menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Kneeling penalty
Page: 3 of 4
mail
person
Bcat2
6/9/2018 7:21 AM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
Note that if the players wanted to, say, protest on a public street downtown, then it would become a freedom of speech issue. As someone who strongly supports free speech, it's a little disconcerting to me that there is such a broad misunderstanding about what the doctrine means. The Constitution applies only the the government, not to private people, and not to businesses. Thus, you can kick someone out of your house if don't like what he says, or a business can fire people if they say things that hurt the business while representing the business.

Note that Congress can pass specific laws regulating what you can or can not do, or what a business can or can not do, but that is entirely separate from Constitutional rights. Those laws are limited by the Constitutional rights, however.

As to whether they CAN regulate what the players do, there is no doubt that they can. As to whether they SHOULD, that's up to them. They have an interest in keeping the fans happy, and an interest in keeping the players happy. They need to find a solution that works for both.


But their "workplaces" are public venues that in many cases are government owned (such as the LA Coliseum) or have been built at least in part using tax dollars through bond issues, etc. In such cases, they have the same limitations on restricting constitutional rights as the government does.

Missing the point. During the game, at their place of employment, wearing the uniform of their employer, all are subject to the dictates of the NFL. Players are subject to team and/or NFL guidlines in place to represent the team/NFL in a positive manner as established by the team/NFL. While in the military I participated in many ceremonies. Had I chosen to take a knee during a ceremony I would have received assistance in seperating me from my proud service so that I might be free to protest unencumbered by the expectations, code of conduct, that comes with well representing the uniform. Players who wish to protest need to avail themselves of any oportunity on their own time, out of uniform. If the NFL no longer has their heart in this, players need to be hidden in locker rooms during the Anthem, they shoud stop pretending and drop the Anthem. JMHO.

The NFL and the military are two entirely different animals. Your point is invalid.

As for being subject to the dictates of their employer, all employers -- even the almighty NFL -- have limitations on how far they can undermine their employees' constitutional rights. For example, employers must allow their employees to take off legitimate religious holidays if they want. And they can't require employees to give to the company's PAC (a form of political expression). The best way for most players to make a statement is in on gameday. But if they have to stay in the locker room to make their statement, that's singling them out through exclusion, like excluding non-Christians from mandatory school prayers.

It's not the NFL's heart that's at issue. It's their money. They've been dropping TV ratings for years and pricing themselves beyond most people's budgets, so they can't afford to lose season ticket holders. I agree that if the NFL isn't going to be part of the solution, they should drop the anthem altogether. The anthem is a tradition, not a requirement.

"NFL and military are entirely different animals." With you on that. Never met a millionaire in a barracks. "Duty" "Honor" and "Country" are words we military associate with the flag and the Anthem. Burn the flag, disrespect the Anthem, might be your right, however, you should not expect your employer to be under obligation to sponsor your expression as you make your protest on company time wearing the company brand. I have grown to love that flag and the Anthem. Please, do not expect those of us who do to sponsor those who choose to disrespect them.
Last Edited: 6/9/2018 7:23:13 AM by Bcat2
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/9/2018 9:15 AM
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
Note that if the players wanted to, say, protest on a public street downtown, then it would become a freedom of speech issue. As someone who strongly supports free speech, it's a little disconcerting to me that there is such a broad misunderstanding about what the doctrine means. The Constitution applies only the the government, not to private people, and not to businesses. Thus, you can kick someone out of your house if don't like what he says, or a business can fire people if they say things that hurt the business while representing the business.

Note that Congress can pass specific laws regulating what you can or can not do, or what a business can or can not do, but that is entirely separate from Constitutional rights. Those laws are limited by the Constitutional rights, however.

As to whether they CAN regulate what the players do, there is no doubt that they can. As to whether they SHOULD, that's up to them. They have an interest in keeping the fans happy, and an interest in keeping the players happy. They need to find a solution that works for both.


But their "workplaces" are public venues that in many cases are government owned (such as the LA Coliseum) or have been built at least in part using tax dollars through bond issues, etc. In such cases, they have the same limitations on restricting constitutional rights as the government does.

Missing the point. During the game, at their place of employment, wearing the uniform of their employer, all are subject to the dictates of the NFL. Players are subject to team and/or NFL guidlines in place to represent the team/NFL in a positive manner as established by the team/NFL. While in the military I participated in many ceremonies. Had I chosen to take a knee during a ceremony I would have received assistance in seperating me from my proud service so that I might be free to protest unencumbered by the expectations, code of conduct, that comes with well representing the uniform. Players who wish to protest need to avail themselves of any oportunity on their own time, out of uniform. If the NFL no longer has their heart in this, players need to be hidden in locker rooms during the Anthem, they shoud stop pretending and drop the Anthem. JMHO.

