National Anthem....the other side of the coin!

RJM posted:

Jay Glazer is one of the best at getting inside information on the NFL. He said Kaepernick is toast. It's not just the anthem incident. There are those who believe he's in rapid decline athletically and as a QB.

His act may have been to get released now rather than when rosters are pared down for the season next week. Getting released next week could have him out of football until a QB gets injured.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight.  There is a pare down coming next week....he is the backup quarter back...his numbers have been crap lately...and he just made a politically racially divided statement where he specifically said "If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right."

So, if the 49'ers had been say...oh...planning on dropping him next week due to these low numbers they might be frowned upon now for doing that?

CoachB25 posted:

JacJacatk, then you'd also have to factor other things in like the absurd number of African American children born to a single mother.  You can find several different numbers but a consistent is above 67%.  Then, you'd have to ask yourself who is responsible for that. 

I can tell you who is responsible for that number - liberals. And I say that despite that I am a left wing liberal. It was well meant, but liberals, both Democrat and Republican (yes, there used to be some of those), set up a system that was meant to fight poverty but instead isolated black communities in huge projects and then made the help they offered almost impossible to get for families. An entire generation of Black (and other poor) families could only get financial aid if the father wasn't in the home. Intact families received almost no help, so often an unemployed father could only help his children by actually leaving the family. It was an unintended result, but nevertheless...

Federal housing in the 70's was a disaster. By building these huge projects, we basically segregated poor, uneducated, unemployed people into large communities with no work and no future. What exactly did they think would happen? There have been movements in more recent years to mix federal housing into the general community. this works much better, but there are still cases and states where local administration is dismal. Years ago, I moved my family into low income federal housing while I went back to school. My home was rent controlled and basic, but nice. It was in a good neighborhood where they had dispersed the federal housing in among the community. However, there was one thing that I couldn't help but notice. All of the white families had housing like mine. All of the Black families were bunched together in one decaying neighborhood on the other side of the town. It was obviously by design. These problems still exist.

2forU posted:

Tim Tebow expressed his beliefs on the field - the double standard

Please explain the double standard you see.

Kaepernick expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

Tebow expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

I've taught my children that they are certainly free to express their beliefs and opinions as guaranteed by the constitution.  I've also taught them that they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and sometimes expressing your beliefs openly come with consequences.  I want to make certain that they understand that with rights come great responsibility.  I also make sure that they understand this is afforded to them under our Constitution and that many people before them sacrificed their lives and liberties to earn those freedoms for all of us.

2forU, I simply don't see a double standard.  I heard much in the media by people who were uncomfortable or offended with Tebow's open expression of his Christianity when he was relevant.  Much like I'm hearing much in the media by people who are uncomfortable or offended with Kaepernick's open expression while he remains relevant.

Well, when I got home from work yesterday and saw just what a firestorm this has become, I tried to dig up some actual facts, of course, via internet search.  What struck me in my search was that the first fifteen or so results were not articles by a nationally syndicated news source where there are at least some guidelines in place to provide factual account but opinion pieces by either hard left or hard right small faction cause writers that seemed to be based primarily on self serving assumptions.  

It was another one of those striking moments of realization that, in this age of massive information at our fingertips, it is actually more difficult to extract credible fact.

These pieces would leave one to believe that either Kaepernick is one step from becoming a jihadi terrorist or someone following in the pioneering footsteps of Jackie Robinson and MLK.  Geez.

Nuke83 posted:

2forU posted:

Tim Tebow expressed his beliefs on the field - the double standard

Please explain the double standard you see.

Kaepernick expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

Tebow expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

I've taught my children that they are certainly free to express their beliefs and opinions as guaranteed by the constitution.  I've also taught them that they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and sometimes expressing your beliefs openly come with consequences.  I want to make certain that they understand that with rights come great responsibility.  I also make sure that they understand this is afforded to them under our Constitution and that many people before them sacrificed their lives and liberties to earn those freedoms for all of us.

2forU, I simply don't see a double standard.  I heard much in the media by people who were uncomfortable or offended with Tebow's open expression of his Christianity when he was relevant.  Much like I'm hearing much in the media by people who are uncomfortable or offended with Kaepernick's open expression while he remains relevant.

You also have to take into account that when you take an extreme position on an issue where the vast majority of Americans agree with you, you won't take a lot of flack, and what flack you do take will be drowned out by support (i.e. Tebow). When you take a position that is not supported by the majority, you won't get that same benefit. That's just something any intelligent person knows when he takes a stand. I certainly don't feel sorry for Kaepernick. He had to have known what would happen. Hate his stand or not, there's a certain nobility in that.

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

roothog66 posted:

Nuke83 posted:

2forU posted:

Tim Tebow expressed his beliefs on the field - the double standard

Please explain the double standard you see.

Kaepernick expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

Tebow expressed his belief and is free to do so.  Likewise, anyone who disagrees with his opinion are free to express their disagreement.

I've taught my children that they are certainly free to express their beliefs and opinions as guaranteed by the constitution.  I've also taught them that they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and sometimes expressing your beliefs openly come with consequences.  I want to make certain that they understand that with rights come great responsibility.  I also make sure that they understand this is afforded to them under our Constitution and that many people before them sacrificed their lives and liberties to earn those freedoms for all of us.

2forU, I simply don't see a double standard.  I heard much in the media by people who were uncomfortable or offended with Tebow's open expression of his Christianity when he was relevant.  Much like I'm hearing much in the media by people who are uncomfortable or offended with Kaepernick's open expression while he remains relevant.

