Net54baseball.com Forums
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   enough is enough (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=245482)

Peter_Spaeth 09-29-2017 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1705751)
Yes, everything...even Dr. Seuss books.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...as-racist.html

If you don't want to read the article, let me sum it up for you. "Dr. Seuss’s illustrations are steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes."

Wow! Who knew?
Dunno bout Seuss, but as our sensitivies and sensibilities have evolved, there is certainly a lot in the pop culture of even a few decades ago that through today's eyes seems racist and or sexist.

Gobucsmagic74 09-29-2017 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bravos4evr (Post 1705780)
and your communistic ignorance shows it's face again. This has nothing to do with the constitution. zero, zilch, nada.

the first amendment issues you protections from the govt that's it. It does not apply to your job, your private life...etc You have a right to not be arrested for saying things the govt doesn't like. But, you are not free from facing consequences for your choices. If you say things I don't like, I can fire you. If you say things in a place of business they don't like they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you can be arrested for trespassing.


oh, and btw, if you are going to call people tools and be a smug little twat, bring that to me man, I'm not a victim nor am I frightened of internet tough guy communists on the internet. Grow up, your POV is for children.
Looks like Mississippi finally got the internet. Welcome to the 21st century

KMayUSA6060 09-29-2017 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74 (Post 1705810)
Looks like Mississippi finally got the internet. Welcome to the 21st century
Goodness. Lay off the personal attacks.

By the way, you've posted a couple times since I last responded. Still haven't read a single answer to any of my questions.

Gobucsmagic74 09-29-2017 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1705816)
Goodness. Lay off the personal attacks.

By the way, you've posted a couple times since I last responded. Still haven't read a single answer to any of my questions.
F off Kyle May

Gobucsmagic74 09-29-2017 08:09 PM
2) If this is about the Constitution, then can you please show me where in the Constitution it states who these rights are and are not extended to?

They are extended to all, in theory. It's the lack of execution of these rights that's in question

- Why aren't these athletes protesting the violence in the south side of Chicago, that just recorded its 500th official homicide of 2017 this past weekend?
Can't answer that but unsure of the relevance as it relates to this issue?

- If these minorities/people of color were truly oppressed, why is 68% of the NFL and 74% of the NBA black? These athletes are representing the other 99.9 of those who aren't professional athletes

- Why is the leader (Colin Kaepernick) of this "movement" a supporter of Fidel Castro, a truly oppressive dictator? No idea, and he's not the leader as far as I know...he just was the first to stick his neck out

- Why don't these athletes - or anyone who feels oppressed by America for that matter - find another country to live in if the US is truly that oppressive?
Or just be uber patriotic and stop watching sports

Cliff Bowman 09-29-2017 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74 (Post 1705817)
F off Kyle May
Just wanted to save that.

Gobucsmagic74 09-29-2017 08:28 PM
You too Cliff

vintagetoppsguy 09-29-2017 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74 (Post 1705823)
You too Cliff
Can I be included too, Dan? :D

Gobucsmagic74 09-29-2017 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1705824)
Can I be included too, Dan? :D
Yes you may

vintagetoppsguy 09-29-2017 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1705809)
Dunno bout Seuss, but as our sensitivies and sensibilities have evolved, there is certainly a lot in the pop culture of even a few decades ago that through today's eyes seems racist and or sexist.
Yes, Peter, I agree. But do we re-write history, remove plaques, tear down statues, etc? Where do we stop? There are certainly some racists in the HOF too. Do we give them the boot and ignore all their accomplishments? It has to stop somewhere. The political correctness is out of hand.

bnorth 09-29-2017 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1705828)
Yes, Peter, I agree. But do we re-write history, remove plaques, tear down statues, etc? Where do we stop? There are certainly some racists in the HOF too. Do we give them the boot and ignore all their accomplishments? It has to stop somewhere. The political correctness is out of hand.
OK David this has to stop!!! This is your second post in this thread I agree with, what is next, Jake making a post I agree with.:eek::D:D

KMayUSA6060 09-29-2017 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobucsmagic74 (Post 1705819)
Q1: If this is about the Constitution, then can you please show me where in the Constitution it states who these rights are and are not extended to?

A1:They are extended to all, in theory. It's the lack of execution of these rights that's in question

Response to A1: So it has nothing to do with the Constitution, but rather how we as Americans act. Good, good. We're learning something called accountability today.


Q2: Why aren't these athletes protesting the violence in the south side of Chicago, that just recorded its 500th official homicide of 2017 this past weekend?

A2:Can't answer that but unsure of the relevance as it relates to this issue?

