Tomi Lahren’s tweet pic of Kaepernick. Good taste or bad? I approve.

Whether the "White Supremacist" scare is true or not is beside the point, as you know. The question Soros and others understand is 'Will the left believe it, repeat it and, in doing so, further divide the country'. It must seem very easy to them.

 

I don't really buy into or participate in the left-right paradigm, but I do understand it. Neither side has a monopoly on truth, justice or morality. I do very much agree with you however, that we have met the enemy and it is us.

The point is that what Kaepernick has done is raised awareness, and he has done that by breaking some eggs that really needed to be broken. We can thank Donald for really stirring the pot that was at the time merely simmering.

Kaepernick has made the point that any person paying attention already knew, that doing anything at all 'while black' can be a very dangerous proposition. I'm lily-white and I've known that for years, decades. He has demonstrated again that in a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical act, and by many it will be pained as treason. That demonstrates how close to the surface floats the truth.

Ms. Lahren simply repeats and defends the statements of bigots like Donald Trump, and for that is admired by others like Trump.

 

We can say the similar about Trump..........

 

What is racist and bigoted about kneeling for the anthem? In many Christian religions, kneeling is a sign of reverence and respect. If you could back up your silly statement regarding racist and bigoted I would be totally surprised. It was not, and you cannot.

In which labor contract is the First Amendment declared null and void? If you happen to be into the law, you should consider reviewing 319US624. Though it does not deal with labor law, it does deal with compulsion by the state. Here's some of the relevant language from Mr. Justice Jackson: "Under the federal constitution, compulsion as here employed is not a permissible means of achieving "national unity". "

 

The right to silent dissent, in this case against public policy that results in well-documented social injustice.

 

ROFL Yes, Tomi sure knows how to stir up the Internet. Good for her.

 

If you believe that's what he was doing you are either fooling yourself or trying to fool others....which is dishonest.

As for him kneeling on the job, that's between him, the NFL and his contract.

IMHO, yes, I understand what he's trying to say but I disagree with his methods and believe he is disrespecting his country.

 

CK doesn't work for the NFL anymore. This would all have blown over, but Bigot Donald had to keep it going on.

I do appreciate your honest statement. He is not disrespecting anybody. He's not disrespecting the flag, he's not disrespecting veterans, he's not disrespecting the bloody anthem.

He is raising social awareness, and that's a good thing.

 

Hey. Diehard Chiefs fan here. The last 5 games have been depressing watching them implode for no reason what so ever besides bad coaching.

 

It has been hard. Not sure why they are imploding because they have the raw talent it do it. I’ve been an Andy Reid fan for a while, but I agree, they are getting out coached in the last few weeks.

 

You seem conflicted.

You say she's a moron, then post an image of her giving a rational opinion.

Then, you post an image of some nutjob trying to say something clever, but failing at it.

 

It has to be coaching because the talent is there. Motivation isn’t there and that’s the coaches job. That and the horrible play calling. When you have the chance to blow open every rushing record and toss it all in the toilet there are no words.

And to keep it OT Toni is cute.

 

You might have reached a bit too far to grasp at that one.

 

Indeed! Kaepernick wouldn't have been in his 2016 football gear and Afro in any case (if one complains the photo was inaccurate....yeah, there were no NFL football players hitting the beach at the Normandy D-Day invasions) Duh!!!

And anyway the beaches at Normandy had lots of black soldiers at one point in on the invasion when it hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Distant_Shore:_African_Americans_of_D-Day

How did they all get to the beaches if not in landing craft? And the photo shows an opened unoccupied craft so who's to say it was wasn't filled with black soldiers? That post you reference was a real head scratcher and so confused and backwards it's confusing still just trying to unravel such a babbling mess.

 

You're right! The nutjob is getting way too much attention.

 

So, why bring it up? There was no comparison being made until you did.

 

Not really because it is standard practice for people like you to deflect to her anytime you don't have a rational argument which is usually always.

 

Oh really? So I suppose the post I was quoting comparing Kaepernick kneeling to Weinstein's sexual assaults never happened right?

 

There was a post made which you are misunderstanding. No such comparison was made.

 

NFL players have the right to protest the anthem at work. The owners have the right to fire them for it.

