Boyer' open letter to Kaepernick

[ShAArk92]

I think I, and the left, are bringing up debt BECAUSE that was a clanging bell that the right rang ROUTINELY,

So ... you're just being a noisy gong because you don't really believe what you're saying?

 

[OUBubba]

So ... you're just being a noisy gong because you don't really believe what you're saying?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I defended W. and his vacations to many whiny Democrats. I know that even on vacation days that these guys work most of the day if they're not watching 5 hours of faux news. The problem is that Bush was not overtly critical of his predecessors and their vacation time.

 

[mb227]

The problem is that Bush was not overtly critical of his predecessors and their vacation time.

Do you think that, just maybe, this was because there was not a social media pre-occupation with every fart that takes place in the White House? Surely even YOU have to concede that social media changed the way things are perceived...it is very different from the days of three major networks and an hour of news each day plus newsprint 24 hours stale.

 

[ShAArk92]

these guys work most of the day if they're not watching 5 hours of faux news. The problem is that Bush was not overtly critical of his predecessors and their vacation time.

this makes no sense in our conversation. I'm probably overlooking something though. right?

You started this little sub topic with a statement about the national debt. Before the election, during a large part of the BHO term, national debt was raised as an issue by "the right" and you now say "the right" barely mentions it.

That could be because the national debt has been reduced in the past year. Not zero, to be sure, but certainly not growing and particularly not growing as fast as BHO grew it. So ... it'd seem that those who were concerned about the national debt and have seen that it's being paid down, even if slowly, do not have to be so concerned about it as they did when it was being doubled in less than 8 years.

Does that make any sense to you? Perhaps it's NOT party politics which is driving "the right" in this ... on the other hand, can you see how partisan it is when the response to that concern of the national debt was essentially "it's not bad because it's government and government doesn't work like your personal budget/finance" ... and then the primary opposition to the tax cut bill ... "it's gonna increase the national debt"

As far as what W did or didn't do ... not following how that's relevant to this point.

 

[OUBubba]

this makes no sense in our conversation. I'm probably overlooking something though. right?

You started this little sub topic with a statement about the national debt. Before the election, during a large part of the BHO term, national debt was raised as an issue by "the right" and you now say "the right" barely mentions it.

That could be because the national debt has been reduced in the past year. Not zero, to be sure, but certainly not growing and particularly not growing as fast as BHO grew it. So ... it'd seem that those who were concerned about the national debt and have seen that it's being paid down, even if slowly, do not have to be so concerned about it as they did when it was being doubled in less than 8 years.

Does that make any sense to you? Perhaps it's NOT party politics which is driving "the right" in this ... on the other hand, can you see how partisan it is when the response to that concern of the national debt was essentially "it's not bad because it's government and government doesn't work like your personal budget/finance" ... and then the primary opposition to the tax cut bill ... "it's gonna increase the national debt"

As far as what W did or didn't do ... not following how that's relevant to this point.

The CBO said that this tax bill would add more than a trillion to the debt on top of what is ongoing to the national debt. The Tea Party Patriots were all about the debt when we had the black president. My roommate from college was captured in a misspelled sign Tea Party picture at a rally in Tucson. Now that we have this European guy named Drumpf they don't seem to care about said national debt. Just like Drumpf was all over Obama about his vacation habits and he seems to have been able to pull a "hold my beer" and matched 8 years of vacation spending in 1 year. Much like we threw a fit when Obama wore a tan suit. Or, Michelle wore a sleeveless dress.

 

[ShAArk92]

and you are still completely dodging the fact when the debt was mentioned the last decade ... the response was "it's no problem"

Is that because it was a democrat in the white house ... or is there something else which makes debt ok then, but suddenly not ok now. BTW ... adding a trillion over 10 years is a heap better than what was added the previous decade.

Is this really so hard to discern?

the point of this thread, however, is the NFL's tomfoolery and the kneelers being the useful idiots of the left.

 

[OUBubba]

and you are still completely dodging the fact when the debt was mentioned the last decade ... the response was "it's no problem"

Is that because it was a democrat in the white house ... or is there something else which makes debt ok then, but suddenly not ok now. BTW ... adding a trillion over 10 years is a heap better than what was added the previous decade.

Is this really so hard to discern?

the point of this thread, however, is the NFL's tomfoolery and the kneelers being the useful idiots of the left.

I think the rubes that are all ginned up over 10 people kneeling are the suckers.

 

[ShAArk92]

as NJ said ... that is your prerogative.

They've first bought into a gross mischaracterization as a minimum, outright lie at worst ...

then they've demonstrated while representing their employer/interests.

we'll see who the rubes are. I'm comfortable with my choice. I find those who ridicule are the ones who know they're on the dishonorable side of this, but NFL ... like an addict.

