"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)."

Of all the stuff you said you're really gonna make a case for that liar?

Let's look at the facts:

1.  Michael Bennett was not arrested or charged with the underlying crime that caused the police investigation in the first place.

2.  Michael Bennett was not arrested or charged with obstructing justice or interfering with an investigation, or aiding and abetting  the perpetrator of the original incident cited in 1.

3.  Michael Bennett was not arrested for or charged with assault (threatening, creating the reasonable apprehension of immediate death or severe bodily injury), or battery (the actual physical attack) on a LEO.

4.  It was alleged there was a shooting at the casino?

Is it wholly unreasonable for a person in the area of what is thought by the crowd to be a shooting to hide behind something for cover?

With this in mind, tell me again why a police officer found it necessary to threaten to blow the head off of an innocent man?

1. Not being guilty of the crime for which the police were there to investigate is irrelevant.

2. Not being charged with obstruction doesn't mean he didn't obstruct the investigation. Often, people are released simply because the hassle isn't worth the charge. For example, in Georgia, if you're in a place (behind the slot machine) not usual for law-abiding citizens AND you take flight upon seeing the police, you've committed a crime. On this note, the police have to afford you an opportunity to explain why you were there, and if they believe it's sufficient then they can release you. Hell, you can be the owner of the business you were behind, if you ran when you saw them then you still committed the crime.

This doesn't mean Michael Bennett didn't commit a crime. 

3. & 4. If Michael Bennett is hiding behind slot machine and waits until the police show up to start running, then he's begging for their attention. No one else on their video did what he did. This isn't like the shooting happened and he started running. The shooting happened, and he hid behind slot machine. He waited for a while, and when the police see him, he takes off running. Not only does he take off running, he jumps a barrier and runs into traffic.

Surely you don't believe this is normal behavior.

Also, if I was that officer, and I thought I was chasing someone with a gun--and his actions supported involvement (which it does)--then I would absolutely threaten to shoot him if I thought it would keep him from actually pulling a gun.

---

1.  Perhaps I answered hastily.  My citation of the Confederacy addressed two overlapping arguments, not two mutually exclusive arguments.  Nevertheless, there was no straw man, either in intent or in effect.  No, nobody in this thread stated explicitly the confederates were "heroes."  But we can easily conclude as much based on the totality of the circumstances.  You could attend a Jaguars football game wearing a Jaguars shirt.  Couldn't the reasonable person reasonably surmise that you were a Jaguars fan, even if your gear did not say the magic words "I, Malabarjag, am a Jaguars fan?"  Similarly, if you see a guy driving a truck with the confederate flag displayed on it, and he gets out of the truck wearing a shirt and or cap and or belt buckle with confederate emblems on them, does any of his gear have to explicitly state he loves the confederacy in order to surmise he has a favorable view of the Confederacy and that imagery? How often do communities erect statues, monuments, and name school and streets after people they revile?  Should we expect to see statutes honoring Osama Bin Laden  or the Pharma Bro?  Is it reasonable to expect to see a Timothy McVeigh Boulevard in Oklahoma City any time soon?    Why not?  On  the other hand, if a municipality allocates the requisite funds to erect statues and monuments to particular individuals, it suffices to say a significant portion of that community finds the individuals or entities so memorialized admirable.   It's not a stretch to conclude that when people in that community defend the various memorials from criticism or removal, they are doing so in part out of admiration for those persons or entities so memorialized.  It's not a particularly subtle or difficult argument to discern.

2.  Did you ever stop to consider they remained standing for the British national anthem because they were a guest in that country and that Britain was not the immediate cause of their grievance/protest?  Why protest a country if you have no grievance against them?  Not kneeling during the British national anthem is NOT anti American.

3.  Yes, Donald Trump has the constitutional guaranteed freedom of speech as an American citizen that all US citizens enjoy.  I have no problem with that.  The problem I have is that Trump exercises his rights in the most injudicious ways imaginable, wholly devoid of tact and civility and categorically averse to fact and truth.  The negative effect of his unfortunate habits are exacerbated when he engages in these unfortunate diatribes-first as a public figure, and currently as president of the United States.  He used his platform to undermine the credibility of his immediate presidential predecessor by spreading baseless claims about President Obama being born elsewhere, only to ultimately acknowledge that yes, President Obama was born in the United States.  He is currently using his platform to antagonize an unstable leader of a nuclear country, putting us closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cold War ended, and almost as much as the Cuban Missile crisis.  He is currently using his platform to antagonize a small number of  players who were exercising their first amendment right to silently protest police brutality-NOT the military, the flag, or the national anthem.  What was once a dying controversy has now been brought into the forefront and renewed by his senseless prattle.

