Quote:What does your comment have to do with this point? It's a real good reason for Kap and Myke not to stand for a song made with this intent in a country that kills and disrespects their people. If it were the other way around, would you stand?
<span style="font-family:arial;">Francis Scott Key
</span>
1. look up the original version of the Star Spangled Banner.
2. He owned 100's of slaves and said the black race is the inferior race.
3. Just in case you're too lazy to look it up the original version celebrated slavery.
My brother is over in Turkey, fighting for your freedom to be [BLEEP], so you and Colin can both go to hell and roast..
I guess this message board and this country have something in common..
People love to bash it, but they'll never leave it..
Quote:My brother is over in Turkey, fighting for your freedom to be [BLEEP], so you and Colin can both go to hell and roast..
I stand for the national anthem every time with my hand over my heart.
But... How is fighting over in Turkey fighting for our freedom? How is that a threat to our freedom. On contrary a point could be made it decreases our freedoms by enabling those who would strike terror!
Quote:I guess this message board and this country have something in common..
People love to bash it, but they'll never leave it..
Isn't one of the premises of this country is that change can be made by the ppl?
I'm also trying to find where he said he hates this country, maybe you can cite that for me.
Quote:Isn't one of the premises of this country is that change can be made by the ppl?
I'm also trying to find where he said he hates this country, maybe you can cite that for me.
While you're searching, maybe you can find someone on here that claimed he hated the country and site that for us.
Yes, there needs to be change. On everybody's part. Including black culture..
The media isn't talking about this part of Kaepernick's interview:
http://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/08/2...al-anthem/
Does the election year have anything to do with timing?
CK: It wasn’t a timing thing, it wasn’t something that was planned. But I think the two presidential candidates that we currently have also represent the issues that we have in this country right now.
Do you want to expand on that?
CK: You have Hillary who has called black teens or black kids super predators, you have Donald Trump who’s openly racist. We have a presidential candidate who has deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential candidate. That doesn’t make sense to me because if that was any other person you’d be in prison. So, what is this country really standing for?
It is a country that has elected a black president twice…
CK: It has elected a black president but there are also a lot of things that haven’t changed. There are a lot of issues that still haven’t been addressed and that’s something over an eight-year term there’s a lot of those things are hard to change and there’s a lot of those things that he doesn’t necessarily have complete control over.
What would be a success?
CK: That’s a tough question because there’s a lot of things that need to change, a lot of different issues that need to be addressed. That’s something that it’s really hard to lock down one specific thing that needs to change currently.
My comments: Kap repeats the "Trump is Racist" theme and like everyone else who said it, he can't point to one instance.
He does know Hillary is a criminal and should be in prison. At least he can point to a crime to back his statement.
He admits a black President can't do much in 8 years of leading the free world, but thinks his sitting during the pledge can change things.
When asked for specifics, he has none.
If everyone who had a beef with this country refused to stand for the national anthem, no one would stand for the national anthem. Colin Kaepernick needs to stop acting like he has some sort of monopoly on grievance. I don't like that $19 trillion in national debt, but I still stand for the anthem. Lots of people don't like Obama, but they still stand for the anthem. Standing up for the anthem just means you respect this country and you have hope that things will always be better and that we will eventually do the right thing.
Is Kap saying he blames the United States of America for the plight of black people? That's absurd. It's misguided. It's counter-productive.
Quote:Didn't even read any of your posts but I know the type of elements in he-yump (sorry neo joe fan). No use arguing because we all know you're all just going to lie and make up stuff.
Unfortunately, you can't make this kind of moronic statement up.
That's an exceptional kind of ignorance right there...
Dude is failing out of the league and this is his recourse to garner attention to his arm kissing self. He is in a perfect city to act such a fool though. San Fran once blocked the USMC from filming a recruitment commercial in one of their parks. Anyone hear anything about what each of our two fine POTUS candidates think of his actions?
Quote:Dude is failing out of the league and this is his recourse to garner attention to his arm kissing self. He is in a perfect city to act such a fool though. San Fran once blocked the USMC from filming a recruitment commercial in one of their parks. Anyone hear anything about what each of our two fine POTUS candidates think of his actions?
Trump said he ought to find another country. I don't think Hillary has said anything about it.
But that's to be expected. Trump spews the first thing that comes into his head and Hillary is being extremely cautious because she is ahead in the polls.
I can actually emphasize with Colin. One reason I quit going to Jag games was due to the Pledge Nazis. I had the guy next to me MOVE MY ARM, saying I was pledging to my lung instead of my heart. I've had people behind me knock my hat off my head when I forgot to take it off. Physical attacks WHEN I WAS PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE.
