeled.
          Taking the oath while kneeled during coronation [wikipedia.org] doesn't seem like lack of reverence to me.

          schools

          That's not reverence, that's brain bleaching.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:53AM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:53AM (#688169)

      Worshiping symbols does not make you a patriot; it makes you a jingoist. People like Snowden are the real patriots, since they issues facing their country and try to improve it.

      Kneeling during an anthem harms no one and does nothing. The only reason it's talked about so often is that the US is filled with fake patriot snowflakes.

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @04:49AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @04:49AM (#688222)

        Kneeling during an anthem harms no one and does nothing.

        No one is physically harmed, true. Unless they have bad knees.

        What it does do, though, when performed on TV before a sporting events by the athletes, is piss off the paying customers. It doesn't matter if you or the team owners or the athletes think the paying customers are stupid for getting pissed off -- they're still pissed off. Pissed off customers stop being customers, and the team takes in less money.

        This is about employees acting in a manner that directly results in less income to the employer. The employer is well within it's rights to order the employees to stop doing that while on the job. If the athletes wanted to do that outside the stadium after the game, the employer would have no right to restrict them from that behavior.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:22AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:22AM (#688236)

          What it does do, though, when performed on TV before a sporting events by the athletes, is piss off the paying customers.

          But that's the issue. Why does it offend them? If these were blue-haired college kids getting offended by something ridiculous, many people who are on the right would be mocking them for being oversensitive snowflakes. Yet, here, we see that the people offended by people kneeling during the anthem aren't getting similarly mocked by most of those same people. There is some serious hypocrisy at work here.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:58PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:58PM (#688567)

            But that's the issue. Why does it offend them?

            The same reason that your "blue-haired college kids" get offended by MAGA hats. Because they see it as disrespectful to their core beliefs. It doesn't really matter why anyway. The facts that matter is that a large part of the core customer base of the product they sell finds it offensive. Team owners have run the numbers and believe that their business will be financially better catering to the ones who find it offensive instead of the ones who do not.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @12:00AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @12:00AM (#688651)

              And if the blue haired college kids started demanding that every MAGA hat wearing freak be fired or put in a prison camp, well then you'd have my support. For now the idiots getting all offended by people taking a knee are in the wrong. They should protest by holding up signs and boycotting the NFL. You being OK with this "its a business" excuse just makes me think that every protesting hippy should be allowed to destroy industrial equipment and trespass to prevent environmental pollution. You sure you wanna go down the anarchy path?

              It is one thing for an employer to pass whatever rules they'd like, and obviously the NFL is trying to placate their moronic base, but it is something else entirely for the POTUS or congress critter to call for firing someone because they are offended. If you can't wrap your brain around this simple idea then you should emigrate to the Middle East and join those nutjobs.

              • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:16AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, @01:16AM (#688673)

                Awwwww.... Did someone get triggered?

                And if the blue haired college kids started demanding that every MAGA hat wearing freak be fired or put in a prison camp, well then you'd have my support.

                Nobody demanded anyone be sent to prison camp. You're just fucking nuts. And if you think your "blue haired college kids" aren't demanding people be fired for less than that, you haven't been paying attention. Apparently Evergreen State College is demanding a prof be fired for showing up to work on a day they declared to be free of whiteness. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/09/18/evergreen-professor-receives-500000-settlement [insidehighered.com]

                You being OK with this "its a business" excuse just makes me think that every protesting hippy should be allowed to destroy industrial equipment and trespass to prevent environmental pollution.

                You are completely crazy. How can any sane human being equate asking an employee to stand for a three minute portion of his workday with promoting the extrajudicial destruction of privately owned property by people as equally nutty as you? This is why sane people do not take you retarded "progressives" seriously. Until you learn to take your meds on a regular basis, you are going to have to be happy howling at the moon and hiding in your safe spaces.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 04, @06:46AM

          by sjames (2882) on Monday June 04, @06:46AM (#688255) Journal

          So what you're saying is that when big customer hits on the executive assistant, she'd damned well better put out? If she says no, he may not want to order as much.

