Two HS Football Players Suspended Indefinitely for Carrying ‘Thin Blue Line’ Flag

a reply to: alldaylong

The victims of 9/11 wouldn't even know what the " Thin Blue Line " flag was supposed to represent. They had never seen it.

How is that honouring them ?

Dumbest post of the day.

The RAF Red Arrows performed an aerial tribute on the 75th anniversary of VE day and I can guarantee that none of the fallen in WWII had ever seen a fighter jet!

Gestures of remembrance are to remind the living to honour the dead. It is the significance of the gesture to those witnessing it that matters.

a reply to: nik1halo

Dumbest post of the day.

It was posted a few days ago actually. Try and keep up.

I can guarantee that none of the fallen in WWII had ever seen a fighter jet!

How can you guarantee that ? Do you know them all personally ?

You do realise there where fighter jets in WW II ?

The Gloster Meteor was the first British jet fighter and the Allies' only jet aircraft to achieve combat operations during the Second World War

en.wikipedia.org...

Not the sharpest tool in the box are you.

It was posted a few days ago actually. Try and keep up.

I didn't say dumbest post of today, I said of THE day.

You do realise there where fighter jets in WW II ?

I do realise that and I apologise for not being more specific, so I'll change that to they had never seen a Hawk T1 Jet. Just like the victims of 9/11 had seen a flag, but not specifically a Thin Blue Line flag.

None of this changes my point about the fact that it doesn't matter whether those being honoured were aware of the manner used to honour them, as they are dead and beyond caring. The gesture has significance to those witnessing it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He may very well be, but quite possibly its your cynical nature.

Look in all seriousness I understand your contention, you feel they are trying to pull a dem tactic and slip partisan political issues by as social issues, however, they are just trying to even the playing field, apparently demz da rules.

I take issue with that too, but you have yo understand not enough people speaking out against the dems playbook is what is causing the issue to begin with.

If the BLM political movement wasn't being expressed everywhere without contention there would be no avenue nor need for people to take these actions.

I saw an update last night and the kids are back in school and the suspension is lifted. That is after a petition garnered thousands of signatures.

I am proud of every last one of those kids. They have stood for what they believe in, they have protested and made a change (getting the suspended boys back in school with the suspension lifted).
Some groups should take a lesson from these young people who haven't rioted, looted, set anything on fire, stolen anything or terrorized innocent people in the streets.
A group of young people who are not following the narrative. Good for them!!!

originally posted by: TheLead
Look in all seriousness I understand your contention, you feel they are trying to pull a dem tactic and slip partisan political issues by as social issues, however, they are just trying to even the playing field, apparently demz da rules.

Which is why political activism is not permitted in public schools, otherwise you're gonna have the Church of Satan effing with all of you with their Thin Dead Baby Line flag and they'll be able to do it much to most people's exploding heads chagrin.

originally posted by: nik1halo

It was posted a few days ago actually. Try and keep up.

I didn't say dumbest post of today, I said of THE day.

You do realise there where fighter jets in WW II ?

I do realise that and I apologise for not being more specific, so I'll change that to they had never seen a Hawk T1 Jet. Just like the victims of 9/11 had seen a flag, but not specifically a Thin Blue Line flag.

None of this changes my point about the fact that it doesn't matter whether those being honoured were aware of the manner used to honour them, as they are dead and beyond caring. The gesture has significance to those witnessing it.

You sound desperate.

Time to move on.

a reply to: alldaylong

Way to counter my argument. How will I ever stand up to your powers of debate?

My point stands.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's what I'm saying is that avenue has already been opened, until enough attention is brought to the topic to stop what already exist people are going to take advantage in the same way.

As you said, this is a reaction, a reaction cannot happen without a previous action.

originally posted by: TheLead
As you said, this is a reaction, a reaction cannot happen without a previous action.

I'm not saying there wasn't a previous action, I'm sure there was, I'm saying that flag has nothing to do with 9/11 and this is all a cynical ploy.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They made sacrifices that day, the creator says that's what it symbolizes, so it certainly fits under that umbrella.

It may be, but until enough people have the same energy towards the initial action, its probably not going anywhere.

originally posted by: TheLead
They made sacrifices that day, the creator says that's what it symbolizes, so it certainly fits under that umbrella.

I disagree, he's changing what he initially created it for, it's just a cynical tool now.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't know where you getting that except 2nd hand and your interpretation, though? You said it was a fact that it was.

Yes, it happened after/as it was being publicized that officers were being ambushed. It became a big thing at the time due to the amount of people that promoted BLM condoning it as an eye for an eye retribution

It was meant to symbolize the thin blue line between chaos and civilization. Yes, it's obviously an oppurtune time when it's being publicized that officers are being ambushed and people are condoning rather than condeming.

It's oppurtune, due to it's necessity at the time. It was like "hey, just to let you know we don't all hate you and want to see you murdered." Although it has enhanced division politically it was probably a net positive for police civilian interaction.

Let's say people let it go and don't speak against that type of behavior down, would that improve relations or worsen them? Think if you were an officer, how would you react?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TheLead
Look in all seriousness I understand your contention, you feel they are trying to pull a dem tactic and slip partisan political issues by as social issues, however, they are just trying to even the playing field, apparently demz da rules.

Which is why political activism is not permitted in public schools, otherwise you're gonna have the Church of Satan effing with all of you with their Thin Dead Baby Line flag and they'll be able to do it much to most people's exploding heads chagrin.

disappointed to think that
supporting Law Enforcement is considered political.
this should be universal.
support the troops. support first responders.

yep i agree with that dis agree and I am not even American

originally posted by: TheLead
I don't know where you getting that except 2nd hand and your interpretation, though? You said it was a fact that it was.

The book cites the creator.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
disappointed to think that
supporting Law Enforcement is considered political.

That flag is political. You want to celebrate dead Americans? Use a ****ing flag that represents all of us.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I see citation 59, but I have no way of confirming the citation references, as the 2 pages of end notes that would house it are not available for preview.

Do you own the book?

I have a hard time believing you would need to read that book as I don't recall you being in law enforcement.

With that said, I may have egg on my face at the end of this, but if I were to bet, you haven't seen those end notes either. Not that it's not possible you dont own or haven't read the book. I just can't come to a logical reason as to why you would have.

I could be very wrong in my assumptions, but I dont believe without having read or studied it previously, that you would take the time to look all the way into it to prove me wrong, without providing that citation some posts back. The citation of their citation that is.

It also looks like a very vague statement to have needed to talk to the flag creator for the writer's perspective of what it symbolizes.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, if so then you were baiting me to look a fool, so here is your oppurtunity to cast that light.

originally posted by: TheLead
I see citation 59, but I have no way of confirming the citation references, as the 2 pages of end notes that would house it are not available for preview.

Citation 59 is 'U.S. accuses 7 of eco-sabotage'. Not sure what you are referring to.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The exact phrase you posted appears on page 34 under the Black lives matter header, directly after is the number 59 as a citation reference.

Is there anywhere else in the book that is mentioned that I'm missing?

If you could provide a link to the citation referencing what you posted, I will gladly admit my mistake. I've given credence to that possibility by performing my due diligence looking into what you posted, but I can go no further without a full copy of the book.