NFL kneelers

[Reasonable]

The only question is whether this incompetent racist prez is too stupid to understand why the players are protesting or just using this opportunity to do what he always does.
To divide America.

 

[Pogo]

Of course, that’s what conservatives do: they attempt to contrive non-issues into an ‘issue’ in a failed attempt to deflect from their own failed, wrongheaded policies.

Conservatives would rather have Americans arguing about ‘kneeling’ rather than focusing on Trump’s failed ‘administration.’

And propagating a ridiculous non-issue such as ‘kneeling’ is an ideal way for conservatives to attempt to divide Americans concerning race, and to exploit racial tensions to the political benefit of Republicans.

I have to say, it is an important issue insofar as it's resistance to forced mob mentality. That resistance must thrive, else we descend into fascism. True, there is no valid argument in favor of that mob mentality, but it also cannot go unanswered.

And yes the whole game does seem to be a thinly-disguised racism. I've read way more times than I could count how these ungrateful 'thugs' don't appreciate the country that gives them an avenue out of the ghetto and how cops don't mistreat black people, on and on and on, but I have yet to hear any complaints about the white players kneeling in solidarity with them.

 

[Pogo]

The only question is whether this incompetent racist prez is too stupid to understand why the players are protesting or just using this opportunity to do what he always does.
To divide America.

I think he understands perfectly, and that's his whole purpose. It's been his whole schtick as long as he's been alive. You could trace it all the way back to when he punched his music teacher out. A born asshole.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then again, posts about slavery and secession may very well be on topic.

The right’s unjustified animosity toward African-American players engaging lawful, peaceful protest is predicated on conservatives’ contempt for the issue being protested: the unwarranted killing of young black men by law enforcement – something conservatives reject as a legitimate issue to protest and something conservatives reject as being a problem altogether.

The conditions that exist today which facilitate unwarranted police killings of young black men can be traced back to slavery, its consequences, and a Nation once divided by war over the issue of race and slavery – conditions and consequences also rejected by conservatives as a contributing factor to the deaths of young black men at the hands of law enforcement.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You’re a full fledged idiot. The 1st was created so all Americans could have free speech something your president is working daily to curtail and then do away with. That you turn a blind eye to this shows you’re part of the problem not the solution.

I always find it amusing when a poster who cannot grasp concepts calls somebody ELSE the idiot.

This idiot is trying to tell us the 1st really isn’t about free speech.
A deplorable?
You betcha!

My goodness, three responses to the same post. Did you slip up when you registered here and said "reasonable" instead of "hysterical school girl?

The truth of the matter is that the notion of free speech frames the relationship between the government and the individual and does not regulate what transpires in private business. I own my own business and if an employee's behavior brought discredit to my business, I have every right to terminate their employment.

If football players wish to honor thug culture by showing disrespect for our flag, they have every right as long as it is in the public sphere. They can act out like children all they wish on their own time. As long as they are representing their employer, however, they do not have the right to act out unless their employer allows it.

As far as Trump, he ALSO has the right to free speech. He could congratulate them on their support for thug culture, ignore it altogether or criticize it. That is HIS free speech and that free speech includes lambasting the nfl for their stance. What he DOESNT have the right to do is arrest the players who are acting out or arrest the owners. That WOULD be illegal, as he has no authority to do so

Are you even out of your teens yet? You rant and rave, but you have no understanding of the basic civics you should have learned in middle school. Perhaps if you worked a little harder at bringing yourself up to basic educational competency and a little less on conforming to the extreme left orthodoxy, it might do you some good.

 

[Pogo]

Of course, that’s what conservatives do: they attempt to contrive non-issues into an ‘issue’ in a failed attempt to deflect from their own failed, wrongheaded policies.

Conservatives would rather have Americans arguing about ‘kneeling’ rather than focusing on Trump’s failed ‘administration.’

And propagating a ridiculous non-issue such as ‘kneeling’ is an ideal way for conservatives to attempt to divide Americans concerning race, and to exploit racial tensions to the political benefit of Republicans.