The NFL and the military are two entirely different animals. Your point is invalid.

As for being subject to the dictates of their employer, all employers -- even the almighty NFL -- have limitations on how far they can undermine their employees' constitutional rights. For example, employers must allow their employees to take off legitimate religious holidays if they want. And they can't require employees to give to the company's PAC (a form of political expression). The best way for most players to make a statement is in on gameday. But if they have to stay in the locker room to make their statement, that's singling them out through exclusion, like excluding non-Christians from mandatory school prayers.

It's not the NFL's heart that's at issue. It's their money. They've been dropping TV ratings for years and pricing themselves beyond most people's budgets, so they can't afford to lose season ticket holders. I agree that if the NFL isn't going to be part of the solution, they should drop the anthem altogether. The anthem is a tradition, not a requirement.

"NFL and military are entirely different animals." With you on that. Never met a millionaire in a barracks. "Duty" "Honor" and "Country" are words we military associate with the flag and the Anthem. Burn the flag, disrespect the Anthem, might be your right, however, you should not expect your employer to be under obligation to sponsor your expression as you make your protest on company time wearing the company brand. I have grown to love that flag and the Anthem. Please, do not expect those of us who do to sponsor those who choose to disrespect them.
Interesting that you claim to not have met a millionaire in a barracks yet you quote one as your signature. As the sports editor for the Dispatch said in a response to a readers comment a few weeks ago, the increased militarization of sporting events is of a concern to some. The induction ceremonies during games is one example of that. People claim that they want to go to games to get away from it all for awhile. If that's the case, then we should be able to get away from thoughts of war and armed conflict too.
mail
person
rpbobcat
6/9/2018 9:33 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Interesting that you claim to not have met a millionaire in a barracks yet you quote one as your signature. As the sports editor for the Dispatch said in a response to a readers comment a few weeks ago, the increased militarization of sporting events is of a concern to some. The induction ceremonies during games is one example of that. People claim that they want to go to games to get away from it all for awhile. If that's the case, then we should be able to get away from thoughts of war and armed conflict too.
This may sound corny,but,people being willing to fight and die for this country,are why we can have sporting events today.

I am very proud of people who are volunteering to risk their lives to defend the United States.

Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events.
I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
6/9/2018 10:36 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events. I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
The main reason, if not the sole purpose, of these pre-game/halftime ceremonies at Ohio football games and elsewhere, is nothing more than a recruiting tool. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's nothing more than another means of recruiting the youth of this country into the military.
mail
person
Bcat2
6/9/2018 11:00 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Interesting that you claim to not have met a millionaire in a barracks yet you quote one as your signature. As the sports editor for the Dispatch said in a response to a readers comment a few weeks ago, the increased militarization of sporting events is of a concern to some. The induction ceremonies during games is one example of that. People claim that they want to go to games to get away from it all for awhile. If that's the case, then we should be able to get away from thoughts of war and armed conflict too.
This may sound corny,but,people being willing to fight and die for this country,are why we can have sporting events today.

I am very proud of people who are volunteering to risk their lives to defend the United States.

Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events.
I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
My son`s commissioning & graduation from Arkansas State occurred on the same day and he walked the stage at graduation in his new dress uniform. I admit to bias here,but, studying those there in uniforms, they stood out for more than just their uniforms. "Standing tall and looking good!"
mail
person
SBH
6/9/2018 12:00 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events. I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
The main reason, if not the sole purpose, of these pre-game/halftime ceremonies at Ohio football games and elsewhere, is nothing more than a recruiting tool. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's nothing more than another means of recruiting the youth of this country into the military.
If you knew how the armed forces recruit high school kids via email and social media - all with the tacit approval of school administrators - you’d be appalled.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
6/9/2018 1:07 PM
SBH wrote:expand_more
Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events. I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
The main reason, if not the sole purpose, of these pre-game/halftime ceremonies at Ohio football games and elsewhere, is nothing more than a recruiting tool. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's nothing more than another means of recruiting the youth of this country into the military.
If you knew how the armed forces recruit high school kids via email and social media - all with the tacit approval of school administrators - you’d be appalled.
Experienced this recently as my daughter graduated from Newark HS, which has one of the top JR ROTC programs in Ohio.
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/9/2018 1:32 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Interesting that you claim to not have met a millionaire in a barracks yet you quote one as your signature. As the sports editor for the Dispatch said in a response to a readers comment a few weeks ago, the increased militarization of sporting events is of a concern to some. The induction ceremonies during games is one example of that. People claim that they want to go to games to get away from it all for awhile. If that's the case, then we should be able to get away from thoughts of war and armed conflict too.
This may sound corny,but,people being willing to fight and die for this country,are why we can have sporting events today.