You also have to take into account that when you take an extreme position on an issue where the vast majority of Americans agree with you, you won't take a lot of flack, and what flack you do take will be drowned out by support (i.e. Tebow). When you take a position that is not supported by the majority, you won't get that same benefit. That's just something any intelligent person knows when he takes a stand. I certainly don't feel sorry for Kaepernick. He had to have known what would happen. Hate his stand or not, there's a certain nobility in that.

That's a given.  Much like the Dixie Chicks took a beating when they expressed their opinion with W during a time of extreme patriotism.  If Taylor Swift comes out today and says she loves strawberry ice cream, you'll see sales of strawberry ice cream spike.  If she says she thinks everyone should take up arms against the police because she believes them all racist, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say her popularity might take a hit.

Which goes to my question.  Where is a double standard.  If there is truly a double standard in play and perhaps I'm just missing it, I'd like to understand what it is I'm missing.  I understand most of both sides of this thread.  I just simply don't see the double standard to which 2forU raises.

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

So, history doesn't matter?

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

Ok fine.  But then what do all the Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices do to find employment? 

roothog66 posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

So, history doesn't matter?

Of course history matters, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.  Does anyone think the US has even a 0.000001% chance of passing laws allowing slavery again?  How about laws eliminating a woman's right to vote?

About every 50-60 years we tend to learn another lesson.  1865 Slavery Abolished.  1920 Women earn the right to vote. The 1980's saw a push for equal treatment of LGBT...that one is still ongoing.

The country and population is learning to be better.  What is the point of bringing up slavery if we aren't going to repeat that mistake?

JCG posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

Ok fine.  But then what do all the Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices do to find employment? 

They help society facilitate the changes we need in order to grow as a people.

CaCO3Girl posted:

JCG posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

Ok fine.  But then what do all the Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court Justices do to find employment? 

They help society facilitate the changes we need in order to grow as a people.

As a people we can't simply gloss over our moral failings as a country or society. It is our responsibility to own them and repair whatever attitudes allowed such situations to exist. It isn't good enough to simply argue that times were different and people thought differently so slavery, for example, wasn't a moral failure on our part. You have to remember that even at the time we were still knee deep in the institution of slavery, the vast majority of developed nations had already come to the conclusion that it was morally wrong. The same goes for the Jim Crow South in the US and apartheid in South Africa. We don't develop morally as a nation until we own those failures and make sure they never happen again.

I live within a few miles of the site of the Sand Creek Massacre where the union Army slaughtered hundreds of Indian women and children in a camp. It's not enough to simply say, well, it was a different time and people had different attitudes towards native Americans. The mascot of our high school is "Savages." It sickens me. My ninth grade daughter has more of a backbone than I do. She refuses to stand for the pledge of allegiance at school and has done so since the seventh grade. She takes a lot of crap for that stance. Her answer is that she'll stand when the school changes it's name. Of course, locally, they try to argue that they are "honoring" Native Americans with the name. Why is this mascot so appalling? Because of the HISTORY behind it.

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

roothog66 posted:

As an aside, I'd encourage everyone here to actually research the history of Francis Scott key and the Star Spangled Banner. What you will find is an anthem written by a man who supported slavery to the point that he was a very prominent prosecutor of abolitionists. When he wrote "the land of the free" he certainly never anticipated - nor wished - that African-Americans would be allowed to take part in that freedom.

Societal norms change with time.  At the time it was very normal and common to own slaves, in fact 18 presidents owned slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tes_who_owned_slaves

In 1870 African American MEN were granted the right to vote.  It took until 1920 for us silly little women to get that privilege.

Again, times and customs change, let's role with that instead of dwelling on what may or may not have been going through a mans head 200 years ago.

So, history doesn't matter?

Of course history matters, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.  Does anyone think the US has even a 0.000001% chance of passing laws allowing slavery again?  How about laws eliminating a woman's right to vote?

About every 50-60 years we tend to learn another lesson.  1865 Slavery Abolished.  1920 Women earn the right to vote. The 1980's saw a push for equal treatment of LGBT...that one is still ongoing.

The country and population is learning to be better.  What is the point of bringing up slavery if we aren't going to repeat that mistake?

The reason for bringing it up is that it's foolish to think that the institution doesn't have effects that linger even today. 200 years ago, white men owned everything. The controlled everything. That doesn't change with the stroke of a pen. Those things are passed down generation to generation. So wealth and power tends to accumulate into a very small group of hands that are determined by birth more than anything else. Over time, this changes. It only changes quickly in one way - revolution. We thankfully live in a country where that isn't a problem. So, absent revolution, the change is very slow. It will take hundreds of years before minorities and women are truly equal in power, economics, and influence. The same with social change. Slavery was abolished less than 150 years ago. Yet, real racial equality only made true and meaningful strides within my lifetime. Don't forget that separate water fountains, segregated schools, etc. all were a reality within the lifetimes and experiences of a great many living Americans. It's naïve to think that those experiences from just one generation ago don't still factor into what goes on today.

Somehow, this seems relevant....

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2ndMarDiv posted:

I respectfully disagree on not having the same opportunities.  I think we all have the same opportunities we just don't have the same opportunities to good parenting.   

Oh, there are definitely different opportunities.  A person's money, family, and connections can surely provide better opportunities.  I will give another example:

My cousin (Mom's Sister's Daughter) has a white mother, and a Mexican father.  (Father from Mexico, mother from Alabama)  My cousin grew up in Atlanta where I was born and lived the younger part of my life.  Since my cousin was a minority, she was bussed across the city of Atlanta to a Performing Arts School.  Guess who didn't get bussed across the city of Atlanta?  You guessed it the poor, white kid that was her cousin.  So different opportunities do exist for different people.

