Colin Kaepernick 49ers QB Bad Move

[earthson]

So far, my fave parts of this thread are:

1) The ostriches who seem to suggest that racism against black people was either exaggerated or non-existent.

2) Clowns who think being pulled over for driving a hotrod too fast is the same as racial profiling and subsequent police intimidation.

This is the Western seed of ignorance that aids and abets the transformation from frustration to terrorism. Maybe I've traveled too much and listened to too many locals and villagers to be able to maintain a first-world perspective.

[DrunkenMonkey]

1 hour ago, Hutch said:

1 It wasn't stealing cigarettes...it was resisting arrest.

2 it wasn't outrage over the douche sitting during the anthem...it was disgust.

3 Why do you think folks can't be bothered by both ? I, and most folks I know, are.

Lastly, most folks I know, myself included, don't have a problem with the content of the douche's position. In fact many agree wIth WHAT he is saying...the HOW ? Not so much. It's the time, place and specific action that we have a problem with. In the end though, he will be a pimple on the ass of sports history.

1. No one said he was stealing cigarettes.  He was being arrested for selling cigarettes.  Also, for you to make the point that he was murdered for resisting arrest means that we should take the word of the cops who choked him to death, and disregard what we can see with our own eyes in the video.  Was he still resisting arrest, in your opinion, after he was unconscious, or just before, when he was still conscious, and reacting to being choked (ultimately to death)?  

2. Yes, people are outraged by the quarterback sitting.  You may be disgusted, but others are outraged.  Also, I don't know you, so my statement clearly didn't include you.  

3. Why do you think that I think that?  Of course people can be bothered by both.  I didn't say they can't.  I said that the people that I know who are most outraged (and yes, they are too) about this are people who didn't have anything to say about the cops caught on video committing murder (and then skating in nearly every case).

If you want to respond to what I said, respond to what I actually said.  Read carefully.

One other thing I noticed about this thread (and this isn't directed at you, Hutch): People pointing out, without any apparent sense of irony, that they are disgusted with the concept of "political correctness".  You do realize that it's exactly "political correctness" that is the issue here?  What the quarterback has violated is exactly that: the norms of political correctness that govern how we treat the flag and national anthem.  For anyone to criticize this protest as "political correctness run amok" seems a bit ridiculous.

[PigFish]

11 minutes ago, DrunkenMonkey said:

 

One other thing I noticed about this thread (and this isn't directed at you, Hutch): People pointing out, without any apparent sense of irony, that they are disgusted with the concept of "political correctness".  You do realize that it's exactly "political correctness" that is the issue here?  What the quarterback has violated is exactly that: the norms of political correctness that govern how we treat the flag and national anthem.  For anyone to criticize this protest as "political correctness run amok" seems a bit ridiculous.

You know mate you have actually written something here that got me to think on this subject a minute.

Without wishing to create another 'bone' of contention between more members, after first agreeing with you here, I now differ some.

The question is, what is political correctness? It would appear (to me at least) that you proffer political correctness as tradition. Respect of the flag is a tradition of the US... On the other hand, while I cannot say that I have ever read "the Webster definition" of political correctness, as I see it, it is not traditional, more anti-traditional, and specifically designed to protect those that are non-traditional. It used to be that you could speak freely about topics. Yet political correctness would dictate that certain people have 'protected space' where they cannot hear such speech. Protecting these people who believe that they have the right not to hear you is political correctness (as I see it). You see, by my read of it, it is politically correct to burn the flag, yet it is politically incorrect to call those doing it "unpatriotic, or scumbags." This is just my crude example.

It appears that if you go to a college campus and chalk the name of one presidential candidate on the ground, that is politically incorrect, yet the other is politically correct. That demonstrates to me, that political correctness then has a compass and it is not a 'universal term' as you have implied.

Now I may well be wrong about this, but I see political correctness as tool of a political group (the left) to control the speech of a different political group. Again, maybe I am wrong here.

