The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

We used to be a country that held certain things in high respect but that seems to be coming obsolete as the older generations die off. We used to respect things like our elders, the Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem, and authority figures but now it seems more important NOT to respect any of those things.

Here is my question ... is there anything that you hold in high respect regardless of how you may feel about them? If so, why?

IMO This is a troll question,your asking opinions/feelings to fit in arbitrary absolutes.Ie Very few things are Black or White....Respect,and Authority,or Authority figures is a broad term to me.My opinions on those things are based differently on situation,context,and specific to each thing...

I hold the things that CF listed in high respect, but yeah, I kind of agree that it is a loaded question with some pretty high troll potential. 

As for things I hold in high regard regardless of how I feel about them.....that is how I feel about the office of POTUS.  I respect the position, but there are very few who have held that position over the last 30 years that I respect as individuals.

This question doesn't really make sense to me.  Are you looking for an answer like "I believe homosexuals are morally bankrupt deviants who are destroying our society but I respect them"?

I'm not a homosexual, but I'm totally a morally bankrupt deviant.  Yet I still respect the hell out of myself.   ;D

I like the National Anthem, personally.  I feel like it's a celebration of our nation's values, which I support.  I usually participate in singing it, but it's a personal choice.  And there are times when I'm not feeling particularly celebratory, so I don't sing.

I think that the Pledge of Allegiance is bullshit and I always have, ever since I was a kid.  I am fundamentally against what the pledge stands for and I find it jingoistic bullshit.  I feel like my relationship with my country is symbiotic.  I will fight to make it what I believe it should be, but I will not blindly support my country like a sports team when it no longer reflects my values.  The idea of pledging my allegiance to a flag just because it's my flag can fuck right off.

I think where you and I might differ, CF, is that I don't think things deserve your respect just because it exists.  Respect must be constantly earned by all parties.

Not to sidetrack, Dave, but the reason why we have such an attachment to our flag (the pledge of allegiance is to the flag, not the country!) is because previous nations usually required allegiance to a monarch.  As one of the only democracies at the time, we substituted the flag for the king, which is why we are much more neurotic about the flag being displayed properly, not touching the ground, etc than other countries are.

So in context, I don't really have a problem with the Pledge.  Other than, you know, the unconstitutional part they added in the 1950s.

Things I hold in high respect:

--God and most men of god like preachers and such (pedo priests exempt of course)
--Most elders...I say most because sometimes a person is a piece of shit no matter how old they are
--Anyone who served or is serving in the military
--Bob Dole American Hero
--The national anthem
--The flag
--The pledge

I'd like to add that our fetishism towards all things military is weird as shit. 

How so?  I see it as people putting their lives on the line for the betterment of our country.  Politics can skew the true nature of "betterment", but those people are still putting their lives on the line.  How is that fetishism?

Things I hold in high regard:  Good things
Things I hold in low regard:   Bad things


Couldn't agree more...

Err I didn't mean for it sound like I was calling CF a troll...I was pissy from a phone call,but the question Ehhh...

You can have respect for something,and not agree with it.IE I have respect for what the Unions did for workers in this countries,and around the world,but not a fan of big honking unions.

Respecting my Elders to me,is listening to them,and their stories,and history.Learning those stories,facts,and things,remembering them...(IMO we treat elderly pretty shitty in this country) That doesn't mean just because they did it this way when they were young,or they believe this,and we should go back to it.It's not Right,it doesn't work that way anymore,and as a society we've changed.

The Flag is another one to me, that I find a bit odd...

What if the flag is made in another country? What about Tshirt,hats,underwear that looks like they are made from an American Flag.
What about the people that have T-shirts,shorts,underwear that are American Flags...

The symbol of the American flag,I respect the people,and ideas that it represents (even if I disagree with it,and it's actions)...The flag of our City,state has,not really...

I hold in high regard,my right to vote,and make difference in this country.

Sometimes it's for the betterment of the country, sometimes not.

The military is a tool to be used effectively and only when absolutely necessary, but it's not to be worshiped.  Soldiers deserve respect, of course, but so do other professions.  And sometimes lives are on the line, in war or whatever, but the whole concept that everyone in the military is a hero is just strange, IMO.  Some dudes joined the military because they had no other options and got an education while they were mechanics on helicopters.  Is that a hero, more than any other mechanic?  I don't know...just seems weird to me.

But in general, celebration or worship of military goes hand in hand with jingoism.  I look at military worship throughout history and I don't like what I see.

That said, I still consider myself very supportive and respectful of the military.  I just don't feel comfortable celebrating it or other instruments of war and death.

Our current version of "respecting the troops" really only dates back to the abolition of the draft.  Prior to that, serving in the military was something people usually did because they were forced to, so "the troops" were held in about the same regard as, say, taxpayers or jurors.  Can you imagine people working themselves into a frenzy because kneeling during the anthem is disrespecting all the people who have served on juries?  Yeah, neither can I.

But with the switch to a volunteer-based military, I can see why we needed to increase the prestige of the job. I mean, many people join the military as a way to escape hollowed-out factory towns with no job prospects, but that's not exactly inspiring.  So instead, we focus on risking their lives.  The problem is, with troops that are in the military by choice, politicians feel much less constrained when choosing to put them danger.

