Many White Americans say they are for equal rights for all-- but they just don't like the idea of anyone actually taking any actions towards making that happen!

White Americans are for equal rights for all... ...  for all White Americans.

Some White Americans realize that their perception of the world is a bit narrow...

Four legs good...2 legs better!

Four legs good...2 legs better !

Nice Trout Giggles!

Thought you'd like that!

Love the graphic!

Many White Americans say they are for equal rights for all-- but they just don't like the idea of anyone actually taking any actions towards making that happen!

I'm all in favor of taking action to make that happen.  Let us know if somebody starts.

Taking a knee is inaction....on the part of the guys who should be leading the action.

Taking a knee is inaction....on the part of the guys who should be leading the action.

Not only does it get national news coverage but it earns the outrage of racist right wing morons like Trump and his more dimwitted supporters.

It's a win-win.

So you think the extent of this problem is ..."feelings". 

Beto is a true patriot and speaks the truth. A non violent protest is not a slur on the flag, or the anthem, or to any patriotic symbol, it is a very simple statement these athletes should be allowed to make without being constantly harangued about it.

I served my country for nearly 10 years so people would have the freedom to protest in any way they choose, except non-violently. To those who disagree with these protestors, I would just like a thank-you from them because I defended their rights, also

I served my country for nearly 10 years so people would have the freedom to protest in any way they choose, except non-violently.

Thank you for your service.  Thank you also for understanding what you were protecting.

To those who disagree with these protestors, I would just like a thank-you from them because I defended their rights, also

I see it differently than everybody else. 

I don't disagree with them in the traditional "disrespect of the flag" sense.  Since when did exercising the very first right symbolized by that flag become disrespectful to it?  That's just nonsense, IMO.  

I have two objections to what they're doing.

1.  It isn't a protest, it's a sort of passive-aggressive tantrum.  Protests have a specific, stated, achievable goal.  They have defined "off switch".  There are clear demands that, when met, end the protest, like the Oklahoma teachers who protested for higher pay.  To date, no criteria have been put forward that would make these guys happy enough to end their "protest".  They're supposedly "protesting" a bad thing...but there's no plan put forward to fix the bad thing...so there are no criteria for ending the action.  Without that, it's just pouting.

2.  In football, "taking a knee" is the universal declaration of inactivity.  These guys are all wealthy, prominent, influential, college-educated young men.  As such, they are uniquely positioned to take leadership on this issue.   

Any one of these men could pick up the phone and have a meeting with the mayor on the schedule within 72 hours.  Every political figure for 300 miles would LOVE to be photographed partnering with them on initiatives to improve police training, study crime trends and institute new policies and practices to reduce police violence.  The NFL would be lined up behind that so fast it would make your head spin. 

Now...those mayors are not going to return my call.  Or yours.  I'm not a pro athlete, I'm not famous, and I don't have 4 million Twitter followers.  So what...exactly...do they expect us to do?  All the best things that need to be done can ONLY be done by THEM.  But at the very time their "team" needs them to "throw a touchdown pass"...they're taking a knee.  

If they were HS kids...their actions would be age appropriate.  A HS kid isn't likely to get a meeting with a Governor and isn't mature or well educated enough to be expected to make suggestions anyway.  But some of these NFL guys are well north of 30 years old.  If "er...uh....Imma take a knee" is the most intelligent thing they can manage, WTF was the point of their college education?

None of these guys have ever pursued any goal they actually cared about by inactivity.  As such, it's pretty obvious they don't really care very much about this, either.  If they don't care...why would I?

Thank-you for the respectful reply, Jack. You make a lot of valid points

1.  It isn't a protest, it's a sort of passive-aggressive tantrum.  Protests have a specific, stated, achievable goal.  They have defined "off switch".  There are clear demands that, when met, end the protest, like the Oklahoma teachers who protested for higher pay.  To date, no criteria have been put forward that would make these guys happy enough to end their "protest".  They're supposedly "protesting" a bad thing...but there's no plan put forward to fix the bad thing...so there are no criteria for ending the action.  Without that, it's just pouting.

You say, "Protests have a specific, stated, achievable goal. They have defined "off switch"."  On what basis? Did the Rev Dr King give precise objectives... or did he say that he wanted equality? These men are giving exactly the same objective: equality.

Who are you to tell them how they may protest?

You say, "They're supposedly "protesting" a bad thing...but there's no plan put forward to fix the bad thing..." Again... who are you to pass judgment? Equality is the objective. I kinds sorta doubt that there's a "plan" to get there...

2.  In football, "taking a knee" is the universal declaration of inactivity.  These guys are all wealthy, prominent, influential, college-educated young men.  As such, they are uniquely positioned to take leadership on this issue.   

Pure " tu quoque fallacy ". These men are doing something. Something important, and their engagement may well cost them their livelihood. Who are you, comfortable White man , to pass judgement on them?

They're supposedly "protesting" a bad thing...but there's no plan put forward to fix the bad thing...so there are no criteria for ending the action.  Without that, it's just pouting.

If one actually wants to know what Colin Kaepernick is protesting, all one need do is go to his website and READ. On that website, you will find, should you actually give a shit, organizations that have been vetted and who are working toward equality and justice. BTW, he put his money where his mouth is and has encouraged others to do the same. 

In football, "taking a knee" is the universal declaration of inactivity... But at the very time their "team" needs them to "throw a touchdown pass"...they're taking a knee.  

Bullshit.

The game hasn't started yet. The NFL's solution is for the player to remain in the locker room until after the anthem so exactly HOW can taking a knee BEFORE the game be viewed as failing your team in their time of need? 

Oh and BTFW, players take a knee, ON THE FIELD, DURING the game, all the time, are you suggesting that when they do so that they are letting their team down? Should a flag be thrown or should they be fined by their team? 

If one actually wants to know what Colin Kaepernick is protesting, all one need do is go to his website and READ.

Oh! That's totally unacceptable! 

This is News Talkers , not News Readers!

It is completely unreasonable to expect members to read anything!

'In football, "taking a knee" is the universal declaration of inactivity.'

He keeps saying that - on this seed - on my seed.  It doesn't mean jack shit.  It's nonsense.  

You say, "Protests have a specific, stated, achievable goal. They have defined "off switch"."  On what basis? Did the Rev Dr King give precise objectives... or did he say that he wanted equality?

Two words:  "Jim" and "Crow".  How is that not obvious?  How do you not understand that during MLK's time there were laws that specifically singled out black people and restricted their lives?

These men are giving exactly the same objective: equality.

If you say so.  They don't say.  They don't describe what "equality" looks like in their minds.  

Who are you to tell them how they may protest?

Reread.  I specifically defended their right to have this tantrum.

You say, "They're supposedly "protesting" a bad thing...but there's no plan put forward to fix the bad thing..." Again... who are you to pass judgment? Equalityis the objective. I kinds sorta doubt that there's a "plan" to get there...

Under current law, they have equality.  Describe what you think needs to change.  They haven't. 

This is about their "feelings", and yours.  We don't set public policy on "feelings".  

These men are doing something.

They are doing nothing.  Pouting is not "something".  They COULD accomplish "something", but they're choosing to act like they're in HS instead.  

Something important,

Not to them.   Three minutes a week, 16 weeks/yr?  Please.  They spend more time shaving.

and their engagement

They're not engaged.  That's the problem.

may well cost them their livelihood.

Not a chance.

Who are you, comfortable White man, to pass judgement on them?

Your racist comments aside, I am a person who knows what achieving goals actually looks like.  I am also a person who does not believe black people are so inferior that this pouting is the best they can manage.

They need to raise their expectations, as do you.

If one actually wants to know what Colin Kaepernick is protesting, all one need do is go to his website and READ. On that website, you will find, should you actually give a shit, organizations that have been vetted and who are working toward equality and justice. BTW, he put his money where his mouth is and has encouraged others to do the same. 

And yet you cannot describe what it would take to satisfy the goals of this "protest", or you would have done so.  And no, I don't give a shit.  When/if they get their shit together and announce what they want...specifically....I'll re-evaluate.  In the meantime, I treat this like the tantrums my own children had when they were toddlers.  When you want something, you'll use your words and describe something tangible.

In football, "taking a knee" is the universal declaration of inactivity... But at the very time their "team" needs them to "throw a touchdown pass"...they're taking a knee.  

Bullshit.

The game hasn't started yet. The NFL's solution is for the player to remain in the locker room until after the anthem so exactly HOW can taking a knee BEFORE the game be viewed as failing your team in their time of need? 

*facepalm*   Are you at all able to understand non-literal communication?  Really.

Oh and BTFW, players take a knee, ON THE FIELD, DURING the game, all the time, are you suggesting that when they do so that they are letting their team down? Should a flag be thrown or should they be fined by their team? 

You've spent no time on the field, I see.  There are several points in football where players take a knee.  If you receive a kickoff and do not intend to return it, you take a knee to let everyone know you intend to do nothing.  When you're trying to run out the clock and ensure a victory you've already earned, you take a knee to declare you intend to do nothing.  When practice is over and coach needs to make final remark, you take a knee to rest and declare you are waiting on coach.