1. Who on this board drives around with a Confederate flag? Whether or not one approves or disapproves of tearing down Confederate statues has nothing to do with the fan response to the demonstrations, and what right the POTUS has to make statements.

Yes, it's 100% a strawman argument. This thread is not the place to argue about the Confederacy, which is 90% of your text here.

2. Making an exception with the British anthem is tantamount to claiming that Britain is better than the US. I see it as anti-American and I suspect around half the US population does too. Will the kneelers also stand for the Mexican anthem because they are "guests"? The history of the Mexican police as far as the rights of suspects are treated is not exactly stellar.

3. Heaven knows Trump needs to learn the art of keeping his opinions to himself. But it's hypocritical to ignore the fact that he has just as much right to state a wrong opinion as anyone else. His history of making statements that are wrong does not change that. So far, unlike his predecessor, he hasn't used the power of the Federal government to enforce his opinion.

1.  It has everything to do with fan response to the protest.  This protest and the response do not happen in a vacuum.  The rationale behind attacking the players for the protest is that it is unpatriotic to do so.  Yet we as a society endorse unpatriotic ideals all the time in the comparative absence of censure towards those who revere the Confederacy.  It is wholly illogical for a person motivated by traditional notions of patriotism to revile players who are not renouncing their citizenship or taking up arms against this nation while tolerating and defending those who honor and revere the Confederacy, who did exactly those things and worse.  Why is kneeling during the anthem such an affront to patriotic sensibilities, yet flying/wearing flags of a now extinct entity that went to war with this country is acceptable to those same patriotic sensibilities?  I have not done a check of who on this board has confederate flags/images of the confederate flag on their trucks/cars/clothing/homes, nor am I inclined to conduct such an inventory.  It suffices that I live in Jacksonville and drive its streets every day, and know there is far from a shortage of confederate memorabilia on cars and trucks, clothing, and homes.

2.  No it isn't.  I suppose it is of no significance that the football players who knelt on Sunday, stood without question prior to Sunday?  Do you seriously assert that players who were born and lived their entire lives in America, who have stood dutifully at the National anthem every time dating back minimally to high school, suddenly became unpatriotic because they knelt once, or even a few times?  Again, I ask, when and how are African Americans allowed to protest?  What manner is acceptable?

3.  Since I have not endeavored to deprive Trump of his rights of freedom of expression, I will assume that the hypocrisy charge does not apply to me.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You can't have your cake and eat it too.. Only way racism ends if by defeating the far right and the far left. That's the Klan and Black Panthers. Want to get rid of racist statues? That's cool. I'm all for it. But also get rid of MLK statues since he was a womanizer and a communist.. And don't even get me started on Malcolm X. Pure racist, yet, those statues will never come down because of stupidity..
.

In your estimation, has there ever been a transcendent African-American that HASN'T been considered a communist by those of you on the right?  That particular charge is one of the most tiresome tropes from white conservatives.

President Obama was called a communist (among many other spectacularly untrue things).  Funny thing is our capitalist economy thrived under his stewardship.  Did it reach every single sector of the economy?  No.  But the fact is, based on several objective measures, the economy was great under this so called communist.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You can't have your cake and eat it too.. Only way racism ends if by defeating the far right and the far left. That's the Klan and Black Panthers. Want to get rid of racist statues? That's cool. I'm all for it. But also get rid of MLK statues since he was a womanizer and a communist.. And don't even get me started on Malcolm X. Pure racist, yet, those statues will never come down because of stupidity..
.

In your estimation, has there ever been a transcendent African-American that HASN'T been considered a communist by those of you on the right?  That particular charge is one of the most tiresome tropes from white conservatives.

President Obama was called a communist (among many other spectacularly untrue things).  Funny thing is our capitalist economy thrived under his stewardship.  Did it reach every single sector of the economy?  No.  But the fact is, based on several objective measures, the economy was great under this so called communist.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice off the top of my head.

Edit: I don't typically weigh in on politics...just thought your insinuation that conservatives think all African-Americans are commies was a little funny.

---

We learned in the Sunday School who made the sun shine through.  I know who made the moonshine too, back where I come from.

Some people just reek of double standards.. Just sickening..

---

Its funny to look at all of this from the outside in.