Response to A2: Well, if they're protesting social injustice, the murder of people would certainly fall under that category. There were 762 homicides last year, and another 500+ this year. Last year, 4334 people were shot (one person every two hours essentially), and almost all of those victims were black. The police shot 25 people, and they were all mostly armed or dangerous in other ways. Isn't this in the realm of what the athletes are protesting? Why are they ignoring Chicago? Doesn't fit their racial/victim narrative, does it?


Q3: If these minorities/people of color were truly oppressed, why is 68% of the NFL and 74% of the NBA black?

A3: These athletes are representing the other 99.9 of those who aren't professional athletes

Response to A3: Those percentages extended into the college ranks as well. Also, what about higher up figureheads such as Ben Carson, Sheriff David Clarke, etc., who work first hand with those would be "oppressed"? Why don't they see it the same way as the athletes?


Q4: Why is the leader (Colin Kaepernick) of this "movement" a supporter of Fidel Castro, a truly oppressive dictator?

A4: No idea, and he's not the leader as far as I know...he just was the first to stick his neck out

Response to A4: He started the "movement", therefore he lead the movement, hence him being the "leader". And that still somewhat dodges the main point of the question, that the person they are all supporting and standing (or kneeling) with is a supporter of an oppressive dictator.


Q5: Why don't these athletes - or anyone who feels oppressed by America for that matter - find another country to live in if the US is truly that oppressive?
A5: Or just be uber patriotic and stop watching sports

Response to A5: I am incredibly Patriotic, and I have stopped watching the NFL and NBA.
Responses are underneath your answers. And my responses, for the most part, are legitimate responses to spark discussion, which is what we need to have more of. Not the childish name calling that goes on.

KMayUSA6060 09-29-2017 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1705828)
Yes, Peter, I agree. But do we re-write history, remove plaques, tear down statues, etc? Where do we stop? There are certainly some racists in the HOF too. Do we give them the boot and ignore all their accomplishments? It has to stop somewhere. The political correctness is out of hand.
Amen.

rats60 09-29-2017 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1705595)
The NFL can stop paying them any time it likes. It knows the consequences of that decision. These players hold immense power in their profession and I am of the opinion that it's great to see how they choose to wield that power.
Actually they hold no power. The NFL has a rule against what they are doing. The players have a labor agreement that they signed. The league has every right to discipline the players, they are just too weak to do it. The NBA came out today and said that it will punish players who protest during the national anthem.I guess you think the NBA will go out of business.

I saw a poll today. 62% plan to watch less football. 36% plan to buy less merchandise. 32% plan to not attend a game they previously planned on attending. I will not watch the NFL until they change their policy. I had planned on going to a 2nd game this year, no longer. I have no problem with players protesting, just not the anthem. What they are doing is disrespecting those who have served and died for this country. Claiming they are protesting something else doesn't change that fact.

earlywynnfan 09-30-2017 05:24 AM
Thought this was well said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNJUsE7pEs4

cammb 09-30-2017 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1705565)
Racist? Not Racist? Whatever!
Military? Non-military? Whatever!

Do you believe that anybody has the right to protest while at work? While on the job? While being paid?
You are correct, David. If you decide to protest anything at work you can be fired. Your constitutional rights are not protected while at work, therefore the owners should come down on them , but it will never happen for fear they will be called a racist. They are as pathetic as their employees.

nolemmings 09-30-2017 07:41 PM
Your statement is oversimplistic. It is by no means clear that a player could be fired for failing to stand for the anthem. In fact, I would bet he cannot.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede.../#3333baa12976
Moot point, though--ain't gonna happen.

rats60 10-01-2017 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706145)
Your statement is oversimplistic. It is by no means clear that a player could be fired for failing to stand for the anthem. In fact, I would bet he cannot.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede.../#3333baa12976
Moot point, though--ain't gonna happen.
You can be fired for voting for the wrong candidate. Employers have wide latitude in hiring and firing as long as they don't make it obvious they are discriminating.

cammb 10-01-2017 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706145)
Your statement is oversimplistic. It is by no means clear that a player could be fired for failing to stand for the anthem. In fact, I would bet he cannot.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcede.../#3333baa12976
Moot point, though--ain't gonna happen.
You certainly can be fired if you are protesting anything at your work place , on company time , without the owners permission

KMayUSA6060 10-01-2017 08:15 AM
Only government employees are protected from termination of employment by the First Amendment, I believe.