An understated side-effect of that "federal job guarantee" plans that are floating around the left is that with an actual chance to earn a decent living without putting their life in danger, the number of military recruits would likely drop significantly.  It's worth considering that if we ever give people genuine economic opportunity (and decent healthcare), a lot of the draw of joining the armed forces goes away... at which point we will have a big problem.

Police officers.  They are our soldiers who don't get deployed. 

All police? Even the police who break the law? The police who misuse their authority? The police who steal from innocent people through ridiculous legal mechanisms like civil forfeiture?

In general...I hold the police in high regard, just like the military. Unfortunately, I have met enough idiots and assholes in both arenas to no longer throw a blanket of esteem on those professions.

I respect the concept and authority of police.  However, that respect can be lost due to conduct.  I am always polite and cooperative with police as a starting point, but in like ....a jury situation or whatever, I wouldn't hold them or their testimony in any higher regard than anyone else.

Sadly, the rapidly increasing militarization of our police forces means this is all too true.

The job of our military is to destroy, conquer, or occupy.  The job of the police is supposed to be to serve and protect, yet more and more, the police behave as if they are occupying a hostile foreign nation, instead of serving the people.

I have the same mentality as you.  I hold both the police and military in high regard, but there are always bad apples that spoil the bunch.  My point is this:  Cops put their lives on the line for us just like soldiers do. 


I'm always polite and cooperative with them as well, which is why they tend to be cool with me when I get pulled over for speeding or whatever.   A lot of times when police brutalize someone or get nasty with someone, what the cameras don't catch is that the subject was being a dick to them to begin with.  I'm not justifying police brutality by any means, but you can't be a jackass to a police officer and expect them to be polite to you in return. 

We don't hold the military in high regard as a country at all.

People may carry around little fags on veterans day and and pay homage to the troops on memorial day, but that's all for show.

If we held the military in high regard for real, the families of soldiers wouldn't have to use food stamps to survive. Veterans would have a functioning VA hospital system. Mental health care would be amply provided. There wouldn't be a culture of rape and sexual assault and cover up.

So lets hold the military in high regard, for sure, but lets do it in a way that actually matters, instead of focusing on BS that doesn't make any difference.

Fau, you're talking about things that cost money, which is a different kind of regard.

A person's rights in the context of criminal prosecution.
God.
Wife.
Kids.
Parents.

Not in that order.

Sorry guys ... it really wasn't meant to be a troll question. I honestly think there are things that deserve respect not because it exists ... but because it has earned that right. Like Dave kind of confirmed ... I think there is an age gap in where that no longer exists.

For instance ... The President of the United States. I really came to dislike some things about Obama but if ever given the chance to meet him, I certainly would. I would also be cordial and not beat him up with things I disagree with him. Why? Because this is the single most important position in my country and he represents me. Not necessarily my values and goals but the fact I live in a country where we can agree to disagree. I'm proud of our freedoms and those who died for us to gain them.  I feel that if I were to publicly disrespect someone in that position then it would be a disrespect to everyone from George Washington to the guy who just died fighting for our country.

I think the same about old people, the police, politicians and I personally know some pretty shitty ones, the military (especially the greatest generation), the flag, the pledge, the national anthem, people of the church as well as many others. If any of them are shitty people I don't just lose respect for all of them.

I couldn't agree more. It does make me a little happy to see Wounded Warriors seemingly getting more sand more attention.

^ I feel differently about Trump.

I'd love to meet George Bush or W.  ...but Trump, I find a detestable person that I just don't respect as a human.

There was a question posted on a Conservative site the other day about who would you rather have dinner with. Clinton, Bush, Obama or Trump. I said that I would actually select Clinton as I thought he'd be the most fun and have the best stories! 

I think that Obama, W. and Clinton would all be pretty good. 

Bush Sr. seems kinda stiff.

didn't he go skydiving in his mid-80s?

You think he's stiff now, give him another couple years.

Did he also go Rocky Mountain climbing and spend 1.7 seconds on a bull named Fu Manchu?

That was an iced coffee snort out of the left nostril comment...bravo sir!  ;D

They're all the same crooks, cheaters, lairs, and scumbags. The only difference with Trump is that he has no filter on his mouth. They've all said and done the same or worse as Trump, it just wasn't front and center in the Media circus everyday. I'm pretty sure the next Republican to win the White House after Trump will be the new "worst" detestable person. Identity politics at its finest....

This is turning into the conservative battle cry: "everyone else is just as terrible as the guy I support!"
First everyone else was as bad as Dubya, and now everyone else is as bad as Trump.

Trump is worse than GWB.
GWB was worse than GHWB.
GHWB was better than Reagan, who was better than Nixon but worse than Ford.

Seems like a sad lot when you are forced to insist that everyone else is as atrocious as the guy you support, because actually claiming that he's NOT awful is too ridiculous to be believable.

I guess that depends on the success of the future GOP presidential campaigns of David Duke and Alex Jones!  The bar can always go lower.

Yeah.... OK. Look at the bills and laws passed by Obama vs Trump. This is such a lame and ignorant excuse.