A group of influential people use their platform to raise awareness to the inequality and racial issues that still exist in America today by protesting. They all say they respect the military, love their country and want to make it a better place for eveyone.

Unfortunately many Americans (like some here) don't want to hear any of this and instead focus on the protest they choose instead of the message they are sending and their reasons for doing so. What was supposed to be a positive movement to help America grow and progress has been turned into a a completely separate issue where people are claiming these players hate their country, hate the flag and hate the military. Based on what the players have done and said, nothing could be further from the truth.

I know you guys like to talk about America as the land of the free and the greatest country out there but it isn't unfortunately and it won't be until you starting fixing the issues you have in the country at the moment. Its not even a democrat/republican thing , simply human rights.

---

You can't have your cake and eat it too.. Only way racism ends if by defeating the far right and the far left. That's the Klan and Black Panthers. Want to get rid of racist statues? That's cool. I'm all for it. But also get rid of MLK statues since he was a womanizer and a communist.. And don't even get me started on Malcolm X. Pure racist, yet, those statues will never come down because of stupidity..
.

In your estimation, has there ever been a transcendent African-American that HASN'T been considered a communist by those of you on the right?  That particular charge is one of the most tiresome tropes from white conservatives.

President Obama was called a communist (among many other spectacularly untrue things).  Funny thing is our capitalist economy thrived under his stewardship.  Did it reach every single sector of the economy?  No.  But the fact is, based on several objective measures, the economy was great under this so called communist.

UNF kinda hit the nail on the head for me..

---

Directv is offering refunds on Sunday ticket for people who choose to cancel. Here it comes!!

---

A group of influential people use their platform to raise awareness to the inequality and racial issues that still exist in America today by protesting.  They all say they respect the military, love their country and want to make it a better place for eveyone. 

Those things don't exist any more in America than they do elsewhere.

The differences between here and Europe is that only around half of the population will [bleep] to the idea that minorities are treated unfairly when the other half wont. Is there racism in the US? Yup. Is it as big a problem as some would have you believe? Nope.

The Michael Bennett situation is a perfect example. He screams racism, and people fall in-line to believe him. The police literally run passed hundreds of black men and women for the one guy that chooses to run from them, and now people scream "systematic racism!" Now his own attorney even dismissed the idea that it was racially-motivated, but people still people that it was. 

People don't like the idea of these protests because they're based on lies.

---

Directv is offering refunds on Sunday ticket for people who choose to cancel. Here it comes!!

I don't imagine they'd do that unless there were a lot of people doing it.

---

Let's look at the facts:

1.  Michael Bennett was not arrested or charged with the underlying crime that caused the police investigation in the first place.

2.  Michael Bennett was not arrested or charged with obstructing justice or interfering with an investigation, or aiding and abetting  the perpetrator of the original incident cited in 1.

3.  Michael Bennett was not arrested for or charged with assault (threatening, creating the reasonable apprehension of immediate death or severe bodily injury), or battery (the actual physical attack) on a LEO.

4.  It was alleged there was a shooting at the casino?

Is it wholly unreasonable for a person in the area of what is thought by the crowd to be a shooting to hide behind something for cover?

With this in mind, tell me again why a police officer found it necessary to threaten to blow the head off of an innocent man?

1. Not being guilty of the crime for which the police were there to investigate is irrelevant.

2. Not being charged with obstruction doesn't mean he didn't obstruct the investigation. Often, people are released simply because the hassle isn't worth the charge. For example, in Georgia, if you're in a place (behind the slot machine) not usual for law-abiding citizens AND you take flight upon seeing the police, you've committed a crime. On this note, the police have to afford you an opportunity to explain why you were there, and if they believe it's sufficient then they can release you. Hell, you can be the owner of the business you were behind, if you ran when you saw them then you still committed the crime.

This doesn't mean Michael Bennett didn't commit a crime. 

3. & 4. If Michael Bennett is hiding behind slot machine and waits until the police show up to start running, then he's begging for their attention. No one else on their video did what he did. This isn't like the shooting happened and he started running. The shooting happened, and he hid behind slot machine. He waited for a while, and when the police see him, he takes off running. Not only does he take off running, he jumps a barrier and runs into traffic.

Surely you don't believe this is normal behavior.

Also, if I was that officer, and I thought I was chasing someone with a gun--and his actions supported involvement (which it does)--then I would absolutely threaten to shoot him if I thought it would keep him from actually pulling a gun.

2.  If Bennett were released upon potential obstruction of justice because the police did not think the hassle was worth the charge, then why in the world would the charge of obstruction of justice be worth the "hassle" of putting a gun to the head of an unarmed black man?

