squistion

Colin Kaepernick Thread plus related anthem kneeling and NFL stuff

10,259 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, humpback said:

If Kaepernick and a pigeon were both drowning, and you could save only one, which one would you choose?

Has the pigeon committed any crimes?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, humpback said:

If Kaepernick and a pigeon were both drowning, and you could save only one, which one would you choose?

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

WTF???? :lmao: 

Is there a backstory here I missed?

He's a chicken####. Runs up the score, makes awful comments after the games. I don't like him, never have. Great coach though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CGRdrJoe said:

The world needs more people like Kaep :shrug:

So far he has spread out $600k worth of donations to charities and still plans to donate another $400k. 

Which includes the $100k announced today:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2704820-colin-kaepernick-foundation-announces-100000-in-donations-to-charities

Colin Kaepernick Foundation Announces $100,000 in Donations to Charities

The Colin Kaepernick Foundation, the charitable organization started by the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, has announced donations totaling $100,000 to multiple charities. 

Per USA Today's Tom Pelissero, Kaepernick's foundation pledged donations to Life After Hate, Inc., Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle and Silence is Violence.

Last year, in the wake of Kaepernick's protests during the playing of the national anthem before 49ers games, he announced he would be donating $1 million to various charitable organizations and communities.

Per Pelissero, this latest round of donations brings Kaepernick and his foundation 60 percent of the way to that $1 million pledge. 

In an Instagram post last November, Kaepernick noted he would be donating $100,000 per month for 10 months to reach the $1 million goal. His first donations were in October and have continued in the ensuing months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headline: Unemployed backup QB gets unfathomable attention. Video of him sitting somewhere at 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Koya said:

He is, no question. While I didn't agree with his venue of protest, I respect his right to do so... thought I lost respect for the man when he said he didn't vote. Then it's a worthless, hypocritical and moot voice.

That said, the HYSTERIA a number of PC snowflakes show on this matter is ridiculous.  If you won't support a team or player for protest, but you are ok with wife beating, gangbanging, violent crime, abdication of responsibility for their kids and the like, you are far more pathetic than Kaep ever was.

Did I miss the part where people questioned his Constitutional rights?  This was never about that.  Nobody ever called for him to be arrested.  And who is ok with wife beating or violent crime?  What a bizarre post this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

He's a chicken####. Runs up the score, makes awful comments after the games. I don't like him, never have. Great coach though. 

Aren't you a fan of Jim Mora Jr's UCLA Bruins? :oldunsure: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, humpback said:

If Kaepernick and a pigeon were both drowning, and you could save only one, which one would you choose?

HFS :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

Did I miss the part where people questioned his Constitutional rights?  This was never about that.  Nobody ever called for him to be arrested.  And who is ok with wife beating or violent crime?  What a bizarre post this is.

No question as to who you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Has the pigeon committed any crimes?

Jay walking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Limp Ditka said:

No question as to who you are

Doesn't even make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Higgs said:

Doesn't even make sense.

Case closed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Limp Ditka said:

Case closed

Case closed that you can't put your thoughts together into a coherent sentence. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Did I miss the part where people questioned his Constitutional rights?  This was never about that.  Nobody ever called for him to be arrested.  And who is ok with wife beating or violent crime?  What a bizarre post this is.

Apparently you did as people were saying in this forum and in the SP that he should be prohibited from doing that even though it was his right to silently protest.

And actually some on the right did call for him to be arrested:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/09/03/conservative-group-said-colin-kaepernick-was-breaking-federal-law-over-anthem-protest/#72c7e6e926e3

Conservative Group Said Colin Kaepernick Was Breaking Federal Law Over Anthem Protest

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has created a debate around race relations, how it intersects with racial profiling by some in law enforcement, and protections under the First Amendment due to his making a political statement by not standing for the national anthem WLP +%.

The stance has been a polarizing subject with many believing Kaepernick is unpatriotic.