          Is standing for the Anthem in their job description?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:06PM (#688472)

        i agree with the whole fake patriot stuff. the whole country is full of idiotic slaves that fund the seditious scum at the irs and all the enemy agencies that shouldn't even exist. they pay property tax willingly like dumb fucks who can never own their own home/property. they let the government send volunteer soldiers to die in countries that didn't attack or threaten to attack us, etc. they cheer as monstrous pigs steal, kidnap and kill for unconstitutional(illegal) laws. they stupidly attack the small percent of people who actually bother to educate themselves and uphold their duty to the true purpose of this country. the list of seditious shit these people support is staggering in it's volume.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:36PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:36PM (#688487)

        Yeah, I think I saw a thing about the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism:
        Nationalism is having everyone salute your flag.
        Patriotism is having a nation who's flag everyone wants to salute.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04, @06:45PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 04, @06:45PM (#688499)

          Patriotism is overlooking the flaws in your country in order to claim that it's the best country.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:20PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:20PM (#688544)

            Patriotism Nationalism* is overlooking the flaws in your country in order to claim that it's the best country.

            Let me just fix that for you

            *Nationalism practitioners often refer to Nationalism as Patriotism. Not surprisingly, being well educated is not a requirement, and is often an impediment, towards practicing Nationalism.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:24PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @08:24PM (#688552)

          To add another quote and paraphrase Seneca,

          Nationalism is regarded by the common people as true,
          By the wise as false
          And by those who wish to rule as useful.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 04, @01:03AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @01:03AM (#688172) Homepage Journal

      Think Progress is VERY BIASED. But, I think there really is a lawsuit. A dumb lawsuit, in my opinion. And basically that's what this story is. Someone filed a dumb lawsuit that they'll probably lose. It's news, right? And you can read about it on Breitbart News (that one is much better without Sloppy Steve). I think maybe you're mixing up what the lawsuit says with what Think Progress believes, what Original Owner believes, what the Editor & SoylentNews believe. Which is easy to do because it's a very biased story, they want you to take the side of the plaintiffs.

      They're claiming in the suit that we're being partisan. But they'll have to prove it. Trust me, they won't prove it. And unfortunately a lot of folks don't know what that means. Ask your lawyers, people!!! breitbart.com/sports/2018/05/31/kaepernick-lawyer-mark-geragos-nfl-owners-colluded-because-of-trump [breitbart.com]

      --
      #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04, @06:42PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 04, @06:42PM (#688493)

      Now, instead of nerdy stuff, we get hateful anti-American socialist nonsense. It's not even reasonable!

      Well we know what political camp you're hard into. I would argue that exercising one's freedom of speech is in itself patriotic, as we're making use of the rights our patriotic forefathers fought and died for. Patriotism!

      Americans -- all of them, not just Trump -- have a duty to oppose unpatriotic shit. He's in the right.

      Whenever somebody gives patriotism as their reason for doing anything, I hear "I don't have any actual logical reason to support this." About as decisive a reason as, "because God says so."

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:14PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:14PM (#688127)

    Crap like this story makes me glad I run adblocking software.

    I would not want you people to make money publishing such "articles".

    -

    I'm white and I was beat up by the police, and it didn't need to happen. No one protested for me, and life goes on. The police are a bunch of redneck idiots, and they always will be, because their job is a shit job and no one with better options would do it.

    Life isn't fair, and it never will be fair. Fucking DEAL WITH IT, you pathetic bunch of pussies.

    As for Kaepernick, he should stick to business when he is being very well paid to play a game, and protest on HIS time, not his employers' time.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:28PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:28PM (#688134)

      > This is NOT news for nerds.

      And this is not Slashdot. Our tagline is "SoylentNews is people". This is people. Checks out just fine.

      > Crap like this story makes me glad I run adblocking software.
      > I would not want you people to make money publishing such "articles".

      Joke's on you. There are no ads here anyway!

      > Life isn't fair, and it never will be fair. Fucking DEAL WITH IT, you pathetic bunch of pussies.

      Hmm, let's do a historical reenactment.

      Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
      AC: "Life isn't fair, and it never will be fair. Fucking DEAL WITH IT, you pathetic bunch of pussies."

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:33PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:33PM (#688137)

        " Our tagline is "SoylentNews is people"."

        -

        The tagline should be : "Lame crap articles and when we can't come up with those, we just copy Slashdot".

        Soylent News is CRAP.

        Bye now, chumps.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday June 03, @11:59PM

          by c0lo (156) on Sunday June 03, @11:59PM (#688147)

          Bye now, chumps.

          Ugh! Glad he's gone.
          Where were we? Ah, bashing each other ad-free, that's what we the people do. Righto...

      • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 04, @06:42AM

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @06:42AM (#688254) Homepage Journal

        You think you don't see ads. But many people say that the stories are ads.

        --
        #StopTheBias [twitter.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:49PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:49PM (#688141)

      Sweet! Identity politics is the gift that keeps on giving! Black Lives Matter is succeeding bigly at convincing the majority of voters, whites, that police brutality is something that doesn't affect them!

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:23AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:23AM (#688237)

        White lives only don't matter because of the poor choices white trash make, like starting the Traditionalist Incestuous Worker Party of White Nationalists and MIL fuckers like Matt Heimbork, or Heimbach, or Heimlich, a la manuevor. This is why we cannot have white supremacy, white folk be too fucking stupid, and over-sexed, and not in a good way.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @02:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @02:56PM (#688385)

          All opposition to identity politics is white supremacy. White supremacy is something that only those who were assigned the male gender at birth would ever aspire to. There are no womyn-born-womyn and certainly no feminist white supremacists. No siree! And it just so happens that white supremacists, now that we've ejected all womyn-born-womyn from the movement, happen to all fall into various categories of failed men. Just because we love sucking the gender dichotomy's cock and gargling the balls of heteronormativity. Additionally, using insults developed by the patriarchy to induct young men into systems of power known for repressing human rights when women want to have them could not possibly backfire.

          tl;dr you're not going to win hearts and minds by offering a slightly different brand of reactionary, right-wing nonsense.

    • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03, @11:59PM (#688145)

      I'm white and I was beat up by the police, and it didn't need to happen.

      No, you are not; yes, you were, and No, it really really needed to happen, 'cause you were acting all privileged, thinking you were white.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 04, @05:55PM

      by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04, @05:55PM (#688468) Homepage Journal

      Life isn't fair, and it never will be fair. Fucking DEAL WITH IT, you pathetic bunch of pussies.

      Nope life isn't fair. And a good thing too. As JMS [wikipedia.org] pointed out:

      You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.

      This is an excellent example of promoting the idea of changing your perspective once in a while (something I recommend highly), as well as making the point that when bad shit happens to folks (like mass incarceration, unequal application of the death penalty, routine brutalization of those with darker skin, etc., etc., etc. -- you know, the stuff that Kapernick was protesting by "taking a knee"), it often isn't their fault.

      If you disagree with that, consider the case of Ruthie Ann Blumenstein [abc7ny.com], her four year-old daughter and the one year-old son of her friend. If life were fair, that would mean that Ms. Blumenstein *and* those children were obviously evil pieces of shit that deserved to be injured/killed.

      In the same vein, the brutal and discriminatory treatment of those with "excess" melanin, as well as those with a dearth of cash, isn't because they deserve such treatment. It's because those who *do* deserve to be beaten, killed, discriminated against and disenfranchised are the ones who perpetrate such treatment.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:09PM (#688473)

      that's not a troll you goddamn idiot. that's "disagree" or "flamebait" at worst. i'm not the op either.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday June 03, @11:46PM (11 children)

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03, @11:46PM (#688140) Journal

    That President Donald Trump's public outrage about NFL players protesting police brutality and systemic racism during the national anthem at football games heavily influenced NFL owners

    Trump expressed an opinion. Publicly. Perfectly within his rights.
    The President has rights as well as everybody else.

    Every team was hearing from their fans and season ticket holders, and the threat was real. Hire this guy and we stop coming.

