NFL HELL: Owners/TV networks face mounting losses as Trump called boycotts spread

[otherone]

What if they do both?

They get to use either bathroom?

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

Depends. Do they do yoga or lift weights?

FTW

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Answer these:
The Bill of Rights: Left or Right?
The Antifederalists: Left or Right?
The British Empire: Left or Right?
Monarchs, Industrialists & Bankers inventing limited-liability corporations to shield their personal wealth from lawsuits and hide their identites from the public: Left or Right?
European Bankers buying politicians, creating central banks, printing paper money, fraudulently buying the worlds natural resources and capital, and robbing nations and individuals of their Natural Right to Independence: Left or Right?

All of the above: Extreme, Ultra-Right, in roughly descending order of Right-ness, with the exception of the last one which becomes left enough we could probably still consider it left. This is in relation to Current Year. See, these are relative terms, of course. Left of what? Right compared to what? Because Cthulu swims left, we find ourselves having gotten way, way, super left of anything normal in the past in this Current Year. So, any document or occurrence or person that existed/happened/lived more than 100 years ago is automatically guaranteed to be ultra-hardcore-right-wing nutcase. If you transported literally any adult European -- any! -- alive more than 100 years ago to the present, he would be a uber-reactionary, traditionalist hard-rightist.

 

[Madison320]

There are times for ideological purity and times for practicality, there was no reason to believe Trump would perform as well as he has due to his past history, I did not vote for him, but I might in 2020 if there is no better choice.

Meanwhile you display a marked sympathy for Mandela and Kucinich and an absolute intolerance for others like Molyneux who I dislike but is demonstrably less of a threat to liberty than the other two, THAT is what is being discussed and what you refuse to make a judgement on when directly confronted about it.

That sums it up pretty well. I'd add one thing. Ender STARTED this whole thing by criticizing people for NOT supporting the NFL protestors. That just takes it to another level of annoyance for me. Not only is he wrong, he's in your face about it.

 

[Madison320]

You DO know that Ron Paul said "Neither!" on Trump and Hillary- right?

So, you are in fact calling him an ideologue incapable of making a judgment.

Now that we know Trump a little better, Trump and Hillary are pretty close on the liberty scale. I'd give Trump a 5 and Hillary a 3. So "neither" is an understandable response. But Mandela/Kucinich are not even close to Molyneux. Mandela and Kucinich are at the bottom of the scale, they don't even believe in individual rights, while Molyneux is considered to be a libertarian, most of his positions are similar to Ron Paul's.

 

[Ender]

That sums it up pretty well. I'd add one thing. Ender STARTED this whole thing by criticizing people for NOT supporting the NFL protestors. That just takes it to another level of annoyance for me. Not only is he wrong, he's in your face about it.

Wrong.

I initially said:

MY POV:

This is all bull$#@!.

No one should have to pray to the state; the National Anthem should never have been made the opening of ANY game or public gathering- it is nothing but state worship.

What’s Worth Standing For?

By Butler Shaffer

October 20, 2017

In America you can say anything you want, as long as it doesn’t have any effect.

– Paul Goodman

The vacuity of serious thought in America is revealed in so many instances that it is difficult to put together a top-ten list of candidates. Among the fatuous contenders is that involving the question of whether NFL players should stand for the playing of the national anthem. Not since the 1988 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush focused on the sanctity of the Pledge of Allegiance to satisfy members of the boobeoisie to elect him president, has so much mental energy been spent on such a hollow topic.

Patriotic rituals serve one purpose: to reinforce the conditioning begun in childhood with flag salutes and daily Pledges of Allegiance, reminding the citizens of a state that their lives are subservient to the collective interests of the established order. Where hundreds or thousands of individuals gather for an event of common interest – such as sporting events – the dynamics of mass psychology can be mobilized to remind those in attendance of the importance of commitments to matters that transcend the interests of their home team. Out come the flags accompanied by color-guards; a military band; and a singer to lead the crowd in the statist hymn: The Star-Spangled Banner.

The refusal of athletes or fans to stand for this observance of state dominance, is a public challenge to the homogenization of obedience to constituted authority; an admission that some – if only a handful – may be stepping to A Libertarian Critique... Butler Shaffer Buy New $5.50 (as of 11:24 EDT - Details) the beat of a different drummer than the one in the Marine Corps band. The fear that not everyone is committed to group-thinking is what bothered Ron Paul’s critics when he was in Congress. His dissent cast in a 434-1 vote on a bill was certainly no threat to its enactment, but that it raised the specter of dissent challenged the political mantra e pluribus unum. The “One” that all collectivists insist upon cannot be maintained if some are able to get away with not playing the game.

