Visit our Popular Forums

ROBERTSUNRUS · 01-06-2018, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombomb68

I love football. These players are modern day [Babies] gladiators who [make millions of dollars] risk their lives and health for our entertainment. Plus I have great respect for the players that take a knee protesting very ugly and illegal police brutality.

Hi, if they have a problem with the police then take their protests to the City Hall or the local Police station. The only draft for these gladiators, as you refer to them, they should be drafted into the Army and sent to the Middle East for a few years.

SteveSueMac · 01-06-2018, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBERTSUNRUS

Hi, if they have a problem with the police then take their protests to the City Hall or the local Police station. The only draft for these gladiators, as you refer to them, they should be drafted into the Army and sent to the Middle East for a few years.

There are 1,696 players in the NFL - 70% of which are black. According to the US Census Bureau 13.3% of the 326M US population is black (43M).

Perhaps what these .00004% of the black population (who have a platform the other 99.99996% don't) are asking 326,000,000 of us to consider is whether all of us really do have equal rights and protections under the law and its practical enforcement; and if not, what are we willing to do about that?

The point of peaceful protest - a protected right by our Constitution* - is to make us uncomfortable and consider difficult things.

*this protection is for the individual from the government - not necessarily from a private employer like the NFL...

Last - while I was registered for the draft but was not selected and didn't serve, I have family and friends who have - and they tend to be of 2 opinions - one that kneeling is disrespectful to the flag, the other that they fought for the right for people to protest using their free speech no matter how uncomfortable it makes us. I am grateful for the service of all our Veterans and believe there is nothing more disrespectful to the symbol of American freedom than to deny someone their civil rights - which is sadly a proven pattern in American history.

At least we're talking about it - thanks to the Veterans who sacrificed so much for us to maintain that right. That's my argument - submitted respectfully with wishes for a salubrious day full of liberty and justice for all. [emoji3]

Protagonist · 01-06-2018, 05:58 AM

Kneeling for the National Anthem as a form of protest is wrong in my opinion. Protesting is fine; freedom of speech is a guaranteed right. But it's the FORM of the protest that I object to. I consider kneeling during the national anthem to be only one very short step above burning the American flag. One is not obligated to agree with everything the US Government does, but one does have an obligation to show respect to the symbols of that government as long as one is a citizen of said government.

Besides which, if one is protesting police brutality, showing disrespect to a symbol of the Federal Government is not a terribly effective form of protest. The Federal Government does not employ the police that are committing acts of brutality; unless one is protesting brutality by US Marshalls or the FBI or postal inspectors or park rangers.

I believe that any NFL players who wish to protest anything should take their protest directly to the agencies they are protesting against, the same way ordinary citizens form picket lines in front of businesses or government agencies that they object to, rather than picketing at a football field. If players want to protest on camera, I can assure them that no matter where they protest, the camera will find them. They don't need to show disrespect for the natioanl anthem in order to protest anything.

SteveSueMac · 01-06-2018, 06:38 AM

Hi Protagonist - my initial opinion was that Kaepernick's chosen method would fail and I wish he'd chosen a different method. The symbol is too strongly engrained in hearts and minds for people to actually hear what he was saying. And he was sitting which actually felt more disrespectful to me for some reason I can't explain as I'm not sure I understand why in my own mind...

Then Nate Boyer (former NFL player and Green Beret) counseled him to kneel instead of sitting and I started to pay more attention to what was going on.

As for "a step above flag burning" - the SCOTUS decided in 1969 that burning a flag in protest is protected free speech under the first amendment.

On this point:

"One is not obligated to agree with everything the US Government does, but one does have an obligation to show respect to the symbols of that government as long as one is a citizen of said government."

I agree emotionally - I think that's good citizenship. However, I don't agree Constitutionally. For the same reason SCOTUS says it's not illegal to burn a flag in protest - one is not Constitutionally obligated to respect symbols any more than Rosa Parks was obligated to sit in the back of the bus. One IS Constitutionally obligated to respect the equal rights of the people those symbols are meant to represent. That is systemically not happening and in my opinion, that's why they kneel.

The irony is - it's emotionally painful to watch and yet - a source of pride that we can do this in America - there are some countries where expressing an anti-authoritarian opinion - especially entangled with symbols - will get you jailed or killed.

On this point:

"Besides which, if one is protesting police brutality, showing disrespect to a symbol of the Federal Government is not a terribly effective form of protest. The Federal Government does not employ the police that are committing acts of brutality; unless one is protesting brutality by US Marshalls or the FBI or postal inspectors or park rangers."

Yes I agree - it's part of the reason why I was so conflicted at first. But as mentioned through the stats provided in my earlier reply, it's a fractional percent of the population with a reach the rest of the population won't ever have. Hard not to take advantage of that kind of opportunity especially for civil rights.

On your last point:

"If players want to protest on camera, I can assure them that no matter where they protest, the camera will find them. They don't need to show disrespect for the natioanl anthem in order to protest anything."

Excellent! I've always admired your engineer's capability for problem solving. This is a terrifically logical recommendation and I agree. I would only observe that while they don't NEED to kneel during the anthem to get their point across (any more than those 4 black men NEEDED to eat at a Greensboro Woolworth's in 1960), it has at least sparked lively discussion.

Troutboy · 01-06-2018, 08:10 AM

First I don’t agree with this form of protest either. I feel it is disrespectful to the country and those that serve to protect it. Just my opinion.

