(09-26-2017, 03:26 PM)Bullseye Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 01:11 AM)jj82284 Wrote: 1.  The debate about confederate symbols is about opposition to editing history, not reverence for the confederacy or sedition.  Moreover a large number of confederate monuments were erected in celebration of the actions taken by the confederates in the post war era to foster unity among parts of the country that had literally been at war with each other.  

2.  And equality of law enforcement is an American ideal.  Within the arena of ideas if one is going to propose that there is widespread systemic racism then there should be some factual statistical basis for that argument.  Instead, in this discussion not only is evidence not presented, it's not even asked for.  The reality of the situation shows that both black and white people are shot in direct proportion to their interactions with police.  Their interactions with police are in direct proportion to the amount of crimes reported.  The major premise that in some way America has an unspoken institutional conspiracy to deprive people of color of basic due process doesn't pass any level of real scrutiny.  Instead we cherry pick one or two cases, write a bumper sticker and kneel to the ground.  

3.  Most importantly the idea of players who control roughly 4 billion dollars of annual revenue having to PROTEST for anything is laughable at best.  This isn't the Jim Crow south where blacks were denied the right to vote and had a DP suppressed by legitimate external impediments to upward mobility.  These players should be the economic and political epicenters of their community.  If they want to advance a certain candidate for Mayor, police chief, DA, public defender or any of the like then they are more than capable of doing so.  In fact if they themselves decided to pursue a career in politics then they have the name ID to make that happen.  Either way, there is no reason that we should be looking at a symbolic proxy from a bunch of college educated millionares that are free to pursue any real course of action that they see fit.

4.  But real action would require real solutions.  Real solutions would require a real examination of the facts that don't support the narrative advanced by the MSM or pop culture.  In Ferguson you had black witnesses coming before a Grand Jury testifying that the whole HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT narrative was a lie.  You had the initial witnesses recant their testimony.  You had concurrent forensic examination lead by the DOJ (Headed by Eric Holder, appointed by Barrack Obama) that confirmed this.  But when the DA who the people of Ferguson THEMSELVES ELECTED presented the FACTS OF THE CASE where were Tavon Austin and the other Rams players who protested Michael Brown's shooting to stop the looters from destroying part of a city?  In Baltimore again, you had a Black President, a black Attorney General, a Black Mayor, a Black (fine as all get out) District attorney and three black officers perpetrating institutional racism?  In the city of Milwaukee you had a BLACK OFFICER have to shoot a suspect that he knew from school.  INSTITUTIONAL RACISM!  In Dallas you had a madman open fire and kill 5 police officers in a department that was lead by a black Sheriff.  These are all instances where not only was a baseless accusation made, but national coverage went along with massive violence and even death!

5.  When you get outside the echo chamber you realize how silly this is.  Just because some drug dealer doesn't want to go to Jail and decides to try and duke it out with 5-0 doesn't mean that the country as a whole is actively trying to disenfranchise people of color.

(Numbering and emphasis added.  Answers given will correspond accordingly with the numbered paragraphs.)

1.  With all due respect, that is male bovine excrement.  I have been involved with a fight over a vestige of the Confederacy in an actual controversy (the renaming of the school formerly named after that bigoted [BLEEP]-stain known as Nathan Bedford Forrest-confederate general and founder of the Ku Klux Klan).  Most of the debates we had over the issue involved Confederate apologists desperately trying to rehab the reputation of that man.  They painted romanticized notions of this "great leader of men" who was known to have "held enlightened racial views for his time," who founded the KKK as a benevolent organization, only to leave in disillusionment when people from outside took the Klan in a direction he didn't want.  Even cursory thought shows that narrative doesn't pass the straight face test.  If he were well known for "enlightened racial views," why would the organization he founded attract virulent racists?  If he were this "great leader of men" why couldn't he control the direction of the very group he founded?  As for the Confederate statues being a "peace offering" of sorts to foster unity?  There is the brink of insanity and then there is the abyss.  Confederate statues being a unifying factor for people at war, to say nothing of the vast numbers of African Americans oppressed by Confederate policy, is a concept dredged up from deep within the abyss.

