Forum Statistics

Latest Member
What's New?

NFL's new policy on national anthem



TID Board Of Directors
Nov 29, 2013
Good post. I don't see anyone kneeling protesting on their own time. You are paid to do a job, do you job and do what you want on your own time.
Hard to argue with that. It brings up an interesting OT thing:

1968 Olympics, America's Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the medals platform and raised their fists while the National Anthem played, protesting roughly the same stuff Kaep and others did 49 years later. They did it in a setting that seemed improper and offensive to many Americans, and the right thing to do to many other Americans. They were unpaid amateurs back before the line between amateur and pro was blurred. Were they right or wrong . . . how does everyone feel about that?
JR Ewing

JR Ewing

VIP Member
Nov 9, 2012
For my fellow Americans, I think it's important to distinguish between the country founded 240+ years ago and the government who runs it today... and those in and around government who are trying to turn the country into something entirely different from what it has been for 240+ years.

Not that the country was ever perfect. But most of those who run things (and those who line their pockets) seem to either be actively trying to turn the US into an entirely different place, or are at least willing to go along with it. Some pulling the strings want another Europe, and others want another Cuba or Venezuela. And most others who are not apparently actively pushing for it are at least willing to go along with it.

And within the government, I think it's further important to distinguish between the criminals and shysters at the top levels of government (and their donors and lobbyists) who are pulling the strings, and the low level soldiers, cops, civil servants, etc who are largely only trying to make a living, serve their country, and do a good job.

I served 4 years in the military a couple of decades ago, and I haven't watched the NFL in years and don't really care at the end of the day what they do.

I do love the country - it has been very good to me and even very forgiving of my mistakes and missteps at times. But I have little use for the DC political hacks and their big donors and lobbyists who are determined to turn the country into a different place as they make themselves richer largely at taxpayers' expense. I do still vote because I believe it is in my best interest to vote against what I usually see as a greater of 2 evils, but I have a pretty low opinion of government, the media, and politicians in general.

Those who are peacefully protesting have the right to do so, but they must be willing to accept any consequences of such protests in the private sector. And we need to realize that many or most of today's western protesters who are almost always protesting for leftist / militant causes are themselves being manipulated and usually paid by others with very deep pockets to do so.


Senior Moderators
Staff Member
Dec 25, 2010
I'm in 100% agreement with JR's first post. The NFL is a private entity, and they have every right to enact rules that govern player's behavior so as to protect their brand. If I recall, the NFL is a multi-billion dollar brand, and when players do something that alienates a modest percentage of their customer base, I'm not surprised that the NFL would want to prevent such behavior. It's not really any different than rules of behavior that might exist for the local HVAC outfit in your town. I'm guessing that the HVAC company would not appreciate their employees getting involved in a bar fight at the local gay strip bar while wearing their company uniforms. Not because the HVAC unit has a problem with gay strip clubs (they may or may not),but because it brought attention to the company that would likely hurt their brand with a meaningful segment of their customer base. I don't really see it any differently.

NFL players have a ton of causes that the NFL has historically prevented them from "expressing" on their uniforms, etc. I recall the Cowboys wanted to put a decal on their helmets to support "the blue" after the Dallas shooting several years ago, and the NFL felt it might inflame things and prevented that. We can argue whether it's a good idea, but the NFL clearly has the authority to prevent behavior that might negatively affect their brand.

Just surprised that it took the NFL that long to actually use their head. Why would the NFL allow something to continue that was alienating a decent segment of their fan base? Cowardice? Who knows. But ultimately, the money spoke....


VIP Member
Mar 6, 2011
So can I opt to not work while at work and protest? Personally, I find it bullshit but that's just my opinion.


TID Board Of Directors
Nov 29, 2013
BI, I don't understand your post. To balance things, imagine a group of other NFL players who believe the exact opposite of Kaep's crew . . . a group that thinks police use of force is too subdued, a group that thinks it should be increased and encouraged. This way, we have a level playing field, 2 groups with opposite views who both choose the National Anthem as a maximum-audience time to express their views . . . the issue no longer matters to our debate. If Kaep & Company is the model for this, then neither group is guilty of opting to not work while at work, they both stage a protest by kneeling, sitting or choosing some other physical symbol, then they go out to play the game.

