The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

MIA folks on Twitter getting their panties in a bunch after the National Anthem snafu and knocking  Ross

Looks like MIA was one of the first teams to submit a form to the NFL cause their camps were some of the first to start the 2018 season.

Whatever, seriously, I have no problems with the players kneeling, staying in the lockers, raising fist, etc, BUT don't be surprised by blowback from the fans.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-dolphins/fl-sp-miami-dolphins-anthem-protest-discipline-suspensions-20180719-story.html (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-dolphins/fl-sp-miami-dolphins-anthem-protest-discipline-suspensions-20180719-story.html)

When does the same repeated silent protest lose any affect it may have??

Isn't the Dolphins' new policy causing "blowback from the fans" in the form of "MIA folks on Twitter getting their panties in a bunch and knocking Ross"?

Equal and opposite reactions go both ways.

I don't care if they kneel. To me it's just, whatever.

Didn't the NFL get blowback from the fans last year for lower ratings? But now they're getting blowback this year for doing the opposite? Well, which is it?

I personally don't care what any of them do but I am certainly tired of hearing about it.

So I have my feelings/comment,and then a question...


1.) I watch games on T.V.,outside of opening day,playoffs/Superbowl,they don't show the anthem like baseball,and other sports.Even on the times they show the anthem,unless the camera man specifically seeks out the players kneeling,booth mentioning/pointing out who knelt,I only find out by writers tweets....

It doesn't really matter to me kneel,or don't kneel...I'm aware of their cause.

My Question
If you're at the game,and not looking at the video boards,(and not sitting right on the sidelines,can you even tell 3 guy's are kneeling?

I'm sure the people who are pissy about players kneeling definitely can,as they are looking for it...

I've got plenty of friends, some of which are military vets, who have cancelled their NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions, will not go to games, and will not buy merchandise as a result of this.  I said this in another thread.  These guys are paid millions to PLAY FOOTBALL, not to enhance their own political agendas on national TV.  The NBA requires all players to stand, no questions asked.  That's way more stringent than what the NFL is trying to implement.  These players have to realize something.  This is a job and jobs have policies.  You don't like the NFL's policies?  Fine, go play in Canada or the Arena League or go find a job bagging groceries or flipping burgers.  Good luck living your lavish lifestyle with those jobs.  Meanwhile, there are hundreds of talented guys who will be glad to compete for your spot.  You won't be missed. 

Clearly they will be missed because the teams haven't fired them. The NFL really should have just dropped it and not made more rules on this. It's only going to make kneeling for the anthem that much more powerful. It was coming to the end of being in the news until they created this new rule.

The NFL likes their rules, and I think you are correct about the NFL making this worse by tweaking the rules.  It's like what they have done with the catch rule.  Twenty years ago was there ever much doubt of what a catch was?  I'm sure a couple of you guys can come up with a few plays, so save your time.  The point is there are going to be the occasional bad call(s), that doesn't mean the rules have to be re-written.

the NBA has it in their CBA what the anthem conduct is. it's spelled out. end of story.

the NFL does not, therefore imposing mandatory conduct against the CBA is an iffy proposition at best
contrary to the wisdom of our toddler in chief, where there's a CBA, you can't arbitrarily mandate whatever you want.

The NBA also has a very good history of having an open dialogue with their players about lots of things, including social policy.  They allow their players to wear protest shirts during warm-ups and are generally active in that dialogue with the important issues to players.  There is trust between the parties, and a respect and a bargaining agreement that reflects that.  The NFL has none of that. 

And Tommy Brad, your take is so low effort and shows a complete lack of understanding for how any of this works.  The NFL isn't like flipping burgers.  It's a monopoly.  You can't just go play for another league, therefore the rules aren't the same. 

And besides, the players are the value of the NFL.  They are the product.  And they have power.

Lastly, I just find the irony of people upset at kneeling to be so humorous.  It's such a load of jingoistic bullshit.  Why do we even have an anthem at the game?  It's not a state-sponsored event and is wholly inappropriate to begin with.  Get rid of the whole thing and move on...oh right...you can't, because this is all about money and selling the Army as a product.  The NFL gets paid to be one big commercial for the Army and this has nothing to do with patriotism.

You do have a point there, but I'll bet that will change when the current CBA expires which I believe is sometime at the end of this decade. 

You'll lose that bet.

Guess what Adam Silver, Rob Manfred, David Stern, Bud Selig, and Paul Tagliabue all have in common?  They were all lawyers.  They understand how rules work, how contracts work, and how to operate in that environment.  Guess who has never passed a bar exam?  Roger Goodell, who is an up-jumped PR exec that brown-nosed his way to the commissioner job.

And it shows.  Goodell is clownishly incompetent (but keeps his job because he always prioritizes pleasing his bosses, the owners), while Silver is a consummate professional who handles everything like a skilled diplomat.  Silver won't have any problem, because he negotiates with his players in good faith and doesn't arbitrarily pull emperor moves.

^ Bingo.

The NFL is my favorite league, but it has some catching up to do to the NBA in terms of owner/player policy.

So the Adam Silver can fine Donald Sterling and the NBA owners can vote to force him to sell his team because of a private conversation that had nothing to do with the NBA or basketball. But the NFL can't fine or suspend players for breaking a rule that impacts the fan base and that the NFL owners voted? That's non sense. You can't have it both ways.

You do realize that Donald Sterling is a racist piece of shit, right?

What does that have to do with anything?

People often use those they have respect for as examples in policy debates. I was just checking to see if you knew what a slimy dung worm he is and still used him as the example.

Also...I am adding "What does that have to do with anything?" to my list of phrases that make me shake my head. "Anything" always has something to do with "that," no matter what "that" is.

There is no "both ways." The players and owners were in full agreement that Sterling needed to go, and Silver handled that situation to the satisfaction of the players, the owners, and the fans.  In contrast, Goodell's knuckleheaded "solution" to the anthem protests pissed off the players, didn't have full support of the owners, and didn't even manage to accomplish its most basic goal: stop Trump from bashing the NFL.

You seem like a lonely old man, I pity you...

If the majority of owners vote to support a rule then the rule should be enforced. The owners and the fans are the ones that matter. The players are paid to play a child's game, their opinion is irrelevant. Now if there is a situation that the league and owners feel negatively affects their business then they address it and vote. The majority of NBA owners felt that the Sterling situation negatively affected their business, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with their business. The NFL and majority of owners feel that the protests negatively affect their business, so they voted. The difference is that the Sterling issue had nothing to do with the NBA. The protests have everything to do with the NFL since.

I rarely put any stock in the opinions of idiots, but if it makes you feel any better, I pity you as well.

I'll be your friend Sunstroke ! so no lonely! .. i can't help with the old part tho.

Seems like anytime you reply to me you only do it to troll, name call, or belittle. I would appreciate that if you don't have anything useful and relevant to add, just don't reply to me. I have little time to go back and forth with attention seeking behavior from a geriatric with self esteem issues. Anyhow, you're a fucking idiot too, now take your denture cream and go find a friend. Bye now  ;)

By the way, I could couldn't* care less what you think about anything.

*Thanks Tenshot13

Not going to lie, that bottom part made me literally laugh out loud, haha.

Repetition is how you learn in life. However, I'm sure I'll fuck it up again down the road LOL...

You have this exactly backwards.  On a person-by-person basis, the players are the MOST important part of the NFL.  Consider:

- If all 32 owners were replaced by 32 out of the hundreds of other rich people with the means and desire to own NFL teams, the league would go on without skipping a beat.  The owners are irrelevant; they can (and would) be replaced by any other extremely rich people... and there are a lot of those.
- The NFL could lose 100,000 fans to the XFL2 (or whatever) and it wouldn't even show up as statistical noise.  The NFL fanbase fluctuates by more than that every year.  The fans are important, but only at the scale of millions, while there are less than 2000 players in the entire league.
- If the top 500 NFL players went to the XFL2, the NFL would be crippled.  Without swift legal action to stop such a development, the league would be on the verge of an extinction event.

