Quote: @MaroonBells said:
My bottom line is that our country has a long history of peaceful, non-violent protest. It's part of what makes this country great.
I grew up in the cold war era hearing all about human rights violations in the Soviet Union, China, South Africa, Argentina, Suriname, etc. People in these places were imprisoned or made to "disappear" for merely disagreeing with their country's leadership.
And so whenever I see people in America peacefully and non-violently protesting, it makes me proud to be an American.
I couldn't agree with you more, BUT with one caveat. You don't get to protest your issues while you are taking a paycheck from me unless it's my issue. Because as long as you are representing my company, corporation, business, and taking my money for services rendered, you will perform the duties as I see fit within the law and agreement made. Any breach of that, and I have a right to remove you from representing my business, which also includes your future being more free and you lacking of that paycheck.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Vanguard83 said:
Enough horseshit.
It's not about YOUR beliefs. Stand and honor the flag & your country.
Politics and sports DONT have to go hand in hand.
Honor those who put themselves in the line of fire for your opportunity to make millions.
anyone kneels on my team and your ass is cut. IDGAS.
Bunch of pouting children...
...and I consider myself a liberal.
You seem to be a reasonable person on most issues, Vanguard, so I want to ask you a question. What if the country were doing something that deeply offended YOU? Let's take it to the extreme. What if we were throwing all school teachers in jail, or Jews, or intellectuals, or liberals, whatever. Would you protest then? Is there a point at which you would say "enough" and do something about it? Maybe your form of protest would be different than kneeling during an anthem. Maybe it would even be more extreme.
But if there is a point at which you would protest, then isn't this just a matter of this particular issue not rising to the level you personally would deem protestable?
I've protested before, (but not often) most recently with my daughter and her friends following the school shootings in Florida. (She is a junior in HS) The "March for our Lives" protest. As a teacher I'm tired of seeing children killing other children, but I went to support not only a "cease-fire" in public schools but to support my daughter and her friends who wanted their voice heard. (and still believe they can make a difference....I do not share their optimism) I distrust BOTH political parties, and tend to agree with Howard Zinn that we have become a plutocracy.
HOWEVER..
I do support the second Amendment. I cannot pick and choose which elements of the Constitution I support. At the center of it is, I support MORE liberties not less. Criminals WILL find a way to get guns, explosives, trucks, planes, whatever to impress havoc on others. PEOPLE are the problem, NOT the weapons. Generally, we have lost our tolerance and patience.
I refer to it as "The Falcon cannot hear the Falconer"
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
If it came to pass that people are being put into jails for political dissonance, liberals, teachers, etc. then our Republic has failed, and yes, that is "enough" for me, quite simply I would leave the United States.
Quote: @Vikesrock said:
@ dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ suncoastvike said:
BTW, for those of you not familiar, collusion is NOT against the law. Although that is the media buzzword now a days for Trump, if collusion is found, they still have not broken any law. It does get hairy with federal election laws based on money and all that other stuff. But the simple fact; working with someone towards a common goal is not against the law...Thank God.
Well ..... If you and I collude to murder your neighbor, that is a criminal conspiracy. Definitely against the law.
If Ford, GM, and Chrysler collude to sell no cars at less than $25,000, that is an antitrust violation - also against the law.
If you and I collude to have lunch, that is not illegal.
If the Vikings and the Packers collude not to sign Colin Kaepernick, that is a violation of the CBA and is enforceable with damages (including punitives) and maybe even injunctive relief - not sure about that last one.
So, whether or not collusion is illegal depends on what you are colluding to do.
All of that is correct. Collusion in and of itself is not a violation of the law, but in many cases the result of collusion does then create a violation of law. For example, if you and I collude to murder your neighbor, and I say screw it and tell the police on you, I have not broken any law.
I have not fully studied the CBA, but that is also a civil lawsuit and not violation of a law. I say all of this because folks don't seem to understand the ramifications of it all and get all bent out of shape like their rights are being violated. Colin Kapernicks first amendment rights have not been violated. He can attempt to sue based on the CBA for damages, but he still has his ability to protest and kneel during national anthems and will not be jailed for such actions.
On the other hand, a thought, if the CBA can be used against the owners, could it not be used against the players as well? If Colin Kapernick colluded with others to continue to protest, or it seemed that he did, and it can be shown to have caused financial damage to the NFL teams, owners and media, could a counter suit be presented on that behalf as well? I guess it all depends on the actual CBA language involved.