I am very proud of people who are volunteering to risk their lives to defend the United States.

Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events.
I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
But why during sporting events? Why not during plays or concerts or any of the variety of occassions that people get together for entertainment?
mail
person
BillyTheCat
6/9/2018 11:38 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events. I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
The main reason, if not the sole purpose, of these pre-game/halftime ceremonies at Ohio football games and elsewhere, is nothing more than a recruiting tool. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's nothing more than another means of recruiting the youth of this country into the military.
And in many places the services are paying to be able to do these things, it’s advertising. So when we charge the military for these wonderful displays are we as a society being patriotic or are we practicing capitalism.
mail
person
Bcat2
6/10/2018 8:07 AM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events. I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
The main reason, if not the sole purpose, of these pre-game/halftime ceremonies at Ohio football games and elsewhere, is nothing more than a recruiting tool. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's nothing more than another means of recruiting the youth of this country into the military.
If you knew how the armed forces recruit high school kids via email and social media - all with the tacit approval of school administrators - you’d be appalled.
Experienced this recently as my daughter graduated from Newark HS, which has one of the top JR ROTC programs in Ohio.
Our local high school has an Army JROTC program. Cadets from this program typically stand out at graduations. There is always the color guard at the opening composed of graduating seniors. Not too long ago both the Valedictorian and Salutatorian were from the JROTC. That Valedictorian recently graduated from Navy flight school and is now a fighter pilot. Another year's Valedictorian, also from the JROTC, a National Merit Scholar, will, this fall, begin his senior year at Harvard. That young man was the school's first to participate all four years in three position rifle national championships at Camp Perry, Ohio. Other graduates who choose to enlist in the military are always recognized. This gives those attending the opportunity to display support of their choice. I am sure they appreciate this as they go off to do hard things in difficult circumstances. Not sure, but, from the tone of some posts here, we have BAers who would be taking a knee at the opening ceremonies of these graduations and as appreciation is expressed for those who have chosen military service. I hope not.
Last Edited: 6/10/2018 8:33:55 AM by Bcat2
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/10/2018 9:38 AM
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
Sorry,I don't see induction ceremonies during games as militarizing of sporting events. I see it as a way to honor those who serve.

Same thing,I don't know if O.U. still does it,but,at one time, there was a tradition that ROTC students attended graduation in their uniform.
The main reason, if not the sole purpose, of these pre-game/halftime ceremonies at Ohio football games and elsewhere, is nothing more than a recruiting tool. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's nothing more than another means of recruiting the youth of this country into the military.
If you knew how the armed forces recruit high school kids via email and social media - all with the tacit approval of school administrators - you’d be appalled.
Experienced this recently as my daughter graduated from Newark HS, which has one of the top JR ROTC programs in Ohio.
Our local high school has an Army JROTC program. Cadets from this program typically stand out at graduations. There is always the color guard at the opening composed of graduating seniors. Not too long ago both the Valedictorian and Salutatorian were from the JROTC. That Valedictorian recently graduated from Navy flight school and is now a fighter pilot. Another year's Valedictorian, also from the JROTC, a National Merit Scholar, will, this fall, begin his senior year at Harvard. That young man was the school's first to participate all four years in three position rifle national championships at Camp Perry, Ohio. Other graduates who choose to enlist in the military are always recognized. This gives those attending the opportunity to display support of their choice. I am sure they appreciate this as they go off to do hard things in difficult circumstances. Not sure, but, from the tone of some posts here, we have BAers who would be taking a knee at the opening ceremonies of these graduations and as appreciation is expressed for those who have chosen military service. I hope not.
Your last two sentences again indicate how those who criticize those who kneel miss the point of the kneeling. It has NOTHING to do with the miltary. It's all about the inequities that continue in our society. This opinion piece from today's NY Times is most enlightening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/african-americ...
mail
person
bobcatsquared
6/10/2018 1:29 PM
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
Not sure, but, from the tone of some posts here, we have BAers who would be taking a knee at the opening ceremonies of these graduations and as appreciation is expressed for those who have chosen military service. I hope not.
While I will continue to stand during the playing of the national anthem, I will also continue to support those who find it necessary to silently and peacefully protest inequalities in our society by not standing for the anthem.

