prisonchaplain

Hatred of Christians in America?

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]Yeah. The guy has issues. No questions. But that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong or that the things he says that are right should be viewed through the lens of the things he has said that are wrong.

[2]Sorry. I was trying to make the point that if Trump was a...what was your word...dipweed in some regard that does not justify the left putting out all it's lies and hatred, and the complaining about it (whining), is every bit as legitimate as if they were doing so without being tempted by the provocateur.

[3]I think we must define "bias" differently. I do not consider simple positive (as in your prior Joseph Smith example) or negative considerations of an item bias in and of itself. Bias, to my mind, is the consideration of something sans validity. Granted, what one thinks is bias may or may not be when truth is revealed -- but the point I am getting at is that I sense that you are judging Trump sometimes unfairly based on a dislike that, where, perhaps, valid against his character, does not extend to everything he says. The determination, as I see it, that certain things he says are wrong, I believe, would be viewed as perfectly acceptable if coming from a more likable character in your view. I know I'm reading into things a bit -- and it's only a perception -- and whether that perception is wrong or right may not make you see it as wrong or right (as we all tend towards blindness when it comes to bias). But that is what I mean.

1.  I agree with you, and hope I’ve not disagreed with a Trumpian statement merely because he’s the one making it.  I think the only specific statement you’ve called me on is Trump weighing in on the NFL kneelers.  I’d like to think that I’d have had been consistent about that, at least in my private opinions, regardless of who had made the statement (you *KNOW* I’d be making statements had President Hillary Clinton come out in support for them!).  But I’ll admit, Trump’s use of vulgarity probably spurred me to open opposition whereas I may otherwise have been content to quietly disagree.

And in a general sense—I think it’s natural, in politics, to be willing to quietly go along with a few things things you don’t 100% agree with if you at least trust that the proponent is being honest, and acting out of good will, and generally shares your worldview.  Trump has not earned any of these presumptions from me, so I do tend to call him on stuff that I might not have bothered to call—say—Dubya or Romney or Ryan or Cruz on.

2.  My point isn’t the moral innocence of the left; my point is the Trumpians’ own culpability and their inability to connect cause and effect and the resultant strategic blindness, tactical dithering; which has resulted in a general failure to get stuff done.  If the women’s marches hadn’t happened, would the Senate have felt it had enough capital to move boldly on health care reform?  Maybe, maybe not—but it sure didn’t help; and it was an unforced error.

3.  Again—though I make no secret of my revulsion for Trump’s character and methods, I hope you’ll point out any time you think I’ve opposed any Trump on any substantive issue, policy, or legislation that I otherwise would have supported.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 On the other hand, it certainly seems to be the case with this thread’s resident Trumpian, who—responding to a remark from @JohnsonJonesabout Trump’s unparalleled offensiveness—replies with the cry of “fake news!  Fake news!”  

 

I just don't think that is the common theme.  Not among the people I interact with at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I just don't think that is the common theme.  Not among the people I interact with at the very least.

Then your experience has differed very much from mine. I've learned over the past several months of debating politics on social media that there is generally a difference in tone between a textbook conservative (many of whom may have voted against HRC more so than voting for Trump) and the "Trumpians". I've had many open, well thought-out, and reasonably civil discussions with the former brand of Republican (or Libertarian in a few cases), whereas my interactions with the latter are often futile and loaded with ad hominems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Godless said:

I've had many open, well thought-out, and reasonably civil discussions with the former brand of Republican (or Libertarian in a few cases), whereas my interactions with the latter are often futile and loaded with ad hominems. 

Have you considered the possibility that maybe you really are a massive jerk and only those people are willing to come out and say it?

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Godless said:

Ding ding ding! Exactly. It's not that he mocked McCain, it's that he mocked McCain's military service. THAT'S the issue that doesn't sit well with some veterans.