Set yerself free, bubba. you'll thank me.

 

[UTChE96]

As someone who thinks the debt is the largest crisis facing the US, I have resigned myself to the reality that a debt crisis is inevitable. The only question is how we get there - with tax cuts or more government spending. There is no reason to believe that more revenues will result in a lower deficits or debt (over the long-term) as politicians will always find a way to spend extra money. Case in point, look at those imaginary surpluses of the 1990s. As soon as a surplus was expected, politicians of both parties were tripping over themselves to spend it. There was not a single year in the 90s that the debt didn't go up. And once the politicians get acclimated to the higher level of spending, good luck getting that IV out of their vein.

So given the two choices between individuals and businesses keeping more of their money or letting the government waste more money, I will definitely take the former.

 

[Phil Elliott]

As someone who thinks the debt is the largest crisis facing the US, I have resigned myself to the reality that a debt crisis is inevitable.

I used to think that in the 80s, but after decades of dire warnings about how the debt would kill us and China would take over, etc, nothing. Now, we owe China so much money we are bulletproof against them - they cannot afford for anything to stop the flow of debt payments from US -> China. This falls under the heading of, "If you owe a million dollars that is bad for you. If you owe a billion dollars, that is bad for your banker."

 

[UTChE96]

I used to think that in the 80s, but after decades of dire warnings about how the debt would kill us and China would take over, etc, nothing.

I'm less worried about China and more worried about our own government printing money to dilute the debt and their financial commitments such as social security.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I used to think that in the 80s, but after decades of dire warnings about how the debt would kill us and China would take over, etc, nothing. Now, we owe China so much money we are bulletproof against them - they cannot afford for anything to stop the flow of debt payments from US -> China. This falls under the heading of, "If you owe a million dollars that is bad for you. If you owe a billion dollars, that is bad for your banker."

The problem with a high national debt is that it becomes difficult to make interest payments. If you don't mind fleecing your creditors, that's not a problem until you're in a situation in which you need money for a real national emergency, which we haven't had since the 1980s.

For example, the debt-gdp percentage was 45 percent in 1941, but by 1945, it had swelled to 114 percent for obvious reasons. If it had been 114 percent in 1941, would people have trusted the government as a debtor enough to buy its war bonds? Maybe but perhaps not.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If it had been 114 percent in 1941, would people have trusted the government as a debtor enough to buy its war bonds? Maybe but perhaps not

For a point of reference, as of Sept 2017 our debt/gdp ratio was 104%.

 

[OUBubba]

.....If you don't mind fleecing your creditors, that's not a problem...

Maybe we've found the right guy at the right time with this Trump character. Historically, he treats his creditors like in-laws who have personally harmed him and it's his only way to exact revenge.

 

[ShAArk92]

For a point of reference, as of Sept 2017 our debt/gdp ratio was 104%

yes, but I think the inflation-adjusted dollars spent by the Fed are WAY out of whack ... and we'd just fought/won WWII back then. We have Sosh Security/Medicare now which dwarfs WWII spending alone.

 

[ShAArk92]

all that said ... the kneelers have accepted a false narrative and decided to demonstrate on that false narrative while representing their employer.

... and their employer has decided to let it go without any repercussions.

 

[VYFan]

This thread seemed to veer off there for a minute.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We have Sosh Security/Medicare now which dwarfs WWII spending alone.

In non-inflation adjusted dollars, yes. However, in context, no. In WWII, we routinely spent 36 - 37 percent of GDP on national defense. Just let that sink in. It was more than just about boosting the defense budget. It was a massive reorganizing of the US economy.

To put it into perspective. All federal spending in 2009 was 24.4 percent, and that was the highest it has been since 1945.

Suppose the US decided to socialize medicine. I'm not talking about Obamacare. Calling that socialized medicine is wild hyperbole. Ditto for single payer. I'm talking about true socialized medicine as it's practiced in places like Cuba or North Korea - where the government completely takes over every facet of healthcare. It owns every hospital, every doctor's office, every clinic, and every drug manufacturer, and it employs every healthcare worker of any kind from the actual doctors down to the guys who scrub toilets and wash bedpans in hospitals. That would be a massive undertaking, but even that would only constitute about 18 percent of GDP.

I'm not suggesting that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid aren't too big. They clearly are, and their long term costs are downright scary to consider. However, they are a tiny fraction of what WWII spending was.

 

[ShAArk92]

However, they are a tiny fraction of what WWII spending was.

