Wednesday, September 7, 2016

WWNY: Legion Boycotts West Coast Team..Bar Room Showdown Looms October 16

       Stop....this is silly...the Lowville Legion has the NFL package but will not air San Francisco 49 games as a protest to backup QB Colin Kaepernick, who refuses to stand for the Anthem.
       Good thing Kaepernick doesn't play for the Giants or Bills,
        Kaepernich made a splash with his protest of racial issues but most people dismiss him now or just acknowledge it's his right to do so.
        The boycott will last as long as the schedule puts SF in a game Legion bar flies want to watch.
        The Niners play the Buffalo Bills on October 16....But it's a 10AM game and Andy just signed the Mimosa Law.
http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Kaepernick-Protest-Sparks-Lowville-Legion-Boycott-392550801.html

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why don't you stop your silly comments abut the legion's protest? most people just acknowledge it's...right to do so.

Anonymous said...

Bahahaha! You show 'em, boys!

Anonymous said...

Do they serve "freedom fries"?

Anonymous said...

I don't think the threads are silly at all, 7:50. You sure seem to get mad a lot. Problems at the house?

Anonymous said...


Now - Free Beer before noon.

That'll help the poor bars that have their Daily Drinkers.

Anonymous said...

11:16, I am not angry about it. I'm Just pointing out that the mayor is a hypocrite for calling the legion protest "silly" in the same breath that he sticks up for douche protester with the words, "just acknowledge he has the right to do so".

No he doesn't have the right to do so. Thus far, his employer and the NFL allow him to do so, at their discretion. Show me the Court decision that acknowledges the right for public figure employees to protest at work in any way they see fit.

Anonymous said...

I certainly understand that, 2:39. My respect to you.

Anonymous said...

Try reading our Constitution 2:39. I don't like it one bit, but he most definitely has the right to express himself.

Anonymous said...

Sure he does, 4:05, and we have the right to take it out on his butt. I'm hoping the craphead's career is over. Like Jane Fonda, I will not forget. One thing is for sure, he be a Skank supporter. Maybe we can get the puke to visit us for a round of golf, per se.

Anonymous said...

"In reality, however, American employees’ free speech rights may be more accurately summarized by this paraphrase of a 1891 statement by Oli­ver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: “A employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed.” In other words: to keep your job, you often can’t say what you like."

Lynne Gobbell knows this firsthand. She drew media attention in 2004 when her employer, a vocal Bush supporter, fired her from her insulation-packing job because he disapproved of the John Kerry bumper sticker on her car. Sim­ilarly, Michael Italie lost his job as a machine operator because he appeared on a local radio program in which he discussed his socialist views and his wildly impractical bid for Miami mayor on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. Even more bizarrely, Tim Torkildson, an instructor at an English-language school, lost his job in 2014 when his boss mistakenly concluded that a blog post he wrote to explain homophones (words that sound alike but are spelled differently) would associate the school with “the gay agenda.”

Although these examples are extreme, they reflect the broad power many employers possess to terminate employees for speaking their minds. In each of these situations, the termi­nation occurred in a jurisdiction where the employer’s action was legal.

If this use of economic power to punish speech sounds un-American, remember that the First Amendment limits only the government’s ability to suppress speech. It provides that “Con­gress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Courts have extended this prohibition to all feder­al, state, and local government officials but have consistently emphasized that the First Amendment’s strictures do not apply to private-sector employers. Accordingly, the only people who enjoy First Amendment protection vis-à-vis their employers are people employed by the government.