    What if we we actually lived in OriginalOwner's world, where anyone you expressed your opinion about, or voted against could sue you when it was suddenly found out that a large percentage of people happened to agree with you.

    I've asked Gewig_ if he actually believes the shit he submits. Never an answer. It must be horrible to wake up every day seething with such hatred.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday June 04, @12:00AM (3 children)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04, @12:00AM (#688148) Journal

      No one should ever hire frojack, just my publicly expressed personal opinion.

      --
      #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:56AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @05:56AM (#688245)

        I assume if he was actually employed, he wouldn't be posting ill-conceived red-neck ramblings every 1/2 hour.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday June 04, @06:11AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04, @06:11AM (#688246) Journal

          I assume that more of Ethanol_fueled. frojack seems like the kind of a conservative to keep it in during working hours, and to only spew to us here on SoylentNews! But he may slip up, at which point I recommend that no one renew his contract, because if it is good enough for Trump, it still could be wrong and unconstitutional.

          --
          #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @10:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @10:55PM (#688620)

        And people are free to laugh at your silly opinion or take you seriosuly. I doubt the latter though.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 04, @12:30AM (3 children)

      that's why we declared our independence on July 4, 1776. The original loose-knit confederation didn't work out so the founding fathers wrote our constitution "to form a more perfect union".

      That would have been within Trump's rights before he was elected, but upon winning the election Trump forfeited a great many rights. The same rights as forfeited by a few million others when their applications to work for the government were accepted.

      --
      Remember: Soggy Jobs is your one stop shop for fake jobs that don't exist.
      • (Score: 1) by DeVilla on Monday June 04, @02:21AM (2 children)

        by DeVilla (5354) on Monday June 04, @02:21AM (#688185)

        On more reason for good people not to participate in government.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @03:01AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @03:01AM (#688199)

          On more reason for good people not to participate in government.

          They don't. Can't win an election anyway, and certainly nobody is going to appoint them if they don't *play ball*.

          You people get what you vote for

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @04:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @04:57AM (#688227)

            When I was young, I seriously thought about the possibility of running for President when I was old enough. After all, back then everyone said "anyone can be President!"

            I decided not to, because I realized the Secret Service would have to kill me themselves, in a desperate attempt to save their own lives, due to the neverending assassination attempts. You see, I would almost assuredly make everybody want to kill me. I'm kind of a dick.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:43AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:43AM (#688167)

      When you point at someone, there are 3 fingers pointing back at you.

      I'll stick with my sources of information.
      ...meanwhile, it won't surprise me if you stick with your sources of "information".
      58 percent of claims made during Fox News broadcasts were mostly false or worse [google.com]

      N.B. For those who are bad at Arithmetic, that means they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

      .
      Trump expressed an opinion. Publicly. Perfectly within his rights

      ...unless, as the trained, experienced lawyer notes, it was done for a political purpose, using his office as leverage.

      Trump violates the Emoluments clause(s) of the Constitution hourly, using his public office to enrich himself.
      It should surprise no one that he has done this act which pushes out his posturing to his tiny[1]) voter base.

      [1] Like other things of his, we are told. [google.com]

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @01:46AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @01:46AM (#688179)

        It looks like a gun, and they have the right to defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary, from you.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:58PM (#688511)

          Great job illustrating how crazy you are and why we should have stricter gun control laws that prevent the mentally unstable (you) from owning one.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 03, @11:59PM (14 children)

    it would also have to be shown that Trump did it for partisan political purposes.

    Bzzzt! Wrong, dipshit. Read the fucking words again.

    wrongfully influence a private entity's employment decision ... solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation

    "Political affiliation" != "for partisan political purposes", dumbass. He has to prove that Kaepernick was targeted specifically because of Kaepernick's political affiliation. So he's going to have to prove it wasn't because of Kaepernick's actions, beliefs, or speech. He's also going to have to prove it wasn't simply because it was politically expedient for Trump. The above is going to be all but impossible given that a great many people have assumed Kaepernick's party but I doubt anyone has actually asked him for it to even be on record and given that Trump would ask for his own mother to be fired if it gained him political points.