I hold the belief in the plain and everyday wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.
I hold the belief that there is a God, his Son was Jesus Christ and he died for my sins.  (if you don't believe in my religion, then I hope you hold the same belief in your God.  If you're an atheist, I hope you believe in trying to better yourself and even though it may not match perfectly, that you are guided by a moral compass as we all are)
I hold the belief that this country is special in the sense that our Constitution defines the limits of the government's powers, not the people's.
Most of all, even if you don't agree with me politically or philosophically, even if you don't believe in me, know that I believe in every single last one of you.

The Trump thing really does baffle me. He clearly is doing things to help this country and benefits everyone but gets zero credit from the Left. It's as if nothing matters because he is a douche but other presidents who did nothing are supposedly better because they faked a public persona. No one seems to be able to separate the issues any longer. It's an irrational fear to think you can't acknowledge anything being positive. 

it isn't clear .. that's the problem .. what is he doing to help the "country" .. i see him doing absurd things like starting trade wars that hurt the country

Uhhhhh, what? What's he done to actually help the country?

Oh boy, thread derail imminent.

Perfect example. that's all you want to see. Already countries have come to the table to renegotiate trade terms. Just this week he made a preliminary agreement with the European Union and China wants to talk. His strategy has been ... talk tough and then walk it back to negotiate. So far it has worked perfectly. it also gives Leftist things to complain about because they think he's too brash.

Even if the North Korea thing was his only accomplishment, and it isn't, he would have done quite a bit for us. GDP just grew a freking 4.1%! That's f'ing amazing and yet crickets from the Leftist side. He's also bringing home bodies of dead soldiers from the Korean War. Seriously ... this has been a good week for him but the gloomsayers won't see it.

Starting trade wars and then "solving" them (but not really, because the tariffs still exist) does not earn you credit for works accomplished.  Neither does starting hostilities with North Korea and then getting us back to the starting point.  What you consider a success with North Korea - giving Kim a huge photo op in exchange for soldiers' remains - would have earned complete denouncement had any other president done it.  The bar for Trump is permanently set at the floor, and any time he clears it, we're expected to throw a parade.

To wit: GDP grew an amazing 4.1% this year, you say?

(https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&v=201807271311v&d1=20080101&d2=20181231)

It grew more than that three times under Obama.  It grew damn near SIX percent under Obama and all you guys had to say was that he was an incompetent Marxist who is destroying the economy.  The soft bigotry of low expectations strikes again!

When it comes to any sort of foreign policy (economic or political) the essence of the Trump Presidency is he screws something up, "negotiates" a solution that is almost as good as what we already had before (but now HIS name is on it), and we're all supposed to cheer.

The one thing that Trump has been extremely effective at is punishing immigrants.  So if you're a member of the Fuck Off, We're Full (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhg8r2VVQAASd9d.jpg) crowd, I can see how you would enthusiastically cheer him.  Maybe even if you're in the trickle-down tax-cuts crowd... although the hardcore free-market corporatists are probably not happy about the tariffs and the wild uncertainty every time he sends a tweet.  To everyone else, Trump has given them basically nothing.  It's been Obama-but-worse.

To bring this back to your original question, this is why I don't "respect the office." The office is held by a person, and my respect for that person is based on their actions.  I respect ideas.  I respect symbols.  I respect people who have done good things... unless I find out that they have done bad things (http://www.billcosby.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bill-Cosby-portrait.png).

Does winning an election mean that you deserve some respect?  Sure, in the same sense and to the extent that I respect a teacher, a police officer, a judge, or a governor.  That respect is not a shield that protects you from any criticism of your actions.

he reached no trade agreement with the EU, they spoke about speaking in the future, no tariffs or trade agreements were made, furthermore he tweeted out that the EU omitted to buying more soy beans which is just a lie, the EU doesn't buy any commodity.

The facts are that his trade policies (if you can call it that) have put american farmers into a 11 billion dollar hole and then he's proposing a 12 billion dollar handout to the same farmers he's screwing. I thought republicans didn't like welfare handouts.

Republicans love corporate welfare, though.  So taking taxes from the middle-class and giving them to farming corporations is win-win for the GOP.

CF, I think you see the issues he creates and then "solves" and say he's doing good for the country. I don't think you actually see what's going on. You THINK you see what's going on but you don't quite see it. He says China is hurting the farmers. But that started when he started a trade war. Now he's giving out $12 billion in aid to farmers because he's supposed to help them. Even though, in the past, he said the farmers will understand why they're going to be hit, because they're patriots. They'll take it.

The man is a lunatic. You really need to see this.

LOL ... you guys are funny.  He doesn't create problems. They are already there. In fact I'm sure thee is tape of Democrats saying as much ... before Trump took office.  He blows them up and then comes out with a better deal. He's done it time and time again. See Korea and his results. He's done more in one year than all the other presidents combined just on that one issue.

Somehow Democrats have gone from "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" to "how can we get free stuff to the most people?". It's really sad and I don't say that facetiously. 

The fact that you say that facetiously is the saddest part of that statement...

The idea of Korea being a success is laughable. There is no oversight and the last I heard our observation was that it appeared they were increasing rather than dismantling.

As for what the country can do for me feelings, I know a guy who works strictly under the table, is a huge Trump supporter  (so much that he headbutted someone over it ) and is in the process of filing for Medicaid. Republicans love handouts, just not for other people.

