Sports
See other Sports Articles
Title: Jaguars, Ravens players kneel [overseas] during anthem amid Trump's criticism
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief ... l-during-anthem-in-response-to
Published: Sep 24, 2017
Author: Brandon Carter
Post Date: 2017-09-24 12:43:38 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 29201
Comments: 124
Multiple Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars players knelt on Sunday during the playing of the national anthem at the first NFL game since President Trump called for players who take a knee to be fired. Video and photos posted to Twitter shows players kneeling and locking arms as the anthem played. Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shad Khan joined his players on the field and linked arms with them before the game began. Trump has faced backlash in recent days from after calling on NFL owners to fire players who kneel during the national anthem. "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a b---- off the field right now,'" Trump said at a rally in Alabama on Friday. "'He is fired.'" Trump’s comments brought rebukes against Trump from multiple NFL players, the head of the NFL players’ union and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who called Trump’s comments “divisive” and said they showed a “lack of respect for the NFL.” Several NFL executives have also spoken out against Trump and reaffirmed their players’ rights to peacefully protest. But Trump on Sunday doubled down on his comments, calling for players to be fired or suspended for not standing during the national anthem and hitting the NFL for not telling players to stand. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017 Ravens and Jaguars players kneeling during National Anthem in England pic.twitter.com/GhthyfIEe3— Justin Fenton (@justin_fenton) September 24, 2017 Many players from both teams kneeling during anthem in London, arms linked.— Neil Best (@sportswatch) September 24, 2017 Multiple players on both the Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars took a knee during the national anthem in the first NFL game today pic.twitter.com/lSz7IcwhBm— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 24, 2017 
A multitude of #Ravens and #Jaguars players kneeling during the National Anthem this morning, the rest of the team locking arms in unison pic.twitter.com/c97tPS9PxC— Ashlyn Sullivan (@ashlynrsullivan) September 24, 2017 
Jaguars’ owner Shad Khan: pic.twitter.com/aMO8cHDWYb— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) September 24, 2017 
If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend! ...NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games yes, but many stay away because they love our country. League should back U.S.
Poster Comment:
I did my best to get those Twitter pics to show here.
Notice that "Shad Khan" (what a cute nickname), the Jaguars owner is a Paki immigrant and Sunni Muslim who joined his team in publicly disrespecting our country.
Notice that they traveled overseas to disrespect our flag and anthem. But both teams stood for the British anthem!
Another NFL story about kneeling:
MRC: NFL Analysts: Tim Tebow Hated Because of His Faith (3 images)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-84) not displayed.
.
.
.
What is surprising is the sheer sloppiness and shockingly biased reporting of these supposed professional journalists.
#86. To: Tooconservative (#65)
My first guess: they were all shot by our national anthem.
I thought they were all shot by cops in an act of oppression.
#87. To: Tooconservative (#85)
What is surprising is the sheer sloppiness and shockingly biased reporting of these supposed professional journalists.
Don't think it is sloppy reporting. It's either intentional or embedded in their education.
Noticed even last year in 6th grade English class my son brought home books where he had to write a narrative on what he thought was the important message of the author. Don't know about you, but we used to study what the author was actually communicating instead of creating our own 'narrative.' It is the embedded moral relativism of our public education which is destroying some rather good talent out there. They are told to 'find' a narrative which 'speaks for them or others.' Meaning don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I think that is what happened. Even the sports journalists have a preconception of what 'should be' and designs a narrative accordingly. A fake narrative.
Needless to say we are homeschooling my youngest this year. Wife and I are no longer impressed with teachers teaching from a workbook. Any idiot can do that so why not me. :) Plus, he does not get bombarded with garbage which I have to deprogram at night. We use that extra time now to study theology and Bible reading. Win win situation. :)
#88. To: Pinguinite (#68)
Well, it is constitutionally protected from criminal action which means Trump has zero legal authority to do anything about it.
What on earth does it have to do with Federal criminal law????
There is no CRIMINAL violation here by any party.
My meaning with "private" was that the government has no say or grounds for complaint in the matter, and that it was solely in the purview of the NFL to deal with however they see fit.
The President has every right to stand up and speak up.
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-4/chapter-1/sec.-9/
4 U.S.C. § 9 (2015)§9. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag
During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, or if applicable, remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Citizens of other countries present should stand at attention. All such conduct toward the flag in a moving column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes.
(Added Pub. L. 105–225, §2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1498; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title V, §594, Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 138.)
The government does have a say when, on national television, a corporate entity is permitting or encouraging the planned, deliberate, organized violation of a Federal statute, to the offense of the people, and in disrespect of the flag and the country.
When, with league approval, the players and coaches disrespect the flag and the country, it is offensive.
True, as stadiums qualify as public venues and the events are widely broadcast it is not private it that sense.
Screw stadiums. It is on FCC regulated BROADCAST television.
As it is not a federal matter, Trump should declare it as such, and his condemnation of the protest should be billed as his personal opinion, though underscoring that is not Trump's way.
It is a Federal matter. 4 U.S.C. § 9.
It is the nation, the national flag, and the national anthem that is being disrespected.
From another angle, Trump's condemnation of the protests have actually served to reward the protesters with the very attention they want. That may have actually fanned the flames, so to speak, and encouraged other athletes to protest as well.
Opinions do vary. Trump has definitely shined the brightest light possible upon the kneeling cockroaches. He has presented the people with a simple choice between Team BLM, supported by Team Goodell and the NFL football monopoly, and Team USA. This cost of the NFL caving to Team BLM will have the same devasting cost as it did to the University of Missouri.
Attendance goes down, tv ratings go down, and revenue goes down. When it goes down enough, the owners will no longer support the players costing them a fortune.
As for owners joining with Team BLM yesterday, these are the same owners who will not hire Colin Kaepernick. They are in their current predicament because the NFL failed to act last year when Kaepernick insulted the nation every week.
Pro athletes may well have modest loyalty to country, but likely a stronger loyalty to their teammates, and compatriots in other pro sports.
It is not all pro athletes. There are thugs and jackasses in the NFL, just as there are outside the NFL, who support BLM bullshit agitation.
