Jump to content
270soft Forum

Anthem Protests  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support the recent NFL anthem protests?

    • Yes, the NFL players have a point about racism
    • I support their right to protest but don't think their reasoning is sound
    • No, they should not do it even if they have the right to do so
    • No, they don't have the right to protest
      0
    • I don't care
  2. 2. Have the anthem protests influenced how much you watch the NFL?

    • Yes, I watch more NFL because of it
    • Yes, I watch less NFL because of it
    • No, I don't care about it enough for it to stop me from watching
    • No, football is stupid so I never watched it in the first place
    • I'm not American
    • I have a vehement hatred for all team sports, which stems from a deep-seated resentment within me for those who, unlike me, are athletically gifted and can actually play sports without dry-heaving for 45 minutes afterwards. Also, paying people millions to run around a field 30 times a year is a glaringly hideous example of wealth inequality in the United States, and for those two reasons I have boycotted televised sports for my entire life.
  3. 3. Is it OK for the sitting President of the United States to call anthem protesters "sons of bitches" and disinvite Steph Curry from the White House?

    • Yeah whatever
    • No especially after he implied there were good people "on many sides" in Charlottesville
    • meh
    • I somehow have no opinion


Recommended Posts

Decided to do a poll after writing about this topic for my Sociology class yesterday, listening to Coloring Book until 3 this morning, going to sleep, and then waking up this morning to a hot mess, as has become routine in 2017

PLEASE KEEP THIS CIVIL.

I would love it if there were no comments on this and people just voted on the poll without starting a flame war on this thread.

*side-eyes certain people I'm sure will be extremely opinionated on this topic*

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, President Garrett Walker said:

 

*side-eyes certain people I'm sure will be extremely opinionated on this topic*

 

Hey man, I hate flamewars too

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Hey man, I hate flamewars too

Not just you and people on the right. I'm not about to name names but there's a certain middle-aged Canadian government worker who might start stuff

I do want you guys's honest opinions but I also don't want WWIII, or this thread to be closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the poll, but the wording is so specific on the answers as to not really include an answer that is accurate to my response. 

1. I do think NFL players should have the liberty to espouse their political views, and they should not be removed from having those views unless it impacts the team's ability to win. 

2. I would probably watch NFL football regardless of the political implications. It's the only sport I keep up with. 

3. The president not only shouldn't be involved in this, I think his language is not presidential at all. I support the players and NFL owners that condemn Trump's response. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, President Garrett Walker said:

Not just you and people on the right. I'm not about to name names but there's a certain middle-aged Canadian government worker who might start stuff

I do want you guys's honest opinions but I also don't want WWIII, or this thread to be closed.

I work for the Alberta Provincial Government, not the Canadian Federal Government. Like the U.S., we do have a federal, not unitary system of government relationship between national and regional governments.

Secondly, I have no interest in professional sports (but not for the deep-seated, envious, feelings of inaquedecy phyisically and financially listed in the the option above, just complete apathy), and I believe a national anthem is just a song arbritrarily chosen at some time by some government comemerating some event in a nation's history, and is not even nearly as symbolic as a flag, coat-of-arms or great seal, national animal, etc., so I'm more apathetic to that as well. Plus, it's a peaceful protest, invoking freedom of speech and conscience, and doesn't truly hurt anyone, so I have objections, but, on the other hand, I don't believe this protest, in and of itself, will do anything meaningful in combating racism in the U.S., to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL is more than a sport.  It is a business.  People like Kaepernick leave a bad stigma for teams.  Right now, Sam Bradford is injured (week-to-week).  Even though he would probably be an upgrade, I don't want that trash on my team.  He has a right to protest, but teams have a right to say YOU ARE FIRED (or not signed)!  But, I hate how some things are classified as anthem protests when they aren't (Derrick Carr during one of the preseason games).

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

I work for the Alberta Provincial Government, not the Canadian Federal Government. Like the U.S., we do have a federal, not unitary system of government relationship between national and regional governments.