3 & 4  For you and I, perhaps it is abnormal.  I would not run for myriad reasons.  I was always taught to be courteous and comply with the police, even if you disagree with the reasoning behind the interaction.  At this stage of my life, I am not sufficiently athletic enough to elicit more than laughter from any officer who had to "chase" me if I lost my senses and ran.  Honestly, I have been fortunate enough to have never been arrested-or shot- and I'd like to keep it that way.  But perhaps if you grew up where Bennett grew up, perhaps if you grew up where police mistrust ran rampant, perhaps if you had interactions or knew of unjust interactions with police that increased distrust or fear, perhaps that is a normal-or at least understandable- response for him and those with similar experiences.  Granted, the interest of maintaining order would mandate some police action in that instance.

Being a surviving relative of a Law Enforcement Officer killed in the line of duty, I'm all about officers ending their shifts going home to their families safely.  But there has to be a limit..a reasonable balance between self preservation and citizens right to life.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

In your estimation, has there ever been a transcendent African-American that HASN'T been considered a communist by those of you on the right?  That particular charge is one of the most tiresome tropes from white conservatives.

President Obama was called a communist (among many other spectacularly untrue things).  Funny thing is our capitalist economy thrived under his stewardship.  Did it reach every single sector of the economy?  No.  But the fact is, based on several objective measures, the economy was great under this so called communist.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice off the top of my head.

Edit: I don't typically weigh in on politics...just thought your insinuation that conservatives think all African-Americans are commies was a little funny.

To clarify, I did not say conservatives think all African Americans are commies.  I said conservatives tend to think all transcendent African Americans are commies and are hostile to African Americans generally.

I would not consider Sowell or Williams "transcendent."

Thomas and Rice?  based upon their positions attained?  Yes.

But Thomas used his position to leave in place the same systemic inequities that have historically crippled minorities.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

A group of influential people use their platform to raise awareness to the inequality and racial issues that still exist in America today by protesting.  They all say they respect the military, love their country and want to make it a better place for eveyone. 

Those things don't exist any more in America than they do elsewhere.

The differences between here and Europe is that only around half of the population will [bleep] to the idea that minorities are treated unfairly when the other half wont. Is there racism in the US? Yup. Is it as big a problem as some would have you believe? Nope.

The Michael Bennett situation is a perfect example. He screams racism, and people fall in-line to believe him. The police literally run passed hundreds of black men and women for the one guy that chooses to run from them, and now people scream "systematic racism!" Now his own attorney even dismissed the idea that it was racially-motivated, but people still people that it was. 

People don't like the idea of these protests because they're based on lies.

---

Directv is offering refunds on Sunday ticket for people who choose to cancel. Here it comes!!

I don't imagine they'd do that unless there were a lot of people doing it.

That's exactly what they're referring to. That's what they're trying to help fix.  

Sure you can say it isn't as big of problem as they let on, but many black people would tell you that it is a big problem based on their experiences. The players who protest feel it's a big problem. Millions around America feel it's a big problem..doesn't that make it a big problem?  

I haven't been following that story since it broke but it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that a black male in America might not fully trust the motives of the police. Who can blame him either.

---

Its funny to look at all of this from the outside in.  

A group of influential people use their platform to raise awareness to the inequality and racial issues that still exist in America today by protesting.  They all say they respect the military, love their country and want to make it a better place for eveyone.  

Unfortunately many Americans (like some here) don't want to hear any of this and instead focus on the protest they choose instead of the message they are sending and their reasons for doing so. What was supposed to be a positive movement to help America grow and progress has been turned into a a completely separate issue where people are claiming these players hate their country, hate the flag and hate the military. Based on what the players have done and said, nothing could be further from the truth.  

I know you guys like to talk about America as the land of the free and the greatest country out there but it isn't unfortunately and it won't be until you starting fixing the issues you have in the country at the moment. Its not even a democrat/republican thing , simply human rights.

They aren't "raising awareness." People are already very aware that inequality and racism exists. Some deny its existence but the protests aren't going to change any minds. And the protesters apparently are UNaware that nearly twice the percentage of white criminals are killed by the police than black criminals. Apparently they are also UNaware that more than half of the cops-shoot-blacks stories are left wing racist spin. Ideally the number of innocents shot by cops should be zero. That includes the greater percentage of non-black innocents shot by cops. The country is doing what it can to eliminate this but you can't always predict what a cop will do until it's too late.