If one culture uses derogatory words for a race in its music, it is politically correct, they are allowed by those that dictate political correctness to behave in such a fashion. They are the right color, or they are artists, or whatever, I don't pretend to understand the convoluted nature of the definition, but I am trying to! Yet if I use the same word, it is offensive and politically incorrect. Political correctness then, like most things today, is a political tool AND IT has a bias.

You may think different than I do here, but as stated long ago, this is not a free speech issue. You cannot yell fire in the theater, and you cannot run a prayer meeting in the middle of the field at the football stadium. These are certainly rights, but the rights of those that promote the game are deemed superior to yours when you get the limited license to attend, or work at the game! If this were not the case, protestors could legally shut down any event, anywhere at any time, and they would be within the law doing it!

I am curious to get your take. Is the guy that burns the flag the politically incorrect guy, or is the guy who calls him unpatriotic the politically incorrect guy??? Can both guys be politically incorrect at the same time?

I see the socks as politically correct. It is politically correct today to hate the police force. What is politically incorrect is to deride those who are doing it!

So how does the league think of this? I don't know. It appeared to be politically incorrect to wear a sticker on the helmet to support a fallen officer. As it was incorrect, it was deemed inappropriate and the Cowboys were not allowed to wear it. Cop/Pig socks on the other hand are politically correct, and therefore the league has nothing to say about it. Disrespecting our flag is politically correct. So the league lets it happen...

I think this guy (player, bench sitter, whatever he is) is politically correct, as such he is protected by the league...

Food for though. Cheers! -Piggy

[DrunkenMonkey]

21 minutes ago, PigFish said:

...

Food for though. Cheers! -Piggy

Piggy,

As always, a thoughtful post.  While you and I disagree on many political issues, I have great respect for your positions, because I think you're an honest, irreverent, and interesting guy.  I value all three qualities a great deal.  I'll try to give your post the response it deserves when I have time later.  For now, I will say that I both agree and disagree with different parts of what you said here.

[PigFish]

1 minute ago, DrunkenMonkey said:

Piggy,

As always, a thoughtful post.  While you and I disagree on many political issues, I have great respect for your positions, because I think you're an honest, irreverent, and interesting guy.  I value all three qualities a great deal.  I'll try to give your post the response it deserves when I have time later.  For now, I will say that I both agree and disagree with different parts of what you said here.

Likewise mate, although I never thought much about your political positions. You appear to be more restrained than I... -LOL

I am guilty of 'filtering posts' and I don't read everyone. You are someone that I read often as I dig for truffles here on FoH. I enjoy reading your comments as well. As stated, you got me thinking!

Cheers! -Ray

[Bohn007]

4 hours ago, DrunkenMonkey said:

Wow. Quite a thread. Just my 2 cents on the original topic:  I think it's interesting that many of the people who I know who are most outraged by Kaepernick's protest are the same people who had nothing to say after they saw a video of cops choking a guy to death for selling cigarettes. The same people who voiced no outrage when they saw the video of the cop planting a weapon on the man he had just murdered. If you aren't really disturbed about a pattern we seem to have of some police murdering our fellow citizens, but are outraged by a quarterback's protest, then I think you're sort of making his point.

I, for one, am outraged over a cop choking someone to death or planting a weapon on someone after shooting them. I am even more outraged over the the fact that 13% of the population commit 50% of the murders in this country. After all, I live in Chicago and there are more black people shooting black people on a weekend than the police shoot in a year. I do not mean to excuse any instance of police excessive force but if you spent time in the neighborhoods that most of the violence occurs, you would understand how tense the area is because of all the crime. I am even more outraged that we rank 17th in this education behind countries like Latvia and the Spain despite spending more per student. I am also even more outraged that we have 500,000 homeless people in the United States on any given night. Still, this is getting off topic. What the quarterback did was blantently wrong and if he put forth half the energy into feeding a homeless person or teaching a child math instead of hate for law enforcement, perhaps the world would be a much better place and we would applaud this guy instead of talking about what an idiot he is for disrespecting his team and taking their focus away from winning a football game which is what they were all there paid to do. 

