so sean(shawn) got a 34 on his ACT? we should kneel before his greatness. we are the fools.
![]()
TWO Master's degrees? In what, drone flying and soccer?Come at me when you have 2 masters degrees from USC, got a 34 on the ACT and a 2042 on the SAT. I worry about making sure my grammar is impeccable in everything I write for my job....so pardon me for relaxing my standards a bit on a general message board... and using the Speech to Text feature while I am driving so I don't get killed or kill someone taking my eyes off the road to type...
That wasn't my point. My point was that if this country was oppressive to minorities that the "system" wouldn't have allowed a white family to adopt him. That no school would have accepted him, and no professional team would have drafted him and eventually given him multiple millions to play for them.Why do you assume that simply because he was taken into a white family and has had a very successful career, that he hasn't been discriminated against personally or seen it happen to others? Who knows what he or those he knows experienced and simply because he grew up with a white family, don't assume he's had the perfect utopian life where everyone has been treated equally.
And the fact that this country is "less racist" (for the lack of a better term) than in the past is irrelevant.
Better get with the Doc use the Delorean and catch up with the rest of us. That only happens in the middle east now. Well that and be-headings.And that's the problem... that the photo I posted offends you, rather than enlightens you.....heaven forbid you come to terms with what exactly went down up until 1967....
Hate to see your reaction to the movie "Birth Of A Nation"....that comes out in October
Get with the real world Sean. If you are feeling guilty, give your money up and help the cause and quit bitching.Everyone on this board has had someone somewhere in their family hung probably... Now how many of us have had family hung in a tree and a party thrown with hundreds of people having a good time with a lynched, dead body hanging in a tree?
I got that off a site that said it was taken in 1967... Big deal... Lynchings/Hangings were still happening in 1960-1970. I don't care what crime they committed you have never seen a white person hung and treated like that. Never. The fact you think they did someone criminal justifies treating someone like that show how much of a ****** *** person you really are.
Everyone would save a lot more black lives if half as much attention - demonstrations as an example - was put on bon b murder as on the few black murders by police. And if yet to see statistics that show more unarmed, non-resisting black men are murdered by cops than same behavior white men.One of the worst arguments ever. No one, especially the black community, is ignoring the issue of black on black crime.
I keep seeing this repeated ad nausea, but it has been repudiated multiple times.
What you need to do is realize while things are not perfect, nothing is anywhere near as bad as you are trying to say it is. Your white guilt and paranoia is pathetic.Come at me when you have 2 masters degrees from USC, got a 34 on the ACT and a 2042 on the SAT. I worry about making sure my grammar is impeccable in everything I write for my job....so pardon me for relaxing my standards a bit on a general message board... and using the Speech to Text feature while I am driving so I don't get killed or kill someone taking my eyes off the road to type...
That wasn't my point. My point was that if this country was oppressive to minorities that the "system" wouldn't have allowed a white family to adopt him. That no school would have accepted him, and no professional team would have drafted him and eventually given him multiple millions to play for them.
Not saying that this country is free of racism. There is racism by white, black, etc. You are never going to eliminate it all. Not saying he hasn't experienced it, but going by his statements, you would think we are in the pre civil-rights movement.
If you don't think there is racism on both sides, go to a BLM rally and see how you are treated if you have an opposing view.
I don't even know what the point of the conversation is at this point.
I am a proud veteran and love my country.
I take NO offense to him sitting during the anthem, I do not agree with it. Just ignore him and he will go away. WE make the protest more than it is by drawing so much damn attention to it.
If you are looting, disrupting, hurting people, etc. well that is a different story.
The right not to stand for the national anthem is specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Which article and section?
So somehow the shooters with ar-15s that kill dozens of people at Columbine, Aurora, Charleston, Sandy Hook all manage to get to see their day in court and a dude selling CDs or chilling on the streets of new York, or a legal gun owner in Minnesota pulled over for a busted tail light are "threats that deserved to die".... Wow, your ignorance is dumbfounding
May be my favorite post of the year. Your previous post is my second favorite.And btw, yes Kapernick has the right to do what he's doing just as I have the right to say he's an ill informed race hustling cowardly douche bag. Tell you what Colin, why don't you go for a ride along in some of the mean streets of the U.S (lets say Chicago) and see how difficult the job really is! And the pig socks were really a nice added touch as well DOUCHE BAG. Again, another ill informed sheeple social justice *****. Not that I hate ***** just pussies like you Colin!
