Trump clashes with sports world over player protests, invitation

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

No it's not.  If I draw a cartoon of Mohammad to teach religion to a child in the Middle East I'm still going to get beheaded.  If I violate a religious totem I'll still get killed even though my intention might have been pure.  Ignorance of the law or culture is rarely a defense.  I'm an atheist so I think anything having to do with religion is silly but having said that I can understand it would be disrespectful to use holy books as toilet tissue or stand in a church when everyone else sat. 

It occurs to me that the problem with this is that while I may be outsider in the middle east, these football players are Americans. So they are just as much insiders as American Flag totemists..  So if what they do is in their minds not being disrespectful to the flag but, say, a call to America to live up to its ideals, then that's what it is for them. It totemists feel disrespected, that's not the players' fault.   Baptists say total immersion is necessary for baptism to be vaild. Methodists say not. They're all Christians. Are Baptists being disrespectful to Methodists? Methods may take offense, but that's not on the Baptists.

[rockingrobin]

58 minutes ago, amvet said:

You are saying an act cannot be legal and disrespectful and that is not correct.  Many things are disrespectful and also legal.  Do you want me to list a few hundred?  It was disrespectful for me to dress up like a clown for my fathers funeral but not illegal.  

No I did not 

It is not the act of protest that is disrespectful , but the meanining/ intention communicated

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Is this thread about gun control?  How should we kneel down before a football game to protest gun control? 

 

We should not kneel down about ANYTHING it's a football game damn it

[Thakkar]

23 hours ago, amvet said:

I think you gotta ask yourself how smart this whole kneeling, sitting and fisting protest is.  One, what is the protest about?  It's about cops harassing young black men.  So what is the best way to fix that?  Confrontational conflict protests is the answer of the young black men of the NFL.  Now, how smart is that?  

 

A bunch of young black men sitting around and talking about ending police harassment and one says, "I know how, lets get the cops enraged, red faced popping angry enough to shoot us that should stop the harassment eh?"  How do we do that?  "Well, lets attack one of their sacred symbols, a cop totem like the National Anthem.  That'll will anger them  em off enough to  pee their pants."

 

How to stop a fight?  Make the aggressive party with all the guns more angry than he already is.  Ya, that works.    

 

You  creat a fictitious conversation which is the opposite of the conversation the protesters actually had. Then you use loaded words like “attack” to create straw man arguments you deftly tackle.

 

A perceived attack is not an attack. If people insist on being offended, or feign offense or are really offended for an unstated reason (that reason being blacks standing up for their rights) then there is no pleasing them except by submission. While dialogue is what is required,  It isn’t a question of negotiation; when the one with all the power is clearly in the wrong, what is there to negotiate? What is the other side supposed to offer in exchange for merely equal treatment, something that is their right to demand and get?

 

If some people are pissed off by the protests, it is because they choose to be, either because they are told to be by faux flag wavers (some of whom, like Trump, who simultaneously show NO concern that a foreign adversary may have interfered in an American election), or they do not understand the constitution and what the flag and anthem represent, or that blacks just won’t <deleted>.

 

Did the protests highlight the issue of excessive police brutality towards minorities, in particular, blacks? It did. Is the issue being addressed? To varying degrees and in some police departments, yes. Much more needs to be done. You can argue the effectivess of achieving that through continued NFL player protests like the ones we are seeing. But please do so honestly.

 

Bear in mind that there is a significant portion of the American public that will be unhappy with any kind of black protest. Trying not to “piss them off” is a lost cause.

[thaihome]

Putting the anthem protests in the the context of the highly unpopular [with white America at the time] civil rights actions of the 50's and 60's.

 

Responding to  certain posters in this thread is a waste of time, but  maybe his children and grandchildren  don't share his attitude. 

TH 

 

Quote

 

This points to the true target, in terms of white people, of Kaepernick’s protest. The point is not to convince people who boo even when a team kneels before the anthem is sung. The point is to reach the children of those people. The point is the future.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/colin-kaepernick/541845/
 

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by thaihome

[amvet]

39 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

No I did not 

It is not the act of protest that is disrespectful , but the meanining/ intention communicated

Everyone got the idea about disrespect.  The President of the USA got the idea.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme court justice got the idea.  The NFL sponsors who have pulled their advertising got the idea.  Everybody gets the idea.  That's the idea.  The act is disrespectful and the intention is disrespectful and it is legal and protected by the American Bill of Rights. The disrespect is meant to point out the disrespect black lives are treated with by the police.  Everybody gets it it seems except on Thai Visa.