I didn't even realize how big Kaep's contract was before this controversy. What the HELL was SF thinking after giving him that massive contract? He was a very average QB carried by a talented surrounding cast.
Quote:While you're searching, maybe you can find someone on here that claimed he hated the country and site that for us.
Cool. Since your helping, the guy I was responding to said we need change on everyone's part, including black culture. Can you find what everyone else needs to change?
Quote:Cool. Since your helping, the guy I was responding to said we need change on everyone's part, including black culture. Can you find what everyone else needs to change?
I would, but I'm still too busy looking for the people on here that said he hated the country.
Quote:I would, but I'm still too busy looking for the people on here that said he hated the country.
Well, when you find the time...
1981, there were several different studies that examined the black family during slavery and the antebellum south. The Moynihan report is probably the most famous. Essentially, it blames slavery for the destruction of the black family, and it is the report that paved the way for affirmative action programs and the modern welfare system. It was also fairly controversial. Some of the methodology was flawed, and assumptions used in that report were criticized by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for relying too much on black stereotypes.
There was a different study by Gutman in response to the Moynihan Report that used better methodology and showed that, even though it wasn't traditional marriage (since that was outlawed), monogamy and life long relationships were common among slaves. Birth records show the same father/mother combinations and a history of naming children after immediate family members such as grandfathers and uncles. This doesn't happen if there is no family unit. That doesn't mean that Gutman's report is true for all slaves, but I do think idea is at least somewhat supported by the numerous examples of black fathers putting out ads after the civil war, hoping to reunite with their families.
Like all things, the truth is probably in the middle. Marriage was outlawed by slave owners, showing a clear attempt to break down the familial unit. I don't think for a second it was an ideal place for a family, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to keep the family together in some instances. Yet, you also see a strong desire among the slave population to push against that and maintain tight family ties. In many instances, you even saw lifelong pair bonds between couples, and them getting married as soon as they were able in the post war South. In the end, you probably have a mix of outcomes.
When I mentioned slavery not being able to destroy black families, I was specifically referring to the desire by the black family to maintain their family unit. The strongest evidence for this, imo, is the rebound seen in the Jim Crow south. The percentage of families without fathers then was better than whites today. And, not coincidentally, it is the time when the violent crime rate was similar between whites and blacks.
When you contrast that against the almost 75% of black children born without fathers, that is a stark difference.
I do live in Jax, and would happily meet up. I enjoy getting alternate perspectives on the issue.
Quote:1981, there were several different studies that examined the black family during slavery and the antebellum south. The Moynihan report is probably the most famous. Essentially, it blames slavery for the destruction of the black family, and it is the report that paved the way for affirmative action programs and the modern welfare system. It was also fairly controversial. Some of the methodology was flawed, and assumptions used in that report were criticized by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for relying too much on black stereotypes.
There was a different study by Gutman in response to the Moynihan Report that used better methodology and showed that, even though it wasn't traditional marriage (since that was outlawed), monogamy and life long relationships were common among slaves. Birth records show the same father/mother combinations and a history of naming children after immediate family members such as grandfathers and uncles. This doesn't happen if there is no family unit. That doesn't mean that Gutman's report is true for all slaves, but I do think idea is at least somewhat supported by the numerous examples of black fathers putting out ads after the civil war, hoping to reunite with their families.
Like all things, the truth is probably in the middle. Marriage was outlawed by slave owners, showing a clear attempt to break down the familial unit. I don't think for a second it was an ideal place for a family, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to keep the family together in some instances. Yet, you also see a strong desire among the slave population to push against that and maintain tight family ties. In many instances, you even saw lifelong pair bonds between couples, and them getting married as soon as they were able in the post war South. In the end, you probably have a mix of outcomes.
When I mentioned slavery not being able to destroy black families, I was specifically referring to the desire by the black family to maintain their family unit. The strongest evidence for this, imo, is the rebound seen in the Jim Crow south. The percentage of families without fathers then was better than whites today. And, not coincidentally, it is the time when the violent crime rate was similar between whites and blacks.
When you contrast that against the almost 75% of black children born without fathers, that is a stark difference.
I do live in Jax, and would happily meet up. I enjoy getting alternate perspectives on the issue.
Thanks. I had never heard of these reports before. I think we are on the same page as far as the importance of an intact family structure. Could you point me in the direction of where you found that statistic?
I will definitely let know the next time I'm in town.