Airliners.net

socalgeo wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Beyond that, you really don't seem to understand the dynamics that are in play here do you?

Please enlighten us.

It would be nice to hear a Trump aficionado write something other that "but Obama!" and "but Hillary!" to defend Trump's actions and words.

GRBLBGRBLBAGSHAR

The only thing I have to add is that I hope your kid never procreates. Seriously, I understand you're limp a wristed texan and your son follows closely behind. But please, don't let him father a child.

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Beyond that, you really don't seem to understand the dynamics that are in play here do you?

What's to understand beyond the President pushing for people to be fired for speaking their mind, in total violation of the first amendment? And to no one's surprise, Trumpanzees don't believe the first amendment applies to black people. Simple as that.

Did you support Google when it fired James Damore for his anti-diversity manifesto? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 8e0c42eb45

Or do you only care when it is an issue you agree with?

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Beyond that, you really don't seem to understand the dynamics that are in play here do you?

What's to understand beyond the President pushing for people to be fired for speaking their mind, in total violation of the first amendment? And to no one's surprise, Trumpanzees don't believe the first amendment applies to black people. Simple as that.

Did you support Google when it fired James Damore for his anti-diversity manifesto? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 8e0c42eb45

Or do you only care when it is an issue you agree with?

Did the President call for his firing?

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

What's to understand beyond the President pushing for people to be fired for speaking their mind, in total violation of the first amendment? And to no one's surprise, Trumpanzees don't believe the first amendment applies to black people. Simple as that.

Did you support Google when it fired James Damore for his anti-diversity manifesto? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 8e0c42eb45

Or do you only care when it is an issue you agree with?

Did the President call for his firing?

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Did you support Google when it fired James Damore for his anti-diversity manifesto? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 8e0c42eb45

Or do you only care when it is an issue you agree with?

Did the President call for his firing?

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

Yes if f@cking matters That's how the bloody first amendment works. Jesus christ.

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Did you support Google when it fired James Damore for his anti-diversity manifesto? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 8e0c42eb45

Or do you only care when it is an issue you agree with?

Did the President call for his firing?

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

SCG don't mean to give you a headache after several hours of hard work, but does the above imply you were OK with the Google firing?

nwadeicer wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Please enlighten us.

It would be nice to hear a Trump aficionado write something other that "but Obama!" and "but Hillary!" to defend Trump's actions and words.

GRBLBGRBLBAGSHAR

The only thing I have to add is that I hope your kid never procreates. Seriously, I understand you're limp a wristed texan and your son follows closely behind. But please, don't let him father a child.

LOL - If you think this is going to bother me you are going to be disappointed. Some European lunatic named Thomas called me a "human trash can" once because none of the seemingly hundreds of weak insults he sent me never got me riled up. He finally stopped replying to my comments. I think that you should jump past the multitude if ridiculous insults that I'm sure you can come up with and just get fed up now and ignore me.

jetero wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Did the President call for his firing?

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

SCG don't mean to give you a headache after several hours of hard work, but does the above imply you were OK with the Google firing?

Yes, that shouldn't surprise you in the least. In the workplace each person needs to be dealt with based on their merits and contribution.

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Did the President call for his firing?

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

Yes if f@cking matters That's how the bloody first amendment works. Jesus christ.

Actually, not really. Here is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did Trump sign a law limiting free speech in the last week?: NOPE

Did Trump have anyone arrested for speaking their minds? NOPE

Did Trump Order anyone to be fired by the NFL? NOPE

No First Amendment issues whatsoever.

Mike Drop

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

Yes if f@cking matters That's how the bloody first amendment works. Jesus christ.

Actually, not really. Here is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did Trump sign a law limiting free speech in the last week?: NOPE

Did Trump have anyone arrested for speaking their minds? NOPE

Did Trump Order anyone to be fired by the NFL? NOPE

No First Amendment issues whatsoever.

Mike Drop

Poor Mike. Why'd you have to drop him? (Did you mean "Mic"? Or is your name "Mike Drop" and you were signing off?)