In every other instance, taking a knee announces you are taking no further action.  This was....in fact....the point of the previous comment....which I can only suppose you didn't read carefully.

Thank-you for the respectful reply, Jack. You make a lot of valid points

Thanks.  

I think these guys could really change a lot of things for a lot of "my guys" (former players).  But the realist in me sees them letting this chance go to waste.

And yet you cannot describe what it would take to satisfy the goals of this "protest", or you would have done so. 

Why would I describe it when they do such an eloquent job of doing so themselves? 

And no, I don't give a shit.  When/if they get their shit together and announce what they want...specifically....I'll re-evaluate. 

How EXACTLY would the communicate that to you? Since your obviously unwilling to READ the Foundation's website, would you like them to read you a bedtime story? 

In the meantime, I treat this like the tantrums my own children had when they were toddlers.  When you want something, you'll use your words and describe something tangible.

The tantrum seems to be on YOUR part. They HAVE used their words and HAVE documented the tangible actions that they have taken and continue to take. It merely requires you to take the time to review it.

Instead you 

A non violent protest is not a slur on the flag, or the anthem

In general, that would be true. But this is an exception because they are literally protesting the act of honoring the flag with the anthem. It's a direct attack on those things. I understand the reasoning behind it, but this is a poor way of going about it.

It's lazy, even. These guys are protesting in a way that's convenient for them. Protest at a police station or a place where government officials meet to make policy. Protest the police commission. But that would require them to actually go out of their way and take real risks.

Another great thing they could do is talk to the president and the people who are working with him on reforming the prison system and other criminal issues. But they refuse.

'Another great thing they could do is talk to the president and the people who are working with him on reforming the prison system and other criminal issues. But they refuse.'

That's hilarious.  What is Rump and his administration doing regarding prison reform?  Other than trying to privatize it - DICK, ZERO, SQUAT, ZILCH, NADA, DIDDLY SQUAT.  

But this is an exception because they are literally protesting the act of honoring the flag with the anthem.

What allows you to say that? None of the players has said that. They say they are expressing the idea that the great principles of America are not applied equally to all Americans.

What justifies your imposing anything else?

GOP senator: Trump backs tenets of compromise on criminal-justice reform

Under the discussed agreement, the new package would include provisions from the Senate bill that lowers mandatory minimum sentences for drug felonies, including reducing the “three-strike” penalty from life behind bars to 25 years. . . .

It also would include Senate language that retroactively applies the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduces the disparity in sentencing guidelines between crack and powder cocaine offenses. And it would reduce mandatory minimum sentences that go into effect when a firearm is used during a violent crime or drug offense. . . . 

The pending agreement would also let judges take advantage of “safety valves” — provisions that allow them to issue sentences shorter than mandatory minimums for low-level crimes — in more circumstances. . . . 

“The president remains committed to meaningful prison reform and will continue working with the Senate on their proposed additions to the bill,”

What allows you to say that? None of the players has said that.

The guy who started it said that.

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,"

He said it himself. He refuses to honor the flag. I don't even understand why that should bother you. You act like I'm saying something controversial.

What part of

for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,

... do you not understand?

As a vet I'm fine with Kaepernicks exercising his right to protest and with Boyer's suggestion that he take a knee during the anthem instead of renaming on the bench as an honorable compromise.

Here's how Nate Boyer got Colin Kaepernick to go from sitting to kneeling

In the 49ers' final preseason game, backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick decided to kneel for the national anthem instead of taking a seat on the bench.

Turns out it was former Seahawks player and Green Beret Nate Boyer who talked Kap into making the change. Boyer wrote an open letter to Kaepernick earlier this season, and it caused the two to meet up and discuss America and honoring the anthem.

On the upcoming episode of HBO's "Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel" (airing Tuesday night at 10 p.m. ET), Boyer reveals what happened in the discussion between the two men.

"We sorta came to a middle ground where he would take a knee alongside his teammates," Boyer says. "Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother's grave, you know, to show respect. When we're on a patrol, you know, and we go into a security halt, we take a knee, and we pull security."

Asked by Gumbel if Kap was "receptive" to his ideas, Boyer described him as "very receptive."

"Very receptive. He said, 'I think that would be-- I think-- I think that would be really powerful,'" Boyer recalls. "And, you know, he asked me to do it with him. And I said, 'Look, I'll stand next to you. I gotta stand though. I gotta stand with my hand on my heart. That's just-- that's just what I do and where I'm from.'"

The two met and took a picture together, but Boyer wasn't willing to take a knee.

Boyer also got called many names for his decision to stand next to Kaepernick during the anthem.

"I got called a lotta things from both sides. I was told I was a disgrace to the green beret by a couple Green Berets, one of 'em I was friends with," Boyer says. "And that hurts, you know? It really does. But then I also had a lot of people in the military and people in special forces that said, 'Man, I hadn't really thought about that before. And I think you're onto something.'"

There are always going to be people who don't appreciate what Kap is doing, and there are always going to be people who don't appreciate Boyer reaching out to him.

But the bottom line is that discussion, in a positive and peaceful fashion, is always better than screaming angrily about a subject matter.

Boyer and Kap might not see eye to eye, but bridging the gap by even speaking about the issues is a pretty good start.

Tacos! are you seriously hanging your hat on something that GOP Senators said that Trump said? Wow. 

BTW, how you selectively edited that article is interesting in itself.

What part of

for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,

... do you not understand?

What is there to understand?

BTW, how you selectively edited that article is interesting in itself.

You are free to explain why it's interesting. Since it obviously escapes you, I was asked what Trump is trying to do for the criminal justice and prison systems. I found an article that outlines the answer and it's pretty recent. You have a problem with that?

What is there to understand?

The words that are significant, as opposed to those that are not.

If you can't explain maybe you should give up on the empty references. "it's obvious" (or something similar) is not an argument.

You are free to explain why it's interesting.

It's interesting because it illustrates what you felt isn't.

Since it obviously escapes you, I was asked what Trump is trying to do for the criminal justice and prison systems.

It didn't escape me at all, I just find it interesting how you chose to answer the question with rhetorical machinations from GOP sycophantic Senators rather than citing anything that Trump has actually DONE. 

The FACT is, Trump's AG, Sessions, HAS done something on this issue. Sessions put out a memo in May 2017 that REQUIRES Federal Prosecutors to seek the maximum punishment for drug offenses, which is the antithesis of 'criminal justice and prison reform'. 

I found an article that outlines the answer and it's pretty recent. You have a problem with that?

Here is the 'revelation' from the Senator that the article relies on for it's headline and which you seem to think proves Trump is taking action:

“I think he is receptive to some parts or aspects of the sentencing reform being fused on the prison reform,” Scott said Thursday morning. “I think he is sympathetic to first-time offenders. I think he’s sympathetic to nonviolent offenders. I think he wants the right sentence for the crime, and I think he is not sympathetic to fentanyl folks, those who sell fentanyl.”

So Scott 'thinks' that Trump is 'receptive' and 'sympathetic'. Pardon me if I don't view that as definitive example of what 'Trump is trying to do for the criminal justice and prison systems'. In fact, Lee made it clear that Trump wants to DO is to pass a watered down bill in the House before the election and then MAYBE add the provisions in the Senate version AFTER the election. That hardly sounds like a profile in political courage. 

BTW, here is another telling quote in the article that you didn't seem to think was interesting:

The Justice Department gave what appeared to be a conflicting account: “We’re pleased the president agreed that we shouldn’t support criminal justice reform that would reduce sentences, put drug traffickers back on our streets, and undermine our law enforcement officers who are working night and day to reduce violent crime and drug trafficking in the middle of an opioid crisis,” said spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.

So it looks like either Trump was playing the Senators or that Trump and his minions aren't on the same page.

Shocking? Not...

If you can't explain...

I could... but I think it would be pointless. If you don't see the obvious, then you'll refuse any explanation.

It didn't escape me at all, I just find it interesting how you chose to answer the question with rhetorical machinations from GOP sycophantic Senators rather than citing anything that Trump has actually DONE

I did. He has set up a situation where lawmakers are actually putting together legislation to solve problems. It's a pretty big field with a lot of complications, so it's taking time. That's more than his predecessors have done.

Why don't you acknowledge that? I think it's because the political stock in trade for people like you is peddling outrage, fear, and despair. If Trump was all the things you claim he is, they wouldn't even be having these conversations in Washington, but you're too partisan to admit it.

I could... but I think it would be pointless.

Then maybe you should have just remained silent in the first place.

I was trying to push you to see the obvious.

In general, that would be true. But this is an exception because they are literally protesting the act of honoring the flag with the anthem. It's a direct attack on those things. I understand the reasoning behind it, but this is a poor way of going about it.

Only for the RWNJs who don't support equal civil rights, don't care about cops killing innocent black folks, and who deliberately misconstrue the intent of the protest.

I wonder if there ever has been a peaceful civil rights protest which RWNJs didn't whine about?

I did. He has set up a situation where lawmakers are actually putting together legislation to solve problems. It's a pretty big field with a lot of complications, so it's taking time. That's more than his predecessors have done.