Statists have long exploited dead soldiers in the peddling of guilt on behalf of their ambitions for power. We are told we “should honor the sacrifice of those who fought and died to protect our freedom.” As often as I have heard this plea, I have yet to have anyone inform me of any liberty I enjoy by virtue of soldiers going to foreign countries, at risk to their own lives, to kill people! Of what is one “free” when fighting or killing others? Soldiers fight because they are ordered to do so, and the selection of the “enemy” is made by persons who have absolutely no interest in benefiting or protecting me.

In a televised press conference, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell tried his best to resolve the contradictions that abound in all of politics. While stating that the NFL was “trying to stay out of politics” in this dispute, he failed to recognize that the national anthem is about nothing but politics. He acknowledged that the anthem is “an important part of our game.” How can this be? Does the home-team get six points added to their score if they out-sing the visiting fans? If this music is such an “important” part of the game, have you ever seen people at a football or baseball game leave the stadium once the anthem has been performed?

If the national anthem is of such importance, why do we not perform it in everything we do? Is breakfast, or the start of our workday, or going to a grocery store, or undergoing root-canal work at the dentist’s, to be preceded by this tune? Do we refrain from extending such collective foolishness into our daily lives because the numbers of persons are not sufficient to convert individuals into fungible components of a mob?

There is one very effective way for the NFL and other sectors of the entertainment world to end the squabbling over whether fans and players should stand for this song. As it has absolutely no bearing on the content or performance of the games people come to watch, stop playing it altogether. No more than people should be expected to sing “fight on for USC” when attending an opera, should they be expected to sing hymns to the state.

Perhaps a little history will put the National Anthem in perspective. It is known by every school-child that Francis Scott Key was the author of the poem upon which the anthem is based. What is not so well-known is that Key was a lawyer who not only owned slaves, but defended the practice. Like Abraham Lincoln, Key represented slaveowners, and regarded slaves as “an inferior race of people.” He strongly opposed the abolition movement. As district attorney for Washington, D.C., he prosecuted abolitionists and enjoined the publication and distribution of abolitionist literature. The music to which Key’s poem was set, was taken from the song “Anacreon in Heaven,” an 18th century tune sung in a London gentlemen’s club. The song celebrated drinking and sex.

Perhaps the NFL players are onto something!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/...-standing-for/

Maybe Mr. MAGA President should just keep his ugly mouth shut?

I quoted the respectable Butler Shaffer- and I was agreeing with his criticizing state-worship & the condemnation of some people over peaceful protests.

Violent protests are a whole different thing but a peaceful protest should be respected, even if you do not agree with the subject.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Now that we know Trump a little better, Trump and Hillary are pretty close on the liberty scale. I'd give Trump a 5 and Hillary a 3.

Consider: How much does it matter how high on the "liberty scale" a given President is? What effect does that have?

What about long term?

I mostly like to think long term. That's the most interesting! And challenging. And, and here's the kicker, important!

So is it possible that what's more important than how liberty-oriented they are in the present, is what long-term effect their policies will have for the prospects of liberty? For the next 100 years? I think it is. I think that is important. Something to think about.

 

[Ender]

Now that we know Trump a little better, Trump and Hillary are pretty close on the liberty scale. I'd give Trump a 5 and Hillary a 3. So "neither" is an understandable response. But Mandela/Kucinich are not even close to Molyneux. Mandela and Kucinich are at the bottom of the scale, they don't even believe in individual rights, while Molyneux is considered to be a libertarian, most of his positions are similar to Ron Paul's.

Ron Paul and the Self-Hating u2018Libertarians'
by Walter Block
Recently by Walter Block: Ron Paul and Liberty
Karen Kwiatkowski wrote a magnificent blog exposing Reason magazine as critics, not supporters, of libertarianism. I would now like to add to her so far list of one "libertarian" who trashes Ron Paul. My nomination to be second on this list is Stefan Molyneux. Full disclosure: his speech attacking Dr. Paul goes on for almost an hour, and I didn't have the sitzfleisch (patience) to listen to all of it. But, in the first 10 minutes or so he criticizes Congressman Paul for, yes, wait for it, favoring the Constitution! Molyneux also correctly allows that if President Paul takes office, we "slaves" will have far fewer beatings, but claims that this is an insufficient reason for supporting him. I did indeed, until recently listening to this rant, have some respect for Molyneux (unlike for Reason magazine, which has long ago turned against libertarianism). He has authored some very persuasive material on anarcho-capitalism. But, evidently, Molyneux is one of those free market anarchists who does not really "hate the state" (see Murray Rothbard on this) certainly not enough to support one of the greatest enemies of statism the world has ever known.