Pro-Kaep or Anti- there can be no arguing that paid employees are doing something their employers would prefer they do not do, and that employers have a right to choose some recourse, but I do not understand your point about not working. Prior to the 2017 season, close-up camera work of the sidelines showed some players who did get emotionally involved during the Anthem, and some who just quietly waited it out till game time. Then they all went to work, and it was the same for the protesters last season.


VIP Member
Sep 7, 2010
Roseanne is now available to sing the national anthem...crotch grabbing and all.


TID Board Of Directors
Feb 3, 2011
I definitely side with protests against fascist police state institutions. Everyone will hold to their deepest nationalistic and/or authoritarian indoctrination basically, but, it's a fact that police AND military of today's era, are simply the application of force for govt.... a govt that has grown increasingly corrupt for many decades. Kneeling as a peaceful statement of protest against abusive police behavior, taxation/extortion, the military industrial complex and illegal "wars" (invasions),and many other things, including making use of the Superbowl for military promotion at the expense of unwitting taxpayers, are all acceptable and honorable reasons for opting out of what's become flag worship over actual Freedom.
Wait, the military is for applying forces for our government?

How so?


TID Board Of Directors
Nov 29, 2013
The military was originally conceived to defend our nation here and abroad if other nations hit us.

But when we went into Viet Nam where a bunch of rice-farming peasants were having their own nice little civil war, it looks to me like it was used to apply force by our government. Fast-forward to Bush jr's administration when a bunch of Arabs from which nation(s)? do the 09/11/2001 atrocity, stirring up a huge rebirth of American patriotism that is maybe bigger than they'd bargained on. We want Bin Laden's ass and we want it bad, him and the rest of Al Quaeda. We look around in Iraq for the 2nd time, talk about weapons of mass destruction that are never found, poke around in Afghanistan, get Bin Laden years later in Pakistan. We kill Saddam Hussein along the way, we crush Al Quaeda, meet the Taliban, push them back, meet ISIS, maybe defeat them, currently talk about latter day versions of Al Quaeda, and the Taliban and the jury's still out on ISIS. With Iraq and Afghanistan sort of in limbo, Pakistan a hostile ally, we now face Syria as the current crisis. All this while Iran has stayed out of a direct combat confrontation with us but seems to be emerging as the next main player in the Mid-East. Several different presidents from both parties strike me as folks who like to use our military to apply force elsewhere, and who have little to show for it.


Bangs Raiden's mom VIP
Jan 3, 2011
if you want to protest police brutality, fine, im all for it. BUT why do it during the National Anthem at work? maybe the nfl could have provided time prior or after the National Anthem for all who support the cause to kneel or stand and show there support.
First, i do not care about standing kneeling etc, do what you want, ill do the same. They do it during the anthem because its the biggest stage, most visible spot to bring awareness the their cause. Just curious, do those of you who watch at home get up off the couch and stand when it comes on.....


TID Board Of Directors
Oct 17, 2010
When one signs an employment contract or agrees to do a job for money, one exchanges personal freedoms and liberties for that money.

No one can force a person to clock in and out every day - but you will if you want to get paid.
No one can stop a person from viewing websites - but they can filter internet traffic if you are on company time using company property.
No one can force a person to dress a certain way - unless they agreed to do it as a condition of employment.
The list goes on and on.....

It's really very simple contract law. The owner's simply allowed it to become political by not firing offenders immediately.
(They didn't want to fire what makes them money. This is understandable. Some of us make that decision every day at the offices we may manage.)

Allowing an otherwise impermissible behavior to go on for any length of time can change a "policy." This is why the NFL had to release a new policy. They had allowed their written policies and acceptable behaviors (both written and unwritten) to become politicized.