Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Poll: I would rather have...
This poll is closed.
A team with players who kneel
73.91%
17 73.91%
No team at all if the players kneel
26.09%
6 26.09%
Total 23 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Team that kneels or no team at all?

#21

(10-17-2017, 06:29 AM)raptor6581 Wrote: Team that kneels. That was easy....

Kneeling is only a sign of disrespect if you WANT it to be. Kneeling is a problem if you WANT it to be. Protesting is a problem to you only if you WANT it to be. Those who are boycotting arent somehow more patriotic than anybody else. They are just looking for a reason to be upset/offended....

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

Some people love being the victim. Makes them all warm inside. And if that means they have to go to a football game to be victimized, than so be it. But some are so cheap they'll do it via tv. That way they don't have to stand for the anthem.
The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#22

(10-17-2017, 06:29 AM)raptor6581 Wrote: Team that kneels. That was easy....

Kneeling is only a sign of disrespect if you WANT it to be. Kneeling is a problem if you WANT it to be. Protesting is a problem to you only if you WANT it to be. Those who are boycotting arent somehow more patriotic than anybody else. They are just looking for a reason to be upset/offended....

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

Yes, that is my take, too, but I don't want to act like the people who are offended by the kneeling are wrong or stupid or anything like that.  I give them credit for their beliefs.  What I would really like to hear now is, there are apparently 3 people who voted "I'd rather not have a team at all if they are going to kneel."  I'd like to hear more from them about why they feel so strongly.
Reply

#23

(10-17-2017, 09:40 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 06:29 AM)raptor6581 Wrote: Team that kneels. That was easy....

Kneeling is only a sign of disrespect if you WANT it to be. Kneeling is a problem if you WANT it to be. Protesting is a problem to you only if you WANT it to be. Those who are boycotting arent somehow more patriotic than anybody else. They are just looking for a reason to be upset/offended....

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

Yes, that is my take, too, but I don't want to act like the people who are offended by the kneeling are wrong or stupid or anything like that.  I give them credit for their beliefs.  What I would really like to hear now is, there are apparently 3 people who voted "I'd rather not have a team at all if they are going to kneel."  I'd like to hear more from them about why they feel so strongly.
Absolutely. Its their right too. I always support peaceful and lawful use of your rights..... Hence my support of the protests. If ya dont like them, that's cool too. Way too much of the my views or else mentality from those that disagree with the protesters. Just ignore the protests. They arent hurting you, theyre legal, theyre peaceful, and they are over before the game even begins.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Reply

#24

Frankly, my life is not affected because of the Jags. I will boycott if they continue to kneel. It is the players giving a big middle finger to all Americans. Why would I want to pay to be insulted. This so called protest is a SHAM and it is players injecting politics into SPORT. I watch football to forget about politics. What does it matter anyway, the Jags will never win at home again. lol
"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"
Reply

#25

(10-16-2017, 02:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 11:36 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: I was at the game and most of the empty seats were on the visiting side which was in the sun for half the game. Rams fans dont travel well, but we were very loud which I saw Fornette, and a couple of the defensive guys appreciating it during the game.

Lets be honest, if Khan stataed the exact opposite and demanded all the players stand during the anthem, those who "boycotted" would still not attend and use the team's past performance as a excuse.

I would not be surprised to see the Jaguars become a target for relocation after playing a Rams team with a huge media market.


This, plus the fee to break the lease is pocket change to Khan.

He really doesn't even need to prove loss revenue over an extended time, he can simply say the team can be more successful in a profitable market.

At this point he is doing the city more of a favor by keeping the team here, if the fan apathy continues, Khan will stop with his investments around the city and begin to sever all ties.

Funny how you want it to be that way to support your ideology, but you have it all wrong. Those who quit supporting the team because the team is bad didn't suddenly pick this week to stop going, they bailed already. This week was the best team in a long time playing a home game with actual implications on the line, and those fans, who stayed through the Pus Era, stayed home. Those who didn't attend this week are the good die hards who have a different reason besides on field performance to boycott. Now you can say it's not about the politics, but the Team, Owner Commish, and League all know better. You don't urinate on your customers and not feel the effects downstream, no matter how much you race baiting lefties hope so.