What a total load of bullshit. Trump set up the situation where MORE people are going to jail for non-violent crimes, NOT LESS. 

Why don't you acknowledge that?

Are you claiming I should give Trump credit for CREATING a problem and them pretending to fix it? 

He wanted credit for 'fixing' the crisis he CREATED with his 'zero tolerance' policy and he wants to pretend that 'ONLY HE' can fix DACA. Now you want me to give him credit for being 'receptive' to legislating a fix to a problem that his own AG had a part in exacerbating? Seriously, that's a bridge too far.  

I think it's because the political stock in trade for people like you is peddling outrage, fear, and despair.

Your thinking is misguided. 

If Trump was all the things you claim he is, they wouldn't even be having these conversations in Washington, but you're too partisan to admit it.

Again, total bullshit. The Congress AND the DOJ as an Agency worked on "criminal justice and prison reform' during the Obama Administration but you are too partisan to admit it. Trump and Sessions had to have something to revoke right? 

The FACT is, this issue has been taken up by every Congress, INCLUDING this one, which PASSED a bill through the House in MAY with a BIPARTISAN vote. McConnell could have run that puppy through the Senate in a week. 

I was trying to push you to see the obvious.

I'm not a dog who needs house training. Just say what you mean.

The Congress AND the DOJ as an Agency worked on "criminal justice and prison reform' during the Obama Administration but you are too partisan to admit it.

Whatever they accomplished, it apparently didn't do anything to stem the tide of police officers mowing down innocent black people. I don't see you going into details, so I'm guessing you're actually embarrassed by their efforts. I understand. I won't press you on it.

Whatever they accomplished, it apparently didn't do anything to stem the tide of police officers mowing down innocent black people.

So now you deflect to police reform. Got a link of Trump being receptive and sympathetic to that too? 

I don't see you going into details, so I'm guessing you're actually embarrassed by their efforts. I understand. I won't press you on it.

Why the fuck would I be embarrassed? If you want to know what they did [which I doubt], just look into what Sessions has reversed...

Just say what you mean.

You don't listen.

Thanks for the background, AH. I'm not sure anybody else is paying attention to it, tho

"My short answer is no, I don’t think it’s disrespectful. Here is my longer answer – but I’m gonna try to make sure I get this right, because I think it’s a really important question. And reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Let’s begin there, and it makes them no less American to come down on a different conclusion on this issue. Right? You can feel as the young man does, you can feel as I do, you are every bit as American all the same."

Typical Politician wannabe. He should have just stuck with the "Short" answer. It made more sense.

What part(s) of O'Rourke's statement do you disagree with?

Everything I put in Blue.

Can you Explain his LONG Explanation as to what he really meant ?

Everything I put in Blue.

My summary of what you put in Blue would be, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Why do you disagree with that?

My summary of what you put in Blue would be, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion." Why do you disagree with that?

You should run for a seat. Like I said, he should have stuck with his first simple answer instead of expanding. And Nope....I don't disagree with what YOU posted !

Would you disagree that Everyone is entitled to have an opposite "Feedback" to what someone says ?

O'Rourke said

The freedoms we have were purchased not just by those in uniform – and they definitely were – but also by those who took their lives into their hands riding those Greyhound buses, the Freedom Riders, in the deep south, in the 1960s, who knew full well they would be arrested, and they were – serving time in the Mississippi state penitentiary.

Do you agree or disagree?

Answer my question first.

Your question is off-topic. If you don't want to talk about the seed, then we're done.

Your question is off-topic.

The Ol' "Standby" from the "Left" when they don't want to answer a Simple question that might put their ideals in jeopardy. 

By the way....It's my "Seed" too, since you want comments. Unless you don't like "Comments", then it can be yours. 

By the way....It's my "Seed".

Finish reading !

We're done here. Please stay on topic or cease posting.

deleted

deleted

they take a knee, to bring our attention and our focus to this problem, to ensure that we fix it.

But it's not doing that.

But it's not doing that.

You could have said the same thing about Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat in 1955. Her act attracted attention that would, in 8 1/2 years, result in the Civil Rights Act.

You could have said the same thing about Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat in 1955. Her act attracted attention that would, in 8 1/2 years, result in the Civil Rights Act.

This is only going to take 8 1/2 years if they keep pissing around on a knee.  If they would get off their asses and start doing things that actually work, they'd have this knocked out in 6 months.

You could have said the same thing about Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat in 1955.

Rosa Parks's protest made more sense. She was protesting racial discrimination that took place on buses and she did it - hold on to your hat - on a bus!

Amazingly appropriate.

With what the football players are doing, it's so vague and arbitrary, you could literally protest anything by being a dick during the national anthem and somehow it's supposed to make sense. It's dumb and it's supposed to be a moment when we can all put politics aside. They've fucked that up for everybody.

Meanwhile, the president has a team of people trying to craft legislation that will lower many sentences and make our criminal justice and prison systems a little more fair. Do they acknowledge this or try to take part? Sadly, no.

With what the football players are doing, it's so vague and arbitrary, you could literally protest anything by being a dick during the national anthem and somehow it's supposed to make sense.

And yet somehow you seem dimly aware of what the protest is about.    How did that happen?

Or are you just upset that they used a nationally broadcast stage to briefly interrupt your Sunday entertainment?

And yet somehow you seem dimly aware of what the protest is about.    How did that happen?

Describe exactly what they want in order to declare their "protest" successful and stand for the anthem?  Do tell.

Or are you just upset that they used a nationally broadcast stage to briefly interrupt your Sunday entertainment?

It is exactly as important to me as it is to them...which is not at all.  

OK, maybe that's not fair.  I care absolutely zero, and they care just under 2 minutes/week worth, but only 16 weeks/yr...so that works out to what?..35 seconds/week on average?

And yet somehow you seem dimly aware of what the protest is about.    How did that happen?

Because it had to be explained in other places like news interviews. If you all you had for information was the protest on the field, you'd have no clue that it meant anything other than "that guy just doesn't want to honor America and stand for the national anthem. What a dick."

Or are you just upset that they used a nationally broadcast stage to briefly interrupt your Sunday entertainment?

Honestly, that's part of it, too. I sense that that is unacceptable to you, but if we are paying for entertainment (and we are paying for it) why should we tolerate it being sabotaged by the very people we paid to entertain us? The players are not on their own time. They're on our time. 

If you went to the movies and were forced to sit through a two minute rant from Alex Jones, wouldn't you be a little pissed off?

Because it had to be explained in other places like news interviews.

Great!    It sounds like those few seconds of kneeling caused a wider public discussion of the issue, at least on networks which aren't run by racist conservatives.

.

If you went to the movies and were forced to sit through a two minute rant from Alex Jones, wouldn't you be a little pissed off?

I know, right?   Why should you care that innocent black folks are being murdered by cops?    Better entertainment awaits in the Colosseum.

Don't upset me, because like millions of viewers, I don't sit breathlessly waiting for the National Anthem. Most people are in the bathroom or fixing something to eat before the game starts.

So it sounds like you're admitting that Trump's rants about this issue were just to gin up his more racist and dimwitted supporters.

Why should you care that innocent black folks are being murdered by cops?

And yet here you are! Hypocritically arguing with me on the internet instead of getting out in the world and doing something to save all those innocent black folks you pretend to care about.

I care about a lot of things. We all do. The fact that I want to watch a football game doesn't mean I stop caring. It just means that right now, for three hours, I want to focus on something else.

Better entertainment awaits in the Colosseum.

The Colosseum entertainment was largely slaves. Football players are part of the 1%. They all make a shit-ton more money than I do and they're living their dreams.  Minimum salary for a first year player is $480,000. They make more in one year than most people make in 8 or 9 years. And those are the rookies! Kaepernick has a six-year contract worth up to $126 million with $13 million of that guaranteed. He has already received $39 million from that contract. He never needs to work again in his life and neither will his children or grandchildren.

Are you really going to try imply otherwise? 

I care about a lot of things. We all do. The fact that I want to watch a football game doesn't mean I stop caring. It just means that right now, for three hours, I want to focus on something else.

Then you should be bitching about the NFL owners politicizing the game. 

No NFL player stood for the national anthem until 2009—before then, the players stayed in the locker room as the anthem played. NFL teams got patriotic in recent years because it was good for business. A 2015 congressional report revealed that the Department of Defense had paid $5.4 million to NFL teams between 2011 and 2014 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies; the National Guard shelled out $6.7 million for similar displays between 2013 and 2015. dailysnark

Then you should be bitching about the NFL owners politicizing the game. 

Are you kidding? I'm a patriot. I love my country. I enjoy celebrating it. I consider the national anthem a feature, not a flaw, of the game. It enhances the experience by lending it a sense of gravitas and by uniting all the people in the stadium. I love it! I won't be bitching about it all. I think if you have to bitch about a thing like that, your life is probably pretty good. 

If you're the person who wants to complain about a thing like that or even protest it, I invite you to stop watching, or if you're Kaepernick, do something else for a living.

NFL teams got patriotic in recent years because it was good for business.