Additionally, when at a Reds game, I will continue to be the first one to stand and applaud, joined by my children and wife, when a member of the military in attendance is pointed out for the crowd to recognize.
mail
person
rpbobcat
6/11/2018 6:28 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Your last two sentences again indicate how those who criticize those who kneel miss the point of the kneeling. It has NOTHING to do with the miltary. It's all about the inequities that continue in our society. This opinion piece from today's NY Times is most enlightening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/african-americ...
Regardless of their motivations,the players actions during the National Anthem are perceived by the general public as being anti-military.

There is an old saying in politics,"if you're defending,you're losing".

To me,that's what the players are up against here.
They can say anything they want about why they are doing what they're doing,its what the public sees that carries the most weight.
mail
person
Bcat2
6/11/2018 7:13 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Your last two sentences again indicate how those who criticize those who kneel miss the point of the kneeling. It has NOTHING to do with the miltary. It's all about the inequities that continue in our society. This opinion piece from today's NY Times is most enlightening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/african-americ...
Regardless of their motivations,the players actions during the National Anthem are perceived by the general public as being anti-military.

There is an old saying in politics,"if you're defending,you're losing".

To me,that's what the players are up against here.
They can say anything they want about why they are doing what they're doing,its what the public sees that carries the most weight.
rpbobcat, thanks. To me this is like those who wish to protest war at funerals of KIAs. Disrespect the Colors/Anthem, sorry, they stand for what is right in this country. I still believe that.
mail
person
SBH
6/11/2018 9:45 AM
Wait, you're equating respectfully kneeling on the sidelines of a professional sports contest with protesting at a military funeral? That's a page right out of the White House's script.
mail
person
ShoreCat
6/11/2018 10:07 AM
This year I heard the National Anthem played at a place that surprised me... Cedar Point.

My wife and I are season pass holders and get early admission. We were lined up at 9:00 so we could sprint to ride Steel Vengeance (which by the way, is the greatest roller coaster I've ever been on and is worth a 2 hour wait). At 8:58 before the park opened, the National Anthem played over the loud speakers and we were asked to face the flag, which none of us could see that well through the trees near Top Thrill Dragster.

And as soon as "home of the brave" finished, the sprint was on to the back of the park.
mail
person
rpbobcat
6/11/2018 10:29 AM
BayCat wrote:expand_more
This year I heard the National Anthem played at a place that surprised me... Cedar Point.

My wife and I are season pass holders and get early admission. We were lined up at 9:00 so we could sprint to ride Steel Vengeance (which by the way, is the greatest roller coaster I've ever been on and is worth a 2 hour wait). At 8:58 before the park opened, the National Anthem played over the loud speakers and we were asked to face the flag, which none of us could see that well through the trees near Top Thrill Dragster.

And as soon as "home of the brave" finished, the sprint was on to the back of the park.
CP has been playing the National Anthem before they open the gates since I started going there regularly "back in the day",when Magnum had over 3 hour waits.

Looking forward to trying out SV.

I must admit,the most nervous I was before riding a coaster was Corkscrew,the year it opened.
The thought of going completely around in a loop,was something.

Actually, that's the ride that got me hooked on them.
mail
person
ShoreCat
6/11/2018 10:43 AM
I know Cedar Point does a lot for Veterans so I guess I shouldn't have been that surprised. Most people were respectful but I can guarantee there was nobody there who wanted to make a political statement by kneeling. I saw most people had removed their hats and were quiet but some people continued to carry on their conversation....just like I see at most sporting events.

Sorry for the thread jack, but Steel Vengeance is unlike any other coaster I've been on. I don't normally get surprised, but this one got me in a good way.
mail
person
cc-cat
6/11/2018 11:01 AM
Bcat2 wrote:expand_more
Your last two sentences again indicate how those who criticize those who kneel miss the point of the kneeling. It has NOTHING to do with the miltary. It's all about the inequities that continue in our society. This opinion piece from today's NY Times is most enlightening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/african-americ...
Regardless of their motivations,the players actions during the National Anthem are perceived by the general public as being anti-military.

There is an old saying in politics,"if you're defending,you're losing".

