Boycott

[|SF2|]

2 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

So.... Essentially, it's unfair and we shouldn't do anything to change that. You can't legislate "fair" so let's do absolutely nothing about it except bitch if someone brings it to our attention. Because you'd rather just be entertained by bread and circuses on Sundays without having to remember that "other" people have it unfair.

And FYI, both sides are taking from one and giving to the other. You get to decide if you support Robin Hood or King John. It's not complicated.

 

As I have said before, give me provable statistical examples of that things are not fair.  I don't think it is fair I have to give a higher percentage of my income to the Federal and State Government then those who make less money.  We use the same roads and what not. 

[LostInDaJungle]

13 minutes ago, SF2 said:

By the way, explain to me what part of the SYSTEM isn't fair and PLEASE cite sources. I realize there is racism out there but the SYSTEM to me is GOVERNMENT.

Seriously? You DO know why the players are taking a knee, right?

We live in a world where an NFL player taking a knee during the anthem gets them labeled an "SOB" by our president, while white men with assault rifles carrying Nazi flags are "fine people".

Christ, how many studies have been done that prove the justice system is unfair to people of color? How many times do courts have to declare "stop and frisk" racial and unconstitutional? When our president pardons a man who had people die in his concentration camps on a proven charge that he (unapologetically) racially profiled people of color...

Wow.
 

[LostInDaJungle]

5 minutes ago, SF2 said:

As I have said before, give me provable statistical examples of that things are not fair.  I don't think it is fair I have to give a higher percentage of my income to the Federal and State Government then those who make less money.  We use the same roads and what not. 

Do you think it's fair that you pay a higher percentage than the people who make far more than you? When they use those roads, schools, and our military to earn that money in the first place? 

 

[|kennethmw|]

5 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Seriously? You DO know why the players are taking a knee, right?

We live in a world where an NFL player taking a knee during the anthem gets them labeled an "SOB" by our president, while white men with assault rifles carrying Nazi flags are "fine people".

Christ, how many studies have been done that prove the justice system is unfair to people of color? How many times do courts have to declare "stop and frisk" racial and unconstitutional? When our president pardons a man who had people die in his concentration camps on a proven charge that he (unapologetically) racially profiled people of color...

Wow.
 

🙌

[|kennethmw|]

2 hours ago, Numbers said:

 

I gave you more credit than this.

I'll ask again... Should everyone be equal ? How has the situation improved by kneeling ?

Comparing what many brave middle class and poor people did in the Civil Rights of the 60s and 70s to kneeling at an NFL game is the only Bullshit going on right now.

 

Maybe you'll listen to the white guy.  I doubt it, but I'll still give it a try.

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/09/donald-trump-nfl-protests-anthem-kneeling-dale-hansen-wfaa-speech-video

[|Numbers|]

Maybe you'll listen to the white guy.  I doubt it, but I'll still give it a try.
 
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/09/donald-trump-nfl-protests-anthem-kneeling-dale-hansen-wfaa-speech-video

Maybe I'll listen to a white guy? Thought I knew you better than that. Guess not. To even remotely think I value one races opinion over another is simply wrong.

[|SF2|]

30 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Seriously? You DO know why the players are taking a knee, right?

We live in a world where an NFL player taking a knee during the anthem gets them labeled an "SOB" by our president, while white men with assault rifles carrying Nazi flags are "fine people".

Christ, how many studies have been done that prove the justice system is unfair to people of color? How many times do courts have to declare "stop and frisk" racial and unconstitutional? When our president pardons a man who had people die in his concentration camps on a proven charge that he (unapologetically) racially profiled people of color...

Wow.
 

Wow indeed.  The people doing most of the rioting are  not white men with assault weapons carrying Nazi flags.  Talk about being color blind. The President did not call Nazis fine people, you are just making shit up and parsing words.   

 

Quick question, how many blacks were killed by Nazis last year?  Zero??

 

Certainly wasn't a Nazi who shot and killed 5 Dallas police officers last year was it?   Since it did occur during a BLM protest, I guess all BLM members are murders using your logic. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/index.html

 

The courts i.e. the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled stop and frisk unconstitutional, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. 

 

I asked you to bring facts, you bring unsubstantiated emotionally based talking points. 

 

Oh no, the President called me something mean,  my feewings are hurt,...mommy. 

 

 

 

 

[|SF2|]

54 minutes ago, kennethmw said:

Maybe you'll listen to the white guy.  I doubt it, but I'll still give it a try.

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/09/donald-trump-nfl-protests-anthem-kneeling-dale-hansen-wfaa-speech-video

What is your point?  The first amendment has nothing to do with any of this. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws preventing freedom of speech.  In other words the GOVERNMENT can not prevent you from exercising your right of free speech.   The players have been allowed to do so.  

 

Donald Trump has the same right to call the guys kneeling SOBs all day long BECAUSE of the First Amendment.  Certainly not something you would expect a President to say but it is his right.  He can call out the owners too and tell them to fire them.  They don't have to do what he asks them to do.  