I have to say, it is an important issue insofar as it's resistance to forced mob mentality. That resistance must thrive, else we descend into fascism. True, there is no valid argument in favor of that mob mentality, but it also cannot go unanswered.

And yes the whole game does seem to be a thinly-disguised racism. I've read way more times than I could count how these ungrateful 'thugs' don't appreciate the country that gives them an avenue out of the ghetto and how cops don't mistreat black people, on and on and on, but I have yet to hear any complaints about the white players kneeling in solidarity with them.

----- and there it is again just above: "Thug culture". Thinly veiled indeed.

If football players wish to honor thug culture by showing disrespect for our flag

Noteworthy also how he painstakingly transmutes into the same crutch "disrespect for our flag" they've been trying to prop up on. Yet another manifestation of the rhetorical fascism that declares "THEY can't tell me what they mean --- *I* will tell them what they mean! " Trés amusant.

And telling how they take a mandatory prayer to Sky Cloth, coupled with the traditional posture FOR prayer --- and then try to Doublethink that into its own opposite.

Again --

• Supplicant kneels in prayer = humility before God
• Subject knees before king = submission to authority
• Suitor kneels before intended bride = humble begging for her hand
• Quarterback kneels to run out the clock = submission to loss of 2 yards
• Black guy kneels at national anthem = "uppity". Or in this case "thug culture".

Speaks volumes. Having it both ways --- Priceless.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, my claim is that any police brutality/ shooting is thoroughly investigated, and if the officer(s) involved are found to be outside of the law, they are punished. If not, they are not charged or are found not guilty by a Grand Jury.

Police brutality is not brutality if it's within the constraints of the law. It's just something you decided to call it because you don't like it. But we don't have laws or punishment based on what you and your ilk like or dislike. Sometimes our officers have to do unpleasant things to restore order or subdue a subject.

Do you consider the beating of Rodney King within the law?

 

[Billo_Really]

There is only one way to interpret that. You can't Clintonize yourself out of this one.

You don't tell me my intent, I tell you!

Are you that pompous of an ass, to think he can tell others what they mean?

 

[Billo_Really]

By all means, show me one time where that happened.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, yet you still consider them complicit in the crime.

 

[Correll]

yes, the states of the CSA wanted to establish a new country when the northern states tried to impose their will on them and destroy the economy of the south, it was not about slavery, it was about a central government trying to take away states rights. Its you who does not know history, dude, and its you who is displaying partisan stupidity here. BTW, Lincoln was a republican and Jeff Davis was a democrat, just for shits and giggles, because it actually means nothing

Oh shit --- this dood bought the whole Lost Cause textbook and swallowed whole. We did this to death in the Lost Cause threads but since you're in the right place why don't you tell the class about that obelisk at the foot of Canal Street that stood there for decades commemorating white supremacy and the White League? Why don't you post Mitch Landrieu's commentary on removing it and the other markers? Why don't you meet us in those Lost Cause threads and try to sell it there? I'll give you a link.

Gator is the one supporting the legal right to secession. Take it up with him. He brought it up.

Yes, I do. I support the legal right to secession and I support the legal right for the country being left to say "hell no" and then I support the legal right for them to fight it out.

If the SOuth had the right to secede, then the North was obligated to pull out it's troops from the territory of the new nation.


And the Lost Cause is correct that the war was an unjust war of conquest.

You are missing the fact that the North also had the right to defend their sovereign nation from being ripped apart. You seem very confused on what having the right to do something means.
...

If the South was a separate sovereign nation, then the North did not have sovereignty over it.


Thus they did NOT have the right to wage a war of conquest.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Oh shit --- this dood bought the whole Lost Cause textbook and swallowed whole. We did this to death in the Lost Cause threads but since you're in the right place why don't you tell the class about that obelisk at the foot of Canal Street that stood there for decades commemorating white supremacy and the White League? Why don't you post Mitch Landrieu's commentary on removing it and the other markers? Why don't you meet us in those Lost Cause threads and try to sell it there? I'll give you a link.