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

 

We should not kneel down about ANYTHING it's a football game damn it

 

I know what you mean. My peeve is the ridiculous victory dance some players do after a touchdown. It’s a football game, not Dancing with the Stars, darn it!

[amvet]

28 minutes ago, thaihome said:

Putting the anthem protests in the the context of the highly unpopular [with white America at the time] civil rights actions of the 50's and 60's.

 

Responding to  certain postars in this thread is a waste of time, but it is doubtful his children and grandchildren share his attitude. 

TH

99% white Americans passed the civil rights legislation of the 1960's.   Why did they do that if the actions were highly unpopular?

Edited October 4, 2017 by amvet

[rockingrobin]

29 minutes ago, amvet said:

Everyone got the idea about disrespect.  The President of the USA got the idea.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme court justice got the idea.  The NFL sponsors who have pulled their advertising got the idea.  Everybody gets the idea.  That's the idea.  The act is disrespectful and the intention is disrespectful and it is legal and protected by the American Bill of Rights. The disrespect is meant to point out the disrespect black lives are treated with by the police.  Everybody gets it it seems except on Thai Visa.

And no condemnation of the fans Booing during the National Anthem, how more disrespecting can you get

[amvet]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

 

You  creat a fictitious conversation which is the opposite of the conversation the protesters actually had. Then you use loaded words like “attack” to create straw man arguments you deftly tackle.

 

A perceived attack is not an attack. If people insist on being offended, or feign offense or are really offended for an unstated reason (that reason being blacks standing up for their rights) then there is no pleasing them except by submission. While dialogue is what is required,  It isn’t a question of negotiation; when the one with all the power is clearly in the wrong, what is there to negotiate? What is the other side supposed to offer in exchange for merely equal treatment, something that is their right to demand and get?

 

If some people are pissed off by the protests, it is because they choose to be, either because they are told to be by faux flag wavers (some of whom, like Trump, who simultaneously show NO concern that a foreign adversary may have interfered in an American election), or they do not understand the constitution and what the flag and anthem represent, or that blacks just won’t <deleted>.

 

Did the protests highlight the issue of excessive police brutality towards minorities, in particular, blacks? It did. Is the issue being addressed? To varying degrees and in some police departments, yes. Much more needs to be done. You can argue the effectivess of achieving that through continued NFL player protests like the ones we are seeing. But please do so honestly.

 

Bear in mind that there is a significant portion of the American public that will be unhappy with any kind of black protest. Trying not to “piss them off” is a lost cause.

I think you are in error about Americans being unhappy with any kind of black protest.  I like many in my generation protested with black people in the 1960's.  Blacks were only 10% of the population then and alone they could not have implemented change.  Minorities have to forge relationships with segments of the dominant population to effect change.  It is about cooperation not alienation. 

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, amvet said:

Giving the black power salute during the American National Anthem would not piss off black people.  I get that.  Do the black people get that it pisses off people who are not black? 

 

You are referring to the right political types typified perhaps by Ma and Pa Kettle. Ma and Pa with all due consideration may have made the difference in the election in November -- in the blue states that flipped specifically. Trump spoke to this base of social reactionaries with his base campaign. Trump continues to solicit and patronize this base base.

 

The base includes prominently loud military veterans such as the guy you quoted in Cleveland. The Nemeth Marine Corps veteran-cop guy. He who is in fact the derilect military veteran turned dubious rescue guy who ignores or is oblivious of his oath to the Constitution. Indeed, there is the riled up base and too many angry veterans whoall don't know the Constitution from a lawnmower purchase contract. The only difference as far as the base is concerned is that they signed the mower contract and its warranty.

 

It could look more than anything else these dayze that Ma and Pa hired their lawnmower salesman to grift their farm to include the pickup. Ma and Pa after all have never trusted those city slicker conflict resolution negotiator types either.

[amvet]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

And no condemnation of the fans Booing during the National Anthem, how more disrespecting can you get

The fans were booing the protestors not the Anthem.  If the players punched a kneeling or sitting player during the Anthem there would have been no condemnation of that either. 