Why'd Trump bother with this business anyway? To invite his base as you stated above? (I know, according to your definition of "presidential," he's beyond reproach.)

The fact that Republicans are standing behind blatant interference with a private organization shows how far they've fallen from their traditional platform.

jetero wrote:

Why'd Trump bother with this business anyway? To invite his base as you stated above? (I know, according to your definition of "presidential," he's beyond reproach.)

The fact that Republicans are standing behind blatant interference with a private organization shows how far they've fallen from their traditional platform.

One last thing for you to think about as you ponder these questions. Many of the NFL owners made large donations to Trump's campaign - according to the interweb. Isn't it refreshing to have a President who is not bought and paid for?

socalgeo wrote:

jetero wrote:

Why'd Trump bother with this business anyway? To invite his base as you stated above? (I know, according to your definition of "presidential," he's beyond reproach.)

The fact that Republicans are standing behind blatant interference with a private organization shows how far they've fallen from their traditional platform.

One last thing for you to think about as you ponder these questions. Many of the NFL owners made large donations to Trump's campaign - according to the interweb. Isn't it refreshing to have a President who is not bought and paid for?

Absolutely. What a breath of fresh air Bozo the Self-righteous Draft Dodger is. You win again, Mike Drop!

I bet dingus here thinks this is real

coolian2 wrote:

I bet dingus here thinks this is real

Well I'm sure he does, and it probably is as good of an estimate at this point as anything else since all of Bozo's supporters so blindingly have their heads up his whiny senile a*s (see Mike Drop's illuminating definition of "presidential" above, i.e., anything Bozo does--of course the definition changed at noon on 1/20/17).

But the map doesn't say anything, except that most of the U.S. is thinly populated and all of the principal economic centers of the country voted blue (in fact, probably every damn county with a Trump Hotel!). The GOP probably loves it so much they want to go with an Electoral College-type system by county, not just state.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

jetero wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

In case this hasn't yet been covered....

THIS IS RICH !!

The NFL rule book specifically requires both teams appear on the field for the playing of the anthem, standing, remaining quiet, and holding their helmets in their left hands. Failure to do so can result in fines, suspensions, and the loss of draft picks.

The rules are found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual:


The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.

During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

But, Comish Roger Goodell, will and can selectively enforce this rule (if he perceives it to be racist).

https://news.grabien.com/story-roger-go ... ng-players

Totes RICH. Also untrue. But don't let that stop you or your crowd of "textualists" and "originalists" who get news from the Facebook Times.

http://www.snopes.com/must-nfl-players-stand/

D- (IRECT) F? (LIGHT)

Well, I admit I was snookered by that report. I was sort of wondering why more people weren't mentioning it. But I just didn't happen to have a copy of the NFL Rulebook at my side.

Thanks at least for owning up to that.

I'm sure it's not the first time. This week even. It's not that difficult to Google things to at least double-check.

socalgeo wrote:

One last thing for you to think about as you ponder these questions.

And for you to ponder: If a "liberal" president had made similar comments towards businesses regarding that they should fire employees that offend the senses of that president, how would you respond? Would you defend or attack that president for providing "presidential guidance" to terminate employees, say for publicly touting their patriotism or their belief that NRA was great.

Tugg

jetero wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

I bet dingus here thinks this is real

Well I'm sure he does, and it probably is as good of an estimate at this point as anything else since all of Bozo's supporters so blindingly have their heads up his whiny senile a*s (see Mike Drop's illuminating definition of "presidential" above).

But the map doesn't say anything, except that most of the U.S. is thinly populated and all of the principal economic centers of the country voted blue (in fact, probably every damn county with a Trump Hotel!). The GOP probably loves it so much they want to go with an Electoral College-type system by county, not just state.

A better solution would be to leave the EC as is and weight the electoral vote count by the state's economic output per capita. For example, Mississippi has the lowest state gdp per capita and they would serve as the baseline but Massachusetts(a really unfriendly place for business supposedly) with an economic output more than twice that of laissez faire Mississippi would have it's 11 electoral votes multiplied by 2.05 and rounded down for the sake of fairness to 22 electoral votes. Isn't it only right that we reward winners?