The players who protest may claim they love their country and the military. But the result is that a player who protests during the National Anthem is blaming his country and insulting the military by his actions, whether or not it was the intent, to protest the actions of a few bad apples. The country in general and specifically the US military have nothing to do with the bad cops.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

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?

---

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?

---

So what does that have to do with Teflon? If DOJ indicts Jared and Ivanka, then Hillary is just screwed.

The impeachment charge is coming. Or the surprise resignation. I'm just kicking back waiting to see the Trumpette's heads explode while the lefty nuts make like Laker fans and burn down Washington to celebrate.

were they trying to cover up how they got 145 million dollars from Russian oligarchs?

---

1. So you admit that the 100,000 word screed you wrote about the Confederacy was an off-topic strawman argument. I don't recall anyone here calling any Confederates heroes.

2. As far as anti-American, how can a person who shows more respect for the British anthem than the US anthem be considered anything other than anti-American? I wonder what other countries' anthems the protesting players would prefer? We'll see if any player sits for the Mexican anthem in a few weeks. Maybe Kaepernick would stand for the Cuban anthem.

3. You talk about freedom of speech. Doesn't Trump have that same right to freedom of speech? He was expressing his opinion, not giving an executive order. We may not agree with his opinion, but as an American he has the right to express it. He does not have the right to use government power to enforce his preferred outcome, and he has not done that.

1.  Perhaps I answered hastily.  My citation of the Confederacy addressed two overlapping arguments, not two mutually exclusive arguments.  Nevertheless, there was no straw man, either in intent or in effect.  No, nobody in this thread stated explicitly the confederates were "heroes."  But we can easily conclude as much based on the totality of the circumstances.  You could attend a Jaguars football game wearing a Jaguars shirt.  Couldn't the reasonable person reasonably surmise that you were a Jaguars fan, even if your gear did not say the magic words "I, Malabarjag, am a Jaguars fan?"  Similarly, if you see a guy driving a truck with the confederate flag displayed on it, and he gets out of the truck wearing a shirt and or cap and or belt buckle with confederate emblems on them, does any of his gear have to explicitly state he loves the confederacy in order to surmise he has a favorable view of the Confederacy and that imagery? How often do communities erect statues, monuments, and name school and streets after people they revile?  Should we expect to see statutes honoring Osama Bin Laden  or the Pharma Bro?  Is it reasonable to expect to see a Timothy McVeigh Boulevard in Oklahoma City any time soon?    Why not?  On  the other hand, if a municipality allocates the requisite funds to erect statues and monuments to particular individuals, it suffices to say a significant portion of that community finds the individuals or entities so memorialized admirable.   It's not a stretch to conclude that when people in that community defend the various memorials from criticism or removal, they are doing so in part out of admiration for those persons or entities so memorialized.  It's not a particularly subtle or difficult argument to discern.

2.  Did you ever stop to consider they remained standing for the British national anthem because they were a guest in that country and that Britain was not the immediate cause of their grievance/protest?  Why protest a country if you have no grievance against them?  Not kneeling during the British national anthem is NOT anti American.

3.  Yes, Donald Trump has the constitutional guaranteed freedom of speech as an American citizen that all US citizens enjoy.  I have no problem with that.  The problem I have is that Trump exercises his rights in the most injudicious ways imaginable, wholly devoid of tact and civility and categorically averse to fact and truth.  The negative effect of his unfortunate habits are exacerbated when he engages in these unfortunate diatribes-first as a public figure, and currently as president of the United States.  He used his platform to undermine the credibility of his immediate presidential predecessor by spreading baseless claims about President Obama being born elsewhere, only to ultimately acknowledge that yes, President Obama was born in the United States.  He is currently using his platform to antagonize an unstable leader of a nuclear country, putting us closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cold War ended, and almost as much as the Cuban Missile crisis.  He is currently using his platform to antagonize a small number of  players who were exercising their first amendment right to silently protest police brutality-NOT the military, the flag, or the national anthem.  What was once a dying controversy has now been brought into the forefront and renewed by his senseless prattle.

The history of challenging the birth place and eligibility of presidential candidates goes back a while, not to mention the fact that it was originally brought up first by the Clinton Campaign.  

Second, Rocket Man Started it.  

They don't have a first amendment right in this instance.

You could have fooled 75% of the country.  (If you have to work this hard to get people to understand what you are really protesting then you know you are doing it wrong!)

---

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice off the top of my head.