The idea that the players don't matter is absurd.

Neither one has anything to do with the game.  One is about racism and the other is about the national anthem.  A national anthem has nothing to do with the sport of football.

Sure lets do away with all the rules because people want to push their political agenda while at work. Maybe next they can let Kapernick and his cronies slap large random assorted logos on their uniforms and run up and down the field during the anthem. It would be the same thing.

If the NFL says it's part of the game, then it's part of the game. They are in uniform and it's being broadcast as an NFL football game, therefore it is directly related to the NFL. On the other hand, Sterling being a racist POS while at home has absolutely nothing to do with the NBA. Your double standards are amusing, if not down right hilarious...

The NFL does not say that the anthem is "part of the game."  Nor do they say that the halftime show is part of the game.  The idea that anything that happens on the TV while the players are in uniform is ridiculous.

In case anybody thought the issue was going away,,,,,,, I got bad news.

I think they lost or are losing their supporters. I know Joe Rose and now Big O is calling them out and telling them how selfish they are when they have previously backed them.  O brought up a good point. There are over 1800 players in the league right now but only a handful or so protesting which means their teammates don't agree ... or at least not enough to join them. It's nothing but a distraction to what should be a getaway from politics.

I know Trump asked that they come and visit him with a list of their concerns.  Does anyone know why no one took him up on that? I mean ... we just had a long off season.   

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said he wants to meet with NFL players and other athletes who kneel during the National Anthem so they can recommend people they think should be pardoned due to unfair treatment by the justice system.

In what he seemingly sees a solution, President Donald Trump said he wants NFL players and other athletes who kneeled during the National Anthem
"I'm going to ask them to recommend to me people who were unfairly treated," Trump said at White House Friday. Trump's contentious relationship with the NFL reached a peak last year when he lambasted players who took a knee during the National Anthem to protest institutionalized racism and police brutality.https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/politics/trump-nfl-athletes-kneeling-pardons/index.html

If you think that Trump cares one bit about the players' "concerns," then you really don't know Trump.

I don't think one way or the other. If he helps them who cares if he cares. He let out someone Kim Kardashian got someone released and I have no idea if he really cared or not.

The protests weren’t asking for pardons.  The protest was over the fact that cops get away with brutality and murder.  Trump made the problem worse by pardoning Joe Arpaio.  There is absolutely no reason to meet if Trump shows no signs of even accepting there is a problem.

This would be like Trump inviting David Hogg to the White House to discuss the tax code.  While Hogg might have an opinion about the tax code, there is really no point to go unless the topic is gun control.

To those that are upset when players kneel:

Would you be OK if we just didn't play the anthem before the game at all?  To me, that's the simplest solution that doesn't disrespect anyone's views.

I'm not taking one side or another.  And not that my opinion matters to anyone anyway, but this is how I feel.  I think the concerns that the "protesting" players are expressing are legit.  I have both a law enforcement and military background in my career.  There are bad cops who are racist and physically abusive as well as just harassing a-holes.  From my personal experience, they a very small percentage of LEO's.  However, law enforcement agencies should have a zero tolerance of that type of behavior and the goal should always be to not have one single officer on any department who does that.  Having said that, I feel that the protesters are going about this all wrong.  Yes, protesting during the anthem definitely brings a ton of attention to their cause.  BUT, a lot of people feel that the impression people get is that they are protesting "the flag", the country in general, etc.  I know that is not the protesters intent, but most of the country doesn't get that.  Speaking for myself, I am sympathetic to their cause as I stated earlier in this post.  I think a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause.  However, too many people are turned off by the way they are protesting to the point where folks who would otherwise be sympathetic, are not even going to listen to what they have to say because they don't like "how" they are protesting.  Yeah, I know that was rambling.  Hopefully it made sense. 

Two points:

1. What would you consider a proper way to carry out a protest?  Because all other forms of protest on this issue seems to be also condemned.

2.  I agree there should be zero tolerance for police abuse.  And I don’t know what percent of officers actively participate in these types of abuses, hopefully it is as you say a very small percentage. I don’t know, but I know that the number of police officers that are willing to stand up to an abusive racist cop and defend a victim of police abuse is virtually nil.  Until that changes nothing else will.

I think that the vast majority of police officers are good people doing good things.  There are some that are not.

But I do feel that there is a tendency for the good ones to shield the bad ones, sometimes unintentionally....or believe the bad ones because they assume that they are good ones, like themselves. 

And the point of this protest is awareness...and it's worked.  If it means that players become divisive or unpopular or people boo or unsubscribe from Sunday ticket or whatever else they choose, so be it.  That's the cost of social justice sometimes.  People are, by and large, much more aware of institutionalized racism with things like the police department, in part by kneeling.  Kaeps out of a job, Papa John had to sell a couple fewer pizzas, etc -- but you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.

Here are some graphics that are relevant to the topic (the last one is particularly striking):

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ebcfv80ncHs/WcewfDqwDRI/AAAAAAAAb5U/ejY8KbTF5Ccn20xA7OAf6WWWiKEbqXfuACLcBGAs/s640/BLM%2B1.JPG)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uG_D_VTmHNc/WcewfASKhQI/AAAAAAAAb5Q/y8SccnklGqYztYL2q4hM3JShZANFTgjQACLcBGAs/s640/BLM%2B2.JPG)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VkhH84d4pTQ/WcewfLQxfkI/AAAAAAAAb5M/uqznbJYzYpcLsRwB5o6ACmKWOm_CPgIJgCLcBGAs/s640/BLM%2B3.JPG)

---
Turns out that if you asked white people in the mid-60s, the OVERWHELMING majority of them felt that MLK et al were hurting the advancement of black civil rights.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Long story short: if your civil rights protest is viewed as troublesome and inappropriate by the privileged majority who already have those rights, you are probably doing something right.

Long story short ... if almost all of your coworkers ... including your own race ... disagree with protesting during the anthem then you are probably on the wrong side of history. 

Long story short:  “For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn.”

~Hemingway

August Landmesser

LOL ... you got me. I am obviously wrong.  ::)  I guess the fact that the kneelers are getting less and less support, rather the gaining support, should say something then. 13 people protested in some way versus over 200 on one weekend last year. Only two actually kneeled and they were wearing Dolphins jerseys. Well over 2000 players chose NOT to protest. In this day and age of protesting everything ... that speaks volumes to me.

There were thousands of people at that shipyard only one choose to protest.  And confuse the idea that everyone who doesn’t protest opposes the protest.  Many are standing because they don’t want their carear cut short like Kap and Reid.  Just like many at that shipyard saluted out of fear rather than respect. 

At the risk of repeating myself I'll repost this "There are over 1800 (should have actually said over 2,100) players in the league right now but only a handful or so protesting which means their teammates don't agree ... or at least not enough to join them. While it's all fun to be dramatic and all I would be just a little cautious as to comparing Hitler's wrath to whatever the NFL decides to do .... if they even do anything. It clearly takes away from people the people who did suffer.

The vast majority of Americans even the vast majority of Afican Americans did not participate in civil rights marches.  The vast majority of people who opposed the Vietnam war, never protested.  The overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun control choose not to attend March for our lives. Your logic is horriblely faulty. 

But this is all part of the racist right wings diversion tactics.  The protest is about police shooting unarmed blacks without consequences, not the flag. And it is fucking obvious to anyone with the least bit of intelligence that The black lives matter movement isn’t claiming other races don’t matter, but that black lives matter as well.  But rather than actually address the issue of police murdering blacks with impunity, you go after the name.

