They kneeled for the National Anthem and stood for the Brit anthem.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,517]

 

Wow. Okay.

 

On the one hand it's good to see you'll accept the consequences. On the other hand...I'm just really depressed about the democratic principles of our nation. Violence as a response to peaceful protest. Okay.

Well, you have the right to call my wife a bich. I would advise aganst it. Find some other words. Same principle

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why are you conflating ideology and party affiliation? Nowhere near the same thing.

You are deflecting as a poor substitute for answering any question asked of you.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Again, go ahead and quote me where I said burning crosses was peaceful. Please do so.

 

I didn't. I offered it as another example of burning something that the arsonist would claim is a form of expression.

 

I'm asking you if it is a peaceful act, and asking you to distinguish how burning flags is a peaceful act - as you've already claimed - but burning crosses isn't.

 

I'm all ears.

[brotherbock 349]

As a side bar, I believe it was a mistake to consider flag burning free speech. It isn't. It's an act.. And it is inflammatory, just like burning a cross.

 

 

Totally agree with that one. But don't blame leftists fully there. Spending money has been asserted by largely the right (but also the left) as being free speech as well. And spending money is an act. That an act counts as speech has a long and sometimes problematic history.

 

I agree that flag burning is inflammatory (no pun). For the record, and then I have to go, but I'm responding to you here because you have actually said something (your last sentence aside) that wasn't an attack one someone. But I'll say that the difference between most flag burnings and a cross burning is that the flag burning is not directed at someone. If you burned a flag on a soldier's front yard, and it was clearly a threat to that person, I'd have a severe problem with that as well. But burning a flag in protest on a street corner when it is not intended to be targeted at a person--very different. But all cross burnings are of course targeted threats. That's the difference.

[brotherbock 349]

Well, you have the right to call my wife a bich. I would advise aganst it. Find some other words. Same principle

 

I get you there, and that's something I'd also have a similar reaction to. I'm with you. But a flag burning isn't (usually) directed at a person.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why are you conflating ideology and party affiliation? Nowhere near the same thing.

I'm not conflating either. That's why each concept occupied a different sentence. Now: can you answer the question, or not? I asked you why you posted the Wallace excerpt.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,365]

 

Totally agree with that one. But don't blame leftists fully there. Spending money has been asserted by largely the right (but also the left) as being free speech as well. And spending money is an act. That an act counts as speech has a long and sometimes problematic history.

 

I agree that flag burning is inflammatory (no pun). For the record, and then I have to go, but I'm responding to you here because you have actually said something (your last sentence aside) that wasn't an attack one someone. But I'll say that the difference between most flag burnings and a cross burning is that the flag burning is not directed at someone. If you burned a flag on a soldier's front yard, and it was clearly a threat to that person, I'd have a severe problem with that as well. But burning a flag in protest on a street corner when it is not intended to be targeted at a person--very different. But all cross burnings are of course targeted threats. That's the difference.

 

what if you burn a cross on the street corner?

[brotherbock 349]

I didn't. I offered it as another example of burning something that the arsonist would claim is a form of expression.

 

I'm asking you if it is a peaceful act, and asking you to distinguish how burning flags is a peaceful act - as you've already claimed - but burning crosses isn't.

 

I'm all ears.

 

No, you said 'got it', indicating that it was something I had said or agree to. When it of course was not.

[brotherbock 349]

 

what if you burn a cross on the street corner?

 

Does cross burning have any other intention than to threaten blacks?

[IMMensaMind 462]

I never claimed you called me a Democrat? I responded to your post with a question, asking if you were calling me a Democrat. Surely you know the difference between statements and questions. Go ahead and quote where I complained about political parties.

 

I'm a Democrat now? Great. Tell me more about myself!

 

Cough STRAWMAN Cough. LOL

Where did I call you anything, much less a Democrat? I identified George Wallace as a Democrat - because he was.

I don't need strawmen.

You have a short memory, brotherbock - but what you really have is a strong sense of self-preservation, which is why you've been running away from answering the questions I asked you, and mischaracterized what has been posted thus far.

 

As you can see, anyone reading your post would understand that your "question" was your accusation directed at me that I called you a Democrat.

 

You were and still are clearly mistaken. And I still want to know why you posted the Wallace excerpt. Was it because you thought that was Wallace was someone different than he actually was?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Does cross burning have any other intention than to threaten blacks?

 

Does cross-burning have any other intention besides threatening Americans?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,517]

 

I get you there, and that's something I'd also have a similar reaction to. I'm with you. But a flag burning isn't (usually) directed at a person.

It's directed at our country. Find another way and have at it. I won't say a word or do anything. Have a problem with my wife? That's fine too. But you can't say anything you want and not expect a reaction.

