In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
Not to open this can of worms, but lets totally open this can of worms.
They added it during McCarthyism, so its really fucking not. It was a deeply stupid reason to change the pledge and was added to indoctrinate our children so they wouldn't' be infected by the terrible ideas of communism. Both ineffective and in opposition of the core beliefs of this country, separation of church as state. Finally, the pledge was written to be used by any nation, not just the US, religious or secular.
There is literally no part of adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance that isn't embarrassing.
To open this can but not really open it, I'll point out I didn't say "add" I said "keep."
"America wouldn't be the same without God" I can understand. Not that I'd agree or disagree with it but I can understand how that's related to the question at hand is what I'm saying. But how is God related to communism and capitalism in these modern days? Can't you be a capitalistic, not communistic nation without believing in God?
I threw God in there as an extra, maybe that's the issue KwarK is having. But given communist's general hatred of Christianity in particular I'd say the association between the two is not entirely unfounded.
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
Not to open this can of worms, but lets totally open this can of worms.
They added it during McCarthyism, so its really fucking not. It was a deeply stupid reason to change the pledge and was added to indoctrinate our children so they wouldn't' be infected by the terrible ideas of communism. Both ineffective and in opposition of the core beliefs of this country, separation of church as state. Finally, the pledge was written to be used by any nation, not just the US, religious or secular.
There is literally no part of adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance that isn't embarrassing.
To open this can but not really open it, I'll point out I didn't say "add" I said "keep."
"America wouldn't be the same without God" I can understand. Not that I'd agree or disagree with it but I can understand how that's related to the question at hand is what I'm saying. But how is God related to communism and capitalism in these modern days? Can't you be a capitalistic, not communistic nation without believing in God?
I threw God in there as an extra, maybe that's the issue KwarK is having. But given communist's general hatred of Christianity in particular I'd say the association between the two is not entirely unfounded.
But this country is not supposed to be viewed as one nation under God unless all of a sudden freedom of religion doesn't matter and we live in a theocra- ohhhhh.
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
Not to open this can of worms, but lets totally open this can of worms.
They added it during McCarthyism, so its really fucking not. It was a deeply stupid reason to change the pledge and was added to indoctrinate our children so they wouldn't' be infected by the terrible ideas of communism. Both ineffective and in opposition of the core beliefs of this country, separation of church as state. Finally, the pledge was written to be used by any nation, not just the US, religious or secular.
There is literally no part of adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance that isn't embarrassing.
To open this can but not really open it, I'll point out I didn't say "add" I said "keep."
"America wouldn't be the same without God" I can understand. Not that I'd agree or disagree with it but I can understand how that's related to the question at hand is what I'm saying. But how is God related to communism and capitalism in these modern days? Can't you be a capitalistic, not communistic nation without believing in God?
I threw God in there as an extra, maybe that's the issue KwarK is having. But given communist's general hatred of Christianity in particular I'd say the association between the two is not entirely unfounded.
but God is the only thing that makes sense for me in that case. Wether that's a good thing is for you to decide but what's with other highly secular nations like Sweden, Japan who are clearly capitalistic and have no issues with communism? I could see some argument about Sweden with it being fairly far out left for you guys but while religion might have been a bollwerk against communism in the past... it's clearly not the case anymore. ESPECIALLY not in the US. You guys are so squarly against anything that comes even close to communism
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
Not to open this can of worms, but lets totally open this can of worms.
They added it during McCarthyism, so its really fucking not. It was a deeply stupid reason to change the pledge and was added to indoctrinate our children so they wouldn't' be infected by the terrible ideas of communism. Both ineffective and in opposition of the core beliefs of this country, separation of church as state. Finally, the pledge was written to be used by any nation, not just the US, religious or secular.
There is literally no part of adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance that isn't embarrassing.
To open this can but not really open it, I'll point out I didn't say "add" I said "keep."
"America wouldn't be the same without God" I can understand. Not that I'd agree or disagree with it but I can understand how that's related to the question at hand is what I'm saying. But how is God related to communism and capitalism in these modern days? Can't you be a capitalistic, not communistic nation without believing in God?
I don't remember the details, but there's a big connection with American Capitalism and Calvinism. Or something like that.
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
Not to open this can of worms, but lets totally open this can of worms.
They added it during McCarthyism, so its really fucking not. It was a deeply stupid reason to change the pledge and was added to indoctrinate our children so they wouldn't' be infected by the terrible ideas of communism. Both ineffective and in opposition of the core beliefs of this country, separation of church as state. Finally, the pledge was written to be used by any nation, not just the US, religious or secular.