More importantly in my opinion, protesting is about making people aware and driving for positive change.

What is lacking here is the end game. What are they trying to achieve and how are they individually working to make that positive impact.

I read an article where the owner of the Detroit lions met with all the players and asked them not to kneel for a Monday night game.

She asked them what they wanted and agreed to donate large amounts of money to the local causes that they were advocating for. She wanted to help them make a difference. Yet they turned her down.

So I ask, what is the end game? The solution we are driving for. Protesting for a reason, to make a positive impact is what the US is about.

Protesting for protesting sake is ridiculous. They were heard, and I see very few instances where they are capitalizing on their wealth, fame, presence, etc to make a real impact.

If they were sincere in their motives to make a positive impact for black or poor folks in their community, how strong would it have been to come out on that Monday night holding hands or locked arms, then having a press release stating that together with the owner they were going to make a real impact in Detroit locale by helping these causes.

Maybe other teams and owners would have followed suit and then we are taking about making real positive progress.

Instead they chose to continue to protest and guess what, no one got any help from it.

What’s the end game, what are they trying to achieve? It’s not clear and I think it’s more at this point about them than the actual causes or making a positive impact.

YMMV

rmkrum · 01-06-2018, 09:52 AM

Meh. Football, either professional or college, in my view is a total waste of my time and money, as are all other forms of professional sport. As far as disrespecting the US flag and the national anthem, they can do what they want. It’s irrelevant to me. Obviously the protests are not having much effect, so perhaps these overpaid entertainers need to do something different.

I’m a veteran, and yeah, I spent almost nine years of my life going in harms way. The knuckleheads that want to be disrespectful can go ahead and do so. They have the right to protest. And I have the right to ignore them totally...

I raised my kids to have proper manners. These so-called protestors are exhibiting a “lack of home education” which is the worst possible thing I can say about their manners...

Countryboy59 · 01-06-2018, 10:09 AM

Let's talk torque and horsepower.

**GCinSC2** · 01-06-2018, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Let's talk torque and horsepower.

I prefer the ones that give you 2 lb-ft for each 1 hp.

Make mine a Cummins please.

Lumatic · 01-06-2018, 11:48 AM

I take exception with the recent tone of the argue thread, it is entirely too meaningful.

OTRA15 · 01-06-2018, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumatic

I take exception with the recent tone of the argue thread, it is entirely too meaningful.

What is football?

Jim & Susan · 01-06-2018, 03:54 PM

Oh good, we're back on track.

Jim

SteveSueMac · 01-06-2018, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumatic

I take exception with the recent tone of the argue thread, it is entirely too meaningful.

Apologies [emoji23]

Oh - and your torque is too low, your hitch can't distribute weight, and your tires make me want to ask you to notify me what roads you're going to be on when you're traveling

Better? [emoji23]

Happy arguing!

McDave · 01-06-2018, 04:52 PM

I sympathize with the owner of the Detroit Lyons. She realized that nothing good can come to her team from players disrespecting the national anthem. For every fan who may have been motivated in a positive way by the actions of the players who protested (assuming there were any) there must have been hundreds who were motivated negatively, ranging from outrage to stoney indifference. Recognizing that disrespecting the national anthem is not a crime is one thing; bearing in mind that fans have the right to react to that disrespect in any legal way they choose is another.

SteveSueMac · 01-06-2018, 05:58 PM

Speaking about Detroit - why can't they remake the 1971 Pontiac Bonneville with the 454? Did anyone tow with one of those bad boys? I can't imagine it would get more than 3-4 mpg towing (a friend had one and it got 8 solo...). But what a luxurious boat!

Countryboy59 · 01-06-2018, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveSueMac

Speaking about Detroit - why can't they remake the 1971 Pontiac Bonneville with the 454? Did anyone tow with one of those bad boys? I can't imagine it would get more than 3-4 mpg towing (a friend had one and it got 8 solo...). But what a luxurious boat!

Bonneville came with a 455. It made about 230 horsepower.

Lumatic · 01-06-2018, 06:31 PM

A Toranado is more better.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...act=mrc&uact=8

SteveSueMac · 01-06-2018, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

Bonneville came with a 455. It made about 230 horsepower.

Was the Chevy the 454? My parents had a BelAir station wagon - a 454 if I'm not mistaken. The Pontiac was an additional inch?

Countryboy59 · 01-06-2018, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveSueMac

Was the Chevy the 454? My parents had a BelAir station wagon - a 454 if I'm not mistaken. The Pontiac was an additional inch?

Yep. For whatever reason lol. Later, GM mixed and matched engines.

OTRA15 · 01-07-2018, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumatic

I take exception with the recent tone of the argue thread, it is entirely too meaningful.

Give me some GD arguments you Mambo wimps!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumatic

This is better
. . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Fh...ature=youtu.be

wimpy · 01-07-2018, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveSueMac

Speaking about Detroit - why can't they remake the 1971 Pontiac Bonneville with the 454? Did anyone tow with one of those bad boys? I can't imagine it would get more than 3-4 mpg towing (a friend had one and it got 8 solo...). But what a luxurious boat!

Friend had a 74 Lincoln Continental Mark IV (460-212 HP T-356 lbf·ft) He claimed 9mpg: 35 mph around town, 35 towing his boat, 80 open road, 80 open road towing his 24' boat. If torque is an issue, any of the 400+ cu in motors from those days would be a perfect candidate.