The NFL can do something about their thug BLM infection, or they can pay the same price as the University of Missouri.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/25/university-missouri-enrollment-hits-new-low/
University of Missouri enrollment hits new lowBy Bradford Richardson - The Washington Times
Monday, September 25, 2017Enrollment at the University of Missouri continues to crater in the wake of the November 2015 race protests, with this year’s incoming class down 33 percent from the one two years ago.
[...]
#89. To: redleghunter (#70)
Unrepentant hypocrite Colin Kaepernick defends Fidel Castro
I've mentioned previously that this was what disqualified Kaepernick from consideration by the Dolphins. He would just be unacceptable to the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida.
#90. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter (#74)
So Villaneuva is a Spaniard, not a Hispanic.
Spanish are hispanic.
#91. To: nolu chan (#36)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/25/gregg-jarrett-trump-is-correct-nfl- teams-can-legally-fire-players-for-their-conduct.html
Every professional player must sign the standard NFL player contract. In it, the player promises as follows:
“To conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game” (Paragraph 2). “ If player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by the Club to adversely affect or reflect on the Club, then the Club may terminate this contract” (Paragraph 11).
This language makes it clear that a team will decide whether a player’s personal conduct adversely affects the club. Since it is a subjective standard, NFL owners have enormous latitude and discretion to fire a player for reasons of conduct.
But that is not all. The collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the players’ union and approved by the players themselves authorizes suspension or termination “for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” (Article 46).
The players agreed in writing to conduct themselves with respect and refrain from conduct which is detrimental to the game. There is nothing in either of these contracts which gives players a right to a political or social protest while in uniform at the commencement of a game. Indeed, the league strictly enforces the wearing of patches and other symbols on player uniforms which are intended to promote causes.
#92. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter, nolu chan (#78)
If the coach tries to hold the line on staying in the locker room, he can't be certain that others might not join the Spaniard since the vote was only by a narrow majority.
Absurd presumptive coercion aside by a hypocritical white-hating black Coach Tomlin (who was handed his job SOLELY because of his race, AND is married to a WHITE WOMAN)...why refer to Alejandro Villanueva as a "Spaniard"? It smacks of unnecessary condescension and elitism. This man among cowardly boys is more "American" by deed and act than the vast majority of "Americans" -- who are AMERICAN IN NAME ONLY.
In any case, we are again witnessing the usual BS spin from a despicably divisive Mainstream Media and NFL. Notice how they now refer to Villanueva's rejection of *their* consensus? "CONTROVERSIAL." Because THEY also regard America, White people, NFL fans, and President Trump with utter disrespect, contempt, and hatred, this Globalist reptilian trash are writing that Al Villanueva is "controversial."
Note this trend: Both the media and NFL are on record as labeling those who honor either America OR God "controversial."
Openly patriotic and heroic American (Al Villanueva) who stood alone during the playing of the National Anthem is "controversial; In Tim Tebow's case, it was his open faith in God, honoring Him with prayer that made HIM "controversial."
#93. To: redleghunter (#87)
Needless to say we are homeschooling my youngest this year. Wife and I are no longer impressed with teachers teaching from a workbook. Any idiot can do that so why not me. :) Plus, he does not get bombarded with garbage which I have to deprogram at night. We use that extra time now to study theology and Bible reading. Win win situation. :)
It sounds nice, you get to spend more time with your son too.
That extra individual attention can really pay off.
I did not share a teacher with other children in my own class until I was in sixth grade (except having a classmate for a while in second grade). It was a country school and never had more than 10 kids. So I got about 45 minutes a day alone with the teacher. I spent time in my workbooks, outlined entire textbooks to improve my reading comprehension, etc. Did me a lot of good really. I entered 6th grade reading at a 10th grade level and a consequently overestimated IQ.
#94. To: nolu chan (#90)
Spanish are hispanic.
Meh. The people of Spain are Spanish or Spaniards. Hispanic more often indicates Latin or South American colonies of Spain, at least in the modern era.
#95. To: Liberator (#92)
...why refer to Alejandro Villanueva as a "Spaniard"?
I don't recall anyone else calling him a Spaniard. I did. Mostly because someone else called him a Hispanic.
He is a white man from Spain who had birthright citizenship here that he took advantage of. He was not from the old Spanish colonies in Central or South America or from Cuba or Puerto Rico, etc.
He's insanely tall for a Spaniard. Among the Dutch, his height and size wouldn't be unusual but the Spanish just aren't that big usually.
#96. To: misterwhite (#91)
Note the following, as well:
2017 Official Playing Rules of the National Footbal League, Rule 5, Section 4, Article 8:
ARTICLE 8. PERSONAL MESSAGES. Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office. All such items approved by the League office, if any, must relate to team or League events or personages. The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns. Further, any such approved items must be modest in size, tasteful, non-commercial, and noncontroversial; must not be worn for more than one football season; and if approved for use by a specific team, must not be worn by players on other teams in the League.
#97. To: nolu chan, Pinguinite, tooconservative, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#88)
The President has every right to stand up and speak up....Trump has definitely shined the brightest light possible upon the kneeling cockroaches.
He has presented the people with a simple choice between Team BLM, supported by Team Goodell and the NFL football monopoly, and Team USA. This cost of the NFL caving to Team BLM will have the same devasting cost as it did to the University of Missouri.
Interesting observations...
It seems THE self-annointed arbiters of "Free Speech" (or notion that Abortion is considered "Choice" instead of Baby-Murder) are now the Globalist MSM, leftist Academe, and Anarchists. Truth is now relative to whether one is conservative OR liberal-Left. Libertarians remains as confused and supporting ANYTHING -- "just as long as no one dies. (Directly.)
The argument that Trump should keep his mouth shut is akin to keeping quiet as your friendly neighborhood vandals and arsonists do their thang. This issue is NOT about 1A issues (as has the MSM-Propaganda etal tried to spin. They were conspicuously mute as 0bama was far more incendiary and divisive.)
The GOOD news as you note is Trump exposing the infestation and TRUE under-belly of contempt and investment by the various elitist entities for an America-divided and mired in permanent anarchy.
