Roger Goodell tells NFL owners ‘everyone should stand for the national anthem’

[kail]

Honestly take politics out of sports.

And the Anthem with it. No Anthem, no protests, no bitching from either sides, more sports.

[Zython]

Here's a question to those who oppose the kneeling: Why do you consider a protest against racially-focused authoritarian violence by the state to be a protest against America itself?

[Machismo]

Wrong as it is an empty threat. I can threaten to drop a nuclear warhead on our house, but since I do not own a nuclear bomb nor do I have the power to get one it is an empty threat. The president threatening to do something he does not have the power to do is the same thing.

Well, it's a threat from the most powerful man on the planet, so it's not really that empty. Sorry, the man just threatened to restrict the First Amendment rights from a news agency, because he doesn't like what they say about him. Fuck that.

[Cerus]

Shouldn't he be focused on the concussion problem instead of infringing on athlete's freedom of expression?

Is the concussion problem unknown? No? Then they choose to take the risk. Freedom of speech/expression only applies to government interference. They can be fine or fired by their employer.

[shadowmatrix]

Is the concussion problem unknown? No? Then they choose to take the risk. Freedom of speech/expression only applies to government interference. They can be fine or fired by their employer.

So would the president saying that the NFL should lose tax exemptions over the protests be considered government interference?

[Macaquerie]

You don't think it would be much more effective to just not show up to play the game? Then again they'd be sacrificing their paycheck for something they don't actually believe in rather than causing a publicity stunt.

What would be the point of skipping the game? They're not protesting the league, they're protesting the hypocrisy and faux patriotism of the anthem ceremony, which itself has always been nothing more than a silly publicity stunt that the NFL only ever did because the military paid them to do it.

And it has undoubtedly been an effective protest, since this is the best way for them to get their message across to people on the opposite side of this issue. Just doing community outreach would only be preaching to the choir and wouldn't bring any eyeballs to the problem. Yes, it's something uncomfortable for fans to see, but the entire point of a protest is to be disruptive and discomforting, otherwise how are you going to get people to pay attention?

[Klingers]

“current dispute over the National Anthem is threatening to erode the unifying power of our game, and is now dividing us, and our players, from many fans across the country.”

He probably completely un-ironically thinks this hits the problem right on its head.

[AlphaOut]

What would be the point of skipping the game? They're not protesting the league, they're protesting the hypocrisy and faux patriotism of the anthem ceremony, which itself has always been nothing more than a silly publicity stunt that the NFL only ever did because the military paid them to do it.

And it has undoubtedly been an effective protest, since this is the best way for them to get their message across to people on the opposite side of this issue. Just doing community outreach would only be preaching to the choir and wouldn't bring any eyeballs to the problem. Yes, it's something uncomfortable for fans to see, but the entire point of a protest is to be disruptive and discomforting, otherwise how are you going to get people to pay attention?

I get that, but they sit there and say time and time again its nothing against the flag or the anthem. They literally all say that. There are numerous videos of several NFL players stating its not about the flag or anthem. If that's absolutely true to no fault, then why use it as a vessel? The beginning of the game isn't the only time to reach out and speak. They have several avenues to take. Like I said, I don't care either way. Its their right. But I find it odd they contradict themselves time and time again on the issue. All they do is sit or kneel, and that's it. I don't see much action on the issue they seem to all the sudden be so passionate about overall. It's turned into a circus. Hell, Kaepernick the clown sat there and said he will stand for the anthem if a team drafts him. Clearly their passion isn't true.

[Dragonhawk]

Well, it's a threat from the most powerful man on the planet, so it's not really that empty. Sorry, the man just threatened to restrict the First Amendment rights from a news agency, because he doesn't like what they say about him. Fuck that.

So please show me what law in existence or even a law he is proposing that will allow him to remove the freedom of speech from either group. Particularly in the case of the NFL he would need to be able to take ownership from all the current team owners, so basically nationalize the NFL, in order to actually fire any player that did not stand for the anthem. Good luck believing that will ever happen.

I wont claim to know all the regulations that exist within the FCC, but am confident that were he to try and remove broadcasting licenses from news stations that they would have him in court within days if not hours of this going through. I am also confident that it would be overturned by any court, be it a right or left leaning judge that day. So again empty threat.

You are certainly free to have your paranoid conspiracy theories and you may even convince a few people here you are right. However any rational person who knows anything about how the government works is going to see your claims as what hey are, paranoid theories on how those in authority are out to get us, not by their actions but by anything they say at any point.