Let’s address the real issue.  Why aren’t police held accountable for shootings unarmed civilians they are suppose to be protecting?

1.  Are you saying the right wing is racist, or that there is a racist subsection of the right that is controlling the narrative?

2.  Kenny Stills said he was kneeling because Kaep doesn't have a job.  While I understand he is really kneeling because of police shootings, he is convoluting the message further. 

Nobody is really answering me: Would you be happy with just not having the national anthem played at games anymore, to avoid any disrespect?

Mostly the latter.

  However, at one time the Republican Party had a racist fringe, now sadly the racist however have taken over the party with traditional conservatism (Bush, McCain, Romney) now being the fringe. That subsection is not the tiny sliver it was a decade ago.  And it didn’t begin with Trump. It started with the attempt to link Obama to Rev. Wright which both McCain and Romney rejected.  But the tea party and Trump embraced.  

Today’s Republican Party is a reaction to the success of Obama.  In much the same way Wallace was a reaction to the civil rights act.  

 I will make this blanket statement:  If you are support the narrative that the protest are about disrespecting the military or black lives matter is racist against non-blacks, than you are a racist.

That's rich, LMFAO....

I'm not in support of any narrative, I don't want to see that bullshit during my entertainment. Funny how these clowns only protest when they are on TV. What else are they doing aside from this Anthem silly shit? Or are they just part time protesters when they are on TV. If they want to sell their message, why don't they put their money where their mouth is and just buy advertising spots? I'd be all in favor of that.

My big fear is that the Dolphins are going to suck and be totally irrelevant by about Week 4 and we will be beating this topic to death all year instead of talking about football.

You say that but even the picture is in dispute as to who it is with their arms crossed as well as there are many who weren't saluting.

A figure identified by Irene Eckler as August Landmesser is featured in a photograph taken on 13 June 1936, published on 22 March 1991 in Die Zeit. It shows a large gathering of workers at the Blohm+Voss shipyard in Hamburg, for the launching of the navy training ship Horst Wessel. Almost everyone in the image has raised his arm in the Nazi salute, with the most obvious exception of a man toward the back of the crowd, who grimly stands with his arms crossed over his chest. Several others have also refrained from saluting, but are not so obviously defiant.

Whether the depicted man is Landmesser is not known with certainty. Another family claims the person in the photo is another metalworker at Blohm & Voss, a man called Gustav Wegert.[8]

The content and photos posted by relatives of Wegert[9] and more recent photographic enhancements make it more likely that the person in the photo refusing to perform the Nazi salute was Gustav Wegert.

 It's a nice story but the point is irrelevant anyway.
Name calling and labeling. All part of the left wing divide and conquer tactics. Hahaha ...  #walkaway is real

So wait: anyone who did not participate in the protest automatically counts as "disagreeing with it"?

Why shouldn't we take precisely the opposite position and say that any player who hasn't specifically come out against kneeling supports other players' right to protest?  I mean, that is the position of the NFLPA, who is the legal representation of the players at large.  So in fact, I'd say you have it exactly wrong: the overwhelming majority of players support protests, even if they choose not to participate in them.

Think of it like abortion, or same-sex marriage: just because you don't want to do it yourself, that doesn't mean you're against it.  Oh, wait... I guess those examples may not make sense to you.  Maybe think of it like owning a gun?

It's strange that you seem to now be conferring some sort of retroactive legitimacy on the largest NFL protest last year, because at the time you had nothing but criticism (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=24891.msg347000#msg347000) for those "over 200" players.

To kind of expand on what a couple of the others said, I think that for the most part, people in our selfish society typically only care about things that effect them personally.  I'm guilty of that sometimes myself.  There are a small percentage of people who do more than to just give lip service to causes and injustices that matter to others.  But a large number of people just don't care enough to do much unless something spills into their own yard.  There is a big difference between saying "I support such and such cause (but I'm not going to actually do anything about it)" versus actually taking active steps to try to correct an injustice.   Saying "I support your cause" and not doing anything is the first cousin of "I will keep you in my prayers" which of course translates to, "Sorry your life sucks right now and I'm not going to do anything about it but I want you to think I'm a nice guy so I will say a prayer for you if I remember to."

I would be ecstatic if the national anthem were no longer played before sporting events...

I would not be happy. The anthem is played before almost all sports from High School on up. It's a moment to reflect on our freedom to do the things we are about to do. We've already lost so much respect for anything patriotic like the pledge and other portions of our history that it would severely upset me if they cancelled it.

Shaking my head. I honestly didn't get anything from your post other than you have no point but want to keep arguing and I promise I'm not being condescending when I say that. That's honestly how I read your post.

Hahaha, no telling how many times I've seem people tell him that. It's not a coincidence.

You don't have to pussyfoot around and use terms like "other portions of our history." You can actually say "slavery" on this site without getting booted.

Who said anything about slavery ?What does slavery have to do with Anthem conduct? Do you consider slavery patriotic and deserving of respect?

Or are you trying to twist someone's words?

You people are nutty...

Let me see if I can simplify it for you:

You claimed that "almost all" the players disagree with protesting during the anthem, based solely on the fact that most did not participate in the protests.  But such a claim is empirically false, as the organization that legally represents the players has made it clear that the players support the right to protest.

So once again, you are leaning on some sort of disapproval authority that either a) factually doesn't exist (in this case, the players support the right to protest) or b) is historically common and expected for civil rights protests.

I have a question. Why is this thread in the Dolphins Discussion forum when there doesn't seem to be much tie in with the Dolphins. Shouldn't this topic be in the around the NFL forum?

It started as a result to what thew Dolphins put out in regards to their anthem policy

It's a couple pages back so I brought it forward for you. This is the third time I said this in this thread alone.

if you feel strongly enough about a topic that you want to protest it,  the number of people that agree or don't shouldn't make a difference at all.
that's what principles are. you do what you feel is right regardless of the noise

Question for the anthem protest supporters. Should the owners of the team, team admin or coaches (their bosses) be able to tell them they cannot protest while representing the team? 

I realize that but the thread itself has been mostly related to the NFL as a whole and very little to do with Dolphins specifically. Heck some of it doesn't even have to do with the NFL.

Are you surprised a topic has gone off the rails around here?   :D

No,and my job/what my boss is not an NFL,and in no way is as comparable.I also don't care or notice it,unless the camera focuses on the people kneel,or beat writers tweet about it.

Modified to add quickly,I'd rather teams,coaches,etc,focus on winning games etc...IMO the NFL has too many B.S. rules,with the uniform code,and hate when they fine players because their socks aren't tall enough,they have a special message on their shoes etc...An "Anthem Policy" IMO is just another one of these rules that is superfluous...

No.

CF, you keep insisting that vast majority of players don't agree (enough) with the protests because they aren't protesting themselves... but as evidenced by the actions of the players' union, the players who aren't protesting DO agree that other players should be permitted to protest.  So I don't understand why you keep bringing up the number of protesting players, when it's clear that there is solidarity among the majority of the players for those who are protesting.

Depends on what the CBA says.

If the CBA allows it, then an owner should be able to fine or fire a player for protesting... or for being a Democrat... or for being a Red Sox fan... or for being from Texas.  If the CBA gives them the discretion to do so, the owner can cut a player for driving a Ford and that would be 100% legitimate.

But the NFL is a business that caters to the public, and there will be public pushback if management is disciplining players for unjust reasons.  So as an owner, you need to consider two things when making that decision:

a) Which course of action best reflects your own moral code (both in personal standards of conduct, and in individual liberty)?
b) How much money are you willing to forego to uphold your own moral code if the decision from A proves unpopular?