A little irony, at least from what I can see from other posts, and yet you showed no disgust toward people kneeling during the national anthem, but actually defended their attempts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like Trump a lot more than I thought I would.  I like how we finally have a president with the guts to stand up to North Korea.  I kind of wonder if Trump was put in office by the Lord for this specific issue (I shudder to think how Hilary would be handling North Korea right now...)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Anddenex said:

A little irony, at least from what I can see from other posts, and yet you showed no disgust toward people kneeling during the national anthem, but actually defended their attempts.

I never really understood the military connection people made with those protests. But I've encountered it so often that I felt the need to screenshot one of my rebuttals as a generic response to it. Saves me a lot of typing.

20170925_074808.jpg

Edited by Godless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Godless said:

I never really understood the military connection people made with those protests. But I've encountered it so often that I felt the need to screenshot one of my rebuttals as a generic response to it. Saves me a lot of typing.

20170925_074808.jpg

My uniform wearing probably doesn't count for much (I did air cargo in the AF Reserves), but.... Saying you can't use soldier's honor as a point of debate unless you've been a soldier is about as good an argument as saying you can't discuss race unless you're black, can't have a view on women's rights unless your'e a woman, etc, no voice on trans-sexuality unless you are transsexual, etc., etc.

One could try and use that argument about Mormonism and Christianity too but, of course, it would never fly because as you well know, not believing in religion or God does not mean you cannot have an opinion about those who do, their actions and morality related to others.

Anyone who's had someone die for them has the right to expect a certain amount of honor given to those who died for them. That is all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Godless said:

I never really understood the military connection people made with those protests. But I've encountered it so often that I felt the need to screenshot one of my rebuttals as a generic response to it. Saves me a lot of typing.

20170925_074808.jpg

This confirms the irony, thank you. As to the last line, I don't need to wear a uniform to know what is disrespectful and what is not disrespectful. That is absurd.

As to the military connection, the flag and national anthem, <sarcasm> "Ya, I never really understood the connection either." </sarcasm>

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmQWHvYBRDpQx2Y6cpyw0

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, miav said:

I don't have hatred for Trump followers. I am however disappointed how they misrepresent facts. Misrepresenting the facts isn't new but coming from people who usually push for higher morals, it's rather suprising.

You sure love lumping all of them and talking about them as a collective when addressing ONE Trumpian.  I explained my position on dead wives.  That's not misrepresenting facts.

I don't support Presidents for traits unnecessary to their job that I support him for.  I sure don't go about lambasting the CEO of my company for the way he runs the company because he cheated on his wife.  I don't have a problem saying Clinton is a piece of crap person and a corrupt-and-a-half politician but he was an effective President.  I don't have a problem saying Dubya and Obama had upstanding character but one was an ineffective President and the other was an effective President for the wrong platform (which is even more dangerous).  I did not support Trump for his morality.  I support Trump for specific leadership qualities and his position on certain issues, primary of all is his Foreign Policy (including Islamic terrorism, the UN, climate change, international trade, refugees, and illegal immigration) and secondary of all is his instinctive constitutional conservatism and fiscal conservatism and deep understanding of economic indicators.  But more importantly, I support Trump because of his unceasing fight against the Mainstream Media.  Fake News has gone on un-challenged for WAAAAY too long and it affects the entire planet especially when News Organizations are King Makers.  I will always point out Fake News everywhere I see it.

It is interesting to me that you go full-blast attacking your perceived misrepresentation of Jefferson's character but did not say anything about the accusation that Trump disrespects the disabled and all the other misrepresentations of Trump's character.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The point isn’t that their culpability is identical.  The point is that Trump and his admirers no longer get to play the victim card or claim any moral high ground.

Comparing Trump versus Hillary strikes me as another false equivalency, of sorts; for it presumes Hillary was not eminently beatable in the general and it assumes conservatives didn’t have a baker’s dozen of candidates in the primary who were more thoughtful, more articulate, and more ideologically compatible.  As to whether Trump’s “transformational” qualities have left conservatism’s long-term outlook worse off than it would have been in a post-Hillary world—we’ll never completely know; but I suspect that four years of Hillary and a Republican Congress followed by a strong conservative in 2020 would have left us better positioned for the next fifty years.

