I would go down in a god damned ball of flames swinging before I let someone strong arm me into supporting something I dont belive in.
But, I am old school and have a SPINE....
People nowadays, not so much.
Drew Brees
- Thread starter SCSteeler4life
- Start date
I would go down in a god damned ball of flames swinging before I let someone strong arm me into supporting something I dont belive in.
But, I am old school and have a SPINE....
People nowadays, not so much.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Nice country. Ostracized for respecting the National Anthem.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
Actually regardless of how blacks feel about it, it isn't their right to tell others what they should be proud of. This is America. Making blacks the sole arbiter of what whites do, say and are proud of is crazy. Again, either this is one nation with EQUAL rights or it is a national that has special rights for one group of people. So white's give up their freedoms so that blacks won't have their feelings hurt is wrong. Grow thicker skin. The government created a entire law (hate crimes) that puts harsher sentences on whites for killing blacks then the other way around. It's stupid. We're doing the same thing to the gay community. They are now a protected class. So they get to dictate what others can say and do. This is not the U.S. that was put together by the founders. It's a sick, twisted abortion of a country now.
The closest the Steelers ever came to losing me was a few years back when Villy actually felt compelled to come out and apologize for standing in the tunnel for the anthem. The only guy on the team who put it all on the line in war has to issue an apology? Are you kidding me? It should have been the rest of the team issuing the apology for not having his back.
I know what you saying, but I think there are some decency things that if we all did, the world would be a better place. What I mean is, I don't want laws governing things, I'd like to see that movie director, for example, decide that this is too deviant to be shown, and just not do it. Or that music guy, this is just too immoral to be heard, don't do it. Just a little self control, and quit hiding behind the first amendment on things. Sure you can do it, but should you? Maybe we need to ask more of the should we.
I don't like the Confederate flag because, as I have stated previously, my people are the Scotts-Irish poor who mostly made up that army. FIghting, bleeding and dying so rich slave owners could maintain their way of life. A life most of the kids fighting and dying would never benefit from. It is important to realize that some later Jim Crow stuff, like poll taxes or literacy tests to vote disenfranchised poor whites as much as blacks.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
The flag you are thinking about is the confederate battle flag. It was never a confederate national flag. They had 3 national flags. The southern cross (battle flag) was only used by 2 armies (Virginia and TN) and used as a navy battle flag.
I also don't understand one thing. Please explain to me how the battle flag which never flew over a country is racists but the U.S. flag that flew over both north and south slave states is ok? Slavery was still allowed in the north until the 13th amendment. So how is a battle flag more repulsive than the U.S. flag? Again if the CW was just about slavery then why didn't the north outlaw slavery in the north?
I know all that, and it doesn't matter. The flag has been used since then more deviously, and you know that. The swastika was a star symbol or something like that in ancient Egypt, I think. Well, the Nazi's ****** that up. The Klan and the like ****** up the Confederate battle flag.
Besides, is the Confederate battle flag the hill to die on? Come on. To me there are a hell of a lot more important hills than that flag.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
The swastika was a reversed Hindu and Buddhist symbol and is still found all over the world. It's been found in the ancient world as far back as Troy.
But the issue is that others shouldn't be allowed to decide what I can and can't do, say or fly. Blacks don't like the "N" word.. ok so whites can't say it.. but they can. They don't like certain flags so whites can't fly them... oh but they can if they want to. It's a never ending issue. Many things get co-opted by racists. So what? So if Ford becomes the official truck of the KKK then they should just go out of business? It's ignorant.
So when do whites get to decide what offends them? Never? Yup. I'm tired of this crap. Stop being so soft and offended at everything. Is the flag a hill to die on? What is the hill to die on? Oh, there isn't one. Everything blacks wanted years ago they got. They get to decide what whites can say and what symbols they can use. I'm sorry I just don't care anymore. They are taking down statues of Lee now. Soon all the historic landmarks will be gone. Then they'll go after the founders like Washington, Jefferson ETC... You know the racists white guys. It never stops until everything historic and white is gone. Sorry but they can go pound sand.
Because Lincoln said repeatedly that if he could save the union without ever releasing a slave he would do that.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Brees full statement was well thought out and articulate. There was nothing "wrong" with it. He's entitled to his opinion.
The level of vitriol and attacks by his teammates, media, leftists, sports people, etc. tells you all you need to know about why so many conservatives don't talk to ANYONE about politics and policies anymore unless we KNOW that we have some reasonable people in the room (i.e. other conservatives or at least moderates that are logical and not emotional).