I'm in a group with Dave. Do away with the anthem

They don't really even have to do away with the anthem.  All they have to do is return to the pre-2007 policy, where the players stay in the locker room during the anthem.

The fact that the NFL has not already done this is a level of incompetence only Roger Goodell could manage.

Yes, they should.  The owners have the right to disallow it.

However, if they do, they have to face the consequences of that action, including the action of players that feel that they aren't given a fair voice within the organization.  And of fans or groups or entire communities of people that might feel marginalized by that choice.

cadet bone spur on the day his campaign manager is convicted and his attorney pleads guilty goes after ESPN for not televising the anthem.  This forced patriotism is just being used to distract.

To edit: The owners should be allowed to disallow it, if it aligns with the collective bargaining agreement that both parties agreed to.

But given that, sure, owners can penalize for that or disallow it.  They just have to deal with the public consequences of that choice.

Why can't I get an answer to this question that I've asked three times now:

If you're unhappy with the kneeling, would you be OK if the NFL just didn't play the anthem anymore so that kneeling isn't an issue?

The people who are objecting to silent kneeling during the anthem will definitely not accept canceling the anthem performance altogether.

Spider is correct. If you think they are up in arms about kneeling, imagine the response to taking the anthem away. Just assume no one with that position would support no anthem due to lack of response.

Whodathunkit, I'm with Spider at this point. Just keep the WHOLE team in the locker room during the Anthem and end this fucking mess.

I answered you ....

CF, curious....what are those other portions of our history you are referring to?

^This question is just like mah guns and mah baked potato....loaded

^^^^ there are so many but I'm sure you are looking for one or two to attack so here goes. We no longer respect Confederates which is only brothers and sisters we disagreed with on certain issues. We don't respect the what it took for us to gain our freedom form England or the way we came in and led the way to winning two World Wars. We don't respect what the Jewish people went through under Hitler  and we don't respect the immigrants who came here and did it legally to build the country we are live in.

Thanks....appreciate it.

I had a feeling that was a dog whistle for the removal of confederate monuments, but rather than be accused of assuming.  There is a consistency in wanting to honor traitors of the USA who waged a war to defend slavery, with being offended by AA who protest police brutality.  The common thread is racism.  States right argument is bullshit it was about one and only one states right the right to own another human being.  Lee and McVeigh deserve the same level of respect, none at all both were murdeous traitors.

You can't judge them by today's standards and any attempt in doing so will fail. General Lee was as well respected on the Union side as the Confederate. In reality the war was between brothers and family members and as such ... many people from the losing side went on to do some great things side by side with the same people they previously fought. I have pretty good ties to the Creek Indians but it has absolutely nothing to do with how I see this country. I have a friend who grew up on a reservation and Apache. He retired as a Navy Chief and is furious over anyone who doesn't think this country is worth respecting. He doesn't pass over what happened to his people but has accepted it as his history and embraces the great land we are in today.

It's the history of how we got to here and should not be forgotten. Already people are trying to forget Hitler and revision him as a much better person than he was.   He murdered over 6 million people of a race and tried to wipe them out. To compare him to anyone is a lack of understanding on how atrocious he and his people were.

no .. no they aren't.. just no

Actually some are.  But most of the idiots who defend Hitler also showed up in Charlottesville to protest the removal of confederate monuments. 
*****
Nobody is saying forget our history.  But let’s stop honoring the bad guys.  Rather than memorials for those who fought for slavery replace them with monuments of those who died in bondage, those who perished in the middle passage, those who risk life and liberty as part of the Underground Railroad.   

i would argue that those people didn't forget hitler, rather know exactly who he was and support his actions

Apparently, you also cannot judge them by the standards of their own time.  Let's keep in mind that all these Confederate monuments went up in the early 20th century, nearly 50 years after the war was over.  The monument builders were judging the Confederates by the standard of their current day, not by the standards of the 1860s.

Again, it is always ironic to hear people insist that silently kneeling is an unconscionable act of disrespect to flag, military, and country... and then in the next breath, hear the same people defend those who actually KILLED US Army troops all because they preferred slavery over the Constitution and the Stars and Stripes.

I would say the same about those who honor Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I don't think people forget Forest but he actually symbolizes much of the racists of the day. Forest saw the light and made a change ... if you will. He went on to speak in favor of black advancement and that's actually a pretty powerful testimony coming from someone who used to head the KKK.  It's powerful in the same way one of the largest persecutors of Christians (Paul) was turned into the biggest voice for Jesus in the New Testament.

Look ... most supremacist have a mental disorder. I say most because I do believe some people, both black, white, yellow or whatever ... are born into a world where they really do not know any better. Once truth is revealed they turn their backs on their past.

None of the monuments exist to honor his later slight softening of racist views.  All of them commemorate his military victories such as Ft. Pillow and his involvement in the KKK.  The naming of High Schools after him as a response to Brown vs Board Ed was not done for one speech at the end of his life, but to honor a lifetime of murdering blacks.

And he never renounced his involvement in the KKK, he lied claiming he never was a member.  That is hardly a confessional.  Hell even Albert Speer is a more sympathetic figure than Forrest.  But I would be seriously pissed if someone erected a statue in his honor.

I don't see it like you and I know that isn't what we taught in school ... here in the south. 

In the last years of his life, Forrest publicly denounced the violence and racism practiced by the Klan, insisted he had never been a member, and made repeated public speeches in favor of racial harmony.[22] As an effort of reconciliation, during a meeting with African Americans in 1875, Forrest accepted flowers from a black woman, a gesture that led to his being denounced by some of his former comrades in the Confederate Army.[23][24] Although scholars admire Forrest as a military strategist, he has remained a highly controversial figure in Southern history, especially for his role in the attack on Fort Pillow, his 1867–1869 leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, and his political influence as a Tennessee delegate at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

So let me make sure i understand this correctly.   It is your opinion that the monuments to Forrest are to commerate his later life tolerance and not because of his participation in the war to preserve slavery or his violence against freed blacks after the war?

No .... that's not what I'm saying. No one is honoring him because fought for slavery. Ok ... I can't say anyone because we all know racists exist ... but for the general southerner he was a leader. The fact he, like many of our other ancestors, had skewed visions of slaves, does not change that fact. It's not like that view was exclusive to him or just the south.  As f'ed up as it is ... it was a common point of view.

CF, the disconnect is that most people (outside of the South?) acknowledge that the American Civil War was fought over slavery, in which case you can't separate "fought for the South" and "fought to protect slavery."

I mean, what would you say to someone who wanted to honor a Nazi general... not for defending Nazism and the Third Reich, but for being a proud German patriot?  The amount of daylight between Confederate generals and Nazi generals is pretty slim.  (Both started a war to enforce white supremacy, but the Nazis had more genocide and less treason.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rally-montana-heckler-video-2018-9?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop

Shades of totalitarianism.

^Shades of tinfoil hat lol.  Are you kidding me Hoodie?  They made a guy move that was behind trump, who cares?

To be fair, I'm sure if anyone in the background made a move that would make the politician look silly, they'd probably be moved. Of course, we all know Trump fits the totalitarianism model, but that's probably not this. They replaced other men with women too, for some reason.

Hoodie, going back to your earlier one about the guy being removed. I would like to say that you were correct. He was removed for not being enthusiastic enough and just going along with what Trump said. Just adds to the dictator lifestyle Trump wants.

Saw one line that perfectly describes the anthem situation: For some racism is so American that protesting racism is viewed as being anti-American.

That’s convienient to make someone feel better about themselves but no one, or very few at least, see the protests as being against racism.  Even many people who support the protest admit the message was lost a long time ago.

It was lost long time ago because you refused to listen and remember. Most of us realize it was about systemic police bias against minorities and the bevy of videos/cases of police brutality against unarmed black men. It's a simple message that people want to distort.

