Anathema
Crotchety Olde Man
If that ever happens this will no longer be the land of the free. And the Jehovah's Witnesses .would become criminals.
Let me know where I've ever promoted FREEDOM as a mainstay of my sociopolitical philosophy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
If that ever happens this will no longer be the land of the free. And the Jehovah's Witnesses .would become criminals.
Let me know where I've ever accused you ofIf that ever happens this will no longer be the land of the free. And the Jehovah's Witnesses .would become criminals.
Let me know where I've ever promoted FREEDOM as a mainstay of my sociopolitical philosophy.
Let me know where I've ever accused you ofpromoting FREEDOM as a mainstay of your sociopolitical philosophy.[
You misread my post. You insisted the word "shall" should replace the word "should" in the code cited for instructing individuals in how to conduct themselves at public events when the NA is played. I merely noted the consequences of adopting your draconian concept highlighted by the word "shall" To hell with any personal philosophical spin you want to attach to that... It doesn't matter... When you promulgate laws telling some one they shall do something, thats a mandate. Mandates usually. are accompanied by a loss of freedom.Let me know where I've ever accused you ofpromoting FREEDOM as a mainstay of your sociopolitical philosophy.[
You suggested that the reason my prior comment wouldn't be appropriate was related to the loss of Freedom. That's not even a consideration for me.
You misread my post. You insisted the word "shall" should replace the word "should" in the code cited for instructing individuals in how to conduct themselves at public events when the NA is played. I merely noted the consequences of adopting your draconian concept highlighted by the word "shall" To hell with any personal philosophical spin you want to attach to that... It doesn't matter... When you promulgate laws telling some one they shall do something, thats a mandate. Mandates usually. are accompanied by a loss of freedom.
But FREEDOM was foremost in the minds of those who wrote this:You misread my post. You insisted the word "shall" should replace the word "should" in the code cited for instructing individuals in how to conduct themselves at public events when the NA is played. I merely noted the consequences of adopting your draconian concept highlighted by the word "shall" To hell with any personal philosophical spin you want to attach to that... It doesn't matter... When you promulgate laws telling some one they shall do something, thats a mandate. Mandates usually. are accompanied by a loss of freedom.
All true. You have to realize that Freedom is NEVER a consideration in my mind. I don't believe thst Government should be issuing any sort of Code or Stipulation which does not carry the weight of LAW. Anything without that weight is worthless.
But FREEDOM was foremost in the minds of those who wrote this:
"Congress shall make no lawrespecting 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."
What lost morals and values did our founders have back then ? Focusing on the backdrop of your aversion to freedom, for the masses i assume, any argument pertaining to the immorality intrinsic to slavery and taxation without representation would fall on deaf ears. Your sense of value would center onBut FREEDOM was foremost in the minds of those who wrote this:
"Congress shall make no lawrespecting 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."
They were incredibly naive individuals who somehow believed that the Morals and Values which were at the heart of their Society would carry on in perpetuity. If those Morals and Values had remained, Freedom might still be a useful concept. Unfortunately the Founders failed to enshrine the duties of a Citizen along with the Rights, and the loss of the Morals and Values that are part of the Duty of a Citizen have made Freedom a significant danger to thjs nation and humanity as a whole.
What lost morals and values did our founders have back then ? Focusing on the backdrop of your aversion to freedom, for the masses i assume, any argument pertaining to the immorality intrinsic to slavery and taxation without representation would fall on deaf ears. Your sense of value would center on wealthy landowners of the day who owned slaves and. gave themselves exclusive rights to vote. Your only response, considering your views on FREEDOM, would be to reflect your disdain for universal sufferage and civil rights for the general population. But wait. The founders knew what it was like to be victimized by a feudal monarchy. They knew where that would lead if implemented here. How could they ask their constituents to fight for autonomy from Britain and then turn around and instill their own brand of tyranny? Pondering the foregoing, I believe you would have enjoyed the company of loyalists during the American Revolutionary era. They wete content to live under the shadow of royalists.
Then consider that standing for the Anthem is a ritual...not part of your employment. That ritual takes time away from the job ...so in effect that ritual time belonged to KaepernickAttention stupid liberals:
The first amendment does not apply to:
Anyone who is at work at the time. The supreme court has already ruled that the first amendment does not apply to employment. NFL players are employed by the NFL, and thus considered at work when at a game.