That must have been a huge school if all the hispanic, half hispanic, and I assume all other minority students in the greater Atlanta area, were bused there to the exclusion of any and all poor white kids - or rich white kids for that matter.  Wait, that's probably not what really happened.  

Again, if someone wants to put forward a reasonable argument, please do so.  Citing Ben Carson, Herman Cain and, "if you are so inclined" Barack Obama (yea, I'll include him since he's the president of the United States) as examples proving the absence of "systematic oppression" is simply stupid (again, sort of like the VMA's).  The remark about getting left out of the Performing Arts school is just as stupid.  I realize this is the wrong forum to be discussing this topic in detail, but I cannot help resist in asking folks to be reasonable in their arguments.  Does Brittany Spears represent the "oppressed white girl" that struggled and made it to the VMA's?  Please stop citing the gross exceptions.  Didn't the Yankees once send a little person to the plate to get walked?  Maybe that instance should serve as inspiration for all little people to pursue a career in the MLB - sorry, that's what is known as a gross exception.

I'll stick to getting my baseball advice here.  Think it's time to shut this thread down as I do not see it adding any value to the hsbaseball core.

Yeah, you're completely right. I just made that story up...

I thought you might be exaggerating when you implied that the Performing Arts school was attended by every minority in the Atlanta area.  Otherwise I would have thought you were using a single example to try and prove some larger point that was not in fact true - my bad.  Again, that must have been a really big school - with a huge fleet of buses.  Any famous students?  Did they have an athletics program and compete in the super-size classification?  I assume the graduation ceremony took the entire weekend.

I have no doubt your cousin attended that school and you did not, however using that as some type of proof for whatever argument you are trying to make is - again - stupid.

Calling someone stupid in a discussion is very helpful, and an obvious deterrent to a civil conversation.  Nice job!

Calling someone stupid in a discussion is very helpful, and an obvious deterrent to a civil conversation.  Nice job!

Using the example of a single pair of kids in Atlanta to argue not only the absence of disparate opportunities, but infer the proverbial "poor white kid" is worse off is nonsensical - assuming one simply does not understand why a single example cannot be used.  If one knows better, than is becomes "stupid".  

That said, you either failed to support your societal argument about apparent equality or you were simply whining about not getting to go the performing arts school.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume it is the former and respectfully substitute the term "nonsensical".

baseballmom posted:

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

Oops - sorry.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbc...037f&oe=583B3F87

rynoattack posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

rynoattack posted:

2ndMarDiv posted:

I respectfully disagree on not having the same opportunities.  I think we all have the same opportunities we just don't have the same opportunities to good parenting.   

Oh, there are definitely different opportunities.  A person's money, family, and connections can surely provide better opportunities.  I will give another example:

My cousin (Mom's Sister's Daughter) has a white mother, and a Mexican father.  (Father from Mexico, mother from Alabama)  My cousin grew up in Atlanta where I was born and lived the younger part of my life.  Since my cousin was a minority, she was bussed across the city of Atlanta to a Performing Arts School.  Guess who didn't get bussed across the city of Atlanta?  You guessed it the poor, white kid that was her cousin.  So different opportunities do exist for different people.

That must have been a huge school if all the hispanic, half hispanic, and I assume all other minority students in the greater Atlanta area, were bused there to the exclusion of any and all poor white kids - or rich white kids for that matter.  Wait, that's probably not what really happened.  

Again, if someone wants to put forward a reasonable argument, please do so.  Citing Ben Carson, Herman Cain and, "if you are so inclined" Barack Obama (yea, I'll include him since he's the president of the United States) as examples proving the absence of "systematic oppression" is simply stupid (again, sort of like the VMA's).  The remark about getting left out of the Performing Arts school is just as stupid.  I realize this is the wrong forum to be discussing this topic in detail, but I cannot help resist in asking folks to be reasonable in their arguments.  Does Brittany Spears represent the "oppressed white girl" that struggled and made it to the VMA's?  Please stop citing the gross exceptions.  Didn't the Yankees once send a little person to the plate to get walked?  Maybe that instance should serve as inspiration for all little people to pursue a career in the MLB - sorry, that's what is known as a gross exception.

I'll stick to getting my baseball advice here.  Think it's time to shut this thread down as I do not see it adding any value to the hsbaseball core.

Yeah, you're completely right. I just made that story up...

I thought you might be exaggerating when you implied that the Performing Arts school was attended by every minority in the Atlanta area.  Otherwise I would have thought you were using a single example to try and prove some larger point that was not in fact true - my bad.  Again, that must have been a really big school - with a huge fleet of buses.  Any famous students?  Did they have an athletics program and compete in the super-size classification?  I assume the graduation ceremony took the entire weekend.

I have no doubt your cousin attended that school and you did not, however using that as some type of proof for whatever argument you are trying to make is - again - stupid.

Calling someone stupid in a discussion is very helpful, and an obvious deterrent to a civil conversation.  Nice job!

That didn't happen. There is a big difference between name-calling and assessing an argument.

justbaseball posted:

baseballmom posted:

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

Oops - sorry.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbc...037f&oe=583B3F87

SO TRUE! 