Secondly, I have no interest in professional sports (but not for the deep-seated, envious, feelings of inaquedecy phyisically and financially listed in the the option above, just complete apathy), and I believe a national anthem is just a song arbritrarily chosen at some time by some government comemerating some event in a nation's history, and is not even nearly as symbolic as a flag, coat-of-arms or great seal, national animal, etc., so I'm more apathetic to that as well. Plus, it's a peaceful protest, invoking freedom of speech and conscience, and doesn't truly hurt anyone, so I have objections, but, on the other hand, I don't believe this protest, in and of itself, will do anything meaningful in combating racism in the U.S., to be honest.

Well, technically you do work for the Canadian Government, he never said Federal. Alberta is part of the Canadian Government and therefore so are its workers. Like the Governor of Kansas is a part of the American Government is, if not Federal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

3. I am ok with this because the president also got a right to free speech.

Yes, he called a group of "Alt-Right" Neo-Nazi White Supremecists who had engaged in violence in the protests "a fine bunch of people," but called some Black athletes making a PEACEFUL protest against racist sentiments "sons of bitches." He sounds like a more and more balanced, benevolent, servant of the people and for all of their good and well-being-type leader and all-in-all swell guy as each day goes by.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, he called a group of "Alt-Right" Neo-Nazi White Supremecists who had engaged in violence in the protests "a fine bunch of people," but called some Black athletes making a PEACEFUL protest against racist sentiments "sons of bitches." He sounds like a more and more balanced, benevolent, servant of the people and for all of their good and well-being-type leader and all-in-all swell guy as each day goes by.

You do know Donald Trump is just talking right? It doesn't have to make sense (I'm not even sure if he's trying to make sense)

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

You do know Donald Trump is just talking right? It doesn't have to make sense (I'm not even sure if he's trying to make sense)

"He doesn't have to make sense, he's just the most powerful human being on the face of the planet, who has the power to wipe billions of people off the face of planet Earth in the span of a few hours."

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, pilight said:

So what the president of the United States says is unimportant and should be ignored?

 

1 minute ago, President Garrett Walker said:

"He doesn't have to make sense, he's just the most powerful human being on the face of the planet, who has the power to wipe billions of people off the face of planet Earth in the span of a few hours."

Or perhaps @NYrepublican is implying Trump is actually senile and just gibbering nonsensically and a secret, shadowy eminence grese or sinister council or other "power behind the throne" figures who are not publically acknowledged are actually running the nation, which I'm not sure would actually be a more conforting thought...

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

Or perhaps @NYrepublican is implying Trump is actually senile and just gibbering nonsensically and a secret, shadowy eminence grese or sinister council or other "power behind the throne" figures who are not publically acknowledged are actually running the nation, which I'm not sure would actually be a more conforting thought...

Only the first part here

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

He's accusing him of being anti-American and Cuba is seen as the home of anti-American sentiment

So, because he makes a peaceful protest (a right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution), and targets a song not Constitutionally stated, protected, recognized, or mentioned (nor is any need or desire for a national anthem mentioned at all in the U.S. Constitution - unlike some countries which do state and protect their national anthems in their Constitutions) means he's "anti-American" (a very abused word in American political rhetoric, almost to the point of "counter-revolutionary" in the USSR and "anharmonius" in the PRC in rhetorical abuse if not objective consequences for being alleged as such) for doing so and should move to a nation far further removed from the values and far less protecting of the rights he was peacefully protesting for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

So, because he makes a peaceful protest (a right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution), and targets a song not Constitutionally stated, protected, recognized, or mentioned (nor is any need or desire for a national anthem mentioned at all in the U.S. Constitution - unlike some countries which do state and protect their national anthems in their Constitutions) means he's "anti-American" (a very abused word in American political rhetoric, almost to the point of "counter-revolutionary" in the USSR and "anharmonius" in the PRC in rhetorical abuse if not objective consequences for being alleged as such) for doing so and should move to a nation far further removed from the values and far less protecting of the rights he was peacefully protesting for?

Refer all questions to @victorraiders

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...