You do realize fan attendance makes up a fraction of team revenues and profits right ?Organizations depend on corporate sponsorship to help stabilize a team.

That is the precise reason the Jags play a game in London, because Jacksonville doesn’t have a strong corporate sponsorship base. 

Again in reality Khan is doing the city a favor by keeping the team here, he really has no emotional obligations to keeping the Jags here.
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#26

What is insulting about properly utilizing a right?

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Reply

#27

(10-17-2017, 09:03 PM)raptor6581 Wrote: What is insulting about properly utilizing a right?

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

1. Free speech is not a right in the workplace. Government is constitutionally prohibited from arresting people for their speech, but that doesn't mean that employers are required to allow their employees to say whatever they want.

2. Using a symbol of the US to protest an unrelated complaint is insulting to those who see the US as the best country in the world. That's especially true if the complaint is based on a lie, as it is in this case.

3. Politicizing a sports event that people attend partly to leave their real world worries behind for three hours is despicable.

4. The person who started this stands for calling the police pigs and claims that Cuba is better than the US because "it has a higher literacy rate." Those who continue his actions are supporting those beliefs.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#28

(10-17-2017, 09:41 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 09:03 PM)raptor6581 Wrote: What is insulting about properly utilizing a right?

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

1. Free speech is not a right in the workplace. Government is constitutionally prohibited from arresting people for their speech, but that doesn't mean that employers are required to allow their employees to say whatever they want.

2. Using a symbol of the US to protest an unrelated complaint is insulting to those who see the US as the best country in the world. That's especially true if the complaint is based on a lie, as it is in this case.

3. Politicizing a sports event that people attend partly to leave their real world worries behind for three hours is despicable.

4. The person who started this stands for calling the police pigs and claims that Cuba is better than the US because "it has a higher literacy rate." Those who continue his actions are supporting those beliefs.
1) Rights DONT extend to the workplace, but in this case their workplace has said they were ok with it. If your employer chooses to allow you to exercise your rights on their time, Id be ok with you protesting anything as long as its done lawfully. This is actually one of the big problems those who disagree with the.protests have. They want to claim that protesting doesnt belong in the aorkplace. And it doesn't, as long as the qorkplace tells you to leave the protests out of work. But, thats not what has happened here, and honestly, the protests have had zero effect on the product/game itself.

2) This IS the best country in the world. A huge part of what makes it so great supposed to be the ability to speak your mind. So long as its done lawfully (as in the kneeling) its as respectful to what this country is as it can be.

3) Politicizing a sporting event started a LONG time ago. Just having the anthem played at the game is a political move.....

4)The protests have little to do with the original message at this point. Trump all but ensured that these protests would be blown out of proportion and taking 100% out of context the moment he opened his mouth. Though there were players taking a knee, it remained a small issue until trump spoke up. It remained just a small hand full of players u til trump threw it off the original message. Heck, even after trump said what he did, only around 200 or the 1000+ took a knee..... Others immediately started showing unity and support for others and their issues in other ways (locking arms, entire team staying in locker rooms, team kneeling BEFORE anthem but standing during....).



And lastly, you didn't answer my question. What is insulting about properly utilizing your rights?

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Reply

#29

I wonder if any of the whining weirdos that stayed home played the anthem while at home or were they anti american scum.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#30

Right now, I think the players have been forced into a corner by Trump's comments and that makes it a lot harder for them to back down. I was hoping the league would get the players off the hook by telling them they have to stand. But the league apparently didn't do that. So where we go from here no one knows.

What I do know is that if the fans don't come to the stadium for the games, the team will move. We are such a small market that we cannot afford to have fans protesting by staying away from the games. (IF that's what caused the empty stadium last Sunday. I can't say for sure that was the reason for all the empty seats.)
Reply

#31

(10-17-2017, 09:56 PM)raptor6581 Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 09:41 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Free speech is not a right in the workplace. Government is constitutionally prohibited from arresting people for their speech, but that doesn't mean that employers are required to allow their employees to say whatever they want.