[Zmaniac17]

So please show me what law in existence or even a law he is proposing that will allow him to remove the freedom of speech from either group. Particularly in the case of the NFL he would need to be able to take ownership from all the current team owners, so basically nationalize the NFL, in order to actually fire any player that did not stand for the anthem. Good luck believing that will ever happen.

I wont claim to know all the regulations that exist within the FCC, but am confident that were he to try and remove broadcasting licenses from news stations that they would have him in court within days if not hours of this going through. I am also confident that it would be overturned by any court, be it a right or left leaning judge that day. So again empty threat.

You are certainly free to have your paranoid conspiracy theories and you may even convince a few people here you are right. However any rational person who knows anything about how the government works is going to see your claims as what hey are, paranoid theories on how those in authority are out to get us, not by their actions but by anything they say at any point.

There's no easy way for him to make good on the threat. But it's still a threat. He's demonstrated that he is fairly inept at doing anything to politically complex. But he's also demonstrated that he's willing to make good on promises when it is easy to do.

Remember he also appointed the leaders of agencies like the FCC and he's appointed one judge to the supreme court. Our system isn't bullet proof and it can still die a death by 1000 cuts. It certainly is cause for concern in my opinion.

I think the biggest concern is that the president swears to uphold the constitution and this is an indication that he does not intend to do that when it suits his interests.

[Mormolyce]

I get that, but they sit there and say time and time again its nothing against the flag or the anthem. They literally all say that. There are numerous videos of several NFL players stating its not about the flag or anthem. If that's absolutely true to no fault, then why use it as a vessel? The beginning of the game isn't the only time to reach out and speak. They have several avenues to take. Like I said, I don't care either way. Its their right. But I find it odd they contradict themselves time and time again on the issue. All they do is sit or kneel, and that's it. I don't see much action on the issue they seem to all the sudden be so passionate about overall. It's turned into a circus. Hell, Kaepernick the clown sat there and said he will stand for the anthem if a team drafts him. Clearly their passion isn't true.

They're obviously doing it precisely in order to get attention for the issue.

Sure they could do it some other time, when everyone can ignore it.

[sef24]

Now whos reaching hard. The president did not threaten their freedom of speech, because he does not have the power to do that. He would have to either pass a law through Congress or issue an executive order. He has no chance of passing a law that would do that and any executive order would be struck down by the courts faster than he could imagine. Plus it is highly unlikely that he could ever convince anyone in the FBI or DOJ to enforce such a rule.

You might as well get used to the idea that the president is going to say things off the cuff that he either has no power to enforce or would not even try to enforce. It is no different than if you are sitting around with your friends or family and say things like, "I am so sick of this traffic everyday. I wish they would just wipe every idiot who cant drive right off the map." Do you really intend or even want all the drivers on the road, who dont meet your driving standards, killed. No, you are talking with friends and blowing off steam. You may even say it on social media and nobody will take it seriously. However if Trump says anything the media will jump all over it and act like he is looking to undertake mass genocide. We live in a democracy that has checks an balances to prevent any one branch from becoming a dictator. We also have certain rights like the right to bear arms that allows ordinary citizens the means to also prevent a dictatorial takeover of the country and it is one of the reasons the founding fathers put the second amendment in the Constitution.

I'm not reaching at all. Yeah, it's obvious that he can't physically force it, but he can influence the people that can, and clearly he has. He brought up the thought of removing the NFL at being tax exempt. That alone will scare the owners into doing what he says. He will threaten whoever he needs to, to get his way.

Your comparisons are rather weak as well. Someone who has power threatening these things is different than someone who has ZERO influence. Trump doesn't say "I wish they would stand." He says "Stand or I'll remove blah blah, text exempt, etc".

Trump doesn't like CNN or NBC. He threatened that he wants to do what he can to remove their licenses just because they say mean stuff about him. Dictator much. Freedom of press threatened. He can't just go and sign a bill and make it so, but he can threaten the jobs of others to make it so.

[Ragedaug]

Regarding Goodell's statement, it's not about whether or not it's right or you have the right to protest the flag, or protest during the anthem, etc. Goodell's statement has nothing to do with free speech and the player's right to exercise it.

Goodell's statement was about one thing. "Lets stop doing the thing that's pissing off a big percent of our paying customers".

I'm not even going to say those "paying customers" are right. It doesn't matter. If you are selling a product and you piss off half the people buying it, you have to be prepared to sell much less of that product and make much less money.