I don't talk about politics now at all. I can't explain why I disagree with "white privilege" or why I think police brutality against blacks is overblown and more a reflection of crime statistics, why I want stronger borders or why I will vote for Trump. You mention any of those things and there will be some liberal that will just jump down your throat. You can't say it on facebook. You can't say it on Twitter. You can't say it at a casual get together.
So you stay quiet. And you hold it all in knowing exactly how you will vote and how much stronger your beliefs become watching the world head towards a place where people can't even express their opinions or throw ideas against the wall for fear of being shamed by the "thought police".
The level of vitriol and attacks by his teammates, media, leftists, sports people, etc. tells you all you need to know about why so many conservatives don't talk to ANYONE about politics and policies anymore unless we KNOW that we have some reasonable people in the room (i.e. other conservatives or at least moderates that are logical and not emotional).
I don't talk about politics now at all. I can't explain why I disagree with "white privilege" or why I think police brutality against blacks is overblown and more a reflection of crime statistics, why I want stronger borders or why I will vote for Trump. You mention any of those things and there will be some liberal that will just jump down your throat. You can't say it on facebook. You can't say it on Twitter. You can't say it at a casual get together.
So you stay quiet. And you hold it all in knowing exactly how you will vote and how much stronger your beliefs become watching the world head towards a place where people can't even express their opinions or throw ideas against the wall for fear of being shamed by the "thought police".
I posted the following on FB yesterday and lost 12 "friends" as a result:
"This is for all of the LEO's out there that are being asked to serve as human barricades. For those that are being assaulted without authorization to go after those perpetrating the violence. For everyone that is trying to maintain law and order with your hands tied behind your back by Mayors that are more concerned with public image than protecting innocent civilians, officers, property, and businesses. These officers that have sworn an oath to their community have more heart and courage than the leadership that are using them as pawns. Thoughts and prayers to the family of this officer and what they are going thru right now. https://www.breitbart.com/…/las-vegas-rioter-shoots-police…/
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
While the CW was complicated and the confluence of a lot of things, I think it's accurate to say that the North fought to preserve the Union, and the South wanted to leave because they didn't want the North telling them what to do about slavery. Claiming it was a more general states rights concern is taking liberties with the reality of the situation. The pressing states right they wanted to preserve was slavery. I understand that at the time of the war, they would have been allowed to keep slaves in states that already had it, but they were prohibited from expanding slavery into new territories and the writing was on the wall.
You can believe any way you want. And my argument was much more centered around why it bothers me as a white guy. And it will continue to bother me as a white guy for the reasons I said previously.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,925
- Reaction score
- 15,715
- Points
- 113
Slavery was not outlawed in the north because several border states like Kentucky and MD that had slaves were fighting with the union and they couldn’t upset that alliance. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south. The border states were technically still allowed slaves although it was known that it would be short lived.
Lincoln was pragmatic. There were his personal beliefs and then there were his task oriented actions. He personally wanted to abolish slavery but he knew keeping the country together was his main duty. Many of the founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery right at the start, but again, they could not get the south to agree so that was tabled for later. It was always known there would someday be a showdown on the issue.
Lincoln was pragmatic. There were his personal beliefs and then there were his task oriented actions. He personally wanted to abolish slavery but he knew keeping the country together was his main duty. Many of the founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery right at the start, but again, they could not get the south to agree so that was tabled for later. It was always known there would someday be a showdown on the issue.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
The north and the south in the 1850's had some of the same problems we see today:
There was a growing populist movement in the north, in the bid cities, from a majority of the population centers to abolish slavery. Much of these enlightened ideals came from Europe (which, while abolishing slavery at home, was still subjugating millions as "colonies" in Africa and Asia). Some of it came from the growing availability of books and the great rise in wealth the north was gaining.
The south felt like the ugly step-child. They felt like the snotty city folk didn't understand them. That they were (again) being influenced by big, bad, Europe (who only 75 years earlier were our rulers). They thought the north spoke with hypocrisy on slavery: they wanted all the advantages (wealth, cheap labor, goods and services) without any disadvantages. They felt Europe were hypocrites about continued colonialism.
By our government's design the South still held significant power in the Senate but that power was being stripped by the rapid addition of states in the mid-west. Every state added added two more senators which watered down the South's power. Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin and California (10 senators - 1/6th of the total) were added from 1945-1950. Talk in the 1950's had at least 5 more coming in the next decade.
The South saw where this was all headed. They knew eventually they would lose the votes.
Yes, it was about slavery. But is was also about the south losing their voting ability to protect those things they thought important. Slavery just the first and foremost one, but many others as well.
I know it is not the same. We don't look back to 1850 and find any logical reason to defend slavery. We know it's wrong.