From where I stand, watch and listen, the NFL (like most American institutions that are slowly being co-oped), is fully prepared to take the financial bullet here.
As I've recently suggested, in exchange for their nod and a wink, the NWO Globalist Cabal of Monied Occultists are underwriting any revenue losses by the owners. NONE of what's happened has taken any owners by surprise. ALL of it has their blessing.
Colleges and Universities (like Missou) initially took financial bullets, but behind the scene money is presumably aggressively exchanging hands, taking much of the assumed financial sting out of the equation.
It is very possible that (like DC politicians), NFL OWNERS THEMSELVES have also been made "offers" they "can't refuse." It makes NO sense that they would support this nonsense that will obviously alienate their fan base. UNLESS they've been reassured that THEY WILL BE COMPENSATED.
As I've also suggested recently, the #1 Enemy of Globalist-Elites is American sovereignty and independence.
The #1 foe standing in the way of a One World Government (as framed by the propaganda arm of the Globalist Occultists Inc) are White people. Christian White people. Especially, ARMED STRAIGHT CHRISTIAN WHITE PEOPLE. And Patriots of ALL stripes. This is why it is crucial that Christians especially be divided and isolated by tribe, race, age, politics, gender, and every demo possible.
#98. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#95)
He's insanely tall for a Spaniard.
Pau and Marc Gasol are two fairly tall Spaniards. Their "little" brother, Adria Gasol is 6'9". They are all from Barcelona.
For Alejandro Villanueva, I could only find an unsourced claim that both parents were from Andalucia, or more specifically Cádiz. That's the opposite end of Spain.
The tall gene is running around there somewhere, but I never saw any 6'9" Spaniards in Andalucia. Then again, I don't recall seeing any in the U.S., except on television.
#99. To: Tooconservative (#95)
I don't recall anyone else calling him a Spaniard. I did. Mostly because someone else called him a Hispanic.
Aah. Gotcha.
He is a white man from Spain who had birthright citizenship here that he took advantage of. He was not from the old Spanish colonies in Central or South America or from Cuba or Puerto Rico, etc.
A "good import" in this case.
He's insanely tall for a Spaniard. Among the Dutch, his height and size wouldn't be unusual but the Spanish just aren't that big usually.
Villenueva is very tall for a Spaniard. Or most any Mediteranean land. I wonder how HE refers to HIMSELF? "Spanish-American"? "Hispanic-American"? "Latino"? The Establishment has trained us to require labels so we can divide ourselves into anything BUT "American" without a hyphen.
#100. To: redleghunter, Tooconservative (#84)
The MSM has been complicit in such for quite a few decades. It took the Orange man to expose them for who they are and we should at least thank him for such.But he had to get in the same fecal strewn mud pit in order to expose them.
Of course the fine deplorables here on LF have exposed the fecal false narratives for some time. Just wanted to get that in of course to give credit where due. :)
HAH! Well done! :-)
#101. To: Liberator (#99)
It consists primarily of a record of innocent people
"Allo. My name is Inigo Montoya. You have my football. Prepare to die!"
#102. To: Liberator (#99)
Villenueva is very tall for a Spaniard. Or most any Mediteranean land. I wonder how HE refers to HIMSELF? "Spanish-American"? "Hispanic-American"? "Latino"? The Establishment has trained us to require labels so we can divide ourselves into anything BUT "American" without a hyphen.
I would guess just "American".
I called him a Spaniard because I think that is most accurate according to my Mac's version of the Oxford dictionary.
Hispanic: relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, especially those of Latin America.
Spanish: relating to Spain, its people, or its language. Spaniard: a native or inhabitant of Spain, or a person of Spanish descent. Chicano: (in North America) a person of Mexican origin or descent, especially a man or boy. See also Chicana. Latino: (in North America) a person of Latin American origin or descent, especially a man or boy. See also Latina. |
In America, Hispanic/Chicano/Latino almost always refers to people from the old Spanish colonies in the Americas and never refers to a native or inhabitant or immigrant from Spain. In old books, you may see Spaniards referred to as Hispanics but that is outdated IMO.
Ever met a white Mexican? These are old families from Spain that have lived for centuries in Mexico. Try calling them Hispanic or Chicano if you want an explosion. Hint: they don't like it. They identify as Mexican citizens but definitely consider themselves to be Spanish or Spaniards.
#103. To: Liberator (#97)
It is very possible that (like DC politicians), NFL OWNERS THEMSELVES have also been made "offers" they "can't refuse." It makes NO sense that they would support this nonsense that will obviously alienate their fan base. UNLESS they've been reassured that THEY WILL BE COMPENSATED.
I don't think anyone will pay them off to take a hit. They are afraid of their next player strike when the contracts are renegotiated or afraid of the playas demanding the right to wear stylish new "Death To Whitey" emblems or some such.
The owners think if they just pander now, it'll pay off later in avoiding a strike or demands that they let the NFL become the playas SJW propaganda platform. They're wrong of course.
#104. To: redleghunter, Tooconservative (#87)
("What is surprising is the sheer sloppiness and shockingly biased reporting of these supposed professional journalists.")Don't think it is sloppy reporting. It's either intentional or embedded in their education.
Exactly.
Noticed even last year in 6th grade English class my son brought home books where he had to write a narrative on what he thought was the important message of the author. Don't know about you, but we used to study what the author was actually communicating instead of creating our own 'narrative.' It is the embedded moral relativism of our public education which is destroying some rather good talent out there. They are told to 'find' a narrative which 'speaks for them or others.' Meaning don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Excellent anecdotal example of "embedded moral relativism" intended to corrupt and condition the youngins' to misinterpret the truth of any given matter early on. If you weren't following so closely filtering the garbage, you'd never have caught on. You've nailed THE problem. Too bad the Establishment Cultists know the vast majority will not be filtering. Inevitable: Buffy and Skippy calling Social Services about Daddy's "dangerous" guns that they "are a-skeed of."
