Kaepernick will "stand" next year
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
Isn't he back on the market...funny how his caused cleared itself up. What a hero.
Isn't he back on the market...funny how his caused cleared itself up. What a hero.
But didn't he milk that hero card...LOL. Champion of justice!!!!!!
Yep. Ain't a GM out there that will touch that with a ten foot pole. Not even the guy in Cleveland.
Last season it was, "Hey, look at me!! I'm not standing!!" Next season will be, "Hey, look at me. I AM standing!!" If he decides to stand during the nation anthem he should just come out and do it. It's not a media event.
I guess he won't trigger anymore snowflakes. The hyperventilating over his protest was a sight to behold.
What's up with that studio setup? He's sitting at a dais 2 & 1/2 feet higher than where his guests sit. What an awkward setup for interviewing people.
I cannot stand Colin Cowherd, he's such a phony blowhard. I put on the video and did other stuff, it's a good listen.
except he did it for 3 weeks without anyone noticing . . .
He's dead to me....you don't vote, you have no right to bitch, let alone kneel for our anthem, no excuse in the world will ever change my mind on that. I could use all kind if explicit wording when referring to this "individual", but I will refrain. I could also write a book about why I have no respect whatsoever for this "individual" Let's just say "he's trash". Look, I actually just gave him more publicity that he doesn't deserve. Damn-it me 
I've got a bigger problem with people who leave their hats on and keep talking during the anthem- THAT is disrespect.
And I'd bet a dollar to a donut that a fair number of those feigning outrage over him making a statement ARE those people.
Agree with him or not- we protect freedom of expression.
And I'd bet a dollar to a donut that a fair number of those feigning outrage over him making a statement ARE those people.
Agree with him or not- we protect freedom of expression.
I honestly wouldn't care if he would have exercised his right to vote. But that's just the military in me... oh well I guess
+100. Just go to a game and watch all the people still trying to get to their seats,
using their cell phones and ordering food.
To quote a phrase..."it was much ado about nothing"
or better yet...
"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Still a free country, right? Theoretically?
UPDATE: LAWMAKERS IN TEN STATES HAVE PROPOSED LEGISLATION CRIMINALIZING PEACEFUL PROTEST
Last week, I reported that such efforts were afoot in five states: In Minnesota, Washington state, Michigan, and Iowa, Republican lawmakers have proposed an array of anti-protesting laws that center on stiffening penalties for demonstrators who block traffic; in North Dakota, conservatives are even pushing a bill that would allow motorists to run over and kill protesters so long as the collision was accidental.
In Virginia, state lawmakers are considering an anti-protesting law that is apparently broader in scope. A bill pending in the state’s Senate would dramatically increase penalties for people who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Currently, this law is classified as a class 3 misdemeanor, which according to Virginia statute carries only a maximum $500 fine. Yet the bill proposed by Republican state Sen. Richard H. Stuart elevates such infraction to a class 1 misdemeanor, which means protesters would expect up to a year of incarceration and a fine of up to $2,500.
In Missouri, a bill is pending that would make it a crime for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” Sponsored by Republican lawmaker Don Phillips, the bill would classify such crimes as a Class A misdemeanor, meaning that anyone caught concealing their identity at such a protest could face up to a year behind bars.
Nonetheless, the legislation has troubled Democratic lawmakers. McClellan says she is alarmed by the move because of the law’s applicability to an enormous range of situations.
“As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the civil rights movement and all the gains that were the direct result of civil disobedience, I strongly oppose this effort to further criminalize dissent,” McClellan said. “The way the bill is worded is very broad: Take the student sit-in leaders — you could put those protesters in jail for up to a year.”
[1] The First Amendment states that “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.”
Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty.
In March, 2012, President Obama signed into law H.R. 347, titled: “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”. Despite its official title, the law has become known as the “Trespass Bill”. The law potentially makes peaceful protest anywhere in the United States a federal felony with a possible penalty of ten years in prison.
The law restricts citizen activity in areas controlled by the Secret Service. These areas can include National Special Security Events (NSSE). NSSE’s have included Super Bowls, Academy Awards and national political conventions. When individuals receiving Secret Service protection are present such areas are covered by the “Trespass Bill”.