Peter_Spaeth 10-01-2017 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1705828)
Yes, Peter, I agree. But do we re-write history, remove plaques, tear down statues, etc? Where do we stop? There are certainly some racists in the HOF too. Do we give them the boot and ignore all their accomplishments? It has to stop somewhere. The political correctness is out of hand.
It's a good question. I am not sure I have a principled answer but I am OK with taking down the Confederate flag on a state capitol as it's such an overt symbol. Removing monuments and renaming things though strikes me as feel good political correctness that achieves nothing for the most part.

nolemmings 10-01-2017 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cammb (Post 1706224)
You certainly can be fired if you are protesting anything at your work place , on company time , without the owners permission
Maybe you can, but if you have contractual protections such as may be found in collective bargaining agreements, there are often obstacles to such firings. An owner would likely have to claim that the "protest" violated a morals provision in the CBA and convince an arbitrator that certain broad and likely amorphous language governing player conduct precludes gestures (kneeling) during the anthem. Then he would have to show that such conduct is so outrageous that the punishment is not fine or suspension, but termination of the contract. Good luck with that, even at the arbitration level. Never mind what a judge would do with that thereafter if the player appealed. Go for it.

nolemmings 10-01-2017 10:34 AM
BTW, it should be remembered that the great Jackie Robinson, who served in the military during a time of World War, also protested the flag:

In his 1972 autobiography, I Never Had It Made, Jackie Robinson -- who broke baseball’s color line in 1947 -- wrote, "As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world."

Peter_Spaeth 10-01-2017 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1706216)
You can be fired for voting for the wrong candidate. Employers have wide latitude in hiring and firing as long as they don't make it obvious they are discriminating.
I don't think you can be fired for fulfilling your jury duty obligation, for example. There are public policy limits to the unfettered right to fire an at will employee.

KMayUSA6060 10-01-2017 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706286)
BTW, it should be remembered that the great Jackie Robinson, who served in the military during a time of World War, also protested the flag:

In his 1972 autobiography, I Never Had It Made, Jackie Robinson -- who broke baseball’s color line in 1947 -- wrote, "As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world."
It should also be remembered the actual oppression he suffered through, and that he served in a time where the draft was still active.

nolemmings 10-01-2017 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1706294)
It should also be remembered the actual oppression he suffered through, and that he served in a time where the draft was still active.
So his military service should be discounted because he was drafted instead of enlisted, and he had a right to protest because he could prove, in a manner satisfactory to you and/or others, that he was an actual victim of oppression.
Got it.

cammb 10-01-2017 11:54 AM
[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706298]So his military service should be discounted because he was drafted instead of enlisted, and he had a right to protest because he could prove, in a manner satisfactory to you and/or others, that he was an actual victim of oppression.


I really feel sorry for these poor oppressed football players. Maybe we should set a fund to help them through their oppression

Peter_Spaeth 10-01-2017 01:11 PM
[QUOTE=cammb;1706309]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706298)
So his military service should be discounted because he was drafted instead of enlisted, and he had a right to protest because he could prove, in a manner satisfactory to you and/or others, that he was an actual victim of oppression.


I really feel sorry for these poor oppressed football players. Maybe we should set a fund to help them through their oppression
You are missing the point entirely.

vintagetoppsguy 10-01-2017 01:16 PM
Did Jackie ever get down on all fours and raise his leg pretending to piss like a dog in celebration?

Snapolit1 10-01-2017 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706262)
Maybe you can, but if you have contractual protections such as may be found in collective bargaining agreements, there are often obstacles to such firings. An owner would likely have to claim that the "protest" violated a morals provision in the CBA and convince an arbitrator that certain broad and likely amorphous language governing player conduct precludes gestures (kneeling) during the anthem. Then he would have to show that such conduct is so outrageous that the punishment is not fine or suspension, but termination of the contract. Good luck with that, even at the arbitration level. Never mind what a judge would do with that thereafter if the player appealed. Go for it.
Yeah, I'd like to be the lawyer on that one there. After an hour reviewing players who weren't fired for abusing their wives in public, beating their kids senseless, punching police officers, participating in sexual assaults of every stripe imaginable who weren't terminated on the morals clause, I'd then get around to the guy who too a knee quietly during the national anthem. I'd live for that.

samosa4u 10-01-2017 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1706327)
Did Jackie ever get down on all fours and raise his leg pretending to piss like a dog in celebration?
Wtf??? lol

Dude, what are you on?

KMayUSA6060 10-01-2017 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706298)
So his military service should be discounted because he was drafted instead of enlisted, and he had a right to protest because he could prove, in a manner satisfactory to you and/or others, that he was an actual victim of oppression.
Got it.
Never said his military service should be discounted.

