Boyer' open letter to Kaepernick

.... wait .. something just occurred to me rereading your 3-way omlette :P

blacks must trust police.

There's another scenario by which a given demographic is "needed" to trust the police ...

Should we have immunity hour in order to facilitate this trust? That no one is going to be arrested, detained, fired-upon ... or even see a police officer for any crime during the hour of X

See, this is what we're supposed to believe of the sanctuary city. Perhaps we need sanctuary day or week??? You know ... to build trust.
 
ShAArk92 said:
??? 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.
Click to expand...

We're talking past each other. The original point wasn't about 50 years of Medicare and 80 years of Social Security spending versus 4 years of WWII spending. But we don't disagree on the long term impact of those programs.
 
NJlonghorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd add one more point. These minority officers need to live in the communities they police. That is what really worked in LA and was the root of Ferguson's problems.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'd add one more point. These minority officers need to live in the communities they police. That is what really worked in LA and was the root of Ferguson's problems.
Click to expand...
In 2017 violent crime was up 15.8% over 2016 in L.A. Maybe they should actually live in the criminals' homes to keep a closer eye on them.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The original point wasn't about 50 years of Medicare and 80 years of Social Security spending versus 4 years of WWII
Click to expand...
Actually that's precisely what I was saying. Sorry I didn't make that part of it clear. Acknowledging the greater duration, but the money spent is still the money spent ... or more accurately ... BORROWED (stolen) from future generations ... and not at all in accordance with the rightful purpose of the Fed as directed by the Constitution.
Seattle Husker said:
These minority officers need to live in the communities they police.
Click to expand...
Perhaps and I won't argue against the value in the "citizen on patrol" "one of us" ... but in no case should anyone UNQUALIFIED be allowed to become a sworn LEO. That has happened in too many examples and in all vocations/professions/occupations ... hello affirmative action.
iatrogenic said:
In 2017 violent crime was up 15.8% over 2016 in L.A. Maybe they should actually live in the criminals' homes to keep a closer eye on them.
Click to expand...
oops. well ... what about that indigenous source?

every man is responsible for his own behavior and because man makes/enforces/adjudicates the law ... it will not be perfect and there will be righteous grievance.

Seeking to put an imperfect array of institutions as a prerequisite for expecting any given person to ... BEHAVE PROPERLY ... is weak at its worst. We all have the knowledge of right and wrong ... and unfortunately we all have the tendency to seek self over anyone/anything else. But we know this is wrong.

So, the fringe exception notwithstanding ... when the members of this community begin behaving properly in sufficient numbers, then the profile changes for the LEOs ... and there won't be an appreciable occurrence "stopped for driving while black" perceptions/realities ...
 
ShAArk92 said:
every man is responsible for his own behavior and because man makes/enforces/adjudicates the law ... it will not be perfect and there will be righteous grievance.

Seeking to put an imperfect array of institutions as a prerequisite for expecting any given person to ... BEHAVE PROPERLY ... is weak at its worst. We all have the knowledge of right and wrong ... and unfortunately we all have the tendency to seek self over anyone/anything else. But we know this is wrong.

So, the fringe exception notwithstanding ... when the members of this community begin behaving properly in sufficient numbers, then the profile changes for the LEOs ... and there won't be an appreciable occurrence "stopped for driving while black" perceptions/realities ...
Click to expand...

Very eloquent.

I think the idea of black police officers in the community is for one primary purpose; to neuter the racial grievance. It will not end all grievances.
 
So a Veterans group put together a TV commercial for the Super Bowl about honoring the flag. The NFL has refused to allow it to be aired. The League actually said they rejected it because it "made a political statement,"

DUKeJT4UQAAk2C9.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
So a Veterans group put together a TV commercial for the Super Bowl about honoring the flag. The NFL has refused to allow it to be aired. The League actually said they rejected it because it "made a political statement,"

DUKeJT4UQAAk2C9.jpg
Click to expand...


I don't watch much NFL anymore, but I may never watch another game.
 
Joe Fan said:
So a Veterans group put together a TV commercial for the Super Bowl about honoring the flag. The NFL has refused to allow it to be aired. The League actually said they rejected it because it "made a political statement,"

DUKeJT4UQAAk2C9.jpg
Click to expand...

The NFL is a *********** organization.
 
Is there no end to the NFL's suicide march? It's fine if you prohibit all political statements. But it is really unfathomable to censor your paying customers (that happens to be a group of war veterans) while not censoring your employees from making controversial political statement during work hours. The NFL just does not seem to care about protecting their brand or market share. Wow.
 