Any children
Any inmates
And just who would be deemed worthy to sit in judgement of us all to determine fitness forWhat lost morals and values did our founders have back then ? Focusing on the backdrop of your aversion to freedom, for the masses i assume, any argument pertaining to the immorality intrinsic to slavery and taxation without representation would fall on deaf ears. Your sense of value would center on wealthy landowners of the day who owned slaves and. gave themselves exclusive rights to vote. Your only response, considering your views on FREEDOM, would be to reflect your disdain for universal sufferage and civil rights for the general population. But wait. The founders knew what it was like to be victimized by a feudal monarchy. They knew where that would lead if implemented here. How could they ask their constituents to fight for autonomy from Britain and then turn around and instill their own brand of tyranny? Pondering the foregoing, I believe you would have enjoyed the company of loyalists during the American Revolutionary era. They wete content to live under the shadow of royalists.
Actually my family members fought in the Continental Army and were involved in the lynching of a Tory in Essex, CT after the conflict.
They were not, however, thrilled with the nation they helped birth. They were, as I am, strong believers in earned privileges instead of Rights. That would apply to the entire, non-slave population. Those who could and did live proper lives would be granted privileges like Free Speech, Trial by Jury, Ownership of Property, etc...
This would be carried out by granting Citizenship only to those people who have earned it and immediately removing it from those who failed to earn it or failed to maintain that standard afterward, leaving them as Residents instead of Citizens.
You SERIOUSLY believe this?Then consider that standing for the Anthem is a ritual...not part of your employment. That ritual takes time away from the job ...so in effect that ritual time belonged to KaepernickAttention stupid liberals:
The first amendment does not apply to:
Anyone who is at work at the time. The supreme court has already ruled that the first amendment does not apply to employment. NFL players are employed by the NFL, and thus considered at work when at a game.
Any children
Any inmates
because he isn't paid to stand for the anthem. He was paid to play football.
Then consider that standing for the Anthem is a ritual...not part of your employment. That ritual takes time away from the job ...so in effect that ritual time belonged to KaepernickAttention stupid liberals:
The first amendment does not apply to:
Anyone who is at work at the time. The supreme court has already ruled that the first amendment does not apply to employment. NFL players are employed by the NFL, and thus considered at work when at a game.
Any children
Any inmates
because he isn't paid to stand for the anthem. He was paid to play football.
And just who would be deemed worthy to sit in judgement of us all to determine fitness for all the benefits of citizenship? Are you proposing fascism as the cornerstone of your utopian society?
Standing for the anthem has become a tradition. But can one not obligated contractually to do so be compelled to uphold or abide by a tradition unrelated to employment? You say the ritual of standing for the anthem is part of the game but that's just your opinion. Where is it written?Standing for the anthem has been a part of every NFL game for decades. It's part of the game,
it's part of the employment. It's even explicitly mentioned in the game manual.
Then move to North Korea, kooky.
I've discussed police brutality, liberal claims about it, false cases, ect, when the issue has come up in other cases.BUt not this time. FUCK THE KNEELERS.
When this issue comes up again, with a messenger that is not using anti-Americanism as his method of communication, I will be happy to discuss the issue.
I've expressed my opinion on what should be done. What I HOPE to have happen is for this anti-American behavior to continue and to wake up the tens of millions of white people that are still somehow unaware of how the Left thinks of them.
The sport of Football is a small price to pay for that.And I've listened to this complaints before and addressed them at great length, and will again.But not for the anti-American pieces of shit in question today.
They are part of the rich and the super rich, they are certainly part of the Political Status Que. The issues and their methods fit in nicely with the norm of the Political Class.othing they are doing is disruptive or change at all.
1. You messed up my quote there. I didn't ask about who he defined as Americans.2. Americans are a group. That group exists. What are we going to call it? Anything we call it becomes a "label". The Kneelers have expressed enmity with that group. Your pretend confusion about language is just a dodge of that valid point. You asshole.
I'm not claiming Authority status that you should just defer to my judgement. I've repeatedly explained my reasoning for my conclusion, and you have not been able to refute it at all. But the fact remains, Kaepernick has clearly stated that he does not stand because he considers American an "oppressive" place.
Not that it is a good place with a problem with police brutality, but that that nation as a whole is oppressive.
That shows that his actions ARE against the nation as a whole, not a specific issue.