No one has said that Kaepernick is breaking the law. That is, until today.

Conservative non-profit American Family Association took to Twitter TWTR +0.96%, and somehow got to thinking that not only what Kaepernick was doing  unpatriotic, it was against federal law.

The AFA citied U.S. code for the National Anthem, specifically § 301, off the Cornell Law website, part of which reads:

C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart

There’s a slight problem with the AFA’s rendering of the code. It says “should” not “must”. It’s a guideline. There’s good reason for this as after all saying that it was against federal law not to stand for the national anthem would fly in the face of the First Amendment of the Constitution and with it, the Bill of Rights.

And while the police chief of Santa Clara Co. where the Niners play, has said that, “Many of us in the law enforcement community have been saddened and angered by Kaepernick's words and actions,” he also said that police officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thusly, the American Family Association didn’t quite understand that part and whoever was running their Twitter account, read the U.S. code for the national anthem, put two and two together and got "anyone not being patriotic and standing for the national anthem should get thrown in jail" and with a conviction would wind up with a felony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Apparently you did as people were saying in this forum and in the SP that he should be prohibited from doing that even though it was his right to silently protest.

And actually some on the right did call for him to be arrested:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/09/03/conservative-group-said-colin-kaepernick-was-breaking-federal-law-over-anthem-protest/#72c7e6e926e3

Conservative Group Said Colin Kaepernick Was Breaking Federal Law Over Anthem Protest

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has created a debate around race relations, how it intersects with racial profiling by some in law enforcement, and protections under the First Amendment due to his making a political statement by not standing for the national anthem WLP +%.

The stance has been a polarizing subject with many believing Kaepernick is unpatriotic.

No one has said that Kaepernick is breaking the law. That is, until today.

Conservative non-profit American Family Association took to Twitter TWTR +0.96%, and somehow got to thinking that not only what Kaepernick was doing  unpatriotic, it was against federal law.

The AFA citied U.S. code for the National Anthem, specifically § 301, off the Cornell Law website, part of which reads:

 

C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart

There’s a slight problem with the AFA’s rendering of the code. It says “should” not “must”. It’s a guideline. There’s good reason for this as after all saying that it was against federal law not to stand for the national anthem would fly in the face of the First Amendment of the Constitution and with it, the Bill of Rights.

And while the police chief of Santa Clara Co. where the Niners play, has said that, “Many of us in the law enforcement community have been saddened and angered by Kaepernick's words and actions,” he also said that police officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thusly, the American Family Association didn’t quite understand that part and whoever was running their Twitter account, read the U.S. code for the national anthem, put two and two together and got "anyone not being patriotic and standing for the national anthem should get thrown in jail" and with a conviction would wind up with a felony.

I never said he should be arrested.  And being prevented from doing it is not a violation of his Constitutional rights.  The NFL would have been well within their legal bounds to discipline him or even fire him.   You know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Second, this is a terrible choice, because the most noteworthy aspect of this guy's protest was that it was NOT influential in any way, either for or against. The biggest reaction I saw was a loud collective yawn- nobody really cared one way or another. 

The biggest reaction you saw is not what a lot of other people saw.  This was discussed on many platforms and caused a lot of emotion on both sides of the argument. A lot of people cared then and a lot of people care now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty shocked to see Higgs having trouble keeping up.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Aren't you a fan of Jim Mora Jr's UCLA Bruins? :oldunsure: 

The Bruins, yes. Mora not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me, where in the Constitution would it be a violation of his rights if his employer prevented him from protesting while on the job?  I'll hang up and listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Limp Ditka said:

I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty shocked to see Higgs having trouble keeping up.

Better job there.  I actually understood that one.  :thumbup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

Tell me, where in the Constitution would it be a violation of his rights if his employer prevented him from protesting while on the job?  I'll hang up and listen.