[barrett14 0]

Imagine if you put a controversial political stance in your work e-mail signature. Do you have the right to do it? Yes. Will it likely have negative consequences? Yes.

 

People that are pro-kneeling want the players to be able to protest without there being any negative consequences what-so-ever and that is unrealistic considering how polarising this is to many people. Even Trump wasn't saying the players don't have the right to protest... He was saying the owners should fire them for doing it. Everyone says that is an attack on free speech, but it's not. It is no different than your boss firing you at your job for protesting your political views.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,365]

 

Does cross burning have any other intention than to threaten blacks?

 

I dunno I would think that if I stood in front of a white Christian Church and burned a cross that would be equally threatening

[IMMensaMind 462]

No, you said 'got it', indicating that it was something I had said or agree to. When it of course was not.

 

Oh, everyone knows that the 'got it' is nothing more than goading you to compel you to be forced to answer in a logically defensible way.

 

I'm still waiting for that. For the record, there is absolutely no legal way to call flag burning protected speech while not doing the same for cross burning.

 

But I'm sure you'll dig deep into your large bag of double standards to grace us with a rationalization.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Imagine if you put a controversial political stance in your work e-mail signature. Do you have the right to do it? Yes. Will it likely have negative consequences? Yes.

 

People that are pro-kneeling want the players to be able to protest without there being any negative consequences what-so-ever and that is unrealistic considering how polarising this is to many people. Even Trump wasn't saying the players don't have the right to protest... He was saying the owners should fire them for doing it. Everyone says that is an attack on free speech, but it's not. It is no different than your boss firing you at your job for protesting your political views.

 

^^^That.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I dunno I would think that if I stood in front of a white Christian Church and burned a cross that would be equally threatening

QFT in place of what is an apparent daily quota system for liking posts? What kind of goofiness is that?

[Antiramie 50]

The interpretations and implied meanings of the American flag are de facto ones. There is no legally recognized symbolism of it. The only concrete truth of the American flag is that it was originally intended to mark territory and military equipment. Any interpretations of it from that point follow the direction of its citizens. And that is the crossroads we are at now. That some people believe the freedoms this country supposedly provides to all its citizens arent being enforced equally. And while these demonstrators aren't directly protesting the flag per se, they are protesting the prejudice that they believe the flag should be reminding us shouldn't exist in our society.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Totally agree with that one. But don't blame leftists fully there. Spending money has been asserted by largely the right (but also the left) as being free speech as well. And spending money is an act. That an act counts as speech has a long and sometimes problematic history.

 

I agree that flag burning is inflammatory (no pun). For the record, and then I have to go, but I'm responding to you here because you have actually said something (your last sentence aside) that wasn't an attack one someone. But I'll say that the difference between most flag burnings and a cross burning is that the flag burning is not directed at someone. If you burned a flag on a soldier's front yard, and it was clearly a threat to that person, I'd have a severe problem with that as well. But burning a flag in protest on a street corner when it is not intended to be targeted at a person--very different. But all cross burnings are of course targeted threats. That's the difference.

 

Brotherbock. My posts aren't anything other than stern arguments. If you're perceiving attacks, your skin is far too fragile. If you want an example of attacks, witness the handful of ad homs that have been thrown at me directly, with no return fire - and believe me, I'm exceptionally good at that sort of thing.

 

I don't have to do so, though, in order to win this argument. In fact, MOD has warned not to do so.

 

On the topic: I find your rationalization wrt to cross burning and flag burning quite specious. There are veterans that attend these NFL games. These players are flaunting their disrespect directly at them. A 30 year employee of the Buffalo Bills quit in disgust over these asinine protests.

 

I do not believe that they are playing well at all.

 

It doesn't matter where a cross was burned, or at who. That is a Pandora's Box of unconfirmable excuses and claims of what the intent was, etc.

 

Both are the exact same inflammatory act, and not at all peaceful, which was the point of my response to you. You asserted that flag burning was a peaceful act, and I believe I've firmly established with my counterargument and cross burning analogy that it is anything but.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,517]

 

Again, go ahead and quote me where I said burning crosses was peaceful. Please do so.

Hold it now, you have no problem with and respect the players right to kneel in protest. Ok. How would you feel if they marched out into the parking lot and burned the flag?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,365]

QFT in place of what is an apparent daily quota system for liking posts? What kind of goofiness is that?

 

yah I ran out at about 7am this morning

[IMMensaMind 462]

Hold it now, you have no problem with and respect the players right to kneel in protest. Ok. How would you feel if they marched out into the parking lot and burned the flag?

It's a corner that no debate antagonist on this topic will ever escape. The observation catches those who hold the opinion he's attempting to represent dead to rights, and puts the lie to the claim.