2. Using a symbol of the US to protest an unrelated complaint is insulting to those who see the US as the best country in the world. That's especially true if the complaint is based on a lie, as it is in this case.

3. Politicizing a sports event that people attend partly to leave their real world worries behind for three hours is despicable.

4. The person who started this stands for calling the police pigs and claims that Cuba is better than the US because "it has a higher literacy rate." Those who continue his actions are supporting those beliefs.
1) Rights DONT extend to the workplace, but in this case their workplace has said they were ok with it. If your employer chooses to allow you to exercise your rights on their time, Id be ok with you protesting anything as long as its done lawfully. This is actually one of the big problems those who disagree with the.protests have. They want to claim that protesting doesnt belong in the aorkplace. And it doesn't, as long as the qorkplace tells you to leave the protests out of work. But, thats not what has happened here, and honestly, the protests have had zero effect on the product/game itself.

2) This IS the best country in the world. A huge part of what makes it so great supposed to be the ability to speak your mind. So long as its done lawfully (as in the kneeling) its as respectful to what this country is as it can be.

3) Politicizing a sporting event started a LONG time ago. Just having the anthem played at the game is a political move.....

4)The protests have little to do with the original message at this point. Trump all but ensured that these protests would be blown out of proportion and taking 100% out of context the moment he opened his mouth. Though there were players taking a knee, it remained a small issue until trump spoke up. It remained just a small hand full of players u til trump threw it off the original message. Heck, even after trump said what he did, only around 200 or the 1000+ took a knee..... Others immediately started showing unity and support for others and their issues in other ways (locking arms, entire team staying in locker rooms, team kneeling BEFORE anthem but standing during....).



And lastly, you didn't answer my question. What is insulting about properly utilizing your rights?

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

1. True, the business allowed it, but you were talking about "rights." This was never about whether or not the government would prohibit it, so "rights" don't come into the picture. If you want to rephrase the question ...


2. Kneeling during the US anthem and standing during the British anthem implies that the team feels otherwise.

3. How is playing the anthem political? Is there a political party that opposes the anthem?

4. I agree. I also suspect that Kaep originally just sat because he was pissed at the team for not starting and then claimed a just cause when he was called out for it. But it's offensive no matter what the cause. Wouldn't you agree that waving the Nazi flag at an event would be offensive no matter what the cause? You can argue that one is insulting and another isn't, but about half the population finds both to be offensive, and insulting to the country they love.

To answer you question again, it's not about properly using your rights. It's about the method of protesting.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#32

(10-18-2017, 09:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 09:56 PM)raptor6581 Wrote: 1) Rights DONT extend to the workplace, but in this case their workplace has said they were ok with it. If your employer chooses to allow you to exercise your rights on their time, Id be ok with you protesting anything as long as its done lawfully. This is actually one of the big problems those who disagree with the.protests have. They want to claim that protesting doesnt belong in the aorkplace. And it doesn't, as long as the qorkplace tells you to leave the protests out of work. But, thats not what has happened here, and honestly, the protests have had zero effect on the product/game itself.

2) This IS the best country in the world. A huge part of what makes it so great supposed to be the ability to speak your mind. So long as its done lawfully (as in the kneeling) its as respectful to what this country is as it can be.

3) Politicizing a sporting event started a LONG time ago. Just having the anthem played at the game is a political move.....

4)The protests have little to do with the original message at this point. Trump all but ensured that these protests would be blown out of proportion and taking 100% out of context the moment he opened his mouth. Though there were players taking a knee, it remained a small issue until trump spoke up. It remained just a small hand full of players u til trump threw it off the original message. Heck, even after trump said what he did, only around 200 or the 1000+ took a knee..... Others immediately started showing unity and support for others and their issues in other ways (locking arms, entire team staying in locker rooms, team kneeling BEFORE anthem but standing during....).



And lastly, you didn't answer my question. What is insulting about properly utilizing your rights?

