Dbqgolfer

I am 100% pro-life and in fact am on the Board of Directors a local pro-life organization. After our last board meeting I asked others on the board what they were going to do about this election. Not a single one of them that I talked to were going to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I understand the argument about voting for the lesser of two evils, but at some point, both are so bad I can't do that. Just like I wouldn't choose between Mussolini or Stalin. I won't choose between Trump or Clinton. If there were one thing that put me over the top on being "never Trump", It was when he said that the military would commit war crimes for him because he's a strong leader. WTF.....totally unfit.

Doing this, of course, would violate the civil rights act; one cannot refuse service based on race or ethnicity.

Can they fire you if you are not violating any team or employee rules? The protest does not effect how these players do their job so what would be the reason for being cut? You can't just get get rid of someone because you disagree with them. It has to effect their job performance or violate a team rule. Even if they could release a player, by doing so shows that you don't support their beliefs. Good luck recruiting other black players if Riley or the university disciplined these players. How do you think the other black players in the league would react if the NFL disciplined CK? Black players are the majority in the NFL and it would be a horrible idea if they decide not to support their players. But yes, those amendments protect you from legal persecution, but you could still lose your job. To answer your first four questions/statements. 1)Yes. 2) Don't need a reason to be cut. 3) Yes you can. 4) No it doesn't. Once again, these answers are in regards to first amendment protection. If someone is has an employment contract, or is part of a collective bargaining agreement, they have more protections. But if you are not part of a protected class as set forth in the civil rights act of 1964, or subsequent revisions, you don't really have as much employment protection as you think. In response to your second paragraph; I agree with everything you said. I only posted my first comment because it seems like some people posting think that the first amendment protects a person from all consequences from one's speech/actions...it doesn't.

Ironically, according to flag etiquette, the flag is not supposed to be worn as part of clothing, such as the N. on Carrikers shirt. It's considered disrespectful.

Everyone knows that that the first amendment, just like the second amendment, only protects you from infringment by the govt, right? Just as businesses can enforce gun free zones; the San Francisco 49ers could cut CK, I could be fired from my job for burning the flag, even if it is on my own time, and Mike Riley could have suspended the thee players involved in the National Anthem protests. (The last example may be a little tenuous since UNL is a public university). To be clear, I don't think those things should happen, I'm just saying that I don't think the the constitution prevents them from happening.

Gov. Ricketts comments were unfortunate, Hal Daub were much worse; but if I recall correctly, many of the today's "free speech defenders" on this board were looking for Ron Brown to be fired when he, on his own time, spoke out against homosexuality at an Omaha City Council meeting.

Thanks for the link, knapplc, now it makes a little more sense.

I just read the article at espn.com about the regents and governor's comments and I think there is an overreaction on this board. It quotes the regents and governor, points out that no one is suggesting any punishment, and talks about mike riley ' s support. I may have rose colored glasses on, but all in all seems like the article is a net positive for the huskers.

I just read the demands from the BLM website. After reading the demands, there is no way to conclude that it is anything but radical marxism. Having said that, I would guess that most of the athletes protesting have not read the demands, nor would they agree with them.

One thing we have always told our kids is that college is an opportunity to meet people and interact with people who come from very different experiences than them. They need to learn from them and allow this to make their college experience more meaningful. Now, that sounds awfully like I'm a hippy from the 60s. But, it's true. They have grown up in central Nebraska and have been shielded away from many other experiences because of that. Don't miss the opportunity that college gives you to learn from others. And I might add, to teach others. Perhaps you kids will meet others who are from the inner city who have never met anyone from central Nebraska

Even if this were true, which it is not, explain to me exactly how that isn't fair? White America stole from, enslaved, and profited massively at the expense of blacks. Millions, billions, trillions of dollars worth of labor and wealth accumulated by whites at the expense of blacks. When have black people ever had any reparations made to them for any of this? When has our country ever made up for any of the negative effects of racism and segregation? Just curious, what would your solution be to right these wrongs?

Even if this were true, which it is not, explain to me exactly how that isn't fair? White America stole from, enslaved, and profited massively at the expense of blacks. Millions, billions, trillions of dollars worth of labor and wealth accumulated by whites at the expense of blacks. When have black people ever had any reparations made to them for any of this? When has our country ever made up for any of the negative effects of racism and segregation?