This is an illustration of why the conservatives couldn't win elections.  They have no idea where the battle lines are drawn.  I am quite appalled that after 8 years of Obama and where that has left the USA that you think another 4 years of worse than that would put Republicans in power for 50 years.  Do you see where your man-of-the-street cultural shift has gone?  Do you think that will magically stop because "people see how bad it has gotten?".  You did't think it was bad enough in 2008?  You don't think 2016 is bad enough?  Newsflash:  your enemy is not Hillary Clinton.

Trump is fighting the battle that SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUGHT LONG AGO.  That constant barrage against the peddlers of information who has effectively changed the cultural mindset of Americans.  The crippling effect of Political Correctness that has plagued the socio-political landscape of the USA.  The silent advancement of Marxism and Socialism polluting the young minds of today.  The pervasive corporatism that has effectively detached elected officials from their electorate.  And most importantly, the radicalization of the un-elected Judicial Branch that has effectively put law-making out of the hands of Congress completely rendering democracy captive.  What frustrates a lot of us is that conservatives are more worried about legislating morality than reducing government.  That it is more important that a President is politically correct than having Gorsuch on the bench.  Political correctness IS AN ENEMY.  It is MARXIST!  Romney, a very upstanding individual, very politically correct, I have no doubt that he is of upright character - DEFENDED ANTIFA!  Do you see the problem here?  You will not have a morally straight Conservative survive an election because if they can make a monster out of Jeff Sessions and Clarence Thomas, who can they not?  And morally straight Conservatives don't fight.  Trump CAN FIGHT and he does it instinctively everyday.  And you're just lucky that he happens to be on your side.  We can concentrate on fixing the country because we don't have to worry about fighting the constant barrage of character assassinations - he does that on his own without much help from anybody.  So while the opposition REEE on how Trump is a racist, bigot, homophobe that Russia made President, we can go about slashing all these regulations. 

Congress is not ineffective because of the vagina hats!  That is ridiculous and a half to think it!  You think Senators care what the women's march were yelling about?  Congress is ineffective BECAUSE OF CORPORATISM!  They can't pass Obamacare because you have the true Conservatives wanting pure reform and you have the corporatists indebted to the insurance carriers.  And they're not mutually exclusive either!  A lot of true Conservatives are indebted to the corporatists!  So it is easy to pass legislation when you know it's going nowhere.  It is much harder when you know your vote can become law.

Conservatism is dead because Conservatives are just as politically dumb as Liberals.  At least Rush Limbaugh is realizing that now.  Conservatism will never be able to rise again until Marxist identity politics is stopped AND REVERSED, political correctness smashed, corporatists ran out of town, and journalism and government brought back to its foundational principles.  Until that happens, you will continue to have Tea Party and Occupy Movements swinging their battle axes at each other while the country careens into abject ruin taking the whole world with it.  Because the king makers either just silence one or make tools of the other.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Godless said:

I never really understood the military connection people made with those protests. But I've encountered it so often that I felt the need to screenshot one of my rebuttals as a generic response to it. Saves me a lot of typing.

20170925_074808.jpg

I don't think I've ever heard you play the veteran card before. That's good, it means you are a great guy. I expected nothing less. 

I am not a veteran but I'm like you-I'm uncomfortable when people play that card because they don't speak for all veterans. I'm sure there are veterans who are all over the place on this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Godless said:

I never really understood the military connection people made with those protests. But I've encountered it so often that I felt the need to screenshot one of my rebuttals as a generic response to it. Saves me a lot of typing.

Very surprising.  I am not even American and I defend the USA when it needs defending. 

The flag and its anthem are the symbols that represent the country.   The cross, the temple, the garments are the symbols that represent Christ's atonement and our covenants.  In the same manner that a Mormon who disrespects the garments or vandalizes the temple hurts all Mormons, an American disrespecting the flag and its country hurts Americans.

The US Military is the one blatant and visible force that the entire planet sees as the defenders of the USA.  It is understood that a US Military person is expected to lay his life down in defense of his country. 