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

1. True, the business allowed it, but you were talking about "rights." This was never about whether or not the government would prohibit it, so "rights" don't come into the picture. If you want to rephrase the question ...


2. Kneeling during the US anthem and standing during the British anthem implies that the team feels otherwise.

3. How is playing the anthem political? Is there a political party that opposes the anthem?

4. I agree. I also suspect that Kaep originally just sat because he was pissed at the team for not starting and then claimed a just cause when he was called out for it. But it's offensive no matter what the cause. Wouldn't you agree that waving the Nazi flag at an event would be offensive no matter what the cause? You can argue that one is insulting and another isn't, but about half the population finds both to be offensive, and insulting to the country they love.

To answer you question again, it's not about properly using your rights. It's about the method of protesting.
1) it IS about rights. They are utilizing their right to protest, within the confines of the law and the confines of what their employer deems acceptable. No need to rephrase, as all pertinent parties to the action are in agreement on the protest.

2)Kneeling during our national anthem shows the players taking issue with a perceived (true or not) problem within our nation. They arent protesting to the British, to the British government, or anything about the UK's problem. Their actions during the UK' s anthem are honestly irrelevant to anything here, as the song does not apply to the US in any way.

3)Yes, the anthem is being used politically when it comes to sports. The NFL was paid to start playing it, in an effort to increase military support and service. Thats a political move....

4) you have again claimed the action is offensive, but have not explained why. What is offensive about taking a knee? Its what you do to show respect when asking a woman to marry you, praying, for an injured player, and in several other ways. So, why is it suddenly offensive when kneeling during the anthem?

And lastly, that doesnt answer the question. It doesn't answer it because you have yet to answer how protesting during the anthem is offensive, just that you find it offenaive. This should be easy.... If you find something offensive, you should be able to clearly articulate what you find offensive about it, and why.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Reply

#33
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017, 10:24 AM by TJBender.)

As far as the British anthem goes, kneeling for it would be like walking into your neighbor's house and peeing on the rug because you have a problem with your own landlord. I have no problem with kneeling for our song and standing for theirs because, frankly, England has done nothing since 1812 that would merit kneeling.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#34

I don't care if the kneel, squat, take a nap, grab a hot dog, do jumping jacks or whatever they want. It means nothing.

Just play football.
Reply

#35

(10-18-2017, 10:24 AM)TJBender Wrote: As far as the British anthem goes, kneeling for it would be like walking into your neighbor's house and peeing on the rug because you have a problem with your own landlord. I have no problem with kneeling for our song and standing for theirs because, frankly, England has done nothing since 1812 that would merit kneeling.

Good analogy. I agree that kneeling during the anthem is equivalent to peeing on a rug.

But you think that Britain is better than the US? What's stopping you from moving there?



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#36

(10-18-2017, 09:40 AM)raptor6581 Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 09:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
1. True, the business allowed it, but you were talking about "rights." This was never about whether or not the government would prohibit it, so "rights" don't come into the picture. If you want to rephrase the question ...


2. Kneeling during the US anthem and standing during the British anthem implies that the team feels otherwise.

3. How is playing the anthem political? Is there a political party that opposes the anthem?

4. I agree. I also suspect that Kaep originally just sat because he was pissed at the team for not starting and then claimed a just cause when he was called out for it. But it's offensive no matter what the cause. Wouldn't you agree that waving the Nazi flag at an event would be offensive no matter what the cause? You can argue that one is insulting and another isn't, but about half the population finds both to be offensive, and insulting to the country they love.

To answer you question again, it's not about properly using your rights. It's about the method of protesting.
1) it IS about rights. They are utilizing their right to protest, within the confines of the law and the confines of what their employer deems acceptable. No need to rephrase, as all pertinent parties to the action are in agreement on the protest.

2)Kneeling during our national anthem shows the players taking issue with a perceived (true or not) problem within our nation. They arent protesting to the British, to the British government, or anything about the UK's problem. Their actions during the UK' s anthem are honestly irrelevant to anything here, as the song does not apply to the US in any way.