But you can see the same type of resentment today. The same stirrings of dissent. If (just imagine) the liberals had enough control to say they wanted to annex and make states of Puerto Rico and Mexico and wanted to turn them into 8-10 new "States" with 16-20 new Senators, there would be a very strong uprising by conservative America to maintain the borders and control they had.
And maybe 150 years from now society would look back at anyone supporting "borders" as racist just like we look at slavery as racist. Who knows. I don't think it's the same but if you stop thinking about the world from 2020 perspective and look at it from an 1850 perspective, I can understand why the South decided to do what it did. And yes, it WAS about slavery but it was just as much the fact they were losing the power in government to STOP them taking slavery and anything else away from them by votes.
There was a growing populist movement in the north, in the bid cities, from a majority of the population centers to abolish slavery. Much of these enlightened ideals came from Europe (which, while abolishing slavery at home, was still subjugating millions as "colonies" in Africa and Asia). Some of it came from the growing availability of books and the great rise in wealth the north was gaining.
The south felt like the ugly step-child. They felt like the snotty city folk didn't understand them. That they were (again) being influenced by big, bad, Europe (who only 75 years earlier were our rulers). They thought the north spoke with hypocrisy on slavery: they wanted all the advantages (wealth, cheap labor, goods and services) without any disadvantages. They felt Europe were hypocrites about continued colonialism.
By our government's design the South still held significant power in the Senate but that power was being stripped by the rapid addition of states in the mid-west. Every state added added two more senators which watered down the South's power. Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin and California (10 senators - 1/6th of the total) were added from 1945-1950. Talk in the 1950's had at least 5 more coming in the next decade.
The South saw where this was all headed. They knew eventually they would lose the votes.
Yes, it was about slavery. But is was also about the south losing their voting ability to protect those things they thought important. Slavery just the first and foremost one, but many others as well.
I know it is not the same. We don't look back to 1850 and find any logical reason to defend slavery. We know it's wrong.
But you can see the same type of resentment today. The same stirrings of dissent. If (just imagine) the liberals had enough control to say they wanted to annex and make states of Puerto Rico and Mexico and wanted to turn them into 8-10 new "States" with 16-20 new Senators, there would be a very strong uprising by conservative America to maintain the borders and control they had.
And maybe 150 years from now society would look back at anyone supporting "borders" as racist just like we look at slavery as racist. Who knows. I don't think it's the same but if you stop thinking about the world from 2020 perspective and look at it from an 1850 perspective, I can understand why the South decided to do what it did. And yes, it WAS about slavery but it was just as much the fact they were losing the power in government to STOP them taking slavery and anything else away from them by votes.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
This isn't that hard to understand. No one is saying Drew can't have his opinion or anyone else for that matter. Where he messed up is he did not read the moment and the gaping wound this country has right now as a result of another senseless killing. Drew stated he doesn't agree with anyone who disrespects the flag. In his opinion kneeling during the anthem is disrespect. Silent protest is disrespect. It should only be done where he thinks it should be done. That flag gives everyone the right to express themselves as they see fit. Drew chooses to do what he does and others do what they do. He can say that's fine for HIM but saying he wouldn't support silent protest is like spitting in the face of people who are trying to bring attention to an obviously horrible issue. It'snot that hard to understand.
He never said he didn't support silent protests, but that doesn't fit your agenda now does it.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
He doesn't have to say it. The interviewer asked him a direct question about how he would feel should the protest continue:
Interviewer: Everyone is looking back now at Kaepernick’s protest from a few years ago and obviously they were always about police brutality and now it’s coming back to the for and a lot of people expect that we will see players kneeling again if and when the NFL season starts. I’m curious how you think the NFL will and should respond to that and of course, you’re such a leader in the league, what is your responsibility as a leader in times like this for the rest of your teammates and players in the league?
Brees: Well, I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country. Let me just tell you what I see or what I feel when the National Anthem is played and when I look at the flag of the United States. I envision my two grandfathers who fought for this country during World War II, one in the Army, and one of the Marine Corps, both risking their lives to protect our country and to try to make our country and this world a better place.
So every time I stand with my hand over my heart, looking at that flag and singing the National Anthem, that’s what I think about. And in many cases, it brings me to tears thinking about all that has been sacrificed, not just those in the military, but for that matter, those throughout the civil rights movements of the ’60s and everyone, and all that has been endured by so many people up until this point. And is everything right with our country right now? No, it’s not, we still have a long way to go. But I think what you do by standing there and showing respect to the flag with your hand over your heart is it shows unity, it shows that we are all in this together, we can all do better and then we are all part of the solution.