Needless to say we are homeschooling my youngest this year. Wife and I are no longer impressed with teachers teaching from a workbook. Any idiot can do that so why not me. :) Plus, he does not get bombarded with garbage which I have to deprogram at night. We use that extra time now to study theology and Bible reading. Win win situation. :)
Excellent! WIN-WIN. (Man -- how insane is it that our children must be "de-programmed" from public education propaganda??)
Best investment you and Mrs. Red can make :-)
#105. To: Tooconservative (#103)
The owners think if they just pander now, it'll pay off later in avoiding a strike or demands that they let the NFL become the playas SJW propaganda platform.
I think...that's exactly the inside-the-box narrative "they" have calculated would be widely accepted. NOT the theory of a "kook" like mine.
Nope. The owners aren't THAT naive to assume a quid pro quo concession from playas in exchange for cratering the NFL fan base. Makes no sense.
Nor should anyone believe that Goodell isn't a mere puppet who fears neither the NFL owners, the DoJ, nor playa strike.
The "Playas"? They aren't THIS smart OR organized to pull off what's been orchestrated since Kaep decided to go commando all by his lonesome, going, "Meh," as he's become a half-black martyr while surrendered guaranteed millions.
#106. To: Tooconservative (#103)
...wear stylish new "Death To Whitey" emblems or some such.
But...didn't Kaep basically wear his stylish, "Death To Cops" sock already? WITH IMPUNITY from Goodell and NFL owners?
I can easily see black-fist emblems or some other unofficial incendiary NFL-sanctioned "FU"s on its way to the field. ESPN will breathlessly report it in between half-smoked Marlboros.
#107. To: nolu chan, Tooconservative, redleghunter, Vicomte13, AKA Stone (#98)
For Alejandro Villanueva, I could only find an unsourced claim that both parents were from Andalucia, or more specifically Cádiz. That's the opposite end of Spain.The tall gene is running around there somewhere, but I never saw any 6'9" Spaniards in Andalucia. Then again, I don't recall seeing any in the U.S., except on television.
There are reports of "Giants" in and about the nearby island of Corsica. As well as all over the world -- incluing the American Southwest.
Of course these reports involve cover-ups, the Vatican, archaeological research, and Genesis 6, but I guess no one wants to hear about it.
BUT JUST IN CASE:
#108. To: Liberator (#97)
From where I stand, watch and listen, the NFL (like most American institutions that are slowly being co-oped), is fully prepared to take the financial bullet here.
Nah. They punted last year in fear of angering the supporters of Kaepernick. They unloaded him in the off-season. Problem not over or solved. Now they have dozens of Kaepernicks, and a bigger problem.
They are not prepared to just bite the bullet. If the crap continues, it could not only threaten revenue, but in some areas, it could put teams out of business. If the NFL is moved out of large areas (e.g. NASCAR territory), it would open things up to start a seperate, competing league.
The NFL can face a very real anti-trust problem if the government wants to give them one. Just because teams within the league compete against each other in football games, does not mean that it does not act as a single entity in marketing.
I am not going to take a deep dive into American Needle and about ten years of litigation, but the conduct at issue was the licensing by the league to Reebok of the sole right to manufacture NFL apparel. I only wish to point out that there is an apparent weak spot where Trump could harpoon them like a whale. Anti-trust litigation would be no fun. Recall the government broke up Standard Oil and Ma Bell. If motivated, they might find a way to break up the NFL.
In American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League et al., 560 US 183, 202-03, (24 May 2010), the Opinion of the Court stated,
VIFootball teams that need to cooperate are not trapped by antitrust law. “[T]he special characteristics of this industry may provide a justification” for many kinds of agreements. Brown, 518 U. S., at 252 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions. But the conduct at issue in this case is still concerted activity under the Sherman Act that is subject to § 1 analysis.
That kicked it back to the trial court.
In 2014, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Memorandum Opinion and Order stated,
Finally, defendants argue that American Needle cannot show a causal link between the Reebok contract and any damage it suffered. The initial basis for this argument is a series of contentions. Defendants assert that a contract that chose a larger but still fixed number of licensees would have been permissible under the Sherman Act, that American Needle’s bid was not one of the best bids, and that its license rights would not have been renewed even in the absence of the Reebok exclusive arrangement. Defendants do not cite authority for their assertion that a less dramatic restraint, permitting as many as three licensees, would have been presumptively valid under Sherman Act analysis. Nor do defendants contend that American Needle had in any way been in breach of its earlier license agreements or that it was otherwise disqualified from continued participation in the prior multiple-licensee approach. On this record, there is sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that American Needle could have continued as a licensee under the traditional structure, and that its prospects were ended by defendants’ concerted decision to limit the number of their licensees. The possibility that a less onerous restraint would have also ended those prospects does not negate the causal link between the alleged injuries and the restraint actually imposed.The second prong of defendants’ causation argument is that American Needle waived its claims in a document it signed in the bid process for the exclusive license. The language cited by defendants is a representation by American Needle that defendants had no obligation to grant it a license and that their decision not to award a license did not give rise to any rights in American Needle’s favor. This language falls far short of a waiver of the rights American Needle asserts here, which are derived not from the bidding process or any contractual arrangement with defendants, but from the Sherman Act. The language highlighted by defendants does not waive or disclaim those rights, and does not provide a basis for a grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on causation grounds is accordingly denied.
So, with the Court finding application of the Sherman anti-trust act, what happened? Well, the NFL settled with American Needle. I think it a fair conjecture they they paid handsomely to bury it. Likely, they would prefer to keep all talk of the Sherman Act buried.
#109. To: Liberator, Tooconservative (#106)
But...didn't Kaep basically wear his stylish, "Death To Cops" sock already?
In practice.
unofficial incendiary NFL-sanctioned "FU"s on its way to the field.
I have a collegiate FU hat. They don't sell that model anymore. It has a big FU on the front. In smaller letters, not readable at a distance, it says Fordham University.
I have an old one from the St. John's Redmen as well. That's another one they don't sell anymore.
#110. To: nolu chan (#108)
The NFL can face a very real anti-trust problem if the government wants to give them one. Just because teams within the league compete against each other in football games, does not mean that it does not act as a single entity in marketing.