So, lets bring this back to the garments - a Mormon defiling his garments is an enemy to the LDS Church.  There's nothing Mormons can do about it except to excommunicate the guy and pray he repents.  An American defiling the flag is an enemy to the USA and spits on the face of the US Military.  Colin Kaepernick was clear in his statements that he is in opposition to the country as a whole and not just certain individuals in the country.  There's nothing Americans can do about it unless somebody in power orders the US Military to defend the USA against such traitors.  In the same manner that you can't call for the assassination of the President under one's freedom of speech, you can make the same case for treasonous actions.  If Trump was as such a fascist as the vocal left wants you to believe,  he could have done so.  But no, he decided to defend the country he presides over by simply calling out these traitors with his bully pulpit.  And that's another reason why he's a good President.

nfl-graphic-colin-kaepernick-quote.jpg

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

This confirms the irony, thank you. As to the last line, I don't need to wear a uniform to know what is disrespectful and what is not disrespectful. That is absurd.

As to the military connection, the flag and national anthem, <sarcasm> "Ya, I never really understood the connection either." </sarcasm>

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmQWHvYBRDpQx2Y6cpyw0

I still maintain that the flag is just a symbol. A powerful symbol, yes, but a symbol all the same. You have your ideas of what it represents, I have mine, and Colin Kaepernick has his. To be honest, my thoughts on the flag are probably more in line with yours than Colin's. I love our country and I love our flag. I also love the Constitutional rights that I swore to defend, the rights that allow Colin and others to protest without fear of reprisal from our government. You may not agree with his method of protest. Heck, I was never fully convinced that I agreed with it. But it's his right as an American. I defended that right, as have millions of others. The rights we enjoy as Americans are what make our nation great. But there are still ways we can do better. We're in a better place now than we were in 1945, when countless black American soldiers had to come home to segregated communities. We've made a great deal of progress since then, but we can do better. That's the message Kaepernick was trying to convey. Like I said, I've had conflicted feelings about his method, but not once did I ever take it as a slight against those who served, those who serve now, or those who died to protect our Constitutional rights. Not once did I ever question his right as an American to protest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Godless said:

I still maintain that the flag is just a symbol. A powerful symbol, yes, but a symbol all the same. You have your ideas of what it represents, I have mine, and Colin Kaepernick has his. To be honest, my thoughts on the flag are probably more in line with yours than Colin's. I love our country and I love our flag. I also love the Constitutional rights that I swore to defend, the rights that allow Colin and others to protest without fear of reprisal from our government. You may not agree with his method of protest. Heck, I was never fully convinced that I agreed with it. But it's his right as an American. I defended that right, as have millions of others. The rights we enjoy as Americans are what make our nation great. But there are still ways we can do better. We're in a better place now than we were in 1945, when countless black American soldiers had to come home to segregated communities. We've made a great deal of progress since then, but we can do better. That's the message Kaepernick was trying to convey. Like I said, I've had conflicted feelings about his method, but not once did I ever take it as a slight against those who served, those who serve now, or those who died to protect our Constitutional rights. Not once did I ever question his right as an American to protest. 

It is your right as a human being to speak or protest freely.  The US government doesn't have to protect such right unless you're American or under American jurisdiction.  An American who goes against his country - just like those foreign soldiers you fight against - may lose such protection.  The same reason we can bomb the Rocket Man for threatening the US and not have to defend his freedom of speech - of course such example is bringing the situation to a much more serious physical implication.  But, Colin's statements brings more harm to the racial divide in this country.  This is what I've been telling you about how BLM has made it impossible to make constructive dialogue.  This Colin Cancer is one of those.  Instead of talking about racial inequality, we're arguing about defending the flag and the country it represents when we should be solidly in agreement on that.  Good job, BLM and Colin.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, lets bring this back to the garments - a Mormon defiling his garments is an enemy to the LDS Church.  There's nothing Mormons can do about it except to excommunicate the guy and pray he repents.  An American defiling the flag is an enemy to the USA and spits on the face of the US Military.  Colin Kaepernick was clear in his statements that he is in opposition to the country as a whole and not just certain individuals in the country.  There's nothing Americans can do about it unless somebody in power orders the US Military to defend the USA against such traitors.  In the same manner that you can't call for the assassination of the President under one's freedom of speech, you can make the same case for treasonous actions.  If Trump was as such a fascist as the vocal left wants you to believe,  he could have done so.  But no, he decided to defend the country he presides over by simply calling out these traitors with his bully pulpit.  And that's another reason why he's a good President.