Maybe those players taking a knee are ready to accept a 50% pay cut. Who knows. But I think it's a fair thing to guess that the owners and by extension the commissioner are not ready to do that.

If you want to make millions to play a sport that is watched by people of all political backgrounds and ideologies, then you have to be prepared to not be political while doing the thing they are paying to watch.

That platform you think you have is only yours because people are willing to pay you to be on it. If you use that same platform to upset the people who gave it to you, those same people can take it away.

People pay to watch football to be entertained. They don't pay to be preached at, and they don't pay to watch a millionaire protest.

[Dragonhawk]

There's no easy way for him to make good on the threat. But it's still a threat. He's demonstrated that he is fairly inept at doing anything to politically complex. But he's also demonstrated that he's willing to make good on promises when it is easy to do.

Remember he also appointed the leaders of agencies like the FCC and he's appointed one judge to the supreme court. Our system isn't bullet proof and it can still die a death by 1000 cuts. It certainly is cause for concern in my opinion.

I think the biggest concern is that the president swears to uphold the constitution and this is an indication that he does not intend to do that when it suits his interests.

If you cant actually carry out a threat then it is an empty threat. The same as if I say I am going to drop a nuclear bomb on our house.

As for him appointing a judge to the supreme court. If you knew anything about that judge Gorsuch you would know he is far less likely to go along with removing any of our rights. The man is a strict constitutionist, so the idea of removing our freedom of speech and turning it over to the president would go against his entire judicial history. Judges like Ginsberg would be more likely to take away your freedom of speech than Gorsuch would.

As for Presidents Trumps tweets, while I am generally not a fan of the things he tweets out, I have learned to pay more attention to what any politician does vs what they say. In most cases it because they promise you the world and are lying through their teeth, things like "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and "This plan will save you money." In Trumps case it is that generally he exercises very little control on Twitter when he feels he is being attacked. So I have always had the position of pay more attention to what the president does vs what he says. So when Trump does things I find good I will praise him, when he does things bad I will criticize him. So far while i generally dislike the things he has said on Twitter, his actually actions I have been in favor of. i like securing the border, i want Obamacare gone, I want the govt to take fewer taxes, I am happy with his rollback on a bunch of regulations, and I am happy with his judicial picks. I want him to push for less govt spending (something I am sure he wont do) and i am not happy with some of his proposed social programs. Depending on what else he actually does will depend on how happy i am with him.

[Ragedaug]

There's no easy way for him to make good on the threat. But it's still a threat. He's demonstrated that he is fairly inept at doing anything to politically complex. But he's also demonstrated that he's willing to make good on promises when it is easy to do.

Remember he also appointed the leaders of agencies like the FCC and he's appointed one judge to the supreme court. Our system isn't bullet proof and it can still die a death by 1000 cuts. It certainly is cause for concern in my opinion.

I think the biggest concern is that the president swears to uphold the constitution and this is an indication that he does not intend to do that when it suits his interests.

You guys are way more scared of Trump than you need to be. His own administration is calling him a moron and for good reason. He has no idea of what powers he has been granted and has less sense about what he should be talking about. If Trump did half of the executive overreaching that he's threatening to do You'd see Republicans join the Democrats in impeaching him.

Trump can't even get enough Republicans to help him vote through stuff they all promised during the campaign. There's no way Trump gets enough 'Pubs to side with him on the stuff they generally disagree with.

- - - Updated - - -

As for him appointing a judge to the supreme court. If you knew anything about that judge Gorsuch you would know he is far less likely to go along with removing any of our rights. The man is a strict constitutionist, so the idea of removing our freedom of speech and turning it over to the president would go against his entire judicial history. Judges like Ginsberg would be more likely to take away your freedom of speech than Gorsuch would.

Basically this. Gorsuch would be the first person in line to shoot down Trump's executive overreach...considering he even tries it (which I don't think he would).

[Dragonhawk]

I'm not reaching at all. Yeah, it's obvious that he can't physically force it, but he can influence the people that can, and clearly he has. He brought up the thought of removing the NFL at being tax exempt. That alone will scare the owners into doing what he says. He will threaten whoever he needs to, to get his way.

Your comparisons are rather weak as well. Someone who has power threatening these things is different than someone who has ZERO influence. Trump doesn't say "I wish they would stand." He says "Stand or I'll remove blah blah, text exempt, etc".

Trump doesn't like CNN or NBC. He threatened that he wants to do what he can to remove their licenses just because they say mean stuff about him. Dictator much. Freedom of press threatened. He can't just go and sign a bill and make it so, but he can threaten the jobs of others to make it so.