Sure you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Higgs said:

Better job there.  I actually understood that one.  :thumbup: 

I kept the big words to a minim.... wait......a small amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Higgs said:

Tell me, where in the Constitution would it be a violation of his rights if his employer prevented him from protesting while on the job?  I'll hang up and listen.

It wasn't a violation of his rights as any private employer can do that and even those who supported his kneeling acknowledged that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I never said he should be arrested.  And being prevented from doing it is not a violation of his Constitutional rights.  The NFL would have been well within their legal bounds to discipline him or even fire him.   You know this.

Is there an explicit rule in the NFL that players must stand?  

Hint: No there isn't. 

Does the CBA allow for teams to discipline players for not standing?

Hint:  No (at least as I can tell)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Quote

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

It wasn't a violation of his rights as any private employer can do that and even those who supported his kneeling acknowledged that.

You just said a couple of posts up:  

"Apparently you did as people were saying in this forum and in the SP that he should be prohibited from doing that even though it was his right to silently protest."

:mellow: Um, well yes...

It was his right to silently protest and it is also his employer's right to prohibit that in the workplace if they wished or to punish him for it if he does not comply with a policy prohibiting such a public display. These rights can co-exist.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reg Lllama of Brixton said:

Is there an explicit rule in the NFL that players must stand?  

Hint: No there isn't. 

Does the CBA allow for teams to discipline players for not standing?

Hint:  No (at least as I can tell)

Are you serious?  You really think there needs to be an explicit rule dealing with something like this?  :lol:

Hint: Conduct detrimental to the league (which is very much in the CBA)

Don't quit your day job chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Are you serious?  You really think there needs to be an explicit rule dealing with something like this?  :lol:

Hint: Conduct detrimental to the league (which is very much in the CBA)

Don't quit your day job chief.

Please explain how his actions were detrimental to the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Are you serious?  1. You really think there needs to be an explicit rule dealing with something like this?  :lol:

Hint: Conduct detrimental to the league (which is very much in the CBA)

Don't quit your day job chief.

1. Yes

2. Nope

3. I won't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Are you serious?  You really think there needs to be an explicit rule dealing with something like this?  :lol:

Hint: Conduct detrimental to the league (which is very much in the CBA)

Don't quit your day job chief.

NFL Players Association would disagree with you and your creative solution of using conduct detrimental to the league:
 

Quote

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/02/players-cant-be-disciplined-for-not-standing-for-anthem-but/

However, as one source with knowledge of the situation explained it to PFT, the NFL Players Association firmly believes that the league and its teams lack the power to discipline players who refuse to stand for the anthem.

Unlike the NBA, the NFL has no rule requiring players to stand. And while it’s possible individual teams have (or may adopt) such a rule, the Collective Bargaining Agreement does not authorize teams to impose fines or otherwise discipline players for not standing during the anthem.

As a practical matter, however, the NFLPA realizes that players can be cut for refusing to conform, if the teams are smart enough to avoid saying or doing anything that would suggest that the move has anything to do with not standing for the anthem. That’s surely one of the reasons why the 49ers have made it clear that quarterback Colin Kaepernick can do whatever he wants to do during the anthem. If/when they release him, anything other than a firewall between respect for the flag and football ability will invite a grievance based on the claim that the team cut him because of his activism.

 

 Which is probably why Goodell made this statement re Kaep:
 

Quote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/09/07/goodell-doesnt-agree-with-kaepernicks-actions/89958636/

There is no rule in the NFL saying players must stand during the national anthem.

Goodell’s comments, according to NFL Network, were as follows:

"Well my personal thoughts are... I support our players when they want to see change in society, and we don't live in a perfect society. We live in an imperfect society. On the other hand, we believe very strongly in patriotism in the NFL. I personally believe very strongly in that. I think it's important to have respect for our country, for our flag, for the people who make our country better; for law enforcement, and for our military who are out fighting for our freedoms and our ideals.