Tugger wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

One last thing for you to think about as you ponder these questions.

And for you to ponder: If a "liberal" president had made similar comments towards businesses regarding that they should fire employees that offend the senses of that president, how would you respond? Would you defend or attack that president for providing "presidential guidance" to terminate employees, say for publicly touting their patriotism or their belief that NRA was great.

Tugg

I don't know, does your theoretical situation include showing disrespect for the country? Are they advocating a position of disrespect towards law enforcement? Because that really what this is about to me. Respect for the ideals that make us all better and more united.

socalgeo wrote:

Tugger wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

One last thing for you to think about as you ponder these questions.

And for you to ponder: If a "liberal" president had made similar comments towards businesses regarding that they should fire employees that offend the senses of that president, how would you respond? Would you defend or attack that president for providing "presidential guidance" to terminate employees, say for publicly touting their patriotism or their belief that NRA was great.

Tugg

I don't know, does your theoretical situation include showing disrespect for the country? Are they advocating a position of disrespect towards law enforcement? Because that really what this is about to me. Respect for the ideals that make us all better and more united.

I don't know about you but for me, respect is something that has to be earned. Simply putting on the uniform of a cop or a member of the military doesn't command respect especially since barriers to entry are practically non-existent. Both sectors tend to attract the lowest achievers within our society. From my perspective, for the most part, they've done nothing to earn respect.

socalgeo wrote:

seb146 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Holy smokes you really have gotten yourself all lathered up. Wow! Let me get this straight - my pickup truck flying an American flag is disrespectful to somebody? Like people who hate America? Are you offended by the American flag or the US national anthem?

You are okay with burning the flag as a protest?

It makes my blood boil when I see someone burning an American flag. But I would fight anyone trying to stop it if the protester is being safe about it. I believe in free speech 100%. But I don't have to watch it if it offends me. That is why I cancelled my cable tv subscriptions yesterday. I think these kneelers have every right to call the police pigs, as Colin Kapernik has done. The NFL has a choice as to whether they will allow that speech as part of their entertainment business. The NFL chooses to support protesting against the police and against America.

No more NFL for me.

So you are a right wing snowflake who is patriotic when it suits you. You are angry that people are protesting at sporting events but don't give a crap when someone wears the flag as a poncho or underwear. Makes zero sense.

This whole thing started off as a protest that police not shoot unarmed minorities. Now, it is a protest against the stupid things Trump does and says. You are okay with Nazis and KKK and unarmed minorities being gunned down but God forbid anyone say anything about it.

socalgeo wrote:

Tugger wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

One last thing for you to think about as you ponder these questions.

And for you to ponder: If a "liberal" president had made similar comments towards businesses regarding that they should fire employees that offend the senses of that president, how would you respond? Would you defend or attack that president for providing "presidential guidance" to terminate employees, say for publicly touting their patriotism or their belief that NRA was great.

Tugg

I don't know, does your theoretical situation include showing disrespect for the country? Are they advocating a position of disrespect towards law enforcement? Because that really what this is about to me. Respect for the ideals that make us all better and more united.

Yes, yes it does. Say after an event such as Sandyhook when law enforcement across the country were calling for better ways to address guns in the hands of loons. When many were espousing the nation come together and work toward not allowing such a thing to happen again. Say in a case like that....

You agree that you would support the president speaking against people, advocating that firing them would be an acceptable thing to do (not ordering them to be fired of course). It sounds like you would support that. Or would you?

Tugg

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Well, I admit I was snookered by that report. I was sort of wondering why more people weren't mentioning it. But I just didn't happen to have a copy of the NFL Rulebook at my side.

No need to apologize. You were correct. The one-sided Snopes got snookered with focusing on the term "rulebook", and in their hating haste to try to prove people wrong, they ended up exposing themselves as wrong (not surprisingly).

The anthem policy you linked to is indeed in the NFL game operations manual, a minor technical difference that takes nothing away from the content.

jetero wrote:

I'm sure it's not the first time. This week even. It's not that difficult to Google things to at least double-check.