Such events, having large audiences, have historically been used to maximize the message of peaceably assemble Americans. The Right to Assemble has a long history. Current Americans owe it to their predecessors to see that it has a long future.
UPDATE: LAWMAKERS IN TEN STATES HAVE PROPOSED LEGISLATION CRIMINALIZING PEACEFUL PROTEST
Last week, I reported that such efforts were afoot in five states: In Minnesota, Washington state, Michigan, and Iowa, Republican lawmakers have proposed an array of anti-protesting laws that center on stiffening penalties for demonstrators who block traffic; in North Dakota, conservatives are even pushing a bill that would allow motorists to run over and kill protesters so long as the collision was accidental.
In Virginia, state lawmakers are considering an anti-protesting law that is apparently broader in scope. A bill pending in the state’s Senate would dramatically increase penalties for people who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Currently, this law is classified as a class 3 misdemeanor, which according to Virginia statute carries only a maximum $500 fine. Yet the bill proposed by Republican state Sen. Richard H. Stuart elevates such infraction to a class 1 misdemeanor, which means protesters would expect up to a year of incarceration and a fine of up to $2,500.
In Missouri, a bill is pending that would make it a crime for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” Sponsored by Republican lawmaker Don Phillips, the bill would classify such crimes as a Class A misdemeanor, meaning that anyone caught concealing their identity at such a protest could face up to a year behind bars.
Nonetheless, the legislation has troubled Democratic lawmakers. McClellan says she is alarmed by the move because of the law’s applicability to an enormous range of situations.
“As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the civil rights movement and all the gains that were the direct result of civil disobedience, I strongly oppose this effort to further criminalize dissent,” McClellan said. “The way the bill is worded is very broad: Take the student sit-in leaders — you could put those protesters in jail for up to a year.”
[1] The First Amendment states that “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.”
Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty.
In March, 2012, President Obama signed into law H.R. 347, titled: “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”. Despite its official title, the law has become known as the “Trespass Bill”. The law potentially makes peaceful protest anywhere in the United States a federal felony with a possible penalty of ten years in prison.
The law restricts citizen activity in areas controlled by the Secret Service. These areas can include National Special Security Events (NSSE). NSSE’s have included Super Bowls, Academy Awards and national political conventions. When individuals receiving Secret Service protection are present such areas are covered by the “Trespass Bill”.
Such events, having large audiences, have historically been used to maximize the message of peaceably assemble Americans. The Right to Assemble has a long history. Current Americans owe it to their predecessors to see that it has a long future.
Considering, pending, and proposed? Not exactly shattering the constitution there to be honest.
Without writing a ridiculously long response; "peaceably" is the key word. Is it peaceably when your protest is violating someone else's 4th amendment rights by effectively false imprisoning them on a highway.
That's scary, especially H.R. 347 which makes some protests a federal felony. Criminalizing a protest from the beginning should scare us all. Laws currently on the books can be used to charge people who go beyond peaceful protest. If they block a street, charge them with disorderly conduct. If they won't leave after being given fair notice, charge them with trespassing. If they really go off the deep end, charge them with riot or whatever else applies. A blanket statute to prohibit protesting is another step toward the darkness.
So we should only worry after they are signed into law? That's a good strategy.
Or if they block a sidewalk? Can't force people to have to walk on the grass.
What argument...it's a stupid politically driven scare piece. It works on some people...congrats. I'm not blocking a highway anytime soon...think I'm safe.
Well, as long as you will be ok, that's the important thing. Scare piece, huh? So none of these bills detailed in the article will pass?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Exactly. This shouldn't be a thing. Thank our bored media for not being able to find anything worthwhile to do.
I don't really agree. The same thing happened to him as would happen to all of us if we decided to talk politics at our place or work. I have no problem with him having an opinion...or expressing that opinion. It wasn't the right venue and it cost him (and the 49ers), as it should.
I'm a vet too, I just find the people who ignore the anthem to be the more ignorant. It's all just our personal opinions.
Similar threads
