re: Get in here statist: LSU anthem controversy

quote:

---

Government shouldn't be able to compel speech

---

How is being present during the playing of the National Anthem compelling speech?

For that matter, who says the game has to be played at that arena? Can’t the players decide where they want to play? Do the players decide what time the game is played? Where are their free speech rights?

quote:

---

...Maybe it's the libertarian in me, maybe it's the rebel blood that courses through my veins from ancestors past,

but the more a government compels and forces me BY LAW to do something as fundamentally human as standing, performing a civilian salute, and singing that government's anthem to them in a stadium funded and subsidized with my tax dollars,

FORCEFULLY UNDER THE THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT OR FINE, the more I'm going to tell them to eat shite.

---

HEAR HEAR!! Well stated.

Both sides of this stupidity are posturing, leaving the rest of us in a conundrum.

Our position is untenable.

Neither am *I* supporting:

The virtue-signaling Wokster-BLM Lite witches who are really doing this to disrespect the school, its fans, and "America"

NOR

ANY Statist mandated "Respect muh-Authoritah or Else" Politiburo member

This entire "controversy" almost feels ...fabricated and forced.

quote:

---

How is being present during the playing of the National Anthem compelling speech?

---

Speech doesn't mean you need to talk. Nobody made Kapernick kneel. You do what you want, some people will never buy your jersey, you may lose or gain NIL deals, not the government's problem.

Can the Gov tell a student that receives a scholarship, they're not allowed to get a scholarship if he receives more than 6 hours of DEI classes each year?

Government, stay out of it. Kids are allowed to be dummies, assholes, and ignorant. It doesn't require a gov solution.

quote:

---

You either didn’t read his letter or have no reading comprehension.

---

This is a lie, or either you don't have reading comprehension from my post.

quote:

---

He made a suggestion that the Board make a policy with accountability, just like they have policies on DEI, transsexuals, BLM and such.

---

So he wants a, "board" of bureaucrats to

quote:

---

make a policy with accountability

---

You understand what this means, right, patriot?

quote:

---

Uh- not exactly. He “suggested” as you put it that the governing boards of state universities create policies which threaten the force of government against student athletes who have no control over the schedules their coaches set for them.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

So your argument is that a team should not have any rules because players can’t control them? How dumb are you?

---

What? What are you talking about? We are talking about politicians publicly expressing their desire to mandate forceful inclusion of SPEECH, and you're talking about sports teams. Get out of your bread-and-circus, secrant, fantasy football mindset, and understand that I am talking about fundamental, constitutional rights.

quote:

---

The suggestion was to have the teams present during the anthem. That’s not a speech issue.

---

Yes, statist, IT IS.

quote:

---

So if Nuss goes on his Twitter right now and starts dropping N bombs, nothing will happen? Where is his free speech??

---

Wow. You're having trouble with this, "patriot."

Nuss is employed by a state university. If his employer wants to mandate he stays, sings, does the bunny hop while the anthem is being played, or else get fired, then fine. You do understand there's a difference between that and the government telling a citizen they WILL be present, at ready, and stand and sing, or else be penalized by the force of law? Please tell me you understand this is a preposterous comparison? Comparing the free citizenry to employment rules?

You understand that, right, patriot?

You're no better than a democrat who's afraid to nut up and accept that they're a part of the party of avowed communists and pedophiles. Just man up and say outright that you think a private citizen who, as of now, is not an employee of their school and, by default, the rest of the citizenry, should be compelled to sing a song the police state says we should sing.

Pitiful.

quote:

---

However I'm afraid that we may be getting played by both sides and cornered into a conundrum.

---

Exactly. There's been an attempt or two, albeit pitiful ones so far, to justify a governor of a state calling for government ramifications if a free citizen is not present, at ready, hand on heart, and compelled to act to government-mandated specifications.

quote:

---

The other argument: These BB players are supported and financed BY the school and its institution. Q: Are they morally obligated by their expressed contract and agreement with the school to at least stand during the anthem as a matter of respect to the facility, alma mater, fans and state?

---

I anticipated this theoretical question, albeit from an avowed, "obverse of a democrat patriot."

My answer is: Morals be damned. They are free citizens- not yet under contract as an employee. The government cannot mandate compelled speech and action for thousands of citizens that goes against the constitution, and NOT the thousands in the stands there to watch the players. That's not the way it works. It's a classic example of citizens hollering "THERE SHOULD BE A LAAAAWWW!" and then getting what they asked for. It's the equivalent of a democrat bitching and moaning about the police, then turning right around and voting for more police state: rules for thee, not for me.

But again, that ain't the way the police state works. The decomposed cadavers in government would love nothing more than for the citizenry to be enslaved to stand at guard, and salute their government, because they know we would. It's not an anthem at that point, it's an obligation.

I see alot of downvotes, but none of those downvoters sacking up, thinking for themselves, and coming in and giving logical, conservative, small government reasons for the virtuous act of politicians wanting something like this mandated. Sounds to me like Landry is a career politician, and that is the filthiest, most vile human being that exists, next to a democrat career politician.

What they're caught up on is the "sports" aspect of it. The "home state" aspect of it, instead of the "constitutional freedoms" aspect of it. It pains me that so many have equal voting power of freedom loving men.

Dammit, I want to hear why telling a free citizen to be present, standing with a citizen's salute, and honoring what this democrat-controlled government forces them to is a good idea. They need to speak up and stop pussing out.

quote:

---

BBONDS25

---

quote:

---

Good luck. The thread appears to really be popular.

---

Okay? Are you trying to make a point?

What is your angle for taking time to be here? Is it because you see "sports"? Is it because you fancy yourself a conservative, unless you think other citizens should be forced to do what your governor tells them to regarding being present, regarding speech, regarding movement?

Speak up. Own it boy. You like Landry's positioning on this, don't you? But just like a democrat, this is wrongthink for you, isn't it?

quote:

---

Landry is anti-constitution, antilibertarian, anti-freedom. He IS a statist

---

So are you

quote:

---

but what I don't understand is where are all the downvoters

---

Downvote for crying about downvotes.

quote:

---

Downvote for crying about downvotes.

---

It's so sad you can vote.

This is hard for you I know, but nobody gives a shite about the downvotes you moron. I want the so called "small government conservatives" who applauded Landry's calls for compelled speech and action to not only downvote, but come explain why state sanctioned, mandatory at-calls are good.

So far, there's no one, save a few "sports" fanatics and one guy who has nothing to say other than bitch and moan about there being a thread about his governor who looks like a damn fool.

It's why this board and many of its adherents is a complete joke: it's an echo chamber of hypocrisy filled with individuals who know far more about their team quarterback's Twitter page than they do fundamental constitutional rights.

quote:

---

Landry has trouble understanding what the First Amendment means (see: trying to sue the Advocate as AG because their reporter filed a FOIA for information on one of Landry's employees).

---

Told you - even before the election - he's a 2-bit coonass on a power trip.