Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems those 30 yr season ticket owners are more passionate about the treatment to their country's flag and I applaud them.
I just don't understand how anyone can feel that what these players doing are OK. They are getting pd to play - if any one of us said, did or wore anything that might be offensive to a customer - we'd be fired - plain and simple. These players can protest on their own time. I think it's a good cause - but not one for the playing field.
These players don't look oppressed. Blacks in our country are treated better than blacks anywhere else in the world. Other people, especially the Jews, have a history of slavery and discrimination. Rather than stirring the pot it is time that some people find a way to integrate.
I have consistently asked, and people consistently avoided: Explain why is it unreasonable to take the politics and social issues outside the stadium ?
I am sure you'd love to tell people where and when to speak. If you are a football player with something to say, you'd obviously do it while on TV. The whole point is to do it while people see you. They are trying to drive their point in, and clearly they are succeeded judged by all the PC outrage they have created. Like i said......its obvious.
"Sure son, you can protest all you want as long as you do it in your basement where no one can see it."
Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather
than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional
character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing,
and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns
and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s
police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including
racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact
African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these
disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust
between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement
legitimacy among African Americans in particular.
But that does not mean we cannot debate on what is 'appropriate' and what is not.
The definition of 'appropriate' is: suitable or proper in the circumstances.
In real life, it means that while you are free to say whatever you want and anywhere you want, there are places and times that you should not exercise that freedom.
For example: Would you say FU at a child's birthday party ?
You certainly have the right to do that under the First Amendment. But basic human decency, assuming you have any, would be a SELF RESTRAINT on that right at that time and location.
If you did exercised that self restraint, did you feel your right to free speech violated ? Of course not.
Friendly reminder that it was a military veteran that encouraged Kaepernick to kneel
True, and the reason for the debate is perhaps to better understand the other point of view, perhaps rather than condemn it for lack of understanding...
The essential issue, to my way of thinking anyway, is whether it is appropriate to brand someone who takes a knee on the sideline, like Cap did, as "anti-American" or anti-the flag or to be compared to someone who says FU at a child's birthday party...
What bothers me is the borderline fascist effort to insist on truly demonizing and/or misrepresenting what someone is doing -- rather than at a minimum truly understand and accept the intent -- all for the purpose of discrediting the person and the message. It's exactly like the tactic of calling people anti-Semitic simply because they want to call attention and/or object to some things Israel is doing.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and also dangerous when it comes to infringing on our freedom of speech and better understanding of what is going on around us!
As long as the government stays out of it -- I have no issues.
That is the beauty of the First Amendment. And the First is a double edged sword that can cut the wielder as well as the target.
If you claim the right to the First, then do not complain if I claim the same and challenge you.
Again -- Explain why is it unreasonable to take politics and social issues outside of the stadium ?
If you say it is unreasonable, then the burden is upon you to show how because being reasonable implies at least one equally effective alternative if not more. And in this day and age of media -- there are more.
You know that there are more and that is why you -- and others -- have consistently avoided this question.
There are many exceptional factors working in Kaepernick's favors, factors that most of us do not have.
- He is black.
- He is a professional athlete.
- He is wealthy.
- He is renown.
So explain why and how Kaepernick DOES NOT have alternative venues for his political and social grievances against the US ?
I am sure you'd love to tell people where and when to speak. If you are a football player with something to say, you'd obviously do it while on TV. The whole point is to do it while people see you. They are trying to drive their point in, and clearly they are succeeded judged by all the PC outrage they have created. Like i said......its obvious.
"Sure son, you can protest all you want as long as you do it in your basement where no one can see it."
So explain why and how Kaepernick DOES NOT have alternative venues for his political and social grievances against the US ?
Bla bla bla bla
The black guy isn't doing what you want.
Too ****in bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic
Friendly reminder that Nate Boyer was discussed.
I see you ignored the Ferguson report for the umpteenth time
Not to mention the Baltimore report
Quote:
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
August 10, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today, we announce the outcome of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the
Baltimore City Police Department (BPD).1
After engaging in a thorough investigation, initiated at
the request of the City of Baltimore and BPD, the Department of Justice concludes that there is
reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the
Constitution or federal law. BPD engages in a pattern or practice of:
(1) making unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests;
(2) using enforcement strategies that produce severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of
stops, searches and arrests of African Americans;
(3) using excessive force; and
(4) retaliating against people engaging in constitutionally-protected expression.
Friendly reminder that it was a military veteran that encouraged Kaepernick to kneel
It doesn't matter. It morphed into a protest movement, whatever its origins. Just as the Star Spangled Banner is now the anthem, no longer a British drinking song called From Anacrean to Heaven.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