People didn't really have the choice to serve or not to serve back then. When called upon, you served. Additionally, because he was a person of color, he probably served in a lesser position. Do you really think he wanted to serve a country that truly oppressed him? No. But he did, and for that, I thank him dearly.

The second part of your comment was along the lines of what I am saying, which is he did have good reason to protest the country. He had to use different bathrooms, different drinking fountains, stay in different hotels or crappier hotel rooms. He was heckled by all sorts of fans, going through emotional Hell day in and day out. If he was assaulted, he couldn't fight back, because the story would become that he attacked someone else and the white person was in self-defense mode. Compare that to today, when you have these athletes (many of them black) assaulting others and either having the charges dropped, or getting off with a slap on the wrist.

vintagetoppsguy 10-01-2017 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 1706355)
Wtf??? lol

Dude, what are you on?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/fo...icle-1.3518225

vintagetoppsguy 10-01-2017 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 1706355)
Wtf???
Wtf??? is right. We have black athletes wanting to kneel for the National Anthem to bring awareness to their perceived racial injustice and be taken seriously, but then later get down on all fours and raise their leg pretending to piss like a dog. The NFL has become a joke. Agree or not, you can't dispute the fact their ratings are down. I can honestly say that I didn't watch a single game today, not even any highlights.

nolemmings 10-01-2017 04:04 PM
[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1706326]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cammb (Post 1706309)

You are missing the point entirely.
He's not alone. The ignorance in this thread is breathtaking, although I suspect some of it isn't just ignorance.

Peter_Spaeth 10-01-2017 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1706370)
Wtf??? is right. We have black athletes wanting to kneel for the National Anthem to bring awareness to their perceived racial injustice and be taken seriously, but then later get down on all fours and raise their leg pretending to piss like a dog. The NFL has become a joke. Agree or not, you can't dispute the fact their ratings are down. I can honestly say that I didn't watch a single game today, not even any highlights.
Then you missed a terrific game by your local team.

frankbmd 10-01-2017 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 1706355)
Wtf??? lol

Dude, what are you on?
No tell Odell

Dewey 10-01-2017 04:57 PM
Do people of color face discrimination from law enforcement? If so, how can we stop this discrimination?

Show concern for those two questions and the protests stop (edit- maybe not, the unity against Trump might continue to inspire). But we'd rather argue over flags, anthems, and protesting at work. Whatever keeps us from the real issue.

If there is data that shows discrimination, but then no collective will to fix it, what might that say?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...ce-racial-bias

vintagetoppsguy 10-01-2017 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey (Post 1706382)
Do people of color face discrimination from law enforcement? If so, how can we stop this discrimination?

Show concern for those two questions and the protests stop (edit- maybe not, the unity against Trump might continue to inspire). But we'd rather argue over flags, anthems, and protesting at work. Whatever keeps us from the real issue.

If there is data that shows discrimination, but then no collective will to fix it, what might that say?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...ce-racial-bias
I guess it depends on the data you pick and choose. Can we use my data from a black man?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/559303622...#sp=show-clips

Dewey 10-01-2017 05:18 PM
So you carefully read the 15+ citations and then had time to respond with a single link all within 8 minutes of my post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1706386)
I guess it depends on the data you pick and choose. Can we use my data from a black man?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/559303622...#sp=show-clips

vintagetoppsguy 10-01-2017 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey (Post 1706390)
So you carefully read the 15+ citations and then had time to respond with a single link all within 8 minutes of my post?
So you carefully watched the video and heard straight from the lips of a black man that if these thugs would comply with lawful commands they wouldn't be shot?

Again, that's the one common denominator that all the shootings have in common - FTC.

Edited to add: For some reason, over the last few years, young black males have taken it upon themselves to decide they don't have to follow an officer's command.

Dewey 10-01-2017 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1706392)
So you carefully watched the video and heard straight from the lips of a black man that if these thugs would comply with lawful commands they wouldn't be shot?

Again, that's the one common denominator that all the shootings have in common - FTC.
Just did. Now it's your turn.

cammb 10-01-2017 05:36 PM
[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706371]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1706326)

He's not alone. The ignorance in this thread is breathtaking, although I suspect some of it isn't just ignorance.
The ignorance is on your part. And your suspicions are that I am a racist? People like you like to throw that word around when you have no answers.