Edit: I don't typically weigh in on politics...just thought your insinuation that conservatives think all African-Americans are commies was a little funny.

I would not consider Sowell or Williams "transcendent."

Maybe not, but they're pretty [BLEEP] smart.
Seriously, I think race needs to be taken out of the equation.  Rather than raising an eyebrow when a conservative opposes an African-American on a political issue, give them the benefit of the doubt that the opposition really is based on the political issue and not secretly based on race.  I promise...the vast majority of conservatives really aren't bigots.

---

We learned in the Sunday School who made the sun shine through.  I know who made the moonshine too, back where I come from.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.. Only way racism ends if by defeating the far right and the far left. That's the Klan and Black Panthers. Want to get rid of racist statues? That's cool. I'm all for it. But also get rid of MLK statues since he was a womanizer and a communist.. And don't even get me started on Malcolm X. Pure racist, yet, those statues will never come down because of stupidity..
.

In your estimation, has there ever been a transcendent African-American that HASN'T been considered a communist by those of you on the right?  That particular charge is one of the most tiresome tropes from white conservatives.

President Obama was called a communist (among many other spectacularly untrue things).  Funny thing is our capitalist economy thrived under his stewardship.  Did it reach every single sector of the economy?  No.  But the fact is, based on several objective measures, the economy was great under this so called communist.

1.) Obama's core ideology is in line with state ownership of the means of production. 

2.) no it didn't.  This was the first time in the history of the country that we never hit 3% GDP growth in a given year.  We emerged from his administration with historic lows in home ownership and labor force participation.  We also have 50 million people on food stamps and 8 million more in poverty.  There is a reason his party lost to a political novice with a business background.

---

Its funny to look at all of this from the outside in.  

A group of influential people use their platform to raise awareness to the inequality and racial issues that still exist in America today by protesting.  They all say they respect the military, love their country and want to make it a better place for eveyone.  

Unfortunately many Americans (like some here) don't want to hear any of this and instead focus on the protest they choose instead of the message they are sending and their reasons for doing so. What was supposed to be a positive movement to help America grow and progress has been turned into a a completely separate issue where people are claiming these players hate their country, hate the flag and hate the military. Based on what the players have done and said, nothing could be further from the truth.  

I know you guys like to talk about America as the land of the free and the greatest country out there but it isn't unfortunately and it won't be until you starting fixing the issues you have in the country at the moment. Its not even a democrat/republican thing , simply human rights.

They aren't "raising awareness." People are already very aware that inequality and racism exists. Some deny its existence but the protests aren't going to change any minds. And the protesters apparently are UNaware that nearly twice the percentage of white criminals are killed by the police than black criminals. Apparently they are also UNaware that more than half of the cops-shoot-blacks stories are left wing racist spin. Ideally the number of innocents shot by cops should be zero. That includes the greater percentage of non-black innocents shot by cops. The country is doing what it can to eliminate this but you can't always predict what a cop will do until it's too late.

The players who protest may claim they love their country and the military. But the result is that a player who protests during the National Anthem is blaming his country and insulting the military by his actions, whether or not it was the intent, to protest the actions of a few bad apples. The country in general and specifically the US military have nothing to do with the bad cops.

Well the protest was centered around police brutality so I guess they got that one right. Why not have a very simply rule that body cams must be mandatory? More so than a gun or any other piece of equipment. At very least it would help some of those contentious cases..

The cowboys knelt before the anthem and stood when it was played and were resoundly booed and criticized for doing so by their fans. So let's not pretend this is all about the flag and the anthem. The players are protesting because they love the country not because they hate it, but that's how it's being spun by idiots.

---

Being a surviving relative of a Law Enforcement Officer killed in the line of duty, I'm all about officers ending their shifts going home to their families safely.  But there has to be a limit..a reasonable balance between self preservation and citizens right to life.

And that balance is held in the hands of the district attorney and if need be 12 jurors.  That is called DUE PROCESS.  That's what we are guarneteed under the constitution.  Not the result we might like, but due process.

---

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice off the top of my head.

Edit: I don't typically weigh in on politics...just thought your insinuation that conservatives think all African-Americans are commies was a little funny.

To clarify, I did not say conservatives think all African Americans are commies.  I said conservatives tend to think all transcendent African Americans are commies and are hostile to African Americans generally.

I would not consider Sowell or Williams "transcendent."

Thomas and Rice?  based upon their positions attained?  Yes.

But Thomas used his position to leave in place the same systemic inequities that have historically crippled minorities.

---