Root history teacher to history teacher...  You too are skewing the facts to support your argument. 'White people' didn't own EVERYTHING...  A very small handful of white people owned everything - and yes it does matter. The understanding of this is critical to this entire debate. Root being the historian you are I am sure you are well aware of the conditions in the company towns of the industrial revolution. And the tenement buildings no doubt many of our ancestors lived in. And what they had to do to get their families out of that poverty and downright dangerous life threatening environment. Now I am not in for the 'who had it better' argument. I simply am not willing to go there although all we historians have at one time or another examined that topic. Yes we need to be aware of these things but at the same time in order to move forward we really do have to put the past in the past. That does NOT automatically minimize the significance of history but it does enhance our chances for greatness in the future. And root while I agree with you that the original intent of the old time democrats was to help I believe the modern Democratic Party has stumbled on the realization that they can feed the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in. It is systematic oppression.  And since this thread is so far off the charts politically and religiously I will get my two cents in...  You imply that social acceptance of a given era does not forgive immorality. Just as we gape in horror at the thought of the Romans discarding babies in the woods so to will we someday look on the horrors of our modern day equivalent to that practice. Hope you liberals feel the same shame over that some day. And now here comes the double standard you watch. After all that has been said on this thread mine will be the one to catch the wrath of the censors. But in fact it is open and honest communication like this that will HELP not hurt our chances. I used to teach my students that race relations are like a boiling pot with the lid on.  We keep everything suppressed and some day the lid will blow.  That someday is sadly getting closer. We need open communication even if it initially causes anger. We must negotiate and listen and even scream and yell at each other sometimes if necessary to come out a stronger nation. Or we can have another person come in here and tell us to sweep it back under the rug and get back to baseball. 

P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right?  And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least. 

justbaseball posted:

baseballmom posted:

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

Oops - sorry.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbc...037f&oe=583B3F87

Without speaking to the specifics of this particular debate, the two sides of an argument aren't always equal (in fact, rarely are they so), notwithstanding our current political/media climate that tries beyond all reason to setup false equivalencies at every turn.

And in response to another comment, the better word to use isn't "stupid", or even "non-sensical", it's disingenuous.

2020dad posted:

Root history teacher to history teacher...  You too are skewing the facts to support your argument. 'White people' didn't own EVERYTHING...  A very small handful of white people owned everything - and yes it does matter. The understanding of this is critical to this entire debate. Root being the historian you are I am sure you are well aware of the conditions in the company towns of the industrial revolution. And the tenement buildings no doubt many of our ancestors lived in. And what they had to do to get their families out of that poverty and downright dangerous life threatening environment. Now I am not in for the 'who had it better' argument. I simply am not willing to go there although all we historians have at one time or another examined that topic. Yes we need to be aware of these things but at the same time in order to move forward we really do have to put the past in the past. That does NOT automatically minimize the significance of history but it does enhance our chances for greatness in the future. And root while I agree with you that the original intent of the old time democrats was to help I believe the modern Democratic Party has stumbled on the realization that they can feed the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in. It is systematic oppression.  And since this thread is so far off the charts politically and religiously I will get my two cents in...  You imply that social acceptance of a given era does not forgive immorality. Just as we gape in horror at the thought of the Romans discarding babies in the woods so to will we someday look on the horrors of our modern day equivalent to that practice. Hope you liberals feel the same shame over that some day. And now here comes the double standard you watch. After all that has been said on this thread mine will be the one to catch the wrath of the censors. But in fact it is open and honest communication like this that will HELP not hurt our chances. I used to teach my students that race relations are like a boiling pot with the lid on.  We keep everything suppressed and some day the lid will blow.  That someday is sadly getting closer. We need open communication even if it initially causes anger. We must negotiate and listen and even scream and yell at each other sometimes if necessary to come out a stronger nation. Or we can have another person come in here and tell us to sweep it back under the rug and get back to baseball. 

P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right?  And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least. 

I really hope you aren't a teacher as you claim.

2020dad posted:

Root history teacher to history teacher...  You too are skewing the facts to support your argument. 'White people' didn't own EVERYTHING...  A very small handful of white people owned everything - and yes it does matter. The understanding of this is critical to this entire debate. Root being the historian you are I am sure you are well aware of the conditions in the company towns of the industrial revolution. And the tenement buildings no doubt many of our ancestors lived in. And what they had to do to get their families out of that poverty and downright dangerous life threatening environment. Now I am not in for the 'who had it better' argument. I simply am not willing to go there although all we historians have at one time or another examined that topic. Yes we need to be aware of these things but at the same time in order to move forward we really do have to put the past in the past. That does NOT automatically minimize the significance of history but it does enhance our chances for greatness in the future. And root while I agree with you that the original intent of the old time democrats was to help I believe the modern Democratic Party has stumbled on the realization that they can feed the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in. It is systematic oppression.  And since this thread is so far off the charts politically and religiously I will get my two cents in...  You imply that social acceptance of a given era does not forgive immorality. Just as we gape in horror at the thought of the Romans discarding babies in the woods so to will we someday look on the horrors of our modern day equivalent to that practice. Hope you liberals feel the same shame over that some day. And now here comes the double standard you watch. After all that has been said on this thread mine will be the one to catch the wrath of the censors. But in fact it is open and honest communication like this that will HELP not hurt our chances. I used to teach my students that race relations are like a boiling pot with the lid on.  We keep everything suppressed and some day the lid will blow.  That someday is sadly getting closer. We need open communication even if it initially causes anger. We must negotiate and listen and even scream and yell at each other sometimes if necessary to come out a stronger nation. Or we can have another person come in here and tell us to sweep it back under the rug and get back to baseball. 

P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right?  And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least. 

I think you're right on a lot of this, but maybe bringing abortion to the argument is asking for trouble.

As to Indian atrocities, don't forget that we (Europeans) pretty much invaded them, attempted to completely wipe them off the map and take everything they owned based on the concept that they weren't "people."

I also didn't say "white people" but "white men." Maybe it would have been better stated that everything was owned by white men not to be interpreted as that white men owned everything collectively.

Also, before this thread inevitably gets locked, I think this is an interesting take on the subject at hand, http://www.slate.com/articles/...and_john_carlos.html

My first thought when I heard about this was the '68 Olympics, too.