Gator is the one supporting the legal right to secession. Take it up with him. He brought it up.

Yes, I do. I support the legal right to secession and I support the legal right for the country being left to say "hell no" and then I support the legal right for them to fight it out.

If the SOuth had the right to secede, then the North was obligated to pull out it's troops from the territory of the new nation.


And the Lost Cause is correct that the war was an unjust war of conquest.

You are missing the fact that the North also had the right to defend their sovereign nation from being ripped apart. You seem very confused on what having the right to do something means.
...

If the South was a separate sovereign nation, then the North did not have sovereignty over it.


Thus they did NOT have the right to wage a war of conquest.

Now that is just stupid, of course they had the right to wage a war of conquest, that is the way the world works. Silly boy, do you not pay attention.

 

[Correll]

They left the USA and formed their own nation. **** you people are stupid, you do not even know your own country's history.

yes, the states of the CSA wanted to establish a new country when the northern states tried to impose their will on them and destroy the economy of the south, it was not about slavery, it was about a central government trying to take away states rights. Its you who does not know history, dude, and its you who is displaying partisan stupidity here. BTW, Lincoln was a republican and Jeff Davis was a democrat, just for shits and giggles, because it actually means nothing

Oh shit --- this dood bought the whole Lost Cause textbook and swallowed whole. We did this to death in the Lost Cause threads but since you're in the right place why don't you tell the class about that obelisk at the foot of Canal Street that stood there for decades commemorating white supremacy and the White League? Why don't you post Mitch Landrieu's commentary on removing it and the other markers? Why don't you meet us in those Lost Cause threads and try to sell it there? I'll give you a link.

Gator is the one supporting the legal right to secession. Take it up with him. He brought it up.

Yes, I do. I support the legal right to secession and I support the legal right for the country being left to say "hell no" and then I support the legal right for them to fight it out.

There is no ‘right’ to secession, ‘legal’ or otherwise. Secession is un-Constitutional (Texas v. White (1869)).

Americans cannot have their citizenship taken from them against their will absent wrongdoing.

They left the USA and formed their own nation. **** you people are stupid, you do not even know your own country's history.

yes, the states of the CSA wanted to establish a new country when the northern states tried to impose their will on them and destroy the economy of the south, it was not about slavery, it was about a central government trying to take away states rights. Its you who does not know history, dude, and its you who is displaying partisan stupidity here. BTW, Lincoln was a republican and Jeff Davis was a democrat, just for shits and giggles, because it actually means nothing

Oh shit --- this dood bought the whole Lost Cause textbook and swallowed whole. We did this to death in the Lost Cause threads but since you're in the right place why don't you tell the class about that obelisk at the foot of Canal Street that stood there for decades commemorating white supremacy and the White League? Why don't you post Mitch Landrieu's commentary on removing it and the other markers? Why don't you meet us in those Lost Cause threads and try to sell it there? I'll give you a link.

Gator is the one supporting the legal right to secession. Take it up with him. He brought it up.

Yes, I do. I support the legal right to secession and I support the legal right for the country being left to say "hell no" and then I support the legal right for them to fight it out.

There is no ‘right’ to secession, ‘legal’ or otherwise. Secession is un-Constitutional (Texas v. White (1869)).

Americans cannot have their citizenship taken from them against their will absent wrongdoing.

An agreement that one can never ever withdraw from, should have that clause spelled out very, very plainly and clearly.


It was not. The reasoning of the court, was utter bullshit.

 

[Correll]

Gator is the one supporting the legal right to secession. Take it up with him. He brought it up.

Yes, I do. I support the legal right to secession and I support the legal right for the country being left to say "hell no" and then I support the legal right for them to fight it out.

If the SOuth had the right to secede, then the North was obligated to pull out it's troops from the territory of the new nation.


And the Lost Cause is correct that the war was an unjust war of conquest.

