Not to get back to Kaepernick , but

[packs]

I'll just agree to disagree with you there. Kaepernick's problem is that teams view him as a potential distraction, Schilling's is that there's a lot of hatemongering in him and he makes people uncomfortable. He's insulted the transgender community, the African American community, the scientific community, the Muslim community, it just goes on and on.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I'll just agree to disagree with you there. Kaepernick's problem is that teams view him as a potential distraction, Schilling's is that there's a lot of hatemongering in him and he makes people uncomfortable. He's insulted the transgender community, the African American community, the scientific community, the Muslim community, it just goes on and on.

Schilling also spoke for millions of Americans that share his same or similar beliefs but have less of a platform to be heard from. It's not his fault people are offended.

Kaepernick offended MILLIONS of Americans as well.

Here is my point, and you are assisting me in making it. It is ok for people to exercise their First Amendment right, but it is also ok for those who oppose them to do the same. But the argument in favor of Kaepernick seems to be made from a standpoint of he was right and everyone else is wrong.

[packs]

I don't see any similarities between the two unless like you said you view them extremely generally and leave it at two people who suffered professional consequences.

[PowderedH2O]

GM's have to weigh their options. I live just outside of Charlotte. Is Kaepernick better than Derek Anderson? Probably. But, will the GM get any grief from anyone for having Anderson on the team? Nope.

If he signed Kaepernick he runs the risk of alienating at least half of the fan base here. Is it worth signing him if the stadium has only 40,000 fans in attendance? It is all about the money. In many cities, he will drive away more money than he brings in. If Kaepernick was Aaron Rodgers good, it might be worth it. But not for an "ok" guy. It's the same reason Terrell Owens couldn't get a gig, even when he probably had another couple of years in him. When the trouble you bring outweighs the profits you bring,you are out.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't find Schilling to be a unifying force at all, unless it's unifying other people like him.

Schilling DID unify millions of Americans who share his same or similar beliefs (as Kyle mentioned above). Count me as one. I don't want some transgender pervert using the same restroom as my young daughter. I guess that makes me a hatemonger too, huh? Why is Kaepernick allowed to take a stance for something he believes in, but Schilling is not? Both comments by both parties offended millions of Americans. Both comments by both parties unified millions of Americans. We can agree on that, right? But it's OK for Kaepernick to exercise his freedom of speech because you agree with him. But it's not OK for Schilling to exercise his freedom of speech because you disagree with him. That's basically what you're saying, right Frank?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Schilling DID unify millions of Americans who share his same or similar beliefs (as Kyle mentioned above). Count me as one. I don't want some transgender pervert using the same restroom as my young daughter. I guess that makes me a hatemonger too, huh? Why is Kaepernick allowed to take a stance for something he believes in, but Schilling is not? Both comments by both parties offended millions of Americans. Both comments by both parties unified millions of Americans. We can agree on that, right? But it's OK for Kaepernick to exercise his freedom of speech because you agree with him. But it's not OK for Schilling to exercise his freedom of speech because you disagree with him. That's basically what you're saying, right Frank?

+1. Well said.

[packs]

One person is advocating for people's rights and another advocates for taking them away. I'd say that's a fundamental difference between the two.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

One person is advocating for people's rights and another advocates for taking them away. I'd say that's a fundamental difference between the two.

Depends in one's perspective. As far as Im concerned, Schilling was standing up for my rights.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't see any similarities between the two unless like you said you view them extremely generally and leave it at two people who suffered professional consequences.

Ding ding ding. That's all you need to leave it at to understand how they are similar. To go into more detail, both used their First Amendment rights to express political beliefs. But that's it. It's as simple as that, when looking at it from a neutral standpoint.

So if that's all it is, why do you fight so hard for Kaepernick?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Schilling's is that there's a lot of hatemongering in him and he makes people uncomfortable. He's insulted the transgender community...

And what do you say about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...-straight.html

Because it was made by a lefty perverted freak, I suppose that makes it OK, right? And you seriously question what Schilling has against the transgender freak community?

[Cliff Bowman]

I was off on the 60 to 1 ratio, after googling it, it is about 40 to 1. According to FBI statistics, from the years 2009 to 2012, the yearly total is on average 4,472 blacks killed by other blacks, and the yearly total average of blacks killed by police both justified and unjustified is 112. So it would take 40 years of police killing blacks to equal one year of blacks killing blacks. Chicago's death toll from 2001 to 2015 was 7,401, the death toll from Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the same time period is 8,321. From 1999 to 2011, 2,151 whites were killed by police compared to 1,130 blacks. Yes, I know there is a higher ratio of whites to blacks in America. I could cite many more statistics but I believe those would get me branded as a racist bigot .

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I was off on the 60 to 1 ratio, after googling it, it is about 40 to 1. According to FBI statistics, from the years 2009 to 2012, the yearly total is on average 4,472 blacks killed by other blacks, and the yearly total average of blacks killed by police both justified and unjustified is 112. So it would take 40 years of police killing blacks to equal one year of blacks killing blacks. Chicago's death toll from 2001 to 2015 was 7,401, the death toll from Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the same time period is 8,321. From 1999 to 2011, 2,151 whites were killed by police compared to 1,130 blacks. Yes, I know there is a higher ratio of whites to blacks in America. I could cite many more statistics but I believe those would get me branded as a racist bigot .

Since you really said nothing new...

Originally Posted by dgo71

Why should one thing outweigh the other? Black-on-black crime exists, so that somehow negates or minimizes the problem that racism still exists as well? Of course not, because one problem has nothing to do with the other. They are BOTH problems, and trying to turn focus to black-on-black crime serves only to draw focus away from racism.