    Nothing but stupid, grandstanding bullshit here.

    --
    "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday June 04, @12:02AM (6 children)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04, @12:02AM (#688150) Journal

      I just love it when TMB stands up for freedom of speech, even speech he doesn't agree with, from black folk! It smells, well, it smells like cognitive dissonance1

      --
      #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 04, @12:13AM (5 children)

        I'm standing up for not reinterpreting the law to suit yourself at the moment, ari.

        --
        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:18AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:18AM (#688159)

          I'm standing up..

          Oh, do go to sleep, TMB, the fishing must have been overtaxing for you this weekend.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 04, @12:20AM (1 child)

            Yeah, I know it's inconvenient when someone blows your narrative all to shit. I had a good nap out at the lake earlier though since the catfish weren't doing much biting, so I'm good.

            --
            "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:41AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @12:41AM (#688166)

              ...so I'm good.

              You never were before, I find it hard to believe it now.

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Monday June 04, @04:54AM (1 child)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday June 04, @04:54AM (#688225) Journal

          Hmm, can you do that with the Fourteenth Amendment, or is that beyond the limit of your digital (as in fingers) calculation? You are wrong, oh Micturating Buzzouard! Have the decency to admit it.

          --
          #Free{nick}_NOW!!!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:42PM (#688494)

            Occasionally I am forced to agree with TMB. DAMN YOU ARI!!!

            Section 18 part 1 chapter 11 code 227
            (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
            (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
            (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
            shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

            So unless Trump offered to make/withhold/influence official policy then that section has no bearing on this topic.

            and as for the 14th amendment:

            Section 1.

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Section 1 was all that seemed even possibly applicable to this topic, but I'm not seeing how it actually does apply. Care to elaborate on why TMB is wrong? I would so love it if Trump broke the law with his continued shtty behavior!!! If Obama had made recommendations to fire people over a variety of topics such as abortion, gender identity, etc. you conservatives / libertarians would be howling for blood.

            So, even if you are correct TMB you're still a piece of hypocritical crap along with the other douchebags around here that suddenly change their tune when a liberal or brown person is the subject of persecution.

    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 04, @12:32AM (2 children)

      That's what "the preponderance of evidence" means and is why OJ lost the wrongful death lawsuit despite having been found not guilty in his criminal trial.

      --
      Remember: Soggy Jobs is your one stop shop for fake jobs that don't exist.
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 04, @12:46AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) on Monday June 04, @12:46AM (#688168)

      He has to prove that Kaepernick was targeted specifically because of Kaepernick's political affiliation.

      How does this "political affiliation" work? Does it need to be, I don't know, be shown that the "politically affiliated person" holds some "formal certificate of affiliation"?
      Or is it enough that the "politically affiliated" to display signs of adherence to a set of values that are defined as political at the moment?

      Which of the two?

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 04, @12:54AM (1 child)

        Either would still fail, so I don't think it particularly matters. All their "gotcha" evidence is of the variety showing that Trump cares because it can be used to advance Trump's career. That hurts Kaepernick's case rather than helping it.

        --
        "Buzzy, you're probably the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Well, there is aristarchus, so make it 2nd dumbest."
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 04, @03:01AM

          by c0lo (156) on Monday June 04, @03:01AM (#688198)

          Apologies, I should have it specified explicitly: the context of the more general, outside the particular case of "Kaepernick vs Trump".

          It's rather in "does it matter if a political expression is affiliated with a party or not in the context of freedom of expression (with all the freedom's consequences, such as not being afraid of any kind of consequences from the govt or any member of it)?"

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04, @06:49PM (#688503)

      While I posted a reply to Aristarchus about you apparently being right about section 227 and possibly the 14th amendment, Trump's statements still qualify as a violation of Freedom of Speech. Taking a knee during the anthem has no effect upon the team or the game except for a bunch of snowflake morons being offended. I find it infinitely amusing and surprisingly NOT shocking that you would reverse your principles over this topic.

      Disingenuous shitbird as usual!

(1) 2