Agreements themselves can be illegal. Using our example, we collude to murder someone but unbeknownst to you, I am with the FBI and am recording the conversation. Nobody is going to die. As soon as you take one affirmative act to show you are serious, you probably have committed a crime. What if you call me the next day and say you changed your mind? Does that undo your crime? Probably not.
The CBA is a contract. Courts (and arbitrators) will enforce contracts so long as they are not in violation of some public policy. If there is collusion to keep Kaepernick from working, someone could be compelled to pay millions of dollars. Breach of contract is not a criminal violation and nobody will go to prison. But if some owner is forced to pay Kaepernick $30M, it won't make him feel any better to know that he merely breached a contract and did not violate any statutory laws.
Also, I do not think there is anything in the CBA prohibiting players from colluding to protest. If there were, that would have been the first thing cited by the NFL and the owners.
Agreed, and it is all based on context. How many times have you said "I am going to kill that so and so", but were never serious. You do have to make an affirmative act. Again the collusion is not the crime, the act is the actual crime and the collusion is evidence that further plans were made.
And I agree with you 100%. If the owner is forced to pay Kapernick a bunch of money, he isn't going to feel better. My point on all of this was to the original subject title of the first amendment violation. Btw, while we were talking about this, apparently the NFL made some new rules about it already:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/sport...eling.html
And lookie there, they will penalize the teams and not the players...I don't think this will work out well for them at all.
"Again the collusion is not the crime, the act is the actual crime and the collusion is evidence that further plans were made."
This is wrong.
Not sure how else to put this: an agreement to commit murder (plus an act in furtherance) is a crime. You do not have to commit the murder; and the act in furtherance need not be a criminal act. The criminal law that has been violated is not murder; it is not the committing of the overt act in furtherance; it is the conspiracy to murder.
Quote: @Vanguard83 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Vanguard83 said:
Enough horseshit.
It's not about YOUR beliefs. Stand and honor the flag & your country.
Politics and sports DONT have to go hand in hand.
Honor those who put themselves in the line of fire for your opportunity to make millions.
anyone kneels on my team and your ass is cut. IDGAS.
Bunch of pouting children...
...and I consider myself a liberal.
You seem to be a reasonable person on most issues, Vanguard, so I want to ask you a question. What if the country were doing something that deeply offended YOU? Let's take it to the extreme. What if we were throwing all school teachers in jail, or Jews, or intellectuals, or liberals, whatever. Would you protest then? Is there a point at which you would say "enough" and do something about it? Maybe your form of protest would be different than kneeling during an anthem. Maybe it would even be more extreme.
But if there is a point at which you would protest, then isn't this just a matter of this particular issue not rising to the level you personally would deem protestable?
I've protested before, (but not often) most recently with my daughter and her friends following the school shootings in Florida. (She is a junior in HS) The "March for our Lives" protest. As a teacher I'm tired of seeing children killing other children, but I went to support not only a "cease-fire" in public schools but to support my daughter and her friends who wanted their voice heard. (and still believe they can make a difference....I do not share their optimism) I distrust BOTH political parties, and tend to agree with Howard Zinn that we have become a plutocracy.
HOWEVER..
I do support the second Amendment. I cannot pick and choose which elements of the Constitution I support. At the center of it is, I support MORE liberties not less. Criminals WILL find a way to get guns, explosives, trucks, planes, whatever to impress havoc on others. PEOPLE are the problem, NOT the weapons. Generally, we have lost our tolerance and patience.
I refer to it as "The Falcon cannot hear the Falconer"
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
If it came to pass that people are being put into jails for political dissonance, liberals, teachers, etc. then our Republic has failed, and yes, that is "enough" for me, quite simply I would leave the United States.
Guns are just really really good at killing , killing many and killing fast. I support the 2nd amendment as well, but believe additional reasonable restrictions would save lives. There are other measures that could be done as well without major limitations on rights.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ dadevike said:
@ Vikesrock said:
@ suncoastvike said:
BTW, for those of you not familiar, collusion is NOT against the law. Although that is the media buzzword now a days for Trump, if collusion is found, they still have not broken any law. It does get hairy with federal election laws based on money and all that other stuff. But the simple fact; working with someone towards a common goal is not against the law...Thank God.
Well ..... If you and I collude to murder your neighbor, that is a criminal conspiracy. Definitely against the law.
If Ford, GM, and Chrysler collude to sell no cars at less than $25,000, that is an antitrust violation - also against the law.
If you and I collude to have lunch, that is not illegal.
If the Vikings and the Packers collude not to sign Colin Kaepernick, that is a violation of the CBA and is enforceable with damages (including punitives) and maybe even injunctive relief - not sure about that last one.
So, whether or not collusion is illegal depends on what you are colluding to do.
All of that is correct. Collusion in and of itself is not a violation of the law, but in many cases the result of collusion does then create a violation of law. For example, if you and I collude to murder your neighbor, and I say screw it and tell the police on you, I have not broken any law.
I have not fully studied the CBA, but that is also a civil lawsuit and not violation of a law. I say all of this because folks don't seem to understand the ramifications of it all and get all bent out of shape like their rights are being violated. Colin Kapernicks first amendment rights have not been violated. He can attempt to sue based on the CBA for damages, but he still has his ability to protest and kneel during national anthems and will not be jailed for such actions.
On the other hand, a thought, if the CBA can be used against the owners, could it not be used against the players as well? If Colin Kapernick colluded with others to continue to protest, or it seemed that he did, and it can be shown to have caused financial damage to the NFL teams, owners and media, could a counter suit be presented on that behalf as well? I guess it all depends on the actual CBA language involved.
Agreements themselves can be illegal. Using our example, we collude to murder someone but unbeknownst to you, I am with the FBI and am recording the conversation. Nobody is going to die. As soon as you take one affirmative act to show you are serious, you probably have committed a crime. What if you call me the next day and say you changed your mind? Does that undo your crime? Probably not.
The CBA is a contract. Courts (and arbitrators) will enforce contracts so long as they are not in violation of some public policy. If there is collusion to keep Kaepernick from working, someone could be compelled to pay millions of dollars. Breach of contract is not a criminal violation and nobody will go to prison. But if some owner is forced to pay Kaepernick $30M, it won't make him feel any better to know that he merely breached a contract and did not violate any statutory laws.
Also, I do not think there is anything in the CBA prohibiting players from colluding to protest. If there were, that would have been the first thing cited by the NFL and the owners.
Agreed, and it is all based on context. How many times have you said "I am going to kill that so and so", but were never serious. You do have to make an affirmative act. Again the collusion is not the crime, the act is the actual crime and the collusion is evidence that further plans were made.
And I agree with you 100%. If the owner is forced to pay Kapernick a bunch of money, he isn't going to feel better. My point on all of this was to the original subject title of the first amendment violation. Btw, while we were talking about this, apparently the NFL made some new rules about it already:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/sport...eling.html
And lookie there, they will penalize the teams and not the players...I don't think this will work out well for them at all.
"Again the collusion is not the crime, the act is the actual crime and the collusion is evidence that further plans were made."
This is wrong.
Not sure how else to put this: an agreement to commit murder (plus an act in furtherance) is a crime. You do not have to commit the murder; and the act in furtherance need not be a criminal act. The criminal law that has been violated is not murder; it is not the committing of the overt act in furtherance; it is the conspiracy to murder.
No, it is not wrong. You are using collusion as a short hand to criminality. Conspiracy to commit is a crime as such your example is conspiracy to commit.. There is a very specific reason why collusion all by itself is not a crime. It's because of election laws. If collusion was a crime, every single piece of opposition research would be illegal and we would elect no one in this country. Although this does get murky in anti-trust areas.
Quote: @Vanguard83 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Vanguard83 said:
Enough horseshit.
It's not about YOUR beliefs. Stand and honor the flag & your country.
Politics and sports DONT have to go hand in hand.
Honor those who put themselves in the line of fire for your opportunity to make millions.
anyone kneels on my team and your ass is cut. IDGAS.
Bunch of pouting children...
...and I consider myself a liberal.
You seem to be a reasonable person on most issues, Vanguard, so I want to ask you a question. What if the country were doing something that deeply offended YOU? Let's take it to the extreme. What if we were throwing all school teachers in jail, or Jews, or intellectuals, or liberals, whatever. Would you protest then? Is there a point at which you would say "enough" and do something about it? Maybe your form of protest would be different than kneeling during an anthem. Maybe it would even be more extreme.
But if there is a point at which you would protest, then isn't this just a matter of this particular issue not rising to the level you personally would deem protestable?
I've protested before, (but not often) most recently with my daughter and her friends following the school shootings in Florida. (She is a junior in HS) The "March for our Lives" protest. As a teacher I'm tired of seeing children killing other children, but I went to support not only a "cease-fire" in public schools but to support my daughter and her friends who wanted their voice heard. (and still believe they can make a difference....I do not share their optimism) I distrust BOTH political parties, and tend to agree with Howard Zinn that we have become a plutocracy.
HOWEVER..