I would like to see where you read they were increasing rather than dismantling.  What I've seen is the opposite, so I'd like to compare it with what I've read.  What is the view of the return of Korean war vets remains on the left?  Is that not a big deal at all either?  Legit asking, not setting anything up I promise.

I saw this,but didn't get too much into it...
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/28/633366380/doubts-remain-over-north-korean-denuclearization (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/28/633366380/doubts-remain-over-north-korean-denuclearization)
From 2 days ago,it's more of,there isn't any evidence that they are or aren't///

IMO The remains part is nice for the loved ones of the families,but like that article says,could be the remains. :-\  I feel calling it a "big deal" is like most things from this administration,wildy over blown,to appease a parts of his base. It held more value to us,than Kim....

Like I said ... you guys seem to only see and hear what you want. Although probably "accidentally" missed by CNN, many news outlets have reported their dismantling. It was kind of swished along as to not disturb Nancy Pelosi's more important straw ban but it was there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/world/asia/north-korea-dismantling-missile-facilities.html

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-group-north-korea-dismantling-key-launch-site-56771613

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-site/report-says-images-indicate-north-korea-dismantling-test-site-facilities-idUSKBN1KD2HW

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44933126

I think we're way past the point of no return

All 4 links  refer to the same report (they're wire reports,one of the links even says it in the link),they "seem" to show possible dismantling...Obviously it "Seems" you didn't read them you just posted them because of the headline,and saw who they're posted by.If you did you might have noticed the bottom of the BBC report,rebutts the report,stating US intelligence leaks,show strengthening in another base.

Shrugs Shoulders...

The general view I've seen is that no other President was willing to legitimize a Kim (Il-Sung, Jong-Il, or Jong-Un) by giving them a face-to-face meeting, unless that meeting gained SUBSTANTIAL policy concessions.  Returning dead veterans' remains is not a policy concession.

But here's the real irony: Trump blew up Obama's Iran deal, which had tangible requirements in writing, backed up by a coalition of nations ready to reimpose sanctions if they were violated.  (Note that Obama did not need to give Iran's president a photo op to secure said deal.) Conservatives cheered.  Meanwhile, Trump gives Kim Jong-Un a public relations coup in exchange for no defined commitment and... conservatives still cheer.

Again, the bar for Trump is set at the bottom of the ocean, and when he clears it, the right claps wildly.  Trump's "deal" with NK is clearly inferior to Obama's deal with Iran, yet the Trumpists proudly applaud him because he is Owning The Libs.

I don't have any family included in those being returned so I will defer to those affected. If my family was involved, this is how I would feel. We have lots of service members who have been buried overseas as part of war. I would prefer my loved ones remain undisturbed. I expect they are in mass graves and I don't foresee people being able to identify the numerous pieces of remains anyway so what is the point of digging them up?

As for the nuclear program, I guess it depends on what you feel is important and what equals success. I could only glance at CF'S articles while at work but they seem to be highlighting the test site for their ICBMs. I admit this is not nothing but is it really that big? If you can imagine N Korea being happy with the current state of their ICBM program, would they really need more testing at this time? Could this be a ploy to fool the Americans? As for the information I saw, I will refer to this article,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/if-north-korea-denuclearizing-why-it-expanding-nuclear-research-center-n887056

That article describes that N Korea is expanding the facility where they enrich their nuclear fuel. Which seems more important now and does it really feel like success? Trump did not get any oversight agreed to and I don't think there are any timelines or benchmarks. If his demand was complete denuclearization, this feels a long way from success to me.

What do you hold in high respect?

The constitution.....

…..including the right first amendment freedom of speech. That includes the right to kneel during anthem to protest police brutality or to burn the flag to protest a war.

….including a free press.  Not one that is barred from the white house because the president doesn't like the questions being asked.

…..including the Emoluments clause.  

….including the 5th and 14th amendments due process clause.  And the rights of refuge parents to stay with their minor children while waiting for a hearing.

…. including the right to counsel and that a system that expects a three year old to represent themselves in a deportation hearing without legal representation in inherently unfair.

…. including the concept that nobody is above the law including the president.
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.b7cce2af6a47 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.b7cce2af6a47)

Ehhh...Since it's what we were talking about,this is just coming out...

Old question but it seems to always be overlooked just to say people are free to protest anything. How does the first amendment give you a right to protest anything while at work and upsetting half of the business's customers? I haven't seen anyone saying they couldn't protest ... just not while at work.

Tony Dungy nailed it this morning when he said  ... protesting three minutes before a game doesn't make sense as you should be mentally preparing to play. Use your interview time after the game to speak your mind.

yeah .. ooor there's:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-military/two-koreas-discuss-reducing-military-tension-amid-reports-of-north-korea-missile-activity-idUSKBN1KL09V

way to go trump

And here's more (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.8fd71c3c975a&noredirect=on):

Several U.S. officials and private analysts said the continued activity inside North Korea’s weapons complex is not surprising, given that Kim made no public promise at the summit to halt work at the scores of nuclear and missile facilities scattered around the country.

The North Koreans “never agreed to give up their nuclear program,” said Ken Gause, a North Korea expert at the Center for Naval Analysis. And it is foolish to expect that they would do so at the outset of talks, he said.