3)Yes, the anthem is being used politically when it comes to sports. The NFL was paid to start playing it, in an effort to increase military support and service. Thats a political move....

4) you have again claimed the action is offensive, but have not explained why. What is offensive about taking a knee? Its what you do to show respect when asking a woman to marry you, praying, for an injured player, and in several other ways. So, why is it suddenly offensive when kneeling during the anthem?

And lastly, that doesnt answer the question. It doesn't answer it because you have yet to answer how protesting during the anthem is offensive, just that you find it offenaive. This should be easy.... If you find something offensive, you should be able to clearly articulate what you find offensive about it, and why.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

1. It's not about "rights." They could protest anywhere in any manner they chose. They elected to piss on the US during an entertainment venue. The timing of the protest as well as the actual (rather than the claimed) target of the protest is the problem. They are not protesting in front of a police station, which would be the right place to do so for the (false) cause they expound.

2. Doing it at that particular time and place puts Britain ahead of the US. It's not just my opinion, Jags management admitted as much in the apology.

3. Nice deflection, but still a fail. Increasing military support and service is political? What political party opposes that?

4. I find it offensive to distract from the national anthem and blame the US for a political-based lie. Apparently you don't, but I'm not alone in my opinion. How many times do I need to explain this?



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#37

(10-18-2017, 10:58 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 10:24 AM)TJBender Wrote: As far as the British anthem goes, kneeling for it would be like walking into your neighbor's house and peeing on the rug because you have a problem with your own landlord. I have no problem with kneeling for our song and standing for theirs because, frankly, England has done nothing since 1812 that would merit kneeling.

Good analogy. I agree that kneeling during the anthem is equivalent to peeing on a rug.

But you think that Britain is better than the US? What's stopping you from moving there?

How did you extrapolate that from what I said? I love the United States in large part because we live in a country where kneeling for the national anthem doesn't get you sent to prison.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#38
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2017, 12:41 PM by raptor6581.)

(10-18-2017, 11:13 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 09:40 AM)raptor6581 Wrote: 1) it IS about rights. They are utilizing their right to protest, within the confines of the law and the confines of what their employer deems acceptable. No need to rephrase, as all pertinent parties to the action are in agreement on the protest.

2)Kneeling during our national anthem shows the players taking issue with a perceived (true or not) problem within our nation. They arent protesting to the British, to the British government, or anything about the UK's problem. Their actions during the UK' s anthem are honestly irrelevant to anything here, as the song does not apply to the US in any way.

3)Yes, the anthem is being used politically when it comes to sports. The NFL was paid to start playing it, in an effort to increase military support and service. Thats a political move....

4) you have again claimed the action is offensive, but have not explained why. What is offensive about taking a knee? Its what you do to show respect when asking a woman to marry you, praying, for an injured player, and in several other ways. So, why is it suddenly offensive when kneeling during the anthem?

And lastly, that doesnt answer the question. It doesn't answer it because you have yet to answer how protesting during the anthem is offensive, just that you find it offenaive. This should be easy.... If you find something offensive, you should be able to clearly articulate what you find offensive about it, and why.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

1. It's not about "rights." They could protest anywhere in any manner they chose. They elected to piss on the US during an entertainment venue. The timing of the protest as well as the actual (rather than the claimed) target of the protest is the problem. They are not protesting in front of a police station, which would be the right place to do so for the (false) cause they expound.

2. Doing it at that particular time and place puts Britain ahead of the US. It's not just my opinion, Jags management admitted as much in the apology.

3. Nice deflection, but still a fail. Increasing military support and service is political? What political party opposes that?

4. I find it offensive to distract from the national anthem and blame the US for a political-based lie. Apparently you don't, but I'm not alone in my opinion. How many times do I need to explain this?
Only have to explain it once..... Just took me asking you 5 or 6 times to get you to answer at all. Up until now, youve done nothing but try and change the subject by pushing the conversation down a few other avenues. As for pretty much everything else? I fully disagree with you. It makes no sense to kneel during another countries anthem while protesting your countries problems. Its literally irrelevant in every way to the protests. Because of that anthems lack of relevance, it does nothing to place their country above ours.....

