The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Big news this morning on the talk shows is about Kaepernick not wanting to stand for the Nation Anthem; in protest of some peoples' unfair treatment by police.  While I'm alright with him expressing his freedom of speech, I'm not alright with the manner he is doing it.  HE IS AT HIS JOB, that is not the place to be exercising your free speech rights.  Most Americans would be fired on the spot if we wanted to spout off our opinions while we were at work.  To me it's a laziness on his part.  If he wants to get his opinion out there then go walk a picket line, give an offsite interview, or get involved with community discussions to help the matter.  What he is doing is just calling attention to himself, creating a distraction for his teammates, and IMO hurting the cause which he says he is supporting.  Add this to his poor play and I predict he will be done in the NFL within a year.

This has been around for days and is a non-issue to me. The guy was already on his way out of the NFL.

"His poor play" is the most relevant part of your statement.

LeBron James can call attention to himself and create a distraction for his teammates because he's the best player in the league.  Kaepernick... is not.

Probably a bad move for Kaep professionally due his poor play.  He has every right to not stand for the National Anthem, even if it causes more discourse instead of a solution.

SIDE NOTE:  Is Kaep actually making a statement, or is he using this as a way our of SF?  Be non-compliant under the guise of oppression (even though he was raised by a rich white family) and they'll let you play someplace else (i.e. SF doesn't want to deal with the headache from their backup QB, so they cut or trade him)?  He really could be making a stand, or he really could be using this situation for personal benefit, or both.  I honestly don't know what his true motives are, but I think it's pretty shitty either way.

^^^ Seeing as how they are not making a big deal out of it and have even released a statement saying they will allow him to continue, it isn't a very effective way of forcing his way out.

Please note,I heard there was hub bub about something Colin Kaepernick,I didn't see it. I've not read about it,just saw tweets,other players responses,and such about it.

My feelings on it are...I'm fine with bringing attention to an issue that is important,wrong approach,wrong person in a sense.I feel the people that might get really pissed about this,are probably part of the problem,and dismiss the message he's trying to send out.

I think if he'd gotten a bunch of teammates with him,or called players from other teams to all do it week 1.Would have sent a better,more effective message.

I have no problem with this one way or another.  Sports has long been a sounding board for political protest and I think it would be out of line for a company or school to MAKE you pledge your allegiance to a flag or honor an entity against your will.  Doing so would be making a political statement of their own.

It's a small gesture, but unlike him at a picket line, this will get much more media play and get people talking about the issue, which is the point.

I think anyone who dishonors the national anthem or flag for any reason is directly pissing on those who give them right to do it. It's their right but it's not right. Personally I think it's his last claim to fame because he knows he is almost done. He's lost a bunch of weight, hasn't trained and doesn't look to be wanting to play.

That aside I still don't get why racist BLM is even a topic any longer. All of their lies have proven to be false.  Why is the "issue" white cops kill blacks and not blacks are significantly more in danger by being killed by other blacks?

-Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015 According to data compiled by The Washington Post

-Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to Mac Donald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.

-From FBI statistics for 2013

Race of Victim/Total Victims/White /Black or African American/Other/Unknown
Black or African American/2,491/189/2,245/20/37

Just to borrow one of my favorite quotes from the movie "The American President"

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free""

Apply that same philosophy to Kaep's sitting down for the national anthem...

Because black people killing other people (black, white, cops, whatever) is treated as a crime, while cops killing unarmed black people is treated like a normal, uneventful occurrence.

Cops kill unarmed black people on video and don't even go to trial.
Zimmerman (a private citizen) openly admitted to killing an unarmed black kid and originally wasn't even arrested for it.
This is why black people feel compelled to point out that their lives DO matter.  Because society is clearly saying that their lives do not.

P.S. On a side note, this "racist BLM" stuff is absurd.  Was MLK a racist for insisting on equal rights for blacks?

I see this going down a predictable path...

It's precisely the subject that Kaepernick was sitting down over, so it's not like we're changing the topic.

I know, but it's starting to to look like another thread that's in the off topic section.  Thus the discussion path being predictable.

Cops who kill an unarmed person, black or white, and evidence points to them being justified and they do not go on trial. If evidence points to them being unjustified they go on trial.

Again ... when evidence points to the fact he followed the law he does not get charged. Race isn't a consideration for whether he followed the law. Don't like the law then change it but, as was proven, charging him when he hadn't appear to have broken the law only wasted a tons of money .. and it also looks like it has cost the State Attorney who brought those "just because" charges her job. Today's election will tell.

I think society is saying "all lives matter" and are being called racist for saying it.

I love MLK. In fact ... at this moment I can't think of a single think he did that I disagree with. I think that the biggest problem affecting the black community today. They want Malcolm X and not MLK.