Cliff Bowman 10-01-2017 05:57 PM
The ignorance is on your part. And your suspicions are that I am a racist? People like you like to throw that word around when you have no answers.[/QUOTE]

Can you edit the quote? It makes it appear that Peter Spaeth said it when it was actually nolemmings. ETA, now it's doing it to me unless it's just my computer.

nolemmings 10-01-2017 06:11 PM
[QUOTE=cammb;1706404]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706371)

The ignorance is on your part. And your suspicions are that I am a racist? People like you like to throw that word around when you have no answers.
There is no ignorance on my part, of that I am certain. Answers? You can't handle answers--they escape you, you deflect them, or they are simply beyond your comprehension. So let me see if I can make this more clear.

There will be no firings for kneeling at the National Anthem.
There could be no firings absent formal action taken through the CBA, which the owners would lose. Following along so far?
Whether the players are themselves oppressed is irrelevant. I'm a 58 year-old white guy who never served in the military. Do I have no right to join those who have been oppressed and protest with them at what I believe to be injustice? Or do I have to pass some exam satisfactory to you that I have such a right? Who are you to tell me what causes I may protest and those I cannot? And if I'm allowed to join a protest, where do you draw the line at who else can and cannot? There are white players kneeling in these protests. Do they need to prove to you that and how they've been mistreated? Is there a Jackie Robinson test? (Apparently he earned the right to not salute the flag or stand for the anthem.) Don't worry, it was a rhetorical question--the Answer is no.

KMayUSA6060 10-01-2017 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey (Post 1706382)
Do people of color face discrimination from law enforcement? If so, how can we stop this discrimination?

Show concern for those two questions and the protests stop (edit- maybe not, the unity against Trump might continue to inspire). But we'd rather argue over flags, anthems, and protesting at work. Whatever keeps us from the real issue.

If there is data that shows discrimination, but then no collective will to fix it, what might that say?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...ce-racial-bias
This all depends on 2 things...

1) Which data (as David stated) you choose to believe.

2) If you believe the "victims" of these law enforcement situations (Michael Brown, Travyon Martin, etc.) are truly innocent or not.

rats60 10-01-2017 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706416)

There will be no firings for kneeling at the National Anthem.
What team is Colin Kaepernick playing for?

Dewey 10-01-2017 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1706426)
This all depends on 2 things...

1) Which data (as David stated) you choose to believe.

2) If you believe the "victims" of these law enforcement situations (Michael Brown, Travyon Martin, etc.) are truly innocent or not.
I believe the data that is true, even if it doesn't confirm my bias. At least I try too. It's a painful thing, admittedly, to change a mind. Read the article. I'm assuming you didn't. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

vintagetoppsguy 10-01-2017 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey (Post 1706463)
I believe the data that is true, even if it doesn't confirm my bias. At least I try too. It's a painful thing, admittedly, to change a mind. Read the article. I'm assuming you didn't. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
Do you believe that if a police officer gives a lawful command and the suspect fails to comply with that command and the police officer fears for his life, that the officer has the right to use deadly force?

For example if the officer says "show me your hands" or "on the ground" and the suspect reaches inside his pants or jacket or elsewhere, does the officer have the right to shoot?

chaddurbin 10-01-2017 07:57 PM
[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706371]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1706326)

He's not alone. The ignorance in this thread is breathtaking, although I suspect some of it isn't just ignorance.
scary huh? why are you and peter still in this thread? are you honestly trying to change their minds? :D

Peter_Spaeth 10-01-2017 08:01 PM
Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

But even if this is right about police violence, I think it's unrealistic to say racism has been eradicated from America. And I see nothing wrong with peaceful protests, even if ultimately token, to remind us we still need to improve.

Cliff Bowman 10-01-2017 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey (Post 1706463)
I believe the data that is true, even if it doesn't confirm my bias. At least I try too. It's a painful thing, admittedly, to change a mind. Read the article. I'm assuming you didn't. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
Here is the list of people that supplied the data for your report: the New York Times, a University of California-Davis professor, the Black Lives Matter affiliated group Mapping Police Violence, the Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch led Department Of Justice, the Washington Post, retired federal and state judges tasked by the San Francisco district attorney's office, the ACLU, a Harvard professor, a New York Federal District judge, a team of professors from UCLA, Portland State University, and Boston University, a Stanford University study, a Washington State University professor, University of Chicago researchers. You honestly believe that every single one of these people were completely unbiased and didn't already have a conclusion decided before they even started?

samosa4u 10-01-2017 08:34 PM
I think Leon needs to lock this thread up. This is supposed to be the Watercooler all sports talk forum, and so far nobody is discussing sports.

When I first joined this forum, one of the first things that caught my attention was the following:

Please no politics or religion.