[amvet]

4 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

You are referring to the right political types typified perhaps by Ma and Pa Kettle. Ma and Pa with all due consideration may have made the difference in the election in November -- in the blue states that flipped specifically. Trump spoke to this base of social reactionaries with his base campaign. Trump continues to solicit and patronize this base base.

 

The base includes prominently loud military veterans such as the guy you quoted in Cleveland. The Nemeth Marine Corps veteran-cop guy. He who is in fact the derilect military veteran turned dubious rescue guy who ignores or is oblivious of his oath to the Constitution. Indeed, there is the riled up base and too many angry veterans whoall don't know the Constitution from a lawnmower purchase contract. The only difference as far as the base is concerned is that they signed the mower contract and its warranty.

 

It could look more than anything else these dayze that Ma and Pa hired their lawnmower salesman to grift their farm to include the pickup. Ma and Pa after all have never trusted those city slicker conflict resolution negotiator types either.

Ma Kettle

 

"I think it's really dumb of them. Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it's dumb and disrespectful.

[Publicus]

30 minutes ago, amvet said:

Ma Kettle

 

"I think it's really dumb of them. Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it's dumb and disrespectful.

 

 

The gentlelady is a wise jurist indeed....

 

Ginsburg apologizes to Kaepernick for anthem protest

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for calling San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's protest of the national anthem "dumb and disrespectful."

 

In a statement released Friday, Ginsburg said she was "barely aware" of the protest by Kaepernick and other NFL players, and thus her comments were "inappropriately dismissive and harsh."  

 

I should have declined to respond," her statement concluded.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ginsburg-apologizes-to-kaepernick-for-anthem-protest/article/2604592

 

Ma Kettle luv her never apologizes. Nor does Ma Kettle luv her have a law degree. Nor does Ma Kettle have a brain luv her. I mean, lookit whoall Ma and Pa Kettle have speaking for 'em.  

Edited October 4, 2017 by Publicus
Technical

[amvet]

2 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

 

The gentlelady is a wise jurist indeed....

 

Ginsburg apologizes to Kaepernick for anthem protest

 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for calling San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's protest of the national anthem "dumb and disrespectful."

 

In a statement released Friday, Ginsburg said she was "barely aware" of the protest by Kaepernick and other NFL players, and thus her comments were "inappropriately dismissive and harsh."  

 

I should have declined to respond," her statement concluded.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ginsburg-apologizes-to-kaepernick-for-anthem-protest/article/2604592

 

Ma Kettle luv her never apologizes. Nor does Ma Kettle luv her have a law degree. Nor does Ma Kettle have a brain luv her. I mean, look at who Ma and Pa Kettle have speaking for 'em.  

I would agree that a Supreme Court Justice should keep her opinions to herself but I think her initial TV interview is typical of an elderly American who only takes a cursory interest in sports or issues of minority rights.  Her first comments were from the hip and pretty normal as I read the situation.  I'm an old majority person and a young minority person would certainly have a different opinion.  

 

 

[thaihome]

51 minutes ago, amvet said:

99% white Americans passed the civil rights legislation of the 1960's.   Why did they do that if the actions were highly unpopular?

 

[amvet]

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

I would agree that a Supreme Court Justice should keep her opinions to herself but I think her initial TV interview is typical of an elderly American who only takes a cursory interest in sports or issues of minority rights.  Her first comments were from the hip and pretty normal as I read the situation.  I'm an old majority person and a young minority person would certainly have a different opinion.  

 

 

 

The legacy of Goodwin, Chaney and Schwirmer lives on in black, while, brown and yellow thanks.....

Oakland High School Football Players Lie On Their Backs In Protest Of National Anthem

 

The impact of Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem stance has traveled throughout the sports world from fellow professional athletes to now, an Oakland high school football team.

 

Marshawn Lynch Thinks Only Racists Are Threatened By Kaepernick’s Protest

 

The San Francisco 49ers QB attended Castlemont High School’s football game against the King’s Academy Knights on Friday (Sept. 23), and while the national anthem played, he continued his protest. But the rising athletes did a gesture that’s probably more moving than Kaepernick’s bended knee.