"Black Lives Matter" has an implicit "too" at the end of it.

Saying "All Lives Matter" is being dismissive of the problem.

I mean, Black Lives Matter isn't exactly new.  If you've went the last 3 years and you still think "all lives matter" is a meaningful and relevant response, you're simply choosing to ignore their message.  It's useless to retort that all lives matter when there are, repeatedly, no legal recriminations for killing black people.

You're not the first anti-BLM person I've heard say that.  Are you aware that MLK was arrested 30 times (https://www.reference.com/history/many-times-did-martin-luther-king-jr-jail-ce53cc4643f5766d#full-answer) for civil disobedience?  Do you think BLM should follow MLK's example in this matter?

The whitewashing of MLK's legacy is pervasive.  The idea that MLK's movement would somehow be at odds with BLM is just bizarre.  In MLK's last march before he was assassinated, protesters were holding these signs:

(http://media.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/iamaman/Graphics/gallery05.jpg)

In today's era, there would surely be an outcry that those signs are racist.  Adult males of all races are men, right?

Spider, you're reaching man.

Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up a seat to a white person.
MLK was arrested for sit-ins at white only restaurants.  A lot different than being arrested for, rioting as an example.

MLK did not advocate violence in any way.
Malcolm X did.
BLM does.

That's the difference.

I understand the implied "too" but don't you think the use of "All lives matter" can be dismissed as well as being dismissive? If our goal is unity, shouldn't there be a unifying message?

MLK was arrested for breaking the law.  It's easy for us to sit around 50 years later and say that those laws were obviously unjust, but many people back then said the same thing that people are saying about BLM today: they are criminals and troublemakers.

MLK put it best:

"Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.” … Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Please show me where Black Lives Matter, as a movement, advocates violence as the solution.
The existence of individuals who promote violence does not mean the entire movement does, any more than the existence of Malcolm X meant that the 1960s civil rights movement was about advocating violence.

"All lives matter" is exclusively used as a retort to people who are protesting the killing of blacks with little to no consequences.  At this point, the term is as loaded as "states' rights" or "separate but equal"; it has a very specific meaning, which is, "Black people should stop complaining about being shot."

I don't think so, no.  "All Lives Matter" would be unoffensive and genuine if it were an isolated slogan.  But in this case, it's specifically a response to "black lives matter", a cry from a community with a legitimate concern that they are treated unequally.

I believe that when people say "All Lives Matter" that they don't mean to be dismissive and offensive.  Of COURSE all lives matter.  But to say that in response dismisses the problem.

Let's say that you're trying to help people in Darfur get clean water.  You are passionate and educated about the problem.  And you start a campaign to aid the problem.  "Darfur needs water."  And then people respond with "Everyone needs water."  Yes....yes they do, but people in Darfur are still without and your campaign has been marginalized.

That's exactly right, Dave.  It's like going to a breast cancer fundraiser and saying "No, all cancer matters"... and then doing nothing to defeat breast cancer or any other sort of cancer.

The people saying "All lives matter" are not following up with "Let's work to stop police from killing unarmed people of all races."  They are following up with "What about black-on-black crime?" and "You're being racist."

To make it crystal clear:
The meaning of the phrase "black lives matter" is that there is a grave injustice being committed against black people by the police.
The meaning of the phrase "all lives matter" is not that this grave injustice is being committed against all races by the police;
the meaning of "all lives matter" is that there is no such grave injustice being committed.

Here's the rub on that though, there is no national BLM structure or hierarchy. It is very hard to show anything at an entire movement level when there is no structure to it. I agree that it is a bad apple scenario, but without any national structure putting out a unified message then some people are going to attribute those bad apples to the organization as a whole.

In many instances it is. I want to make sure that I am not being misunderstood, as I believe many people on both sides of these movements are. I'm just saying rather than having implied messages of unity, if the goal is unity the message should be inclusive.

The civil rights movement of the 1960s had even less structure and hierarchy, so I'm not convinced that's relevant.
Furthermore, if we're going to say that we can't ascribe a position to an unorganized movement (a statement I don't necessarily disagree with), then we definitely can't say that said unorganized movement "advocates violence."

I doubt that "unity" is the goal (although that's certainly a welcome side-effect if it happens).  I believe the goal is to end the unjust killing of black people by police.

Again, if "all lives matter" was being used by Hispanic, Arab, or even white people that also wanted the police to stop killing unarmed people of every race, I'd support them, too!  It's not like BLM is in favor of the police killing unarmed Latinos or unarmed white people.  But the people who say "all lives matter" invariably believe that police killing unarmed people - of any race - is not a serious problem, and that BLM (and other protesters) should pipe down.

