Kaepernick and the National Anthem

[IDBillzFan]

 

Whatever, I just want him to come out and say it so that we know exactly what agendas he wants us to "be mindful" of so we can read his future posts in the correct light.

 

Fact is that a full-scale civil war is unwinnable for any rebellion unless significant portions of the military defect. Anyone with half a brain knows this so unless the "agenda" is to make us blind to that reality there's no reason to push it.

 

You're not looking at it properly. He's not suggesting the idea of a 'powers-that-be' race war in the US is done with the idea that the rebellion would win, but rather just the opposite, specifically so any rebellion WOULD lose so the far left could do what they really want to do, which is go to a police state.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Fair enough. But as a big fan of Occam's Razor, I have to ask whether it's more likely that there's a racial/civil unrest agenda being pushed on us or if multiculturalism/diversity+proximity just doesn't work.

 

The overwhelming majority of BLM protesters and supporters are not violent, racist, or dangerous. Regardless of whether you disagree with their cause or how they're expressing themselves, they are protesting peacefully for what they believe and are by and large supporting the things that most Americans believe in: individual liberty, freedom from oppression, and equality. These things alone aren't dangerous and should/would be supported by most folks around the country if you stripped away all the hype.

 

The violence and more extreme actions are being taken by agitators, largely paid agitators, who are coming from outside the group. They are either working to discredit BLM or exacerbate the racial tensions in the country depending on the day. The point being that the majority of these agitators have nothing to do with BLM's cause.

 

This makes applying Occam's Shaver to this tapestry a bit more difficult. This isn't an organic movement. It's the opposite. You have to take into account the full picture before you can determine the simplest explanation.

 

You're not looking at it properly. He's not suggesting the idea of a 'powers-that-be' race war in the US is done with the idea that the rebellion would win, but rather just the opposite, specifically so any rebellion WOULD lose so the far left could do what they really want to do, which is go to a police state.

 

That's the major end game, though we're already living in a police state we just don't call it that because most people aren't paying attention.

[TakeYouToTasker]

BLM is a Soros front.

 

A few decades back, socialist radicals realized that they weren't able to promote their agenda in the US because our economic system, far more capitalist than now at the time, was working to improve everyone's lot, so they weren't able to divide the population to their ends.

 

So instead they glommed on to race as the dividing line, and convinced the black community that they couldn't succeed in the white American system, and needed those same radical socialists to improve their lot by tearing down the current structure.

Edited September 8, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[LeviF]

 

You're not looking at it properly. He's not suggesting the idea of a 'powers-that-be' race war in the US is done with the idea that the rebellion would win, but rather just the opposite, specifically so any rebellion WOULD lose so the far left could do what they really want to do, which is go to a police state.

 

My point was more that nobody would start such a rebellion against such overwhelming odds, so there's no war to lose.

 

Besides, why would they bother pushing a violent means to that end? People turn out en masse every November to vote for a police state.

 

The overwhelming majority of BLM protesters and supporters are not violent, racist, or dangerous. Regardless of whether you disagree with their cause or how they're expressing themselves, they are protesting peacefully for what they believe and are by and large supporting the things that most Americans believe in: individual liberty, freedom from oppression, and equality. These things alone aren't dangerous and should/would be supported by most folks around the country if you stripped away all the hype.

 

The overwhelming majority of BLM are absolutely not violent or dangerous. To suggest that every (or even most of the) violent action is committed by a paid agitator from outside the group, though, is naïve to the extreme.

Edited September 8, 2016 by LeviF91

[IDBillzFan]

 

My point was more that nobody would start such a rebellion against such overwhelming odds, so there's no war to lose.

 

I got news for you....enough BLM nuts keep trying to pick off cops, and you will see people rise up. The left has done a fabulous job of giving minorities no hope and only the promise of free stuff in exchange for absolutely no effort.

 

Now they get the mad, and then the president stands up and tells BLM that the problem is with the cops.

 

Then BLM starts shooting cops, and burning buildings, and blocking roads....