The First amendment is not at issue.

 

And the public has a right to stop watching NFL games as long as disrespect for the flag continues

 

How is it exercising one First Amendment rights to kneel, but its a not to complain about the idiots that do? Who doesn't understand the First?

 

Exactly right. The NFL is a wasting asset for its owners.

 

The black players are destroying the NFL brand

 

Its an insult to every American who defends this country and rightly sees the flag and the athem as a symbol of that belief.

Of course you are leaving out in the religions you mention kneeling is required if a person is able. That has nothing to do with insulting the national anthem by taking an action known to be viewed as disprespectful as

Actually its quite easy knowing his political statements and beliefs before he knelt and his justification afterwards.

Its clear you need a basic education on what he has said and done.

His socks designed specifcally to insult police



His statement:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,”

To believe that you must be a racist since he has no evidence in statistics to back up a word of that bigoted and racist claim. By making such an unsupported claim you must assume racism in white people that you cannot back up with statistical facts which is itself a racist statement.

And since he has never once been able to do so and if you agree with his statement, I welcome you to try yourself.

I'm amazed you are actually pretending people have a first amendment right in a private business to express themselves. Its unfortunate you must be educated yet again.


This term, the Court decided two companion cases related to First Amendment free speech rights, Schumann v. Dianon and Perez-Dickson v. City of Bridgeport. Both cases involve reversing substantial plaintiff’s awards and limiting the application of Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51q, a statute protecting employees from discipline or discharge for exercising their First Amendment rights under the state and federal constitutions.

In Schumann, the Court held an employee in the private workplace was not entitled to First Amendment protection, overturning a $10 million award. The plaintiff was a cytopathologist (studies disease changes within individual cells or cell types) performing urine diagnostic tests at a medical testing laboratory. He objected to the use of a new test and the introduction of new diagnostic terms, and voiced his disapproval. The defendant terminated the plaintiff, citing an unexcused absence and the plaintiff’s decision not to use the new diagnostic terms. The plaintiff brought a case based on common-law wrongful termination and statutory wrongful discharge under C.G.S. § 31-51q.

The Court undertook an analysis of whether the plaintiff’s speech was protected under the First Amendment. A key issue was the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2006 in Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties is not protected speech. Since First Amendment protections typically apply to public employers, the issue in Schumann was whether Garcettiapplied to private employers under C.G.S. § 31-51q, a statute that protects employees in both private and public workplaces.

The Court held Garcetti does apply to private employers and that a threshold analysis should be done based on Garcetti before the Pickering/Connick test (a balancing test between an employee’s right to speak and an employer’s interest in the effective operation of the workplace). The Court found the federal constitutional claims were barred by Garcetti because the speech was about his ability to properly execute his job duties. The Court did not address whether the state constitution gave additional rights because under the balancing test, the speech was not protected.

Under the Pickering/Connick test, the Court found the plaintiff’s speech was “extraordinarily disruptive,” because it took place at work, it interfered with the plaintiff’s job performance, it placed strain on his relationships with co-workers, it created division within the company, and it was insubordinate. The case was remanded for a new trial limited to the plaintiff’s common-law wrongful termination claim.

In the companion case, Perez-Dickson, a school principal brought an action against the board of education and two public school administrators. The action was based on improper discipline for exercising her First Amendment rights under C.G.S. §§ 31-51q (explained above) and 17a-101e (which prohibits discipline of employees who make required reports of suspected child abuse), racial discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found for the plaintiff on all counts and awarded $2 million, which was subsequently reduced to $1 million.

The state Supreme Court found the plaintiff’s statements made to the Department of Children and Families, regarding alleged abuse by two teachers, were not protected by C.G.S. § 31-51q because the speech was pursuant to her job duties and not a personal opinion protected by the First Amendment. The claim was therefore barred under Garcetti.

The Court stated that there is no private action under C.G.S. § 17a-101e, and reversed the other two claims, stating the plaintiff did not prove either claim. The Court remanded the case with direction to render judgment for the defendants.


https://www.brodyandassociates.com/...-decisions-limit-employee-free-speech-rights/

This is extremely basic information on this issue. I hope you read through it carefully.