I am so very glad that I have Spider-Dan around to tell me what I'm thinking when I say something...

 ::)

I am certainly receptive to other explanations as to what is meant when "all lives matter" is given as a response to complaints of racially-targeted police brutality.

I suppose it could be intended as a completely unrelated comment - like saying, "Abolish world hunger," a noteworthy goal in and of itself - but the context implies otherwise.

And what's that problem again?

Hahahaha .... I can't respond to much tonight but there was no way I could go away and not post Jerry Rice's comment from today.

(http://cdn.hiphopwired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-29-at-11.51.08-PM.png)

I'm not at all surprised to see Jerry Rice say that.  Let's just say that on the scale of courage on social issues, with Muhammad Ali as a 10 and Michael "Republicans buy sneakers too" Jordan as a 1, Jerry Rice is pretty close to the latter.  Jerry Rice telling other black people to settle down is not exactly a startling development.

What about Richard Sherman?

I don't have any issues with Sherman's statement on the matter (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/08/29/richard-sherman-understands-kaepernicks-message-questions-the-platform/).  Unlike Rice, who evaded the underlying subject and simply asked agitators to settle down, Sherman agreed with the point Kaep was making but thought it could have been made in a better way.

On a related note, I find it rather strange that so many people are associating the national anthem not with our country, but with our military.  I suppose that makes it easier to criticize Kaep?  After all, criticizing the country is extremely popular these days (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/08/29/criticize-colin-kaepernick-but-support-donald-trump-think-again/89551082/), but bashing the military is never OK.  (Well, unless they were captured by the enemy; we like people who weren't captured (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317).)

I'd say it a different way Spider but maybe we have heard different conversations. In my mind the discussions have not associated the national anthem with the military but they have been associating the military with the national anthem. I know it is word play but there is a difference n my mind and that is how I've been hearing it discussed.

I don't understand the difference, specifically in the context of refusing to stand for the anthem being considered an insult to our military.  What do you mean, exactly?

I understand it is word play and it may not make a difference. I guess any two associated things are associated with each other and vice versa. Wherever I was going a few minutes ago probably isn't going to add anything.

I think this is how most people are treating the controversy.  Most people are saying that yes he has the right to not stand in protest, just as we have the right to say he is a jerk for protesting in this manner.

Correctamundo. As the liberals are so quick to point out. People are free to say what they want, they are not free from the consequences of those words, or actions in this case. Kaepernick has exercised his right, now everyone else can exercise their right to criticize him for it. Or burn his jersey. Or boycott his team. And in return the team can fire him if it is detrimental to their business. You know, kind of like Donald Sterling and the NBA. Or maybe Incognito/Martin/Grimes with the Dolphins. So he has his free speech, the government isn't going to do shit to him. Now the fans, the general public, and his employer. That's a whole different can of worms.

If you ask me, his season of fame is over and he just wants some attention. I don't agree with what he's doing, but it doesn't affect my life , so fuck him. Kaepernick doesn't matter anymore and I bet when he's a bit older and blows through all of his cash, he'll wish that he did things a bit differently!

One of the greatest things about this country - the nation that anthem represents - is that we are free to stay seated for the anthem, burn the flag, criticize the government, etc. without fear of going to jail, and we are also free to denounce people who do the aforementioned things.

Would I have stayed seated for the anthem?  No.  But as is evident in this thread, if his actions cause discussion and even 1/3rd of that discussion is about unarmed black people being killed by cops who face no legal repercussions... then I think Kaep achieved his goal.

He could have posted his political views to Twitter or Instagram and it would not have been news even in the Bay Area.  But by making this choice, he has definitely put the conversation front and center, and even if the majority of the conversation is about the anthem, even a small increase in awareness about this problem is an improvement.

But this hasn't happened.  For one thing, unless you've been living under a rock for the past couple years, the whole Black Lives Matter, cops killing unarmed black men, etc. has been a nonstop hot button issue for at least two years, I don't know how anyone could possibly not be aware of the issue.  For most people the discussion has been about him disrespecting the flag/country/National Anthem/etc., NOT about the issue he wanted to make people "aware" of.  I wouldn't be surprised if he got caught sitting because he was pissed about how the 49ers were treating him, and just made the whole protest thing up to cover himself.

You're correct again. Most people have made up their minds about the BLM non sense. Either you support it or you don't. Kaepernick isn't changing anyone's mind or convincing anyone. Kaepernick is doing this entirely for Kaepernick.

Speaking strictly about NorCal sports talk radio, I would say there has been an ENORMOUS increase in discussion about not just the anthem, but the reason why he chose to sit in the first place.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that many of the listeners are people who are not normally involved with politics, or were unaware why some people react so negatively to an otherwise benign phrase like "All lives matter" (similar to how a person who grew up in Europe might be puzzled by the correlation between "separate but equal" and racism).