 

The Government has done NOTHING to stop guys from kneeling so what is this guy going on about?  Fans have every right to be upset of they want to be.  That is their right as well.   Free speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say, just ask the Dixie Chicks.  They were never arrested but their fans turned they backs on them and essentially ended their careers. 

 

Also, if a fan feels the players are disrespecting the flag, THAT IS HIS RIGHT, some fat white sportscaster doesn't speak for them.  

 

[|SF2|]

1 hour ago, kennethmw said:

Maybe you'll listen to the white guy.  I doubt it, but I'll still give it a try.

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/09/donald-trump-nfl-protests-anthem-kneeling-dale-hansen-wfaa-speech-video

Hey, here is a black guy saying BLM should be classified as a hate group.     Maybe you will listen to him.  I doubt it but I'll still give it a try. 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/31/sheriff-clarke-black-lives-matter-should-be-classified-hate-group

[T-Dub]

28 minutes ago, SF2 said:

 

 

Donald Trump has the same right to call the guys kneeling SOBs all day long BECAUSE of the First Amendment.  Certainly not something you would expect a President to say but it is his right.  He can call out the owners too and tell them to fire them.  They don't have to do what he asks them to do.  

 

 

 

Not a lawyer but from what I've been reading that's not always the case.  As a private citizen, sure, he can (and did) say whatever pig-ignorant fucktarded dipshittery popped into his empty head.  When he accepted the office of POTUS, however, along with the two-fisted ego stroking he so desperately longed for came a higher standard for his conduct. With great power comes.. well, an expectation and in many cases a legal standard of responsibility. Not a concept familiar to our Internet Troll President, but there are restrictions that come with the office. In short, threatening people's employment and so on puts him on thin ice.  

[|Numbers|]

30 minutes ago, SF2 said:

Hey, here is a black guy saying BLM should be classified as a hate group.     Maybe you will listen to him.  I doubt it but I'll still give it a try. 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/31/sheriff-clarke-black-lives-matter-should-be-classified-hate-group

 

Using his failed logic will not work.

[Jamie_B]

Some data....

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

[Jamie_B]

57 minutes ago, SF2 said:

What is your point?  The first amendment has nothing to do with any of this. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws preventing freedom of speech.  In other words the GOVERNMENT can not prevent you from exercising your right of free speech.   The players have been allowed to do so.  

 

Donald Trump has the same right to call the guys kneeling SOBs all day long BECAUSE of the First Amendment.  Certainly not something you would expect a President to say but it is his right.  He can call out the owners too and tell them to fire them.  They don't have to do what he asks them to do.  

 

The Government has done NOTHING to stop guys from kneeling so what is this guy going on about?  Fans have every right to be upset of they want to be.  That is their right as well.   Free speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say, just ask the Dixie Chicks.  They were never arrested but their fans turned they backs on them and essentially ended their careers. 

 

Also, if a fan feels the players are disrespecting the flag, THAT IS HIS RIGHT, some fat white sportscaster doesn't speak for them.  

 

 

Private citizen Trump can suggest the NFL fire players, President Trump is walking a fine line here....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

[Jamie_B]

35 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Not a lawyer but from what I've been reading that's not always the case.  As a private citizen, sure, he can (and did) say whatever pig-ignorant fucktarded dipshittery popped into his empty head.  When he accepted the office of POTUS, however, along with the two-fisted ego stroking he so desperately longed for came a higher standard for his conduct. With great power comes.. well, an expectation and in many cases a legal standard of responsibility. Not a concept familiar to our Internet Troll President, but there are restrictions that come with the office. In short, threatening people's employment and so on puts him on thin ice.  

 

 

Obviously this would be difficult to prove but yes, this is correct, see link

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

[|SF2|]

46 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Not a lawyer but from what I've been reading that's not always the case.  As a private citizen, sure, he can (and did) say whatever pig-ignorant fucktarded dipshittery popped into his empty head.  When he accepted the office of POTUS, however, along with the two-fisted ego stroking he so desperately longed for came a higher standard for his conduct. With great power comes.. well, an expectation and in many cases a legal standard of responsibility. Not a concept familiar to our Internet Troll President, but there are restrictions that come with the office. In short, threatening people's employment and so on puts him on thin ice.  

Don't get me wrong, Trump spouting off about the kneelers and calling them SOBs was just plain stupid.  However, unless he used a caviot say, "You should fire them or I will have the IRS audit you" or "we will end your tax exempt status" he is still allowed to utter the nonsense he did.  He would need to communicate some type of consequences (or reward in some cases) to violate the law. 

 

If you ever get a chance listen to the best of Richard Nixon tapes, especially the shit he said about Vietnam with Kissinger.  What was said behind closed doors was insane. Pentagon papers told the same story about Kennedy and Johnson.  All three men were smart enough to not say stupid shit in public.  Nixon was too stupid to turn the tape recorder off though, LOL.

[CincyInDC]

Why can't they just even more quietly protest?