 

https://www.vibe.com/2016/09/oakland-high-school-football-players-lay-backs-protest-national-anthem/

 

Ma and Pa Kettle are simple folk who probably don't follow football any more than the nothing Ma and Pa know about the Constitution luv 'em. Except for the 2nd Amendment, that is. The second amendment to what is the question Ma and Pa never can reply to however. For all Ma and Pa know luv 'em it is the second amendment to the fourth commandment. So the Kettles give their nod of approval to others who step forward to speak for 'em. Some of whom can come across as grifters.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Publicus
Technical

[Thakkar]

2 hours ago, amvet said:

I think you are in error about Americans being unhappy with any kind of black protest.  I like many in my generation protested with black people in the 1960's.  Blacks were only 10% of the population then and alone they could not have implemented change.  Minorities have to forge relationships with segments of the dominant population to effect change.  It is about cooperation not alienation. 

 

Again you (deliberately, perhaps?) misconstrue. 

 

I specificaly said “a portion of the American public”

[amvet]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

 

Again you (deliberately, perhaps?) misconstrue. 

 

I specificaly said “a portion of the American public”

The majority of Americans were in favor of civil rights legislation of the 1960's that's why it got passes.  The majority of Americans were in favor of a black President that's why he got elected. 

Fair play is an American value and the majority of  Americans don't like unfair discrimination based on color.  Overall, 49% say the protesting players are doing the wrong thing to express their political opinion when they kneel during the National Anthem, while 43% say it's the right thing. Those views are sharply divided by race, partisanship and age based on CNN. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

The majority of Americans were in favor of civil rights legislation of the 1960's that's why it got passes.  The majority of Americans were in favor of a black President that's why he got elected. 

Fair play is an American value and the majority of  Americans don't like unfair discrimination based on color.  Overall, 49% say the protesting players are doing the wrong thing to express their political opinion when they kneel during the National Anthem, while 43% say it's the right thing. Those views are sharply divided by race, partisanship and age based on CNN. 

"The majority of Americans were in favor of a black President that's why he got elected. "

A piece of lawn furniture would have gotten elected against the Republicans in 2008. I think it's more likely that Obama won despite that fact that he was black. In 2012 it was a human being against an inept animatronic candidate.

[amvet]

Roughly there are about 10,000 black men arrested in the USA every day.  (if anyone has a better number please share).  I assume that is the oppression that the kneeling, sitting and black powering footballers are protesting about.  What do the footballers want the police and President to do about that number?  Or is that not the prime reason and killing young black men the oppression?  

 

What I am getting at is what are they pissed off about and what do they want done about it, who is supposed to do it and how will we know when it's done so they can stand back up again when the National Anthem is played. 

 

Or, is it as I suspect just a publicity stunt and they don't expect anything except negative publicity for the current President?

Edited October 4, 2017 by amvet

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, amvet said:

Roughly there are about 10,000 black men arrested in the USA every day.  (if anyone has a better number please share).  I assume that is the oppression that the kneeling, sitting and black powering footballers are protesting about.  What do the footballers want the police and President to do about that number?  Or is that not the prime reason and killing young black men the oppression?  

 

What I am getting at is what are they pissed off about and what do they want done about it, who is supposed to do it and how will we know when it's done so they can stand back up again when the National Anthem is played. 

 

Or, is it as I suspect just a publicity stunt and they don't expect anything except negative publicity for the current President?

You mean that they trapped Trump into denouncing them?

[amvet]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean that they trapped Trump into denouncing them?

No, I think it was a genuine protest during the Obama administration last year.  This year I think it morphed into an anti Trump rally when he stupidly like the Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg criticized a person of color in the media.  

 

But that is a minor point as opposed to my major question what do the footballers want and from whom and how will they know when they get it?

Edited October 4, 2017 by amvet

[Publicus]

8 hours ago, amvet said:

Everyone got the idea about disrespect.  The President of the USA got the idea.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme court justice got the idea.  The NFL sponsors who have pulled their advertising got the idea.  Everybody gets the idea.  That's the idea.  The act is disrespectful and the intention is disrespectful and it is legal and protected by the American Bill of Rights. The disrespect is meant to point out the disrespect black lives are treated with by the police.  Everybody gets it it seems except on Thai Visa.

 

Being respectful of the Constitution is not being disrespectful. Being respectful of the Constitution is, well, being respectful of the Constitution. It is square on. NFL know what they are doing and they are doing it properly.

 

As your posts have noted however, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars disagree. Your posts are consistent with these and other uniformed objectors who ignore or violate their oath. Youse don't care much for the media either, as you yourself consistently indicate in numerous posts and in passing. It seems now that Thai Visa too has become your new kitchen sink clanked into the heap.