Here is Molneux on the "disaster Ron Paul".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

What if they do both?

Then they are probably left-leaning. The yoga heuristic wins out, by far. Obviously. No traditional, conservative man anywhere does yoga.

Now what if he eats granola AND hunts grizzly bears?

You guys are joking around, which is great, but surely you do know that what I'm saying is true. When you meet someone in person, and talk to him, get to know a few things about him, you will be able to almost always have a very good prediction of where he stands politically. It's just a thing we humans can do.

Left and right are real. The CIA was not there in the French Revolution. Just because libertarians don't always fit on either left or right doesn't mean almost everyone else in the world doesn't. We have to live with and accept facts.

 

[Madison320]

Here is Molneux on the "disaster Ron Paul".

Sorry. I can't handle Molyneux for 46 minutes. Lots of libertarians disagree with each other. What's your point? He's still 1000 times better than Mandela or Kucinich. Don't you agree?

Neg rep for serial avoidance of questions.

Now that I think about it, I think Molyneux leans towards anarchy and I'm guessing his opposition to Ron Paul is that Ron Paul believes in a minimal state (correct me if I'm wrong - like I said I can't listen to Molyneux for nearly that long). Which means that you and Molyneux are probably extremely close in political philosophy.

 

[Madison320]

Consider: How much does it matter how high on the "liberty scale" a given President is? What effect does that have?

What about long term?

I mostly like to think long term. That's the most interesting! And challenging. And, and here's the kicker, important!

So is it possible that what's more important than how liberty-oriented they are in the present, is what long-term effect their policies will have for the prospects of liberty? For the next 100 years? I think it is. I think that is important. Something to think about.

I'm on record for wanting Hillary to win. I think the coming massive recession is going to get wrongly blamed on Trump/Capitalism when it should correctly be blamed on decades of government stimulus. I'm afraid we're going to get a Sanders/Kucinich type in 2020. If Hillary was elected I think there's a chance we could've gotten a Rand Paul type president in 2020.

 

[Ender]

Got a -neg rep from Madison320 for "avoiding answering questions".

I answered your questions- you just don't like the answers.

 

[Madison320]

Got a -neg rep from Madison320 for "avoiding answering questions".

I answered your questions- you just don't like the answers.

No you didn't. You answered "neither" and that's not an answer.

Molyneux or Mandela.

Still waiting...

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. What really irks me about the whole "racial injustice" debate is the existence of discrimination laws. That makes the whole debate irrelevant since it's already been decided by force how we're supposed to think. So my question for you is "are you against all discrimination laws?"

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

helmuth_hubener
helmuth_hubener is offline
Temporary Ban

Posts
9,479
Join Date
Nov 2007

You people better straighten up and fly right!!!!

 

[dannno]

Now that I think about it, I think Molyneux leans towards anarchy and I'm guessing his opposition to Ron Paul is that Ron Paul believes in a minimal state (correct me if I'm wrong - like I said I can't listen to Molyneux for nearly that long). Which means that you and Molyneux are probably extremely close in political philosophy.

That is correct.

The analogy in the video was that if the Constitution said that slavery was OK, but you could only beat your slaves twice a week and 100 years later people were beating their slaves twice a day and some guy came along and said, "hey, we really need to get back to our roots and only beat our slaves twice a week" then that is not a moral position. Also, even if you could achieve it, the clock would just begin moving forward again and eventually people would be beating their slaves much more often.

I disagree with Molyneux on this argument. First of all, if you could vote for someone who didn't believe in slavery, but promised to reduce slave beatings by ten fold within the current system, and the population largely supported the current system, then attempting to get that politician into power may have huge benefits. It may OR may not be the best course of action, but I don't think you could say it is definitely NOT the best course of action.

Also, the Constitution gives states the power to govern, the Federal Govt. was not supported by forced taxation but user fees and such. So you could theoretically live free within a state that was friendly to liberty, and in addition, it would be easier to secede and form an anarchist society in these conditions.

Nowhere in the video that I heard, did Molyneux say that Ron Paul was bad because he believed in liberty, he didn't say that Ron Paul was bad because he thought the war on drugs was bad, or that we had an attrocious foreign policy or that income tax and the Fed are immoral.. no no!! They completely and totally agree on 99% of the issues.. But because Molyneux had a different approach of how to achieve liberty back then, Ender becomes a supreme whiner about how horrible he is... lol, it's completely ridiculous..