I can tell you that based on other local reports, Kaep has been sitting for the anthem this entire preseason.  However, he was out with an injury for the first two games; this was the first game that he dressed for, which is why it blew up.

So he had been "protesting" all preseason and he didn't bother to let anyone know that he was protesting???

Given the earlier invocations of MLK, this tweet (https://twitter.com/charlotteirene8/status/770781388958117888) seems appropriate:

(http://viperbeam.com/forum/kaep_tweet.png)

That one made me laugh pretty good.

So is this a black/white thing?  From what I've seen, it's black/cops and all races except black.

Obviously no issue is monolithically black/white; Jerry Rice is black, Sheriff David Clarke is black, Hillary is white, Bernie is white, etc.

But generally speaking, I would break down "Black Lives Matter" vs. "All Lives Matter" as liberals (including white liberals) and politically unaffiliated minorities vs. law enforcement and white people.  I've yet to see any Hispanic or Asian organizations denouncing BLM.

 


A simple solution to this so called "problem".  Stop breaking the fucking law

"Not breaking the law" is not sufficient.  Tamir Rice, John Crawford, and Philando Castile were all killed having broken no law.

It's not the problem that it is made out to be. Most of the major media hype and biggest protests were surrounding people that were: breaking the law, not complying with officers, felons with weapons,  fighting with police, or pointing weapons at police. You may be able to pick a handful of incidents out of a country of 350 million people. However, blacks are not being gunned down in the street like stray dogs, at least not by police. Look to your own community for that distinction. Going by statistics, as a concerned black person, you should realize that your greatest risk is not from the police. It's from black people.

I know it is cool these days to disrespect everything but I believe that is one of the biggest problems we face today.

In my opinion there is never a good excuse to disrespect our flag, our national anthem, the office of the President of the United States, military members both past and current, funerals, moments of silence, or first responders. There are others as well but I hope you get my point.

Just for clarification as in the office of president. I don't think it is wrong to criticise but when presented with their presence I think you treat them with the honor bestowed upon them. I disagree with Obama on much but I also disagree with athletes and the like who refuse to visit the white house with him just because they don't agree with his politics. I think we should always hold the office higher than politics or else we will eventually loose everything. We seem to be heading there now.

If even one unarmed, innocent civilian is purposely shot and killed by the police it is more than the problem is being made out to be.

I agree but like in life, there are bad cops everywhere but they aren't the norm.  Just this week a local police officer arrested for violence. The woman had choke marks on her neck and he was subsequently arrested. when we pretend all or the majority are corrupt then we undermine the majority who are not. We undermine our very way of life.

Our court system isn't perfect either but it works most of the time. If we started saying all judges are corrupt then where would we be?

Back to the main topic. I saw something that Drew Brees said and it epitomizes the whole problem in my opinion.
Brees said, via ESPN. “Like, it’s an oxymoron that you’re sitting down, disrespecting that flag that has given you the freedom to speak out.”

I think that if Kaep wants to be the impetus for change in the way police treat minorities, he should probably stop wearing socks that have images of pigs wearing police hats.

(http://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/r/2016/09/01/40547605-e7b5-4d8a-ace4-608263f4c6dd/resize/670x377/c23a3fa0efaa8e6ba60bf0b568ba153d/kaepernick-socks-cops-08-31-16.png)

Just sayin'...

I would have to disagree. We don't live in a vacuum in some utopia. Having law enforcement has risks. Having cars, planes, and boats has risks. Using a hammer has risks. There will always be some innocent people that die regardless of the circumstances or reasons. You have to weigh the risk against the benefit. And in this case, in a country of approx. 350 million people, I don't see "police slaughtering black people in the streets", like the liberal agenda and media narrative would like everyone to believe. Like I said, the majority of the attention and protests in the past few years were surrounding "not too bright" people that were breaking the law, not complying with officers, felons with weapons,  fighting with police, or pointing weapons at police. So in my opinion, in the majority of these incidents the headline should read. PLAY STUPID GAMES, WIN STUPID PRIZES.

You think society should find it acceptable for "unarmed, innocent civilians" to have an inherent risk of being purposely shot by the police? That is definitely the most outlandish thing to ever come across this board.

It's not like his Fidel Castro/Malcolm X shirt was much better. I think this guy is just having a public breakdown.

The only way that "all or the majority" have been insinuated to be corrupt is when police officers close ranks to protect the "one bad apple."  Furthermore, even in the "handful" of incidents I cited, what consequences did those officers face?  When a NY police officer used a prohibited chokehold to subdue someone for selling untaxed cigarettes, and (according to the medical examiner) that chokehold led to the death of the suspect, what consequences did that police officer face?