2020dad posted:

Root history teacher to history teacher...  You too are skewing the facts to support your argument. 'White people' didn't own EVERYTHING...  A very small handful of white people owned everything - and yes it does matter. The understanding of this is critical to this entire debate. Root being the historian you are I am sure you are well aware of the conditions in the company towns of the industrial revolution. And the tenement buildings no doubt many of our ancestors lived in. And what they had to do to get their families out of that poverty and downright dangerous life threatening environment. Now I am not in for the 'who had it better' argument. I simply am not willing to go there although all we historians have at one time or another examined that topic. Yes we need to be aware of these things but at the same time in order to move forward we really do have to put the past in the past. That does NOT automatically minimize the significance of history but it does enhance our chances for greatness in the future. And root while I agree with you that the original intent of the old time democrats was to help I believe the modern Democratic Party has stumbled on the realization that they can feed the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in. It is systematic oppression.  And since this thread is so far off the charts politically and religiously I will get my two cents in...  You imply that social acceptance of a given era does not forgive immorality. Just as we gape in horror at the thought of the Romans discarding babies in the woods so to will we someday look on the horrors of our modern day equivalent to that practice. Hope you liberals feel the same shame over that some day. And now here comes the double standard you watch. After all that has been said on this thread mine will be the one to catch the wrath of the censors. But in fact it is open and honest communication like this that will HELP not hurt our chances. I used to teach my students that race relations are like a boiling pot with the lid on.  We keep everything suppressed and some day the lid will blow.  That someday is sadly getting closer. We need open communication even if it initially causes anger. We must negotiate and listen and even scream and yell at each other sometimes if necessary to come out a stronger nation. Or we can have another person come in here and tell us to sweep it back under the rug and get back to baseball. 

P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right?  And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least. 

Also don't forget that moving minimum wage to a level that would make it economically equivalent to minimum wage in 1966 isn't feeding " the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in." It's trying to better their lives. Opposing an increase to those making far below what it takes to sustain life might be, though. This used to be a country where no matter what you did for a living, if you worked hard for 40 hours a week, you could keep yourself and your family fed and sheltered. It's not that anymore. By the way, who broke up those company towns? Unions.

P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right?  And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least. 

 

The Trail of Tears =/= any atrocity committed by American Natives vs European/American settlers. And that's before considering much more explicitly genocidal policies carried out elsewhere in the Americas over time by Europeans or their descendants. This is one of those false equivalency issues.

Not that genocide isn't pretty much part and parcel of humanity throughout history, of course. History is written by the victors, after all.

This has been pretty civil. However, there have been particular turns that could become nasty. There are several people in this thread that I respect very much and like, but now find myself butting heads with. I'm going to take a deep breath and pull out of this one, though I have enjoyed it. Politics and Religion, man...stay away

Well you can hope. But just for the record about a year ago I took two weeks off this site completely while I assessed if I wanted to be here anymore because of heated exchanges between you and I Matt. And further for the record neither of us was aware of the others race or ethnicity and that argument had nothing to do with topics such as we are currently discussing. So I think it best if this be my one and only reply to you on the topic or really any other in the future. And since it is my last I will inform you much to your obvious chagrin that I am indeed a history teacher - although just subbing now. I will also add that every year in my class when I got to modern US history I invited civil rights activists and Vietnam nam vets to my class. Mostly parents as at that time the age fit perfectly. They were free to say as they wished. No direction whatsoever. Many blunt opinions were shared. If I were still in the regular classroom I would be happy to extend you an invite as well. All opinions were welcome in my classroom.  It is in an open minded environment we learn best. Not really even sure what I could have possibly said in that post to offend you so.  But just as IN REAL LIFE I opened my classroom and mind to others viewpoints I have no issue sharing mine as well. You don't like it?  That's your right.  I probably wouldn't much care for your umpiring is my guess. Also my right. Peace. 

2020dad posted:

Well you can hope. But just for the record about a year ago I took two weeks off this site completely while I assessed if I wanted to be here anymore because of heated exchanges between you and I Matt. And further for the record neither of us was aware of the others race or ethnicity and that argument had nothing to do with topics such as we are currently discussing. So I think it best if this be my one and only reply to you on the topic or really any other in the future. And since it is my last I will inform you much to your obvious chagrin that I am indeed a history teacher - although just subbing now. I will also add that every year in my class when I got to modern US history I invited civil rights activists and Vietnam nam vets to my class. Mostly parents as at that time the age fit perfectly. They were free to say as they wished. No direction whatsoever. Many blunt opinions were shared. If I were still in the regular classroom I would be happy to extend you an invite as well. All opinions were welcome in my classroom.  It is in an open minded environment we learn best. Not really even sure what I could have possibly said in that post to offend you so.  But just as IN REAL LIFE I opened my classroom and mind to others viewpoints I have no issue sharing mine as well. You don't like it?  That's your right.  I probably wouldn't much care for your umpiring is my guess. Also my right. Peace. 

Unintentional irony is the best irony.

