HT02 Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 What the public address announcers says is completely different from the intentions of those who kneel, raise a fist or whatever else is done to raise awareness of the issues at hand. There is an established protocol for demonstrating respect for the flag and the anthem. Free-style demonstrations fit the definition of "disrespectful". They have stated that its intended to be disrespectful because the nation doesn't deserve its respect because of its treatment of blacks. Why play silly word games to pretend its something else?
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 There is an established protocol for demonstrating respect for the flag and the anthem. Free-style demonstrations fit the definition of "disrespectful". They have stated that its intended to be disrespectful because the nation doesn't deserve its respect because of its treatment of blacks. Why play silly word games to pretend its something else? You are again posting your interpretation of the protest and making it about the flag/anthem. Not the heart of issue no matter how many times you post it.
SoCal Deek Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 You are again posting your interpretation of the protest and making it about the flag/anthem. Not the heart of issue no matter how many times you post it. If you have to explain the purpose/target of a protest...it is by definition....a poorly crafted protest.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 If you have to explain the purpose/target of a protest...it is by definition....a poorly crafted protest. That's only if your listening skills are lacking.
BringBackOrton Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 No, its his job to accurately assess the threat before using deadly force. Further, there is no comparison between actions on a battlefield and those on city streets in US soil. The police are not at war with their own citizenry, thank goodness. Quite the contrary. There is negligence and there is criminal negligence. No one goes to jail for mere negligence but they should and do get fired. When the facts justify charges of criminal negligence or worse, they should be prosecuted. Yeah, no one shoots at cops.
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 You are again posting your interpretation of the protest and making it about the flag/anthem. Not the heart of issue no matter how many times you post it.so sick of this statement The heart of the argument isn't the national anthem... Ok... So why the !@#$ do they do it during the national anthem and not another other 60 seconds of their day? I'd bet if it was any other time cameras wouldn't find them or care as much. That's only if your listening skills are lacking.or only when you have yet to actually describe the protest in your own words. You can't even paste opposing sides of this protest.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 so sick of this statement The heart of the argument isn't the national anthem... Ok... So why the !@#$ do they do it during the national anthem and not another other 60 seconds of their day? I'd bet if it was any other time cameras wouldn't find them or care as much. or only when you have yet to actually describe the protest in your own words. You can't even paste opposing sides of this protest. Same reason Rosa Parks didn't sit on the back of a Mexican Tiger. Same reason MLK didn't March on Marblehead, Montana. Same reason that guy standing in front of the tank didnt stand in front of Mike Tolbert.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Same reason Rosa Parks didn't sit on the back of a Mexican Tiger. Same reason MLK didn't March on Marblehead, Montana. Same reason that guy standing in front of the tank didnt stand in front of Mike Tolbert. During the American Revolution the Patriots were protesting against tea. LOL
BringBackOrton Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Same reason Rosa Parks didn't sit on the back of a Mexican Tiger. Same reason MLK didn't March on Marblehead, Montana. Same reason that guy standing in front of the tank didnt stand in front of Mike Tolbert. Weak. Where was the Ghandi comparison? Those NFLers getting "oppressed" by mean words sure is similar to Tienemen square. First world !@#$in problems.
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 (edited) Same reason Rosa Parks didn't sit on the back of a Mexican Tiger. Same reason MLK didn't March on Marblehead, Montana. Same reason that guy standing in front of the tank didnt stand in front of Mike Tolbert. ok, which is... Seriously, I've seen this analogy a few times and want to read it. It will be funny I know you can form sentences and have more than two keys on your keyboard so you can reply. Others, not so much. Edited September 27, 2017 by Boyst62
Kelly the Dog Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 ok, which is...Because the platform and place is designed to get the most bang for the buck. But no matter what I used as a place for MLK you know he was protesting civil rights not Wasington, no matter where I might have used for an example of Rosa Parking her butt, you know she was protesting discrimination not busses, etc. The sidelines was the place, the anthem was the platform, racial discrimination was the protests, not the sidelines or anthem.