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I know how much the left LOVES to see the minorities burning things and killing cops. We can only be thankful the primary instigator of all of this will soon be in retirement.

[Deranged Rhino]

The overwhelming majority of BLM are absolutely not violent or dangerous. To suggest that every (or even most of the) violent action is committed by a paid agitator from outside the group, though, is naïve to the extreme.

 

Blanket statements weren't intended. Every group has its bad apples, driven by ideology or extremism. BLM is no exception.

 

But every major protest organization since at least the 1900s has been infiltrated by a myriad of groups for a myriad of reasons. The infiltrators are usually more prone to violence and extremism and are usually operating with a secondary agenda that they're paid to push.

[GG]

Blanket statements weren't intended. Every group has its bad apples, driven by ideology or extremism. BLM is no exception.

 

But every major protest organization since at least the 1900s has been infiltrated by a myriad of groups for a myriad of reasons. The infiltrators are usually more prone to violence and extremism and are usually operating with a secondary agenda that they're paid to push.

 

So you're saying that BLM is infiltrated by an opposite leaning group?

[LeviF]

 

I got news for you....enough BLM nuts keep trying to pick off cops, and you will see people rise up. The left has done a fabulous job of giving minorities no hope and only the promise of free stuff in exchange for absolutely no effort.

 

Now they get the mad, and then the president stands up and tells BLM that the problem is with the cops.

 

Then BLM starts shooting cops, and burning buildings, and blocking roads....

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I know how much the left LOVES to see the minorities burning things and killing cops. We can only be thankful the primary instigator of all of this will soon be in retirement.

 

Right-minded people putting down these folks like rabid dogs? That I can see. Full-scale civil war? Ehhh not so much. I get your point I just don't see it happening on a large scale.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

So you're saying that BLM is infiltrated by an opposite leaning group?

 

Probably more than one.

 

Activism and infiltration go hand in hand.

[GG]

 

Probably more than one.

 

Activism and infiltration go hand in hand.

 

And it's this opposite faction is the one that's causing the violent outbursts?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Right-minded people putting down these folks like rabid dogs? That I can see. Full-scale civil war? Ehhh not so much. I get your point I just don't see it happening on a large scale.

 

Full scale civil war is probably the aim for a few groups and countries, I'm sure, but not the ones with the most clout.

 

Violent unrest on a smaller scale would be enough to push through some of the more nefarious agendas determined to move us further away from a democratic republic and more firmly into the corporate fascist state we're slowly becoming more accepting of.

[LeviF]

 

Full scale civil war is probably the aim for a few groups and countries, I'm sure, but not the ones with the most clout.

 

Violent unrest on a smaller scale would be enough to push through some of the more nefarious agendas determined to move us further away from a democratic republic and more firmly into the corporate fascist state we're slowly becoming more accepting of.

 

And, again, people have no problem voting for that kind of ****. Why bother with the violent means?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

And it's this opposite faction is the one that's causing the violent outbursts?

 

As I said, the movement's been infiltrated by more than one group.

 

And, again, people have no problem voting for that kind of ****. Why bother with the violent means?

 

Because people do have a problem voting to forgo the bedrock constitutional protections that have defined American freedom for over two centuries. There needs to be a catalyst to spark fear and outrage to build public support.

 

It took 9/11 to get the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act never, ever would have been fast tracked the way it was had the towers not fell that day and had we not been told that we were in mortal danger every waking second of the day by radical Islamists hiding under our beds. From that point on we've seen a steady decline of constitutional protections (first amendment is under constant assault, privacy no longer exists, due process is now subject to review -- the list keeps growing) -- but over the past three years people have been waking up to this and speaking out.

 

Another good round of violence should do the trick of scaring those plebs back to their senses.

[LeviF]

 

Because people do have a problem voting to forgo the bedrock constitutional protections that have defined American freedom for over two centuries. There needs to be a catalyst to spark fear and outrage to build public support.