Exactly! Give the customers what they want. You act like that's a scandal. But then that's what the Left does: take ordinary behavior and pretend it's outrageous.

Are you kidding? I'm a patriot. I love my country. I enjoy celebrating it.

Cool - then you should stand for the anthem rather than whining about those uppity black folks who don't know their place.

then you should stand for the anthem

I do. What makes you think I don't? Your imagination?

rather than whining about those uppity black folks who don't know their place.

That's pretty dumb. I'm not whining while the anthem is going. Duh!

And I see you trying to make it racial again. The skin color doesn't matter. You won't see me or anyone else applauding white people who refuse to stand for the anthem.

How many innocent black people have you saved today? Still on the computer instead of fighting the good fight? 

And I see you trying to make it racial again. The skin color doesn't matter.

[deleted]  For some reason those folks think reactionary nationalism is more important than fixing profound and recurring injustices.

Apparently it does matter both to the cops and to Trump and his racist supporters.

Based on what?

For some reason those folks think reactionary nationalism is more important

Standing for the anthem is reactionary nationalism? What does that mean? Coming from you, I assume it's evil.

than fixing profound and recurring injustices.

Actually Trump and company have been working for months on a comprehensive plan to reform the justice system, so I guess they can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 

As for which profound and recurring injustices you are referring to, none of them are made particularly obvious by kneeling during the anthem.

Aren't you supposed to be out saving innocent black people?

Give the customers what they want.

So suddenly 'the customers' wanted the players on the field for the anthem vs in the locker room so that the owners could make MORE MONEY? Got a link to THAT survey from 2009? 

Now President Trump supporters are racist?  Not overly generalizing are you?

Not at all given that's what the data actually show according to several academic studies.   And who other than a racist would vote for the racist King of the Birthers?

theatlantic

Apparently it does matter both to the cops and to Trump and his racist supporters.

Based on what?

Based on data regarding police brutality and the fact that Trump and his supporters always whine when blacks folks protest injustice.

. 

Standing for the anthem is reactionary nationalism? What does that mean?

Ever hear the phrase "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible" ?     Funny that conservatives whine when other folks don't respect knee-jerk nationalism.

.

Aren't you supposed to be out saving innocent black people?

The real question is why aren't you?    It seems many white conservatives really don't give a crap that cops are needlessly killing innocent black folks.

Got a link to THAT survey from 2009?

This would be the perfect time for me to tell you that it's not my job to do internet searches for you.

The only thing that changed in 2009  (notice the link!) was that players needed to be on the field for the anthem before primetime games. That didn't come from a poll or anything. It came from the networks and it was a timing issue. In fact, players had already been standing on the field for the anthem during afternoon games. All the talk of "paid patriotism" had nothing to do with it. That didn't even start for a few more seasons.

In fact, NFL games have had the anthem before the game since World War II  (look by golly, another link!) and that was at the direction of the commissioner at the time, Elmer Layden.

Here is a video from September 16, 2007. It's an ordinary game (i.e. not a Super Bowl, not Monday Night Football, not Veterans Day) between the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Kansas City Chiefs. The singer sings the national anthem with color guard present and the entirety of both teams are on the field and standing for the anthem.

Here is another video of a playoff game from 2008 between the Giants and the Cowboys. Again, both teams are on the field and standing for the national anthem.

It's not a new thing and it's not something that was nefariously started by paying players to do something they don't want to do.

Trump and his supporters always whine when blacks folks protest injustice

Always, huh? Including when Jim Brown or Kanye West come calling to talk about problems facing the black community? Including all these black pastors at the White House who showed up to talk to him about criminal justice reform?

Here's what I see as the Trump problem so many of you have: So many stories have been made up about him or the truth stretched and twisted. And the full truth is never objectively investigated, the stories just get thrown out there. At no point do you engage in critical analysis of any of it. You accept all of them 100% without reservation. Name one bad story about Trump that you even hesitated to believe. Name one bad story about him where thought "maybe there's another side to this."

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible

You know that's not a prophecy or anything, right? 

Funny that conservatives whine when other folks don't respect knee-jerk nationalism.

What evidence do you have that people who claim to love their country are not sincere, but only having a knee-jerk reaction? I don't think I even understand how that would work.

The real question is why aren't you?

It's actually my job, so my conscience is clear. I keep asking you to point out your hypocrisy. You're very critical of how I spend my free time, but you don't have anything to say about yours. Remember that you're the one who implied that I must not care because I wanted to watch football.

Why should you care that innocent black folks are being murdered by cops?    Better entertainment awaits in the Colosseum.

So, I'm still waiting for you to concede that I can care about something and still enjoy a game.

So, I'm still waiting for you to concede that I can care about something and still enjoy a game.

So enjoy the game and quit whining that some folks find protesting injustice infinitely more important than reactionary nationalism.

.

The real question is why aren't you?

It's actually my job, so my conscience is clear.

What is your job exactly?   I know you've claimed to be a lawyer but you don't strike me as someone who cares about the civil rights of minorities, nor do you seem to support things like the equal protection clause.

reactionary nationalism.

I've already invited you to explain that twice. I don't think you even know.

What is your job exactly?

What's your job exactly?

No wait. I don't actually care. Why the F would I care? LOL! I'm just illustrating how you - and a few others here - love to demand personal information and qualifications from others so you can attack the credibility and validity of their comments. But you never demonstrate how your training and experience makes you an authority the rest of us should listen to.

Not that anyone should care. I say let arguments stand on their own merits. They aren't made better by supporting them with credentials. There are many ways for a person to be educated.

I don't give out exact personal details and I don't need to prove anything about myself to you.

You attacked me, claiming that I don't care about black people because I want to watch a football game. Of course how you spend your time is not a subject for scrutiny, is it?

It's hard to imagine a more stupid and empty argument. But even more incredibly, you want to put the burden on me to prove your ridiculous accusation wrong. Well, hold your breath and turn blue, cuz it ain't happening. I'm not going to concern myself with disproving an obviously trollish comment on the internet.

The best I can hope for is to wake people like you up and - if you insist on debating me - motivate you to bring something a little more substantive to the conversation than thinly veiled accusations of racism.

What's your job exactly? No wait. I don't actually care. Why the F would I care? LOL! I'm just illustrating how you - and a few others here - love to demand personal information and qualifications from others so you can attack the credibility and validity of their comments.

I'm not demanding personal information and would advise you not to reveal any.    But you've previously claimed to be a lawyer and now you're claiming that your job is actually "saving innocent black people", so what sort of lawyer are you?    Your comments in other threads show that you're rather weak on civil rights issues.

reactionary nationalism.

I've already invited you to explain that twice. I don't think you even know.

Feel free to look it up.   It has a technical definition in political science although I'd argue that pretty much all nationalism in the US today is reactionary.    In this case I'm referring to the right-wing extremists who fetishize things like the flag or the anthem and then demand that everyone display a conservative orthodoxy in regards to those symbols.    What's clear in cases like this is that not only are the symbols more important to those nationalists than what those symbols represent, but the nasty racist underbelly of nationalism is present too.    A real patriot would be concerned about the racial injustice which is being protested and wouldn't fetishize a mere symbol whose underlying meaning is actually tarnished by that injustice.

But you've previously claimed

I was asked one time where I got my JD and it wasn't even an honest inquiry, as I referenced above. I answered in a vague way. That's the limit of any "claims" I have made.

Your comments in other threads show that you're rather weak on civil rights issues.

I don't think you're a good judge of that. It's pretty funny how you peddle your biased, ignorant opinion as fact. All for the purpose of going after me personally some more rather than address the on-topic content of anything I have written.

the right-wing extremists who fetishize things like the flag or the anthem

I see no evidence for that. Liking something a lot is perfectly ordinary. You only use the word fetish to dismiss them rather than consider their point of view.

the nasty racist underbelly of nationalism is present too

Except that black players aren't the only ones doing it and white people aren't the only critics. Again, the evidence does not support your claim.

A real patriot would be concerned about the racial injustice which is being protested and wouldn't fetishize a mere symbol whose underlying meaning is actually tarnished by that injustice.

You argument is that the ends justifies the means - any means. i.e., If we cared, we would never be so petty as to complain about the method of protest. That's cheap and simple-minded. You probably care about all sorts of things but would readily draw lines as to how you would be willing to express that concern.

All you're really doing is trying to demonize people who disagree with you. This is typical of Left-Right partisanship. Others have observed that the Right tends to think the Left is well-intentioned, but misguided. The Left tends to think the Right is just evil. I agree this is often the case, and I see it in you, but I find it ironic because so often the Left is unwilling to concede that things like Good and Evil exist.

If we cared, we would never be so petty as to complain about the method of protest.

Exactly right.

Exactly right.

So if we burn some houses down to protest oh, I don't know, how about world hunger? You'd be ok with that? Because after all, if you complain about our method of protest, it means you don't care about world hunger.

So if we burn some houses down to protest oh, I don't know, how about world hunger? You'd be ok with that?

Feel free to whine when that's what actually happens.

Are you afraid to answer my hypothetical? Then I'll take it you see my point. I'm glad we finally agree on something.