And that's the core of the problem: not just that unarmed black people are being killed by cops, but that police officers are facing no significant consequences for doing so.  This is why "black-on-black" crime is not relevant to the topic of BLM; (civilian) black killers go to prison.

The equally oxymoronic corollary of Brees' statement is that people should use the freedom the flag stands for... to say only things that everyone already agrees with?

I had a real problem with him sitting. Now that he's kneeling it's all good.

You find it outlandish that some people actually use logic instead of emotion. As a society, when we adopt something, we automatically have to understand that there are downsides to everything. Unarmed, innocent people die everyday for thousands of reasons. Innocent people die from police. Innocent people die from automobiles. Innocent people die from cancer. People(police), machines(automobiles), and the human body are not infallible. Innocent people will continue to die until the end of humanity and that's a fact. No amount of whining and complaining will change it. Yes, we can work on cutting down the numbers. However, ironically your ridiculous number of "even one innocent person" is unrealistic and a very outlandish expectation. Odds, probabilities, and statistics don't care what you or society finds acceptable.

If you could snap your fingers and make this problem go away. Tomorrow the liberals would find another "cause" to start complaining about and blaming someone for. It's not because they care, it's all about a political agenda.

There's so much going on in this thread that it's impossible to track:

Is protesting via this method ever acceptable?  (Is it disrespect to the military, etc)
Is the protest sensible in this particular situation?  (Is sitting for BLM a good use of a protest)
Is what is being protested a valid issue?  (Is BLM even a valid concern)
Is the person protesting a hypocrite?  (Kaep wearing pig socks, etc.)

We try to make safer cars.
We try to cure cancer.
But when it comes to police, suddenly There's Always Going To Be Some Bad Apples so we shouldn't bother trying to do anything about it?

And when I say "we shouldn't bother trying to do anything about it," I mean that even in the cases where conservatives agree that an injustice has occurred (like the three I cited earlier), those cops still keep their jobs! (to say nothing of going to prison for murder)  Again, there's no such thing as "one bad apple" if YOU KEEP THE APPLE.

Well, yes.  This isn't the only problem in the country.

It's not like conservatives stopped complaining forever after SCOTUS ruled in favor of gutting the Voting Rights Act.

It's his right in this country. So I guess in a sense it's acceptable. But normally in life, regardless of what path you choose, people are going to disagree, bitch, and moan about it. Like they say, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!
If he wants to. Just don't whine when people criticize you for it.
It's valid to an extent. But then again, so is drunk driving, lung cancer, and gang violence. Like I said earlier, black people aren't being gunned down in the streets like wild animals. The vast majority of these incidents that have been hyped up by BLM and the media are fully grown adults doing stupid shit that they should have known to stop doing.
Don't give a shit about the socks. However, I read somewhere that his team was penalized because he called another player on the other team a fuckin' "N"igger. I would say that would qualify as racist hypocrite. Especially from a black guy with lighter skin than me, who was raised by white people. Oh, the irony!

OK, you named 3. Now go back and name all the ones that were doing stupid shit and breaking the law. But yet the media and BLM hyped all those up like there is some kind of black genocide conspiracy going on. If your argument is that "NO" innocent people should ever be killed by law enforcement, then I don't know what to tell you. Except, good luck with that!

I must have overlooked this earlier and I disagree that anything other than the obvious is implied. If all Black Lives Matter was actually Black Lives Matter too then they would get a ton more support. Not one time have I heard that.

BLM is a "black only" movement against police that spurned from the trials of Trayvon and Michael Brown. Both of which were proven to be justified.  It's so "only" that even if another black person says that all lives matter they are attacked for being an Uncle Tom or whatever. You either agree the white man is holding you down or you are not black enough. Spider has done that in this very thread.  

There needs to be more black leaders like Charles Barkley who aren't afraid to speak the truth.
"We as black people are never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you are black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people," Barkley said.

Barkley, a native of Leeds, [Alabama,] said African Americans are too concerned with street cred than true success and that's holding the community back.
 
"For some reason we are brainwashed to think, if you're not a thug or an idiot, you're not black enough. If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent, and don't break the law, you're not a good black person. It's a dirty, dark secret in the black community.

"There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don't have success. It's best to knock a successful black person down because they're intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they're successful. It's just typical BS that goes on when you're black, man."

I'm happy to name off other people who were executed for the capital crime of disrespecting a police officer, but ultimately, what's the point?  Even when I list cases of people who were CLEARLY not breaking any law and CLEARLY did not deserve to be killed, the responses are always "you can't do anything about a few bad apples" (which apparently includes firing or prosecuting the bad apples) and "stop complaining" and "what about black-on-black crime?"