Yes, something can be a political move while being supported byultiple parties. It doesnt have to have a partisan spin on it. No deflection there. Having the anthem played was a political move. Very simple.

The timing of the protests was completely because of trumps comments. Had he made the comments the week before or the week after, they wouldnt have done what they did in Europe. Its all location, location, location. They had to respond. He made a mockery of what was originally beimg protested, got the message completely wrong, and tried pitting bosses against employees all in a matter of moments. They had to do something. As for the police station comment? Thats just a small part of what they were protesting. There are other things they and Kaepernick were protesting. A police station just keeps them conveniently out of sight and out of mind for you.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

(10-18-2017, 11:23 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 10:58 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: Good analogy. I agree that kneeling during the anthem is equivalent to peeing on a rug.

But you think that Britain is better than the US? What's stopping you from moving there?

How did you extrapolate that from what I said? I love the United States in large part because we live in a country where kneeling for the national anthem doesn't get you sent to prison.
Yup. The British anthem is completely irrelevant to all of this. Why those who oppose the kneeling have locked onto this, I won't be able to understand.... Its pretty silly to even consider them not kneeling during any other countries anthem, while protesting injustices (real or perceived) in the USA, as some sort of issue. It has no bearing whatsoever on our country.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Reply

#39

(10-18-2017, 11:23 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 10:58 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: Good analogy. I agree that kneeling during the anthem is equivalent to peeing on a rug.

But you think that Britain is better than the US? What's stopping you from moving there?

How did you extrapolate that from what I said? I love the United States in large part because we live in a country where kneeling for the national anthem doesn't get you sent to prison.

Your quote --> "England has done nothing since 1812 that would merit kneeling."

From that it logically follows that you think the US has done things that merit kneeling, while England hasn't. And as far as I know kneeling doesn't get you sent to prison in England either, so they have that same "large part" and there's no advantage to the US on that particular item.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#40

(10-18-2017, 05:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(10-18-2017, 11:23 AM)TJBender Wrote: How did you extrapolate that from what I said? I love the United States in large part because we live in a country where kneeling for the national anthem doesn't get you sent to prison.

Your quote --> "England has done nothing since 1812 that would merit kneeling."

From that it logically follows that you think the US has done things that merit kneeling, while England hasn't. And as far as I know kneeling doesn't get you sent to prison in England either, so they have that same "large part" and there's no advantage to the US on that particular item.

You're attributing the thoughts of others onto me. From the perspective of the players, England has done them no wrong, so they had no reason to kneel. Agree with them or not, they do perceive that America has wronged them, and they made use of their First Amendment right to protest it.

Had England's PM made a point of challenging their right to protest a leader who calls white supremacists "very fine people", I'm sure they would have had some conversations about kneeling through God Save the Queen.

Trump laid a trap and the NFL walked right into it, and because of that we're still listening to people [BLEEP] about players taking a knee than talking about the fact that Trump's former Chief of Staff was just interviewed by the special counsel investigating Trump's alleged misdeeds, that Trump couldn't pass a healthcare bill if he locked all the Senate Democrats outside, that he wants to nullify the First Amendment, that he wants to nullify the Fourth by way of demanding large pools of data without bothering to get a warrant, and that he keeps talking like a guy who welcomes the label of "President who started the first nuclear conflict since 1945".

My final word on the anthem protest, and this is addressed to far more people than just you, MJ: get out. If you're so deeply offended by players making use of their First Amendment right, good for you, Snowflake. It's your right to be triggered. But if you're really so deeply wounded to the core that you can't bring yourself to support the NFL ever again, then what are you still doing here? This is an NFL forum. There are plenty of echo chambers out there on the Internet for you. If you've got no interest in the NFL, then, by all means, the door's that way. Now, can we please talk about all the important [BLEEP] that I just listed up there? We'll all wake up tomorrow no matter how many people take a knee. If "Little Rocket Man" pops one off, the US turns NK into a parking lot and Russia and China take offense to that move, some of us might not wake up in the morning.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!