Leaving a site like this over the occasional political/philosophical discussion is silly.  Ignore them if it gets to you, or just don't let it get to you.  No one ever changes anyone's mind in these discussions. If there's any benefit to them at all, it's to the readers who might actually be undecided or not have given consideration to the issue.

roothog66 posted:

This has been pretty civil. However, there have been particular turns that could become nasty. There are several people in this thread that I respect very much and like, but now find myself butting heads with. I'm going to take a deep breath and pull out of this one, though I have enjoyed it. Politics and Religion, man...stay away

I'll bow out with you root, you make a valid point

jacjacatk posted:

Also, before this thread inevitably gets locked, I think this is an interesting take on the subject at hand, http://www.slate.com/articles/...and_john_carlos.html

My first thought when I heard about this was the '68 Olympics, too.

roothog66 posted:

2020dad posted:

Root history teacher to history teacher...  You too are skewing the facts to support your argument. 'White people' didn't own EVERYTHING...  A very small handful of white people owned everything - and yes it does matter. The understanding of this is critical to this entire debate. Root being the historian you are I am sure you are well aware of the conditions in the company towns of the industrial revolution. And the tenement buildings no doubt many of our ancestors lived in. And what they had to do to get their families out of that poverty and downright dangerous life threatening environment. Now I am not in for the 'who had it better' argument. I simply am not willing to go there although all we historians have at one time or another examined that topic. Yes we need to be aware of these things but at the same time in order to move forward we really do have to put the past in the past. That does NOT automatically minimize the significance of history but it does enhance our chances for greatness in the future. And root while I agree with you that the original intent of the old time democrats was to help I believe the modern Democratic Party has stumbled on the realization that they can feed the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in. It is systematic oppression.  And since this thread is so far off the charts politically and religiously I will get my two cents in...  You imply that social acceptance of a given era does not forgive immorality. Just as we gape in horror at the thought of the Romans discarding babies in the woods so to will we someday look on the horrors of our modern day equivalent to that practice. Hope you liberals feel the same shame over that some day. And now here comes the double standard you watch. After all that has been said on this thread mine will be the one to catch the wrath of the censors. But in fact it is open and honest communication like this that will HELP not hurt our chances. I used to teach my students that race relations are like a boiling pot with the lid on.  We keep everything suppressed and some day the lid will blow.  That someday is sadly getting closer. We need open communication even if it initially causes anger. We must negotiate and listen and even scream and yell at each other sometimes if necessary to come out a stronger nation. Or we can have another person come in here and tell us to sweep it back under the rug and get back to baseball. 

P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right?  And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least. 

Also don't forget that moving minimum wage to a level that would make it economically equivalent to minimum wage in 1966 isn't feeding " the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in." It's trying to better their lives. Opposing an increase to those making far below what it takes to sustain life might be, though. This used to be a country where no matter what you did for a living, if you worked hard for 40 hours a week, you could keep yourself and your family fed and sheltered. It's not that anymore. By the way, who broke up those company towns? Unions.

root we also have to be careful to presume that people are all one way or the other. I no longer even consider myself a republican. I am a man without a party that represents my viewpoints. I am a fiscal conservative for sure - but yet I support an increase in minimum wage to a 'liveable ' level. But what is that exactly?  What do we NEED to live?  Is it acceptable to live in a trailer?  I think so. Can you do that on a $10 an hour job?  Yep. Can you raise a family on that...   In a trailer?  Doubt it.  Does society owe you a wage no matter how menial the job that will afford you the ability to raise a family?  Hmmmm, would have to think on that but first answer that comes to mind is probably not.  Do I really NEED this cell phone I am typing on?  Nope. Do we NEED cars?  Nope. Believe it or not there are still people who bus to work. Do we NEED TV?  Nope.  Etc etc. we have wants and needs seriously confused in this modern world. So I agree with you anyone who works hard 40 hours a week should get a livable wage. 10-12 an hour is the number that comes to my mind. But I would be open to debate on that. I am very much an advocate for the poor and those truly in need of help. And especially for kids.  But I think where a lot of disagreement may come in is what is a NEED!

jacjacatk posted:

2020dad posted:

Well you can hope. But just for the record about a year ago I took two weeks off this site completely while I assessed if I wanted to be here anymore because of heated exchanges between you and I Matt. And further for the record neither of us was aware of the others race or ethnicity and that argument had nothing to do with topics such as we are currently discussing. So I think it best if this be my one and only reply to you on the topic or really any other in the future. And since it is my last I will inform you much to your obvious chagrin that I am indeed a history teacher - although just subbing now. I will also add that every year in my class when I got to modern US history I invited civil rights activists and Vietnam nam vets to my class. Mostly parents as at that time the age fit perfectly. They were free to say as they wished. No direction whatsoever. Many blunt opinions were shared. If I were still in the regular classroom I would be happy to extend you an invite as well. All opinions were welcome in my classroom.  It is in an open minded environment we learn best. Not really even sure what I could have possibly said in that post to offend you so.  But just as IN REAL LIFE I opened my classroom and mind to others viewpoints I have no issue sharing mine as well. You don't like it?  That's your right.  I probably wouldn't much care for your umpiring is my guess. Also my right. Peace. 

Unintentional irony is the best irony.

Leaving a site like this over the occasional political/philosophical discussion is silly.  Ignore them if it gets to you, or just don't let it get to you.  No one ever changes anyone's mind in these discussions. If there's any benefit to them at all, it's to the readers who might actually be undecided or not have given consideration to the issue.

To explain I did not think about leaving because of the discussion. I was disappointed in myself that I allowed myself to get so angry and involved in an online argument.  That wasn't healthy. Nothing I am saying on this thread is coming from anger on my part so I am A OK with our debate. And I think it is always possible to change minds. A little at a time maybe. But possible. Think about this whole conversation and the philosophical changes we have discussed throughout history.  All those changes took place with one person at a time changing their viewpoint. One mind at a time - peacefully!

