Super Bowl champs “uninvited” to White House

[jamil]

Between Kaepernick and now this, it'll be interesting to watch the NFL circle the drain this year. Hopefully these geniuses will keep coming up with more foolish antics to give us laughs as they throw away their livelihoods.

It ain’t just about the kneeling. It’s brain injuries, it’s lackluster play, it’s scandals, deflategate, it’s overpaid whinny ass players, it’s pressuing to get rid of “offense” team names, locker room drama. It’s everything. Plus the kneeling.

 

[mmpsteve]

Interesting side note. Not a single Eagles player knelt during the entire regular season, on to their Super Bowl run.

Supposedly, only 9 out of 70 were going to attend, because, you know, 'the resistance'. Of course it'll all be about Trump, not the 61 who decided to show their behinds.

 

[KLB]

This is about Trump getting his ego hurt because most of the players weren't going to attend. In typical Trump fashion, he reacted like a juvenile and made a last second fuss trying to deflect from that.

It is past time to end this nonsense of the President inviting sports teams to the White House. It never should have started in the first place.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Another page in the Book of Meh. People who are looking for things to be outraged about, especially involving the President, will be outraged.

 

[Libertarian01]

Has there been another President who had to listen to the "Not my President" BS? Serious question, I don't recall seeing the bumper stickers before Trump. That was the first thing that came to mind when I read the statement, I'll admit to not hearing another POTUS say something like that but I don't find it troubling.

I heard people speak it with Pres Bush Jr and Pres Obama, but I don't recall seeing any bumper stickers.

If I didn't have a president unless I voted for him then I would only have had two (2) in my entire lifetime. Whether I like him (or her) in the White House, they are still MY president.

That is why I ALWAYS vote!

Regards,

Doug

 

[printcraft]

Supposedly, only 9 out of 70 were going to attend, because, you know, 'the resistance'. Of course it'll all be about Trump, not the 61 who decided to show their behinds.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They were making a political statement and noise by not attending in the first place. This is a reaction to their action.

"You are invited to a cookout in your honor."
"**** you, we ain't coming!"
"Ok, I guess the cookout is cancelled."
"You *******! How dare you?! You jerky jerkface!"

Given NFL ratings tanking is the CNN outrage really genuine? No, it's just another jab.

 

[HoughMade]

Y'know, the President has had numerous opportunities to be the "bigger man", and so far he seems only to be able to win that contest with the Nork dictator.

Invitation was made- who cares how many show up? Be the bigger man! When only a few show up, you say that you wished everyone was there because they are all talented, hard working champions. Congratulate the entire team anyway. Shake hands with those who came, pose for pictures. Be magnanimous. Make THEM the immature partisans....but no. Not possible, I guess.

 

[SirLiftsALatte]

I found the wording of this statement reminiscent tin pot dictators:



"They disagreed with THEIR president"? Not "me," not "many other Americans," but "their president." I don't think I've ever heard a president say something like this. It's troubling language. This statement almost makes it seem as if they are obligated to agree with him over an obvious free speech issue.

It is not a free speech issue, but it also not really any of Trump's (or any President's) business whether the players kneel or not. The players are on that field to work, they are representing the NFL's brand, and the fans don't like the politicizing of their entertainment. The owners should have nipped the kneeling/protesting in the bud.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is not a free speech issue, but it also not really any of Trump's (or any President's) business whether the players kneel or not. The players are on that field to work, they are representing the NFL's brand, and the fans don't like the politicizing of their entertainment. The owners should have nipped the kneeling/protesting in the bud though.

When a person weighs in on speech of another, using their govt office as a platform, it IS a free speech issue.

 

[HoughMade]

When a person weighs in on speech of another, using their govt office as a platform, it IS a free speech issue.

Not if they don't try to use government resources to limit their speech. Public officials can have opinions.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

When a person weighs in on speech of another, using their govt office as a platform, it IS a free speech issue.

He didn’t restrict any bodies speech. He gave his opinion on the matter, which is also his freedom of speech.

On on one hand I agree with him uninviting the team. On the other I wish the 9 that was gonna go could still go, and he gave them the most kick ass party of any previous White House visits, to rub it in the faces of those that didn’t go.

Still a meh for me either way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He didn’t restrict any bodies speech. He gave his opinion on the matter, which is also his freedom of speech.

On on one hand I agree with him uninviting the team. On the other I wish the 9 that was gonna go could still go, and he gave them the most kick ass party of any previous White House visits, to rub it in the faces of those that didn’t go.

Still a meh for me either way.

No, he didn't restrict anybody's speech, and yes the president is entitled to free speech as well. However, using the office of the presidency to criticize free speech of private individuals; knowing the power of the bully pulpit, is something a person in that position should be aware.
Simply put, whenever govt criticizes the speech of private citizens, it IS a free speech issue.

 

[indiucky]

I found the wording of this statement reminiscent tin pot dictators:

I heard a president say he got Bin Laden when it was actually a SEAL team that did it..............

 

[Hatin Since 87]

No, he didn't restrict anybody's speech, and yes the president is entitled to free speech as well. However, using the office of the presidency to criticize free speech of private individuals; knowing the power of the bully pulpit, is something a person in that position should be aware.
Simply put, whenever govt criticizes the speech of private citizens, it IS a free speech issue.

So a president should not express his opinion, unless of course you agree with that opinion? Gotcha.

 

[printcraft]

Didn't the NFL just pass a rule about the whole kneeling thing as in stop doing it?
Seems like they know where the bread is buttered...

Guess what side Trump is on.

It's manufactured outrage.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So a president should not express his opinion, unless of course you agree with that opinion? Gotcha.

Maybe I can put it in terms that you might be better able to understand.

If Barack Obama, as president, had said-

"I personally think that firearms are too readily available" He's speaking as a private citizen. You don't have to like what he said, but he is afforded that right.

But if he had said-

"Those gun owning nutcases, disagree with their president, and are the cause many violent deaths," then his is speaking from a position of power, concerning the 2nd Amendment. He is still afforded the right to speak that way, but his words should be viewed as an undesired use of office to attack the second amendment.

There is a difference.

 

[printcraft]

Seems like obama tried to do a little more to restrict rights...

 

[SirLiftsALatte]

When a person weighs in on speech of another, using their govt office as a platform, it IS a free speech issue.

And when an employee is at work, and people (customers, non customers, maybe even... politicians) see that the employee is saying and doing things while at work that do not reflect well on the company, then maybe letting the employer know that they should not allow said behavior to continue is actually in the company's best interest?

Maybe the employee is right in what he is saying, and maybe his actions are justified. But maybe he is not. Either way, it does not matter if it's not in the company's best interests.

What Trump is doing is telling the NFL what a decent chunk of their fanbase is thinking. The NFL is absolutely free to ignore him, and if they do they will likely continue to suffer in the ratings as a result.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Maybe I can put it in terms that you might be better able to understand.

If Barack Obama, as president, had said-

"I personally think that firearms are too readily available" He's speaking as a private citizen. You don't have to like what he said, but he is afforded that right.

But if he had said-

"Those gun owning nutcases, disagree with their president, and are the cause many violent deaths," then his is speaking from a position of power, concerning the 2nd Amendment. He is still afforded the right to speak that way, but his words should be viewed as an undesired use of office to attack the second amendment.

There is a difference.

So in your mind he only represents the presidential office when he makes mention of the presidential office? Interesting.

 

[KMaC]

It is past time to end this nonsense of the President inviting sports teams to the White House. It never should have started in the first place.

It probably will end regardless of who is President. Everyone, from students to actors to athletes, wants to use a State function to garner publicity for whatever they think is the cause du jour.