 

[|SF2|]

2 minutes ago, CincyInDC said:

Why can't they just even more quietly protest?

 

LOL.   Again, I don't care if they protest, I actual am enjoying watching this whole thing blow up.  I love the fact that modern athletes think they can do anything they want with no backlash.  Sure didn't take Ben the Rapist long to cry out that he didn't really want to do what he did.  At least man up and accept the heat from your former fans. 

[|Numbers|]

14 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Some data....

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

 

Thanks for the read.  Their statistics are always well gathered and unbiased.  The article does provide a link elsewhere in that it states; "ProPublica found evidence of a disparity in the risks faced by young black and white men. This does not prove that police officers target any age or racial group – the data is far too limited to point to a cause for the disparity. We hoped that our analysis would spur further inquiry into why this disparity exists, which it has done, and we stand by it."

 

An unbiased article with well researched facts and statistics will do exactly what the authors intended which is to "spur further inquiry." 

 

On a secondary note:  (quoted from factcheck.org is also a good read) 

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/
 

Quote

 

Q: Was the police technique of “stop-and-frisk” found unconstitutional?

A: The practice is not unconstitutional, but a judge ruled in 2013 that New York City’s stop-and-frisk program was carried out in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution.

 

Quote

This Court’s mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool

 

[Jamie_B]

Yeah Propublica is a really well done site.

[|SF2|]

37 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Some data....

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

https://www.encounterbooks.com/features/11-critical-points-race-crime-america/

 

Propublica plays loose with numbers and does NOT take into account WHO is committing the crime in this country and at what rate.   

Just a little teaser from this piece: 

 

The [New York] Times trotted out the misleading statistic published by ProPublica  in October 2014 that young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot dead by police than are young white males—a calculation that overlooks the fact that young black men commit homicide at nearly ten times the rate of young white and Hispanic males combined.* That astronomically higher homicide-commission rate means that police officers are going to be sent to fight crime disproportionately in black neighborhoods, where they will more likely encounter armed shooting suspects…Asians are minorities, which, according to the Times’ ideology, should make them the target of police brutality. But they barely show up in police-shooting data because their crime rates are so low.

For the period 2005–09, a significant portion of victims in the ProPublica study—62 percent—were resisting arrest or assaulting an officer, as Michael Brown did.

 

Moreover, the vast majority of the 258 black victims of police shootings in 2015 were armed, as were white and Hispanic victims. And 258 is a small fraction of the nearly 6,000 annual black victims of black committed homicide. Indeed, the percentage of black homicide deaths that result from police killings is far less than the percentage of white and Hispanic homicide deaths that result from police killings: 4 percent of black homicide victims are killed by the police, compared with 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide victims. A “Lives Matter” antipolice movement, if there is to be one, would more appropriately be labeled “White and Hispanic Lives Matter.”

 

 

[|SF2|]

13 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Yeah Propublica is a really well done site.

Not really, they don't add any context to the numbers.   They don't discuss who is committing the actual crimes and at what rate.  The pretend all races are committing violent crime at the same rate which isn't the case,.. not even close.  BTW, if police departments are so racist, why are they not going into Asian parts of the city and gunning them down?   

[T-Dub]

Quote

a calculation that overlooks the fact that young black men commit homicide at nearly ten times the rate of young white and Hispanic males combined.

 

Oh boy, this again.  Although I don't see where they linked a source, I can only assume that this is drawn from the much-misinterpreted FBI crime stats. Which, as usual, are distorted to further a racist agenda.

 

Unless we believe every single homicide is solved and ends in a conviction, these stats do NOT count how often a crime is committed.  What they DO count is how often various races are found guilty.  In other words, black men are 10 times more likely to be CONVICTED of homicide. Nowhere in those stats are there figures on how often crimes are committed, because obviously many homicides go unsolved and law enforcement wouldn't know the race of the killer.  Further, when you look at the actual source, it says right at the beginning that not all departments keep track of the race of the perp.  So not only do they not actually mean what they're usually quoted to prove, they aren't even accurate numbers.

 

 

[Jamie_B]

re: Ferguson, here is the DOJ's findings on that, note section 4.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

[Jamie_B]

2 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Oh boy, this again.  Although I don't see where they linked a source, I can only assume that this is drawn from the much-misinterpreted FBI crime stats. Which, as usual, are distorted to further a racist agenda.

 

Unless we believe every single homicide is solved and ends in a conviction, these stats do NOT count how often a crime is committed.  What they DO count is how often various races are found guilty.  In other words, black men are 10 times more likely to be CONVICTED of homicide. Nowhere in those stats are there figures on how often crimes are committed, because obviously many homicides go unsolved and law enforcement wouldn't know the race of the killer.  Further, when you look at the actual source, it says right at the beginning that not all departments keep track of the race of the perp.  So not only do they not actually mean what they're usually quoted to prove, they aren't even accurate numbers.

 

 

This

[T-Dub]

I'd also add that nobody every seems very interested in analyzing the predominant race of child molesters and rapists, both crimes where there is rarely any question of who committed them.