Might want to double-check yourself, chief. Maybe now you'll wisely think twice about linking to something as biased and unreliable as Snopes.

So the NFL should simply ban all players who show no respect to the flag. If they are not allowed to play, the owners will fire them.

coolian2 wrote:

I bet dingus here thinks this is real

It is not "kneel" vs. "Stand", it is "I love the constitution" vs. "I thought rights are only for me!".

Best regards
Thomas

socalgeo wrote:

Yes, that shouldn't surprise you in the least. In the workplace each person needs to be dealt with based on their merits and contribution.

So you agree then, that if the NFL players are following through with what they're paid to do (play and practice), then if the NFL and the owners decide that no punishment will be imposed, it's completely acceptable. After all, in the workplace (field) each person needs to be dealt with based on their merits (how good a player they are) and contribution (how they help the team win).

Your words

MSPNWA wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Well, I admit I was snookered by that report. I was sort of wondering why more people weren't mentioning it. But I just didn't happen to have a copy of the NFL Rulebook at my side.

No need to apologize. You were correct. The one-sided Snopes got snookered with focusing on the term "rulebook", and in their hating haste to try to prove people wrong, they ended up exposing themselves as wrong (not surprisingly).

The anthem policy you linked to is indeed in the NFL game operations manual, a minor technical difference that takes nothing away from the content.

jetero wrote:

I'm sure it's not the first time. This week even. It's not that difficult to Google things to at least double-check.

Might want to double-check yourself, chief. Maybe now you'll wisely think twice about linking to something as biased and unreliable as Snopes.

Hey buddy, let's let your interpretation stand and not that of the NFL itself because, hey, yeah, politics should interfere with private organizations. (Ooooooh baby, can we do that with churches, too?)

It’s important to know that NFL football games are governed by multiple codes of conduct. One is the NFL rulebook; another is the NFL game operations manual. The rulebook is concerned with in-game actions by players and coaches (like scoring, penalties, challenges and so on), whereas the game-operations manual dictates how NFL games should be run in the bigger-picture organizational sense.

“The league’s Game Operations Department uses the manual to govern the conduct of home clubs, to ensure they protect players and provide the conditions for a fair and fan-friendly contest,” reads the NFL’s website. “Clubs face warnings and other penalties for noncompliance.”

"Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses."

The NFL will not discipline those teams and players who refused to be on the field for the playing of the national anthem before games Sunday, league spokesman Joe Lockhart said.

“There will be no discipline handed down this week,” Lockhart, the NFL’s executive vice president of communications and public affairs, said in a conference call with reporters.

When Colin Kaepernick first made waves by kneeling during pre-game ceremonies back in August 2016, the NFL issued a statement proclaiming that “Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the National Anthem.”

It's all there, buddy. All you have to do is read!

It's a shame all these people are deserting the NFL the year Minneapolis is hosting the Super Bowl . . . my heart goes out to you, buddy.

330west wrote:

jetero wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

I bet dingus here thinks this is real

Well I'm sure he does, and it probably is as good of an estimate at this point as anything else since all of Bozo's supporters so blindingly have their heads up his whiny senile a*s (see Mike Drop's illuminating definition of "presidential" above).

But the map doesn't say anything, except that most of the U.S. is thinly populated and all of the principal economic centers of the country voted blue (in fact, probably every damn county with a Trump Hotel!). The GOP probably loves it so much they want to go with an Electoral College-type system by county, not just state.

A better solution would be to leave the EC as is and weight the electoral vote count by the state's economic output per capita. For example, Mississippi has the lowest state gdp per capita and they would serve as the baseline but Massachusetts(a really unfriendly place for business supposedly) with an economic output more than twice that of laissez faire Mississippi would have it's 11 electoral votes multiplied by 2.05 and rounded down for the sake of fairness to 22 electoral votes. Isn't it only right that we reward winners?

Color me an early supporter!

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

Yes if f@cking matters That's how the bloody first amendment works. Jesus christ.

