Donate

The Daily Caller, a completely normal website founded by very normal human being/bow tie aficionado Tucker Carlson, posted a very normal article this week posing the question "How do you think NFL players who kneel should be punished?"


The article's author, Annie Caputo, begins by explaining her ire over the fact that these black NFL players, protesting police brutality, would dare be so disrespectful during the anthem.

It's hard to believe that those who play what is arguably the most American sport in existence can willingly disrespect the symbol of our nation and service members in front of an audience of millions.

Yet, this despicable behavior has been on display multiple times over the course of the past few seasons with NFL players taking a knee and refusing to stand and honor the national anthem and the American flag.

Of course, to some people, police killing unarmed black people on the regular might be considered fairly disrespectful as well, but not to Annie!

Their reasoning behind the kneeling is the right to protest on the behalf of civil rights and injustice, but this motive is largely overshadowed by the prominent message their behavior sends, which is that they do not respect the United States nor those whose sacrifices are represented by the flag and the anthem.

Well, it's only "overshadowed" if you choose to ignore it.

I mean, you make millions of dollars to play a televised game. No one asked for your political views, nor did they tune in to watch a bunch of famous athletes blatantly spit on the legacies of those who have sacrificed everything just so that they could be playing football for a living.

Fun fact! No one asks for anyone's political views, ever. I did not ask for your political views, Annie, and yet here we are.

The fun thing about racial discrimination, of course, is that it really doesn't care if you make millions of dollars or not. You could be Danny Glover and still not get a cab in New York City. You could be Henry Louis Gates and get arrested for "breaking in" to your own home. Heck! It doesn't even care what political party you are aligned with, because you could be Republican Senator Tim Scott and still get pulled over by police every time you leave your house. Also, some people feel as though those who have a platform and power have an obligation to use that to stand up for those who do not.

But guess what? You could even be a veteran. Like retired Marine Kenneth Chamberlain, you could have your medical alert bracelet go off by accident, and then get shot by police in your own home. Like Air Force Veteran Anthony Hill, who was not only unarmed but also naked when he was shot and killed by police while having a PTSD-related episode.

Murder, kneeling -- it's hard to say, really, which is a worse time for those harmed. Clearly, we know where Caputo stands.

As this is such a great and terrible offense -- and one she does not think the NFL is punishing severely enough -- Caputo helpfully compiled a list of ways in which she would like to see these players punished.

She starts out with "termination of contract" and swiftly moves on to "docking their pay for one month."

If these men are being paid to be a member of a professional team and play football, why should they be paid if they are not acting as a member of the team?

Annie. Do you know what it is called when people work and do not get paid? There is a word for that.

Also, no one is being paid to stand for the national anthem. I mean, unless you want to pay a bunch of people to just do that. Maybe that would be a really great idea for a show on Fox. Just watching people stand there, while someone sings the National Anthem. I'm sure it would be very entertaining and satisfying for you, since it seems to be a thing you care about very deeply. More deeply, I guess, than veterans being gunned down in their houses by police.

She also suggests deportation as an option!

Since they clearly don't care enough about America to respect the flag, why should they even be here in the first place?

Where, exactly, does one deport American citizens to? Caputo does not seem to have the answer. Just general "deportation" because sure, that's a thing you can do legally. In America.

Another solution? Spanking.

If they want to throw tantrums like children, shouldn't they be disciplined like children, too?

I don't know where you have been working, Annie, but here in America, land that you love, it is, in fact, illegal for employers to assault their employees.

Her next idea? The stocks.

Since these "protestors" love to make a public spectacle of themselves, perhaps some time in the public stocks could teach them a lesson in loyalty to one's country.

HUH.

So, Caputo's big ideas for these black NFL players who upset her are ... make them work for free, deprive them of American citizenship, beat them and put them in stocks or pillories if they upset her.

Again, Annie. There is a word for that. Interestingly enough, it is in fact outlawed now in the Constitution you surely love so much. It has its own amendment and everything.

Caputo also wanted to know how the commenters of The Daily Caller would like to punish those naughty NFL players. And boy, did they ever have some ideas.

One commenter, "billy boo," suggested murder:

is it too much to suggest they be shot? Yes? No? I'm very emotional about this whole issue. First Amendment Smirst Amendment, don't these thugs know it's a symbol of the FirstAmendment we're talking about here? Yes, I say shoot them.

Another commenter, Martin Weiss, was slightly less severe and suggested only dismemberment:

Cut their legs off at the knees so they can permanently kneel.

Still another commenter, PabloDali, was more on the nose.

How did they punish uppity slaves in Roots?

Clearly, there is some serious confusion over in Very Patriotic Daily Caller-land about the Thirteenth Amendment. One would think that a group of people so in love with America would have heard about this at some point in their lives, but I guess they were all out sick that day.

[DailyCaller]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you! Click here to tip us!