To me,that's what the players are up against here.
They can say anything they want about why they are doing what they're doing,its what the public sees that carries the most weight.
rpbobcat, thanks. To me this is like those who wish to protest war at funerals of KIAs. Disrespect the Colors/Anthem, sorry, they stand for what is right in this country. I still believe that.


it is very dangerous and even unamerican when people equate the anthem and the flag solely to the military. given their comments, rpbobcat and bcat2 want our country to become a military state. worshipping military power and commitment above individual rights and freedoms. this is certainly not what our forefathers visioned. sad and unacceptable view of our county.
Last Edited: 6/11/2018 11:14:25 AM by cc-cat
mail
person
L.C.
6/11/2018 11:16 AM
SBH wrote:expand_more
Wait, you're equating respectfully kneeling on the sidelines of a professional sports contest with protesting at a military funeral? That's a page right out of the White House's script.

I don't think it's surprising that there are people that are offended. After all, that's the whole point. The reason this was chosen as a protest form is precisely because it does offend people, and therefore attracts attention.

Similarly, it isn't surprising that a lot of people who used to be fans of football have turned elsewhere for their leisure activities, and some will never return. That's where my attitude comes in. I am a strong supporter of free speech, including the right to peaceably protest. I do not, however, believe that employees, while on the job, should have a right to harm their employers business by their conduct on the job, and that employers should have recourse if employees are doing unauthorized things that harm their business.

It also isn't surprising that there are a wide range of opinions on this subject, as there are a wide range of opinions on it nationwide. That's true of pretty much every political topic.
mail
person
cc-cat
6/11/2018 11:23 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Wait, you're equating respectfully kneeling on the sidelines of a professional sports contest with protesting at a military funeral? That's a page right out of the White House's script.

I don't think it's surprising that there are people that are offended.
of course this comment has nothing to do with what SBH said.
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/11/2018 11:43 AM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
Wait, you're equating respectfully kneeling on the sidelines of a professional sports contest with protesting at a military funeral? That's a page right out of the White House's script.

I don't think it's surprising that there are people that are offended.
of course this comment has nothing to do with what SBH said.
True and I don't think it's a matter of being offended as it is a matter of being made uncomfortable by having to face the truth on a variety of society's ills.
mail
person
cc-cat
6/11/2018 11:50 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Your last two sentences again indicate how those who criticize those who kneel miss the point of the kneeling. It has NOTHING to do with the miltary. It's all about the inequities that continue in our society. This opinion piece from today's NY Times is most enlightening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/african-americ...
Regardless of their motivations,the players actions during the National Anthem are perceived by the general public as being anti-military.
or not
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/nfl-players-kneel...
mail
person
rpbobcat
6/11/2018 1:09 PM
cc-cat wrote:expand_more
Your last two sentences again indicate how those who criticize those who kneel miss the point of the kneeling. It has NOTHING to do with the miltary. It's all about the inequities that continue in our society. This opinion piece from today's NY Times is most enlightening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/african-americ...
Regardless of their motivations,the players actions during the National Anthem are perceived by the general public as being anti-military.

There is an old saying in politics,"if you're defending,you're losing".

To me,that's what the players are up against here.
They can say anything they want about why they are doing what they're doing,its what the public sees that carries the most weight.
rpbobcat, thanks. To me this is like those who wish to protest war at funerals of KIAs. Disrespect the Colors/Anthem, sorry, they stand for what is right in this country. I still believe that.


it is very dangerous and even unamerican when people equate the anthem and the flag solely to the military. given their comments, rpbobcat and bcat2 want our country to become a military state. worshipping military power and commitment above individual rights and freedoms. this is certainly not what our forefathers visioned. sad and unacceptable view of our county.
You should go back and reread my post.

I was merely responding to Allen's post about kneeling having nothing to do with the military.

My post dealt with people's perception of what NFL players kneeling means.

I also fail to see how you can interpret my comments as,in some way, equating the National Anthem,only to the military,or that I "worship military power".

As far as individual rights and freedoms,they are paramount to the principals this country was founded on.
But how do you propose to defend those rights, against our enemies, without a strong,hopefully the strongest in the world, military ?
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
6/11/2018 2:55 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Your last two sentences again indicate how those who criticize those who kneel miss the point of the kneeling. It has NOTHING to do with the miltary. It's all about the inequities that continue in our society. This opinion piece from today's NY Times is most enlightening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/opinion/african-americ...
Regardless of their motivations,the players actions during the National Anthem are perceived by the general public as being anti-military.

There is an old saying in politics,"if you're defending,you're losing".

To me,that's what the players are up against here.
They can say anything they want about why they are doing what they're doing,its what the public sees that carries the most weight.
No, their actions are perceived by idiots as being anti-military. no one with a brain thinks their actions are anti-military or have anything to do with the military.
Showing Messages: 51 - 75 of 93
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)