2.  A protest, especially one where players either silently kneel during the national anthem is not an avenue to present evidence.  That said, even direct video evidence showing disparate treatment/impact is minimized/ignored by those of you on the right.  When the video from South Carolina showed the man fleeing and not threatening the officer, the officer shooting him, then going back to plant the weapon on him, there were many on the right still saying the officer was justified.  We hear the familiar refrain from those on the right that compliance is the key to surviving police encounters.  Yet we see video evidence showing 12 year old Tamir Rice had no chance to comply in the roughly two seconds it took for the police car to arrive, the officer exiting the car and shooting the boy.  Once again, the right piled on the 12 year old boy, who was armed with a BB gun in an open carry state.  We see video evidence showing the man in Minnesota (Castille ?), who was legally permitted to carry a weapon, who informed the officer he had the weapon on him, went for his wallet as the officer instructed him, and he still got shot.  Yet you have those of you on the right yammering about how he should have complied.  We see video evidence of the Miami man with the autistic patient next to him, lying on the ground with hands up, complying with the police mandate.  The officer shot him, and later said he didn't know why he shot, and that he was actually aiming for the autistic man.  Nary a shrug from the conservatives about the constitution.  We also have video evidence of an overwhelmingly white Bundy militia with guns drawn and aimed at federal law enforcement (the epitome of a non compliant imminent threat), the cops did not shoot, and the right hailed them as heroes.  We also have evidence of Dylan Roof being taken alive after killing nine blacks.  He was treated to Burger King by the cops.  The overwhelming evidence suggests police have carte blanche to do whatever to blacks and it is applauded by conservatives when they take it beyond the force necessary.

3.  So again, because they are wealthy, they somehow forfeit their rights to protest?  That flies in the face of every dynamic in this country where the wealthy have the right to influence policy. There is no "millionaire's exception" to the first amendment. Their status as millionaires doesn't make them immune from the things they are protesting about (see:  Bennett, Michael).  Yes, they do have the financial means and name recognition to run for public office if they so choose.  But why restrict/mandate how they use their fame and fortune?  None of you righties told Glen Beck he couldn't have his march on Washington because he was wealthy.  Why restrict this particular group of wealthy people?

4.  Sadly, blacks are capable of perpetuating anti-black racism just as whites.  That's the very nature of institutional racism.

5.  No, a black drug dealer that scraps with the police and loses does not equate, standing alone, to an entire system aligned against blacks.  However, this scenario does not happen in a vacuum.  We have documented history of police malfeasance against African Americans long before the recent controversies, including the Jim Crow period you cited above.  But here's the thing.  Conservatives yammer on about how ours is the best system in the world (and, for the record, I agree).  So why not let the system work?  Why so fast to applaud police action that precludes the best system in the world from processing black defendants instead of depriving them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the spot?

1.) I said some instances not all.  I am in no means an apologist for the confederacy.  I can, however, acknowledge that in some instances the respect for the fallen or those who worked to ensure the preservation of the union after the war has some value.  

2.) Hogwash.  Where are you taking me?  What's the goal?  Martin Luther King didn't just march down the street or kneel in front of a flag.  He gave speeches, wrote letters, gave Sermons and helped guide an entire Era of American thought towards fulfilling the promise of our founding.  There has to be more to a movement than just disrespecting a symbol of national unity. 