[joeypots]

11 hours ago, RijkdeGooier said:

I wondered about wether there was a study done to asses ecenomic development while controlling for skin color in a control group. 

Lo and behold Yale University gave me this:

https://www.library.yale.edu/~fboateng/akata.htm

Apparently African immigrants, while black, do better than African-Americans. 

It seems skin color is not the determining variable?

On September 5, 2016 at 2:05 AM, hjmclain22 said:

But it's only indicative of the largest issue, the effects of the subjugation of a people and the remnants of racial discrimination.

 

 

 

Few people with racist beliefs  think they have racist beliefs.

[Bohn007]

3 minutes ago, joeypots said:

Few people with racist beliefs  think they have racist beliefs.

So if you think you are a racist, you are obviously a racist but if you don't think that you are not a racist, you are also a racist? Seriously? 

[joeypots]

On September 4, 2016 at 4:43 PM, StumpyJoe said:

 

 

Here's hoping for clarity on the subject and working together for solutions that have positive results.

 

 

It's amazing how the study out of Harvard last spring was grabbed by those seeking to confirm their bias. 

We all use what ever we can find in the media to confirm our bias, that's a large part of why such acrimony ensues on these forums. And no, Prager U is not an accredited University. It is, as one biased headline described it: "Radio Host Dennis Prager's New Online ‘College’ to Combat Liberal Bias and Teach Judeo-Christian Values". 

Those of you who agreed with this videos premise will no doubt be interested in what the other conclusions of Dr. Fryer's study. I mean, now it's an undisputed fact that African American are not killed by police in higher numbers per police encounters than others. What about the rest of his conclusions? I guess the Prager U.  didn't have enough time or money to go into that.

Take a look,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0

 

 

[joeypots]

15 minutes ago, Bohn007 said:

So if you think you are a racist, you are obviously a racist but if you don't think that you are not a racist, you are also a racist? Seriously? 

You think only people who know they are racist have racist beliefs and attitudes? seriously? You gotta ask?

[Bohn007]

3 minutes ago, joeypots said:

You think only people who know they are racist have racist beliefs and attitudes? seriously? You gotta ask?

So who isn't racist in your belief or are we all racist? Because I am unsure as to who the third group is? All I can see is people that say they are racist and those that say they are not. Obviously there are those that say they aren't but are but only they know that. Perhaps you are suggesting that we all are racist and to that, I would suggest there might be truth. Japanese, as a culture, hate the Chinese. Obviously there was a time when the Germans hated the Jews. Many Muslims hate Christians and also the other way as well. And lastly, there are a lot of black people that are racist towards white people. To a degree, every culture is racist. Every culture looks to blames it's problems on someone of a different culture. Some people are more obvious, some less. While I am the first to say that a cop that commits a crime, should be punished, when I see the amount of black on black violent crime in Chicago, I have to believe that the police have very little to do with causing it and if anything, the police are not getting inclined to even want to help for fear that they will be later accused of excessive force. There was an incident recently where a black family called the policy because someone in their family was threatening them with a baseball bat. When the police showed up, he then threatened the police with the same bat. He was shot. The family cried fowl and immediately accused the police of excessive force. Did the police shoot him because he was black. No. They shot him because he threatened them with a bat and didn't follow their requests to drop the bat instead. Too much attention has been focused on police violence and there is no sense of responsibility for what brought police to the scene in the first place. 

 

[hjmclain22]

11 hours ago, RijkdeGooier said:

I wondered about wether there was a study done to asses ecenomic development while controlling for skin color in a control group. 

Lo and behold Yale University gave me this:

https://www.library.yale.edu/~fboateng/akata.htm

Apparently African immigrants, while black, do better than African-Americans. 

It seems skin color is not the determining variable?

I wanted to first comment on this article/study whatever you want to call it.  It does not purport to be what you are talking about; in fact the author succinctly explains the difference between Africans and African Americans in the US.   So if you're attempting to say that it's not skin color but rather being an African American, OK I get it. Otherwise this article does little to elucidate the issue at hand.- the author clearly states that African Americans were treated differently than Africans...