 

 

I disagree. People have been voting to upend the constitution since the Depression, moreso since 1968. Sure, there's been an uptick due to things like 9/11 and the like, but people by and large are willing to give up their rights (and, more importantly, other people's rights) at the polls for a bit of security.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I disagree. People have been voting to upend the constitution since the Depression, moreso since 1968. Sure, there's been an uptick due to things like 9/11 and the like, but people by and large are willing to give up their rights (and, more importantly, other people's rights) at the polls for a bit of security.

 

You said the key bit -- in exchange for security. People don't vote for change when things are safe and they feel secure.

 

A wave of racial unrest and riots will go a long ways towards people feeling insecure come November.

 

You asked why "they" would need to manufacture violence, that's why.

[GG]

 

As I said, the movement's been infiltrated by more than one group.

 

Because people do have a problem voting to forgo the bedrock constitutional protections that have defined American freedom for over two centuries. There needs to be a catalyst to spark fear and outrage to build public support.

 

It took 9/11 to get the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act never, ever would have been fast tracked the way it was had the towers not fell that day and had we not been told that we were in mortal danger every waking second of the day by radical Islamists hiding under our beds. From that point on we've seen a steady decline of constitutional protections (first amendment is under constant assault, privacy no longer exists, due process is now subject to review -- the list keeps growing) -- but over the past three years people have been waking up to this and speaking out.

 

Another good round of violence should do the trick of scaring those plebs back to their senses.

 

And it's been explained many times that the only reason PATRIOT passed so quickly and overwhelmingly is that it consolidated existing federal laws into a single act. It did not institute some new federal oversight. And it's also been explained that you always were and still are at a far greater risk of privacy intrusion by local law enforcement or some spiny town bureaucrat than you are by the feds.

[bbb]

 

I got news for you....enough BLM nuts keep trying to pick off cops, and you will see people rise up. The left has done a fabulous job of giving minorities no hope and only the promise of free stuff in exchange for absolutely no effort.

 

Now they get the mad, and then the president stands up and tells BLM that the problem is with the cops.

 

Then BLM starts shooting cops, and burning buildings, and blocking roads....

 

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I know how much the left LOVES to see the minorities burning things and killing cops. We can only be thankful the primary instigator of all of this will soon be in retirement.

 

It's actually tragic that race relations have got so bad after the first black president. Adam Carolla always says what I think - before this, he used to think one day when we have a black president, it'll really mean how far we've come and racial tensions will pretty much be over..............I'll bet MLK thought that.

 

But, do you think his statements have fanned the flames that much - beer summit, Trayvon looking like his son, etc. - or is there more to it that I'm not seeing?

[DC Tom]

 

It's actually tragic that race relations have got so bad after the first black president. Adam Carolla always says what I think - before this, he used to think one day when we have a black president, it'll really mean how far we've come and racial tensions will pretty much be over..............I'll bet MLK thought that.

 

But, do you think his statements have fanned the flames that much - beer summit, Trayvon looking like his son, etc. - or is there more to it that I'm not seeing?

 

Probably more the constant drumbeat of "You only disagree with him because he's black" rhetoric. Tell something to people often enough and loudly enough, and they believe it.

[unbillievable]

 

It's actually tragic that race relations have got so bad after the first black president. Adam Carolla always says what I think - before this, he used to think one day when we have a black president, it'll really mean how far we've come and racial tensions will pretty much be over..............I'll bet MLK thought that.

 

But, do you think his statements have fanned the flames that much - beer summit, Trayvon looking like his son, etc. - or is there more to it that I'm not seeing?

 

One can reasonably assume that the problem occurred because some took the election of a Black President as a rare opportunity to demand special privileges; as evidenced by the behavior of protestors. It was no coincidence that the iconic statement made on election night was how Obama was going to pay off people's car notes.

[bbb]

 

Probably more the constant drumbeat of "You only disagree with him because he's black" rhetoric. Tell something to people often enough and loudly enough, and they believe it.

 

I hate that so much. On another board I'm on, they absolutely killed Bush every single day...........Now, if anybody says anything 1/10th as bad about Obama it's because he's black.