you bring up several instances of tragedy that tug at anyone's heart strings.  Specifically the case of Tamir Rice.  You failed, however to demonstrate how any one of these cases was not handled or prosecuted in good faith depriving these individuals respect under the law as human beings.  You also failed to demonstrate how a hand full of cherry picked emotionally charged cases is in any way indicative of the hundreds of millions of police interactions that occur on an annual basis.  
3.) The players right to protest isn't in question.  They don't have one.  Why?  Because they all signed collectively bargained employment contracts with a sports league.  Collectively bargained contracts allow certain entities to assume EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL POWERS based on the implied consent of the signee based on the assent of their representatives during collective bargaining.  Further, Brady v. Goodell demonstrates that specific to the NFL CBA the powers granted to the commissioner extend even further than previously established case law which allowed limited judicial review of disciplinary decisions based on prior notice and basic fairness.  In short, under the current Labor Laws and provisions of the CBA the players do NOT have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to peaceably assemble / protest as employees of the NFL.  Their ability to do so free from action by the commissioner exists SOLELY at his discretion as the final arbiter of what can be determined as detrimental to the league.  

More importantly, I am not arguing that because they are "wealthy" that they loose the right to protest.  I am pointing out that because they have access to capital, resources, celebrity, etc. that "protest" isn't the best way to achieve their goals.  

4.) The unseen unverifiable illogical strawman.  

5.) Why so fast to decry police action?  That precludes the best system in the world from processing law enforcement defendants.  Why should we deprive them of due process just because they wear a badge?

---

(09-26-2017, 06:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 01:15 AM)Last42min Wrote: This is a fundamental misconstruction of the civil war. The confederates were statesman first and Americans second. They believed the contract they entered with the United States allowed them to govern themselves with limited interference from the federal government. When the government overstepped their boundaries (in the eyes of the confederates), the south chose to withdraw from that contract. The north said otherwise. The civil war settled the dispute over which power was sovereign: states or the federal government. Functionally, the government contract was changed after the civil war. Citizens at the time would have a completely different perspective then than we have now. Calling them traitors is disingenuous.

If conservatives embrace aspects of confederacy, it's because they still value limited government and incorporate that symbolism. In this regard, your analogy is appropriate: that choosing your symbols is important. A symbol that is divisive can actually detract from your point and cause serious backlash. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Please keep your Confederate apologist Jedi mind tricks to yourself.  They won't work on me.

The Confederates openly acknowledged that white supremacy and Slavery were their primary motivating factors for secession, not some vague breach of contract cause of action.

https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...pid1012022

While I will not reproduce the entire post here, the relevant part of Vice President of the Confederacy's Andrew Stephens' Cornerstone of the Confederacy speech is instructive.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”


Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." (Emphasis added)

The thing is, the Constitution of the United States establishes instances where a state can file suit against either another state or the federal government in the Supreme Court, giving it original jurisdiction over these and a few other controversies.  

Stephens was a lawyer.  He was fully capable of articulating a breach of contract case against the federal government if that was his intent, or if it were a reflection of the true reasons for secession.  He didn't.  He said slavery was the immediate cause of the rupture, as did several of the states in their various declarations of secession.  He and the confederacy could have used the American legal system to achieve the desired results and lived with the consequences.  They didn't.  Because they didn't get their way in having the unmitigated ability to oppress blacks, they voluntarily withdrew from this country and took up arms against it, even after reaping the benefits of being part of this republic.  They posed an existential threat to this country.  They were disloyal and traitorous by almost every conceivable measure.  If those of you so outraged by this protest were so singularly driven by patriotism as your angst against the protesting players suggest, any reverence reserved for the Confederacy would be met with exponentially more revulsion than what has been directed towards the players here.  But I defy you to explore the threads debating the confederacy and the removal of Confederate monuments and show me any who lean conservative on these boards who have expressed as much dismay towards the confederate betrayal of our country as they have towards these players.

Conservatives embrace aspects of the confederacy, including resentment of the federal government.  But that shared resentment is rooted in anti black antipathy at its core.

I really appreciate it every time that you post this.  

Conservatives don't embrace the confederacy.  Just because we don't share the lefts zeal to erase their history doesn't mean that we embrace it.  We embrace the fundamental ideals of limited government and equal protection under the law as espoused by the founders and rejected by stephens.

As for nullification....  Sanctuary cities?

---