 

Moreover, until it was pointed out Justice Ginsburg had had the good sense to apologize she wuz one of your champions. After it was revealed Justice Ginsburg had apologized however your post dismissed her as suddenly elderly and random. So I sense a lot of grifting going on here. Which would mean one needs to identify the point of diminishing return. The point has already occurred btw and it happened back there somewhere.

[amvet]

46 minutes ago, Publicus said:

Being respectful of the Constitution is not being disrespectful. Being respectful of the Constitution is, well, being respectful of the Constitution. It is square on. NFL know what they are doing and they are doing it properly.

 

As your posts have noted however, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars disagree. Your posts are consistent with these and other uniformed objectors who ignore or violate their oath. Youse don't care much for the media either, as you yourself consistently indicate in numerous posts and in passing. It seems now that Thai Visa too has become your new kitchen sink clanked into the heap.

 

Moreover, until it was pointed out Justice Ginsburg had had the good sense to apologize she wuz one of your champions. After it was revealed Justice Ginsburg had apologized however your post dismissed her as suddenly elderly and random. So I sense a lot of grifting going on here. Which would mean one needs to identify the point of diminishing return. The point has already occurred btw and it happened back there somewhere.

I gather you don't know what the footballers want either.  You talk about protest as if that is an end in itself and I guess if you want to harass the current administration it is.  However I still have a mind unclouded by media and am asking the logical question - What is it they want by the protest?  When I protested I had a clear idea of what I wanted.  I don't think you know. 

 

I have posted 20 times I have no problem with the legality of the protestors to protest.  More Americans according to the latest CNN poll don't agree with the protest than do but that is besides the point.  What do they want?  Why are they upsetting so many folks?  

[Publicus]

12 hours ago, amvet said:

No it's not.  If I draw a cartoon of Mohammad to teach religion to a child in the Middle East I'm still going to get beheaded.  If I violate a religious totem I'll still get killed even though my intention might have been pure.  Ignorance of the law or culture is rarely a defense.  I'm an atheist so I think anything having to do with religion is silly but having said that I can understand it would be disrespectful to use holy books as toilet tissue or stand in a church when everyone else sat. 

 

We are talking about the Constitution of the United States in the United States. NFL protesters are in their demonstrative actions being consisent with the Constitution. The actions are consistent with the laws. The players et al violate nothing either Constitutionally or legally.

 

The bent against the actors and their actions is occurring primarily on the right. It includes constant and consistant if secondary swipes at the media, i.e. Donald Trump's Enemy of the People.

 

The people who present themselves as offended do so because have no code. That is, the objector American Veterans we hear from most loudly are those who violate or ignore the oath they assumed, to include other Americans who have no sense of the Constitution or the laws. So predicating objections on credenda and cooking up analogies to this religion or that religion is flawed. All of it rather lunges and pitches beyond the foundational right of civil protest in the USA by civilians in a secular society, culture, government.  

 

Nobody in this is -- to note concoctions grifted into the discourse -- going to be beheaded and no one is wearing a veil. Nothing is burning and no one is being murdered. In contrast, the NFL demonstrators on the field are acting consistently with a body of jurisprudence in the USA that says no civilian needs to pledge allegiance, that no civilian is required to salute the flag, no civilian citizen is mandated to stand during the anthem and so on, to include the fact no civilian citizen is compelled to enter the armed forces. The central point of civilian citizen secular players raising a fist in protest is that there is nothing about it that comes remotely close to my nose. The knee on the ground poses no danger to me either.

 

Rightwingers who may be carrying while also grifting spontaneously might kindly take notice thx.

[Publicus]

43 minutes ago, amvet said:

I gather you don't know what the footballers want either.  You talk about protest as if that is an end in itself and I guess if you want to harass the current administration it is.  However I still have a mind unclouded by media and am asking the logical question - What is it they want by the protest?  When I protested I had a clear idea of what I wanted.  I don't think you know. 

 

I have posted 20 times I have no problem with the legality of the protestors to protest.  More Americans according to the latest CNN poll don't agree with the protest than do but that is besides the point.  What do they want?  Why are they upsetting so many folks?  

 

Your misinterpretations and misrepresentations derive from having no code.

 

Kaepernick has in contrast been clear for a long time....

 

This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t."