Well, that is where their incredible power comes from, this legal monopoly that they were granted. The merchandise, the broadcast rights, the ability to treat the players as they like, all comes from this. You may recall that Trump once tried to own an American Football League team.
Larry Klayman, who worked as an antitrust litigator back when they broke up AT&T's monopoly, wrote on this today.
Newsmax: Revoke the NFL's Antitrust Exemption
Obviously, he agrees with you on this.
#111. To: nolu chan (#108) (Edited)
Nah. They punted last year in fear of angering the supporters of Kaepernick.They unloaded him in the off-season. Problem not over or solved. Now they have dozens of Kaepernicks, and a bigger problem.
Kaepernick is REALLY a bad QB. No passer's touch; no football instincts; no preparation. no leadership qualities. And NOT dedicated to the job of football. That's not punting. That's reality. He stinks by every known QB metric.
If the crap continues, it could not only threaten revenue, but in some areas, it could put teams out of business. If the NFL is moved out of large areas (e.g. NASCAR territory), it would open things up to start a seperate, competing league.
It's not so convincing an argument when NFL owners start sanctioning the FU gesture by allowing their ENTIRE team to dishonor its fans and eschewing the National Anthem.
The NFL can face a very real anti-trust problem if the government wants to give them one. Just because teams within the league compete against each other in football games, does not mean that it does not act as a single entity in marketing.
Can and could isn't quite the same as "should"; The NFL has in reality been in violation of anti-trust laws and a monopoly. That the gubmint has decided not the prosecute is no surprise -- gubmint itself is a criminal enterprise (but that's another story.)
I only wish to point out that there is an apparent weak spot where Trump could harpoon them like a whale. Anti-trust litigation would be no fun. Recall the government broke up Standard Oil and Ma Bell. If motivated, they might find a way to break up the NFL.
The year 1982 may as well have been 150 years ago. Whole different world today...
With Trump now presiding as a toof-less paper "President" and Congress and Judiciary acting with no less regard or respect for his authority, they answer only to the Globalist Elites. Ergo, any proposed litigation against an NFL on ANY legal grounds wouldn't get more than an inch off the ground with layers of NWO-owned judicial obstruction between Trump and Constitutional Law.
We've already see this dance played out on far more serious issues -- like National Security.
As the season wears on, we shall soon see just how much (or little) NFL owners fear public opinion from their millionaire employee FUs.
#112. To: nolu chan (#109)
I have a collegiate FU hat. They don't sell that model anymore. It has a big FU on the front. In smaller letters, not readable at a distance, it says Fordham University.
Heh...
#113. To: Liberator (#111)
Kaepernick is REALLY a bad QB. No passer's touch; no football instincts; no preparation. no leadership qualities. And NOT dedicated to the job of football. That's not punting. That's reality. He stinks by every known QB metric.
Kaepernick was clearly as good as some of the backups hanging around. He was clearly not good enough to opt out of his contract and expect the world to compete to have him as a starter.
He is not out of a job because he is worse than all the backups, and maybe a few starters. He was able to QB the Niners to the Super Bowl.
If the crap continues, it could not only threaten revenue, but in some areas, it could put teams out of business. If the NFL is moved out of large areas (e.g. NASCAR territory), it would open things up to start a seperate, competing league.It's not so convincing an argument when NFL owners start sanctioning the FU gesture by allowing their ENTIRE team to dishonor its fans and eschewing the National Anthem.
What team would that be? Research your answer before responding.
I remember the days when the league blacked out games on local television if the stadium was not sold out 24 hours before gametime. Nowadays, half the games due not sell to capacity. Sunday, they even failed to sell out the Patriots at home against the Texans.
Having the whole team tell the fans to go fuck themselves is usually bad for business.
How about an NFL game with 25,386 in attendance? Will that pay the salaries?
The NFL can face a very real anti-trust problem if the government wants to give them one. Just because teams within the league compete against each other in football games, does not mean that it does not act as a single entity in marketing.Can and could isn't quite the same as "should"; The NFL has in reality been in violation of anti-trust laws and a monopoly.
Could or should makes no difference. If they are in violation of anti-trust laws, and are a monoply, they have a weak spot to target.
That the gubmint has decided not the prosecute is no surprise -- gubmint itself is a criminal enterprise (but that's another story.)
When The Donald tried to buy an NFL team, they very publicly shunned him. He was not acceptable for inclusion in their club (but that's another story.) As long as they have a good supply of K-Y, it should not get too painful.
I only wish to point out that there is an apparent weak spot where Trump could harpoon them like a whale. Anti-trust litigation would be no fun. Recall the government broke up Standard Oil and Ma Bell. If motivated, they might find a way to break up the NFL.The year 1982 may as well have been 150 years ago. Whole different world today...
I guess you missed that the Supreme Court opinion was from 2010, the trial court Memorandum and Order was from 2014, and the settlement to get out from under came in 2015. What happened is called losing. In 2015. That might as well have been yesterday.
If Standard Oil and Ma Bell could not defeat the government, the NFL with a catastrophic public image will not do it.
With Trump now presiding as a toof-less paper "President" and Congress and Judiciary acting with no less regard or respect for his authority, they answer only to the Globalist Elites. Ergo, any proposed litigation against an NFL on ANY legal grounds wouldn't get more than an inch off the ground with layers of NWO-owned judicial obstruction between Trump and Constitutional Law.
How did your invisible, imaginary friends allow a toofless Trump to get elected?
We've already see this dance played out on far more serious issues -- like National Security.As the season wears on, we shall soon see just how much (or little) NFL owners fear public opinion from their millionaire employee FUs.
I have not already seen a bunch of BLM idiots disrespect the country and the viewers, and specifically the military and law enforcement.
As the erosion of attendance, viewers, revenue, and interest continues, we will see the NFL owners fear the lack of public interest in the bullshit the NFL is trying to sell.
The NFL is losing like the shitheads as the University of Missouri. You remember, "Hey, I need some muscle over here!" Those idiots forgot where their money comes from.
Those idiots caved to jackasses protesting over Hands Up, Don't Shoot! That was the imaginary case of oppression of Mike Brown, the Gentle Giant, who was running away, with his hands up, shouting "Don't shoot!" The whole football team threatened to not play if the university president wasn't fired. He resigned. Loss of football revenue was just too much to bear.