I do support the second Amendment. I cannot pick and choose which elements of the Constitution I support. At the center of it is, I support MORE liberties not less. Criminals WILL find a way to get guns, explosives, trucks, planes, whatever to impress havoc on others. PEOPLE are the problem, NOT the weapons. Generally, we have lost our tolerance and patience.
I refer to it as "The Falcon cannot hear the Falconer"
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
If it came to pass that people are being put into jails for political dissonance, liberals, teachers, etc. then our Republic has failed, and yes, that is "enough" for me, quite simply I would leave the United States.
Fair enough, but I think America is worth fighting for. In the words of MLK, "right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant."
As an owner of three guns, I too support the 2nd amendment. Even if I didn't own guns I would support it. But I don't know anyone who would support coming to get my hunting rifles. Just don't think the forefathers could've foreseen the kind of high-powered weapons we have today, whose only purpose is to kill as many humans as quickly as possible. They should be restricted to our trained and "well-regulated" military.
Yes, psychos will find other weapons, but do we need to make it so goddamned easy for them? Keep in mind that in the interest of public safety, there are certain high-powered fireworks we can’t purchase, certain high-powered cars we can’t drive on the street, certain high-powered cold medicines we can’t buy too much of. I can’t bring a water bottle on my flight, but a terrorist on the no-fly list can buy a fucking AR-15. This is an OBSCENITY perpetrated on the American people (and its children) by the NRA, a lobby for gun manufacturers who spreads idiotic tripe under the guise of Constitutional defense. And it's gone too far.
Quote: @Vikesrock said:
No, it is not wrong. You are using collusion as a short hand to criminality. Conspiracy to commit is a crime as such your example is conspiracy to commit.. There is a very specific reason why collusion all by itself is not a crime. It's because of election laws. If collusion was a crime, every single piece of opposition research would be illegal and we would elect no one in this country. Although this does get murky in anti-trust areas.
It is wrong. You are thinking of collusion in the case of Trump and are taking the position that agreements cannot be crimes; only the acts can be crimes. This is incorrect. (But don't worry - I am not talking about Trump. He's safe.)
Agreements to commit a crime (plus an overt act) is enough. You do not need to commit the crime that you agreed to commit. People get imprisoned all the time for entering into agreements to kill their spouse or significant other. They get convicted even though no harm comes to the spouse. Because the agreement IS the crime. And it is not just in the anti-trust area.
Again, this does not mean that collusion is enough to convict Trump. I am not talking about Trump.
And I am not using collusion as a shorthand for criminality. In fact, as I said earlier, you and I can collude to have lunch. That is not criminal even though we colluded. But if we colluded to kill someone and took an overt act (like going to the drawer to get your gun) then we have committed a crime -- but the crime is not murder because we have not killed anyone .... yet.
Stop fucking doing the damn thing before the game, and cut the tv timesouts in half.
First of all, this is not a 1st Amendment issue. That has long been upheld by the courts and is essentially not debatable at this point.
To clarify another thing, this has absolutely nothing to do with the military. I’m not sure how that got conflated but it is purely about our Police.
In my opinion, the reason everyone of these players needed to be stopped has little to do with rights and everything to do with propogating an extremely destructive lie. Everything claimed about the police out there shooting people based in bias is complete and total bullshit. Anyone claiming such a thing to you is willfully ignorant. Every single respected study, even ones conducted by researches outright claiming they expected to find proof of the odious narrative, have shown it to be demonstrably false. This means proven false by objective evidence. Just like science proved with absolute certainty that the officer’s version of events in the Michael Brown case was incontrivertably true.
Sadly, much of society does not care if it’s true or not. They think it’s somehow leading to progress even if it is make believe. In my opinion it’s exactly the opposite of progressive. Besides being regressive, it’s extremely destructive. Most importantly, it leads to mass cognitive dissonance which isn’t healthy for the individual or the group.
Thought for everyone’s personal consideration: Do you or people you know remain slient on race related topics that you know to be false claims or do you react like you would with anyone and challenge them to defend their claim?
If you remain silent, how is that different than the average racist out there? To me there is little difference. Both perpetuate the continued existence of a scientificaly proven falsehood at the expense of society. Both make decisions based on skin pigmentation - something that is just silly.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
It absolutely is a first amendment right and they will get sued to hell and back for it if they do it. I can’t support such an ifiotic move by the owners calling even more attention to this.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard the NFL do yet.
bullshit. if that was the case terell owens could have sued for his unsportsmanlike penalty when he pulled out his sharpie. there is no differece what so ever between the two. there has been unsportsman like penalties and there will continue to be. the nfl is a buisness and they have every right to protect the value of their product. if the players dont like it they have every right not to partake in the nfl.
|