 

Let's examine that "bully pulpit" remark for a moment. The most powerful man in the country urges the NFL and its owners to fire/suspend players who don't stand for the anthem. Had they done so, you could make a case that the president used his position of power to suppress the First Amendment rights of Americans. That's not what a "good president" does. And it's actually illegal. From US Code Title 18:

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—

(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or

(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
(1)
a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)
an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)
the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code)
 
One of the drawbacks of public service, whether it's in the military or the White House or anywhere in between, is that you lose some of your own First Amendment priviledges for the sake of protecting the rights of others.
19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is your right as a human being to speak or protest freely.  The US government doesn't have to protect such right unless you're American.  An American who goes against his country - just like those foreign soldiers you fight against - loses such protection.

Where in US law and code does it say that protesters are traitors? Where does it say that not standing for the National Anthem or saying the Pledge of Allegiance makes you a traitor? You can make a case that these things make a person unpatriotic, but in this country there's a stark difference between being unpatriotic and being a traitor. 

Edited by Godless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

Where in US law and code does it say that protesters are traitors? Where does it say that not standing for the National Anthem or saying the Pledge of Allegiance makes you a traitor? You can make a case that these things make a person unpatriotic, but in this country there's a stark difference between being unpatriotic and being a traitor. 

 You are right again. Dissent IS patriotism. It's even patriotic when the Tea Party did it during the Obama years. It's patriotic when the NFL players do it too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Godless said:

Let's examine that "bully pulpit" remark for a moment. The most powerful man in the country urges the NFL and its owners to fire/suspend players who don't stand for the anthem. Had they done so, you could make a case that the president used his position of power to suppress the First Amendment rights of Americans. That's not what a "good president" does. And it's actually illegal. From US Code Title 18:

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—

(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or

(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
(1)
a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)
an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)
the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code)
 
One of the drawbacks of public service, whether it's in the military or the White House or anywhere in between, is that you lose some of your own First Amendment priviledges for the sake of protecting the rights of others.

 

Do you consider it PARTISAN to defend the flag?  REALLY?

 

19 minutes ago, Godless said:

Where in US law and code does it say that protesters are traitors? Where does it say that not standing for the National Anthem or saying the Pledge of Allegiance makes you a traitor? You can make a case that these things make a person unpatriotic, but in this country there's a stark difference between being unpatriotic and being a traitor. 

18 US Code 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

You can make a case for that in the case of Colin for the statement he made accompanied by his pig cops socks which is related to the domestic terrorist attack against the cops in Dallas.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Anyone who's had someone die for them has the right to expect a certain amount of honor given to those who died for them. That is all of us.

That's an excellent point.  I think that could actually be accurate.  I had my uncle die in World War 2 in the Pacific Arena.  He was quite young at the time, and because of that I never got to know him.  That particular uncle would be close to the family that I was born into, and so has particularly big effects on my family as a whole.  What is interesting is that he was a member of the LDS church.  He got converted to Mormons soon after he joined the military.  His mother was particularly anti-Mormon (my grandmother), which makes it an even more interesting item.  Due to his death, it meant that his brothers and sisters did not join the church with him, but it left a big enough impression on his close family members to reverberate through the years...and hence...here I am.

I had another Uncle (an Uncle Frank I believe) who was also killed in World War 2 and a cousin, but as my family was not particularly close to that family member, it really doesn't have a major effect on me, at least right now in the physical world (who knows, he may be my guardian angel for my life thus far which means he'd have had a profound effect on me).