It turns out that when you have a "deal" with no actual concrete terms, you can keep doing whatever you were doing before.  But that's OK, because Trump got his photo op and gave his people something to cheer for.  Please clap.

Up until Sept 23, 2007 it was not a first amendment issue.  It was a employee/employer issue.  Once the leader of government demanded the NFL change its policy it became a first amendment issue. 

That doesn't even make any sense. The NFL is under no obligation to change it's policy for anyone. It's still an employee/employer issue. Seems to me that they did it in response to the fans.

Multiple NFL owners have stated that the new policy is a direct result of political attacks from the head of the executive branch of our government.

Where are the free speech conservatives against government tyranny when you need them?

They're cheering him on...

I don't believe that for a second (reasons for the new policy).   The owners can say what they want, as can President Trump, but I believe the new policy is because attendance and NFL Sunday Ticket subscriptions dropped like a stone.

Kind of like the same people who have wanted to get tougher and fight illegal immigration are now against a a wall, ICE and are even supporting illegals to have the right to vote. People are hypocritical assholes whenever it suits their agenda. 

Bingo. I heard someone saying the other day that profits were up. Well ... they were because of tv rights but that will go down because viewership is steadily dropping and the owners see that.

Comment of the year right there. 

Are we to believe that Trump can actually do something to make the NFL change their rules. Or that he actually has an opinion that he voiced. I wasn't aware that being POTUS you had to forfeit your opinions.

I wasn't aware that being POTUS meant being an asshole to everyone who doesn't tell you daily how awesome you are...

That's cause we didn't have a snowflake in chief before.

Here (https://www.statista.com/statistics/193420/regular-season-attendance-in-the-nfl-since-2006/) are the NFL attendance numbers from 2008-2017:

(http://viperbeam.com/forum/NFL_attdnc_08-17.png)

If one were to claim that NFL attendance "dropped like a stone" in 2017, one would also have to conclude that followed attendance surging wildly when the protests originally started in 2016.

I believe what you probably meant to reference was television viewership, which is down significantly... but nearly all television programming has been suffering huge losses, due in no small part to the proliferation of cord cutting and online streaming.  However, relative to the rest of TV programming, the NFL is still going gangbusters: 81 of the top 100 (https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2018/01/15/Media/Sports-Media.aspx) most-viewed shows in 2017 were sports telecasts, and the NFL had 40 of the top 50 (http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2018/01/top-sports-audiences-2017-nfl/) sports audiences in 2017 (compared to 33 of the top 50 in 2016).

In all fairness ... he was like that way before he became president.

Just to be clear, here: are you saying you think it's OK for the President to go after private citizens for protesting and insist that their employers fire them, because he's only "expressing his opinion"?

It's tiresome to keep using this example because it's clear that Obama was held to the highest standard while Trump is held to none, but if Obama had publicly and repeatedly insisted that Tea Party protesters be fired from their jobs, the right would have called for open violent rebellion.

Hahahaha ... that's got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said and that's dsaying something. Obama wasn't held to any standard. Any time he was criticized and I stress anytime ... the complainer was labeled a racist. Identity politics took off under the Obama administration as to silence anyone who was against anything he stood for.

Obama basically started the war on police with his comments. His public criticism of police at Cambridge when he even admitted he didn't know the details of the case, his "If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon" speech, or all the times he was conveniently absent to condemn the violence. He finally realized he needed to say some things to"condemn police violence"  while covering it with the ever "but" of injustices against minorities. "But" always means what I just said is BS.

That has to be the most ridiculous two paragraphs I've read in a while. Whether it is transference, or just being delusional, I am now genuinely concerned for your mental well-being.

Oh, so we have found an instance where a President merely "offering his opinion" is bad!  Good to know.

So if Obama would have called those officers "sons of bitches" and advocated for them to be fired, you would have stood behind Obama's right to offer an opinion just as you are standing behind Trump now, right?

Pretty funny how "small-government conservatives" were up in arms about a President condemning alleged abuse by government employees, yet are cheering a President attacking private citizen protesters and insisting they be fired.  When it comes to Trump fealty, no ideological bridge is too far.  Gotta own those libs!

You are so hypocritical it isn't even funny anymore. You really are deranged.

I'd just like to point out one more thing on this specific subject:
Obviously you and I have a very different recollection of how often that happened.  But as far as I can remember, the "racism" charge was frequently leveled when Obama was criticized for something meaningless (deli mustard, tan suit) or commonplace (putting his feet on the desk).  Basically, when the underlying criticism itself was not valid and the reasoning was flimsy.

In contrast, when Trump is criticized for calling protesters "sons of bitches" or saying there are "very good people" among the neo-Nazis, your side's response is not "Trump was right to say that," but rather, "So what, snowflakes?" or its cousin "HILLARY LOST GET OVER IT".

The right has come completely unmoored from any bedrock principles and only exists as a Trump booster club.

I hold police officers in much higher regard than football players. In fact ... they can't even be considered in the same category.  Police, fire, rescue and military deserve respect until they prove they don't deserve it. Playing a game for a rich man's salary does not even closely equate to putting ones self in danger for others on a daily basis.