I seriously doubt it matters what form of protest blacks folks use, conservatives will still whine about it.    Heck, they whined very loudly when a black woman refused to give up her seat to a white person!   How rude was that anyway?    Didn't she know her place?

Didn't she know her place?

Them NFL boys is gittin' uppity!

I seriously doubt it matters what form of protest blacks folks use, conservatives will still whine about it.

There is historical evidence to support your comment. The civil rights protest at the 1968 Olympics. They stood with heads bowed and fists raised and were lambasted.

I seriously doubt it matters what form of protest blacks folks use

That might be because everything you know about protesting is what you see on TV. Every day people engage in political protest and it's not a problem because they aren't messing with other people's lives or destroying property.

When there are big protests that get coverage because of their sheer size, you don't see people criticizing the protest itself. Marches with permits don't tend to get attacked for their method of expression. Rather, critics tend to go after the content of the message, which is just a normal part of political discourse. And that's the point. You want people discussing your issue, not your method of expressing it.

You want people discussing your issue, not your method of expressing it.

That's exactly why conservatives whine about the method of protest rather than discussing the reason people are protesting.   It's merely deflection and it happens so often that it must be a reflex for most conservatives when black folks are upset about something.

They are certainly currently identifying, drawing attention and focussing on the issue, if they weren't this seed wouldn't be here. The fixing if it happens and in what form will take far longer, this has been true for all social change for a long time (slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay marriage,etc).

They are certainly currently identifying, drawing attention and focussing on the issue

No they aren't. All the attention is on their refusal to cooperate with the ceremony of the national anthem. I haven't heard one person talk about possible reforms as a result of anything the football players are doing during those two minutes.

No they aren't. All the attention is on their refusal to cooperate with the ceremony of the national anthem.

You can thank Trump for that deflection. 

I haven't heard one person talk about possible reforms as a result of anything the football players are doing during those two minutes.

Perhaps that is because you haven't been LISTENING to the right people OR that you just don't want to HEAR it. Curiosity is a trait that can educate and inform. The information is readily available for those who actually want to TAKE THE TIME to pursue it.

Falsely insisting there is no 'there, there' because one can't be bothered to look into it is BAD FORM. 

haven't heard one person talk about possible reforms

Way to move the goalposts but my post had nothing to do with coming up with policy

You can thank Trump for that deflection. 

I might if I suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but as a healthy person, I don't blame Trump for everything - particularly things that clearly were done by others.

Perhaps that is because you haven't been LISTENING to the right people

For example? Please tell me who was watching idiots kneel during the national anthem and thought "we should talk more about criminal justice reform?"

The information is readily available for those who actually want to TAKE THE TIME to pursue it.

But not readily available enough for you to supply it, I guess. Support your own arguments. Don't expect others to do it for you.

Falsely insisting there is no 'there, there' because one can't be bothered to look into it is BAD FORM. 

Actually, making claims without evidence and expecting others to treat you with respect and do counter-research is both bad form and effing lazy.

my post had nothing to do with coming up with policy

Really? Because it looked to me like it was all about coming up with policy.

They are certainly currently identifying, drawing attention and focussing on the issue

What issue did you mean? Weren't you referring to criminal justice reform? That's a policy issue, isn't it? It's the policy issue, right? 

The fixing if it happens and in what form will take far longer, this has been true for all social change for a long time (slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay marriage,etc).

Those were all policy fixes, right? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to understand what you're talking about if it's not policy.

In response to kneeling football players, all I hear people talking about is the 1st Amendment. I don't hear anything about criminal justice reform - something I support, by the way!

I wish these very popular and visible athletes would go to prison with a camera and talk to people who shouldn't be there. Shine a light on the problem. You think ESPN wouldn't follow them around with cameras? Of course they would!

Then, find somebody who got his ass kicked by police who wasn't actually breaking a law at the time and parade them in front of cameras. Make the outrage legit.

Instead they're all pouty on the field ("I can't stand to honor America because . . . stuff"). Then people get mad and the players are all "1st Amendment blah blah blah."

It's all a big waste.

But not readily available enough for you to supply it, I guess. Support your own arguments. Don't expect others to do it for you.

I told you HOURS ago to go to Kaepernick's website. It's a three second search. IF you were curious, IF you actually gave a shit one way or another, you would have done it THEN. 

Actually, making claims without evidence and expecting others to treat you with respect and do counter-research is both bad form and effing lazy.

You see it as 'counter-research', I see it as educating yourself about an issue BEFORE you spout off about something you are CLLUELESS about. If YOU are too effing lazy to do a 3 second search, and TAKE THE TIME to READ his foundation's website, why should I treat YOU with the respect required to hold your hand and GIVE you a link? 

I'm not here to spoon feed the willfully ignorant whose only goal is to make unsubstantiated proclamations and who could not care less about the actual facts. 

Really? Because it looked to me like it was all about coming up with policy.

Well I thought it obviously wasn't, but you're welcome to view it any way you wish.  Glad we cleared that up.

Perhaps that is because you haven't been LISTENING to the right people OR that you just don't want to HEAR it.

Well here is your chance to be "the right person".  What....specifically....do they want?  Do tell.

I wish these very popular and visible athletes would go to prison with a camera and talk to people who shouldn't be there. Shine a light on the problem. You think ESPN wouldn't follow them around with cameras? Of course they would! Then, find somebody who got his ass kicked by police who wasn't actually breaking a law at the time and parade them in front of cameras. Make the outrage legit.

No.  Not good enough.

These men are college educated millionaires with positively massive resources, and the power to pressure the political structure to affect change.  These are very high powered individuals and the current low expectation level most liberals have of them is actually pretty racist.

They need to define that change, or...better yet....drive experts to define that change and then drive the power structure to enact it.  They have the tools to do that, and it wouldn't even be very difficult.

Well here is your chance to be "the right person".  What....specifically....do they want?  Do tell.

The 'right person' is Colin Kaepernick but you 'don't give a shit' about what he has to say. Why keep asking others to spoon feed you information that is readily available on a website especially devoted to the issue? Are you really that needy? 

I told you HOURS ago to go to Kaepernick's website.

Did you? Because I don't remember you saying anything about Kaepernick and a web site. Can you link to comment where you told me to go to his website?

So then, if you thought there was something on his website I needed to see, why not just put it here yourself? You're the expert, right? Again, I can't really make your arguments for you.

The message is not coming through in the protest. I also haven't seen anyone say "gee, I didn't know this very real problem existed until I saw people kneeling during the national anthem. Their display compelled me to find out more." I haven't seen that.

Did you? Because I don't remember you saying anything about Kaepernick and a web site. Can you link to comment where you told me to go to his website?

My bad. I presumed that you read prior threads. 

So then, if you thought there was something on his website I needed to see, why not just put it here yourself? You're the expert, right? Again, I can't really make your arguments for you.

Why the fuck would you want ME to post the information that is readily available on the Foundation's website? Is it your normal practice to have someone else hold your hand and spoon feed you information? I for one prefer to READ and interpret information myself. 

The message is not coming through in the protest. I also haven't seen anyone say "gee, I didn't know this very real problem existed until I saw people kneeling during the national anthem. Their display compelled me to find out more." I haven't seen that.

There are a lot of people that disagree with you and who HAVE seen people being motivated to become a part of the solution. Perhaps you just can't be reached...

Why the fuck would you want ME to post the information that is readily available on the Foundation's website?

Because I don't know what foundation you are referring to, much less what information it is that you want me to see.

Is it your normal practice to have someone else hold your hand and spoon feed you information?

It is my normal practice that when I make a claim, I support it with relevant evidence, including links. That is generally expected around here.

I for one prefer to READ and interpret information myself.

The internet is a big place. You can't expect me to read everything. If there is something you think I should read, cite to it and explain why you think I should read it. Explain the point of view you think it supports. Otherwise, I'm just talking to myself.

There are a lot of people that disagree with you and who HAVE seen people being motivated to become a part of the solution

As a result of the kneeling during the national anthem? Who?

I actually don't completely disagree with you but like Tacos you've missed the point of my post which was this form of protest has raised awareness and gotten a lot of attention.  Where it goes from here is anyone's guess.  

this form of protest has raised awareness

I appreciate that you have that opinion. I don't. I see 99% of the discussion about this focused on the nature of the protest itself and not the reasons behind it. If you Google "NFL anthem kneeling" it's all about the act and not the cause. I think BLM was more effective just marching in the streets. 

What's really a shame in these conversations is that I am very critical of police procedures and I would love to see serious changes made in the way our police departments operate, from who they hire, to how they're trained, to how they interact with people at traffic stops, to bringing down dangerous felons. And that's just the cops! Jails and prisons is a whole other thing.

I can have all those criticisms and ideas and still think the national anthem protest is a dumb, toxic, divisive act that does more harm than good and does nothing at all (or next to nothing) to get people talking about the issues motivating it.

But that nuance is too much for some people around here (I don't mean you specifically).

Because I don't know what foundation you are referring to, much less what information it is that you want me to see.

Bullshit. You JUST posted a prior reply about the Kaepernick website. Why the juvenile games? 

It is my normal practice that when I make a claim, I support it with relevant evidence, including links. That is generally expected around here.

The google search for Kaepernick's foundation would have taken you less time then it took you to type that fucking comment. Do y'all get a set a steak knives if you get someone else to do your 'adulting' for you? 

The internet is a big place. You can't expect me to read everything. If there is something you think I should read, cite to it and explain why you think I should read it. Explain the point of view you think it supports. Otherwise, I'm just talking to myself.

I really could not care less if you become informed or not. It's the incessant blathering about issues that you're clueless about that bother me...

You are just talking to yourself if you think I'm here to spoon feed you information. If you actually wanted to know WTF it was about you would have taken the time. Obviously, you'd rather play games. 

Please proceed. 

Bullshit. You JUST posted a prior reply about the Kaepernick website.

You're welcome to a supply a link (or copy and paste) to me doing that. I've never seen Kaepernick's website, so I don't know how I could talk about it.

The google search for Kaepernick's foundation would have taken you less time then it took you to type that fucking comment.

And you copying and pasting whatever information you think is so important would take even less time. You make a lot of claims and you always expect someone else to the research on it. Support your own claims if you want any respect at all.

Once I again I invite you to provide your own links and quotes to support your own claims. So far, all you are doing is talking out of your butt. Any conversation with you has been 5% on-topic and 95% waiting for you to post some support for your position while you insist that that is not your burden. Kinda sad. Get with the program.

Support your own claims if you want any respect at all.

I never pursue respect from someone I don't.

The 'right person' is Colin Kaepernick

Clearly not.

but you 'don't give a shit' about what he has to say.

Obviously neither do you, or you'd have quoted him here.  What people "care about" is evident in their actions.  Clearly what you "care about" is hurling angry liberal abuse at people who see things differently than you do.  You've been given several chances to make/support an actual point, and you have declined.  

Why keep asking others to spoon feed you information that is readily available on a website especially devoted to the issue? Are you really that needy?

If you intend to make a point, then do so.  I'm not scouring the internet because you're too lazy to support your own assertions.

I actually don't completely disagree with you but like Tacos you've missed the point of my post which was this form of protest has raised awareness and gotten a lot of attention. 

OK....so let's talk about this idea of "raising awareness".

If a person is unknown (a nobody, if you will), then "raising awareness" may be a worthy goal.  Rosa Parks was a seamstress.  Her options were limited.

Super Bowl quarterbacks are not unknown.  Colin Kaepernick has over 4 million Twitter followers.  Dak Prescott, who has never been near a Super Bowl, has over a million. Russell Wilson has 5.5 million.

But we live in an environment where people protest without a plan or clue, simply because they're unhappy (OWS).  When questioned about what they actually want, they claim "raising awareness" to obscure the fact that this is just an emotional outburst and they really haven't bothered to think it through that far.  They hope everyone will ignore the fact that in this age of constant information, their cause is not actually anywhere close to obscure.

Colin Kaepernick has a college degree.  He should be able to work out some specific actions he would like to see taken.

He is also old enough to understand that he had the power to put the establishment to work for him by leveraging his celebrity.  His notoriety would have given him access to virtually ANY political figure, including Barack Obama.  His passion for a social cause, combined with his lack of arrest record would have given the NFL a fantastic distraction from the continual news stream of players embarrassing the league.

Kaepernick could have actually accomplished things, but instead chose a path of petulance.  He could have engaged the most powerful allies in the world.  Instead, he chose a path of antagonism.

The google search for Kaepernick's foundation would have taken you less time then it took you to type that fucking comment. Do y'all get a set a steak knives if you get someone else to do your 'adulting' for you? 

One of their favorite and most enduring diversion tactics is to demand that someone else find information for them.  If we're suckered in to doing that it only results in them dismissing the facts when they're presented to them. 'Twas ever thus and 'tis still. 

Obviously neither do you, or you'd have quoted him here.  What people "care about" is evident in their actions.  Clearly what you "care about" is hurling angry liberal abuse at people who see things differently than you do.  You've been given several chances to make/support an actual point, and you have declined.  

Actually, your comments make my point for me. Y'all make proclamations based on nothing but your ideology and are unwilling [afraid?] to READ a different perspective. 

You and others have opined that the NFL player protests are ineffectual because their purpose is too vague or they haven't used their celebrity/money to have a REAL effect. You and others post these opinions with NO actual KNOWLEDGE about what the players, and Kaepernick in particular, are ACTUALLY doing and saying. 

You and others have demanded that I explain Kaepernick's Foundation's purpose and in some cases PROVE that it's made a difference. You and others want me to post quotes from him about what he's doing and why he is doing it and even post my interpretation of his motives. 

Over the last couple of days, I have encouraged you and others to go to his Foundations website, READ it and decide for yourselves. Instead of doing so, you and others merely keep replying to me with demands that I spoon feed y'all information. 

When I was a kid, my parents bought me a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica so that I could find the answers to questions myself. It spurred a love for books, reading, research and CRITICAL thinking. Before the advent of the internet, I accumulated enumerable books on History, Philosophy, Building, Science, Horticulture, Farming and Art. I've read Political tomes from both sides of the isle, from Ollie North to Bill Moyers. 

Now, I have the knowledge of the human race at my beck and call. Though I return to my beloved books on occasion, I rely on the internet to quench my curiosity but I NEVER rely on one expert to teach me how to do something and I NEVER rely one side to educate me on an issue. 

I know that those here on the right won't believe this but I come by my beliefs through education and information, not sycophantic ideology. 

While I have read some very informative conservative POV here on NT, they are few and far between. I vet ALL of the information I read here, even that posted from a liberal POV. I check out the original authors of seeds, I check the agenda of their publishers. In some cases, I end up reading multiple articles by the author [even the conservative ones] just out of curiosity. 

Which brings me to my point, curiosity. Over the last couple of days, you and others have proven that you aren't actually curious about this issue. In FACT, I don't think y'all see it as an issue at all, you merely want to garner talking points that you can shout into your echo chamber. That is a game that I am unwilling to play.

So post your personal attacks, write me off as an uncaring, rabid liberal and pout because I won't play your game by your rules.

As the adult in the room, it effects me not at all. 

I have encouraged you and others to go to his Foundations website

If you were really encouraging people to visit a website, you'd post a freaking LINK to it.

[Deleted]

Actually, your comments make my point for me.

No.  They don't.  But apparently you need somebody else to make it for you.

You and others have demanded that I explain Kaepernick's Foundation's purpose and in some cases PROVE that it's made a difference.

We ask that you get better at making an actual point, yes.  BTW, the foundation has never been part of the discussion.  Nor is it part of the protests.

You and others want me to post quotes from him about what he's doing and why he is doing it and even post my interpretation of his motives. 

No.  We ask you to state his demands.  Which you still haven't done.  

Over the last couple of days, I have encouraged you and others to go to his Foundations website, READ it and decide for yourselves. Instead of doing so, you and others merely keep replying to me with demands that I spoon feed y'all information. 

Your point = your citation.  That's how this has always worked.  

When I was a kid, my parents bought me a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica so that I could find the answers to questions myself. It spurred a love for books, reading, research and CRITICAL thinking. Before the advent of the internet, I accumulated enumerable books on History, Philosophy, Building, Science, Horticulture, Farming and Art. I've read Political tomes from both sides of the isle, from Ollie North to Bill Moyers.  Now, I have the knowledge of the human race at my beck and call. Though I return to my beloved books on occasion, I rely on the internet to quench my curiosity but I NEVER rely on one expert to teach me how to do something and I NEVER rely one side to educate me on an issue. 

And you still can't assert or substantiate a point.

I know that those here on the right won't believe this but I come by my beliefs through education and information, not sycophantic ideology. 

Why would any of us give a shit where your beliefs come from?  Either you can back them up or you can't.   Get on with it.

Which brings me to my point,

AT LAST.

curiosity.

Well that was disappointing.

Over the last couple of days, you and others have proven that you aren't actually curious about this issue.

Really?  After all this...THAT is your takeaway?  Have you read ANY of what's been posted?  

In FACT, I don't think y'all see it as an issue at all,

Let me see if I can be clearer about this.  Although I doubt you're going to bother to read this far.  This "issue" is well beyond the "raising awareness" stage.  It's well past time to get to the "developing a solution" stage.  So it's time to stop whining and GTF on with it.  Until then, we're all bored. 

 Even if it were still on the "raising awareness" stage, Twitter is a real thing.  Press conferences are a real thing.  

So post your personal attacks, write me off as an uncaring, rabid liberal and pout because I won't play your game by your rules.

"Uncaring" is not a criticism, much less an attack.  I would not expect you to care.  I do expect you to back up your assertions.

I do expect you to back up your assertions.

I only have two assertions.

1. that Kaepernick is his best spokesman and that his Foundation's website, which takes seconds to find online, can inform anyone who ACTUALLY gives a shit about his position and what he's doing about it. 

2. that you and others would rather whine ad nauseum than to go to his website and READ it for yourself. 