They have closed seven (7) dorms since caving in to jackass protesters. Freshman enrollment dropped 24%.
Let NFL attendance and viewership drop 24% and see what NFL owners have to say.
Oh, never mind. The owners have to wait for the Globalist-Elites and the New World Order, and the Illuminati to give them their marching orders. If the Invisible Hand orders them to throw away all their money and walk off a cliff, they will do it. What I still don't understand is why the New World Order ordered the people to vote Trump into office instead of Hillary, or why they ordered Hillary not to campaign in some midwest states.
#114. To: nolu chan (#88)
Well, it is constitutionally protected from criminal action which means Trump has zero legal authority to do anything about it.
What on earth does it have to do with Federal criminal law????
I ask rhetorically: are you suggesting the First Amendment only prohibits civil action on the part of the federal government against people who's speech it doesn't like? I don't know if the fed gov has ever had any basis for a civil claim related to speech, but certainly the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing any criminal penalty for speech/expression. Ergo, my statement above.
There is no CRIMINAL violation here by any party.
Exactly, as any such alleged violation would violate the First Amendment.
My meaning with "private" was that the government has no say or grounds for complaint in the matter, and that it was solely in the purview of the NFL to deal with however they see fit.
The President has every right to stand up and speak up.
Yes, of course. I should have qualified it as any "criminal or civil" complaint. All government workers are free to express their own objections (with the possible exception of judges who may be ethically bound from doing so).
As for 4 U.S.C. § 9, a key word in the statute is "should".
During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other persons present should face the flag and ...
Does "should" in this context mean "must" or perhaps it's more suggestive & non-binding in nature, as per it's common meaning in daily usage? I would expect any enforcement based on it meaning "must" would fail Constitutional scrutiny (not counting the "should" as directed to military personnel, which is likely very mandatory and enforceable). I mean, if the USSC said flag burning was protected expression, then I'd expect this to fall by the wayside.
The government does have a say when, on national television, a corporate entity is permitting or encouraging the planned, deliberate, organized violation of a Federal statute, to the offense of the people, and in disrespect of the flag and the country.
With respect to corporate entities, I wouldn't disagree with that. But there's little doubt the NFL would like nothing more than for their players to stop the damn protesting because it is hitting them in the pocketbook. The NFL, as a corporation, has absolutely nothing to gain from this mess, statute or no statute. Clearly the NFL is not organizing or planning or encouraging this in any way.
#115. To: nolu chan (#113)
I enjoyed your challenge...
Kaepernick was clearly as good as some of the backups hanging around. He was clearly not good enough to opt out of his contract and expect the world to compete to have him as a starter.
Pure Stats lie. They can't measure intangable metrics. Like making other teammates better; motivating other teammates. LEADING A TEAM INTO BATTLE.
He is not out of a job because he is worse than all the backups, and maybe a few starters. He was able to QB the Niners to the Super Bowl.
Considering ALL factors, Kaep is NOW so much a net negative, clearly lost whatever talent he once possessed; and so divisive and hated a liability that even WERE he "good enough," he'd still have too many detractors. Fan bases don't want to root for a team of Terrorists and players who'd prefer to see them dead.
Kaep's visit to the SB may as well been a thousand years ago. He was a novelty act that NFL defenses hadn't yet adjusted to. He was also surrounded by mega-talent. Now that this bum has been exposed as having few real QB skills that make him worthy of a job, his Antifa/BLM/Jihadi crusading priorities (instead of QBing priorities) obviously make him obsolete.
("NFL owners start sanctioning the FU gesture by allowing their ENTIRE team to dishonor its fans and eschewing the National Anthem.")...
What team would that be? Research your answer before responding.
THE PITTSBURGH GANGSTAS. (Just the one player [Villenueva] showing up still made that a "team effort.")
Moreover, when coaches and owners start holding hands with players as gestures of solidarity (or allowing sizable numbers of players to demonstrate FUs to fans), then you may as well write off ENTIRE TEAMS.
I remember the days when the league blacked out games on local television if the stadium was not sold out 24 hours before gametime. Nowadays, half the games due not sell to capacity. Sunday, they even failed to sell out the Patriots at home against the Texans. Having the whole team tell the fans to go fuck themselves is usually bad for business.
How about an NFL game with 25,386 in attendance? Will that pay the salaries?
Great! Just 25k attendance?? HA!!
Yes, we all recall when the NFL was A SPORT. Those days are now over. Humpty Dumpty and all that.
What I believe the NFL will now do is start addressing the abandonment by giving away tix in order not to be embarrassed by so many empty seats. This will help create the illusion that people still care.
As I've suggested, I'll say it again -- there are mega-wealthy globalist shadow-backers subsidizing NFL losses. Of course you'll cite no hardcore evidence for my theory...and I'd respond by saying that there is no hardcore evidence that there's such an entity as "New World Order" OR a Coup that had rendered the office of the Presidency a charade.
When The Donald tried to buy an NFL team, they very publicly shunned him. He was not acceptable for inclusion in their club (but that's another story.) As long as they have a good supply of K-Y, it should not get too painful.
Yes -- some of us remember the USFL quite well and Trump's ownership of the NJ Generals (featuring Herschel Walker.) The shunning was expected; The NFL a well-known monopoly as was MLB for too long.
#116. To: nolu chan (#113) (Edited)
How did your invisible, imaginary friends allow a toofless Trump to get elected?
I have already addressed your question in a prior post. NOT surprised it wasn't read. Oh well.
(Something about overplaying their hand, sloppy/incompetent Election Day fraud machinations.)
Let me ask YOU question:
Do YOU believe the President possesses Executive Powers that he'll be allowed (YES, "ALLOWED" ) to exercise? Then why are pipsqueak judges AND GOP "leadership" obstructing Constitutional Law, the man AND his agenda on EVERY MAGA promise? Why are all the President's men being hounded out of Trump's circle of advisers and replaced by Globalist/Establishment puppets? Aka, Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, etal. (Think before responding.)
