Colin Kaepernick

[Rick]

United States Parcel Service. Why would anything else be at the top?

Because "U" comes after "A" and the list is in alphabetical order?

USPS is US Postal Service
UPS United Parcel Service

Only one is a government entity, but they both list their shipping choices in alphabetical order. They also both have United States checked automatically if you are visiting their site from the USA, (at least when I checked on my laptop) so it appears the United States is the first choice.

Mind games

 

[Turdle]

United States Parcel Service. Why would anything else be at the top?

from wiki
In 1919 the company expanded for the first time outside of Seattle to Oakland, California and changed its name to United Parcel Service. The name change to United Parcel Service was to remind the company expansion that operations were still United under the same organization and Parcel identified the type of business offered as part of its Service.

Has nothing to do with "united states" other than most of it's business comes from here.

 

[shucker1]

I was kind of feeling that they did this as a show of patriotism for this country.

At least that was what I was hoping for...

 

[MrQ]

 

[Mbrooks420]

Just about every US based business has United States as the top choice. I'm sure it's about convenience and not patriotism. Better applications will choose it by locale, as Rick suggested.

 

[chefduane]

Yeah, how 'bout them Cowboys??

 

[boominXplorer]

There is not enough room in this thread for the Cowboys drama.....

 

[chefduane]

LOL! The Cowboys?? Drama!?? LOL!!

 

[96firephoenix]

First, Kneeling during the national anthem, burning flags in protest, and peeing on flags in the street are all protected forms of free speech. You may not like them, but they are just as protected by the first amendment as you going to church on Sundays or us talking about this issue on some internet forum. The idea of yanking citizenship for kneeling at the national anthem is anathema to American values. Someone mentioned that the fact he is allowed in public after this protest shows the rest of the world just how free this country truly is - Yanking citizenship or deporting someone who simply kneels during the national anthem is something that East Germany would have done, if you weren't shot right away. Actions have consequences though, and I think his employment situation reflects that.

Second, by expressing his opinion this way, he has turned a national spotlight on the injustices (real or perceived) that he wants to see addressed, so you could argue that he has made an effective point.

Third, he really isn't talented enough to get away with hard-line political opinions. He's mediocre at best, and you just don't get to have loud opinions if you're not good enough to make people ignore them. Tom Brady had a MAGA hat in his locker at one point and supported trump at least early in the campaign, and you don't see liberal New England fans boycotting the Patriots - he's a good enough player that he can really get away with a lot of pissing people off politically.

 

[chefduane]

^ All good points regarding protected free speech, but exercising free speech has consequences (as Mr. K is experiencing now.) You can yell "fire" in a theatre as a form of free speech but there will be consequences if done. And not good ones. I do agree that revocation of citizenship and calls deportation are probably more of an emotional response than an actual suggested course of action. But the NFL owners are well within their rights to not offer employment to Mr. K since 1)he is not good enough to make the team, 2)the team already is stocked with QB's for the season, and 3)he would destroy locker room chemistry. #3 is one that I have not seen articulated by any ownership group but I would think it plays into their decision to not offer him a job. It is also my personal opinion that most ownership groups DO NOT want to face the wrath of the fans if they decided to offer Mr. K a roster spot.

Also, Mr. K does not have a right to a job in the NFL. He has a right to pursue a career in football, but no right exists for him to have ANY job in the NFL. There are some 'tv activists' who are claiming this, and it is hogwash. He has as much a right to a job in the NFL as I do, and inasmuch as I could have gone pro after college ball, I decided not to. (OK, so that last sentence was not completely true, but you get the point.)

I agree with your third point in that most NE fans will/wont/don't boycott the Patriots because Brady had on a MAGA hat. But it is not because they are simply tolerant liberals. (Is there such a thing?) It is because the Patriots/Brady win. If they were 4-12 for the last 4 seasons, I bet it would be a different story.

Lastly, the grotesque irony of Mr. K. protesting 'oppression of people of color' (from his Wiki page) whilst making zillions of dollars in a league that is black dominated is not lost on the fans nor the general public. Regardless, he is free to go to the CFL if he cannot get a job in the NFL. It will be interesting to see his course of action should not be in the NFL this season. It will be more interesting to see how the professional race hustlers attempt to perpetuate the 'oppression of people of color' should that be the case.

 

[CDW6212R]

...

Second, by expressing his opinion this way, he has turned a national spotlight on the injustices (real or perceived) that he wants to see addressed, so you could argue that he has made an effective point.
...

That is not exactly correct. What he has done is disrespected the entire country, the flag, you, me, everyone. Plus he's gotten countless others to also follow in his misguided foot steps.

That is what he did, and what he meant has little to do with that fact. You may know what the hell he wants to complain about, but I don't, and don't care. I have an idea, but I am not interested in what he meant. If you don't recognize his actions as contempt for the whole country, than you have bad priorities or lack of intelligence. It does not matter what he's trying to say, his actions are screaming his disrespect to the world. That is what I see, and I bet you that millions also care more about his disrespect, than his insignificant complaints.

 

[chefduane]

^ Correct. Mr. K is a dunce in that his method of protest is getting the exact opposite reaction that he set out to achieve. His (and particularly his) method of protest actually highlights the irrationality of his claim. Or at least, grossly overshadows any basis for his claim.

And I have neither the time nor inclination to listen to Mr. K. whining about social injustice. I would rather he just say thank you for the opportunity to play a game for $160k a week. Either way, I don't give a damn about what anyone thinks about the Cowboys!!!

(I threw that last part in just because I just watched 'A Few Good Men' and I like that scene.)

 

[Mbrooks420]

A difference of opinion doesn't denote a lack of intelligence. Unless you think the open service men that defend his right to do as he has are stupid, too.

 

[CDW6212R]

A difference of opinion doesn't denote a lack of intelligence. Unless you think the open service men that defend his right to do as he has are stupid, too.

You miss the point, it isn't about intelligence(I hope not, this is elementary logic). You are looking at or listening to his intentions, not his actions. You are ignoring his actions.

If I posted a youtube video of one guy hitting another guy in the head with a baseball bat, how would you react... after you find out what really happened is the guy was trying to knock a hat off the other man's head? Did you see the actions, or did you ignore them and pay attention to only the explanation, or media analysis posted about the event? Actions matter, period. What CK did was and is disgusting, un-American, and everyone should shun him.

This issue is not about free speech. What the guy did was wrong, his actions were/are stupid, a clear picture of his level of intelligence.

 

[Mbrooks420]

I'm not missing anything. I never said I supported his actions or cause.

 

[chefduane]

A difference of opinion doesn't denote a lack of intelligence. Unless you think the open service men that defend his right to do as he has are stupid, too.

Well, it >can< denote a lack of intelligence. But in his case, its a lack of foresight and anticipation for the consequences of his actions.
I defend (and have defended with arms) his right to do so, and when I wore the uniform there were plenty of idiots in my unit. Not all, but some.