Looking at another relative who's spouse served and then got injured and is now disabled 100%, taking care of their spouse and living that marriage is a HARD thing for them.  I think that perhaps the greater challenge sometimes, and the greater sacrifice are those whom the veteran who dies leaves behind, or who suffer from the sacrifice of the veteran.  In that light, I imagine they too give much or all to also protect our freedom, but a different type of sacrifice than expected from those who serve in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

I still maintain that the flag is just a symbol. A powerful symbol, yes, but a symbol all the same. You have your ideas of what it represents, I have mine, and Colin Kaepernick has his. To be honest, my thoughts on the flag are probably more in line with yours than Colin's. I love our country and I love our flag. I also love the Constitutional rights that I swore to defend, the rights that allow Colin and others to protest without fear of reprisal from our government. You may not agree with his method of protest. Heck, I was never fully convinced that I agreed with it. But it's his right as an American. I defended that right, as have millions of others. The rights we enjoy as Americans are what make our nation great. But there are still ways we can do better. We're in a better place now than we were in 1945, when countless black American soldiers had to come home to segregated communities. We've made a great deal of progress since then, but we can do better. That's the message Kaepernick was trying to convey. Like I said, I've had conflicted feelings about his method, but not once did I ever take it as a slight against those who served, those who serve now, or those who died to protect our Constitutional rights. Not once did I ever question his right as an American to protest. 

If you know what a symbol stands for and then produce your own "meaning" for the symbol while protesting your "meaning" of the symbol -- it shows ignorance, rather than intelligence.  The flag is a symbol of the Constitution which people have swore to protect, including myself, to protect the United States Constitution, and its symbol our United States Flag. They go hand in hand. If during war, some United States military unites started burning the flag -- you think somehow this doesn't disrespect the United States Constitution, the United States as a nation, and the people who died to protect our rights? Remember, it is just a symbol -- so who cares -- right? If just a symbol it then doesn't matter what avenue the protest -- it is just a symbol. Do they have the right -- sure -- is the showing disrespect -- yes, sure is.

I also defend the right for adults who act like "little children" in their lame and disrespectful protests. I also defend the right of any corporation to fire or remove someone from position that gives a bad name to the company. People have the right to protest. They also have the right to accept the consequence of their decisions. I feel no pity for Colin Kaepernick and his childish methods of protesting.  I also defend Trumps right to express his thoughts on the matter -- even at the pulpit as president -- as he has every right to protest other people's protest. Unless you think the President doesn't have this right, and if so, did you feel the same way with Obama who used the same method? I don't agree with Trump. I didn't agree with Obama. This doesn't cause me to even consider to disrespect the United States symbol of freedom and liberty.

We can protect "rights," and we can call an apple an apple, and an orange a orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If you know what a symbol stands for and then produce your own "meaning" for the symbol while protesting your "meaning" of the symbol -- it shows ignorance, rather than intelligence.  The flag is a symbol of the Constitution which people have swore to protect, including myself, to protect the United States Constitution, and its symbol our United States Flag. They go hand in hand. If during war, some United States military unites started burning the flag -- you think somehow this doesn't disrespect the United States Constitution, the United States as a nation, and the people who died to protect our rights? Remember, it is just a symbol -- so who cares -- right? If just a symbol it then doesn't matter what avenue the protest -- it is just a symbol. Do they have the right -- sure -- is the showing disrespect -- yes, sure is.

I also defend the right for adults who act like "little children" in their lame and disrespectful protests. I also defend the right of any corporation to fire or remove someone from position that gives a bad name to the company. People have the right to protest. They also have the right to accept the consequence of their decisions. I feel no pity for Colin Kaepernick and his childish methods of protesting.  I also defend Trumps right to express his thoughts on the matter -- even at the pulpit as president -- as he has every right to protest other people's protest. Unless you think the President doesn't have this right, and if so, did you feel the same way with Obama who used the same method? I don't agree with Trump. I didn't agree with Obama. This doesn't cause me to even consider to disrespect the United States symbol of freedom and liberty.

