It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump-BOYCOTT NFL teams whose players refuse to stand for the National Anthem

page: 64
75
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Grambler


I am sure we all knew that, so what is the point of this question?


The point was:


Well can we also compare right wing free speech rallies where violence is used to silence people to Rosa parks.


That you likened the right wing rallies punctuated with violence to Rosa Parks. Or, as you call them, "the kneelers," unless I'm missing something.


I'm maybe you misunderstood me.

A poster is asking to the people saying the kneeling is just a stunt if what ms. Parks did was also just a stunt.

J am saying the same question could be asked of free speech rallies that were shut down because of violence.

Were they just a stunt too, as many have suggested, or were they like Rosa parks


They were both "stunts," of non violent protest to raise awareness (Rosa Parks and those who kneeled).

They were not plagued with violence; therefore, no comparison to "rallies" that are plagued with violence can be accurately made, because these aren't rallies.


Right the violence makes it worse. People trying to peacefully speak being beaten to keep from doing so.

The point is, if we compare anyone protesting to the vivilrights, we have to include people from all political sides.

Or we should just stop making these comparisons.
edit on 24-9-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Right the violence makes it worse.


No #.


if we compare anyone protesting to the vivilrights


#CofveveRights


we have to include people from all political sides.


Of course.


Or we should just stop making these comparisons.


People should stop making those comparisons. I'm not making them, but people are. That's why I don't get why you are.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I wasn't.

I was giving an example to point out how ridiculous comparing these protesters to Rosa parks was.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: TheScale




why dont they just start poppin bottles and drinking champagne when they are on the bench


Probably because there is a cluase in the contract requiring them to not be drunk during the game..make sense?

As far as the anthem goes..tradition does not equate to a contractual obligation..unless you can show us a clause in any of their contracts requiring them to not go down one one knee during the anthem..I doubt you will find such a clause..maybe in future contract negotiations it could be.


i know we wont find that clause and thats what drives so many people crazy cause its nitpicking bs. i can bet u youll find something in their that says the nfl does have the right for the employees to maintain a certain code of conduct and thats where it gets pretty grey cause its up to the nfl to pick and choose whatever they want there. what one day was fine may not be the next. btw i bet u wont find a cluase that says they cant have stripper midgets giving them lapdances between plays aswell. this is again why i find that argument preposterous. its really quite simple. the employer has the right to tell them to stand for the national anthem, if they dont like it they can quit and be in breach of their contract and go to court to try and fight it meanwhile they can protest to their hearts content on their own time which they will now have plenty of
edit on 24-9-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

An individual fired on soldiers that in response fired on the protesters at Kent State resulting in a massacre. Yes that individual needs his ass stomped. It has zero to do with patriotism nor North Korean xenophobia.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar
Not quite. The facts are hazy.
There is evidence that there were gunshots. No evidence that the Guard troops were fired upon or that their fire was in response the the pistol gunfire.

That individual did, apparently get his ass stomped. By protestors.
www.cleveland.com...

edit on 9/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Nyiah

An individual fired on soldiers that in response fired on the protesters at Kent State resulting in a massacre. Yes that individual needs his ass stomped. It has zero to do with patriotism nor North Korean xenophobia.


What individual? No one shot their guns except the troops. Why are you pushing that narrative?


Eventually seventy-seven guardsmen advanced on the protesters with armed rifles and bayonets. Protesters continued to throw things at the soldiers. Twenty-nine of the soldiers, purportedly fearing for their lives, eventually opened fire. The gunfire lasted just thirteen seconds, although some witnesses contended that it lasted more than one minute. The troops fired a total of sixty-seven shots. When the firing ended, nine students lay wounded, and four other students had been killed. Two of the students who died actually had not participated in the protests.


no one shot anyone except for the national guard



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

I hear what you are saying, but some players have assaulted their wives..on camera no less, and other shenanigins so I'm sceptical of how much the NFL values the code of conduct.
In any case it is readily apparent the employer has no interest in making their players stand, It is arguable if they even could..that would end up being a deal sorted out in the courtroom but I would be surprised if a judge would hear it.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ColoradoJens

There is an audio recording of what seems to be a .38 special proceeding the rifle fire. The shot was closer to the recorder than the soldiers were. From their prospective they would have thought they're fired upon. But as Phage said there is no absolute proof they would have heard the shots all of them said they fired because the soldier beside them fired.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: ColoradoJens

There is an audio recording of what seems to be a .38 special proceeding the rifle fire. The shot was closer to the recorder than the soldiers were. From their prospective they would have thought they're fired upon. But as Phage said there is no absolute proof they would have heard the shots all of them said they fired because the soldier beside them fired.