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/29/16380080/donald-trump-nfl-colin-kaepernick-protests-national-anthem

 

 

I protested and demonstrated with my black brothers and sisters in the 1960s and I remain among them and with them. Together we are strong always, just a like a tree planted beside the calm water. I have no design to grift, scam or to con anyone in the interests of the rightwing reactionary elements of the society.

 

Kaepernick and his NFL fellows acting with him -- to include compatriot civilians in the secular civil society -- are continuing a long term ongoing movement that is Constitutional and historic. We are not trying to conduct a single or sole military-style operation that has specific objectives to be completed successfully within a certain timeframe by particular units highly trained to enter and win a big battle that proves to be decisive.  Nor are we didactic or ad hoc in what we do.

 

We strategize over the long term rather than to grift a response statement by statement spontaneously, i.e., to heat and stir as we go along. We do it properly, legally and with conviction. Our effort is long term, consistent, true, viable because we continue to honor our core beliefs and values while others choose and prefer to shift and shuffle and dance and hustle.

[Publicus]

43 minutes ago, amvet said:

I gather you don't know what the footballers want either.  You talk about protest as if that is an end in itself and I guess if you want to harass the current administration it is.  However I still have a mind unclouded by media and am asking the logical question - What is it they want by the protest?  When I protested I had a clear idea of what I wanted.  I don't think you know. 

 

I have posted 20 times I have no problem with the legality of the protestors to protest.  More Americans according to the latest CNN poll don't agree with the protest than do but that is besides the point.  What do they want?  Why are they upsetting so many folks?  

 

Your misinterpretations and misrepresentations derive from having no code.

 

Kaepernick has in contrast been clear for a long time....

 

This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t."

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/29/16380080/donald-trump-nfl-colin-kaepernick-protests-national-anthem

 

 

I protested and demonstrated with my black brothers and sisters in the 1960s and I remain among them and with them. Together we are strong always, just a like a tree planted beside the calm water. I have no design to grift, scam or to con anyone in the interests of the rightwing reactionary elements of the society.

 

Kaepernick and his NFL fellows acting with him -- to include compatriot civilians in the secular civil society -- are continuing a long term ongoing movement that is Constitutional and historic. We are not trying to conduct a single or sole military-style operation that has specific objectives to be completed successfully within a certain timeframe by particular units highly trained to enter and win a big battle that proves to be decisive.  Nor are we didactic or ad hoc in what we do.

 

We strategize over the long term rather than to grift a response statement by statement spontaneously, i.e., to heat and stir as we go along. We do it properly, legally and with conviction. Our effort is long term, consistent, true, viable because we continue to honor our core beliefs and values while others choose and prefer to shift and shuffle and dance and hustle.

[Publicus]

43 minutes ago, amvet said:

I gather you don't know what the footballers want either.  You talk about protest as if that is an end in itself and I guess if you want to harass the current administration it is.  However I still have a mind unclouded by media and am asking the logical question - What is it they want by the protest?  When I protested I had a clear idea of what I wanted.  I don't think you know. 

 

I have posted 20 times I have no problem with the legality of the protestors to protest.  More Americans according to the latest CNN poll don't agree with the protest than do but that is besides the point.  What do they want?  Why are they upsetting so many folks?  

 

Your misinterpretations and misrepresentations derive from having no code.

 

Kaepernick has in contrast been clear for a long time....

 

This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t."

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/29/16380080/donald-trump-nfl-colin-kaepernick-protests-national-anthem

 

 

I protested and demonstrated with my black brothers and sisters in the 1960s and I remain among them and with them. Together we are strong always, just a like a tree planted beside the calm water. I have no design to grift, scam or to con anyone in the interests of the rightwing reactionary elements of the society.

 

Kaepernick and his NFL fellows acting with him -- to include compatriot civilians in the secular civil society -- are continuing a long term ongoing movement that is Constitutional and historic. We are not trying to conduct a single or sole military-style operation that has specific objectives to be completed successfully within a certain timeframe by particular units highly trained to enter and win a big battle that proves to be decisive.  Nor are we didactic or ad hoc in what we do.

 

We strategize over the long term rather than to grift a response statement by statement spontaneously, i.e., to heat and stir as we go along. We do it properly, legally and with conviction. Our effort is long term, consistent, true, viable because we continue to honor our core beliefs and values while others choose and prefer to shift and shuffle and dance and hustle.