Lastly, I watch sports for entertainment and to escape from the daily crap. The last thing I want to see is an ill informed moron speaking out of his *** to gain attention for his flagging career and that's exactly what this is, nothing more and nothing less. Thanks for that as well DOUCHE BAG!
The police don't have to shoot them the brothers will do it sooner or later.
Not sure if tgis has been addressed or not, but you're a dumbass. The Columbine and Sandy Hook shooters never walked out alive.So somehow the shooters with ar-15s that kill dozens of people at Columbine, Aurora, Charleston, Sandy Hook all manage to get to see their day in court and a dude selling CDs or chilling on the streets of new York, or a legal gun owner in Minnesota pulled over for a busted tail light are "threats that deserved to die".... Wow, your ignorance is dumbfounding
Please give me some actual examples of oppression going on right now in the United States.There are different levels of oppression. There's slavery, there's not allowing someone to vote, etc. Fortunately as a society we've moved way beyond that. However to say that oppression either doesn't exist or isn't relevant or important any longer is ignorant.
What is "ad nausea"?One of the worst arguments ever. No one, especially the black community, is ignoring the issue of black on black crime.
I keep seeing this repeated ad nausea, but it has been repudiated multiple times.
Not sure if tgis has been addressed or not, but you're a dumbass. The Columbine and Sandy Hook shooters never walked out alive.
Now go watch some soccer and pet your mom's boils.
He reads them out loud... So he will, at least.well... we're on a message board here, Shawn. You're not gonna *hear* a damn thing.
Just in case clarification is needed:
U.S. Const., Amendment I, § 2:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See also:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (free speech clause of first amendment prohibits compulsory saluting of American flag and recitation of pledge of allegiance)
At 636:
"a ceremony so touching matters of opinion and political attitude may not be imposed upon the individual by official authority under powers committed to any political organization under our Constitution."
At 642:
Such an act "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (free speech clause of first amendment prohibits states from requiring citizens to display state motto on license plates)
At 717:
"The state is seeking to communicate to others an official view as to proper appreciation of history, state pride, and individualism. Of course, the State may legitimately pursue such interests in any number of ways. However, where the State's interest is to disseminate an ideology, no matter how acceptable to some, such interest cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to avoid becoming the courier for such message."
Just in case clarification is needed:
U.S. Const., Amendment I, § 2:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See also:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (free speech clause of first amendment prohibits compulsory saluting of American flag and recitation of pledge of allegiance)
At 636:
"a ceremony so touching matters of opinion and political attitude may not be imposed upon the individual by official authority under powers committed to any political organization under our Constitution."
At 642:
Such an act "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (free speech clause of first amendment prohibits states from requiring citizens to display state motto on license plates)
At 717:
"The state is seeking to communicate to others an official view as to proper appreciation of history, state pride, and individualism. Of course, the State may legitimately pursue such interests in any number of ways. However, where the State's interest is to disseminate an ideology, no matter how acceptable to some, such interest cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to avoid becoming the courier for such message."
I'm waiting for it to calm down, then I'm going to casually mention that there are a few million Jehovah's Witnesses that don't stand for it either.Only 5 pages??? This thread needs a couple more.
I want to protest people not standing up for the National Anthem by punching them in the face. My right to kick someone's *** shall not be abridged.
We need a intervention program. Snatch these jackasses up in their pajamas and helicopter them off to Liberia then drop them off. Let's see how their sensitivity gets adjusted when they encounter the real deal instead of just whining from their million dollar mansions.
See the hut in the background of this picture:
![]()
That's your new state capitol. Enjoy your next 5 years teaching your new government about how much black lives matter. Adios and good luck! Oh, here's your new city council:
![]()
You'd be scratching two goddamned beetles together to start a fire and eating ant **** for breakfast if it wasn't for European culture. Don't forget that.
I don't even know what the point of the conversation is at this point.