10 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I'm sorry, but the statistics from 1900-1970 regarding the socio-economic status of the blacks tell the opposite story . Racism was ostensibly worse, yet blacks had higher employment, faster movement out of poverty and more intact families. Those are the plain facts, but you seem to not be willing to acknowledge them.

Also, you never did confirm whether those instances of discrimination you mentioned actually happened to you personally or are secondhand accounts. I'd be genuinely interested to know.

I'm not sure what your article is trying to support--the housing crisis affected many more whites than blacks nationwide and offers no evidence of how or why blacks would be affected to a greater degree than any other race. 

Here's a few for you to check out as well, and I also encourage you to read Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, renowned black economists whose work in the area is nearly unrivaled.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262726/how-liberal-welfare-state-destroyed-black-america-john-perazzo

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-WarOnPoverty_010814.html

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/05/poor_blacks_looking_for_someon.html

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/12/24/ways-war-poverty-destroyed-black-fatherhood/

http://www.city-journal.org/html/black-family-40-years-lies-12872.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420807/slavery-didnt-cause-todays-black-problems-welfare-did

https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472068319-ch4.pdf

I looked at these stats...I'm dubious as to their conclusion.   I found zero empirical data to support your propositions just an article regarding social media or propaganda of blacks being described as poor, which did not correlate to their actual socioeconomic status.

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are regarded by many as the Clarence Thomas of economics or an Uncle Tom.  So I'm not surprised that these two and your other articles which rely on the same as authority would attempt to disregard the elephant in the room.

8 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Looks like many of these cases are people subjected to racial slurs and "harassment" and very few, if any, demonstrable acts of discrimination. And a few dozen over a decade. Far from systemic issues keeping 13% of the entire US population down. 

In the below case, for example, it appears Pepsi did absolutely nothing wrong except screen out for criminal arrest records, and lo and behold, it resulted in more blacks being excluded because, as we've established, blacks commit more crime per percentage of the population. But Pepsi had to fork out $3.13 million--for what? The real travesty here is the virtual extortion perpetrated on PepsiCo. 

In January 2012, Pepsi Beverages Company, formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, agreed in a post-investigation conciliation to pay $3.13 million and provide training and job offers to victims of the former criminal background check policy to resolve an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination in hiring. "The EEOC's investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded Black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi's former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense." Additionally, "Pepsi's former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity

The government attacking anyone who lobbies a complaint is not proof of systemic racism among American society. And again, these settlements are often nothing more than a shakedown that large corporations are foolish not to pay for economic and PR reasons in today's over-sensitive climate.

 While I would agree blacks were considered inferior for longer, most people didn't feel threatened by them as many did in the 1940s. Asians had never been accepted into American society to the degree that blacks had at that time and were subjected to as much or more actual discrimination as blacks for many decades.  The history of Asian racism in the US is quite striking. Arguably, blacks were far more accepted in society than Asians in the postwar period, and the blacks were also more successful as a group at that time relative to the Asians. How does one explain the overtaking of blacks by the Asians in nearly every socio-economic category between 1970-1990? African-Americans had a huge head start. Nobody was alive that had even seen black slavery, and the average person was born after Jim Crow. Yet the blacks' impressive decades-long upward movement suddenly stagnated and declined between 1965 and 1970, but the Asians somehow thrived. 

I do not know how it is even possible to claim that blacks weren't better off as a group from a socio-economic standpoint during Jim Crow when looking at employment, crime rates and intact family statistics. This isn't even debatable. Sure, it would have been even better without the racism, but the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn is that the blacks were improving and rapidly catching up with the white majority despite the racism, and that as long as there is freedom of opportunity under the law (no laws barring a group from attaining any economic position), racism is largely a non-issue in terms of socio-economic indicators, as was precisely the case with the Asians who did not fall victim to the terrible welfare state and the other real causes of the decline of minorities in the US.

