Oh, it doesn't offend me. Just seems draconian, like so many democrats/liberals are. This whole, "if you're not with us then you're against us" mentality. Or if you voted for Trump you're an automatic racist/sexist/xenophobe. No, not really. You can still not like Trump the man but his policies. I'm really getting sick and tired of the labels the left keeps putting on people if they don't agree with them!

It's called sarcasm. It was meant as a joke since the liberals see themselves as "Equality Avengers". They are so zealous in this pursuit to achieve human equality at all costs that they have made a mockery of the word tolerance. They aren't tolerant and they never have been. They just seek equality, which while sounding nice, results in them depriving others of their Liberty. This whole equality thing is a farce. It's nothing but an enforcement of their beliefs onto someone else and declaring war on others for having differences however harmless those opposing views may be.

Equity Avengers. I've never heard that term before at all.

Can you name one notable liberal who's ever referred to themselves as an "Equity Avenger"?

Sounds like a comic book.

Is this more of your sarcasm?

@hoodlum

You're on a mafia website complaining about violence

That doesn't make much sense


@irishman

You're sick of labels but you call people "the left"

Don't get mad if people think something is wrong with you for supporting a morally corrupted man like trump. You agree with his lack of values so don't get mad if people call you out on that

Yes it is. And it's Equality Avengers, not Equity Avengers. Try and keep up.

They're politicians, they're all corrupt. Do I even need to elaborate in terms of Hillary Clinton? And when/where exactly did I say I agreed with Trump's "lack of values'? What I said was you can agree with his policies and still not like him as a person.

Has Trump ever been implicated in murders? No? Then he's got nothing on the Clintons. At best, Vince Foster was driven to suicide by their thoughtless actions. At worst, his death was a hit, disguised as a suicide.

Has there ever been a resolution to what happened to Foster's files, that had dirt on the Clintons, after his office was ransacked?

Course not.

Hahaha.

What qualifies someone as having been "implicated" in a murder?

Because there's a theory out there that they were?

If Alex Jones says someone murdered somebody, that counts as an "implication"?

The Clintons have never been convicted of a murder.

They've never been charged with a murder.

No DA, grand jury, or law enforcement agency has ever launched an investigation into any alleged murders the Clintons may have been involved in.

But.....but....they were implicated in a murder, I tell ya! That ought to count for something!

https://deadspin.com/report-nfl-owners-admit-donald-trump-squeezed-them-on-1826419766

forcing business owners to change things in order to boost his political clout.. i'm interested in how you guys feel about this, since it's illegal

If you're asking Trump supporters, I'm pretty sure they'll say that this qualifies him for Mount Rushmore.

@oaksfan

They can put trump on mount rushmore

As long as he has his ku Klux klan mask on

This coming from the same guy who thinks 3 people being shot isn't a mass shooting

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/201...tm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook


GOOD NEWS: There will be more revenue loss for the NFL. GO PLAYERS GO !!

NFL Player: ‘We Won’t Allow the NFL or Trump to Bully Us’

Oak is delusional.

Imagine if Trump was implicated in someone's murder or sold national security secrets to the Chinese.

He would have a field day.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...-for-calling-ivanka-trump-a-feckless-ct/

Samantha Bee Apologizes for Calling Ivanka Trump a ‘Feckless C**t

The tolerant left

Samantha Bee is a fat disgusting pig. She is obviously jelous of Ivanka who is much prettier, smarter, and has so much more class.

what does that have to do with the NFL though

i suppose nobody is going to reply to the article i posted

^^It disturbs me deeply. Both the forced patriotism that this issue is based on and the President using his bully pulpit to press on something like this. The fact that its a felony is not unimportant to me, but the way Trump has used this issue to divide people bothers me more.

Trump's stance on this is purely political and cynical. His comments about how kneeling players should be deported are both un-American and completely un-Constitutional. Anyone who knows anything about him knows it's all bullshit to him anyway, and that he's just using it as a tool. This is red meat to his supporters though. The fact that so many of those supporters are ok with it is stunning, but not at all surprising. This is turning into a religion or a cult where 'dear leader' can do no wrong. The 'problem' is with the outsiders. It's dangerous.

On the crime aspect of it I would say that rule of law is all we have protecting us, and if people just shrug that off because their side 'won' that protection grows tenuous. Probably seems ok when your team is in power, will seem less so when they aren't. I keep thinking of the lines Robert Bolt wrote in A Man For All Seasons about the devil and the law.

I totally disagree with you, i think you are 100% wrong. President Trump’s stance on kneeling during the anthem is authentic. The NFL players work for a corporation and they do NOT have the right to kneel. Its totally disrespectful and no one wants to see it. Most of it is a bunch of show boating so a few guys can feel important. Rosanne Barr worked for a corporation and was fired for saying something her superiors disagreed with. There is no first amendment right when you are an employee. The NFL players are there to entertain us , not try and act like a bunch of black panthers from the 1960’s. I dont want my kids seeing that nomsense and either do millions of other americans. There are brave men amd woman who lost their lives fighting for the meaning of that flag not to mention countless amounts who were severely wounded and lost limbs. Then you have a bunch of shit heads who get paid millions of dollars to play with a friggin ball who would never have the guts to fight in a war! Give me a break! They kneel, they get fined and fired. Then lets see if they want to play black panther when their piggy banks start getting empty.

