again I ask how do you know he is a member of Antifa....... some real evidence, not a web page that says it without offering up how they know this
Even the President has the right to free speech and his opinion; doesn’t make him any more an arbiter of truth than anyone else. What he doesn’t have is the power and authority to capriciously sanction those that disagree with him; he has no authority/power over, in this case, the NFL or the players. Those taking a knee have the right to choose that non violent means express their grievances and the President, the right to object in the manner of their method. But in either’s expression of their freedom of speech there is no guarantee of a receptive audience or a acceptance of their opinion... something we see exhibited in action here daily; expressions of opinion with no guarantee of agreement.
Tweets are official statement, the President attacking peoples free speech rights and calling black players SOB's is not very presidential
The president is a government official. As such he needs to observe his oath of office and not interfere with how private businesses conduct themselves as long as it is within the boundary of the law.
There is a significant between not calling to overturn currently existing firearm-related restrictions, and calling for the implementation of many more firearm-related restrictions. Especially when the type of restrictions being called for ignore and violate due process, involve confiscation, and are drafted by those who have absolutely no idea how firearms even work.
republicans support the ex-felon being denied their right to own gun, in fact republicans refuse to reinstate those rights most of the time, thus proving they are anti-gun
the government should not be attacking peoples free speech by telling their bosses to fire them, trump represents the government in his official statements
Both Republicans and Democrats pay lip service to the Constitution while riding roughshod all over it. The corruption of the current partisan duopoly is horrific.
where did I say it should only protect black athletes from the President? why is the President calling black athletes SOB's?
Which party is currently calling for more, and more, and more firearm-related restrictions, each of which seeking to go farther, and farther, and farther than what is currently in place?
doesn't mater, if both parties are doing it, both are anti-gun gun right should be like free speech and religion rights, you would never take those from an ex-felon that had done their time what some on the right and left want is to treat gun rights like the privilege to drive a car, where you have to get a license and the license can be revoked when you have to have the privilege to have a right, it's no longer a right, it's a privilege turning our rights into privileges is a bad move, if you can do it for guns, you can do it for religions and speech
where did I say black people have a special immunity to being called SOB's by the President, I asked why did the President call these black players SOB's in official statements
No, the difference is that the Republicans do not have a problem with revoking the "rights" of individuals that can not or will not accept the responsibility of the rights they are given. I am a firm believer of the Second Amendment. But criminals have shown that they are not able to exercise that right responsibly so they loose it. The same goes for those who are mentally ill. In fact, for that second class I have long said there needs to be an actual national database so that purchasers can be checked against it. Most people seem oblivious to the fact that along with an individual's "Rights", there also comes "Responsibility". Yes, you can say anything you want, that is your First Amendment "right". But say something untrue, or slanderous, or dangerous ("fire in a crowded theater"), and you loose that protection. Yes, we have the right to Freedom of Religion. But if your religion involves human sacrifice (even if the individual is willing), then it is no longer protected. This also explains something that baffles many on "The Left" about Conservatives and Republicans. Republicans generally have no problem putting a criminal who has killed others to death, as it is done because of their own action. But they do not want to see children aborted. One has given up the right to their life because of their own actions, the other has not. I find it interesting in how both sides approach those two issues. Literally both sides want to kill, they simply choose different targets.
Did he? Or did he really make a blanket statement about a behavior and you provided all of the color commentary yourself. Cause that's the way it looks here.
Why do you claim that those specific "black" players should have a special immunity from being called SOBs?
The generally accepted legal terminology is somebody who can be considered to be a "Danger to themselves or others". And this covers a great many illnesses, from psychosis and schizophrenia to those who are clinically paranoid and those who are delusional. However, it does not cover those who are OCD, have PTSD, depressed, or a great many other mentally ill, unless the severity of their disease cosses over to a point they become a danger. Such laws are already in place in all 50 states, we simply lack any kind of system to check individuals against. So literally somebody from California can go to Nevada and buy a gun, and their name will not appear in any kind of database.
Unless those conditions are added to the list of mental health disqualifiers in 18 USC 922g, or those so afflicted are adjudicated mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institution, there is no legal justification to prevent them possessing or purchasing a firearm. If they are a danger to themselves or others, why would we only limit their access to one type of potentially lethal tool?
'No, the difference is that the Republicans do not have a problem with revoking the "rights" of individuals that can not or will not accept the responsibility of the rights they are given." so when they have paid their debt back to society you do not want people to have the right to free speech, religion or guns... got it.. you think these are privileges like a drivers license rather then rights yes, I do not believe in the death penalty maybe some of you should remember not everyone on death row is always guilty - could be a loved one or family member of yours there someday, how would you want them treated - jmho sometimes the inmates have no victims, sometimes they are the victims... http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm
