Colin Kaepernick Deserves Nobel Peace Prize, Back Pay, Apology, His Job

[sealybobo]

I really had no intentions of filing initially! Convo sent to you! ;-)

You get that money!!! LOL. Yes, file at 62. That way if you die at 66, you got 5 years of payments.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, the same Newbies that said they "had no opinion on Roe v Wade! Never even discussed it in college!" LIARS all and probably should be impeached, but it won't happen!

They are Heritage Foundation Judges. This Foundation is hell bent on banning abortion.

Attorneys general in nearly a dozen states and the District of Columbia have joined locally elected prosecutors from states across the country in pledging not to prosecute those who provide or receive abortions if their state legislature criminalizes the procedure.

Enforcing Anti-Abortion Laws Is Neither Pro-Life Nor Pro-Choice. It’s Rule of Law.

Even before a leaked draft opinion indicated that the Supreme Court might overrule its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision creating a right to abortion, a growing number of liberal prosecutors throughout the country appeared determined to protect abortion anyway. Their strategy? Refusing to do their job.

www.heritage.org

They join 68 prosecutors who published a statement, dated October 2020, which characterizes seeking an abortion as a woman’s “personal … choice” about “[her] own health care” and performing an abortion as “treatment” by doctors.

The statement refers to abortion simply as an “issue” without mentioning, as even the Supreme Court did in Roe, the unborn child that an abortion kills.

Thirteen states have enacted laws to criminalize abortion if and when the Supreme Court reverses Roe. Five states have pre-Roe abortion prohibitions that would come back into effect as well, according to The New York Times.

Whether these laws are recent or long-standing, limited or broad, these prosecutors have already pledged not to enforce them before they have even gone into effect.

Their attempt to suggest legitimate reasons for such a blanket dereliction of duty is hardly persuasive. They claim, for example, that they lack resources to pursue such cases, but have no evidence to back that up because none of these laws is yet in effect.

And even speculation about the resources that would be needed would not justify a blanket refusal to enforce any of these laws.

This is not the first time liberal prosecutors have refused to enforce laws they don’t like. Many refuse to prosecute crimes ranging from drug possession to prostitution to threats including domestic violence.

Indeed, cities with rogue prosecutors have seen significant spikes in crime, yet the district attorneys ignore the pleas of their constituents, favoring lawbreakers over the law-abiding.

On the abortion issue, prosecutors not only ignore laws that have been enacted by refusing to enforce them, but effectively argue that those laws should not have been enacted in the first place.

“No matter what the law in Virginia says, I will not prosecute a woman for having an abortion, or for being suspected of inducing one,” wrote Steve Descano, commonwealth’s attorney for Fairfax County, Virginia, in a recent New York Times op-ed.

By effectively neutralizing entire categories of laws, these rogue prosecutors are treating the lawmakers responsible for them—and the people who elected them—as though they simply don’t exist.

They have single-handedly replaced our system of government—with the separation of powers and elected legislatures—with one of their own making. Prosecutors have discretion over how to perform the duties, including enforcing duly enacted laws in individual cases. Refusing to enforce entire categories of laws, especially before they are even in effect, looks more like a way of neutralizing the legislature’s power to enact those laws.

Any middle-schooler (at least where civics is still taught) knows this. If prosecutors want to determine what our laws are, they should run for the legislature.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. “[Roe v. Wade] and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

That is where that authority belongs. This issue, therefore, is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. This isn’t about politics or party. Demanding that prosecutors do their job is simply the rule of law.

 

[Fiero425]

You get that money!!! LOL. Yes, file at 62. That way if you die at 66, you got 5 years of payments.

I'm the 2nd oldest male in my family! I think my 30 yrs of playing & teaching tennis really helped!

 

[sealybobo]

I'm the 2nd oldest male in my family! I think my 30 yrs of playing & teaching tennis really helped!

Get an Ebike. Sure it's easier than a regular bike but you will also go 40 miles in 1 ride compared to 10 if you have a regular bike. And if you can go 20 on a regular bike, excuse me, you can go 60 on a Ebike. Point is you'll go farther faster and have more fun and get a little exercise in.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm the 2nd oldest male in my family! I think my 30 yrs of playing & teaching tennis really helped!

And don't tell me you can't afford it. You have at least an extra $1400 a month burning a hole in your pocket.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'll be honest. If he was good enough, owners wouldn't have boycotted him to maybe be a 2nd or 3rd stringer. No team wanted the negative attention associated with a guy who does that and embarrasses them. I don't blame them for not giving him a chance as a backup qb.

You telling me he wouldn't have been a great back up qb?

Throughout the history of the NFL, among all 186 quarterbacks to record at least 1,500 attempts throughout their careers, Colin Kaepernick ranks fifth-best in passing touchdown to interception ratio

but

among all quarterbacks with 1,500 dropbacks, no quarterback has been sacked more often than Kaepernick, getting sacked on 8.3 percent of his dropbacks.

Because Kaep was a run first QB, teams had to have a different playbook than a true drop back QB, Wilson and RG3 were the only other two with QBs that fit that style, RG3 was hurt and never regained his position, Wilson turned out well however has ran less and less over the years, especially after Lynch became less effective.

It is easier for team to adapt to the drop back style for a second team than to change style completely from a drop back starter to running QB. Most teams run the drop back style while only a couple use the running QB as it is tough for a QB to maintain that set while taking a weekly beating. You see very few run first QBs in the NFL as backups. I was hoping he could compete for longer but once he lost the starting spot, it was going to be tough to keep him, kneeling or not.