You are missing the fact that the North also had the right to defend their sovereign nation from being ripped apart. You seem very confused on what having the right to do something means.
...

If the South was a separate sovereign nation, then the North did not have sovereignty over it.


Thus they did NOT have the right to wage a war of conquest.

Now that is just stupid, of course they had the right to wage a war of conquest, that is the way the world works. Silly boy, do you not pay attention.

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

• Quarterback kneels to run out the clock = submission to loss of 2 yards

2 yards?


I see you know as much about football as every other topic you attempt to discuss.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, I do. I support the legal right to secession and I support the legal right for the country being left to say "hell no" and then I support the legal right for them to fight it out.

If the SOuth had the right to secede, then the North was obligated to pull out it's troops from the territory of the new nation.


And the Lost Cause is correct that the war was an unjust war of conquest.

You are missing the fact that the North also had the right to defend their sovereign nation from being ripped apart. You seem very confused on what having the right to do something means.
...

If the South was a separate sovereign nation, then the North did not have sovereignty over it.


Thus they did NOT have the right to wage a war of conquest.

Now that is just stupid, of course they had the right to wage a war of conquest, that is the way the world works. Silly boy, do you not pay attention.

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

 

[Correll]

If the SOuth had the right to secede, then the North was obligated to pull out it's troops from the territory of the new nation.


And the Lost Cause is correct that the war was an unjust war of conquest.

You are missing the fact that the North also had the right to defend their sovereign nation from being ripped apart. You seem very confused on what having the right to do something means.
...

If the South was a separate sovereign nation, then the North did not have sovereignty over it.


Thus they did NOT have the right to wage a war of conquest.

Now that is just stupid, of course they had the right to wage a war of conquest, that is the way the world works. Silly boy, do you not pay attention.

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. **** THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are missing the fact that the North also had the right to defend their sovereign nation from being ripped apart. You seem very confused on what having the right to do something means.
...

If the South was a separate sovereign nation, then the North did not have sovereignty over it.


Thus they did NOT have the right to wage a war of conquest.

Now that is just stupid, of course they had the right to wage a war of conquest, that is the way the world works. Silly boy, do you not pay attention.

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. **** THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

 

[Correll]

If the South was a separate sovereign nation, then the North did not have sovereignty over it.


Thus they did NOT have the right to wage a war of conquest.

Now that is just stupid, of course they had the right to wage a war of conquest, that is the way the world works. Silly boy, do you not pay attention.

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. **** THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Now that is just stupid, of course they had the right to wage a war of conquest, that is the way the world works. Silly boy, do you not pay attention.

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. **** THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

 

[Correll]

THey have the power to do so, they did not have the legal, or moral right to do so.

When dealing with two nations, who decides what is "legal"? Was it legal for us to invade Iraq? Some think so.

Legal has no real meaning when dealing with separate nations unless you think someone like the UN has power over all nations.

Moral? Well I guess I see ending slavery as a moral plus, so I would say they had the moral right to do what they did. perhaps you see slavery different than I do.

1. The difficulty of international law is real. But that is not a reason to not discuss it. These questions are still relevant, as noted by how upset some of the people in this thread have gotten over them.

2. **** THE UN.

3. Slavery? Funny, Lincoln's stated reason for the war was to preserve the Union.

1. So, did the US have the legal and moral right to invade Iraq?

2. Something we agree on!

3. And it was the stated reason for the south to leave the union.

1. Yes, of course, based on failure to comply withe the peace agreement from the FIrst Gulf War.

2. Thank you.

3. But not the legal justification for secession. THe SOuth's claim was that they had a right to secede. If you have a right to do something, you have the right to do it, and asking why is moot.


YOU agree with them on that.

1. Could not disagree more.

3. I agree they had the right to leave and I agree the Union had the right to stop them. Not unlike the British empire trying to stop the 13 colonies from leaving.

1. What legal problem to you see in the Iraqi War?

3. Your Justification for the actions of the Union seem thin.