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 Because the platform and place is designed to get the most bang for the buck. But no matter what I used as a place for MLK you know he was protesting civil rights not Wasington, no matter where I might have used for an example of Rosa Parking her butt, you know she was protesting discrimination not busses, etc. The sidelines was the place, the anthem was the platform, racial discrimination was the protests, not the sidelines or anthem. the MLK example is terrible. He tried several times to the march across the bridge and never was permitted, he didn't kneel on the bridge, he didn't stop on the bridge, he didn't hashtag it or act like a spectacle on camera. He peacefully turned around went back to where they came from originally having people assault them as they would walk. He endured, along with his group pure hate. None of that has been displayed to Colin Kaepernick no way it was displayed to MLK. Nor Rosa Parks. Mean Tweets, angry letters all of that is nothing but words and words only hurt the snowflakes who give a !@#$ about words, because words hurt and feelings matter or some hoity-toity Millennial bull ****. When MLK finally did cross the bridge he was able to show that he will keep trying and work with others... You get that work with others, yes he had to work with others to get his message heard. You don't see that in the kneeling protests, you hear them send others their voice will not be accepted because it is out of hate. You do not have inclusion you have exclusion, as you saw in Pittsburgh well Chicago. You have massive amounts of exclusion because you have instantly inflamed an entire population with just a simple disrespect of kneeling during something so innocuous as The Star-Spangled Banner. You can remove from this argument the facts that 100% discredit the entire movement, you can remove the fact that it isn't the best stage to do this, you can pick this apart anyway you'd like to say it is a bad thing. And it doesn't need to be picked apart, it just needs to be looked at as this - how is it a good thing? I can only speak for the environment in which I live and I have yet to find anybody who supports this cause in my professional environment, and for the most part my personal life. There is no greater good in this is all it continues to do is divide people up and create posts on Facebook would say if you disagree with me just unfriend me because we'll never get along. Or these giant things where if you disagree with me you're either a Nazi loving racist or a hippie cucked man who sold out. You don't have to be either to think this whole movement is foolish, you just have to look at why now it's suddenly a big thing. Freedom of speech must always be protected and always allows someone to do what they're doing on the field but it never makes it right
Gugny Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 the MLK example is terrible. He tried several times to the march across the bridge and never was permitted, he didn't kneel on the bridge, he didn't stop on the bridge, he didn't hashtag it or act like a spectacle on camera. He peacefully turned around went back to where they came from originally having people assault them as they would walk. He endured, along with his group pure hate. None of that has been displayed to Colin Kaepernick no way it was displayed to MLK. Nor Rosa Parks. Mean Tweets, angry letters all of that is nothing but words and words only hurt the snowflakes who give a !@#$ about words, because words hurt and feelings matter or some hoity-toity Millennial bull ****. When MLK finally did cross the bridge he was able to show that he will keep trying and work with others... You get that work with others, yes he had to work with others to get his message heard. You don't see that in the kneeling protests, you hear them send others their voice will not be accepted because it is out of hate. You do not have inclusion you have exclusion, as you saw in Pittsburgh well Chicago. You have massive amounts of exclusion because you have instantly inflamed an entire population with just a simple disrespect of kneeling during something so innocuous as The Star-Spangled Banner. You can remove from this argument the facts that 100% discredit the entire movement, you can remove the fact that it isn't the best stage to do this, you can pick this apart anyway you'd like to say it is a bad thing. And it doesn't need to be picked apart, it just needs to be looked at as this - how is it a good thing? I can only speak for the environment in which I live and I have yet to find anybody who supports this cause in my professional environment, and for the most part my personal life. There is no greater good in this is all it continues to do is divide people up and create posts on Facebook would say if you disagree with me just unfriend me because we'll never get along. Or these giant things where if you disagree with me you're either a Nazi loving racist or a hippie cucked man who sold out. You don't have to be either to think this whole movement is foolish, you just have to look at why now it's suddenly a big thing. Freedom of speech must always be protected and always allows someone to do what they're doing on the field but it never makes it right As far as him not hashtagging, it's pretty well known that MLK was not a fan of Twitter. He felt that he needed more characters and generally used his own blog to communicate to followers.