[IMMensaMind 462]

The interpretations and implied meanings of the American flag are de facto ones. There is no legally recognized symbolism of it. The only concrete truth of the American flag is that it was originally intended to mark territory and military equipment. Any interpretations of it from that point follow the direction of its citizens. And that is the crossroads we are at now. That some people believe the freedoms this country supposedly provides to all its citizens arent being enforced equally. And while these demonstrators aren't directly protesting the flag per se, they are protesting the prejudice that they believe the flag should be reminding us shouldn't exist in our society.

They're doing it wrong, and they're doing their positions harm. You don't inflame loyalties by being perceived as being disrespectful to this country or our flag.

 

The purpose of our flag clearly goes beyond markings territory and military equipment, or it would historically only have been used in those purposes. I has never solely been used in that way. That flag is a symbol of our citizenship and loyalty to one another, and has always been.

 

Flags have been important to Man for eons.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I thought I'd come back to a couple of thoughtful posts from my friendly adversaries regarding their take on the purpose of Pledges, Anthems, etc.

 

I thought some of them would explain that they'd rush to a fallen comrade in battle and pick up their stanchion with the American Flag and wave it proudly in battle, understanding the significance of it, and the unifying fortification of the spirit of it.

 

But no, I am still disappointed.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

Brotherbock. My posts aren't anything other than stern arguments. If you're perceiving attacks, your skin is far too fragile. If you want an example of attacks, witness the handful of ad homs that have been thrown at me directly, with no return fire - and believe me, I'm exceptionally good at that sort of thing.

I don't have to do so, though, in order to win this argument. In fact, MOD has warned not to do so.

On the topic: I find your rationalization wrt to cross burning and flag burning quite specious. There are veterans that attend these NFL games. These players are flaunting their disrespect directly at them. A 30 year employee of the Buffalo Bills quit in disgust over these asinine protests.

I do not believe that they are playing well at all.

It doesn't matter where a cross was burned, or at who. That is a Pandora's Box of unconfirmable excuses and claims of what the intent was, etc.

Both are the exact same inflammatory act, and not at all peaceful, which was the point of my response to you. You asserted that flag burning was a peaceful act, and I believe I've firmly established with my counterargument and cross burning analogy that it is anything but.

Did you really just question someone for being thin-skinned in the same thread where you're defending Dotard Trump?

 

You don't see the irony there?

[seafoam1 3,097]

The interpretations and implied meanings of the American flag are de facto ones. There is no legally recognized symbolism of it. The only concrete truth of the American flag is that it was originally intended to mark territory and military equipment. Any interpretations of it from that point follow the direction of its citizens. And that is the crossroads we are at now. That some people believe the freedoms this country supposedly provides to all its citizens arent being enforced equally. And while these demonstrators aren't directly protesting the flag per se, they are protesting the prejudice that they believe the flag should be reminding us shouldn't exist in our society.

They should do it on their own time and their own dime. Why don't they do it in their off season or days off? They are entertainers. Nothing else while at work on the compamy dime. Entertain me with football. Nothing else please.

 

Any sports radio or television shows I saw talking about this got shut off until they talk football. I can and do read, watch, listen and partake in political happenings.

 

Sometimes I want to watch, listen, and read about football.

 

My God. I mean it's like if you were reading Lord of the Rings for the first time, but the first twenty pages were a political stance and all the critiques and talk following was about the first 20 pages.

[ChinaCat 21]

This might have been addressed but isn't it funny how both burning crosses and burning flags are actions carried out by Democrats?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Did you really just question someone for being thin-skinned in the same thread where you're defending Dotard Trump?

You don't see the irony there?

No.

 

But I wonder if you think minions mimic words they hear their Dear Leader utter.

[seafoam1 3,097]

This might have been addressed but isn't it funny how both burning crosses and burning flags are actions carried out by Democrats?

Seriously. But wait for the onslaught to come back saying they instantly swapped parties after that happened. So dems did all that then said, oh wait, Im a republican now.

[MDC 7,511]

Well, you have the right to call my wife a bich. I would advise aganst it. Find some other words. Same principle

HT hates when people get personal about wives and kids and stuff. Just ask him.

[seafoam1 3,097]

Oh look. Reduced to more petty ad hom crap. Here's the truth, Chrysler: you ran out of substantive comments two posts ago, and simply want to get the last stupid swipe in.

 

You've run out of material.

Coming from someone who keeps saying dotard any chance she gets.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

No.

But I wonder if you think minions mimic words they hear their Dear Leader utter.

I know all about how horrific Dear Leader is, but "Dotard" just sticks.

 

You have to admit his mental capacity is reduced. Guy can't think of an adjective besides great or very great.

 

I see you writing thoughtful - even if misguided - posts, but you can't try to make an intelligent argument while siding with Trump.