It was distorted from the beginning.  Kneeling =/= police brutality.  You can't call people racist when they are being patriotic and find offense when someone disrespects that.

^But it's way easier to be outraged by everything!  Get out of here with your "common sense."

Regarding the "Anthem Conduct", although I'm against this type of protest, I do respect Stills for actually getting out in the community, doing ride alongs with the police, and actually trying to make a difference other than just kneeling.

Whereas, I don't hear anything about Kaep doing such things in the past two years, maybe I've missed it.  Furthremore, I just don't respect Kaep do to his "pig socks" and pro-Castro tee-shirt, etc.

It's easier to call people racist if they don't agree with kneeling than it is to call a real racist a racist, because Cuban Americans don't matter to the media apparently. 

^^^ That isn't racist. Insensitive certainly.

Your comment brings up another pet peeve of mine, people are too quick to label someone a racist.  It's over used and unfairly labels SOME individuals, who are actually just everyday jerks.  Also, the whole #MeToo movement is unfairly labeling SOME individuals as sexual harrassers, when that's not the case at all.  Example - the other day a famous actress said she was "harassed" because a guy asked for her phone number (once in passing).  C'mon now.

How is it not racist?  If I wore a Hitler shirt at a bar mitzvah, would that be racist?  He's responsible for 90,827 to 102,722 innocent Cuban deaths and Kaep chose to wear the shirt the week they played Miami, the largest Cuban refugee city in the world.

This is also a pet peeve of mine, and somewhere between me using it satirically in the past to today, I got caught up in the labeling.

Ok, Hitler killed the Jewish because of race. Castro killed people because of political insecurity. A  Che or Castro shirt isn't racist because their actions that made them objectionable are not race based.

I split the Dallas police killing posts into another thread because it's about to enter orbit.

And here we have another example of why the protests continue:

Police detain black teen riding with his white grandmother after reports of robbery attempt (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin-police-handcuff-black-teen-riding-with-his-white-grandmother/)

The family of a black teenager in Wisconsin is considering legal action after police pulled him over and handcuffed him because of an apparent "false robbery" call. Akil Carter was riding in a car with his white grandmother. Police say they pulled the car over after getting a tip that two black males were robbing a white woman nearby.

A police spokesperson says the officers responded appropriately and released the teen as soon as they realized there was a "misunderstanding." Still, the family wonders how this potentially dangerous situation could have happened in the first place, reports CBS News' Michelle Miller.

Wauwatosa Police Department cameras captured police ordering 18-year-old Carter out of his grandmother's car, handcuffing him, and ordering him into the back of a squad car.

Carter's grandmother, Paulette Barr, had just left church and was driving him to work when police stopped them. Officers say they initially started following them after an African American man and woman identified the vehicle. They said it was carrying a white woman who was being robbed by two black men. But police say they never got a formal statement from those witnesses because they left the area. The family's attorney is skeptical.

Don't worry, I'm sure the police will be producing the dashcam footage of these "tipsters" soon.  Very, very soon.

Police body cams.  Literally all the time.  I'm tired of this garbage.

I think this is splitting hairs...if it's not racist, it's just as bad.

This Armando article does a good job of explaining why Kaep is a douche.

https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article117033883.html (https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article117033883.html)

This cracks me up and is one of the reasons many white people roll their eyes when they hear a minority person scream racism. My boss ... a 47 year old white woman ... had almost the exact same thing happen to her in Sanford. She happened to be a white woman driving the same car of a lady who had just robbed a store in town. Nothing racist about it if you match the profile. It's just bad luck. If you cooperate then things gets resolved much quicker.

A couple of thoughts on this: First...you are correct. The "racist" tag often gets used when it probably doesn't fit. Second...there really are a lot of racists out there who aren't getting tagged with that label, and are in complete denial about actually being a racist.


Like with any topic, applying a touch of common sense is all it takes. Is the person who asked for a phone number guilty of sexual harrassment? No, of course not, unless he asked it in a reeeeeally creepy-ass way. That said, all of these Hollywood producers/Slimy politicians with the "sit on my lap and let's talk about that part/job you want..." They definitely deserve every bit of persecution they get.

Was your 47-year-old white female boss pulled out of the car at gunpoint?
Was she cuffed and put in the back of a cruiser?
Most importantly, was there an actual robbery?

Being treated as a suspect for a crime that actually happened is not remotely the same thing as being treated as a suspect for a crime that the police just made up.

But don't worry.  I'm sure the dashcam footage for those "tipsters" will be showing up very soon.  Any day now.

One of these days I am hoping that you will say something that I don't agree with so we can have a spirited debate on it.  But damn, it seems like your viewpoints mirror my own on just about every topic. 

Wait a minute...your parents taught you common sense as well? 

 ;)

Yes
She was cuffed but I'm not sure if she was placed inside the car
No clue. To my knowledge no one ever verified or even cared to verify the story. It was a funny story of her drive home that she told the next day. She was late picking up her kids so it actually cost her money.

I've seen enough videos of "police abuse" to know that more times than not it isn't the cop making up stories.  :o

CF, if there were an actual robbery (in some other car), we would not be discussing this incident.  The problem is that a) there was no robbery and b) there is no footage of the supposed tipsters, which makes this look exactly like a fake excuse for police pulling a teenager out of a car at gunpoint because he is suspiciously being black.

If what you say is true then I would agree. The problem is not all of the evidence is typically disclosed and people panic. 

Even those who whine the protesters are disrespecting the military, know that it is a protest about police brutality.  And those that refuse to address the actual problem and use this diversion tactic are racists by very definition.

Kap made it quite clear from the beginning what it was about. People refused to listen.

It doesn't matter the message. I've said this before ... if you spit in my face but want to speak with me about helping homeless kids then I'm not listening to you. For many Americans purposely kneeling during the anthem spits on the bones and blood of their friends and relatives. No one cares that Kenny Stills was doing community service yesterday (and he was) because he spit on them Sunday.

I don't care if he wrote a 1000 word essay perfectly explaining his stance.  Like it or not, this is a highly patriotic country, and when he chose to kneel during the national anthem, it was a big middle finger to the people who hold that dear.  If I go up to you and tell you, "Go fuck yourself" then say you must listen and support me for some sort of injustice or your a racist, you aren't going to listen are you?  So how is that not distorted?

I submit that a big part of why you consider silently kneeling to be equivalent to "spitting in my face" or "telling me to go f*ck myself" is because you don't agree with the cause of the protest itself.

You have made it quite clear that you don't believe racially targeted police brutality is a problem in this country.  So why would you agree with a protest claiming otherwise?

Just wow.... Wow.... He goes in-depth on why he did what he did and when he did it. We should not be discussing the kneeling, or that it's coming from an athlete. We should be discussing the problem he is trying to talk about. Seriously, when did common sense get thrown out of the window? I just can't comprehend this. Instead of looking at institutional racism/bias in the police force, let's not even worry about that, and instead, tell athletes to shut up.

You really are part of the problem if that is your view. He is acting as patriotic as any American by trying to stand up for those who don't have a voice. I bet you would have told Rosa Parks to get to the back of the bus, she shouldn't be protesting on the bus. It's our law, sit at the back. If you have something to say, go say it off the bus.

Now what YOU are doing is the most un-American thing there is. No doubt America is highly patriotic. But you view any dissent (it seems) as an attack on America. How un-American are you?

I mean, really?

I realize in your race baited glasses everything from a white person comes from a racist position but I wouldn't care if he was protesting persecuted Christians. Protesting during the anthem is wrong from where I sit. Anything said after that is meaningless regardless of if I agree or disagree.

So are you saying that people who disagree with protests taking place during their chosen sports entertainment are racists? All of them?