While a Jim Crow environment isn't anything I would desire for anyone, I can tell you that I would rather live under those circumstances with high employment, low crime, and intact families than in today's war zone inner-cities no matter what my race. Ideally, neither would be my choice. 

This last quote is endemic of what I think is a true problem in this country. Folks not willing to come to grips with the reality of the past and its effects even today. Not willing to recognize the facts even when presented (EEOC case law), but put your blinders up and say "no this does not happen" or "that's not that bad". I believe my comment before you jumped in was about "disparate impact".  Racism is still racism, it does not have to be as overt as in the past to still be called what it is. Is it possible that racism has evolved, you better believe it.  

I just cannot understand your rationalization of the Jim Crow issue, I probably never will.  

[joeypots]

16 minutes ago, Bohn007 said:

So who isn't racist in your belief or are we all racist? 

I'll ask again,

Do you think only people who know they are racist have racist beliefs and attitudes?

It's a simple question.

[NSXCIGAR]

5 hours ago, earthson said:

So far, my fave parts of this thread are:

1) The ostriches who seem to suggest that racism against black people was either exaggerated or non-existent.

2) Clowns who think being pulled over for driving a hotrod too fast is the same as racial profiling and subsequent police intimidation.

This is the Western seed of ignorance that aids and abets the transformation from frustration to terrorism. Maybe I've traveled too much and listened to too many locals and villagers to be able to maintain a first-world perspective.

Who is suggesting racism was exaggerated or was non-existent?

I'm the first to say racism against blacks was severe and terrible. However, one has to confront the fact that blacks' lives were far better and most importantly, continually improving, from a socio-economic standpoint during times of more prevalent racism. This also holds true for other groups, particularly Asians who also prospered as a group during times of more prevalent racism. Something is seriously wrong with the theory that racism keeps groups down, as there are two huge examples of that not being true.

Some people actually are fighting to claim the blacks had it worse and the Asian internment wasn't so bad...what? Racism is racism. Discrimination is discrimination. Period. Both the blacks and Asians did equally well under similar conditions, until one group suddenly did not. Unless you want to argue there's more racism today than in 1965 you've got a serious contradiction. 

And I don't believe there is any difference in your profiling analogy. Is there a difference between profiling a Muslim vs an African-American? One is a race, the other a religion. Or what about profiling men vs women? Why is race so much worse than the others? In many cities in the US, hispanics are profiled. Hispanics are also not a race. Profiling is profiling. And perhaps when the group profiled commits more crime per percentage of population, there is an understandable (right or wrong) tendency to profile.

36 minutes ago, joeypots said:

Few people with racist beliefs  think they have racist beliefs.

Under that criteria, everyone could be or may be racist, but never know it, or act on it, or understand it...my goodness. How would we know there's less racism today than in 1965? Or maybe there is more...after all, the minorities are doing worse in the last 50 years, so racism must really have skyrocketed in the US around 1965. There were no other factors at the time that could have anything to do with it.

Also, having a racist belief or saying something racist is much different than being a racist, or actually discriminating against a group. 

11 minutes ago, hjmclain22 said:

I wanted to first comment on this article/study whatever you want to call it.  It does not purport to be what you are talking about; in fact the author succinctly explains the difference between Africans and African Americans in the US.   So if you're attempting to say that it's not skin color but rather being an African American, OK I get it. Otherwise this article does little to elucidate the issue at hand.- the author clearly states that African Americans were treated differently than Africans...

I looked at these stats...I'm dubious as to their conclusion.   I found zero empirical data to support your propositions just an article regarding social media or propaganda of blacks being described as poor, which did not correlate to their actual socioeconomic status.

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are regarded by many as the Clarence Thomas of economics or an Uncle Tom.  So I'm not surprised that these two and your other articles which rely on the same as authority would attempt to disregard the elephant in the room.

This last quote is endemic of what I think is a true problem in this country. Folks not willing to come to grips with the reality of the past and its effects even today. Not willing to recognize the facts even when presented (EEOC case law), but put your blinders up and say "no this does not happen" or "that's not that bad". I believe my comment before you jumped in was about "disparate impact".  Racism is still racism, it does not have to be as overt as in the past to still be called what it is. Is it possible that racism has evolved, you better believe it.  