 

It's not a political issue. It's not a freedom of speech issue. Guy is just an ignoramus who needs to have his ego stroked constantly or he reacts like a 5 year old brat.

[ChinaCat 21]

Seriously. But wait for the onslaught to come back saying they instantly swapped parties after that happened. So dems did all that then said, oh wait, Im a republican now.

The KKK was borne from the Democratic Party. Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

 

Do you even know the slightest bit of history?

 

Planned Parenthood was pitched to the KKK as a way of getting rid of black babies. That is why PP is so much in focus in todays Democratic Party. They started it for nefarious racial reasons.

[Johnny B. Goode 17]

Coming from someone who keeps saying dotard any chance she gets.

Plenty of articles out there that document his reduced vocabulary - articles that went back 20 years comparing interviews from then to now. Google it

 

Guy also has ZERO policy chops.

 

Good nicknames stick for a reason. Lying Ted? Little Marco? Even Crooked Hillary.

 

Nobody should appreciate that more than Dotard supporters.

[jerryskids 6,853]

 

Oh.

 

So the intentions of the NASCAR fans--the intention to not disrespect the flag itself or the military--those intentions matter.

 

But the stated intentions of the kneeling players--to not disrespect the flag or the military--those don't matter? Don't tell me you're saying that.

 

Look, I went outside and lived my life after page 3 of this, so I haven't followed everything that's been said until page 8 here. But please don't tell me that you're going to claim that the players--who are stating that they are not disrespecting the flag or the military--actually are being disrespectful...but that the NASCAR fans are not being disrespectful. Cause that would really seem like a double standard, right?

 

Look, before you respond: I am not some horrible person trying to destroy America. I am not a communist. I am not a nazi. You are not a nazi. You're not bent on destroying the way of life I love. If I knew you, I'd buy you a beer to talk about this. We're just people who are disagreeing here. But here's one point: the players are claiming that they are not intending to disrespect the flag or the military, or the foundational principles of our government and nation. At least, many of them are stating that. Doesn't that indicate that being offended, feeling disrespected, is a choice that some people are making?

 

And if so, why aren't they feeling offended by the wearing of the flag as underwear, or a dew rag? Why are those treatments of the flag not causing a stir? That's the question I'm trying to get people to look at. Peace.

 

Dood, I would have a beer with you or anyone here. Well, except one guy at the geek club who is a total putz. Debate is healthy.

 

That being said, I regret to inform you that what you stated is exactly what I'm saying. NASCAR fans with flag do-rags and boxers are attempting to celebrate the flag and country, I don't think this is debatable. You seem intent on the "stated" intentions of the players, what are they? IMO it can be either supporting Kaep or protesting Trump calling him and others who kneel SOBs. If the latter, I would expect that to end this week and next weekend we'll be back to a handful of players kneeling to support Kaep.

 

If the former... Kaep is a POS in my book. Wears socks with pigs in cop uniforms, wears a Castro shirt in Miami... perhaps he is under the influence of the militant Islamic chick, whatever.

 

We'll see what happens next weekend.

[seafoam1 3,097]

The KKK was borne from the Democratic Party. Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

 

Do you even know the slightest bit of history?

 

Planned Parenthood was pitched to the KKK as a way of getting rid of black babies. That is why PP is so much in focus in todays Democratic Party. They started it for nefarious racial reasons.

I was actually on your side here, but I guess your tactics of offending every person on this site are causing you to be in total defense mode.

[huskyhater75 242]

The NFL owners that respect the USA Flag for what it is and the REAL MEN who fought for it, should tell their players and coaches 'you can go ahead and protest the flag if you want, but if you don't stand up you won't be paid for that game'. Certain people are taking these things WAY to far..........if a cop yells HALT, stop whatever you're doing-are that many idiots out there that don't understand that? Police shoot MORE white people than blacks and browns, shouldn't the 'protesters' just quit their whining and respect authority? Or how much does intelligence play into this..........................uh huh.............

[seafoam1 3,097]

Plenty of articles out there that document his reduced vocabulary - articles that went back 20 years comparing interviews from then to now. Google it

 

Guy also has ZERO policy chops.

 

Good nicknames stick for a reason. Lying Ted? Little Marco? Even Crooked Hillary.

 

Nobody should appreciate that more than Dotard supporters.

Sure.Good for you to use name calling as a crutch to your arguments then call others out for name calling. You are very good at logic girlie.

[ChinaCat 21]

I was actually on your side here, but I guess your tactics of offending every person on this site are causing you to be in total defense mode.

What did I say that isn't factual?

 

Go look up the name Margaret Sanger.

 

She did exactly what I said she did when she started planned parent hood.

 

And I'm pro choice.

[ChinaCat 21]

That leaves out the Jacksonville owner.