I'm not part of any problem, and I'm sorry you can't understand that view, but that is the reason people are against this.  I understand that point of view, just like I understand why Kaep is doing what he's doing.  Maybe if you tried to understand the other side instead of throwing insults of racism and "common sense" you would get a better dialog.  You're acting like this is some small subset of America that believes this is disrespectful....it's about half the country buddy.

I'm not so narrow minded to not try and see everyone's point of view, that's a you problem.  You are also projecting quite a bit, I never said he can't kneel.  In fact, if the government (not the NFL) made it so he couldn't kneel, I would be highly against that, as it's his right as an American, even if I don't agree with it. 

Like I said, I would dare say close to half of America thinks he is being unpatriotic and disrespectful.  That's a lot of people he's confusing by kneeling during the national anthem.  These are the same people that stand up for the anthem, take your hat off if you have one.  You can think that's stupid or whatever, but that's what has been ingrained in our society for a few generations now.

It's not even an anthem thing for me. I don't tune into a football game to see people's political views. Hell, I don't care about any of their views about life. I'm there for ONE REASON, to watch football. They need to do that shit on their own time and with their own money and stop shoving it in people's faces who are there for ONE REASON.

Kind of reminds me of those fruity kids wearing white shirts and black ties that knock on my door every so often trying to sell me on Jesus. Fuck you, fuck your Jesus, get out of here kid I have better shit to do. If I want god, I'll go to church. Slam.

Or maybe those telemarketers that call my personal phone and try to sell me an extended warranty. Fuck you, fuck your warranty, if I want a warranty I'll go buy one. Click.

So, when I'm watching my sport of choice. Pick up the ball and run around and entertain me. Otherwise, fuck you, fuck your protest.

To be honest, I'm really not sure where I sit on the issue.  Statistically, there isn't a case for racially targeted police brutality being a problem, I feel the media has a lot to do with blowing things like this out of proportion.  In a country with 325.7 million people, 703 people (out of that, 278 white, 129 black) have been shot and killed by police this year, and 987 last year.  (source:  Washington Post-left bias...https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7e292200f2a5)

That is not even close to statistically significant for any race.  On the other hand, I know statistics can be skewed to fit a narrative, and sometimes things are bigger than statistics.

It's the same with the evil AR15 or the made up term "assault weapon". Go look at all the killings for any given year and you will find that AR15's/assault weapons make up very small statistical percentage. Feelings over facts.

I'm going to point out this post because of the content.  "this is a highly patriotic country"  Please remember this statement.

Anyone around these parts know a few things about me.  I'm a (proud) Veteran.  I've been deployed (more than once). I have family members who were lost in conflicts.  My biological father served in 'Nam, my adoptive father was in the South Pacific in WWII, my Grandfather was in Europe and Africa in WWII.  So, really, I've got the "Veteran" and "family of Veteran" thing covered here. 

Freedom is *defined* as:

Definition of freedom
1 : the quality or state of being free: such as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous ·freedom from care
d : unrestricted use ·gave him the freedom of their home
e : ease, facility ·spoke the language with freedom
f : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken ·answered with freedom
g : improper familiarity
h : boldness of conception or execution
2 a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

I think a lot of people really need to read and understand the definition of this.  Freedom is not being patriotic.  It is certainly not being a nationalist which, really, is what a lot of folks are bordering. 

When I enlisted, and my family before me, we took an oath.  It's pretty simple:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I did not serve, nor did my family members, so freedom would be defined as a nation in lockstep and everyone marching in the same direction.  I can name a few nations which do operate like this. 

Protesting, even against the flag or the anthem, is one of THE most American things a person can do when they disagree with things happening within this nation.  How does anyone think any change has ever happened in this nation?  Magic?

This does not mean everyone needs to be in agreement.  But statements, such as this, as basically saying people who kneel shouldn't be heard at all.  Because "this is a highly patriotic country."  If you're NOT listening, even if you don't agree, well...you're not doing your job as a "Patriot."

Unless I am mistaken, you didn't tune into the game and see anything other than football. You saw it during all the bullshit talking head shows. People in the stadium should not have seen it either unless they were looking specifically for it and I would ask those that feel so patriotic about the flag and anthem why they are not disrespectful themselves since they were not paying attention to the flag.

This form of protest is one of the least obvious yet it is talked about the most by people who don't or shouldn't even be seeing it.

I'm glad you recognize stats are not a full story, I can rule out you having the alter identity of that analyst guy we had for a while, the issue I immediately take with the link at a glance is that scenario is not included. There is no account for the individual scenario, just numbers.

This has nothing to do with the white devil or whatever nonsense.  If you don't agree with the reason behind the protest, of course you're not going to support it.  Black Lives Matter wasn't protesting during the anthem and the same people found plenty of reason to decry them.

It would be one thing if you agreed with the cause, but thought this was a bad way to express it.  But when you believe that protesting police brutality is itself an attack on law enforcement, there is no room for "acceptable" protests.

I agree. However, there is no constitutional right to protest at your place of employment. If they want to protest on their own time, have at it.

No, not this year. However, they've shown it in the past, so the cat's out of the bag. Therefore, keeping with the topic of this thread. Which by the way, I didn't create. I entered this discussion and I gave my opinion.

Just because we can't see it this year because the networks don't want to show that shit, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And if that's the case you might as well delete this whole thread and never bring it up again. That's fine with me.

We don't (and shouldn't) make policy decisions based on percentages, in the way you are suggesting.  Over the last decade, the yearly average of people in America killed by Islamic extremists is in the low double digits (maybe even single digits), yet we spend hundreds of billions pet year on the War on Terror.

I don't think I disagree with you.  On a micro level, I don't agree with Kaep's way of protesting.  On a Macro level, I agree the government should not impede him on protesting, which is very different than an employer.  I have always been very willing to hear all sides of any issue.  I play devil's advocate a lot, not just to do it, but to try and understand an issue at all levels.  So when I say something like "highly patriotic" I'm referring to the people finding offense with his kneeling.  You opened that up to "what exactly is being highly patriotic.  Is it bordering on nationalism?"  That is a great conversation to have, and one I didn't even think about until Dave said something about fetishism of patriotism (sorry Dave, I'm paraphrasing).  At first, I thought that was nonsense, but it got me thinking, "Why do we do what we do?  Why are we so passionate about it (pledge, anthem, etc.)?"  

Great, so we're having that conversation right now, and you brought up a ton of good points.  But lets put it in perspective with the issue.  Kaep kneels--->People get upset that it's not patriotic--->It's not about the anthem, it's about police shootings--->herp a derp don't disrespect mah flag--->discussion on what true patriotism is.  So there are three issues here.  (1)  Things usually don't go further than "It's not about the anthem, it's about police shootings" and "don't disrespect the anthem".  (2) The constant attacking on both sides of the issue that do nothing but cause more conflict, which leads to (3) the message being distorted.

Which is why I have another part to my post you omitted that is in line with what you are saying.  Please don't partially quote me and distort my message.


Also, war on Terror might be a bad example.  That is a world problem, not a U.S.A. problem.

He does that on purpose to "WIN" an argument.

He's being obtuse again. It's not even close to being the same. Terrorists killed 3000 people in a few hours on 9/11. Let me know when the police go out and kill 3000 blacks in a day, then we'll be on the same page...

So your concern about kneeling during the anthem is really that... owners are being taken advantage of by their employees?  The NFL could have chosen to write the CBS to require players to stand during the anthem (as the NBA has), but NFL owners had other priorities.  So why are you concerned over what is essentially a collective bargaining issue?

Why are you concerned with my concerns?

First, thanks for understanding I was using your post as an example (versus highlighting you).  I appreciate that.