Or maybe it was the 11% rating drop in one week that caused them to change their tune. Considering the NFL is run by pretty business savey people who would know htat Trump could not change their tax status without congress, my guess is the rating drop and booing at the stadiums was a bigger influence than Trump was.

If Trump is not allowed to influence anything by just talking about it then please link to me all your other outcrys when other presidents did the same thing. Also special interest groups threatening to boycott companies that support certain people or programs has certainly had an influence on tings, so we should then outlaw our right to boycott things we are opposed to. Uber ran and begged for forgiveness because people threatened to boycott them strictly because they didnt suspend their service to the airports when Trump put in his Travel ban. That threat of a boycott certainly influenced them to change how they would do things in the future so if you are going to remove the right of one citizen to influence things then you need to remove the right of all citizens to do the same.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys are way more scared of Trump than you need to be. His own administration is calling him a moron and for good reason. He has no idea of what powers he has been granted and has less sense about what he should be talking about. If Trump did half of the executive overreaching that he's threatening to do You'd see Republicans join the Democrats in impeaching him.

Trump can't even get enough Republicans to help him vote through stuff they all promised during the campaign. There's no way Trump gets enough 'Pubs to side with him on the stuff they generally disagree with.

- - - Updated - - -



Basically this. Gorsuch would be the first person in line to shoot down Trump's executive overreach...considering he even tries it (which I don't think he would).

Well said. i think many people are worried due to two things. One is ignorance of how the govt works, something you can see when they do man on the street interviews and people cant even say what year the War of 1812 was fought. The other is that they saw Obama do a number of things by executive order and never saw what happened after. Since the news media is a completely biased piece of garbage who loved Obama and would never let anything get out that made him look bad they buried the fact that most of Obamas executive orders that were massive over reaches (such as the immigration one) were shut down by the courts. This led many to think that the president can actually get away with basically taking complete legislative control of the govt. It did not help though that the Republicans in congress let much of this happen and let the courts fix it, due to their fear of the press.

I think part of the reason the press hates him so much, aside from him beating the candidate they did everything in their power to get elected, is that he is not afraid of them. He is more than willing to hit them back just as hard as they keep hitting him. the press are generally bullies and they got used to the party they hate running in fear of them. Now there is someone who doesnt fear them and they dont know how to handle it. The last time that happened was Reeagan, and while I do not consider Trump to be the next Ronald Reagan he does share Reagans ability to get under the skin of the press.

[Macaquerie]

I get that, but they sit there and say time and time again its nothing against the flag or the anthem. They literally all say that. There are numerous videos of several NFL players stating its not about the flag or anthem. If that's absolutely true to no fault, then why use it as a vessel? The beginning of the game isn't the only time to reach out and speak. They have several avenues to take. Like I said, I don't care either way. Its their right. But I find it odd they contradict themselves time and time again on the issue. All they do is sit or kneel, and that's it. I don't see much action on the issue they seem to all the sudden be so passionate about overall. It's turned into a circus. Hell, Kaepernick the clown sat there and said he will stand for the anthem if a team drafts him. Clearly their passion isn't true.

It's not about the flag or the anthem in the sense that it's not some specific aspect of either of those that they take exception to, but the protest is very much intended to highlight that American society is seriously flawed and that we should not celebrate the country without at least being aware of these problems. I get that most fans on Sunday want to just turn off their brains and enjoy the spectacle, but if we are serious about actually making America great again, we can't really allow ourselves that kind of complacency.

What the players say about the protest is obviously going to not be logically watertight. Most of them are risking a lot by even doing this, since they can all see how Kaepernick got blackballed, and of course it's not like meathead jocks are really the ones you want leading the charge for social change. However, they do have this platform and they have every right to use it. If you disagree with that, then lay out your argument for why their protest is invalid, don't try to no-platform them or threaten their jobs over it.

[Zmaniac17]

If you cant actually carry out a threat then it is an empty threat. The same as if I say I am going to drop a nuclear bomb on our house.

As for him appointing a judge to the supreme court. If you knew anything about that judge Gorsuch you would know he is far less likely to go along with removing any of our rights. The man is a strict constitutionist, so the idea of removing our freedom of speech and turning it over to the president would go against his entire judicial history. Judges like Ginsberg would be more likely to take away your freedom of speech than Gorsuch would.