That's selective memory.  As a middle aged white man I can assure you I was not allowed to criticize much to do with Obama's policies.  The people hanging a dummy of Obama were obviously racist ... but they were very minimal. No one was on tv calling for the rape of his children, or his death etc. let alone full grown movements to remove him ... just because.

Can you provide an example of when you criticized Obama's policies and were reflexively called a racist in response?  (Preferably on a topic unrelated to race... so not "alleged police brutality against minorities," for example.)

Similarly, I consider kneeling in protest during the national anthem to be a much less serious offense than the killing of unarmed civilians.  I might even go so far as to say they can't even be considered in the same category.

P.S. Just to elaborate on that point:

1) There have been several recent cases of police officers fired, indicted, and/or convicted over killings found to be unjustified
2) There have been zero incidents of violence from NFL players during the national anthem as they peacefully protested the above killings
3) Conservatives (including you) believe the latter is a bigger problem than the former

And so when Obama emphasizes that there are many upstanding police officers who do their job well while also offering criticism for the bad apples, you dismiss the first part as "meaningless BS" and accuse him of being a disgrace who has started a war on police.  Meanwhile, Trump calls the players protesting unjustified homicides "sons of bitches" and insists they be fired, and you cheer him on.

If you want to know why the racism card is frequently played, it's because hard to make this make any sense otherwise.  I mean, if you are approaching these issues from a racist standpoint, then it is perfectly logical to blame the black president and the black players and set all other facts aside.  But if you set that viewpoint aside, it's difficult to imagine any other logically consistent way to condemn a peaceful, silent protest while defending the unnecessary government-perpetrated homicides against unarmed people that they are protesting... especially from supposed "small-government conservatives."

I'm calling BS on that. I doubt you would be called a racist simply because you disagreed with him. I, too, would like some kind of example you faced.

Yeah, I think one has to have a pretty flexible definition of "disagreed with Obama's policies" to say that he or she was labeled a racist "anytime" there was a disagreement with them.

I've seen many political discussions here and elsewhere, and I don't ever remember seeing a conservative called a racist because they opposed Obamacare.   That doesn't really make sense, because it's totally unnecessary: conservatives have a long history of being against any program that takes money from the rich to provide services for the poor, so you wouldn't even need to invoke accusations of racism when accusations of plutocracy work just fine.  Similarly, it wouldn't make sense for liberals to call conservatives "racist" for opposing Obama's repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, as conservative opposition to civil rights for homosexuals is already well-established; why denounce them as racists when its simpler to denounce them as homophobes?

Of course, if you're talking about conservatives being called "racists" for opposing Obama's "policy" of being born in Kenya and lying about it, well... let's say that's a slightly different matter.  Speaking of which:

While we're on the topic of selective memory, it seems you have forgotten how the current occupant of the Oval Office gained political power on the right in the first place.  As best I recall, it was "a full grown movement to remove Obama... just because."

You guys can wait for that example as long as you'd like, but you won't ever get it. It's a Trump thing...you don't need to actually back anything up, just spit out some nonsense without considering any relationship with the truth.

I mean, if that's what CF believes, then it is obviously true, and can therefore not be contested.

Oh, I know. I just wanted to second Spider-Dan's request as well. Just like everyone who still supports Trump, they'll never give actual facts or even understand how things work.

That goes both ways.  Feelings over facts is tied more to the left than it is the right.

How can I prove it? I'm not going to search through 1000's of threads on here nor can I reproduce conversations that I or someone else had. This is a convenient situation for you guys as I cannot prove it nor do I really care what you think. Identity politics as an offense started under the Obama years and is used to paint conservatives into stereotypical negative light. I would think my history of providing proof of things I said (whether you agree or not) that you know I don't just throw our BS to see my words on the pc. 

So you say you were called a racist anytime (and you stress anytime!) you criticized any of Obama's policies, yet when asked to name one example, you declare it an impossible task?

Now you see why we asked, instead of allowing you to throw out that claim unchallenged.  I imagine if you are able to find an example, it might not be as much of a "policy disagreement" as you are representing today.

How can you say that when the leader of the conservative party changes his "facts" just as the wind changes direction?

How can I say it goes both ways?  Is the left infallible?

Remind me of that the next time the right is crying about people saying "Happy Holidays," or about having to press 1 for English, or insisting that Christians are the most oppressed group in the country.

The right complains about being offended at least as much as the left.  It's just that when we do it, we are whiny snowflakes, whereas when you do it, you are speaking up for your solemn rights.

What is the fact that is being overshadowed by feelings in this example?

For starters: well over 99% of the people making federal law in this country are Christian.

Is that number arbitrary or factual?  To me it seems "well over 99%" is 100%, meaning your alleged fact is not, it is a feeling you have. Regardless, the U.S. Has the largest Christian population in the world, so it stands to reason that most would be Christian.

EDIT: The actual number is 91%, which is under the 99% you claimed. That's entirely my point, feelings over facts because you feel there are too many Christians in a country with the highest Christian population.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-115/

The person that makes the positive affirmation is the one with the responsibility to provide evidence to prove it   this is a legit observation

i don't even think the 91% is right, i'm sure that may account for a number of cultural christians .. but religiously i would put that number closer to 70%  as you probably have about 20% of the population that is non-believer that claims christianity as a cultural association rather than a belief one.