I have not already seen a bunch of BLM idiots disrespect the country and the viewers, and specifically the military and law enforcement.
You mean to tell me you haven't noticed the rapid increase in BLM/black players NOT standing, or making spectacles of their arm-holding, kneeling, and popping off?
"It's dead, Jim." (Repeat after me.)
As the erosion of attendance, viewers, revenue, and interest continues, we will see the NFL owners fear the lack of public interest in the bullshit the NFL is trying to sell.
NFL ownership is either coerced OR onboard the Globalist Agenda.
I realize you strongly believe the NFL owners ARE worried about their now purely political product and losing their business to the Globalist Mob. Some are. But they have no choice in the matter, just as Trump has no choice in whether is MAGA agenda is ever happening. The Globalist Cartel has spoken loudly on BOTH the NFL agenda as well as agenda for America. (All of what is happening is NOT, I repeat NOT a coincidence.
Toss ALL your former instinct, rationale and logic out the window. They no longer apply. Life has not nor WILL not ever be the same again. Yes, I know this sounds overly hysterical to you, but our eyes, ears, and math hadalready reinforced this notion once 0bama became NWO Puppet-in-Chief, reinforced to the nth degree during President toof-less Presidency.
Those idiots [at Missou] caved to jackasses protesting over Hands Up, Don't Shoot! That was the imaginary case of oppression of Mike Brown, the Gentle Giant, who was running away, with his hands up, shouting "Don't shoot!" The whole football team threatened to not play if the university president wasn't fired. He resigned. Loss of football revenue was just too much to bear.
They have closed seven (7) dorms since caving in to jackass protesters. Freshman enrollment dropped 24%. Let NFL attendance and viewership drop 24% and see what NFL owners have to say.
Firstly, Missou took a revenue bullet -- same as the NFL. And BOTH WILL BE CONPENSATED/SUBSIDIZED for their "heroic stands" in support of "Justice for all!"
Ok...what script WILL NFL owners follow when revenue crashes by 24%?
I can certainly speculate. What would YOU project NFL owneship/Goodell saying to a public that's already watch the mask torn off and heart broken? "I'm sorry! It'll never happen again!! We were wrong!!" Hmmm.....naaaah. Not gonna happen.
BUT...I will predict THREE words: "FOR THE CHILDREN." I predict they will parade handicapped kids into stadiums. And create, "Childrens' Day" all across the NFL. (The nuke of ALL emotional weapons!!)
As the erosion of attendance, viewers, revenue, and interest continues, we will see the NFL owners fear the lack of public interest in the bullshit the NFL is trying to sell.
Oh, never mind. The owners have to wait for the Globalist-Elites and the New World Order, and the Illuminati to give them their marching orders. If the Invisible Hand orders them to throw away all their money and walk off a cliff, they will do it.
Yes, exactly. But you're conveniently forgetting the rest of the equation: NFL Owners are being made "offers they can't refuse" for their use of "America's Game" to be used as a sledgehammer for "Hope & Change." I know...it's heartbreaking to know that the NFL is co-opted, the Oval Office co-opted, Congress co-opted, SCOTUS co-opted, and USCON *is* a G-D Piece of paper. Oh. And the Republic dead. Without any official acknowledgement from FNC or CNN or Congress. But is what it is. A modified charade.
What I still don't understand is why the New World Order ordered the people to vote Trump into office instead of Hillary, or why they ordered Hillary not to campaign in some midwest states.
(Answered partially above.)
Hitlery -- IF you recall -- was basically a walking corpse. Collapsing on stage is NOT usually a great optic.
#117. To: Pinguinite (#114)
Well, it is constitutionally protected from criminal action which means Trump has zero legal authority to do anything about it.What on earth does it have to do with Federal criminal law????
I ask rhetorically: are you suggesting the First Amendment only prohibits civil action on the part of the federal government against people who's speech it doesn't like? I don't know if the fed gov has ever had any basis for a civil claim related to speech, but certainly the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing any criminal penalty for speech/expression. Ergo, my statement above.
The First Amendment explicitly states what it prohibits, "Congress shall make no law...."
This is not a case of government interference with the protected free speech of anybody. No unconstitutional law is being proposed or enforced.
The player conduct is not constitutionally protected from anything. It is not protected free speech. Your claim that the players conduct is constitutionally protected is just wrong. They are employees in the workplace.
There is no CRIMINAL violation here by any party.Exactly, as any such alleged violation would violate the First Amendment.
No, the First Amendment freedom of expression does not apply to employee behavior in the workplace.
Is stripping naked and dancing a form of constitutionally protected expression?
The correct answer is "yes."
If you are an employee at WalMart (and not a nude bar), and you take it all off and dance in the aisle, you get arrested and charged criminally.
You do not enjoy some constitutional protection such that you can tell WalMart that you are going to work in the nude in their workplace. Even if you were the only person working in a room with no windows, they could prohibit your nudity.
The President has every right to stand up and speak up.Yes, of course. I should have qualified it as any "criminal or civil" complaint. All government workers are free to express their own objections (with the possible exception of judges who may be ethically bound from doing so).
This is not a criminal case. It is a PR case.
Government workers can express the objections in such manner as the employer dictates. Government workers cannot hold protests on the workroom floor.
As for 4 U.S.C. § 9, a key word in the statute is "should".During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present in uniform should render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute. All other persons present should face the flag and ...
Does "should" in this context mean "must" or perhaps it's more suggestive & non-binding in nature, as per it's common meaning in daily usage? I would expect any enforcement based on it meaning "must" would fail Constitutional scrutiny (not counting the "should" as directed to military personnel, which is likely very mandatory and enforceable). I mean, if the USSC said flag burning was protected expression, then I'd expect this to fall by the wayside.
4 U.S.C. § 9 defines what people should do. It is not a criminal statute. There is no criminal or civil penalty for noncompliance.
You can burn a flag and that is protected from government intrusion.
As an employee in the workplace, you must comply with the employer's code of conduct or face consequences from the employer.
While you enjoy the freedom of expression to burn the flag as a political statement, if you walk into WalMart and burn a flag, you get arrested. If you are a WalMart employee on the job at WalMart and burn a flag on the floor as a protest of whatever, you get arrested.