 

[Ender]

No you didn't. You answered "neither" and that's not an answer.

Molyneux or Mandela.

Still waiting...

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. What really irks me about the whole "racial injustice" debate is the existence of discrimination laws. That makes the whole debate irrelevant since it's already been decided by force how we're supposed to think. So my question for you is "are you against all discrimination laws?"

I STAND WITH RON PAUL: NEITHER.

Ron Paul: I will not vote for Trump
QUOTE]
Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said on Thursday he wouldn't vote for Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

"I was very explicit about that. I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump," he said on CNN on Thursday.

"If you can't stand any of them and you happen to be a dedicated progressive, you ought to make your vote count and vote for the Green Party and if you happen to be a libertarian, vote for the Libertarian Party," he continued.

Paul noted that some people say Trump is "far superior" or the lesser of two evils, but he doesn't know what the celebrity real estate mogul would do if elected president.

"Quite frankly, I'm not sure exactly what he'll do and that bothers me as well," he said, "because he can give two positions in one speech."

Paul, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012, predicted earlier this month that the Republican Party would do everything possible to stop the Trump from securing the nomination.

"The Republican Party is obviously threatened by Trump being his own boss," he said at the time. "Trump's not going to go away easily. ... That's not going to happen. He likes trouble and he doesn't mind threatening people."[/QUOTE]

When asked if he voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, Ron Paul responded, “No, I did not vote for him,” Paul continued, “But I did not vote for Donald Trump either.”

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/11/14/ron-paul-questions-if-trump-will-drain-swamp.html

WHY?

Molyneux is NOT a libertarian leader; can't stand to listen to him anymore than Trump.
Too much garbage written about Mandela to discern what the real truth was about him and I wasn't in his country or alive for most of his life.

Discrimination laws are messy. People should have equal justice but laws seem to separate more than equalize.

Getting gov out of all business, allowing free trade and real capitalism and sticking to the Bill of Rights would solve most problems.

 

[Ender]

That is correct.

The analogy in the video was that if the Constitution said that slavery was OK, but you could only beat your slaves twice a week and 100 years later people were beating their slaves twice a day and some guy came along and said, "hey, we really need to get back to our roots and only beat our slaves twice a week" then that is not a moral position. Also, even if you could achieve it, the clock would just begin moving forward again and eventually people would be beating their slaves much more often.

I disagree with Molyneux on this argument. First of all, if you could vote for someone who didn't believe in slavery, but promised to reduce slave beatings by ten fold within the current system, and the population largely supported the current system, then attempting to get that politician into power may have huge benefits. It may OR may not be the best course of action, but I don't think you could say it is definitely NOT the best course of action.

Also, the Constitution gives states the power to govern, the Federal Govt. was not supported by forced taxation but user fees and such. So you could theoretically live free within a state that was friendly to liberty, and in addition, it would be easier to secede and form an anarchist society in these conditions.

Nowhere in the video that I heard, did Molyneux say that Ron Paul was bad because he believed in liberty, he didn't say that Ron Paul was bad because he thought the war on drugs was bad, or that we had an attrocious foreign policy or that income tax and the Fed are immoral.. no no!! They completely and totally agree on 99% of the issues.. But because Molyneux had a different approach of how to achieve liberty back then, Ender becomes a supreme whiner about how horrible he is... lol, it's completely ridiculous..

I didn't ask me to pick Molyneux or Mandela- that was never my idea.

You write threads and threads about your dear Molyneux but I'm the whiner. Poor baby.

 

[dannno]

I STAND WITH RON PAUL: NEITHER.

Ron Paul: I will not vote for Trump

Neither Madison nor even I voted for Trump.. but we can both see how Molyneux is a trillionbillion times better than Mandela..

 

[dannno]

I didn't ask me to pick Molyneux or Mandela- that was never my idea.

You write threads and threads about your dear Molyneux but I'm the whiner. Poor baby.

You are a whiner because you attack someone who espouses the ideals of peace and liberty due to very minor disagreements that you don't even take the time to understand why you are disagreeing.

Name one person who I have disparaged, ever, who consistently espouses the ideals of peace and liberty?

 

[Ender]

Neither Madison nor even I voted for Trump.. but we can both see how Molyneux is a trillionbillion times better than Mandela..

Good- that's your choice.

My choice is neither- it's called

FREEDOM.