That's pretty straight forward. Drew has every right to feel how he wants to about this and about his family and for servicemen. The fact of the matter is though is that the flag represents more than Drew Brees and his feelings and more than the military. The sacrifices of the military and of many Americans gives anyone to right to feel however we should want to about living in this country and what it means to us.....including the flag. So Drew said he doesn't agree with that. That's fine. The people doing silent protest aren't telling everyone that they don't agree with people singing the national anthem and having that moment for themselves. It's about respecting everyone's position.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
What is the issue? Blacks dying at the hands of police officers? You mean the 9 people from last year? There is no national crisis where blacks are being mowed down by cops. It's a lie. Of those 9, twice the officers were arrested. The rest were seen as justifiable. Mostly because the men attacked the cops. But this also happened 19 times to white people. But again it doesn't fit the agenda so it's not mentioned. All of this is just stupid. Blacks always want to play the race card. They want to be seen as victims. But the facts just don't agree with it. Again whites are killed by blacks at an almost 80% clip. We should be rioting.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
You do realize that black people are almost 3 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. Use of force is 7 times higher. Any killing that is unjustified is wrong but for you to sit here and try to compare scenarios is sad man. It all sucks and it all should stop but trying to victimize it the other way around is ridiculous. Almost 70% of the country is white. So you seem like a smart guy. Do the math on that one. I'm not sure which propaganda network you got the 80% figure from but that's not it either. The numbers are 15.8% blacks killing whites and 8.6% white killing blacks. White on white killings are 81.3%. So go ahead and riot.
Well, allow me to retort.
First off, Drew shouldn't have to gauge the political winds when he speaks his mind. He has the First Amendment to back him on this. He didn't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic or bigoted. He spoke from his heart and what he personally sees. Was it the right thing to say and do? Who knows, and why is it so upsetting to so many people?
I listened to Clay Travis today, and agree with what he said. Drew should not have apologized for speaking his mind. Just as wig pointed out on page 1 - did Malcolm X ever apologize for calling all white people the blue-eyed devil? Which is worse? Condemning an entire race or stating your personal thoughts regarding your father and grandfather's military actions during the wars they served? I'll wait for your answer.
That said, I'm not so insensitive that I cannot see why Kaepernick took a knee when he did. I don't agree with it, but that's my opinion. That Kaep allegedly took a knee to take a stance against police brutality and "get a dialogue started" is a noble gesture to some. I want to believe that the reason behind this is that he doesnt believe the country is living up to that which the military has fought to protect and provide. Kaep may not believe that our military should be giving their lives for this country when we have people dying at home via police brutality.
and if we've seen anything from the police brutality thread, no one agrees with police brutality that results in the death of anyone. regardless of what the race hustlers (Sharpton, Jackson, BLM, etc) want you to believe and continue to push.
but, why do I not agree with Kaep taking a knee? seems it's just like you stated - "he did not read the moment and the gaping wound this country has right now" - as we continued to send our military into places they should not be for reasons that do not pertain to us. Sure, a lot of those may be national security risks, and I won't pretend to know all the places we have military presence, though I suspect it's a large swath of the planet.
and i will say that Kaep has more balls than Drew. Kaep never apologized for his actions. Drew apologized for his words and how they were received. He didn't intend to insult people or make them feel insulted/sad. That's their own reaction to his words. He has no control over how people will react to what he says, or does. sticks and stones.
Last edited:
What is the source of the statistics you're posting? Serious question, because there seems to be bias everywhere.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
I agree with this 100%. Absolutely. That's Drew's right and his feeling on this. It's not like anyone is stopping him either. This isn't just a military issue though. Why the hell can't people separate the two? Certain people in this country take patriotism to the most hypocritical, narrow, and non inclusive levels. A lot of minorities have made the point of stating that their grandfathers served as well......but weren't given a heroes welcome when they returned. They were ostracized and treated as less than human. So when they see that flag they don;t see what Drew sees. They damn sure don't want him stating that he would see their silent protest as disrespect to him or to the military. IF that's how Drew sees it then that's fine but people have the right to be offended by that. Drew didn't have to apologize.....but the fact of the matter is that the NFL is mostly made up of black players and so is his locker room. A lot of New Orleans is black. So walking back into that situation without an apology would be less than ideal. I'm really trying to be patient here and but like I said......this isn't hard to understand. There are some people's minds that just aren;t going to be changed on this and that's fine.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
- Joined
- May 10, 2019
- Messages
- 1,837
- Reaction score
- 2,702
- Points
- 113
Yep, probably should be rioting about quite a lot to be honest.