2020dad posted:

jacjacatk posted:

Also, before this thread inevitably gets locked, I think this is an interesting take on the subject at hand, http://www.slate.com/articles/...and_john_carlos.html

My first thought when I heard about this was the '68 Olympics, too.

roothog66 posted:

2020dad posted:

Root history teacher to history teacher...  You too are skewing the facts to support your argument. 'White people' didn't own EVERYTHING...  A very small handful of white people owned everything - and yes it does matter. The understanding of this is critical to this entire debate. Root being the historian you are I am sure you are well aware of the conditions in the company towns of the industrial revolution. And the tenement buildings no doubt many of our ancestors lived in. And what they had to do to get their families out of that poverty and downright dangerous life threatening environment. Now I am not in for the 'who had it better' argument. I simply am not willing to go there although all we historians have at one time or another examined that topic. Yes we need to be aware of these things but at the same time in order to move forward we really do have to put the past in the past. That does NOT automatically minimize the significance of history but it does enhance our chances for greatness in the future. And root while I agree with you that the original intent of the old time democrats was to help I believe the modern Democratic Party has stumbled on the realization that they can feed the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in. It is systematic oppression.  And since this thread is so far off the charts politically and religiously I will get my two cents in...  You imply that social acceptance of a given era does not forgive immorality. Just as we gape in horror at the thought of the Romans discarding babies in the woods so to will we someday look on the horrors of our modern day equivalent to that practice. Hope you liberals feel the same shame over that some day. And now here comes the double standard you watch. After all that has been said on this thread mine will be the one to catch the wrath of the censors. But in fact it is open and honest communication like this that will HELP not hurt our chances. I used to teach my students that race relations are like a boiling pot with the lid on.  We keep everything suppressed and some day the lid will blow.  That someday is sadly getting closer. We need open communication even if it initially causes anger. We must negotiate and listen and even scream and yell at each other sometimes if necessary to come out a stronger nation. Or we can have another person come in here and tell us to sweep it back under the rug and get back to baseball. 

P.S. Root I am sure you are also well aware of the atrocities against the settlers by the hands of select tribes as well right?  And because I know we both want to be fair historians I will reach out the olive branch on this one and say there is no clear pattern that suggests either side 'started it' or is completely innocent. Now move to the center just a tad and come with me on that statement at least. 

Also don't forget that moving minimum wage to a level that would make it economically equivalent to minimum wage in 1966 isn't feeding " the minority community just enough to keep them at sustenance level and keep their votes rolling in." It's trying to better their lives. Opposing an increase to those making far below what it takes to sustain life might be, though. This used to be a country where no matter what you did for a living, if you worked hard for 40 hours a week, you could keep yourself and your family fed and sheltered. It's not that anymore. By the way, who broke up those company towns? Unions.

root we also have to be careful to presume that people are all one way or the other. I no longer even consider myself a republican. I am a man without a party that represents my viewpoints. I am a fiscal conservative for sure - but yet I support an increase in minimum wage to a 'liveable ' level. But what is that exactly?  What do we NEED to live?  Is it acceptable to live in a trailer?  I think so. Can you do that on a $10 an hour job?  Yep. Can you raise a family on that...   In a trailer?  Doubt it.  Does society owe you a wage no matter how menial the job that will afford you the ability to raise a family?  Hmmmm, would have to think on that but first answer that comes to mind is probably not.  Do I really NEED this cell phone I am typing on?  Nope. Do we NEED cars?  Nope. Believe it or not there are still people who bus to work. Do we NEED TV?  Nope.  Etc etc. we have wants and needs seriously confused in this modern world. So I agree with you anyone who works hard 40 hours a week should get a livable wage. 10-12 an hour is the number that comes to my mind. But I would be open to debate on that. I am very much an advocate for the poor and those truly in need of help. And especially for kids.  But I think where a lot of disagreement may come in is what is a NEED!

I'll step back in on this because I don't consider it political. Some of what makes it expensive to live is that we have to consider what is an ordinary life. Your cell phone? I used to have the same view as you. That is, until I found myself in an emergency and had left the cell at home. Not too long ago, you would just find a pay phone in an emergency. Try that now. Bottom line is that bare minimum has always been based on being ordinary at the lowest level.

For example, what did you really need in, say 1955, to be "normal?" One car (very few families had a second car), a phone line, electricity, etc. Go back 50 years and many would have thought electricity and running water to have been an unnecessary luxury. By 1955 it was a basic need. Today, you pretty much need a lot of things you didn't need in 1955 to be "just like everyone else." One example would be internet access and maybe even cable service. In 1955 people got their news mostly still from a simple radio and a newspaper. Today, just to be minimally informed cost more money. Not to mention that in many areas a collapse of public transportation makes a second auto necessary. So, in 1955, you could be just like everyone else basically on a minimum amount of money and still support a family on one income.

As to your trailer example, you're still talking a minimum amount of $$ for rent, electricity, etc. Depending on where you live, maybe $10 an hour makes sense. In other areas, say San Francisco or New York, $10/hr couldn't even find you bare living arrangements. Yet someone has to work those fast food jobs.

Here's the other issue I don't think people consider. If you're making current minimum wage, you're also eligible for government aid from a number of sources. This makes up the gap between minimum wage and sustainable wage. So, basically, we, through government programs, support low wage industries by paying their workers the additional money and benefits that McDonald's should be paying them. Higher minimum wages means less tax dollars going to public support. If it means I pay an extra 75 cents for a Big Mac, I'm ok with that.

Sooooo, to bring this back to baseball, should MiLB players be expected to live on $1,500/mo?

Sorry, too easy.

Root I can assure you any discussion we have had on this thread is not taken nor meant personally. And you remain good with me I can tell you that. I do have to disagree however with the 'fit in' definition of needs. If so the government, tax payers, corporate America or somebody owes me a heck of a lot of money cause I don't fit in. Or do I?  I guess I do fit in - with others like me socioeconomically.  So do I deserve a bump up to the next level?  So I can fit in there?  It is complicated isn't it. The president gets free extensive medical examination and health care routinely, should I? (Rhetorical question - not looking for the socialized medical debate though you may be shocked where I stand in that). Just saying when we define where we fit in there will always be someone with more that we think we should then be allowed to fit in with. 