There is literally no part of adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance that isn't embarrassing.
To open this can but not really open it, I'll point out I didn't say "add" I said "keep."
"America wouldn't be the same without God" I can understand. Not that I'd agree or disagree with it but I can understand how that's related to the question at hand is what I'm saying. But how is God related to communism and capitalism in these modern days? Can't you be a capitalistic, not communistic nation without believing in God?
I threw God in there as an extra, maybe that's the issue KwarK is having. But given communist's general hatred of Christianity in particular I'd say the association between the two is not entirely unfounded.
but God is the only thing that makes sense for me in that case. Wether that's a good thing is for you to decide but what's with other highly secular nations like Sweden, Japan who are clearly capitalistic and have no issues with communism? I could see some argument about Sweden with it being fairly far out left for you guys but while religion might have been a bollwerk against communism in the past... it's clearly not the case anymore. ESPECIALLY not in the US. You guys are so squarly against anything that comes even close to communism
Just so I am understanding you correctly, you are mainly saying that there is no reason for it, as a statement against communism? While we are not in the middle of a Red Scare, admittedly , I'd say the reminder itself is useful. Even if we explained why it was added, without the commentary. I think it has actual value outside of its anti-Red sentiment, but in the context of my first post I'd say that's only part of it.
RUSH: I will admit that I tuned in for a quarter last night. I just wanted to see if I could watch an NFL game without all of this front and center in my mind. And I couldn’t. I couldn’t, even if I had turned the sound down. The sound, you know, the commentators, the play-by-play people, they constantly reference it, and there were flashback video highlights of the Cowboys pregame technique of taking a knee in unison on the field and then rising for the national anthem in unity. And some people were saying, “That’s how you do it. That’s how you do it.” Fine, if that’s how you do it, you’re still doing it, and you’re still sucking the lifeblood out of the game. For this fan, anyway.
So the game that I saw, the portion of the game that I saw was exciting. It was I think tied 7-7 or 14-7, and the Arizona offensive line couldn’t block anybody. Carson Palmer was getting beat up. He had open receivers but didn’t have time to get the ball to ’em. But then there came a reminder, I turned it off. I ran my little experiment. I really hope it ends, folks. I really do. I would love nothing more than for all of this stuff to end and return to normalcy.
But we’re dealing with liberalism here, and we’re dealing with the left, and that’s just not how they operate. Everybody knows how much I love the NFL and how bigger than life it’s always seemed to me, but it doesn’t seem bigger than life. It just seems like a tool now. It’s become a tool. I don’t mean slang for fool. It has become something being used by the political forces of the left to advance their agenda, which is an anti-American agenda.
And, believe me, this is all about race. It’s not about equality. It’s not about all these other bromides. It’s all about race. The left has their hooks in it, and when that happens it just never ends well. I’d like for this to be the first time, I’d like for this to be the first organization that effectively spit the left out, said, “leave us alone.” It isn’t gonna happen. I would love it if it did.
Just if you're wondering what the current set of marching orders for conservatives are
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
Not to open this can of worms, but lets totally open this can of worms.
They added it during McCarthyism, so its really fucking not. It was a deeply stupid reason to change the pledge and was added to indoctrinate our children so they wouldn't' be infected by the terrible ideas of communism. Both ineffective and in opposition of the core beliefs of this country, separation of church as state. Finally, the pledge was written to be used by any nation, not just the US, religious or secular.
There is literally no part of adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance that isn't embarrassing.
To open this can but not really open it, I'll point out I didn't say "add" I said "keep."
"America wouldn't be the same without God" I can understand. Not that I'd agree or disagree with it but I can understand how that's related to the question at hand is what I'm saying. But how is God related to communism and capitalism in these modern days? Can't you be a capitalistic, not communistic nation without believing in God?
I threw God in there as an extra, maybe that's the issue KwarK is having. But given communist's general hatred of Christianity in particular I'd say the association between the two is not entirely unfounded.
but God is the only thing that makes sense for me in that case. Wether that's a good thing is for you to decide but what's with other highly secular nations like Sweden, Japan who are clearly capitalistic and have no issues with communism? I could see some argument about Sweden with it being fairly far out left for you guys but while religion might have been a bollwerk against communism in the past... it's clearly not the case anymore. ESPECIALLY not in the US. You guys are so squarly against anything that comes even close to communism
Just so I am understanding you correctly, you are mainly saying that there is no reason for it, as a statement against communism? While we are not in the middle of a Red Scare, admittedly , I'd say the reminder itself is useful. Even if we explained why it was added, without the commentary. I think it has actual value outside of its anti-Red sentiment, but in the context of my first post I'd say that's only part of it.