"These are all important things for us, and that moment is a very important moment. So, I don't necessarily agree with what he is doing. We encourage our players to be respectful in that time and I like to think of it as a moment where we can unite as a country. And that's what we need more, and that's what I think football does - it unites our country. So I would like to see us focusing on our similarities and trying to bring people together.

"Players have a platform, and it's his right to do that. We encourage them to be respectful and it's important for them to do that.

"I think it's important if they see things they want to change in society, and clearly we have things that can get better in society, and we should get better. But we have to choose respectful ways of doing that so that we can achieve the outcomes we ultimately want and do it with the values and ideals that make our country great."

 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Higgs will ignore all of that because he personally finds CK's actions offensive.  

Oh and he's an alleged racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, squistion said:

better than Brees

Don't &^^&%%&^ DO IT. Put the keyboard down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Now you clowns are actually saying that the NFL can't discipline or fire him.  Brilliant. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Higgs said:

:lol: Now you clowns are actually saying that the NFL can't discipline or fire him.  Brilliant. :lol:

Yep. That's exactly what's being said. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

:lol: Now you clowns are actually saying that the NFL can't discipline or fire him.  Brilliant. :lol:

Stupid, sexy facts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

Now you clowns are actually saying that the NFL can't discipline or fire him.  Brilliant. 

No, not for that, according to the NFL Players Association. It didn't come down to a court test or arbitration, so we will never know for sure, but if it could have been handled so simply by the NFL, one would think that they certainly would have done so to avoid all the negative publicity. And this was within the NFL's power to discipline him, why didn't they or the 49ers do this easy fix before the season began?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Scoundrel said:

Stupid, sexy facts.

The facts are that the anthem protests were detrimental to the league.  Ratings were down and polls showed that the anthem nonsense was partly to blame.https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/10/05/confirmed-nfl-losing-millions-of-tv-viewers-because-of-national-anthem-protests/#6f52b556226c  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

The facts are that the anthem protests were detrimental to the league.  Ratings were down and polls showed that the anthem nonsense was partly to blame.https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2016/10/05/confirmed-nfl-losing-millions-of-tv-viewers-because-of-national-anthem-protests/#6f52b556226c  

Rasmussen? Please. People on land line surveys saying they are less likely to watch games because of Kaep means nothing if it wasn't factored in how much they watched before and then followed up with figures showing those same people actually did tune out.

And Correlation does not imply causation. No proof that Kaep's kneeling was behind the drop in numbers as there were other factors (election year, debates, market saturation) that were also attributable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, not for that, according to the NFL Players Association. It didn't come down to a court test or arbitration, so we will never know for sure, but if it could have been handled so simply by the NFL, one would think that they certainly would have done so to avoid all the negative publicity. And this was within the NFL's power to discipline him, why didn't they or the 49ers do this easy fix before the season began?

 

Are you really this dense?  The NFL didn't want to wade into the controversy for fear that it would become an issue with Lefties, perhaps even a racial issue.  What they didn't foresee was that it would become an issue with the Right.  It had nothing to do with not having the right to fine or discipline Kaep.  

The League has very wide latitude with the "conduct detrimental" clause as evidenced by Deflategate.  It is unarguable that the Oeague wasn't harmed by the Kaep protest.  Please don't be foolish enough to try and argue otherwise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

Rasmussen? Please. People on land line surveys saying they are less likely to watch games because of Kaep means nothing if it wasn't factored in how much they watched before and then followed up with figures showing those same people actually did tune out.

And Correlation does not imply causation. No proof that Kaep's kneeling was behind the drop in numbers as there were other factors (election year, debates, market saturation) that were also attributable.

You are hopeless.  How about a Seton Hall survey?  You going to dismiss that one as well?  Maybe because their nickname is the Pirates?  You tell me, Squigeon.  I'm sure you'll come up with something.  https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/si/nfl/2016/10/27/national-anthem-protest-nfl-ratings-poll%3Fsource%3Ddam

You're nothing but a partisan hack in here.  I don't think I have ever seen you once deviate from far Left talking points.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now