In what's become a rarity ... WWII was essentially 4 years of active combat operations for the US (yes, I know we were involved before '41 with some of our guys flying Spitfires with the Brits) ... Sosh Security came aboard immediately after WWII (thanks FDR) then LBJ and Medicare ~20 years later. These two are effectively >50% of the Fed spending today and has been for a loooong time (certainly more than 4 years). The Fed spending on social welfare programs (basically since The Great Society/subsequent) has dwarfed all our military spending, including the combination of the Union/South of the Civil War.

But here's the kicker. There are those among us who will/have eschewed 52" of an opportunity to display a bit of unity and gratitude with and toward every GI who has given their lives/sacrificed MUCH to defend their right to be foul ... based upon a spun-up lie. It's pitiful and shameful simultaneously.

 

[OUBubba]

In what's become a rarity ... WWII was essentially 4 years of active combat operations for the US (yes, I know we were involved before '41 with some of our guys flying Spitfires with the Brits) ... Sosh Security came aboard immediately after WWII (thanks FDR) then LBJ and Medicare ~20 years later. These two are effectively >50% of the Fed spending today and has been for a loooong time (certainly more than 4 years). The Fed spending on social welfare programs (basically since The Great Society/subsequent) has dwarfed all our military spending, including the combination of the Union/South of the Civil War.

But here's the kicker. There are those among us who will/have eschewed 52" of an opportunity to display a bit of unity and gratitude with and toward every GI who has given their lives/sacrificed MUCH to defend their right to be foul ... based upon a spun-up lie. It's pitiful and shameful simultaneously.

Conflating complaints of police brutality with not honoring veterans is foolish. That's the point of the whole thing and how Nate Boyer worked WITH Collin K. to try to allow him to do both. Seems lost in the 19 pages.

 

[ShAArk92]

No sir ... my understanding is that in a discussion with Kapo, Nate told him how they render respect to their fallen comrades. I don't think he suggested kneeling during the anthem as a legitimate way to "start the discussion" (based on a false narrative ... and done at an inappropriate time without authorization)

Nate doesn't have the authority to redirect proper respect during the playing the Anthem ... nor do I ... nor does any single person, not even the POTUS.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In what's become a rarity ... WWII was essentially 4 years of active combat operations for the US (yes, I know we were involved before '41 with some of our guys flying Spitfires with the Brits) ... Sosh Security came aboard immediately after WWII (thanks FDR) then LBJ and Medicare ~20 years later. These two are effectively >50% of the Fed spending today and has been for a loooong time (certainly more than 4 years). The Fed spending on social welfare programs (basically since The Great Society/subsequent) has dwarfed all our military spending, including the combination of the Union/South of the Civil War.

There's nothing wrong with you're overall point. Those entitlement programs dwarf pretty much everything else including national defense and by a long way. You just underestimate how big of a financial commitment WWII really was.

 

[ShAArk92]

You just underestimate how big of a financial commitment WWII really was.

I don't think so ...

according to dummies (I know, right) ... about 350 billion was spent by the US (over those 4 years 41-45) ... about 40% of that was taxes and the rest was borrowed (bonds, etc). Now granted 350 billion by 1945 is about 4.5 trillion in 2017 ... which is about one year's federal spending (I'd say budget, but that contribute to the ill-definition of the word) ... 1/2 of which is SS and Medicare. So the total cost of WWII is equivalent in real dollars to 2 years of SS and Medicare spending by the Fed. Amazing.

What's worse ... that SS is supposed to be the citizen's money ... if they'd put their confiscated 15% into a mattress for their 40 years of work, they'd have almost twice the value as SS is returning.

And these guys making multi millions because they can run fast/catch a ball/block/tackle ... would suppose to disrespect the sacrifice so they'd have the freedom to pursue that paid hobby ... because they've been deluded into believing black men are being targeted by cops.

Shameful and pitiful.

 

[Mr. Deez]

according to dummies (I know, right) ... about 350 billion was spent by the US (over those 4 years 41-45) ... about 40% of that was taxes and the rest was borrowed (bonds, etc). Now granted 350 billion by 1945 is about 4.5 trillion in 2017 ... which is about one year's federal spending (I'd say budget, but that contribute to the ill-definition of the word) ... 1/2 of which is SS and Medicare. So the total cost of WWII is equivalent in real dollars to 2 years of SS and Medicare spending by the Fed. Amazing.

Comparing dollar amounts (even if you adjust for inflation) doesn't give perspective because it doesn't idea context. In addition, you're overstating the costs of Social Security and Medicare. They're a lot, but they're not $2.25T. Social Security is about $950B. Medicare is about $600B. That's a hell of a lot of money. In fact, it's far too much, but it's not even ten percent of GDP.

