No more Kneeling for NFL

It's not your decision.

Bingo!

The "right" place to protest is where the protestor decides to protest. The "right" time to protest is when the protestor decides to protest.

What better place and time than at the opening ceremonies of a football game in America? Viewers all over the place!
 
Bingo!

The "right" place to protest is where the protestor decides to protest. The "right" time to protest is when the protestor decides to protest.

What better place and time than at the opening ceremonies of a football game in America? Viewers all over the place!
There's the solution...Just don't televise until the first snap...
 
I love how the owners have simplified the issue.
You can kneel if you'd like, but kneel in the locker room like the little whiny cowards you are where no one can see you.

sounds fair to me
 
Which is why I voted for Trump over Hitlery

He is wiping out lefties bullshit. That is why lefties hate him so much. He is the first President ever to unwind liberal acts.

#MAGA

You uneducated drug addicts will be dead soon and Trump's damage can easily be repaired
 
I love how the owners have simplified the issue.
You can kneel if you'd like, but kneel in the locker room like the little whiny cowards you are where no one can see you.

sounds fair to me

But they haven't done that up until now - they have kneeled in public, to much criticism and in some cases, risking their careers. So, I don't think the "coward" characterization applies.
 
Hello Legion,

It used to be. [about racial police brutality] Now it's mostly about hating Trump, IMO.

Sounds like what you are trying to turn this issue into because you don't want to believe there is racial police brutality.

Cite your evidence, if you have any.

Walter Scott, a black man running away from Officer Michael Slager, was shot in the back while he posed no threat.

That's one example, and your claim is unsupported by any evidence. Post the proof. Don't tell me to "look it up". You made the claim.

The shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, following a daytime traffic stop for a non-functioning brake light. Scott, an unarmed black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer.[1][2] Slager was charged with murder after a video surfaced which showed him shooting Scott from behind while Scott was fleeing, and which contradicted his police report. The race difference led many to believe that the shooting was racially motivated, generating a widespread controversy.[3]

The case was independently investigated by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina, and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division conducted their own investigations. In June 2015, a South Carolina grand jury indicted Slager on a charge of murder. He was released on bond in January 2016. In late 2016, a five-week trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury. In May 2016, Slager was indicted on federal charges including violation of Scott's civil rights and obstruction of justice. In a May 2017 plea agreement, Slager pleaded guilty to federal charges of civil rights violations, and he was returned to jail pending sentencing.[4][5] In return for his guilty plea, the state's murder charges were dropped.[5]

In December 2017, Slager was sentenced to 20 years in prison.[6]

Shooting_of_Walter_Scott (wiki)

The police officer who shot unarmed Scott in the back is doing 20 years for violating his civil rights. That is iron clad proof of racial police brutality.

Public figures who demonstrate for improved civil rights are thus justified in their actions. That has nothing to do with President Trump, who inserted himself into the controversy, made it worse, not better, when he should have taken meaningful action to improve the problem. Now, it is worse than if he had done nothing at all.

You hear what you want to hear. What you decide to infer from what you hear is your issue.

That sounds to me like something you have been told, and have decided to use against others. I believe whomever told that to you was probably spot on. It appears accurate in this case. You claim 'hatred of Trump,' yet I've expressed none. I always give the president all due respect, but that doesn't mean he is above criticism.
 
Sounds like what you are trying to turn this issue into because you don't want to believe there is racial police brutality.

I neither stated nor did I imply that. Your inferences are beyond my control.

Walter Scott, a black man running away from Officer Michael Slager, was shot in the back while he posed no threat.

So you've said.

The police officer who shot unarmed Scott in the back is doing 20 years for violating his civil rights. That is iron clad proof of racial police brutality.

In a single case, perhaps.

Public figures who demonstrate for improved civil rights are thus justified in their actions.

So you say. Public figures are free to do whatever they like, if they're prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.

That has nothing to do with President Trump, who inserted himself into the controversy, made it worse, not better, when he should have taken meaningful action to improve the problem.

Presidents are free to express their opinions.

Can you cite examples of Trump's comments making police brutality "worse, not better"?

What "meaningful action" do you feel presidents should take regrading police brutality?

Now, it is worse than if he had done nothing at all.

It is? Have his comments sparked police brutality?

That sounds to me like something you have been told, and have decided to use against others. I believe whomever told that to you was probably spot on. It appears accurate in this case.

I give your impressions and beliefs all the consideration they merit.

You claim 'hatred of Trump,' yet I've expressed none.

Did I say you had? I recall saying that "It used to be. [about police brutality] Now it's mostly about hating Trump, IMO."

I always give the president all due respect, but that doesn't mean he is above criticism.

I don't recall stating or implying that the president is above criticism.
 
Trump jumped right in the middle of it and is happy to be there so let him be the focus.

So it really isn't about black lives, it's about Trump. Got it.

giphy.gif
 
There is no when and where to protest or else you are telling people to protest when it's convenient for the rest of you. That is rather counter productive don't you think considering the whole point of a protest?

Do you think you can start a protest at your place of work and not get fired? Do me a favor, try it and see how that works for you. :rofl2:
 
no question, demographics are in democrats favor

NOTHING is in Democrats favor right now, and you know it.

The question is how long do liberals want this to be the case, being stubborn to spite never, never works. We teach our children this early on so that they avoid becoming, well, whiny, triggered liberals
 
Back
Top