I understand why they aren't running the ad. It's obviously a dig at the players, and they don't want to invite that controversy. It also doesn't help that the anthem has become a proxy for Trump support. Could
it cost them customers? They obviously think it won't.

Personally, I don't watch football anymore, because until Jerry Jones dies or sells the team, there isn't any point if you're a Cowboy fan. Furthermore, I'm sick of the league's drama. It's turning into the WWF.
 
Last edited:
It didn't become a proxy for Trump until Trump made his big speech. That's on him.
Click to expand...

Which they happily attached to their "protest". The players own it, if Trump takes advantage of it, then good for him. IDK anyone who thinks this kneeling this is on Trump in any way.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I understand why they aren't running the ad. It's obviously a dig at the players, and they don't want to invite that controversy. It also doesn't help that the anthem has become a proxy for Trump support. Could
it cost them customers? They obviously think it won't.

Personally, I don't watch football anymore, because until Jerry Jones dies or sells the team, there isn't any point if you're a Cowboy fan. Furthermore, I'm sick of the league's drama. It's turning into the WWF.
Click to expand...
Except that the NFL has previously been willing to allow extremely controversial ads to air during the Super Bowl. The one that comes immediately to mind was the Tebow one from a few years back...

It is extremely disingenuous for them to try and take this stand (no pun intended) at this late date. They are trying to figure out how to latch the barn door when the horses have long since left the ranch...
 
Phil Elliott said:
Which they happily attached to their "protest". The players own it, if Trump takes advantage of it, then good for him. IDK anyone who thinks this kneeling this is on Trump in any way.
Click to expand...

The kneeling isn't on Trump. That's on Käpernick and the dumbass players who support and mimic him. However, the kneeling becoming a proxy for Trump support is on Trump.
 
mb227 said:
Except that the NFL has previously been willing to allow extremely controversial ads to air during the Super Bowl. The one that comes immediately to mind was the Tebow one from a few years back...

It is extremely disingenuous for them to try and take this stand (no pun intended) at this late date. They are trying to figure out how to latch the barn door when the horses have long since left the ranch...
Click to expand...

It isn't about avoiding all controversy. It's about avoiding a certain kind of controversy like one that undermines the league's relationship with its players. The Tebow ad didn't do that.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It isn't about avoiding all controversy. It's about avoiding a certain kind of controversy like one that undermines the league's relationship with its players. The Tebow ad didn't do that.
Click to expand...

We've talked about this before. The NFL has chosen to avoid a labor dispute. They were always going to inflame relations with a subset of their customer base. It was either the "patriots" or the "BLM supporters" that would be upset. If they side with the former then they also get labor unrest that likely changes their relationship with the Player's Union forever.
 
It's about avoiding a certain kind of controversy like one that undermines the league's relationship with its players.
Click to expand...

They need to worry more about the relationship they have with their customers. No customers and it won't matter what your relationship is with your players.

However, the kneeling becoming a proxy for Trump support is on Trump.
Click to expand...

The kneeling is a proxy for NOT supporting Trump, which makes standing for the anthem a proxy for supporting him. You make it sound like that is bad for him. It's not.
 
I think SH’s point is that the NFL had no clear winning play, so it made its choice. Any powerful labor force,such as a union, is likely to be reckless to the market forces that gave them a job in the first place. Not a lot management can do once it gets to that point.
 
Phil Elliott said:
They need to worry more about the relationship they have with their customers. No customers and it won't matter what your relationship is with your players.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think it's a stupid move. I understand it, but it's not smart.

Phil Elliott said:
The kneeling is a proxy for NOT supporting Trump, which makes standing for the anthem a proxy for supporting him. You make it sound like that is bad for him. It's not.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the issue is a proxy for Trump support or opposition. It's not bad for Trump. It's good for Trump. It's bad for the anthem and bad for the country, but it's not bad for Trump.
 
VYFan said:
I think SH’s point is that the NFL had no clear winning play, so it made its choice.
Click to expand...
The obvious play was to prohibit all political protests during NFL games and punish violators with fines and suspension. The idea that this would have resulted in some major labor dispute is wild speculation at best. The NFL has rules for nearly everything. They fined Colin Kaepernick for wearing the wrong type of head phones for goodness sake.
 
Last edited:
Yeah in my current Texas Monthly there is an interview with an author where the interviewer asks about the current rise of a "nationalist and violent right-wing". What a bunch of HS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top