 

[ShAArk92]

??? for the last 50 years, we've had medicare expenditures. That total compared to the spending of WWII ... is hardly comparable. 600 billion x 50 (even if the 600 isn't on year one ... so let's say 100 billion x 50

The point I was trying to make is that our social welfare spending/processing through the Fed is WAAAAY too much. It's not in accordance with the Founding of this nation.

and the sacrifices to have brought it to us in this generation are being disrespected by a group of thugs who are not being disciplined ... by another group of thugs.

Don't accept a false narrative/premise ... and don't misrepresent even if you DO have a legitimate grievance.

 

[OUBubba]

No sir ... my understanding is that in a discussion with Kapo, Nate told him how they render respect to their fallen comrades. I don't think he suggested kneeling during the anthem as a legitimate way to "start the discussion" (based on a false narrative ... and done at an inappropriate time without authorization)

Nate doesn't have the authority to redirect proper respect during the playing the Anthem ... nor do I ... nor does any single person, not even the POTUS.

From our good friends at snopes.
------
Boyer and Kaepernick met after the open letter was published, and before San Francisco’s final preseason game on 2 September 2016 in San Diego — the first time the quarterback knelt in front of the bench instead of sitting during the anthem. Boyer posted a photograph of himself with Kaepernick following the meeting, and later said:

"We sorta came to a middle ground where he would take a knee alongside his teammate. Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect. When we’re on a patrol, you know, and we go into a security halt, we take a knee, and we pull security."

Boyer also expanded on his discussion with both Reid and Kaepernick during a CNN town hall broadcast on 27 September 2017:

[Kaepernick] reached out and we were able to sit down together for a couple of hours before the last preseason game last year. It was really cool to hear him just listen, too, and be very open-minded, too, and [say] “Look, I don’t want to hurt you, I don’t want to hurt your brothers and sisters.” I showed him text messages of friends of mine and some of them were saying I was a disgrace to the Green Berets ’cause I was even meeting with him. And some of them were like, “I’m with you man but it really hurts me to see that.”

So when I talked to them, it was mutual. Me, him, and Eric Reid [said] “I think maybe taking a knee would be a little more respectful. It’s still a demonstration. You’re still saying something but, people take a knee to pray. So for me it was a common ground, at least, to start from.

 

[ShAArk92]

@OUBubba Thanks ... I missed the latter part of this and misunderstood the first attribution of "we came to a middle ground" was Kapo's understanding of what Nate told him.

Boyer was wrong. It's that simple. His intention to help Kapo may have been admirable, but what he advised was ill-advised.

He should have told Kapo to first get educated and stop listening to the BLM hate group ... and after that if he STILL thought cops were out to kill blacks, then get involved personally ... on his own time with his own dime. He's got a few dimes available, right? His name would be sufficient to those for whom it mattered, devoid of association with the Niners/NFL.

neither of them did that.

After all this ... the BLM with Ferguson, Baltimore, etc etc etc ... including this ridiculous notion of disrespecting the Anthem ... has done what to "improve" the situation? The stats aren't materially better ... in large part because they can't change without criminal behavior in that community halting. (assuming we still want law enforcement to enforce the law, of course)

All of this misbehavior in the community, disrespect of the Anthem (2 years, now) ... has done what?

Is the goal to achieve special consideration among the citizenry ... like the transgens/homosexuals with marriage? Or is an equal shot really what they pursue???

What has changed? What should have changed?

 

[ShAArk92]

... never mind the adults in the NFL also failed. They should have nipped this in the bud on the principle of misrepresentation ... EVEN if BLM was correct and Kapo had a righteous grievance. But they didn't ... so ... they can pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

Better things to do with my time than empower a group which will not respond to the easiest of problems.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The stats aren't materially better ... in large part because they can't change without criminal behavior in that community halting.

This is the core of the problem, a three-way chicken/egg conundrum:

-- To improve the stats, you have to reduce crime by blacks.
-- To reduce crime by blacks, you have to get blacks to trust the police.
-- To get blacks to trust the police, you have to improve the stats.

Which brings us back to the only solution that has ever worked (in Los Angeles and New York) -- hire more black police officers. Even if they are less qualified in other respects, they have one important quality that white officers lack -- blackness.

I understand that some people consider it to be important to stand on the principle that race shouldn't matter. But if your goal is to improve the world, you have to put the principle aside.

 

[ShAArk92]

It's not a conundrum at all. You're making an excuse.

Obey the law and your problem is effectively solved. (noting the exceedingly small percentage of any collected group will not follow)

Guess what ... that solution has resulted in black cops shooting black perps. That the cop was black isn't terribly important, but it certainly didn't influence that black person to abide by the law, either. Because ... if there was no crime committed or suspected ... there'd be no cop (black or white) involved anyway.