The moment anyone brings the flag, anthem, pledge into any argument or "discussion," really, all other points are missed and lost.  Right?  If you don't stand, you're not "supporting the troops."  If you don't say the pledge you don't support the country and "everything people before you died for."

So, really, this gets twisted in so many ways it's almost not worth talking about (not with YOU, but the proverbial you, the general public) due to either their:
1: Inability to look beyond their own stance and belief;
2: Lack of knowledge in current and past history, and;
3: Refusal to understand, or even trying to comprehend "sea to shining sea" means vastly different things to vastly different people.

I'll take the constant "I came to a football game to see a football game, not your protest" (1) and "yes, you can protest, but not at work" (2) comments.  When all else fails, it always comes back to one of the two.  Right?

1:  An NFL game is, what?  3:00 hours in length?  The national anthem (if you're even in your seat for it and not in the beer or merch line) is maybe 2:00 minutes.  If Kenny Stills (example) kneels, due to his beliefs, during this 2:00 minutes - this impacted your ability to watch the football game, how?
1a:  Take a player out of this and say four people sitting next to you knelt during the anthem.  Knelt, quiet, head bowed, respectful, stood when it was over.  Same question.

2:  Professional sports, as much as you want this to be "your work" - isn't. Otherwise you'd have millions of people following you on Twitter and IG and you'd sign a new contract ever three years or so for millions or dollars to do, well, whatever it is you do.  They have a platform and, as such, as using it. 

Change isn't always comfortable.  Fact of the matter is this, if you protested at your work no one would care.  These players do it and it gets attention.  It's different and any reasonable person understands this. 

The almost comical thing about this (and it Dave said we have a fetish about the flag, he's right); until around 2011 players were never even on the field for the anthem (none of them).  There is a lot of money behind the players being mandated to being on the field now, it's not due to "service to country."  Think those National Guard commercials you see during the games are free?  Until WWII the anthem wasn't played on a consistent basis at anything, it wasn't even adopted as our "official" anthem until the 30's. 

This isn't about the troops, or being a patriot.  It's simply about not wanting to listen.  But it's really easy to use the troops and the rest of it as a scapegoat.  Otherwise you don't love your country.  Right?  Well I was taught, by some really smart people with a lot of really shiny things on some really important uniforms a very important lesson.  It begins and ends like this - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Maine .... seems easy to say that to the blue collar guy who feels that certain things ring patriotism but when Gold Star families say that it insults the memory of their slain family member and the answer back to them is supposedly "you just don't understand" or "you just refuse to see my point"? That seems a bit self righteous to me.  Why does the opinion of the kneelers outweigh those who feel insulted? I mean ... if we're being honest it is only opinion because no fact can prove whether it disrespects or not. So ... if the need to offend is greater than the need to try a different approach who is the asshole? 

I don't quite understand your point here. No, professional sports isn't MY work. It's their work and their job is to play a child's game and chase a ball around. That's their platform. Their opinions while at work are meaningless.  If Kenny Stills wants to share his feeling about racial shit, unicorns, or any other personal opinions. Maybe he can go on the Dr. Phil show, CNN, or get his own show. The NFL is a business about football, all the rest is bullshit.

I've said it in another thread and i'll say it here, for all everyone claims patriotism and "the troops", people really don't care about our troops.

If they did, the VA would be a bastion of efficiency. Vets would get quick medical care and efficient mental health care.
If they did, the wounded warrior project would be unnecessary, we'd give each of those disabled soldiers a life of comfort and we'd treat them as heroes.
If they did, military families wouldn't have to rely on food stamps to survive.
If they did, the republicans wouldn't play politics with the 911 victims fund, that pays for healthcare for all the firefighers and police and volunteers that have proven cancers caused by the dust and smoke they were living in for months after 911.
If they did, they wouldn't have elected a jackass as president that was mean to a gold star family, an asshole to a war hero, and made jokes about dead american soldiers in Nigeria.

Tell me again how kneeling is disrespecting the troops?
The hypocrisy of some people, the shame.

It might have something to do with the fact that the kneelers are part of a group that feels it is being persecuted...and shot, by police, and those who feel insulted are just not happy having to watch a black man protest.

If you "really"  see those two groups as equal:

Group 1: Please stop shooting us
Group 2: Please stop making us watch you kneel

...then I'm not sure the point will ever land home for ya...

Feelings are facts for the left, hahaha.

I'm trying to make sense of the position you are advocating, which is the point of a discussion forum.

You claim you agree with Maine that protesting the anthem is one of the most American things one can do, but that your objecting are based on what employees are allowed to do at work.  Are you as vocal when players wear prohibited colors of shoes?  Because one of those things is controlled by the CBA, and the other is not.

The entire reason kneeling during the anthem is a "scandal" is because the right feels the players are disrespecting the country.  Bunch of snowflakes, wouldn't you say?

Roughly the same percentage of people who are offended by the kneeling were offended by Rosa Parks sitting in a white section, black striking in Selma and King’s dream speech.  And for the same reason.

I omitted that because it's not an issue of whether "statistics are skewed to fit a narrative," or whether the issue is bigger than, smaller than, or precisely sized for statistics.  We simply do not legislate this kind of policy based on percentages.

If you don't like using the War on Terror (which was just as much of a "world issue" in 2000 at it was in 2001, but a much larger American issue in the latter), use same-sex marriage.  No one looked at the number of gay people in the country and decided that based on their percentage of the population, we need to ban SSM.  We don't make murder laws based on how many murders happen; if we did, given the incredible decline in crime rates compared to 40 years ago, our prisons should be nearly empty instead of overflowing.

Their job while at work is to play a child's game. They can do their hobbies on their time off.


No, I wouldn't say. One is a symptom and one is the sickness. You have a group of people complaining about a group of people complaining. So I would say that the first group of complainers is the sickness and the second group of complainers is the symptom of the sickness. If the first group would STFU, the second group would STFU and we could all watch and enjoy our entertainment in peace. And if you want to watch the police shoot black people, watch the news. And if you want to watch black people shoot other black people, book a trip to Chicago or Baltimore.

Did you find that on Wikipedia or did you actually in real life pull it out of your ass?

Read it a couple a weeks ago in my local newspaper.

I'm not even sure how you could come up with a stat like that and be scientific and accurate. But then again, Trump Derangement Syndrome proves how accurate polls are, LMFAO.

I totally agree with what you are saying here.

Well, when you own an NFL team, you will be in a better position to critique what kind of actions are appropriate on and off the clock.  Based on the position you are taking, you must have no objection at all to, say, NYJ players kneeling after their CEO publicly supported their right to protest on the clock (https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/national-anthem-christopher-johnson-fines-1.18700702).

And ultimately, what you are talking about is a CBA issue.  If management wants to require players to stand, they should negotiate for it in the CBA (like the NBA has).  Simple.

So your excuse is that... the left had feelings first?  That sounds more like you're calling both sides snowflakes.  Why don't you simply refuse to participate in the carousel of feelings that you so decry?  Gotta live up to your own ideals, man.

"Facts over feelings, unless you had feelings before I did" is not nearly as catchy of a slogan.

It's strange to see you raise these objections as if you consider the statistics potentially meaningful.  Let's put that theory to the test:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ebcfv80ncHs/WcewfDqwDRI/AAAAAAAAb5U/ejY8KbTF5Ccn20xA7OAf6WWWiKEbqXfuACLcBGAs/s640/BLM%2B1.JPG)

(https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_35/2548596/kneeling_during_the_anthem_to_protest_racial_inequality_is-_appropriate_not_appropriate_chartbuilder_3_dbfad431f50f498133d23a0df5bba669.fit-560w.png)

So actually, Hoodie was wrong:  kneeling during the anthem is actually far more positively viewed in 2018 (43% approval) than Rosa Parks and similar protests were viewed in 1961 (22% approval).