You enjoy the freedom of speech to shout "Fire!" Do it in a crowded theater and get arrested.
No element of the government has enjoined the NFL players or owners from kneeling or acting like fools. 4 U.S.C. § 9 says it shouldn't be done. President Trump told the owners they shouldn't permit it in their workplace. He hurt their feelings and publicly shamed them for the boorish behavior. He did not threaten a criminal or civil action. He used the bully pulpit to engage in public relations. If they would rather not have the President proclaim their misbehavior to the American people, they can just behave. It is the NFL's choice. The American people may choose to influence the choice the NFL makes. They do not have to pay to be insulted by a classless organization.
But there's little doubt the NFL would like nothing more than for their players to stop the damn protesting because it is hitting them in the pocketbook. The NFL, as a corporation, has absolutely nothing to gain from this mess, statute or no statute.
The statute only clarifies the PR problem.
Here is another statute which covers the national anthem.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301
36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem(a) Designation.—
The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(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; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1263; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title V, § 595, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4475.)
It says nothing about locking arms in a show of unity of ... unity of what?
Clearly the NFL is not organizing or planning or encouraging this in any way.
Really. Here is Jerry Jones, kneeling and grinning for the camera. Boo inducing behavior organized or condoned by management is not a good business idea.
#118. To: Liberator (#115)
When The Donald tried to buy an NFL team, they very publicly shunned him. He was not acceptable for inclusion in their club (but that's another story.) As long as they have a good supply of K-Y, it should not get too painful.Yes -- some of us remember the USFL quite well and Trump's ownership of the NJ Generals (featuring Herschel Walker.) The shunning was expected; The NFL a well-known monopoly as was MLB for too long.
https://www.si.com/mmqb/2016/07/11/donald-trump-usfl-new-jersey-generals-owner
Donald Trump and the USFL: A ‘Beautiful’ CircusTim Rohan
Tuesday July 12th, 2016[excerpt]
Trump had originally wanted an NFL team. Pete Rozelle, the NFL commissioner, revealed in 1986 that before buying the Generals, Trump had tried to purchase the Baltimore Colts. Rozelle responded through an intermediary and told Trump he was wasting his time. Trump denied that, saying in fact Rozelle had tried wooing him.
The NFL had spurned Trump, and, looking back, that appeared to color several decisions he made regarding the Generals and the USFL at large. Before the 1986 season, Trump pushed his fellow owners to move the games to the fall and compete directly opposite the NFL. “If God wanted football in the spring,” Trump once famously said, “he wouldn’t have created baseball.” The league wouldn’t command as much TV money that way, but many people believed the move was designed to force a merger, and that that was Trump’s goal.
In conjunction with the move to the fall, the USFL filed a $1.69 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NFL— another strategic decision Trump supported—arguing that the NFL was using its influence to persuade the three major networks not to broadcast the USFL. A jury ruled that while the NFL did indeed have a monopoly on pro football, it had not interfered with the USFL’s TV deals. The jury awarded the upstart league $3 in damages—$3.76, with interest.
#119. To: Liberator (#116)
Do YOU believe the President possesses Executive Powers that he'll be allowed (YES, "ALLOWED" ) to exercise?
NO. He is the head of the Executive Branch. Your imaginary friends do not "allow" the President to do anything.
Then why are pipsqueak judges AND GOP "leadership" obstructing Constitutional Law, the man AND his agenda on EVERY MAGA promise?
And why do you keep beating your dog?
The travel ban is in effect, isn't it?
The reason for ridiculous court opinions is that the judicial branch is comprised entirely of political appointees.
#120. To: Liberator (#116)
NFL ownership is either coerced OR onboard the Globalist Agenda.I realize you strongly believe the NFL owners ARE worried about their now purely political product and losing their business to the Globalist Mob. Some are. But they have no choice in the matter, just as Trump has no choice in whether is MAGA agenda is ever happening. The Globalist Cartel has spoken loudly on BOTH the NFL agenda as well as agenda for America. (All of what is happening is NOT, I repeat NOT a coincidence.
Toss ALL your former instinct, rationale and logic out the window. They no longer apply. Life has not nor WILL not ever be the same again. Yes, I know this sounds overly hysterical to you, but our eyes, ears, and math hadalready reinforced this notion once 0bama became NWO Puppet-in-Chief, reinforced to the nth degree during President toof-less Presidency.
[...]
Firstly, Missou took a revenue bullet -- same as the NFL. And BOTH WILL BE CONPENSATED/SUBSIDIZED for their "heroic stands" in support of "Justice for all!"
- - - - - - - - - -
#121. To: Liberator (#116)
Hitlery -- IF you recall -- was basically a walking corpse. Collapsing on stage is NOT usually a great optic.
I really enjoyed when she was fainting at the curb and the Secret Service grabbed her and heaved her in that van like a sack of old potatoes. Hilarious stuff.
#122. To: Liberator (#116)
Firstly, Missou took a revenue bullet -- same as the NFL. And BOTH WILL BE CONPENSATED/SUBSIDIZED for their "heroic stands" in support of "Justice for all!"
You keep saying this. Like Soros or David Rockefeller will pull up in a limo and throw a check at them.
I don't think so. Certainly not Missouri. And it is hard to imagine who has a checkbook big enough to compensate the NFL tycoons.
#123. To: nolu chan (#120)
Gee I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ruin the Illusion. David Copperfield did just made an entire Constitutional Republic disappear behind a curtain.
You DO understand that the fedgoob is given a blank check for PsyOps/Black Ops, right? And THEY define the Op, right? And Trump and his entire crew were hit by those Ops, right? (just checking.)
Last question:
After watching Hitlery beat ALL of her raps, 0bama hand Iran $350b, and the last 8 years of treasonous policies enacted -- many by EO and unopposed -- how can you possibly believe there's a working Constitution?
#124. To: Liberator (#123)
You DO understand that the fedgoob is given a blank check for PsyOps/Black Ops, right? And THEY define the Op, right? And Trump and his entire crew were hit by those Ops, right? (just checking.)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]