Over the last couple of days, y'all have PROVEN #2 and those that give a shit can prove #1 to themselves. 

I see 99% of the discussion about this focused on the nature of the protest itself and not the reasons behind it

Can't argue that statement, which agrees with my original post.  Where, when, if, how this plays out I don't think anyone (including myself) has a clue.

Glad we agree.  The who's, where's, how's and why's are irrelevant to my original post which was that the publics attention has been captured.  If you want to talk about the rest of it I'm sure there are others out there willing to accommodate you

I only have two assertions.

OK then.  

1. that Kaepernick is his best spokesman and that his Foundation's website, which takes seconds to find online, can inform anyone who ACTUALLY gives a shit about his position and what he's doing about it.

If the goal is to complain, yes...he's the best spokesman.  If the goal is to actually do something, then obviously not.

2. that you and others would rather whine ad nauseum than to go to his website and READ it for yourself. 

I have no intention of going to his website, because as I've declared before, I will start to care when proposals are made.

If the goal is to actually do something, then obviously not.

How can it be obvious to you when you've admitted that you don't know what he's doing and don't actually care? 

I have no intention of going to his website, because as I've declared before, I will start to care when proposals are made.

Thank you for FINALLY admitting that even though you've demanded that I state his demands multiple times, you have no actual desire to know what they are. 

I still wonder just how you expect to be informed of these proposals you demand. I suppose there's always osmosis...though you can still hold out for bedtime stories...

BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but the seed includes a visual aid that should give some insight...

Thank you for FINALLY admitting

Not the first time.   Been saying it for almost 3 days now.

So you're not only not willing to put forth the effort to cite anything, you're unwilling to even read other people's comments.  Niiiice.

Not the first time. Been saying it for almost 3 days now.

Three days of demanding information that you admit you view as irrelevant shows a total lack of good faith.

Well done. 

So you're not only not willing to put forth the effort to cite anything, you're unwilling to even read other people's comments.  Niiiice.

I DID cite the existence of a website for Kaepernick's Foundation, MULTIPLE times. It is you who isn't willing to put forth the effort to find it and review it. 

Three days of demanding information that you admit you view as irrelevant shows a total lack of good faith. Well done. 

You're still not citing any demands.  Is this because you can't be bothered or because there aren't any?

I DID cite the existence of a website for Kaepernick's Foundation, MULTIPLE times. It is you who isn't willing to put forth the effort to find it and review it. 

That's not how citation works.  You don't say "there is a source somewhere that says this...you should go check it out".  You include what that source says with documentation about where to verify that you're not making it up.

You're still not citing any demands.  Is this because you can't be bothered or because there aren't any?

Talk about not reading comments. Exactly WTF makes you think I should waste my time on posting links to information that you don't give a fuck about? All you really want is for me to relent and post a link and all I want you to do is 'adult' for yourself.

You choose not to and therefore shouldn't pretend that your opinion about the issue is informed. 

That's not how citation works. You don't say "there is a source somewhere that says this...you should go check it out". You include what that source says with documentation about where to verify that you're not making it up.

Yet I didn't say that the 'source says this', did I Jack?

I said the source is Kaepernick's Foundation website that contains the proposals and actions that are being taken and that you don't actually give a fuck about. I haven't stated what those proposals or actions are, I merely stated they EXIST and are readily available for anyone that isn't too fucking lazy to do a 3 second search for the Foundation's website. 

I have to thank you and others here for being so willing to help me prove that the outrage about the protests isn't being proffered by people that are willing to become informed before they opine about the motivations and effectiveness of the protests. 

Your assertion = your citation.

Rules haven't changed just because you're too lazy to post a link.

But if we pretend for a moment that such proposals actually exist...that makes my point even more effectively.  Why wouldn't a Super Bowl quarterback use his massive celebrity to pick up the phone and get things rolling?

I wonder if conservatives have ever not whined about the method of protest and instead discussed the reasons black folks are protesting civil rights abuses?    That's certainly never happened in my lifetime. 

Hell some us black folks don't even protest and have never protested or plan on protesting.

And your point is what exactly?

Your assertion = your citation. Rules haven't changed just because you're too lazy to post a link.

Exactly HOW would my posting the link PROVE my assertion that the information is available at a website that y'all are too lazy to look up?

BTFW, YOU and others have already proven my assertion. 

But if we pretend for a moment that such proposals actually exist...that makes my point even more effectively.  Why wouldn't a Super Bowl quarterback use his massive celebrity to pick up the phone and get things rolling?

Exactly how do you know that hasn't happened? Osmosis? It obviously can't have been garnered from any research you've done on the subject. 

Hell some us black folks don't even protest and have never protested or plan on protesting.

Yes, there are many who are more than willing to merely stand on the shoulders of those who have fought for the freedoms they enjoy. 

I wonder if conservatives have ever not whined about the method of protest and instead discussed the reasons black folks are protesting civil rights abuses?    That's certainly never happened in my lifetime. 

Or you've never noticed it.

But OK...if you want to chime in...maybe you can help outline what exactly they want in order to end this "protest".

A protest without a demand isn't a protest.  It's a tantrum.  So for example..... Oklahoma teachers protesting for better pay = "protest".  OWS = "tantrum".

As I've already said, I personally don't care what they do.  I think the objections to their actions are somewhere between strange and idiotic.  If they want to take a knee for something as simple as saving energy for the upcoming game, it's a free country.  (Or at least it's a free country as long as Bernie Sanders isn't in the WH.)  That's what that flag actually represents, so claiming it's "disrespectful" to the flag for exercising the very FIRST right symbolized by that flag is stupid on a whole new level.

My criticism has nothing to do with whatever they're upset about.  It's about them being pathetically stereotypical Millennials, who want to pout and create drama and demand somebody else fix a problem they could have solved by now.

I don't mind if they stay on a knee.  I just think they should get off their asses.

Yes, there are many who are more than willing to merely stand on the shoulders of those who have fought for the freedoms they enjoy.

Orrr..... in the real world.....

There are many who are more than willing to exercise the freedoms they enjoy and solve problems without first throwing a tantrum.

But OK...if you want to chime in...maybe you can help outline what exactly they want in order to end this "protest".

" Illegitimate or unwarranted racial disparity in the criminal justice system results from the dissimilar treatment of similarly situated people based on race. In some instances this may involve overt racial bias, while in others it may reflect the influence of factors that are only indirectly associated with race. Moreover, in some cases disparity results from unguarded, individual- or institution-level decisions that are race-based. Structural racism, derived from the longstanding differential treatment of those with characteristics highly correlated with race (e.g., poverty) can cause or aggravate racial disparity as well."

• The widely-discussed phenomenon of “driving while black” illustrates the potential abuse of discretion by law enforcement. A two-year study of 13,566 officer-initiated traffic stops in a Midwestern city revealed that minority drivers were stopped at a higher rate than whites and were also searched for contraband at a higher rate than their white counterparts. Yet, officers were no more likely to find contraband on minority motorists than white motorists.

• A New York state study found that minorities charged with felonies were more likely to be detained than whites. The researchers concluded that 10 percent of minorities detained in New York City and 33 percent in other parts of the state would have been released prior to arraignment if minorities were detained at the rate of comparably situated whites.

• Thirty-eight percent of prison and jail inmates are African American, 5 compared to their 13% percent share of the overall population.

• Latinos constitute 19% of the prison and jail population 7 compared to their 15% share of the population.

• A black male born in 2001 has a 32% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life, a Hispanic male has a 17% chance, and a white male has a 6% chance.

While African American youth represent 17% of their age group within the general population, they represent:

• 46% of juvenile arrests

• 31% of referrals to juvenile court

• 41% of waivers to adult court

While some claim that minority overrepresentation in the justice system is solely the result of people of color committing more crime, empirical analyses do not support this claim. One scholar recently reviewed 32 state-level studies of the decision to incarcerate and length of sentence imposed, and concluded that there is ample evidence among these studies that, controlling for other relevant factors, African Americans and Latinos are more likely to be incarcerated than whites and, in some jurisdictions, receive longer sentences.

In 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court set aside the death sentence in a Texas case in which the offender’s Hispanic origin had been presented by the state as an indicator of likely “future dangerousness”—an aggravating factor which recommended a sentence of death instead of life in prison. An audit by the Texas Attorney General’s office found eight other cases that may be similar regarding testimony in capital punishment sentencing of blacks and Latinos.

sentencingproject

So to answer your question, they want equality in the justice system, they want to have the law apply the same to everyone and not feel like they are pre-selected for extra scrutiny, punishment and use of deadly force by police simply based upon their race.

Thank you for the link. 

"Equality" is a vague and emotional concept.   "Equality in the justice system" measured how?  On what metrics, over what time period, on whose data, hitting what interval targets? 

While this list of concerns is certainly a start, it's not actually an answer to my question.  We are well past the "problem identification" phase of this issue.  We need actionable, measurable items.

So let me rephrase the question:

What specific, measurable things would these players need to see in order to end their "protest"?  Follow up question....  Have THEY actually outlined any such demands, and if so, where?

I don't mind if they stay on a knee.  I just think they should get off their asses.

