The National Anthem in the NFL is supposed to be a time to stand up for your country and be proud of the great things that we have accomplished in our lives.
But this week, the players and the coaches have chosen to sit on the bench and not stand up and protest.
What does that say about us?
What do we have to stand for?
The answer is simple.
The players are the problem.
The anthem protests have been a major distraction from the NFL’s success on the field.
It is not a coincidence that the anthem protests started on a Sunday afternoon.
If the NFL were to change the rules, which it seems to be slowly trying to do, and let the anthem plays resume, the league would lose a lot of momentum and fans would stop coming to games.
If you’ve been following the protests, you know that the players have a vested interest in the protest.
After all, they’re the ones who signed a $15 billion contract to play professional football in 2019.
They get to have their pick of the teams to represent their country during the anthem, and they get to decide who will be the “face” of the league in the future.
But that doesn’t mean they are necessarily doing the right thing by their actions.
If the players were to stand and sing the anthem as they do today, they would be acting like protesters, but not the people they are protesting.
They would be participating in an activity that is considered an act of civil disobedience.
There is a long tradition of using nonviolent protests to achieve social change.
In the United States, this is called sit-ins, and in the United Kingdom, the Green Party has been known to stage sit-in protests, including ones that have taken place during the World Cup and the Olympic Games.
But the current protest by the NFL players is unique because they have taken to the streets.
The reason the NFL protests have become so popular in the first place is because they are often considered to be an act that would be disrespectful to the flag and the anthem.
The NFL has used its power and its influence to make these sorts of statements over the years, but they are rarely held up as examples of a peaceful protest.
The protests that have been taking place in recent weeks are not peaceful.
They are highly aggressive and violent.
They have broken the law, and the protesters have been arrested.
There have been dozens of arrests.
The police have responded with violence and aggression.
But those protests have not been peaceful.
The protests have included acts of vandalism, vandalism, physical attacks, and a few even shootings.
And this is not the first time the NFL has taken part in these sorts on-field protests.
In the 1990s, the NFL used its position of power to use the league to pressure the U.S. government to allow the league and its players to wear masks.
This was in response to the 1994 World Cup in South Africa when players and fans took to the field to protest the racist treatment of black athletes in the country.
This action, along with the 1995 NFL lockout, helped pave the way for a major wave of protests during the 1999 Winter Olympics.
After the protests in the 1960s, NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle called for the league’s players to stand, and to wear their masks at all times.
That was an important step forward for the players, because it was a step forward because it demonstrated that the NFL had the power to enforce its rules.
But it was also a step back because the NFL never had the option of simply allowing its players and coaches to wear helmets.
This week, when the NFL and the players decide to hold the anthem and play football, they have chosen not to do so in a way that reflects their views.
Instead, they chose to take the action they believe is appropriate.
This is not an acceptable response from the players.
It does not represent the position of the players or the NFL.
This kind of protest would not be tolerated by any other team or organization.
This isn’t the first instance of the NFL using the power of its position to try to control the way Americans perceive their country.
In February, the owners of the Los Angeles Rams and the New York Giants used the league lockout to try and force the NFL to change its rules for players and teams to wear safety vests during the National Anthem.
The Rams and Giants tried to force the league into an agreement that would allow teams to keep their uniforms and equipment from changing during the protests.
The league refused to agree to that, so the players went on strike and refused to pay the NFL until they got what they wanted.
After this last strike, the union and the owners agreed to a new agreement that gave players a two-week period to decide whether to wear the safety vest during the playing of the national anthems.
If they chose not to wear it, they were allowed to wear whatever uniform they chose.
However, if they wore it, the team would pay for it.
And if the players refused to wear that uniform