NFL: League NOT seeking mandate for players to stand during anthem

Stopped right there at the bolded. Couldn't read another word.

A 'marginal issue.' Innocent people are being murdered and you call that a marginal issue.

You've validated everything I said about you not having a clue.

Thanks for the discussion.

to Libturds like BlackAsshole, "innocent people" are just those "unfortunates" with a rap sheet as long as my left arm.
 
Rand Paul...like his father before him. He gets himself dizzy when he tries to backtrack from his original comments. You can see he tries to walk a fine line, while still adhering to his belief that private businesses should not be encumbered with pesky Fed guidelines with respect to racism, ADA compliance, etc.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...511538ae90a4_blog.html?utm_term=.cdea9cb56cb6

Very informative article, thanks. I have a problem sometimes with Libertarians anyway, it's just me and I'm not badmouthing them. Their thought process can be confusing.....start off sounding like apples...then like oranges...then like a combination of the 2 without taking a firm stand one way or the other.
I don't however, given what you gave me to read see him as ever having been a ranting bigot. He seemed to be concerned with the minutia for the blurred lines between public/government discrimination issues and private business/club type idiots looking for any reason or justification for discrimination based on skin color.

I'll go with the closing interview.............


BLITZER: Doctor Paul, I want to be precise. Did Woolworth, the department store, have a right at their lunch counters to segregate blacks and whites?

PAUL: I think that there was an overriding problem in the south so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s and it stemmed from things that I said. It had been going on really 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention.

BLITZER: All right so you've clarified, you would have voted yes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

PAUL: Yes.
 
Stopped right there at the bolded. Couldn't read another word.

A 'marginal issue.' Innocent people are being murdered and you call that a marginal issue.

You've validated everything I said about you not having a clue.

Thanks for the discussion.

"stopting right there"changes my meaning. the next line
(marginal meaning important -but far from universal) is the minority.
finishes the meaning.

I really don't think you are interested in discussion at this point as it were anyways
 
Yes, he doesn't believe it's the federal govts role to determine who can fratinize with who. And the reason restaurants and other places wouldn't go back to the days of segregation is because those who originally segregated made more money serving the entire market. And in 2017 people would be rightfully ostracized setting up a restaurant that wouldn't serve everyone as well as the people who would frequent it
Perhaps generally speaking, but not everywhere. Which is the fallacy with Libertarianism. It relies on humans to do that which is contrary to human nature.
 
Very informative article, thanks. I have a problem sometimes with Libertarians anyway, it's just me and I'm not badmouthing them. Their thought process can be confusing.....start off sounding like apples...then like oranges...then like a combination of the 2 without taking a firm stand one way or the other.
I don't however, given what you gave me to read see him as ever having been a ranting bigot. He seemed to be concerned with the minutia for the blurred lines between public/government discrimination issues and private business/club type idiots looking for any reason or justification for discrimination based on skin color.

I'll go with the closing interview.............


BLITZER: Doctor Paul, I want to be precise. Did Woolworth, the department store, have a right at their lunch counters to segregate blacks and whites?

PAUL: I think that there was an overriding problem in the south so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s and it stemmed from things that I said. It had been going on really 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention.

BLITZER: All right so you've clarified, you would have voted yes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

PAUL: Yes.
You are correct in your assessment above. They're typically all over the place, mainly because the general concept seems valid, but when you scratch beneath the surface there are flaws that make it impossible to implement on a grand scale. Which is why there has never been a Libertarian society on a national level.

As I had mentioned, this is Paul back pedaling after already making the comment that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act based on principle.
 
You tell us as you and your democrats support the drug war and militarization of the police
This is why Libertarians can't get more than 3% of the vote in any election. You can't base your entire campaign on the fact that you smoke pot. Of course, Johnson's platform was almost identical to trump's in every other way.
 
When a player is in uniform they are on the clock. They can be thrown out of games before it starts and they can get penalties before it starts.

Link? What other non military jobs require displays of loyalty to the government as part of the job?
 
Colin Kaepernick Files Collusion Grievance Against NFL Owners
Many analysts have commented that Kaepernick’s inability to sign with a team is a clear result of his protests.

Colin Kaepernick has filed a grievance against the National Football League, accusing owners of colluding to keep him from playing, according to reports from 6 ABC and Bleacher Report.

Kaepernick received national attention last year when he knelt at a football game during the national anthem. Then a San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Kaepernick explained that his act was a form of silent protest to raise awareness about police brutality and racial injustices in the United States. Critics of the quarterback have claimed that the act of “taking a knee” is disrespectful to the American flag and the military.*

At the end of last season, the quarterback opted out of his contract with the 49ers and entered free agency, allowing him to play with other teams.*But Kaepernick has yet to sign with a new team. His grievance accuses team owners of violating the league’s collective bargaining agreement.*

Kaepernick’s lawyer,*Mark Geragos, released a statement on Sunday.