Yeah, I have never heard or read that the Guard was shot on first. Guess I'll have to re-look at it some more.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ColoradoJens

Phage has a good overview link above.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: TheScale

I hear what you are saying, but some players have assaulted their wives..on camera no less, and other shenanigins so I'm sceptical of how much the NFL values the code of conduct.
In any case it is readily apparent the employer has no interest in making their players stand, It is arguable if they even could..that would end up being a deal sorted out in the courtroom but I would be surprised if a judge would hear it.


i think the most wed get would be a player strike. thats really the next step if they were so bent out of shape over it.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Gryphon66

You call that evidence? Lol.

Try again.


Why are you still talking to me?

I wasn't talking to you. I have zero interest in what you have to say.

Your posts are nothing more than sniping from the sidelines. You contribute nothing but snark.

Go make up some more "statistics" and then blow them out your nose.
edit on 24-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Freyer stated on page 22 and elsewhere of his study that unarmed blacks are 20 percent less likely to be shot than unarmed whites. He claims that the sample is statistically negligible, but the numbers are there in black and white.

Again. This shows that there was no racial bias in shooting black people.

This author that you posted is commenting on why it is innapropriate to use statistical bias and instead looks at only the numbers of blacks shot based on proportion.

For some reason he favors this when it shows blacks are more affected in stop and frisk, but not when looking at shootings.

He defaults to the police reports in Houston were written by racists cops, and so we can't look at the data. He gives no proof of this, but uses it to explain away the study.

And go figure, his bio shows he makes a li ing pointing out racial nias, and he happens to see racial bias in these Houston police reports without showing any proof whatsoever.


You obviously haven't read Fryer's study. That's not what he said on page 22. You're merely quoting from the Business Insider article you read, in which they turn around Fryer's actual findings.

Here's the link to a PDF of Fryer's study again.

THIS is what is actually written in the article on Page 22:



Blacks are 23.8 percent less likely to be shot by police, relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely to be shot but the coefficient is statistically insignificant.


These gross statistics are based on the RAW DATA. That is not his conclusion.

Here is the conclusion, from the same paragraph, based the controls he chose to apply:



Finally, when we include whether or not a suspect was found with a weapon or year fixed effects, the coefficients still suggest that, if anything, officers are less likely to shoot black suspects, ceteris paribus, though the racial differences are not significant.


Repeating what I've just demonstrated again from earlier in the paper.

From Page 5:



In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involved shootings on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely. Both coefficients are statistically insignificant. Adding controls for civilian demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, type of weapon civilian was carrying, and year fixed effects, the black (resp. Hispanic) coefficient is 0.924 (0.417) (resp. 1.256 (0.595)). These coefficients are remarkably robust across alternative empirical specifications and subsets of the data. Partitioning the data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings. Investigating the intensive margin – the timing of shootings or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences.


Further, the datasets themselves are one-sided and rely on police self-reporting ... which is known to be flawed.

From Page 8:



The key limitation of the data is they only capture the police side of the story. There have been several high-profile cases of police storytelling that is not congruent with video evidence of the interaction.


I've shown you from the paper you keep trying to cite and from a subsequent interview with the author of the paper that your claim is false.

I've shown you from another study at Harvard that the same data can be interpreted to show a vastly different outcome, namely, that Blacks are FIVE times more likely to be shot in Houston than other races.

You don't seem to care about the facts; but be advised, I'm going to counter your claims about Fryer's study every time I see you post false information.
edit on 24-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Just curious. If Players starting protesting Islam as an example, would the teams be okay with it? Would people defend them, saying they fought for their right to protest what they want? Would they be condemned for such a protest? Would Hollywood and the Media defend such action>?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: talisman




If Players starting protesting Islam as an example, would the teams be okay with it?
Probably not. I would think that a lot of the players would not be okay with it either.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That is what I think, so why are some teams okay with people protesting the anthem?
edit on 24-9-2017 by talisman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: talisman

They are not protesting the anthem.

Well, maybe they are. There are some pretty awful parts but they don't usually sing that.

Mostly they protesting during the anthem.
edit on 9/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You actually quoted where he said blacks are 20 percent less likely to be shot.

I mentioned in my post that he says that it is insignificant, but that still shows there is no racial bias in police shootings of unarmed blacks.

I addressed your other "study" which was a person's blog, and how among other things he says the study is flawed because the logs that freter viewed from Houston were written by racist cops, something he shows no proof of.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: talisman
Just curious. If Players starting protesting Islam as an example, would the teams be okay with it? Would people defend them, saying they fought for their right to protest what they want? Would they be condemned for such a protest? Would Hollywood and the Media defend such action>?


No Steve clevenger was suspended from the mariners last year for saying blm rioters were animals that should be locked up.

No one made a peep.

Its all about liking the message and not supporting protests like many are claiming.



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join