Kind of? I'm personally of the opinion that it's not "neutral" if not needed though. You have thousands of people who don't believe in god in the US without turning to communism while being fine guys. You're basicly saying, if I understand you correctly, that as a reminder it's neutral at worst, and something useful at best. Neither do I think it's completly harmless if not needed nor do I think it would be particularly useful in combating communism if that was needed nowadays
Huh. That actually makes a lot of sense. I was discussing this in real life and we were all wondering why it was such a big deal as kneeling really didn't seem the most disrespectful thing in the world... like maybe it related to a QB surrendering first before getting tackled? But in most contexts, kneeling is actually quite respectful. Seems like a fair way to protest in my opinion.
He paired it with explicitly divisive statements on the flag.
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.
Then he had his police=pigs socks and Che Guevara shirt. I don't care what this new round of players thinks, because Trump has certainly thrown his hat into the ring. It started with an overtly political stance and it was all about what the flag symbolized.
Why should a man respect a country that does not respect him as a person in the same manner as any other because of the color of his skin?
You presume agreement with a number of things on that question. How about confirming that he left very little room for interpretation on what the protest was about. Then maybe you can move on to honest questions with a basis in shared reality.
Kaep said he was not standing for the anthem because he was protesting police brutality. He has since confirmed that multiple times. Over and over. The flag and anthem are part and parcel of one another. His reason has not changed. You decided to add more to it or obfuscate his reason with your own to find outrage.
I directly quoted him. Like he literally said that and people heard he said that and responded to him saying that. Either address with actual quotes and dates what changed, or you're just ignoring and washing over it. Because you're saying his reason has not changed without putting that in context of what I just quoted.
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
Not to open this can of worms, but lets totally open this can of worms.
They added it during McCarthyism, so its really fucking not. It was a deeply stupid reason to change the pledge and was added to indoctrinate our children so they wouldn't' be infected by the terrible ideas of communism. Both ineffective and in opposition of the core beliefs of this country, separation of church as state. Finally, the pledge was written to be used by any nation, not just the US, religious or secular.
There is literally no part of adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance that isn't embarrassing.
To open this can but not really open it, I'll point out I didn't say "add" I said "keep."
"America wouldn't be the same without God" I can understand. Not that I'd agree or disagree with it but I can understand how that's related to the question at hand is what I'm saying. But how is God related to communism and capitalism in these modern days? Can't you be a capitalistic, not communistic nation without believing in God?
I threw God in there as an extra, maybe that's the issue KwarK is having. But given communist's general hatred of Christianity in particular I'd say the association between the two is not entirely unfounded.
Jesus was a revolutionary communist. It's organized religion as a tool of control and exploit the masses that they don't like. You're making the same error as people who think opposition to war is opposition to soldiers.
On September 27 2017 09:26 Mohdoo wrote: Did anyone else have to say the pledge of allegiance in school? Looking back, that's creepy as hell lol
Just remember, they added "Under God" to combat Communism. Good luck getting it removed, because that is an attack on religion.
Not to open this can of worms, but America wouldn't be America without God or capitalism, and communism should be opposed, so those seem like three excellent reasons to keep the phrase.
No
Oh come now, the left loves criticizing the first two and their veneration in America. But I remember now, you got into it with xDaunt about Western Civilization. Your perspective on these matters is... interesting.
Just remember that Western Civ has no foundation in Greek or Enlightenment thought and you should be fine.
And I always expect nuance and engagement talking about the role Almighty God has had in America since its founding.
Of course that slid under everyone's radara, that he talked with a vet about the most respectful way to protest. That he was thoughtful and understood the gravity of what he wanted to do.
I might send that to my brother. Or maybe have my mother do it.
Eric Reid (Colin's kneeling teammate) also had some great remarks that should tag along with those ones. He does a great job cutting through the Republican partisan spin on this issue.
I approached Colin the Saturday before our next game to discuss how I could get involved with the cause but also how we could make a more powerful and positive impact on the social justice movement. We spoke at length about many of the issues that face our community, including systemic oppression against people of color, police brutality and the criminal justice system. We also discussed how we could use our platform, provided to us by being professional athletes in the N.F.L., to speak for those who are voiceless.
After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.
Except the issue isn't the kneeling or even the sitting. It's the message behind those actions.