This was obviously put there for a reason. These are very sensitive subjects and by discussing them people go absolutely batsh*t crazy and nothing gets solved in the end. I'm also surprised how some of you spent the whole weekend just fighting over this. What kind of weekend is that supposed to be? Now there are still a few hours to go until Monday arrives, so turn off your damn computer (or tablet or cell or whatever) and do something else!

Dewey 10-01-2017 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 1706506)
Here is the list of people that supplied the data for your report: the New York Times, a University of California-Davis professor, the Black Lives Matter affiliated group Mapping Police Violence, the Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch led Department Of Justice, the Washington Post, retired federal and state judges tasked by the San Francisco district attorney's office, the ACLU, a Harvard professor, a New York Federal District judge, a team of professors from UCLA, Portland State University, and Boston University, a Stanford University study, a Washington State University professor, University of Chicago researchers. You honestly believe that every single one of these people were completely unbiased and didn't already have a conclusion decided before they even started?
I never made such a claim about the sources being unbiased. I provided a link with 15+ reports pertaining to discrimination by law enforcement. Others provided alternative links from Fox News and the National Review. Now if we were all to read those and make informed arguments, then we'd really be doing good work. I look forward to reading the NR articles soon. I've enjoyed reading it over the years. To dismiss either set of reports as wrong because of who wrote them is an excuse to quit thinking. We need to stop politicizing the pursuit of truth and seek it wherever it is, even if articulated by an ideological opponent. But if we can't muster even a bit of epistemological humility, then discourse itself is dead, replaced by its zombified form known as power politics and the tyrrany of self-interest. Just read widely. Read wisely. I trust you to do that. Then ask people of color you know about their experience. That has been very transformative for me.

Dewey 10-01-2017 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1706501]Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

Thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them.

Peter_Spaeth 10-01-2017 08:46 PM
[QUOTE=Dewey;1706512]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1706501)
Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

Thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them.
A longer piece with more statistics.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/ar...eo16_fryer.pdf

KMayUSA6060 10-02-2017 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samosa4u (Post 1706509)
I think Leon needs to lock this thread up. This is supposed to be the Watercooler all sports talk forum, and so far nobody is discussing sports.

When I first joined this forum, one of the first things that caught my attention was the following:

Please no politics or religion.

This was obviously put there for a reason. These are very sensitive subjects and by discussing them people go absolutely batsh*t crazy and nothing gets solved in the end. I'm also surprised how some of you spent the whole weekend just fighting over this. What kind of weekend is that supposed to be? Now there are still a few hours to go until Monday arrives, so turn off your damn computer (or tablet or cell or whatever) and do something else!
Here is my response to this.

Athletes are using the sports stage to make a political statement and send a political message. If they want to try and bring awareness to something they feel is an issue in this country, shouldn't the issue at hand be discussed in detail to see #1 if there actually is an issue and #2 how we as Americans can improve on that issue? Our society loves to bury their hand in the sand as soon as politics and other difficult points of conversation are brought up.

Whether or not this is the right forum for that discussion is up to Leon (the line is a dot to you), but it's a matter that was brought up through the platform of sports.

packs 10-02-2017 08:48 AM
I am curious as to how the people who are against protests feel about this particular issue:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/louisia...during-anthem/

In Louisiana you have public high schools, supported by public funds, telling students they will face discipline for protesting. However, Tinker vs Des Moines has already set the legal precedent that "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

A leading issue for debate here has been the "not at work" perspective. How do you feel about public schools with policies that are at odds with the Supreme Court?

KMayUSA6060 10-02-2017 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1706587)
I am curious as to how the people who are against protests feel about this particular issue:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/louisia...during-anthem/

In Louisiana you have public high schools, supported by public funds, telling students they will face discipline for protesting. However, Tinker vs Des Moines has already set the legal precedent that "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

A leading issue for debate here has been the "not at work" perspective. How do you feel about public schools with policies that are at odds with the Supreme Court?
Public schools don't have the right to stop these students from peacefully protesting (as long as it doesn't interrupt class), especially if the Supreme Court has had previous rulings to this. I know there are kids that go out in the hallway when the Pledge of Allegiance is said (rare anymore), and then they come back in. I think their parents need slapped, but they still have the right to do that.

vintagetoppsguy 10-02-2017 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1706587)
I am curious as to how the people who are against protests feel about this particular issue:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/louisia...during-anthem/

In Louisiana you have public high schools, supported by public funds, telling students they will face discipline for protesting. However, Tinker vs Des Moines has already set the legal precedent that "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