Actually, not really. Here is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did Trump sign a law limiting free speech in the last week?: NOPE

Did Trump have anyone arrested for speaking their minds? NOPE

Did Trump Order anyone to be fired by the NFL? NOPE

No First Amendment issues whatsoever.

Mike Drop

Swing and a miss. Two centuries of court cases and precedent have made it clear that the first amendment largely applies to prohibit the government from penalizing or limiting free speech. Many of those court cases and precedent have also determined the flag/pledge/anthem dog and pony show can not be compulsory. This is text book government trying to penalize the players for free speech. The NFL owners could try to fire them for exercising their free speech, but they'd be on shaky ground at best. But at the end of the day Trumpanzees are never going to admit black people are covered by the same Constitution that they are. Nazis/white supremacists = very fine people, remember? Black people = SOBs.

OA412 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

The whole thing about 'ungrateful blacks' being applied to Stevie Wonder and black football athletes is just so vulgar. They try and attribute the success of these people (financial or otherwise) to the country being so great, yet when talking about someone white and successful (say Trump) the narrative would surely be about how the success was achieved through their own hard work and wisdom.

Oh absolutely. There's a great article in the New Yorker discussing how "ungrateful" is the new "uppity." https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... new-uppity

Also, I just remembered the controversy in 2012 over Obama's "You didn't build that" line where the president was ripped apart for suggesting that the nation might have had some role in the success of some businesspeople. Funny how the narrative gets turned around when discussing black athletes.

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Did the President call for his firing?

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

Yes if f@cking matters That's how the bloody first amendment works.

Watching him go around in circles is actually becoming rather entertaining.

coolian2 wrote:

I bet dingus here thinks this is real

Is it me or are the bits of the US which are worth visiting all in the blue areas?

socalgeo wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

I don't know, does it matter? Or do you think it would be OK for the NFL to fire the kneelers, as long as the president doesn't mention it?

Yes if f@cking matters That's how the bloody first amendment works. Jesus christ.

Actually, not really. Here is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did Trump sign a law limiting free speech in the last week?: NOPE

Did Trump have anyone arrested for speaking their minds? NOPE

Did Trump Order anyone to be fired by the NFL? NOPE

No First Amendment issues whatsoever.

Mike Drop

Stop. Seriously. Stop while you're still behind. You don't have an issue with POTUS telling an employer they should fire an employee for exercising their rights under the 1st Amendment. Court cases have made it very clear that the 1st Amendment applies to the government, not just Congress, and the Presidency is most assuredly a government post. This is a 1st Amendment issue in all its glory. If you don't see the difference between Google choosing on its own to fire James Damore and the POTUS telling a private organization it should fire players for peaceful protest then you do not know the 1st Amendment. You do not understand the 1st Amendment. You do not understand America. Period. Mic Drop.

jetero wrote:

Hey buddy, let's let your interpretation stand and not that of the NFL itself because, hey, yeah, politics should interfere with private organizations. (Ooooooh baby, can we do that with churches, too?)

Ha yeah I've heard the whole "Snopes has a liberal bias" BS in the past, from one of the most dyed in the wool, blind conservatives I know. Facts are inconvenient things and apparently, they now have a liberal bias. I'd laugh if the whole thing wasn't so horrifying.

OA412 wrote:

Stop. Seriously. Stop while you're still behind. You don't have an issue with POTUS telling an employer they should fire an employee for exercising their rights under the 1st Amendment. Court cases have made it very clear that the 1st Amendment applies to the government, not just Congress, and the President is most assuredly a government post. This is a 1st Amendment issue in all its glory.

Ok - I'll defer to the A.net resident constitutional scholar. I'm sure that since the NFL and the NFLPA have such an ironclad 1st amendment case they will be filing a lawsuit against the government for violating their civil rights. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

OA412 wrote:

Ha yeah I've heard the whole "Snopes has a liberal bias" BS in the past, from one of the most dyed in the wool, blind conservatives I know. Facts are inconvenient things and apparently, they now have a liberal bias. I'd laugh if the whole thing wasn't so horrifying.

It's a sad state of affairs when this satire video turns out to be our daily bread.

einsteinboricua wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Ha yeah I've heard the whole "Snopes has a liberal bias" BS in the past, from one of the most dyed in the wool, blind conservatives I know. Facts are inconvenient things and apparently, they now have a liberal bias. I'd laugh if the whole thing wasn't so horrifying.

It's a sad state of affairs when this satire video turns out to be our daily bread.

OMG I love Mrs. Betty Bowers. And yes, it is a sad state of affairs!

zkojq wrote:

Is it me or are the bits of the US which are worth visiting all in the blue areas?

Define "worth visiting".

Been reading this thread for the past couple days and I find it a shame that so many insults are being thrown back and forth. This is a topic worthy of a serious discussion and to see it degenerate into a name-calling affair is too bad. Can I ask that everyone on both sides of the issue refrain from the personal insults and attacks so that the mods don't end up locking the thread? I think there are some valid arguments being presented here both pro and con and it would be entertaining to debate them in a civil manner.
OK, off my soapbox about that. I will try to articulate my thoughts FWIW

I choose to stand for the national anthem if I am at a public event - but if the guy next to me chooses not to, it's of no concern to me.
I see a lot of talk both here and in other outlets chastising the "millionaire athletes" who know nothing of repression taking part in these protests. My view on that is if Jim in Section 302, row 27, seat 8 didn't stand, it wouldn't get any coverage. The players doing so does which is precisely the point, to bring awareness to an issue they feel needs to be addressed. They are using their position to shine a light on it for guys like Jim in section 302. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a players personal experience with harassment or lack thereof. That's a big point a lot of folks are missing when calling out the stars for their actions. Sports stars and celebrities have used their fame to draw attention or raise money for causes for decades- this one happens to be different because it ruffles some people's feathers.
SoCalGeo brings up a good point in that many of the NFL's biggest fans are not going to be sympathetic to this cause and it may end up biting the NFL in the butt. I think he is a bit hyperbolic about it possibly bringing about the league's demise, but yeah, they may sell less tickets, jerseys and do-dads this season. The fact that this might be the case is only partially because of the protests, the NFL has a lot of problems right now. In this situation they are between a rock and a hard place. Do they alienate a huge percentage of their employees (the players) or part of their fan base? It's a no-win for them

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

You might find a year in which the numbers change slightly, but the fact remains that the black community (which is roughly 13 percent of the US population) are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year.

That is NOT a fact, and if you don't see why it is not, then I don't know what to tell you. Murderers are responsible for murders, not communities. If you want to cite demographics, well at least remove your judgment and your indictment of an entire race.

OK, then. How about this - "African Americans, which make up roughly 13 percent of the US population, are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year." Is that better? Does it make you feel better if you split hairs? Regardless, since my point was that culture is to blame, I think using the phrase "black community" is just as accurate... but whatever floats your boat.

BobPatterson wrote:

Thanks for your response. Very interesting info.

Cheers. I just wanted to make sure people understood the numbers involved.

Look, in cases like Walter Scott, the cop absolutely deserves to have the book thrown at him. "Jack up the jail and throw him under it" as my grandma would say. Or even pursue the death penalty. But outright lies such as "hands up don't shoot" and other similar nonsense, like pushing the false narrative that cops are out there gunning down innocent black men every night is very damaging to our country, in multiple ways.

ER757 wrote:

SoCalGeo brings up a good point in that many of the NFL's biggest fans are not going to be sympathetic to this cause and it may end up biting the NFL in the butt. I think he is a bit hyperbolic about it possibly bringing about the league's demise, but yeah, they may sell less tickets, jerseys and do-dads this season. The fact that this might be the case is only partially because of the protests, the NFL has a lot of problems right now. In this situation they are between a rock and a hard place. Do they alienate a huge percentage of their employees (the players) or part of their fan base? It's a no-win for them

There is what is right, and there is what is popular. The President going after peaceful protesters is absolutely wrong. Period. Civil Rights, even MLK, were never popular--arguably today with this administration they continue to be unpopular. The NFL may be fairing poorly right now, but so are most, if not all sports. NASCAR is dealing with record low ratings--we gonna blame black people for that too?

NoTime wrote:

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

You might find a year in which the numbers change slightly, but the fact remains that the black community (which is roughly 13 percent of the US population) are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year.

That is NOT a fact, and if you don't see why it is not, then I don't know what to tell you. Murderers are responsible for murders, not communities. If you want to cite demographics, well at least remove your judgment and your indictment of an entire race.

OK, then. How about this - "African Americans, which make up roughly 13 percent of the US population, are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year." Is that better? Does it make you feel better if you split hairs? Regardless, since my point was that culture is to blame, I think using the phrase "black community" is just as accurate... but whatever floats your boat.

How is culture to blame and where is the link to those figures?

Are you talking about the same culture that tells minority children that, no matter how hard they work, they will still be stigmatized and blamed when things go wrong? The culture that tells them to just take the easy way out because they don't have a chance anyway? That culture?

NoTime wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Thanks for your response. Very interesting info.

Cheers. I just wanted to make sure people understood the numbers involved.

Look, in cases like Walter Scott, the cop absolutely deserves to have the book thrown at him. "Jack up the jail and throw him under it" as my grandma would say. Or even pursue the death penalty. But outright lies such as "hands up don't shoot" and other similar nonsense, like pushing the false narrative that cops are out there gunning down innocent black men every night is very damaging to our country, in multiple ways.

So, you still defend killing unarmed minorities? Unarmed children? Just because they "seemed" like a threat? How many white kids have been gunned down for no reason because an officer "seemed" to be threatened? How many cops are able to go back to their jobs after gunning down unarmed minorities and kids?

Georgetown professors kneel to protest Jeff Sessions:

"A large portion of the Georgetown Law faculty kneeled in front of the school’s building to protest the arrival of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was scheduled to give a speech on campus free speech that afternoon."

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/2 ... ns-speech/

I think it is getting a bit out of hand now.

NoTime wrote:

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

You might find a year in which the numbers change slightly, but the fact remains that the black community (which is roughly 13 percent of the US population) are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year.

That is NOT a fact, and if you don't see why it is not, then I don't know what to tell you. Murderers are responsible for murders, not communities. If you want to cite demographics, well at least remove your judgment and your indictment of an entire race.

OK, then. How about this - "African Americans, which make up roughly 13 percent of the US population, are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year." Is that better? Does it make you feel better if you split hairs? Regardless, since my point was that culture is to blame, I think using the phrase "black community" is just as accurate... but whatever floats your boat.

Good Lord NoTime, you don't even realize what you're writing.

Or maybe your writing if reflective of what you think.

You haven't changed a GD thing, in fact you made it worse.

In English (well, as in any language), there is a noun clause and a verb clause.

Verbs are action words, and nouns are the one who do the acting.

I'll delete the qualifier to make it simple (you can do that with clauses separated by commas--they're there to add something descriptive, but not substantive to the meaning of the sentence).

"African-Americans are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year."

Again, you have indicted an entire race, a*sbag. I have no doubt that you think that way.

I guess that means that us whiteys are probably responsible for at least 30% of murders, so we might as well turn ourselves in as a race for all of our "cultural" problems.

Or is the "NoTime Test" to only indict a race with a ratio of population to murders over 1.0?

(And do you even give a sh*t about the denominator? Let me guess.)

I'd say you're pvjin Lite but you're at least pvjin 75%.

NoTime wrote:

jetero wrote:

NoTime wrote:

You might find a year in which the numbers change slightly, but the fact remains that the black community (which is roughly 13 percent of the US population) are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year.

That is NOT a fact, and if you don't see why it is not, then I don't know what to tell you. Murderers are responsible for murders, not communities. If you want to cite demographics, well at least remove your judgment and your indictment of an entire race.

OK, then. How about this - "African Americans, which make up roughly 13 percent of the US population, are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year." Is that better? Does it make you feel better if you split hairs? Regardless, since my point was that culture is to blame, I think using the phrase "black community" is just as accurate... but whatever floats your boat.

BobPatterson wrote:

Thanks for your response. Very interesting info.

Cheers. I just wanted to make sure people understood the numbers involved.

Look, in cases like Walter Scott, the cop absolutely deserves to have the book thrown at him. "Jack up the jail and throw him under it" as my grandma would say. Or even pursue the death penalty. But outright lies such as "hands up don't shoot" and other similar nonsense, like pushing the false narrative that cops are out there gunning down innocent black men every night is very damaging to our country, in multiple ways.

Cheers!

What's the NoTime Test for justifiable cop killings? What's the ratio?

How glib can you be?

You acknowledge that someone has been murdered but shrug it off as an anomaly? Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs? Those football players should stand and praise Trump as long as the ratio is below the NoTime Test?

You're an arrogant "son of a b*tch" (Trump's words), NoTime. The really arrogant ones are the entitled ones who don't even come close to realizing it.

jetero wrote:

You're an arrogant "son of a b*tch" (Trump's words), NoTime.

No matter how you mask or parse the words, they are your words, not those of Mr. Trump.

BLM is too violent and taking a knee is disrespectful and hateful, so how are minorities supposed to protest?

seahawk wrote:

I think it is getting a bit out of hand now.

What, exactly, is getting out of hand? Please explain.

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

You're an arrogant "son of a b*tch" (Trump's words), NoTime.

No matter how you mask or parse the words, they are your words, not those of Mr. Trump.

Wrong, Bob.

Trump did not call NoTime a "son of a b*tch," nor did I say he did.

I was calling NoTime a "son of a b*tch" as Trump called football players in Alabama.

Hence why "son of a b*tch" is in quotes, with the parenthetical qualifier "Trump's words."

I'm done diagramming sentences.

To be absolutely clear I think NoTime is a "son of a b*tch" (said derisively in the tone of Bozo to rile people up).

I actually hope one day NoTime gets first-hand experience of that fear. Maybe he'll be 1 of the 10,000 people similarly situated that year.

But I know he'll take one for the team. And that will be the "Jetero Ratio."

Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, after all.

NoTime wrote:

OK, then. How about this - "African Americans, which make up roughly 13 percent of the US population, are responsible for nearly 50% of the murders in our country each year." Is that better? Does it make you feel better if you split hairs? Regardless, since my point was that culture is to blame, I think using the phrase "black community" is just as accurate... but whatever floats your boat.

lets have a look at the data, shall we? Lets simplify the murder rate to 5/100k/a. So, 0.005% of your citizens get murdered every year. For simplicity lets assume one murder has one murderer, although in reality that may not be the case, since people can conspire to murder just one person, or one person can kill multiple people. That would make 0.005% of your population murderers. You say half the murders are committed by African Americans, and they are 13% of the population. That would make 0.019% of that particular group murderers.

Blaming race as a reason for being a murderer in any form or way simply means that you are tossing 99.98% innocent people into you bad people group, vs. 99.998% for the rest of the country. For all practical purposes you can just as well say that there is no meaningful difference between races in the US, as they murder rates are identical up to a fairly high order approximation.

best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think it is getting a bit out of hand now.

What, exactly, is getting out of hand? Please explain.

I can see a theoretical argument for the sports players and their action, although I think it is a disgusting insult to the country and all who served or serve the country. But white leftist liberals using the same gesture to express their dislike for a person, is not only an insult to the person but also an insult to the gesture and the ideas behind the original use.

seahawk wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think it is getting a bit out of hand now.

What, exactly, is getting out of hand? Please explain.

I can see a theoretical argument for the sports players and their action, although I think it is a disgusting insult to the country and all who served or serve the country. But white leftist liberals using the same gesture to express their dislike for a person, is not only an insult to the person but also an insult to the gesture and the ideas behind the original use.

You are still not making things clear.

Are these "white leftist liberals" you speak of supposed to be the professors at Georgetown?

If so, what is it that is getting "out of hand"? Kneeling as a sign of protest?