I just cannot understand your rationalization of the Jim Crow issue, I probably never will.  

I'm not sure I understand your criticism of the Yale study. If the issue is race, black outcomes in the US should be the same regardless of origin. They aren't. Racism against blacks should affect US blacks and Africans to the exact same degree. But it does not. Again, this shows racism is not directly correlated with socio-economic outcomes. How much evidence do you need to start questioning this assertion?

Calling renowned economists Uncle Toms doesn't make them wrong. They point out things people don't like to hear, so they're denigrated? So much for the search for truth. If they are wrong, I'd like to know how and why.

And again, you can take your chances in today's deadly inner cities and no Jim Crow environment, although you say racism is so very prevalent today--so what makes today better in comparison to 1960? I don't understand. You don't like it now, you don't like it then. You're saying you want the racism today and socio-economic devastation over racism in 1960 and socio-economic growth? One simply cannot correlate racism with minority socio-economic conditions, even though you really believe there's causality.

[Bohn007]

12 minutes ago, joeypots said:

I'll ask again,

Do you think only people who know they are racist have racist beliefs and attitudes?

It's a simple question.

I thought that I answered it. I believe that history has shown that every culture could and has been at different times racist. Whether they chose to admit it or not. Certainly some are more obvious than others. I have a good friend from Rwanda. His entire family was hacked to death by machetes due to the racist beliefs of another tribe in his country. If you would like to talk about racism, I would be happy to introduce you. This thread was about whether it was appropriate for a football quarterback to disrespect his country and team by making a political stunt on national TV. I will again say that he was wrong. I am open to free speech but it should have been on his own time and nickel and not at the expense of his team. 

[hjmclain22]

3 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Calling renowned economists Uncle Toms doesn't make them wrong. They point out things people don't like to hear, so they're denigrated? So much for the search for truth. If they are wrong, I'd like to know how and why.

And again, you can take your chances in today's deadly inner cities and no Jim Crow environment, although you say racism is so very prevalent today--so what makes today better in comparison to 1960? I don't understand. You don't like it now, you don't like it then. You're saying you want the racism today and socio-economic devastation over racism in 1960 and socio-economic growth? One simply cannot correlate racism with minority socio-economic conditions, even though you really believe there's causality.

In fact, it is their commitment not to recognize the paralysis that slavery has affected their own community that makes them wrong.  Putting aside their thoughts on the effects of slavery vs. welfare programs, their beliefs that there is no benefit to affirmative action or similar gov't programs squarely causes me concern for the veracity of their works.  

Re Jim Crow vs. socioeconomic devastation...I'm not saying I want either, I'm only opposing your view that saying that the sun is hotter than hell is acceptable or somehow better.  Perhaps your parents or ancestors didn't grow up picking cotton, fleeing to Canada, then fighting as a freeman in the Civil War, sharecropping in the fields of Texas, fearing getting lynched for looking at someone the wrong way, thinking the army was the only way to get out, only to be fooled again.  The realities of what is written in these papers is far from the truth.  

I am saying that racism has changed and we should not forget the influences of the past.  I will say it again, this claim that blacks were better off in Jim Crow is preposterous.  Either you don't want to accept the realities of what it was really like to live back then or you're hold the statements of Sowell and Williams as gospel. It's still wrong IMO.  

[Slyclient]

I find it quite interesting that people who oppose what he has done seem to never bring up the reason for the protest.  I must say, It has been a brilliant strategy by conservatives and people for could care less about the plight of black men and women in America. Brilliant!!!  Instead of addressing the issue, lets cloud the narrative and lets talk about how disrespectful he is being to the flag and the country.  I'm telling ya, this strategy has be great but it wont last forever.  Not understanding why there is a protest in the first place is the root of the problem. I could care less if he decided to run across the field naked during the game.  Is that the most appropriate way to protest? Probably not, but  the point is to draw attention to the issue at hand. not to focus on his naked ass.