Robyn Pennacchia

Robyn Pennacchia is a brilliant, fabulously talented and visually stunning angel of a human being, who shrugged off what she is pretty sure would have been a Tony Award-winning career in musical theater in order to write about stuff on the internet. Previously, she was a Senior Staff Writer at Death & Taxes, and Assistant Editor at The Frisky (RIP). Currently, she writes for Wonkette, Friendly Atheist, Quartz and other sites. Follow her on Twitter at @RobynElyse

$
Donate with CC

OOH BOY HOWDY, The Federalist is on fire this week! Just this morning we told you about the hilarious Federalist column where one neo-Nazi's mom and dad are Democrats, ipso facto QED NEO-NAZIS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS, FUCKERS! Is America's dumbest woman whose name doesn't rhyme with Cara Snailin' over there being a total fuckin' Mollie Hemingway right now? Sadly, she blocked us on Twitter, so how could we possibly know? The answer is WE DON'T CARE.

But now we have a gem of the Federalist genre, an article written by a whiny-ass gay quisling conservative, who would like to chew on his blankie and whine about how much harder it is out there for a conservative than it is for a gay person. This is a subject we happen to have some knowledge about, because we are super gay! And we know a lot about conservatives, both firsthand -- being subjected to them every single one of our almost four decades of life -- and also from covering extremist right-wing Christians for a very long time. Particularly the kind that tell young, impressionable, vulnerable gay kids that they need to pray away the gay if they want Jesus to exercise some self control and refrain from sending them to a fiery hell for all eternity.

We clicked on the article with high hopes. See if you can spot why:

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
pic via Glamour Shots, we mean this dude's old website

The House Education and Workforce Committee was all set to have a hearing today all about the horrors that a higher minimum wage would wreak on the economy. Horrors like rich people being slightly less rich. Horrors like business owners claiming they will have to fire people and charge $15 for a McChicken if forced to pay workers a living wage, which they won't actually do because no one will buy a $15 McChicken and they would go out of business if they tried that, and they already don't hire more people than the bare minimum they can get away with. Horrors like poor people not being "motivated" to work harder and get better jobs that do not pay them an amount no human being could possibly live on.

Alas, as Politico reports, it was not to be, as committee members discovered their big witness for the hearing, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia (pictured above in a Glamour Shot from his archived website), was kind of a wacko.

Sabia, as it turns out, once had a blog called "No Shades Of Gray," in which he wrote many columns of an extremely homophobic and sexist persuasion. In one of these columns, in 2002, Sabia was very mad about one man's lawsuit against several fast food giants for contributing to his health and obesity problems by failing to disclose the nutritional information of the food they sold. In retrospect, I think most people are now on board with these chains being required to post calorie counts and other nutritional information, but in 2002, Sabia was convinced that requiring them to do this would be an assault on freedom for all Americans everywhere. His response to this was to try and attempt a Jonathan Swift posture and suggest taxing gay sex, which he claimed leads to "disastrous health consequences."

Because sure, that's the same thing, basically.


In gay sex, we have an activity that is clearly leading to disastrous health consequences. What rational person would engage in this sort of activity? There is only one solution - let's tax it.

"Come on, Sabia," you say, "how are you going to enforce these taxes? Are you going to send government officials to peep into everyone's bedroom?"

Eventually. But first we have to mount the assault on Big Gay (no, I am not talking about Rosie O'Donnell). We can tax gay nightclubs, websites, personal ads, sexual paraphernalia, and so forth. Talk about a sin tax!!! We can cripple gay-related industries and get them right where we want them. All gay clubs will have to feature huge, flashing warning signs like "CAUTION: Entering this nightclub may increase your chance of contracting STDs and dying."

Big Gay clearly lures people into trying their "product" without discussing the risks to mind, body, and soul. The average Joe on the street does not understand all of the possible bad outcomes. I can almost hear him now:

"They said '100 percent hotties.' I thought that meant it was fun. I thought gay sex was OK…Now I have all these diseases. Big Gay has wrecked my life."

In the immoral words of Warren G, "Regulators!! Mount up!"

EXTREME SHUDDER.

In another 2002 article, classily titled "College Girls: Unpaid Whores," Sabia laments that feminists have led college girls to stop trying to be like the Holy Virgin Mary and instead to aspire to be more like that hussy Ally McBeal.

No, really.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today's college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of "love" is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

Not only that, but instead of going to college to find a husband, they have boyfriends. Boyfriends they have S-E-X with. And sometimes, not even that. Sometimes they have sex with people just because they want to have sex with people, and not even in exchange for Valentine's Day cards or money!


Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as "friends with benefits" has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine's Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys "just friends" whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

How cute! He was like the ur-incel, basically.

Anyway, following the discovery of the posts, the House Education and Workforce Committee's GOP communications director Kelley McNabb told Politico that "members were uncomfortable moving forward on the hearing." A more optimistic person might think this was a step forward, that maybe those committee members actually thought it was bad to suggest that being gay means being a disease-ridden monster or that college girls are whores, but it's probably more to avoid embarrassment than anything else. Guess they'll have to start from scratch and find a crappy economist who will tell them what they want to hear about the minimum wage but who doesn't have an embarrassing Geocities blog in their past. Good luck with that!

[Politico]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

$
Donate with CC
Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc