There are real issues where there is no middle ground. You either give african americans a right to vote or not. Saying 5 count as much as 2 whites as a middle ground for example would be silly..

just pointing out there isnt always a middle ground

I hope the Braves win tonight....and Clayton Kershaw is coming off the DL

It should be a good night!

I need your full name.

Just to touch on the last part of your post here.

It is 100% illegal to burn the flag and any person that supports the right of someone to do so is a tyrant and enemy to the US. Let me catch some f'ing twatwaffle burning a flag and see how quick I make the 5 o'clock news.

Having a right to protest and express an opinion is one thing. If Kaepernick wants to sit by all means let him sit. Doesn't mean I have to support of root for him and his team. Your First Amendment rights that we so freely use are very abused and there is quite a bit that aren't actually your right and should be punished as such.

Flag
 

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSb...OIa5U1L_URT6M-

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSb...XIOzP5ddTmrPk-

Texas vs. Johnson says otherwise.

Also, Kaepernick is getting death threats.

As far as burinng the flag... I feel very strongly that if u burn the flag u should be deported.

Short story... So i have a flag hanging in front of my house, over the years its become ripped and tattered. I replaced it with a new one. But what to do with the old one?

I turned to google. Which said the proper way to dispose of a us flag is to properly fold then burn the flag. Not convinced of google answer i talk to my broinlaw whos a marine. Who confirms this is the proper way.

3 months later i have a new flag hanging on front of my house & a torn flag hanging in my yard. Still cant bring myself to do it.

Flag burning, I find to be distasteful, disrespectful, but it is a Constitutional right and one cannot legally deny someone that right or deport them for it.

Like others have said it's tasteless and disrespectful, but most importantly it's another haughty display of millennial self-righteous that this millennial finds hilarious. Who cares what this cretin thinks or does? He's trash just like the rest of my generation. More of the same "look at me, look at me" antics that I'm bombarded with on a daily basis. I honestly don't think the guy cares at all about what he's protesting however he's probably tricked himself into believing he cares. It's also funny to watch a guy with a room temperature IQ explain his rationale! Every time I see the imbecile I get mixed emotions of laughter and sadness.

I feel sorry for Boomer's and Gen X'ers because you grew up in a relatively simple world where good morals and values were pretty much taken for granted. The country in it's current state is, understandingly, somewhat shocking to you. I however have grown up in a culture that rejects reality and celebrates interesting topics like "gender fluidity" while demonizing anything that represents the country's shameful past that brought nothing but misery to anyone who was not a white male (funny I've never understood why my grandma's generation of women were so happy and women of today so miserable). The whole thing is just laughable to me at this point. I've spent too many years being upset.

I've thought about moving to Asia and living out the rest of my days in blissful ignorance of my surroundings as foreigner that's unimmersed in the native culture. Sadly, I think my baseball card collection would be valueless in the land of China lol.

Sorry for the rant.

Steve,

You can give your ripped & torn flag to your local American Legion and they will dispose of it properly. All you need to do is give them a call and I'm sure they will help you.

Jantz

thanks for the info - i may do that

I was willing to let this go, but since someone else bumped the thread, I'm going to clear something up.

You call me ignorant and a liar? Look here, you stupid jackass. Kaepernick was fined $11,000 by the NFL for using a racial slur. It went to arbitration. The arbitrator, Ted Cottrell, reduced the original fine to $5512 stating it was a "clear violation of the rule". So, jackass, if he wasn't fined for using a racial slur, what was he fined for then???? Answer that!

well said..

..us boomers don't like what we see, I can tell you that...There is no respect for authority and parenting has become the worst problem America has faced. It is at the root of all of the divisiveness today. We need to quit with most of the welfare programs and instead teach parenting 101. America would be a better place.

This is a great video if you take the time (it's only three and a half minutes) to watch it...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/qq0_nyWVXCI

Why take personal responsibility for your kids and your own actions when you can simply blame it on some segment of 'society'? That's a heck of a lot easier.

He was fined for saying F***.

The arbitrator found that there was no evidence to suggest he used a racial slur, but he still did curse. So the fine was reduced to the minimum since rules were technically broken.

I'm sure you knew that since you read the article.

Either way, he is protesting the imprisonment, beating and murder of over one hundred thousand American citizens who did not commit a single crime.

A cause I'm sure every American can support.

Actually, no, I didn't read the article. I'm not going to read some bias trash.

The NFL fined Kaepernick for using a racial slur (that the referee heard and Houston confirmed) and it was upheld (but reduced) by an arbitrator.

But I'll take the bait, Jason. Where is the proof that he used the "F" word? Link to video?

They link the video in the article (strong language obviously). Along with the arbitrators ruling, the unions response and the excerpt from the NFL rule book that enforces the fine (despite no slur being used).

On a completely unrelated note: I define a man as "willfully ignorant" when he chooses to argue a point, is provided evidence that proves his point wrong, then willfully ignores that evidence and continues with his original argument.

Further, when an American man peacefully protests the imprisonment, beating and murder of over one hundred thousand American citizens by their sworn protectors despite not committing any crime, I support him.

It's a cause every American can get behind.


http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/10/...fl-nflpa-49ers

I like what South Park did...just announce on the PA... " to honor America, please stand, sit or kneel"

I looked at the article. I really don't see a video. Can you link it here?

Personally, I'm more sincerely interested in the source of this stat.

Of course:

It looks like there may have been over 100,000 in Baltimore alone since 2011: DOJ Investigation of Baltimore PD

Sections 3: BPD Makes Unconstitutional Arrests (page 34):

10,163 arrests were made that were immediately rejected at the station because they were made without merit.

Section 3, part C: BPD Unlawfully Detains Individuals (page 39)

"Local prosecutors described this practice to Justice Department officials as BPD officers making arrests without probable cause on the street, then hours later deciding to “unarrest” when detention and questioning failed to uncover additional evidence. Our review of BPD documents confirmed that BPD uses these unlawful detentions."

They do not have an official count of instances this happens (since not documented), but the DOJ estimates there were approximately 420,000 stops per year, compared to the actually reported BPD figure of 124,000. (Page 25) The DOJ (reasonably) believes that the unrecorded 300,000 stops (in 2014 alone) went unrecorded because they would not have met the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion (or charges would've been filed or the stop would've been recorded). Many (if not most) would fall under this unlawful detainment.

Keep in mind that this is just Baltimore.


There have been formal investigations into almost every major police department - I used Baltimore as an example because it is the most recent.

A summary of the number of times the DOJ has investigated police departments: Link

These aren't criminals committing crimes and getting arrested, these are innocent American citizens who are getting detained and formally arrested without cause. The DOJ also discusses unreasonable force on innocent civilians (page 74) and even gets into the BPD practice of "rough riding" (page 112).

I think every American can agree that unlawful arrests and beatings of hundreds of thousands of American citizens is a cause worth protesting.

It's embedded into the article. I can link the article for you again...

I didn't see it the first time. Linking the article again isn't going to make me see it a second time. Open the video, copy the web address and paste it here.

Tried watching the video from work, but our filters block it. Tried pulling it up on my phone, and I hear no audio at all. All I hear is static. I don't know if it's my phone, or if there is no audio to the video. I'll try watching it from my computer when I get home.

However, the clip doesn't show Kaepernick mouthing off as he's walking up to Houston, nor does it show him shove Houston from behind, which can be seen on other videos.

No, I said you were either being willfully ignorant by not reading the article I linked to or lying, not both. Do you know what the difference is between "or" and "and?"

And now you admit you were being willfully ignorant. Thanks for clearing that up.

In regards to "Answer that!" - why? Firstly, it was answered in the link. Secondly, you've already proven that you want to keep your head buried in the sand and remain ignorant to any facts that do not comport to your preconceived notions since these facts are "some bias trash," so why waste my time providing you more answers?

I don't have to read your stupid article. The referee heard it, Houston confirmed that he said it, he was fined for it and, on top of all that, Kaepernick is on video lying about it.

Why the protest? I really don't get it.
 

Let's look at the most recent shooting in Charlotte. That guy had a gun (witnesses saw it), he was ordered to drop it (witnesses heard the commands), he refused to comply and he was shot...by a black officer. So why are the blacks protesting when the facts are clear in this matter? What do they have to protest? It was a clear case of FTC and he was justifiably shot dead. Is this why Kaepernick is refusing to stand for the national anthem? Because an armed black man was ordered to put down his weapon, failed to do so and was shot for it?

Thank you to the Charlotte police department for taking that POS off the street. Keep up the good work!!!

Apparantly dash cam video shows the guy with a gun, im sure it will b released soon

That's just it though. It doesn't matter what the dash cam shows, blacks are going to ignore the facts and protest irregardless.

Thanks for the link. Interesting read though I'm not yet done.

However as the DOJ seems to be agenda driven by the simple fact of the types of issues they pursue and those they do not, I take any of their 'estimations' with a grain of salt. One just needs to look at whose civil rights they choose to protect or not, and which parts of the constitution they want to follow and when.

As noted in my NC ticketing example, one can't assume directly that population ratios should be carried over to specific activities. One can't take a 2:1 ratio of AA:white and directly relate that to cases of 'loitering' stops/arrests (for example) and expect the same ratio to be the target. One has to look at the ratio of those actual out and about. In the extreme sense (again, as an example), if the majority of the white population was over 40, and the majority of the AA population is under 25, then you will probably have a much higher percentage of potential AA 'loitering candidates' since most people over 40 (regardless of race) don't "hang out". Similarly as it comes to income levels, the poor tend to "hang out" more than those well off, as being well off affords the opportunity to do other things. Did the report compare race differences within the same income brackets?

That said, there are quite a few disturbing items in here. Definite things that need to be addressed. But one key element of the report could be summed up on page 23. "We are left with the firm impression that, despite the significant obstacles to restoring community trust in BPD, there is a deep desire across diverse elements of the City for a police force that is responsive, effective, and fair." This would indicate by those involved, and from the cooperation and full access granted by the BPD, that all parties are willing to fix that. The future should be the take away here, not the past.

As far as cop shootings, it's always a tragedy when someone innocent is shot. But anyone who wants to dig deep into this needs to wonder why this is a 'front page' item today. If you look at the historical data (another item I previously pointed to), the rate of police killings for AA males under the age of 25 was 5 times higher in the late 60s than it is today and 2 times higher in the late 70s than today. For older AA, it was 4 times higher in the late 60s and about 3 times higher in the late 70s than today. All other races as a whole have been fairly constant. My snarky question would be "maybe we should investigate why those didn't drop at the same rate"?

The problem arises when this is agenda driven and not fact driven. How many 'innocent' people were shot by the police that are still being held up as examples when the evidence clearly shows they were not 'innocent'? Add to that other 'race related' incidents, that low and behold, never happened but are still held up as 'examples'. I could run off a list from the top of my head. Would you not agree that all these 'false positives' do more to dilute the problem? Or maybe leave a 'bad taste' for those who might otherwise care? It's "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome. But if it fits the race baiter's agenda and people's pre-conceived notion, the hell with the facts. Charlotte is a fresh example. But hey, I guess for some, "Black Lives Matter" to the extent that I can loot and get my free big flat screen TV. Yes, I'm clearly being facetious. But hopefully you can see how all these 'false positives' impact perception as well.

So, what to do about the shootings and treatment of AA by the police? What do you think would happen if by some magic today, all AA interactions with the police were polite and followed the officer's request without resistance or attitude? Do you think shootings and harassment by the police would start to increase or decrease? That police wouldn't be quite as cautious, feel quite as threatened, and therefore probably not respond quite as forcefully. That spiral of trust/mistrust and respect/disrespect goes in both directions.

CK and others that 'protest' might 'care' about this, but it appears to me (IMHO) to be more 'bandwagon hopping' than anything.

Done here, as it's difficult to not be political when the topic itself is political in nature.

If this issue was truly important to these sports people, they would not choose to do a sit-in during the National Anthem. They would choose to do a sit-in during the game and refuse to play.

Double standard???
 

Why is it considered freedom of speech when sackorpick, err, I mean Kaepernick stands up and speaks out for something he believes in, but Steve Clevenger isn't afforded the same right?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...ners/90908618/

Has a right to say what he believes. Probably even a responsibility to do so. But it would have been a lot braver had he done it when he was athletically relevant.

every idiot has the right to say 1 + 1 =3......but will never make it right.

if that dramma queen wants to improve inner citys he should take his money and go build some schools, daycare, after school programs etc. Disrespecting our country, the country that provides him a job and plenty of money and luxuries for his family, ummm for sitting his fat ass on a bench, is just being a hypocrite.

Full name ? It is great to have an opinion but put your name out there

Steven pacchiano