Again, this is why BLM exists.  Even when a 12-year-old boy with a toy gun (in an open carry state!) is gunned down in under two seconds, there is still HEAVY resistance towards any sort of accountability for the police.  When plainly innocent victims cannot obtain justice, what hope is there for the shoplifter who is summarily executed?  Or the person who is driving with an expired car registration and is shot?  Any minor infraction can immediately become a capital offense.

First off: BLM protested the death of Dylan Noble (http://gokicker.com/2016/07/14/blacklivesmatter-rally-around-dylan-noble-white-teen-killed-police/), a white teen who was killed by police in CA.

But more to the point, I fundamentally reject the premise of your statement.  When people say, "Save the rainforests," they aren't saying, "Screw all other forests."  They are emphasizing their priority.

I never said that Jerry Rice or Michael Jordan "aren't black enough."  I said that they lack courage on social issues, primarily because they have always been focused on protecting their personal brand, instead of using their influence as a platform for change.

There are an awful lot of people who don't agree with "black leaders" until said leaders decide to criticize black people.  Then they love them.

For example, I'm relatively certain that you would be less enthusiastic to hear that Barkley said (http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/barkley-all-these-rednecks-hide-behind-bible) that Southerners hide behind the Bible because they just don't like gay people and that discrimination against gays can absolutely be equated with discrimination against blacks.

No not at all ... I've been a fan of his every since he threw the guy through the window in downtown Orlando. I might disagree with him on something, as I do other people I know personally, but it doesn't cause me to loose my respect for him. 

It's funny to me that people keep comparing him to Ali and now the woman who was married to Ali and a part of his protests comes out against Kaepernick's protest. Ouch ... that has got to hurt.

Muhammad Ali’s ex-wife tells Colin Kaepernick to ‘get off his high horse
“What he’s doing right now is not heroic,” Khalilah says. “I would love to meet with him or talk to him on the phone to help share his message in a better way.”

Khalilah was married to the former heavyweight champion when he refused to fight in the Vietnam War, and she says she advised him on that decision.

“I helped Muhammad decide whether he was going to the army or going to jail,” Khalilah said. “He listened to my every word. You see the impact that had on our nation? Colin could absolutely have the same impact if he made the right decisions to really make a difference.”

If Khalilah was advising Kaepernick, she says she would first tell him to apologize for disrespecting the American flag. Like many others before her, she does not believe the act itself accomplishes anything.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/muhammad-ali%E2%80%99s-ex-wife-tells-colin-kaepernick-to-%E2%80%98get-off-his-high-horse%E2%80%99/ar-AAiw8vA?li=BBnba9I

This is a logical fallacy of appealing to authority.  Ali's wives are no more qualified to evaluate this situation than anyone else.  Or Jerry Rice or Barkley or anyone else.  Cherry picking through those that agree or disagree with his decision accomplishes nothing.

Agree completely, and my first impression after reading her quotes is that she seems to be all about herself, rather than others.

There is a poetic irony in Ali's ex-wife condemning an athlete for "disrespecting the American flag" by refusing to stand for the anthem.  The proper way to pay respect to this country is to refuse to serve when drafted into the military!

All kidding aside, I think it's easy to read too much into this.  She's basically on team All Lives Matter:

“I will help him meet the groups that will fight with him, donate to charities of all people — not just minorities — because we cannot single anyone out,” said Khalilah. “If he wants isolation to end, he needs to prove that he cares about all people, and not just his people."

Once again: "Let's find a cure for breast cancer" does not mean "Every other cancer is just fine with me."

Looks like people are serious about turning the tvs off over this crap. Interesting to see but if my Facebook page is any indication ratings will continue to drop next week. Especially for teams like San Fran and Miami who have been the biggest ones being called out. Could mean a boost for teams like the Giants who went the opposite route.

I did find this funny though. Colin Kaepernick was booed when he took the field with just 2:21 remaining in the game as the crowd began a “USA! USA! USA!” chant.
LOL ... they are chanting at him as if he is a foreign enemy. Oh yes ... his message was lost a long time ago.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/13/first-monday-night-football-game-of-the-season-produces-weak-ratings/#ixzz4KALEHtjS

If the NFL was hoping that Monday Night Football would put an end to their Week 1 ratings slump, they’re going to be quite disappointed.

For any number of reasons – national anthem protests, blow out games, competition from other networks – ESPN's doubleheader on Monday night failed to drum up as much interest as years past. The Pittsburgh Steelers dominated the Washington Redskins in a 38-16 rout while the Los Angeles Rams, making the NFL’s first appearance in the L.A. market in 20 years, got trounced by the San Francisco 49ers 28-0.