What is there to agree or disagree with? I'm asking what people think about the president using his influence to forcibly change the way a private business operates in order to boost his own political clout, not whether or not you agree with kneeling during the anthem. You're happy about this because it's for something you agree with, I understand that, but what if the shoe was on the other foot? I'm sure you would not be alright with the president using their status to influence private business if it was something you did not personally agree with. Or are you trying to tell me that you're ok with sitting politicians stepping into the private sector and forcing businesses to do as they say?

There's just one thing wrong with your argument. It's wrong.

Political expression is a right here in the United States. That right was fought for by our armed services over the past 240+ years. Personally I'm tired of seeing everyone's expression at every occasion (whether it be an award show or a sporting event) but I'd rather see these feelings being expressed than realizing I don't have the right to express them. Sig Heil. That right is what makes America great.

Keep in mind that the US Constitution only applies to government.

SC
I totally disagree with what you are saying. I own a business and if any of my employees make political statements that i think can hurst my business, they would be fired in a second. As a business owner, i can do that. So can the NFL.

The shoe was on the other side for 8 years under Obama.

Obama also boosted his own political clout as well to say otherwise is foolish.

Trump didn't force the players. He stated his opinion that it was wrong for players not to stand for the anthem and many fans agreed with him.
Show me the executive order or law that forces them to stand, there is no such thing. This falls under the realm of company or corporate policies.
Why does a fan who pays good money to go to a game have to put up with their action of disrespecting the flag.The fans go there for entertainment not for political purpose or any other agenda people want to express. If this is allowed where does it stop, are we going to allow pro-life people , pro-abortion and any other group there champion their cause as well.
As I said before players who want to champion their cause can do so on their time. Many of them are famous and will have no problem attracting people and the press to convey their messages. In doing so,they may even attract more people to share their cause but using the flag anthem as a platform will only cause division as it already did.

Please show me exactly where Obama explicitly exerted his influence to force a corporate policy to be altered the way Jerry Jones testified Trump did.

And to be honest, it’s not about Trump personally or Obama, it’s about abuse of the executive office. That’s what none of you seem to want to answer. Take away the names and party affiliations. Are you alright with the president forcing private businesses to change their policies for their own political gain? Yes or no.

@rightpride

I dont hear u crying about the flag being thrown on the ground before every nfl game. U do know that flags aren't supposed to be on the ground. Them laying the flag on some grass is more disrespectful than somebody kneeling

Trump dodged the draft but yet u kiss his ass

So stop with the honor thy fallen soldier act of yours

You're ok with police brutality, so you should be ok with people protesting against police brutality

Misconception 1: Employees Have a Constitutional Right to Talk "Politics" at Work
Wrong.

Employees, as well as many employers, commonly but mistakenly believe that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "freedom of speech" at work. In fact, the First Amendment applies only to government action and neither limits the rights of private employers to regulate employees' communications nor provides any constitutional right for those workers to express thoughts or opinions at work. As a result, there is no constitutionally protected right of "free speech" in the offices and factories of private employers. Although employees may be entitled to express their views freely on their own time or on a soapbox in the park, they have no such wide-ranging constitutional rights at work. Absent rights provided by one of the limited exceptions discussed below, there are no legal protections for political activities in the workplace, so private employers generally may refuse to hire, adjust pay/benefits and even discharge "at will" employees because of their political views.2 In short, "political discrimination" often is not unlawful discrimination.

Many employers do have policies limiting the discussion of political candidates and issues at work because of the risks of unlimited "free speech" in the workplace. For example, although there is no general federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or actions, sometimes seemingly neutral conversations about "politics" can lead to claims of employer discrimination, harassment or retaliation violating federal or state discrimination laws.

Workplace debates about a particular candidate's fitness for office often include mention of genders, races or religions or their views on hot-button social issues such as abortion, "family values," immigration and healthcare, which often are polarizing issues on which there are strong and opposing views among employees of different genders, religions, national origins, etc. The potential for heated disagreements – and inflammatory, impulsive, ill-advised comments – is obvious. Unfortunately, such comments sometimes result in claims of discrimination or retaliation in which it is alleged that "my supervisor is biased against [women/non-Christians/Hispanics] as shown by his comments about [healthcare/abortion/immigration policy]" or "the company punished me because I disagreed with my boss about [a social issue implicating gender, nationality, or religion]." Further, public discussion of schoolyard "bullying" seems to have prompted claims of "bullying" harassment by both supervisory and non-supervisory employees who forcefully advocated their political opinions to unreceptive co-workers. It is understandable, therefore, why many employers simply elect to minimize such controversies by prohibiting all "politics" at work.

Absolutely, unequivocally no.

Show me how Trump forced him. You are the one that mentioned the word force.You haven't shown me nothing. Jerry Jones can say many things.
Obama not so affordable healthcare, did he not establish a penalty for those not wanting to register ? Did he not force nun's to provide condoms by bringing them to court. His cronies went after ten commandment monuments, the cross, nativity displays.

So no yes or no to my final question?