[wabashcr]

Pretty standard dog whistle diversionary tactics on display in this thread.  Some of my favorites:

• Blacks are responsible for more black deaths than police
• Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime
• There are bad actors in any profession
• Other races have flourished in the face of racism
• I was once profiled and it didn't bother me

I generally consider FOH a pretty forward-thinking community.  I would consider many of the comments in this thread a stain on that reputation.

[Bohn007]

3 minutes ago, Slyclient said:

I find it quite interesting that people who oppose what he has done seem to never bring up the reason for the protest.  I must say, It has been a brilliant strategy by conservatives and people for could care less about the plight of black men and women in America. Brilliant!!!  Instead of addressing the issue, lets cloud the narrative and lets talk about how disrespectful he is being to the flag and the country.  I'm telling ya, this strategy has be great but it wont last forever.  Not understanding why there is a protest in the first place is the root of the problem. I could care less if he decided to run across the field naked during the game.  Is that the most appropriate way to protest? Probably not, but  the point is to draw attention to the issue at hand. not to focus on his naked ass.

Do you mean to suggest that this issue has not gotten enough attention? You have FBI inquiries in half the major cities across the United States and every time a black person is shot, it's major news everywhere 

[Slyclient]

20 minutes ago, Bohn007 said:

Do you mean to suggest that this issue has not gotten enough attention? You have FBI inquiries in half the major cities across the United States and every time a black person is shot, it's major news everywhere 

No, I agree with you, it has gotten plenty of attention. My point is, people who oppose focus on something negative surrounding the situation to drown out the point of the protest. I am sad to say but this strategy has work. The more convoluted the topic becomes, the less chance there can be a solution to it.  I may be wrong but I believe that many of these people want cops killing black people. If they didn't, they would focus on providing a solution to the problem, not doing their best to destroy the message.

[wabashcr]

4 minutes ago, Slyclient said:

I may be wrong but I believe that many of these people want cops killing black people. If they didn't, they would focus on providing a solution the problem not. Not doing there best to destroy the message.

I don't think it's that they want to protect the status quo as much as they want to deny that the problem exists.  People know the conversation gets pretty uncomfortable when institutional racism is scrutinized, because it ultimately forces us to address white privilege.  

[Bohn007]

9 minutes ago, Slyclient said:

No, I agree with you, it has gotten plenty of attention. My point is, people who oppose focus on something negative surrounding the situation to drown out the point of the protest. I am sad to say but this strategy has work. The more convoluted the topic becomes, the less chance there can be a solution to it.  I may be wrong but I believe that many of these people want cops killing black people. If they didn't, they would focus on providing a solution to the problem, not doing their best to destroy the message.

 Won't disagree with some of what you said but in an effort to stay on topic, since we agree that there is plenty of awareness on the subject, what the quarterback did was nothing less than a publicity stunt to bring attention to himself, not to a problem under reported 

[forgop]

white privilege.  

The newest trump card has been played.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Slyclient]

10 minutes ago, Bohn007 said:

 Won't disagree with some of what you said but in an effort to stay on topic, since we agree that there is plenty of awareness on the subject, what the quarterback did was nothing less than a publicity stunt to bring attention to himself, not to a problem under reported 

Perhaps, and because of that possibility, I must say that you bring up a great point.  He certainly doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb by any stretch of the imagination.Cheer my friend,  happy smoking.

[joeypots]

1 hour ago, Bohn007 said:

I thought that I answered it. I believe that history has shown that every culture could and has been at different times racist. Whether they chose to admit it or not. Certainly some are more obvious than others. I have a good friend from Rwanda. His entire family was hacked to death by machetes due to the racist beliefs of another tribe in his country. If you would like to talk about racism, I would be happy to introduce you. This thread was about whether it was appropriate for a football quarterback to disrespect his country and team by making a political stunt on national TV. I will again say that he was wrong. I am open to free speech but it should have been on his own time and nickel and not at the expense of his team. 

You did not.