As for Presidents Trumps tweets, while I am generally not a fan of the things he tweets out, I have learned to pay more attention to what any politician does vs what they say. In most cases it because they promise you the world and are lying through their teeth, things like "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and "This plan will save you money." In Trumps case it is that generally he exercises very little control on Twitter when he feels he is being attacked. So I have always had the position of pay more attention to what the president does vs what he says. So when Trump does things I find good I will praise him, when he does things bad I will criticize him. So far while i generally dislike the things he has said on Twitter, his actually actions I have been in favor of. i like securing the border, i want Obamacare gone, I want the govt to take fewer taxes, I am happy with his rollback on a bunch of regulations, and I am happy with his judicial picks. I want him to push for less govt spending (something I am sure he wont do) and i am not happy with some of his proposed social programs. Depending on what else he actually does will depend on how happy i am with him.

The problem I see with only looking at what he does and not what he says is this. The presidents job is to set policy. What they say is incredibly important. The rank and file of the government look to him to see how they should act.

Also, many of the things that you mentioned (healthcare, border wall, tax cuts) are the purview of the congressional branch. They ultimately decide what receives funding.

I would also point out that removing freedom of speech is an exaggeration on your part. Removal and infringement are not the same thing.

If it was just a few things he said on twitter I wouldn't worry either but this stuff isn't only happening on twitter. Here's an example.

DOJ Says No One Has Any Right To Question The Adminstration's Handling Of Records, Not Even The Courts
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...n-courts.shtml

It's things like this that scare me. Consolidation of power.



And the FCC planning to approve the merger between Sinclair Broadcast Group and Tribune Media getting control over something like 70% of the U.S. local news stations through a merger. That's a monopoly.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sincl...ed-local-news/


What people say is important. Even when they are lying you can see what they desire.

[Surfd]

So please show me what law in existence or even a law he is proposing that will allow him to remove the freedom of speech from either group. Particularly in the case of the NFL he would need to be able to take ownership from all the current team owners, so basically nationalize the NFL, in order to actually fire any player that did not stand for the anthem. Good luck believing that will ever happen.

I wont claim to know all the regulations that exist within the FCC, but am confident that were he to try and remove broadcasting licenses from news stations that they would have him in court within days if not hours of this going through. I am also confident that it would be overturned by any court, be it a right or left leaning judge that day. So again empty threat.

You are certainly free to have your paranoid conspiracy theories and you may even convince a few people here you are right. However any rational person who knows anything about how the government works is going to see your claims as what hey are, paranoid theories on how those in authority are out to get us, not by their actions but by anything they say at any point.

It has absolutely nothing to do with his complete and utter inability to actually carry out the threats he has made, and everything to do with the fact that he, the president of the goddamned USA stooped so low as to make them in the first place. The threats should never have been made. FULL STOP. End of Line. I mean, never mind that anyone even remotely familiar with Trump's history as a business man knows full well that he is a litigative little shitgoblin who is quite happy to throw the threat of lawsuit into the face of anyone who does anything that might put him in a negative light, so it is absolutely no surprise that he would continue this trend from the seat behind the desk in the Oval Office, but the simple fact of the matter is that his assinine little tantrums should never have been allowed to occur in the first place. It's really that simple.

If the fact that Trump is literally acting exactly like a wannabe autocratic dictator would act does not bother you, then perhaps you should top for a second to consider the fact that the only thing stopping him from actually being an autocratic dictator is the sheer and utter incompetence of both himself and his administration.

[Machismo]

So please show me what law in existence or even a law he is proposing that will allow him to remove the freedom of speech from either group. Particularly in the case of the NFL he would need to be able to take ownership from all the current team owners, so basically nationalize the NFL, in order to actually fire any player that did not stand for the anthem. Good luck believing that will ever happen.

I wont claim to know all the regulations that exist within the FCC, but am confident that were he to try and remove broadcasting licenses from news stations that they would have him in court within days if not hours of this going through. I am also confident that it would be overturned by any court, be it a right or left leaning judge that day. So again empty threat.

You are certainly free to have your paranoid conspiracy theories and you may even convince a few people here you are right. However any rational person who knows anything about how the government works is going to see your claims as what hey are, paranoid theories on how those in authority are out to get us, not by their actions but by anything they say at any point.

The man has the ability to implement executive orders, and he controls the FCC. The fact that he even threatened to do it is bad enough. And yes, he threatened the First Amendment rights of NBC and other news outlets he doesn't like.

It's not a paranoid conspiracy theory, it's quite literally taking a man at his own words.