Yeah, it is the message behind the actions that matter. But the official republican spin is that this is about the <flag/actions/disrespect>, not about protesting the disparate impact of <Officer Use of Force incidents>. Trump/Republicans/Newt/Hannity/FOX are sticking to <flag/actions/disrespect> spin because that is a much easier ground upon which to spin up some white grievance. Talking about <Officer Use of Force incidents> and how they come down heavier and bloodier on people of darker complexion is a hard issue that Republicans would rather pretend doesn't exist. I am surprised that you are accepting the premises of the Lib side here.
I don't think that there are meaningful grounds to distinguish between the message and the action. The bottom line is that Kaepernick is intentionally condemning and showing disrespect for the country. That's not going to rub people the right way.
In your eyes, is there to say what he is saying in a respectful way?
There are a couple layers to peel here. First, using the national anthem to protest the country in any way is a bad idea for the reasons that Donald Trump showed this weekend (like I discussed yesterday). It's too easy to have your cause turned (fairly or not) into a referendum on your patriotism (regardless of the justness of your cause). Second, and like all of the conservative posters have been saying til they have been blue in the face, framing the issue in terms of the country being racist is only going to piss people off and turn them against you. The better way to approach the issue is to frame it as a race neutral issue along the lines of "Police brutality is a problem in this country" or "Inner city families are broken and need help." Amazing things will happen when you stop calling whitey racist.
So you are saying that blacks framing these issues as black issues rather than "everyone issues", they lose support from whites?
This is in reply to xD, using your post.
Whites weren't going to do anything about it. Hispanics were only worried about deportation. Blacks had to be the voice to bring some of these issues up. Only when they did, did we see more PoC, including whites, speaking out on police brutality and racial inequality. Taking race out of it doesn't drive home the fact of what is really going on. It's hiding the true issue at hand behind a fog. By bringing race into this, more people are inclined to speak up in support for the cause. The civil rights movement was about blacks and that got a lot of people on board to get laws enacted that serves everyone equally (or it should). Why is now different? Take the black man's plight in America and use it to forward change for all. The LGBT community is doing it (sometimes wrongly) and they are getting their rights increased slowly but surely.
People bring in race because it's an effective means to get things heard and things done. Because you are uncomfortable with it, is not my nor anyone else's problems. It is your own.
Whites aren't going to do anything about it because police brutality against whites (the majority of cases) aren't reported and if they are tend to go away quite fast (talk to the average white person - they're totally ignorant about stuff like Kelly Thomas, James Boyd, etc.). There's no national outrage when a policeman kills unarmed white people. Most of the white people killed are poor, have a mental illness, or "were sassy" with the states Gendarmes. Funny enough, if you look at the majority of cases involving blacks the same characteristics show up. I brought it up before, but this is much more a socioeconomic concern than a race concern. Blacks make up 13% of the population and are 30% of officer involved shootings. That is a problem, definitely, but it's being blown far out of proportion (as if, as one poster earlier alluded to - white people never experience the same civil rights violations from police as blacks...). The hyperbole is out of control, fueled by a media who uses these events for publicity and viewership. In addition, other areas of civil rights violations aren't out of the statistical norms (e.g. asset forfeiture, abuse, 4th amendment violations, etc.), but some are such as drug incarceration statistics.
I point out the above to say that if whites got the same considerations that blacks get (nationally) when killed being unarmed more whites would give a fuck about police brutality and excessive use of force (I really hate the "I feared for my safety, qualified immunity" bullshit). Which many will take as whites being racist, but it's more of "if it isn't effecting me, I don't really care" and that's just sadly, a HUMAN quality (there were no large scale black movement to come to the Kelly Thomas case for instance - which is one of the most egregious unarmed deaths by Police). Please debate me on this one.
Again, this "systemic" racism is most heavily prevalent in majority black controlled cities. Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, etc. with black Chief of Polices, etc. Of course, there are places like NYC that are abysmal with openly racist policies like stop and frisk (but they are supposed to be enlightened progressive northerners....imagine the outrage if stop and frisk was MO in Mobile, Shreveport, Jacksonville, etc.). The point being that yes, there is a major moral and political crisis of the lack of 1) police accountability 2) excessive and abusive practices 3) "thin blue line" as default 4) persecution complex as America is at a time when crime rates are historically low 5) Politicians who continuously create more and more laws forcing their enforcement arm to do things that are extremely negatively perceived by the average person (but, yet, oddly, keep voting for the same politicians - I'm going to name this paradox after myself, I think.).
Instead of framing the issue as solely a black one, you should frame the issue as an American one, because as Americans, we're all impacted by these abuses. You're also going to be a lot more successful if you actually care about changing shit, framing the issue this way.
EPT