“If the NFL ... is to remain a meritocracy, then principled and peaceful protest — which the owners themselves made great theater imitating weeks ago — should not be punished and athletes should not be denied employment based on partisan political provocation by the Executive Branch of our government,” Geragos said.

It’s highly unusual for quarterbacks to spend so long in free agency, especially one with Kaepernick’s record. Kaepernick, 29, managed to throw 16 touchdowns with four interceptions in a matter of 12 games with the 49ers.*

FiveThirtyEight analyzed the length of*free-agency periods for quarterbacks in March and again in August*in the last five years, showing that Kaepernick’s situation was an outlier. Kaepernick was most recently snubbed by the Tennessee Titans, who denied him the chance to work after the team’s current quarterback was injured.

Many sports fans and analysts have remarked that the quarterback’s inability to get a job is a blatant result of the NFL kneeling protests. President Donald Trump further fanned the flames after he implicitly called Kaepernick a “son of a bitch” and called on NFL fans to boycott games when kneeling occurred.*

Trump’s words only pushed more players to kneel in protest.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...464e4b04d1d51829671?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
 
Kapernick can whine all he wants,

his anti-American, anti-military, anti-law enforcement stance has put him right where he belongs.
And besides he sucks at football, doesn't he have some degree or something, maybe he could be an accountant
 
Perhaps generally speaking, but not everywhere. Which is the fallacy with Libertarianism. It relies on humans to do that which is contrary to human nature.

You think it's human nature to want to discriminate, be ostracized and lose money?
 
This is why Libertarians can't get more than 3% of the vote in any election. You can't base your entire campaign on the fact that you smoke pot. Of course, Johnson's platform was almost identical to trump's in every other way.

You really have no idea what Johnson and Libertarians stand for. Wow
 
That would most likely be true for the vast majority of Americans.

I doubt if most even know who he is, let alone what he stands for.

You are not wrong however althea spends plenty of time on a political message board and clearly follows politics so I don't think it unreasonable to expect he would have a far better understanding than most.
 
You are not wrong however althea spends plenty of time on a political message board and clearly follows politics so I don't think it unreasonable to expect he would have a far better understanding than most.

Are you ever going to post what the libertarian party is proposing to do about the war on drugs and militiarization of police.

You keep talking about the dems and what they are not doing but you wont say what libertarians are going to do.

I've looked it up and I see nothing.
 
You are not wrong however althea spends plenty of time on a political message board and clearly follows politics so I don't think it unreasonable to expect he would have a far better understanding than most.

I spend lots of time on this board and have been closely following politics for a lot of years .. yet, I've paid little to almost no attention to Johnson. I don't completely know what he's about.

Respectfully, because he's a libertarian with zero chance of ever becoming president.

I voted 3rd party for several years and was inimically involved with the Green Party. Of course they had no chance of ever becoming president either, but their politics were more closely aligned with my own then the Democratic Party.

The reality that will never go away is that there are only two parties in this country that actually count and present the opportunity of voting for an eventual winner.
 
You are not wrong however althea spends plenty of time on a political message board and clearly follows politics so I don't think it unreasonable to expect he would have a far better understanding than most.
Work hard at a real job . Don't lie , cheat ,
Steal or murder for your living . Believe in God and go to church which few do .

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk
 
This is why Libertarians can't get more than 3% of the vote in any election. You can't base your entire campaign on the fact that you smoke pot. Of course, Johnson's platform was almost identical to trump's in every other way.

Thank you. And this is my point. You can label yourself what ever you want but the bottom line is what you support.

He still advocates for voucher programs. Which means he wants to dismantle public education.

He also requested more money for private prisons that he himself invest in.

Cawacky can't run from supporting institutional racism no matter how hard he tries and who co-signs for him.
 
Are you ever going to post what the libertarian party is proposing to do about the war on drugs and militiarization of police.

You keep talking about the dems and what they are not doing but you wont say what libertarians are going to do.

I've looked it up and I see nothing.
legalize ALL drugs. de-miliatarize police.

The movement is anti-statist; return powers to the states and people (individuals) respectively -
except enumerated power to the feds. (see 10th Amendment)

It's a step towards sane limited government- with Constitutional roles in theory/action
 
legalize ALL drugs. de-miliatarize police.

The movement is anti-statist; return powers to the states and people (individuals) respectively -
except enumerated power to the feds. (see 10th Amendment)

It's a step towards sane limited government- with Constitutional roles in theory/action

LMAO

You aren't helping his case. States rights is nothing more than supporting racist white men who want to continue slavery and oppression in their states.

You aren't even relevant. You are a non factor in any political discussion.

Go find a Hilary thread.
 
Back
Top