(10) comments Back to story

Doyle Beard

Right Kenneth the people doing this are not defenders of freedom, they just take advantage of it and hide behind the constitution. . Although I do want to pay tribute to one NFL player who gave up an NFL career to serve America. Pat Tillman.People like him are the heroes and not NFL primma donnas that so many go gaga over.

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [ hide behind the constitution ]

Are you saying you don't think people should use their constitutional rights if it offends you?

Craig Lindberg

Mark, how is that different from you saying you don't think people should use their constitutional rights if it scares you?

Mark Aaron

So you would willingly deny domestic tranquility and the general welfare just so you wouldn't be inconvenienced? Is that true Craig?

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: [So you would willingly deny domestic tranquility and the general welfare just so you wouldn't be inconvenienced? Is that true Craig?]

==> First of all, you should look up what “domestic tranquility” means with respect to the Constitution because you clearly have no understanding. As for “general welfare,” your premise is completely meaningless as it’s based on an assumption that you know is false. The preamble is a statement of purpose, and not a grant of power. It’s not justiciable. As I’ve already shown you several times, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of general welfare in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause

Further, you also fundamentally misunderstand General Welfare as relates to power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." The power granted to the Federal government is to raise funds - not to create laws. This clause does not grant the government any power to legislate for the general welfare of the country, and it sure as heck doesn’t give the government any power to take away rights enumerated in the Constitution.

So, no, I’m not suggesting that anyone be denied domestic tranquility or general welfare. Even if everything you suggested was right, it still would make no sense. A law-abiding citizen keeping and bearing arms or defending him/herself and/or others is no threat to or denial of [your misunderstanding of] domestic tranquility or general welfare. If anything, armed law-abiding citizens serve to defend and support the general welfare as a deterrent and as a physical force when necessary. Criminals are an example of a threat to peace, safety, and other aspects of the general welfare.

You’re going to have to do a lot better than this weak nonsense you keep posting. It kind of defeats the purpose of a strawman if you build it out of false information.

As for your use of the word “inconvenience,” it sounds like you are trying to say that infringing on someone rights is merely and inconvenience to that person? If the Federal government passed a law that NFL players had to stand during the National Anthem, would that simply be an inconvenience for them? You’ve argued at length against the posting of the 10 Commandments on Broadway. By your logic, it’s nothing more than an inconvenience if you don’t like it. If the police searched your house without a warrant, would that just be an inconvenience for you? Grand juries? Who needs them? If you’re to believe Mark, it’s just an inconvenience to the defendant if the people don’t get an indictment. Excessive bail? Speedy trial? Forget that – it’s just an inconvenience if you rot in jail for a few years before we get around to prosecuting you without an inducement. Or is it only rights that you don’t agree with that are inconvenient?

Craig Lindberg

Doyle is right that there is a lot of “hiding behind the Constitution,” and saying so in no way implies that people shouldn’t use their constitutional rights if it offends someone*. As he correctly points out, the protesters take advantage of the high visibility their situation provides. When the people who didn’t like the time and place of the protests used their right to free speech to voice that opinion, those supporting the protests disingenuously invoked the 1A claiming people want to take away the players right to free speech. That is a lie; they fundamentally mischaracterize the protections of the 1A to misdirect the debate away from an argument they know that can’t win. That’s “hiding behind the Constitution.” There is no “right” to protest vis-à-vis their employer, and nobody with any credibility has suggested that any of the protesters should be arrested or otherwise punished by the government. The players rights under the 1A was never drawn into question

*You writing “Are you saying you don't think people should use their constitutional rights if it offends you?” is a classic example of Leftist Tactic #1: accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing. I’m sure nobody needs me to provide any links to all but countless examples of the left trying to shut down free speech the deem offensive. Heck is Leftist Tactic #2: decry any speech you disagree with as either offensive or racist.

Mark Aaron

Kenneth: [ the taking of a knee is not a protest at all; it’s a manifestation of the hunter/gatherer wired mind stating it’s as big dog/little dog. This wiring does not believe in rules of authority, only big dog/little dog.]

False premise, strawman. No foundation.

Carlos Ponce

Did I just hear a BARK from Little Marky?

Carlos Ponce

Unfilled seating in stadiums increasing, TV viewership down.
From TickPick: 17.9 percent decrease in NFL orders this week compared to the previous week.
And the NFL's answer: Decrease the number of Thursday Night games by 10.
Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life on the planet "NFL Management".

Jim Forsythe

The percent of decrease that you posted from TickPick , does it include all the other ticket sellers, and does it include preseason? It would be the last place I would use , as I have never heard of them.
Official Ticketmaster is my first choice for ticket needs, than SeatGeek , StubHub , TicketCity, GOtickets, VividSeats, 

"And the NFL's answer: Decrease the number of Thursday Night games by 10." Company's repackage their products all the time.
It is possible , but can not happen before next season,  barring a renegotiation. This will not reduce the number of games , it they decide to do it.
Options include (but aren’t limited to) getting rid of Thursday games completely and possibly starting the package at Thanksgiving and continuing it through the end of the season, with games likely to generate broad interest selected in April for November/December programming. 

"TV viewership down."
This also does not take into account of the one's  who watch for free from other sources such as their computer. It’s not difficult to find the games streaming online and sometimes it’s easier to keep up with the NFL on your phone. 
To say ratings are down, it is true. But it’s not because of people losing interest. It’s because of different ways to keep up with the game.
This year I watched 2 games live stream on some random website because I was unable to at my house during the time, or they weren’t on my station. This also includes people who watch NFL Game Pass , NFL Sunday Ticket, NFL on the Roku, WatchESPN,
NFL on Hulu,  Sling TV carries NFL Network and others
Ratings drop? Sure
Popularity drop? No

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.