I'm sure they're terribly concerned that a white conservative objects to their manner of protest, but I suspect they've heard that whiny refrain many times before.

I'm sure they're terribly concerned that a white conservative objects to their manner of protest, but I suspect they've heard that whiny refrain many times before.

I suspect they are more concerned about white conservative views than I am about their tantrum or your poorly executed racist wind-ups.  They are attempting to get attention, after all.

I doubt black folks have ever held much hope that white conservatives would address racial injustice.

I doubt black folks have ever held much hope that white conservatives would address racial injustice.

Don't know many black folks, do you?  Or white conservatives, apparently.

It's very revealing how the lone black Republican in the Senate is the only conservative there who supports honoring McCain rather than honoring a white supremacist.

nbcnews

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

  Punishing players, censoring them if they wish to protest in this manner, is tyranny.

It is yet another distraction and a dog whistle to his supporters 

And President Don doesn't like rats either!

Um, no, it isn't.

An employer has the right to expect certain things from an employee, and the NFL passed rules declaring what those actions should be in regards to the national anthem.

The other major sports already had policies in place so it isn't an issue for them.

Punishing players, censoring them if they wish to protest in this manner, is tyranny.

Oh good grief.

I can't think of any Republican today capable of giving the wise and accurate analysis on this issue which O'Rourke did, if for no other reason than they're afraid of offending their white supremacist base.

Exactly.

Once we integrate the notion that the GOP is White-Supremecy-lite, most political posturing is easily intelligible.

The Real Problem: The Militarization of the NFL

Before 2009, Colin Kaepernick would have had to find some other way to protest racism against African Americans.  That’s because until the height of the Iraq War, NFL football players  weren’t even required to leave the locker room  for the national anthem, much less stand for it.

Players kneeling, or "not honoring" the flag, is nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the real issues affecting peoples lives. 

Conservatives use “patriotic correctness” to regulate speech, behavior and acceptable opinions.

Conservatives love to diss political correctness, but they have their own form, "patriotic correctness". Enforcing patriotism is no better than enforcing slavery. In fact, it is the same thing. It is the demand of slavish kowtowing. It is the demand of slavish fawning. It is the demand that you stay in your place. It is the demand of one who feels they have the divine right to rule. 

It is in the end, demeaning. 

he thought the invasion and occupation were “fucking illegal.”

Even that revered NFL player Pat Tillman thought the fight was illegal. All the whining about kneeling players isn't about patriotism, it is about feeding the war pig. It is about being "not me". As though I am supposed to be a clone of you. 

NFL football players  weren’t even required to leave the locker room  for the national anthem, much less stand for it.

That's right. They did it anyway, though.

Your point being?

The anthem is supposed to be two minutes when we're all together as Americans. For 70 years, nobody had a problem with that, including the players. Players being on the sideline for the anthem didn't start in 2009 and it wasn't part of some conspiracy. So much has been written implying that players standing for the anthem is some new slavery-like thing. It's not. It's a rich, old tradition.

Therefore, when we complain about people messing with that, it's legitimate. It's not political and it's not racist. In fact, it's the opposite. The players have taken something that was racially and politically neutral and soiled it with political protest.

West Virginia v. Barnette: The freedom to not pledge allegiance

Seems to me that the logic of the above case, decided in 1943, applies to the scenario of the anthem. 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised religious persecution. As such, it is inconsistent with our Constitution's plan and purpose.

It is the right that wants people to be able to behave according to their "sincerely held beliefs", but apparently, that only extends to those who are members of a certain group of those who hold 'correct' beliefs.  

Seems to me that the logic of the above case, decided in 1943, applies to the scenario of the anthem. 

How? The government isn't forcing them to say a pledge. Their employers are just asking them stand and not make a spectacle of themselves while we listen to the anthem? What is so hard about standing and not being a pain in the ass while you're at work?

It is the right that wants people to be able to behave according to their "sincerely held beliefs"

Yeah - beliefs we all shared up until a handful of people had to ruin it a couple years ago. Note that we're asking for behavior, not belief - and pretty easy behavior at that: just stand. They don't have to put their hand over their heart or sing along. Just stand. Whatever they privately think is their own affair.

If they asked for a moment of silence (e.g., to honor some dead person), it would be pretty rude for them to start talking, right? Same deal.

It's a rich, old tradition.

That started in 2009. 

How is silently kneeling creating a spectacle?

Nope, not the same deal at all 

What are these beliefs that we all share?

Their employers are just asking them stand and not make a spectacle of themselves while we listen to the anthem? What is so hard about standing and not being a pain in the ass while you're at work?

Well, let''s begin with this. The NFL isn't just any old company, it is a government sanctioned monopoly, as is baseball. The policy, currently on hold, gives players two options, stay out of sight or behave like we tell you to. In the vernacular of my generation, children are to be seen and not heard. As to the logic of the case, I thought it was rather succinct in the quote from the case: no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

beliefs we all shared up until a handful of people had to ruin it a couple years ago.

Apparently you know nothing of the 60s and 70s. I do, I come from that generation. This isn't a new thing, this isn't a new fight. This has been going on for a generation or more. Again, the right wants its orthodoxy enforced and is pissed that it isn't. Of course, the left has its own orthodoxy, but that isn't a part of this thread is it?

Yeah - beliefs we all shared up until a handful of people had to ruin it a couple years ago.

That's a rather naive and erroneous statement.   Kind of arrogant too.

.

Note that we're asking for behavior, not belief - and pretty easy behavior at that: just stand. They don't have to put their hand over their heart or sing along. Just stand. Whatever they privately think is their own affair.

I generally don't stand for exactly that reason.    I hate both fake patriotism and coerced nationalism.    The bonus is that it pisses off RWNJs.

Do you think everyone that stands for the anthem is faking patriotism?

No, but that doesn't change the fact that as a group activity it's a display of reactionary nationalism.

I hate both fake patriotism and coerced nationalism

I don't think you're qualified to question people's feelings of patriotism and nationalism. Do you hate America so much that you think large crowds of people can't genuinely love this country?

That started in 2009.

No it's actually been going on since World War II. You'd know that if you paid any attention at all to the things other people post. I replied to you (above) and posted two videos of NFL games before 2009 with players standing on the sidelines during the national anthem. The only thing that changed in 2009 was that TV networks wanted to make sure the players were out there for their broadcasts during primetime.

Do you hate America so much that you think large crowds of people can't genuinely love this country?

You cannot have a display of genuine love for country if people are forced, either through an employer or general crowd peer pressure, to act a certain way to display it. And the fact is, taking a knee is a sign of respect to many. When praying many people kneel, when proposing marriage, it's customary to take a knee. If someones tiny brain objects to someone kneeling during the anthem, then maybe they should view it as an American proposing to their country. The proposal of these players is "Wouldn't we be an even more perfect union if justice was truly blind and there weren't such huge racial disparities in our justice system?". I think their proposal is a good thing and only causes pain to those who want to continue ignoring the injustice or, worse yet, are the proponents of such worthless racist hatred.

You'd know that if you paid any attention at all to the things other people post.

I AM paying attention to what YOU post:

Players being on the sideline for the anthem didn't start in 2009 and it wasn't part of some conspiracy.

Yep, that was you. 

I don't think you're qualified to question people's feelings of patriotism and nationalism.

' Do you hate America so much that you think large crowds of people can't genuinely love this country?'

What complete and utter rubbish.  

Hate America?

[Removed]

These larges crowds of people I imagine do love this country but it proves nothing by standing for the anthem, nothing whatsoever, zip, zilch, nada, zero, diddly squat.  

Yeah...they were out there on the sidelines....scratching their balls, picking their noses, looking at their phones....doing anything but acknowledging that the National Anthem was playing.

And people in the stands were milling around scratching their balls, picking their noses, looking at their phones...doing anything but acknowledging that the National Anthem was playing.

But now you'd better STAND! You'd better be SINGING ALONG! But only if you're wearing a foot ball uniform. Funny how nobody gets pissed about the fans not doing standing.

The NFL isn't just any old company, it is a government sanctioned monopoly, as is baseball. The policy, currently on hold, gives players two options, stay out of sight or behave like we tell you to. In the vernacular of my generation, children are to be seen and not heard. As to the logic of the case, I thought it was rather succinct in the quote from the case: no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

The NFL is a private employer, enforcing a code of conduct in the workplace.

The NFL is a private employer, enforcing a code of conduct in the workplace.

The NFL is a private employer of UNIONIZED workers who are organized under a contract which has been negotiated between the two parties. NO such 'code' was part of the current contract. 

The NFL is a private employer of UNIONIZED workers who are organized under a contract which has been negotiated between the two parties.

Correct.

NO such 'code' was part of the current contract. 

I have no idea and don't care.  But as we agree it's a private employer, it's clear that a case involving the West Virginia School Board does not apply. 

15 U.S. Code § 1291 - Exemption from antitrust laws of agreements covering the telecasting of sports contests and the combining of professional football leagues

They are still monopolies, private employer or not. It were not for the exemption, we would not even be having this discussion.

See my post above about the military paying for patriotism.