Nuke83 posted:

Sooooo, to bring this back to baseball, should MiLB players be expected to live on $1,500/mo?

Sorry, too easy.

No!    

jacjacatk posted:

justbaseball posted:

baseballmom posted:

justbaseball, link doesn't work 

Oops - sorry.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbc...037f&oe=583B3F87

Without speaking to the specifics of this particular debate, the two sides of an argument aren't always equal (in fact, rarely are they so), notwithstanding our current political/media climate that tries beyond all reason to setup false equivalencies at every turn.

And in response to another comment, the better word to use isn't "stupid", or even "non-sensical", it's disingenuous.

Of course the two sides aren't always equal - probably rarely equal.  And I'd add that rarely in an argument is one side 100% right and the other 100% wrong.  This applies not only to flag issues, but to arguments I may get into with my wife!!

I often find, if I will calm my reactive instincts...my brain down and put myself in the other guy's shoes, that I can understand and even accept at least some parts of his/her displeasure.

I don't think we, as a society, do much 'calming ourselves down' lately.  It might actually help?

Thats all the link really means to me.  Nothing more.  Just a thought.

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been said.

But has anyone else noticed how quick the media have been to come to Kaepernick's defense?

Which is fine by me.  I agree with Coach Kelly's approach:  He's entitled to his own life when it's not about my football team.

I just wonder why Kaepernick didn't get the same hateful treatment given to another NFL player who was public about his personal opinions.  Talking about Tebow, of course.

Actually, I lied.  I know why the treatment isn't the same!  Anti-establishment views are so very cool.  Traditional views are disdained. 

Politics, race, religion?  Those subjects always cause a lot of controversy. Hard to get any group together when it comes to those things.

Back to the original topic...  I'm not against people speaking their mind.  I'm all for the freedoms we have in this country.  What was done didn't hurt anyone other than one football player who decided to be disrespectful to a lot of people of many different races.  Personally I think it is just another athlete losing his attraction looking for a way to still be important.  At the same time there are many top professional athletes drawing attention to all the senseless killing, but they are still standing up and showing respect for our Flag and our National Anthem.  Yes, he has the right to do what he did.  In America we have all kinds of rights.  To me, that is what our flag stands for.

Midlo Dad posted:

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been said.

But has anyone else noticed how quick the media have been to come to Kaepernick's defense?

Which is fine by me.  I agree with Coach Kelly's approach:  He's entitled to his own life when it's not about my football team.

I just wonder why Kaepernick didn't get the same hateful treatment given to another NFL player who was public about his personal opinions.  Talking about Tebow, of course.

Actually, I lied.  I know why the treatment isn't the same!  Anti-establishment views are so very cool.  Traditional views are disdained. 

Tebow was never hated. What was hated was things like this post claiming that he was hated. 

Problem is by doing what he did he brought his organization into it.  

Media has to be careful, these are delicate times.

PGStaff posted:

What was done didn't hurt anyone other than one football player who decided to be disrespectful to a lot of people of many different races.  

One person's disrespectful is another person's standing up for what he believes in (pun sort of intended).

Some times (and we can all disagree about whether this is one of those times), it's more important to say what needs to be said than to worry about whether someone will be offended by it.

OK I am really confused with Kaepernick now, he wore a Fidel Castro T shirt to a press conference.  His beef was about oppression right???

Midlo Dad posted:

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been said.

But has anyone else noticed how quick the media have been to come to Kaepernick's defense?

Which is fine by me.  I agree with Coach Kelly's approach:  He's entitled to his own life when it's not about my football team.

I just wonder why Kaepernick didn't get the same hateful treatment given to another NFL player who was public about his personal opinions.  Talking about Tebow, of course.

Actually, I lied.  I know why the treatment isn't the same!  Anti-establishment views are so very cool.  Traditional views are disdained. 

With respect, I understand that many people feel as you do about the hateful treatment of Tebow and supposed disdain for traditional values, but for the rest of us it just does not represent objective reality.   It reminds me of something a Trump boy said the other day  about his father running for president because the White House Christmas Tree was now named the Holiday Tree. Well, maybe Eric heard them complain about that about a thousand times on the TV, but guess what?   The Christmas trees at the White House are still called Christmas trees.

As an FYI, I am also a history teacher.   This will be my last post on this topic.  I must first apologize for boring some of you with some things that I have repeated for so many years.  When I was born, my father was a sharecropper.  In fact, we lived in a small area with a bunch of sharecropper families.  I lived in a shack that had was 10 by 20 and 7 of us lived in that shack.  We didn't have running water, electricity, and often food.  I've know poverty on a level I believe few have.  I could bore you with the horror stories about how my father treated my brother's infected hand or my brother's high fevers.  I could tell you about a kid begging for saltine crackers.  When we made our break out of sharecropping, my dad took a job that no one would work and for low wages.  My mom worked a job that left her with bloody hands every night.  I would cry sometimes looking at her hands as my sister put bandages on them every night  Here is what I know for sure.  I made the choice to get out of my old neighborhood.  I made the decision that my education was the most important thing I had going.  I made the choice to not drink, smoke, do drugs etc. because I refuse to be like those drunks and druggies who still live where I once lived.  We can argue all we want about who set up the current conditions.  What we fail to do is break the cycle of these people of the inner city that don't have opportunities for their children to go to school that will give them a future.  Until our society makes that choice and gives business incentives to go into those communities to create jobs, noting will change regardless of whatever movement rules the day now. 

Take care,

Darrell Butler

I think this thread has run its course, and it has reminded me why the "no religion or politics" rule is prudent for this site.

Everyone has had their say. This thread is now closed.

We're all still friends, right?