Let me clarify, 91% is congress.  Population is closer to 70%.

I would generally be inclined to state that, say, 99.5% would be both "well over 99%" and less than 100%.  Is this a case of "feelings over facts" because you do not recognize decimal points?  :P

You are correct, sir!  I inaccurately believed that "over 99%" of federal lawmakers are Christian, when the factually correct statement should be "over 90%."

Now that we have clarified my error, let us discuss the topic in which that error surfaced: do you believe that it is reasonable for a group that comprises over 99% 90% of federal legislators to believe they are oppressed?  Or is that feelings over facts?

To address your little quip in the beginning, 99.5% or any decimal place over 99% but under 100% is not well over :P.

Prove to me that over 90% of federal lawmakers believe they are being oppressed and I might be able to answer that question.  I find it hard to believe that all of them think they are being oppressed for their religion.  There are too many sweeping generalizations for everything, right or left, for me to believe that. 

Having said that, I think oppressed is the wrong choice of words for this, in what I believe, is a made up argument for you to try and prove a point, kind of like how republicans think democrats are all socialists now because the lady in NY that won.

Counterpoint:

So Christians - the religious group that controls over 99% 90% of Congress, and the overwhelming majority of government positions in this country - are actually victims of the largest open prejudice in America.  Much more than, say, the Muslims that were subsequently banned by the current leader of our government.  Got it.

"feelings over facts"

To be completely honest, even with a family chock full of devout Christians (real Christians, not the mail-it-in type), every time I hear a Christian talk about being prejudiced against, two responses pop into mind:

1) Along Spiders line "Wait a minute, you control everything in this country...how could you be prejudiced against?"
and
2) Yeah, how do you like them apples?  (inferring that most Christians seem to be prejudiced against EVERYONE except other Christians)

And to put a cork in this bottle, I'll just say that I would feel a whole lot better about Christianity if they would stop trying to enact laws based on their religious beliefs.

At least until the day come when the government allows me to pick and choose which laws I abide by anyway...

This is very different than what you were initially asking.  The largest OPEN prejudice, yes, I think people think it's okay to bash Christianity, especially on here.  I would put Islam in there too, mostly because it was almost acceptable to bash Islam after 9/11, us vs them and all.  I feel people are more tolerant on that than when 9/11 occurred, but is still a pretty open prejudice.  Essentially, it is socially acceptable to bash Christians (and to an extent, Islam) or white people with little to no repercussions.  

I don't think white people or Christians are oppressed, nor do I think they have the largest prejudice against them.  That can't be possible when white people and Christians make up the majority of this country.

What do you mean by open prejudice?

Would that include a bank that denied loans to whites but not blacks?

Would that include changing the words of the pledge of allegiance to specifically promote atheism and exclude Christians?

Would that include making Yom Kipper and
Eid al-Fitr a national holiday but make Xmas a normal work day?

Would that include a history of slavery and then segregation against whites?

Would that include colleges invoking policies to limit the number of Christians admitted in favor of Jews? 

Because none of those things happened.  But their converse did.  The problem many white Christians who feel mistreated have is confusing lose of preference with descrimation.  Each time we move closer to equality the person with the advantage loses some advantage and that can feel like discrimination but it is not.  Not allowing prayer in school is discrimination against Christians it ended the discrimination against everyone else. 

I think you are twisting some things, as I was pretty clear on open prejudice.  Open prejudice, like Sarah Jeong against white people.  She is not getting fired or even reprimanded for this (not that I really care, but it makes my point).  Now take the same thing she said and put black people in there and she wouldn't be working there.  That's my point, OPEN prejudice, it's socially acceptable now to say these sorts of things to whites and Christians with no repercussions.  I also stated that I don't think white people or Christians are oppressed.  You can have a prejudice against you and not be oppressed.

So let's talk about what open prejudice entails.

Are sitting members of Congress saying that Christians should not be legally allowed to marry? No.
Are sitting state legislators arguing over which bathrooms Christians should be permitted to use? No.
Are major-party Presidential candidates saying that Christians are unfit to serve as a judge due to their irrevocable pro-Christ bias? No.
Are activist groups that protest government brutality against Christian demographic minorities denounced on primetime cable TV as bigoted extremists? No.
Are Presidents openly touting a ban on Christians from entering the country? No.
Most importantly, is the government enacting any of the above through force of law? No.
But yeah, somebody did say "Happy Holidays" on national television, so...

Here's the thing: Christians only face "open prejudice" in this country for the most ridiculous interpretations of that term.  For example:

- two homosexuals want to get married
- Christians want to make/keep that illegal
- others criticize Christians for that intolerant stance

In the eyes of the professional victim right, the "open prejudice" in this scenario is NOT that homosexuals can't get married, but that other people have the audacity to criticize Christians' attempts to prevent them from doing so.  And it's much the same with people attacking Christians by defiantly insisting on recognizing the existence of other cultures and saying "Happy Holidays" at year's end, instead of giving Christ the proper glory he and he alone deserves by saying, "Merry Christmas."

I won't claim credit for coining this, but god knows it applies here: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

I don't really understand who your post is directed at.  You asked a question from a term that has an open-ended definition, specifically about Christians.  I answered that question, and you're like "you don't know what open prejudice is, let me educate you, blah blah blah."  If that was your end game, why go through all the song and dance?  What you're really asking is who gets shit on more, and that is a different kind of discussion.