The Steelers vs. Redskins game scored a 9.1 in Nielsen's NLSN -1.38% metered market ratings while the 49ers vs. Rams posted a 7.1, according to Deadline. The early game was down 7% from 2015′s MNF opener while Game 2 fell a whopping 25% with San Francisco viewers actually outnumbering L.A. That’s not the start the league was hoping to have in the country’s second-largest media market.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkatz/2016/09/13/nfls-monday-night-football-takes-a-sack-in-the-ratings/#5d9694168964

Facebook isn't a very good indication.  You are likely friends with people who are of your same mindset and your ads and sponsored news stories are tailored to positions you have.  My facebook looks way different than your does, I assure you.

In terms of protests, in general, I consider the idea of standing up against your country when it does things you consider to be against itself, patriotic in itself.  Whether you agree with it, or not...

This is what protests are for -- using the spotlight to get people talking or offended.  ...good, be offended.  That's the idea.

Counterpoint:

Colin Kaepernick Tops Jersey Sales In NFL (http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2016/09/07/colin-kaepernick-tops-jersey-sales-in-nfl/#15c3e70039a1)

Colin Kapernick is not even listed as the starting quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers as of September 6, but there is no player in the National Football League selling more jerseys than the backup QB. As of this morning, the top seller on NFLShop.com is a Kaepernick Nike Scarlet Game Jersey, besting Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliot and New York Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham as the most popular jersey leading into the 2016 NFL regular season.

Kaepernick jerseys have experienced a steady climb in popularity since the QB decided that he would not stand for the National Anthem during 49ers preseason games. His explanation was that he would not stand up because he refused to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.

This has certainly struck a chord with a wide demographic, causing some people to burn Kaepernick jerseys and many others to buy the jersey of a QB they have never before supported for a team they could care less about. The purchase of a Kaepernick jersey has become much more than a sign of support for a football player; people believe that buying a jersey is backing a cause.

So there is that.

I have a lot of very liberal friends and relatives as well as gay, lesbian and of color. I've got more than a dozen black and or latino relatives I see reguraly. I will say that the my average liberal representatives do seem to have more respect than does silly people likke Kaepernick.

Anyway you slice it ... he represents a very small portion of the league and society so it seems like he is the one who doesn't get it.

Really ... that's your argument. Where was your support for Tebow? Besides ... this will be short lived as many of those sales were to be burned or destroyed for internet fame.

I could see it if the surge in Kaep's jersey sales were with the white jerseys...everyone knows that Tea Party members just turn them inside out and use them as Klan hoods for their rallies.

Other than that, your statement is just goofy.

I consider myself incredibly patriotic, but I don't always participate in things like this.  It's not a matter of respect.  It's a matter of holding up the iconography of the country over what the country represents.  I don't say the pledge of allegiance, for example.  It's just a personal choice.  I don't believe that any country deserves your allegiance on the de facto idea that it's your country.

I also think you have to continue to work to hold your country accountable.  You're not just great because you say you're great.  You have to always work to be better.  And blind nationalism loses sight of that.

I love this country, and part of the way I show it is with dissent, when appropriate.

You're the one looking to the invisible hand of the free market as "proof" of validity.  I never claimed Tebow wasn't popular; in fact, I openly acknowledged that he was VERY popular (for reasons having nothing to do with football).

So where are all the videos of people burning brand-new Kaep jerseys with tags still on them?  You are engaging in blatant wishful thinking.

Quick question to all the flag etiquette experts who believe that Kaepernick not standing  for the National Anthem is justification for him losing his job....

Do you think that someone who tweets out a picture of an upside down American flag should lose their job too?

Does the fact that she is a member of the US government rather than an entertainer make this disrespect of our flag and the military worse or less of an insult of our troops?   

Gravedig much? While not your target audience I'm going to let you know that you aren't going to get the response you hoped for. An upside down American flag isn't disrespectful, it is a distress signal and acceptable as such.

i know the response i am going to get because of the hypocrisy.  It is disrespectful UNLESS your life is in imminent danger.  And hers wasn’t.  She was disrespecting the flag tp protest law enforcement actions.  Exactly what CK was doing.

---sigh---


I never had a problem with Kaepernick not standing for the national anthem, because he literally went to a Marine war hero and said "how could I protest without offending the flag." The problem that I had was him showing up to practice wearing socks that depicted police as cartoon piggies in police uniforms.  THAT pissed me off.

Kneeling is considered a sign of respect in literally every other circumstance, yet here we are.

I have no idea who did this but I would guess they are saying our country is in distress because of our government. LOL .. I'd think that would be one thing we all could agree with albeit for different reasons.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

The fact that your news sources love to run 7x24 on how disrespectful it was to the military by kneeling but then spent zero effort on the reason of the kneeling, the killing of unarmed citizens by the police.  But those same sources are focused on complaining about a properly executed search warrant but zero mention of a house member disrespecting our military should warn you to get better news sources.