 

[Correll]

People like you say if they didn't take out for social security, you'd do better with that money investing it on your own. Come on pal give us a fucking break. None of you are saving now. The corporations got you spending all your disposable income so fast. Did you fly or drive somewhere far this 4th of July like every other dumb fucking American? Well if you refuse to tighten the purse strings, of course prices are going to go up. And when you guys will pay whatever they ask, of course they'll continue to raise prices.

You wouldn't even stay home for a pandemic. So to ask you to stay home in order to lower gas? Forget about it. It is what it is. Seems most Americans are fine with $5 a gallon gas.

Americans are hitting the roads and skies in numbers not seen since before the pandemic to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday weekend.

The mass of travelers for the holiday, also known as Independence Day, is testing airlines and airports, which have struggled to keep up with demand.

Hundreds of flights were canceled Friday and thousands more were delayed, according to the flight tracking site, FlightAware.

More than 2.4 million travelers got an early start to the weekend, making their way through Transportation Security Administration checkpoints. That surpassed levels from before the pandemic in 2019 and was 13.8% higher than the number of travelers last year, according to TSA data.

Travel by car is also expected to be heavy.

The auto membership group, AAA, predicts 47.9 million people will travel 50 miles or more from home over the holiday weekend. That is slightly less than the number of travelers in 2019 but comes despite near-record high gas prices.

None of that actually supports your claim I asked you to support.


And fyi, I did NOT travel for the 4th. Stayed local and had a nice time. And not because I care about gas prices or the "pandemic".

 

[sealybobo]

Do you have anything to support this concept.

You’ll see. You don’t think social security is unconstitutional? Have republicans been warning us not to count on social security being there? They warned you dope. So you can’t see them cutting ss in order to save the program?

And you will have supported it. Voted for it. You’ll see.

 

[Couchpotato]

Initially it was supposed to be a benefit for "the coal miners" of the country IIRC! It was extended to help our economy by retiring people too old to work everyday who had no savings! That opened up jobs for younger folks around the time of the Great Depresssion which we created on our own! It's amazing how we cut our own throats over the yrs with just a handful of losers thinking they're helping morality! IDIOTS; ALL!

Nope you recall incorrectly. SS was signed by FDR in 35 to pay everyone over 65 a pension. It was a way for the Government to collect more in taxes that would be acceptable to the public. It was a scam. The life expectancy in 35 was under 60 so it was baked in that most people would pay in and never collect. The reason it no longer works is because the age you can start collecting hasnt risen along with the life expectancy. If we raised the benefit age to 75 SS would have plenty of money.

 

[Couchpotato]

You’ll see. You don’t think social security is unconstitutional? Have republicans been warning us not to count on social security being there? They warned you dope. So you can’t see them cutting ss in order to save the program?

And you will have supported it. Voted for it. You’ll see.

Because in its current form it’s unsustainable ya dope. “At some point you run out if other peoples money”

 

[Fiero425]

Because in its current form it’s unsustainable ya dope. “At some point you run out of other people's money.”

Well it would help if we didn't have so many stealing it! Fake claims, benefits sent to dead bodies, etc.! That's the American way so it'll be "on the people" if it fails! Politicians should also get a dishonorable mention as they play football with the system! At my age, I just don't GAF anymore! We're going to "burn it all down" eventually; might as well do it sooner rather than later! You'll be happier I'm sure!

 

[monkrules]

I'll say it again, I stand with the kneelers!

am I anti the white folk, I am white, but I realize what the wars were about , we are free to protest. We are a democracy, but a piss poor one.

"We are a democracy , but a piss poor one."

No one's holding a gun to your head. You're free to leave as soon as you can pack a few rags.

Bon Voyage!!!

 

[Correll]

You’ll see. You don’t think social security is unconstitutional? Have republicans been warning us not to count on social security being there? They warned you dope. So you can’t see them cutting ss in order to save the program?

And you will have supported it. Voted for it. You’ll see.

Nope. I see dems cutting it. They will pretend nothing is wrong, right up till they can't print the money fast enough. Then they will blame the republicans and cut it.

 

[sealybobo]

Because in its current form it’s unsustainable ya dope. “At some point you run out if other peoples money”

And those will be the types of arguments you make in defense of it. That's ok. You warned us like 40 years ago. Don't expect it to be there. And you defended/supported/voted for it. Sucker.

 

[Couchpotato]

And those will be the types of arguments you make in defense of it. That's ok. You warned us like 40 years ago. Don't expect it to be there. And you defended/supported/voted for it. Sucker.

Defense of what? Defense of the fact that the Government is a horrible place to put your money as a retirement plan? Sure that's an easy one. The only sucker is you thinking that SS is somehow good for you. I dont know how much you make but if you make 50k a year your whole life and invested what you and your employer are paying the Government in SS taxes you'd have 1.8 million dollars on a 6% return when you retire at 68. Don't worry though you'd only have to live another 88 years to get that amount out of the Government in SS. Just the principle of 279k is 13 years worth of SS payments. You're better off stuffing your mattress with that money than giving it to the Government. At least if you died before your 81 your relatives could use the money to pay for the funeral.

Social Security should be ended not because it's unconstitutional but because it's a horrible program prevents the poorest of our nation from building wealth. Everyone keeps talking about wealth redistribution? This is a poor people to government wealth redistribution plan and it's worked for decades. The sad thing is people like you have been convinced it's a savior of the poor.

Oh not to mention the fact that SS sucked 1.2 trillion dollars out of the economy.

 

[Couchpotato]

Fiero425

What do you disagree with exactly? The numbers are the numbers.