boyst Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 As far as him not hashtagging, it's pretty well known that MLK was not a fan of Twitter. He felt that he needed more characters and generally used his own blog to communicate to followers. yeah, more confounding is that he still preferred Myspace
Kelly the Dog Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 the MLK example is terrible. He tried several times to the march across the bridge and never was permitted, he didn't kneel on the bridge, he didn't stop on the bridge, he didn't hashtag it or act like a spectacle on camera. He peacefully turned around went back to where they came from originally having people assault them as they would walk. He endured, along with his group pure hate. None of that has been displayed to Colin Kaepernick no way it was displayed to MLK. Nor Rosa Parks. Mean Tweets, angry letters all of that is nothing but words and words only hurt the snowflakes who give a !@#$ about words, because words hurt and feelings matter or some hoity-toity Millennial bull ****. When MLK finally did cross the bridge he was able to show that he will keep trying and work with others... You get that work with others, yes he had to work with others to get his message heard. You don't see that in the kneeling protests, you hear them send others their voice will not be accepted because it is out of hate. You do not have inclusion you have exclusion, as you saw in Pittsburgh well Chicago. You have massive amounts of exclusion because you have instantly inflamed an entire population with just a simple disrespect of kneeling during something so innocuous as The Star-Spangled Banner. You can remove from this argument the facts that 100% discredit the entire movement, you can remove the fact that it isn't the best stage to do this, you can pick this apart anyway you'd like to say it is a bad thing. And it doesn't need to be picked apart, it just needs to be looked at as this - how is it a good thing? I can only speak for the environment in which I live and I have yet to find anybody who supports this cause in my professional environment, and for the most part my personal life. There is no greater good in this is all it continues to do is divide people up and create posts on Facebook would say if you disagree with me just unfriend me because we'll never get along. Or these giant things where if you disagree with me you're either a Nazi loving racist or a hippie cucked man who sold out. You don't have to be either to think this whole movement is foolish, you just have to look at why now it's suddenly a big thing. Freedom of speech must always be protected and always allows someone to do what they're doing on the field but it never makes it right Wow. But none of that has anything to do with what you asked me. We weren't talking about the merits of the protest. That's for the thousand other threads and posts. You asked specifically about why do the protest during the anthem and not some other 60 seconds. That's what we were discussing. Why the anthem. I answered with three examples of why the platform, which is the anthem in your question, is just to get the most exposure for the protest, but the platform has nothing to do with the protest. MLK used a platform, Washington monument, for protest, civil rights not Washington. Parks used platform, bus, to protest discrimination, not busses the platform. Plus the "Tank Man" as he is sometimes referred standing in front of the tank. He wasn't protesting tanks. That was the platform. And the players used the anthem as the platform. But you went off on some wild diatribe about the validity or non validity of the protest but we weren't talking about that. There are 2000 posts about that.
Elite Poster Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 I'm going to interject on this babbling. Jim Kelly came out and said he wasn't privy to Trump's comments about the NFL before he made a statement. Oh brother.
JohnC Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 the MLK example is terrible. He tried several times to the march across the bridge and never was permitted, he didn't kneel on the bridge, he didn't stop on the bridge, he didn't hashtag it or act like a spectacle on camera. He peacefully turned around went back to where they came from originally having people assault them as they would walk. He endured, along with his group pure hate. None of that has been displayed to Colin Kaepernick no way it was displayed to MLK. Nor Rosa Parks. Mean Tweets, angry letters all of that is nothing but words and words only hurt the snowflakes who give a !@#$ about words, because words hurt and feelings matter or some hoity-toity Millennial bull ****. When MLK finally did cross the bridge he was able to show that he will keep trying and work with others... You get that work with others, yes he had to work with others to get his message heard. You don't see that in the kneeling protests, you hear them send others their voice will not be accepted because it is out of hate. You do not have inclusion you have exclusion, as you saw in Pittsburgh well Chicago. You have massive amounts of exclusion because you have instantly inflamed an entire population with just a simple disrespect of kneeling during something so innocuous as The Star-Spangled Banner. You can remove from this argument the facts that 100% discredit the entire movement, you can remove the fact that it isn't the best stage to do this, you can pick this apart anyway you'd like to say it is a bad thing. And it doesn't need to be picked apart, it just needs to be looked at as this - how is it a good thing? I can only speak for the environment in which I live and I have yet to find anybody who supports this cause in my professional environment, and for the most part my personal life. There is no greater good in this is all it continues to do is divide people up and create posts on Facebook would say if you disagree with me just unfriend me because we'll never get along. Or these giant things where if you disagree with me you're either a Nazi loving racist or a hippie cucked man who sold out. You don't have to be either to think this whole movement is foolish, you just have to look at why now it's suddenly a big thing. Freedom of speech must always be protected and always allows someone to do what they're doing on the field but it never makes it right With respect to the highlighted segment how is a peaceful demonstration that is protected and allowed "never makes it right" (your words) be wrong. If you disagree with it that's fine. You don't have to agree with the actions. But what about the actions that you consider to be not right. Again, you don't have to agree with the display but how is it wrong?
eball Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 I'm going to interject on this babbling. Jim Kelly came out and said he wasn't privy to Trump's comments about the NFL before he made a statement. Oh brother. #notprivy #goingrogue This sounds like some JK spin.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 #notprivy #goingrogue This sounds like some JK spin. I think it was a 7 step drop (back pedal).
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 27, 2017 Posted September 27, 2017 During the American Revolution the Patriots were protesting against tea. LOL ...Belichick and Kraft were there, right??..........
Recommended Posts