You and Spider like to pretend I watch and live on FOX News or whatever but the truth is my news sources have been reporting on the Dolphins and how poorly your Patriots have been practicing. It's football season and my life doesn't revolve around what CNN and MSNBC is telling me to believe on this day. 

Didn’t know the dailymail was that in tune with the NEP.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nfl/article-11102991/Super-Bowl-champion-James-White-announces-retirement-NFL.html

Aren't you guys sick of this shit already?  Not this subject in particular but the everyday nonsense here?  I'm trying to stick to the football sections because off topic is just a toxic mess, has been for a while now.  I'm doing my best to stay away from it, but still, gravedigging posts about even more politics that are ancient history at this point.  

This place kind of sucks now, I might be on my way out soon.  It's a shame since I've been here for twenty years, but shit man it isn't enjoyable here anymore.

Kaepernick didn't lose his job for kneeling, he lost his job because he sucked and the added extra attention for his activism wasn't worth the media headache. DeShaun Watson sat out a year on rape charges and the Browns just gave him the most guaranteed money ever. Why? Because his on field production was worth the headache, because winning matters above all.

If Kaepernick played at the level of DeShaun Watson, he could deny the holocaust after every TD celebration and the team and fans would just live with it. Tua can give an interview in Week 12 how we should kill all white people and I would still cheer as long as he was playing at an MVP level and I wouldn't be the only one to feel that way either.

Why does Ben Simmons get to act like a total pussy by refusing to play AND still get paid? Because he is very talented. That's really all it comes down to.

I largely agree with Edge.

If Kaep was phenomenal, he'd be playing.  But as is, he was just "meh".  He was better than many backup QBs in the league, but it's just not worth it for many owners to bring in a media story for a backup QB role.  It's just not worth the press coverage and the QB situation is unique -- you don't want your starter looking in the rear-view all the time because the backup is getting all the eyes.  The same is true for guys like Tebow.

The only thing I'd take issue towards is if the owners had some kind of agreement with each other, expressed or otherwise, to not sign the guy.  That would be bad.

^^^

Yes, if the owners colluded to blackball him, that is 100% bullshit and there should be fines and whatever else punishment is appropriate. I just don't think that happened in this case, but almost all the owners are scum so I'm not dismissing something like that could've happened. I mean, Ross was texting Brady when he was a Patriot, clearly some of these guys are very stupid and think they are untouchable.

I agree.   I may be forced to head back to Phinfever.com full time.   Dolphster and Pondwater are having a much better time over there.

But back to the topic.   Kaepernick isn't in the NFL because he isn't very good, he's a distraction, and coaches don't like him.   

Hang in there dude.

I'm also sticking mainly to the relevant football sections, partly because you're world over there is a lot different from mine here in Australia... sometimes a different point of view from the over side may be appreciated and understood, but sometimes I know it definitely won't get a look in.

Famous last words I know, but I got a good feeling about this season. If that happens, this may be an interesting place to stick around.

I appreciate your perspective as an outsider on the USA.   

Is Tommy also banned from Phinfever?  I notice they also have a poster named ArtieChokePhin who, just like the one that posts here, can't seem to keep Tommy's name out of his mouth.  So I'm going to guess the answer is yes.

On the bright side, at least our version of Landshark BuccaneerBrad ArtieChokePhin is smart enough not to try to mention here that Tommy was "right" about the Buccaneers winning a title.  I guess it's pretty obvious that such a claim would be... poorly received.

Tommy won't ever leave. A ban doesn't stop him. He'll just create another persona.

Yes, he's banned from that forum as well after announcing he flipped and then wouldn't quit talking about his man-crush Jameis Winston.  They don't allow fans of other teams to even be there, let alone be mods.   They also don't allow liberal fucktards like you, Hoodie, and Dave.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but in all of these cases, I feel that the topics are clearly defined.  A thread about Kaep's kneeling is going to have political discussions, because it is an intentional act of protest.  So long as the post is clearly labeled and not dragging other discussions off topic, I support it.

Also, I understand that political talk taking over the off-topic can seem overwhelming, but you gotta understand that we're in a country-defining moment.  This is akin to the turmoil that we went through in 1968, with assassinations and big cultural movements happening at the same time.

Maybe of us feel that our democracy is under siege, our rights are at risk, and our former President may be stealing nuclear weapons secrets with nefarious intent.  Those things are too big of a deal for "shut up and dribble" for many of us.  I would hate to lose you as poster, but I respect whatever choice you make.  However, I dont' think that we can compromise the integrity of the site, should people want to engage in these difficult conversations about the state of the country.