I'm just guessing here, but I would imagine that those polled on the kneeling issue was a much more diverse group of individuals, than those polled in 1961.  Or more plainly I don't think minorities were included as much in the 1961 poll.  That said I think the comparison is invalid, it's like trying to compare football, or any sports figures, from different era's.

Well, yes: the America of 2018 is much more diverse than the America of 1961, but that was baked into the premise when Hoodie compared the approval of kneeling today to the approval of protests during the civil rights movement.

Furthermore, the fact that MLK's protests were widely opposed at the time and yet are universally praised today as a triumph of the American spirit of equality and justice... this does not portend well for the opponents of today's protests, especially when the current protests already have far more contemporaneous approval.

That's mainly a right thing. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I

One example makes it "mainly a right thing". I'm sure that I could come up with unlimited examples for the left if I wanted to waste my time.

I doubt you could.  The left general is science/fact based.  The right is perception based.  Alternative facts is a republican thing.  While you can find individuals on the left not grounded in facts you are not going to find party leaders (eg speaker of house) saying that facts don’t matter perception does.  It is the republicans who discount facts and science.

As has been pointed out previously. FBI stats debunk liberal myths about the epidemic of cops killing blacks and the epidemic of "assault weapons"/Ar15s. FBI stats also prove the fact that most blacks are killed by other blacks. I guess those facts don't fit the liberal agenda...

1. FBI statistics confirm the message of BLM which is that cops use disproportionate amount of force against unarmed blacks.  The right distorted the discussion by using FBI data that blacks are more likely to be killed by a criminal than a cop to excuse cops that act like criminals.

2. Nor has FBI data debunked the need for better gun control.  Republicans are too afraid of what the data will say that is why the Dickie amendment forbids a fact based discussion.

I was watching Boyz N The Hood, and the opening credits state that 1 out of every 21 young black males aged 14-34 get murdered in their lifetime.  90% of them die at the hands of another young black male. 

Police use more force with violent criminals, it's common sense. FBI stats/facts also show that blacks make up the majority of violent criminals.

Also as Tenshot13 politely pointed out earlier:
Those stats prove that a very small statistical percentage of blacks are killed by police yearly. FBI stats also show that  AR15's/assault weapons make up very small statistical percentage of all killings. If you're going to argue that either of those are anything other than very small statistical percentages, you're going to look silly like Newt...

If they were really serious they would first and foremost tackle the issue that takes the most black lives. They know that they can't do anything about black on black violence. Nobody can, not even the blacks themselves. Easier to tell them it's Whitey's fault and then beg for their vote. Black lives only matter as long as it generates democrat votes.

As Hoodie has stated, you can't find huge contingents of left leaning leaders (ie, government), that don't rely on science. For the right, though, you can see any number of leaders who would rather follow the bible, or support items backed up by nothing more than fear. This isn't subjective, it is strictly objective. The right has turned into a laughingstock when it comes to this.

Yeah because all the left leaning minions screaming silly shit in the streets came up with it all on their own. Or maybe it was because all those left leaning leaders instilled fear into them with silly shit. Trump=fear, firearms=fear, cops=fear, racism=fear, drinking straws=fear, global warming=fear, capitalism=fear, soda=fear, etc. Almost all silly shit that can't and won't be changed. Fear for votes, LMAO...

I was going to object to the discussion veering towards "black people are violent criminals," but that sentiment is at the heart of what is causing the protests.  Conservatives love to say, "Why are you talking about cops killing unarmed black people when you should be talking about black-on-black crime?" but the key difference is that when black people kill other black people, it is acknowledged that a crime has occurred, for which someone should be held accountable.  In contrast, when cops kill unarmed black people, there is no crime, no accountability, no justice.

That is the heart of Black Lives Matter and the anthem protests.  If police officers were being held accountable for all the unarmed civilians they are killing, BLM would not exist and these anthem protests would not be happening.

It's also funny to watch the statistics dance.  Guns (and especially semi-automatic weapons) are a statistically insignificant problem in America, yet the black criminals who use them are a wildly dangerous threat in this country, as are the Muslim extremists who have averaged almost double-digit kills every year over the last decade.

But something something 9/11 guys!  Statistics only count when the right wants them to... which is always the 3000 people killed by Muslims in September 2001, and never the 168 people killed by white right-wing terrorists in April 1995.  OKC is ancient history, man!  In conclusion, we definitely need to be wary of criminally violent black people, and spend trillions of dollars fighting an enemy that kills nearly a dozen people in the US, but white conservatives shooting up schools and music festivals with their huge gun stockpiles (when they aren't blowing up government buildings or setting abortion clinics on fire) is not an issue, and police brutality is overblown.  Statistics prove this.

P.S. I would hesitate in using statistics from a movie that came out in 1991 as proof of a point worth making.

I would say that each party thinks they are the party of reason, science, compassion, etc.   Just as it is with individuals, political parties view themselves far differently than how they are perceived by others.  Rather than saying this party discounts facts and science but that party does not, I would submit that centrists from both parties embrace science and facts.  However, the people who get their voices heard the most are the loudmouth and clueless far right and far left from both parties.  The far right bible thumping, Obama is going to break into my house and take all of my guns away nutters on the right have no use for reason and facts.  Just like the far left nutters who think Trump is the next coming of Hitler and that "gun free zones" stop gun violence have no use for reason and facts.  The problem is that generally speaking our society isn't interested in "boring" facts and science.  We want scandal, hyperbole, and emotionally charged ranting.  The politicians simply give our Jerry Springer society what they crave. 

^Exactly, and the propaganda the media puts out on both sides fuels the fire.

I can certainly see people on both sides thinking they are the champions of reason, and even compassion, though significantly less so than reason. That said, if anyone on the far right even thinks about claiming to be the party of science, their delusion is nothing short of Biblical. You know...the opposite of scientific.

And the sad/hilarious proof of that is the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  creationmuseum.org   They quite seriously believe they are science based.  I SO want to visit there some day for the unintentional comedy.  Talk about delusional.  However, I would argue that the left's belief that a sign declaring a space to be a "gun free zone" is going to make a mass shooter change their mind is equally delusional, just on a smaller scale. 

Except the left doesn’t believe that.  Closing the gun show loophole, banning high capacity magazines and bump socks will reduce mass shootings.

Plenty of police have been charged and go to trial. If the jury comes back with "not guilty" then the system has been followed. Crime, accountability, and justice come from the jury.

All myths. There is no gun show loophole. Any firearm dealer selling firearms at a gun show or anywhere else has to do a background check. Not sure what high capacity magazines or bump stocks have to do with reducing mass shootings. It takes like 2 seconds to change a magazine. And bump stocks, just like full auto firearms, are highly inaccurate for obvious reasons. Not to mention, you can do the same thing as a bump stock with a stick, your belt loop, or even your stiff finger as seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9fD_BX-afo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9fD_BX-afo). It's basic physics. There's some science for you. Or are you a non believer in basic physics?

So, are you going to ban sticks, belt loops, and stiff fingers? No? Well then there is nothing to discuss.

The gun show loophole doesn't refer to licensed dealers. It has a bad name because it really targets private gun sales.

Gun show loophole would be synonymous with Craigslist loophole.  That has nothing to do with licensed dealers and everything to do with private sellers, like Phish said.

So the left is using purposefully deceptive terms to push an agenda of fear. Kind of like "Assault Weapon", LMAO.

Not at all, I have been to and worked several gun shows. The term came about from private sellers that walk the floor at the shows.

If they don't believe it then who is creating "gun free zones" and putting up all the signs?  Because there are a lot of them, and I'm pretty sure it isn't the NRA nuts who are putting them there.

It's all smoke and mirrors. They want gun free zones until they can ban everything. Then everywhere is a gun free zone.