Your last quote, can you explain what you think privilege is?  I want to make sure we are on the same page before things get twisted by you again.

You are claiming that some random people posting mean tweets, or saying mean things on an internet forum, is strong evidence that Christians suffer the most "open prejudice" in the country.  Meanwhile, the most powerful elected officials in the country regularly speak against other groups and even pass laws restricting their civil rights, and to you, this does not count as "open prejudice."  Absurd.

In this instance, "privilege" is Christians thinking that not only should the government enforce their belief system on people who do not share those beliefs, but that any criticism of that position is the real prejudice.  The idea that open criticism of your beliefs is akin to oppression or bigotry (i.e. prejudice)... that is the very essence of privilege, as virtually every other group deals with that kind of criticism all the time (particularly from the right!). In America, Christians like CF appear to believe that not only should they be allowed to force their faith-based beliefs (e.g. prohibited gay marriage) on everyone else, but that if we don't shut up and accept it quietly, that's open prejudice against Christians.

Which brings us back to who are the real snowflakes in this country...

You don't know if I count that as open prejudice or not, you're assuming so though.  You specifically asked if I felt Christians had the most open prejudice in the country, but did not ask my opinion on the other topics.  Aside from that, I think you are confusing prejudice with oppression.  Good try on the obvious loaded questions though.

I can only speak for myself, but I think most people can accept if you don't believe in God, it's when you start calling God the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or tell people they're idiots for being duped by religion.  I can just go through post history on this site for examples of that.  It is also way more complicated than "Christian = oppressing gays but don't say bad stuff about them or they cry".  You live in a country where most of the population is Christian and has been since it was founded, with deeply ingrained laws.  Personally, I don't care if two people of the same sex get married, it's not my place to judge those people. 

I spent about 10 years of my adult life really deeply entrenched in the Baptist church.  I eventually had an intellectual parting of the ways with the concept of a supreme being, but that isn't the point of my post.  During my time as a devout Christian, I learned that playing the oppressed/martyr game is a huge part of pretty much all religions.  It is a motivational technique.  We see the exact same strategy used in sports.  How many times do you see fiery locker room speeches about "we only have each other" "it is us against the world" "they don't respect us" etc. etc. etc.?  Religions play the same card.  It is a way to keep people under your control.  The goal is to make them think that the whole world is against them and they need to stick together (under their leader's watchful and controlling eye of course).  It is a way to keep them "on fire for the Lord" as my old church used to say or just to keep them together that makes them easier to control and their unity (no matter how fake it might be) makes them a stronger group. 

The answer seems so simple...keep your God in your Churches and Prayer Groups, and out of legislation that governs people (like me) who don't believe in your God.

Additionally, I feel that if you want your kids to learn religion in schools, you should send them to some religious school, rather than a public elementary that (in a perfect world) would serve children of all religions (and none at all)

Should the day come when mankind can actually prove the existence of God, I'll be glad to capitulate. Until then, every time I hear someone say "it's God's will," I am either going to snicker or get pissed, depending on the seriousness of the issue that God's will has been mistakenly attached to.

If it is something that requires a vote then you have to vote your conscience. Yours would be a liberal view and mine would likely come from my Biblical view.  That is NOT forcing religion on anyone. That is both of us exercising our rights as an American citizen.

I also think it's funny that people saying to keep religion out of government but also want government to force people to give to those who do not work. I as a Christian should already be doing that so no need to govern. You are free to give to the needy so there's that. Lastly why force someone who does not share that value to do so if you don't want anyone like myself ... forcing my values on you? 

So, I have a funny/not funny story about that.  When I was deployed to Iraq, we had a team of Iraqi nationals embedded with my team.  Laziest bunch of computer porn hounds (that religious hypocrisy thing again) I have ever seen.  Every time we would tell them to do something, instead of just saying "no", they would say (phonetic spelling) "Yes, sir, en sha allah".  This translates to "I will do it if it is god's will."    What they really meant was "I'm going to sleep in, not bother even coming to work and just making leering comments and gestures to all of the American female soldiers all day. But you can't get upset at me about it because it was clearly god's will that I do these things."   "It's God's will" is like the ultimate get out of jail (responsibility) free card.

Except when your conscience is unreasonable to people who have different beliefs...in which case, I hope you'll choose good over conscience.

I'm not holding my breath though...

Well, no, you need to vote to represent your constituents. If 75% of your constituents are in favor of a proposed law, then you should vote for it.  A politician is elected to represent the people in their district, not to impose their personal beliefs in place of a majority.

a politician should absolutely impose their personal beliefs. that's what they got elected on.

We don't live in a democracy, we're a representational republic,
what that means is that this is very specifically not a majority rules system. You elect a representative, and you expect them to make decisions of their own recognizance and not to bow to public opinion.

...unless the item being voted on is whether the government will force your religious code on people who don't share it, in which case it IS forcing religion on others.

Consider: if "my conscience" says that women should not be allowed be in public without a head covering, and enough people agree with me, then ALL women - even the ones who don't agree - have to wear head coverings in public.

It shouldn't be any funnier than people who are against a war being forced to pay for it.