A leading issue for debate here has been the "not at work" perspective. How do you feel about public schools with policies that are at odds with the Supreme Court?
How do I feel? I think it's great! Here's a couple of jackasses that got kicked off a Texas high school football team for kneeling. You have to remember these are extracurricular activities, so I would guess these kids have no rights.

http://abc13.com/sports/football-pla...-knee/2473284/

KMayUSA6060 10-02-2017 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1706595)
How do I feel? I think it's great! Here's a couple of jackasses that got kicked off a Texas high school football team for kneeling. You have to remember these are extracurricular activities, so I would guess these kids have no rights.

http://abc13.com/sports/football-pla...-knee/2473284/
Good point on that. Playing football is a privilege, not a right, and protesting during this isn't the same as protesting during the school day.

With it being an extracurricular activity, that changes things, taking away the prior Supreme Court ruling similarities/comparisons.

packs 10-02-2017 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1706597)
Good point on that. Playing football is a privilege, not a right, and protesting during this isn't the same as protesting during the school day.

With it being an extracurricular activity, that changes things, taking away the prior Supreme Court ruling similarities/comparisons.
No it doesn't change things. The reason those students were booted is because they go to a private Christian Academy.....

KMayUSA6060 10-02-2017 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1706599)
No it doesn't change things. The reason those students were booted is because they go to a private Christian Academy.....
Doesn't change the fact that it's an extracurricular activity. You can't take away academics, but you can punish the extracurricular aspect.

packs 10-02-2017 10:24 AM
That's not correct. The Supreme Court ruling applies to public schools and public school programs. The Christian academy is exempt because it is not a public school and does not receive public school funds. A Christian Academy would, for example, not need to comply with Title IX, a public school does.

steve B 10-02-2017 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1706356)
People didn't really have the choice to serve or not to serve back then. When called upon, you served. Additionally, because he was a person of color, he probably served in a lesser position. Do you really think he wanted to serve a country that truly oppressed him? No. But he did, and for that, I thank him dearly.
While his getting in to OCS wasn't easy, and wasn't for several others at the same time, he was eventually commissioned, and was assigned to the 761st tank battalion.

So not a lesser position, despite the entire military being segregated at the time.

The rest of his military career was a complete mess because of racism though.

Steve B

Leon 10-02-2017 10:43 AM
I don't really have a problem with "a" thread about this stuff in the water cooler section. It is sports related. And yeah, this is the reason we don't generally allow politics etc..... though I am not sure this is politics? I will reiterate my own position. Every player has a right to protest.
And for me, every team owner can deal with it the way they see fit. From what it looks like to me most of them are just going with the flow (of money coming in, so as not to disrupt their coffers).
IF it were my team they wouldn't be disrespecting the National Anthem by kneeling or putting some crazy arm sign in the air towards the Flag. As mentioned, there is a chance they can't be fired but they can certainly be benched, if not fired. I especifically liked the interview I saw with the Crosby TX football coach at the private school and the actions he took. To each their own, I am not a Football fan, haven't been one and this makes me not even want to watch highlights :). Screw the NFL....

.

KMayUSA6060 10-02-2017 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1706618)
That's not correct. The Supreme Court ruling applies to public schools and public school programs. The Christian academy is exempt because it is not a public school and does not receive public school funds. A Christian Academy would, for example, not need to comply with Title IX, a public school does.
While the ruling may or may not extend to school programs (nothing I've read specifically mentions sports or other extracurricular activities), I personally don't think it should extend to school programs. Those are privileges, not so much a right. That's what changed for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B (Post 1706619)
While his getting in to OCS wasn't easy, and wasn't for several others at the same time, he was eventually commissioned, and was assigned to the 761st tank battalion.

So not a lesser position, despite the entire military being segregated at the time.

The rest of his military career was a complete mess because of racism though.

Steve B
Interesting. Thank you very much for sharing that.

packs 10-02-2017 11:30 AM
Sports programs are publicly funded they are not afforded anymore rights than any other public school program in school or after school. The law is clear. You cannot punish or otherwise dissuade a student in a public school from participating in any form of non-violent or silent protest on school grounds.

vintagetoppsguy 10-02-2017 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1706640)
Sports programs are publicly funded they are not afforded anymore rights than any other public school program in school or after school. The law is clear. You cannot punish or otherwise dissuade a student in a public school from participating in any form of non-violent or silent protest on school grounds.
I disagree, but it's not worth arguing anymore.

Where's the law that says they coach has to play them?

packs 10-02-2017 12:04 PM
What do you disagree with? You didn't identify the difference between Louisiana public schools and a private Christian academy in Texas. If you disagree with the Supreme Court, well, I have bad news for you....

Title IX applies to sports programs, which you say are "extracurricular activities" that aren't subject to Supreme Court rulings. If that is so, then how do you explain the fact that public schools are required to comply with Title IX, which is a Supreme Court ruling? It applies to sport unequivocally.

Lastly, you did not even read the article I posted nor did you digest what it says. You immediately pointed to another article that had no bearing and no relevance to what I posted.

cammb 10-02-2017 12:20 PM
[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706416]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cammb (Post 1706404)

There is no ignorance on my part, of that I am certain. Answers? You can't handle answers--they escape you, you deflect them, or they are simply beyond your comprehension. So let me see if I can make this more clear.

There will be no firings for kneeling at the National Anthem.
There could be no firings absent formal action taken through the CBA, which the owners would lose. Following along so far?
Whether the players are themselves oppressed is irrelevant. I'm a 58 year-old white guy who never served in the military. Do I have no right to join those who have been oppressed and protest with them at what I believe to be injustice? Or do I have to pass some exam satisfactory to you that I have such a right? Who are you to tell me what causes I may protest and those I cannot? And if I'm allowed to join a protest, where do you draw the line at who else can and cannot? There are white players kneeling in these protests. Do they need to prove to you that and how they've been mistreated? Is there a Jackie Robinson test? (Apparently he earned the right to not salute the flag or stand for the anthem.) Don't worry, it was a rhetorical question--the Answer is no.
Let me see if I can make it clear for you, I did not say hey will be fired I said they CAN BE fired. Where do you come off with this insane diatribe? I know who you are and what you represent so please no holier than thou bs

nolemmings 10-02-2017 12:52 PM
[QUOTE=cammb;1706659]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706416)

Let me see if I can make it clear for you, I did not say hey will be fired I said they CAN BE fired. Where do you come off with this insane diatribe? I know who you are and what you represent so please no holier than thou bs
You don't know me or what I represent. You know who I am, i.e., my name, because I state my full name per forum rules and because I would anyway. In the words of Roger Daltrey, "Who the f--- are you?"

packs 10-02-2017 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1706633)
While the ruling may or may not extend to school programs (nothing I've read specifically mentions sports or other extracurricular activities), I personally don't think it should extend to school programs. Those are privileges, not so much a right. That's what changed for me.
I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

Cliff Bowman 10-02-2017 01:09 PM
[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706670]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706659)

You don't know me or what I represent. You know who I am, i.e., my name, because I state my full name per forum rules and because I would anyway. In the words of Roger Daltrey, "Who the f--- are you?"
Those are the words of Pete Townshend, voice of Roger Daltrey. Daltrey couldn't write a decent song if his life depended on it.

nolemmings 10-02-2017 01:11 PM
BTW, I am not holier than thou or holier than anyone. It is not me who is telling others what they must do to show they are "real Americans", "respectful Americans" or "Patriots". Seriously, re-read the thread and tell us who comes across as "holier than thou".

nolemmings 10-02-2017 01:12 PM
[QUOTE=Cliff Bowman;1706672]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706670)

Those are the words of Pete Townshend, voice of Roger Daltrey. Daltrey couldn't write a decent song if his life depended on it.
Point taken, sort of. Roger sang those words, but Pete clearly was the man.

EDITED TO ADD: Besides, I always wondered if Roger ad-libbed that f-word into the lyrics, thereby making it is his own. It was within his skill set :)
Still, thanks for the clarification.

KMayUSA6060 10-02-2017 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1706671)
I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?
Don't get me started on Title IX. That's a joke of a law in and of itself.

The Supreme Court says a lot of things. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them; I just have to abide by the laws.

packs 10-02-2017 01:49 PM
That is the exact issue I brought up. Louisiana Parish doesn't know the law, and isn't acting within it when it threatens to punish public school students protected under Tinker vs. Des Moines by the highest court in our country.

KMayUSA6060 10-02-2017 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs (Post 1706684)
That is the exact issue I brought up. Louisiana Parish doesn't know the law, and isn't acting within it when it threatens to punish public school students protected under Tinker vs. Des Moines by the highest court in our country.
Title IX visibly applies to sports. Tinker v. Des Moines does not.

vintagetoppsguy 10-02-2017 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 1706673)
Seriously, re-read the thread
This is a joke, right? You need to re-read the thread. It's about those wanting to boycott NFL games. If you agree, then do it. If you disagree, keep your mouth shut and move on.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:14 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page