Hey, Regents lives matter!........sorry, couldn't resist. I think Hal Daub is very misguided with his comments.

The DOJ also found that the Ferguson police department was absolutely rampant with racial bias, as well as finding the same thing out about Baltimore. So while the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray specifically were found to be justified, what they represented to the protestors, aka, police departments running rampant with racism, was entirely true. Would the DOJ have ever investigated those departments and come to these findings without the protests? Probably not.

You're using the statements of a very few people to impugn the entire Black Lives Matter movement. Of course statements like that against cops are repugnant. Do you really think all BLM supporters want to harm the police? It's misconceptions and outright falsehoods like this that inflame what should be a very civil topic of discussion. No, I purposely said some, but if it seems like I was trying to impugn the entire movement, I apologize. For what it's worth, here is my contribution to the conversation (a little something to pi$$ off everyone) -The Michael Brown shooting was justified (as investigated by the Obama DOJ). The hands up, don't shoot, narrative is false. -There is still racism in America, and the whole world for that matter. -Many of the police shootings in the past year are justified. -Some of the police shootings in the past year are not justified, and those shootings are being prosecuted. -The nations police departments are not running rampant with racism; some of the police officers are racist, most are not. -I would like to say that the majority of the BLM movement is not anti-white, anti-cop; but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I believe that. (I hope and pray that I am wrong about this) -Police are not going into the intercities to arrest and hassle african-americans; they are going there to arrest the people who have committed crimes, mostly against african-americans. -There needs to be criminal justice reform. Our prisons don't need to be filled with non-violent offenders and our use of the death penalty cannot be systemically justified. I have many others, but this is probably enough for now. One, last thing; the key to improving race relations is not, as Donald Trump said "more law and order" What a baffoon.

well, that would help recruiting. (sarcasm)

Not true. The message being sent is that all whites have benefitted from the systems of racism, while minorities have suffered. That's a very different message than, "You are a racist." and it's also unfortunately sad that so many of us can't admit to being fortunate to be given opportunities that others haven't because of their skin color. A second message being sent is that being silent, being unconcerned, being in disagreement with the notion that whites have benefitted while minorities have suffered is to choose the side of oppression. That's a different conversation, but it's still hardly something that should be taken as a personal attack. It's a plea to listen and to see, to have compassion and empathy, to look out for each other. So when some of the people leading a BLM protest chant "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want them? Now!" and "Pigs in a blanket, Fry em like bacon!" They're just good, concerned citizens letting people know that we lack compassion and empathy. Please note, I used the word some,not all. It's probably best when talking about these issues not to lump everyone together.

While the point you're trying to make is not lost on me at all, and I actually do care about the issue Michael is putting out there, I just want to say that I've been so adamant about the right to protest simply to hopefully shut up the people claiming that "they shouldn't be allowed to do this." Because that's just, like, really stupid to believe. Between the "football players should just focus on football" crowd, 'Murica derpers, and flat-out racists, it's been hard to focus on the real issue being brought up by MRI and others. Right now, those individuals have done a great job of bringing awareness to the issue, the next step is to discuss the issue further and see what solutions can be agreed upon. Just to be clear, I didn't just mean MRI or Huskerboard. I meant ever since the protests started, it seems like the majority of the conversations everywhere I've seen have been about the protests and free speech, not the underlying issues.

Has anyone else noticed that the only conversation these protests have started is a conversation about the protests themselves and first amendment rights, not the issue that the protesters wanted the conversation to be about.

This is devolving in a hurry.

There was one Republican running this year who would make Hillary look reasonable, and we nominated him.

George Bush must be smiling, everyone will now forget his debate performance.

The one who talks less will win

What I don't get about Trump supporters is their claim that he isn't a regular politician and "tells it like it is." Trump, more than any candidate I can remember, just says whatever the crowd he talking to wants to hear, then will say the opposite to a different crowd if that's what they want to hear.

As a conservative Republican who would never vote for Hillary in a million years; it seems to me that this is the first truthful statement she has made in years...and no, I won't be voting for Trump either.