We can protect "rights," and we can call an apple an apple, and an orange a orange.

It's like people who callously fling the f-word about because it they themselves aren't offended by it. The word is a symbol, commonly understood to be offensive, and being aware of that, one who casually flings it about in front of others indiscriminately is nothing more or less than a jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If you know what a symbol stands for and then produce your own "meaning" for the symbol while protesting your "meaning" of the symbol -- it shows ignorance, rather than intelligence.  The flag is a symbol of the Constitution which people have swore to protect, including myself, to protect the United States Constitution, and its symbol our United States Flag. They go hand in hand. If during war, some United States military unites started burning the flag -- you think somehow this doesn't disrespect the United States Constitution, the United States as a nation, and the people who died to protect our rights? Remember, it is just a symbol -- so who cares -- right? If just a symbol it then doesn't matter what avenue the protest -- it is just a symbol. Do they have the right -- sure -- is the showing disrespect -- yes, sure is.

I also defend the right for adults who act like "little children" in their lame and disrespectful protests. I also defend the right of any corporation to fire or remove someone from position that gives a bad name to the company. People have the right to protest. They also have the right to accept the consequence of their decisions. I feel no pity for Colin Kaepernick and his childish methods of protesting.  I also defend Trumps right to express his thoughts on the matter -- even at the pulpit as president -- as he has every right to protest other people's protest. Unless you think the President doesn't have this right, and if so, did you feel the same way with Obama who used the same method? I don't agree with Trump. I didn't agree with Obama. This doesn't cause me to even consider to disrespect the United States symbol of freedom and liberty.

We can protect "rights," and we can call an apple an apple, and an orange a orange.

Not to nitpick because I actually agree with you on most of these.  I just have a couple points that I disagree with that would be good for discussion, in my opinion.

So, the bolded lines above:

1.) Colin made it clear that he is against THE COUNTRY.  Not just the racists.  He believes the COUNTRY ITSELF is racist which proceeds that the Constitution itself is racist.  Yes, I do agree with the founding fathers when they made Treason a very narrow constitutional definition.  But, in my opinion, when you're standing against the Constitution, you don't get its protection/defense. 

2.)  This goes beyond the Presidents right to protest other people's protest.  Colin attacked the country.  Trump is the President of said country.  It is his JOB to defend it.

That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

1.) Colin made it clear that he is against THE COUNTRY.  Not just the racists.  He believes the COUNTRY ITSELF is racist which proceeds that the Constitution itself is racist.  Yes, I do agree with the founding fathers when they made Treason a very narrow constitutional definition.  But, in my opinion, when you're standing against the Constitution, you don't get its protection/defense. 

That's not at all what I got from any statements he's made on the matter. He isn't proud of where we are as a country right now. He can't support what America means to people of color. He believes the Constitution to be good and just, but that it's values are not being applied equally like they're supposed to be. In other words, he loves what America (and it's flag and anthem) are supposed to represent, but he doesn't feel like we're currently living in that America. He thinks we can and should do better as a nation, and that's why he kneels. To reiterate, I was never a huge fan of the method of protest he chose, but I see nothing treasonous about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Godless said:

That's not at all what I got from any statements he's made on the matter. He isn't proud of where we are as a country right now. He can't support what America means to people of color. He believes the Constitution to be good and just, but that it's values are not being applied equally like they're supposed to be. In other words, he loves what America (and it's flag and anthem) are supposed to represent, but he doesn't feel like we're currently living in that America. He thinks we can and should do better as a nation, and that's why he kneels. To reiterate, I was never a huge fan of the method of protest he chose, but I see nothing treasonous about it. 

That's not what I got out of his statements.  I've explained it to you already.

When you have one thing opposing the other... say, the Union versus the Confederacy...  you don't protest the Union when you're complaining about slavery.   Same difference with the Constitution/Flag versus racism.  You protest the Flag when you believe the Constitution is racist.  THAT's what Colin said in his many many statements on the matter.  He believes the USA and its Constitution as founded is racist.

If you're not a huge fan of the method of protest then you should stop defending it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now