The Pegula's Blew A Huge Opportunity To Make The Buffalo Bills, "America's Team"

[feldspar]

but I fully support the reason they’re protesting.

What EXACTLY is the reason?

[YardRat]

Patriotism is not standing for the anthem and saluting the flag. It is about respecting, loving, and caring for other fellow citizens of the country we call home, and uniting as one. When we have people that hate others based on their color or religion or culture or sexuality,

Unless they are white Christian southern heterosexuals...it's OK to hate on them.

take away others' rights to medical care or education, and treat others as lesser or pieces of meat, that's fake patriotism, that's hypocrisy. And those are the ones that should be deported.

Like cyber-stalking an individual with taunts about abortion and anal sex? Telling somebody they need to get back on their meds? Suggesting suicide? Wishing cancer would finally take someone's life?

You need to catch up...in some places that's considered 'enlightened and educated'.

[OpIv37]

Unless they are white Christian southern heterosexuals...it's OK to hate on them.

*sigh. This nonsense again?

People don't hate white Christian southern heterosexuals for simply being white Christian heterosexuals. People hate them when they use some piece of that as an excuse for bigotry and discrimination.

Like when they want to promote a symbol of hate as "heritage" and glorify men who led an armed rebellion against the US under the guise of "states' rights." Or when they create a bunch of hysteria over transsexuals in the bathroom. Or when they think baking a cake for a gay couple somehow violates their religion. Or when they call liberals "My Best Friends" then whine about how it is a burden to be a straight white Christian male in the US (kinda like you're doing right now).

[Arm of Harm]

*sigh. This nonsense again?

People don't hate white Christian southern heterosexuals for simply being white Christian heterosexuals.

Actually yes, they do. There are a number who are anti-Christian. Who feel (at best) very suspicious of anyone who is devoutly Christian. There are those who enjoy jokes at Southerners' expense: portraying them as lazy, ignorant, inbred. Finally, there are those who are anti-white. Hatred of the white race is the core value of the Left's secular religion. How does the typical Antiracist reconcile this core religious value of anti-white racial hate with the life experience that there are plenty of decent white people out there? Often the thought is that if you're white you already have a strike against you. But one can (partially) atone for one's whiteness by devotion to the Left's secular religion.

Like when they want to promote a symbol of hate as "heritage" and glorify men who led an armed rebellion against the US

The Left's willingness and ability to simply rewrite history is astounding.

First off, it's very, very difficult to make the argument that, on the one hand, the Thirteen Colonies did have the right to secede from the British Empire, while the Southern States did not have the right to secede from the Union.

Initially, many leading Southerners had admitted that slavery was wrong. But they also felt it should be abolished at the state level, not at the federal level. Constitutionally, it was 100% clear that the Southern view was correct: that this was a state issue. Abolitionists felt the matter should be decided on the federal level, which (at the time) would have represented a vast expansion in federal power. In practice, this expansion would have given the Northern states significant ability to tell the South what to do. (The North was more populated and more industrialized than the South, and therefore had larger representation in the government.) The more strident and popular abolitionists became, the more defensive Southerners became about slavery. Some of them even started calling it "good." Why? Because they felt threatened. Because they did not want to accept Northern control over the South, or a vast expansion of federal power. Before the Civil War our nation was called the united States (lowercase u). The South seceded because they didn't want a bunch of Yankees telling them what to do. (Which they equated with a loss of freedom.)

Finally, there is the fact that General Robert E. Lee favored emancipation of slaves, and their relocation to Africa. Had the South won the Civil War, and established its independence, there is a very strong chance Lee would have been elected as the Confederacy's second president. (Much like General Grant was elected Union president, after the Union's victory in the war.) As Confederate president, he would have been in a good position to lead--but not coerce--the Confederate states into adopting his proposed resolution to the problem of slavery.

Or when they think baking a cake for a gay couple somehow violates their religion.

This is not about whether the Christian bakers are right or wrong to feel as they do. It's about whether the government has the right to dictate to the conscience of small business owners. To impose on them its ideology, its values, rather than allowing them to adhere to their own.

[OpIv37]

And cue the parroted white supremacist response....

[Arm of Harm]

And cue the parroted white supremacist response....

Your initial post was a mindless parroting of discredited Leftist talking points. Your followup post was name calling. In neither case did you attempt to engage in intellectual discussion, or to see things from outside the perspective of the Antiracism religion. You are here to propagandize, not to converse.

[OpIv37]

Your initial post was a mindless parroting of discredited Leftist talking points. Your followup post was name calling. In neither case did you attempt to engage in intellectual discussion, or to see things from outside the perspective of the Antiracism religion. You are here to propagandize, not to converse.

My initial post showed the hypocrisy of the right. Your post was parroted drivel that left out key points that don't support your preconceived view. And it's ironic that you accuse others of posting propaganda....

[kingJofNYC]

Much respect to OpIv.

[EDS]

Actually yes, they do. There are a number who are anti-Christian. Who feel (at best) very suspicious of anyone who is devoutly Christian. There are those who enjoy jokes at Southerners' expense: portraying them as lazy, ignorant, inbred. Finally, there are those who are anti-white. Hatred of the white race is the core value of the Left's secular religion. How does the typical Antiracist reconcile this core religious value of anti-white racial hate with the life experience that there are plenty of decent white people out there? Often the thought is that if you're white you already have a strike against you. But one can (partially) atone for one's whiteness by devotion to the Left's secular religion.


The Left's willingness and ability to simply rewrite history is astounding.

First off, it's very, very difficult to make the argument that, on the one hand, the Thirteen Colonies did have the right to secede from the British Empire, while the Southern States did not have the right to secede from the Union.

Initially, many leading Southerners had admitted that slavery was wrong. But they also felt it should be abolished at the state level, not at the federal level. Constitutionally, it was 100% clear that the Southern view was correct: that this was a state issue. Abolitionists felt the matter should be decided on the federal level, which (at the time) would have represented a vast expansion in federal power. In practice, this expansion would have given the Northern states significant ability to tell the South what to do. (The North was more populated and more industrialized than the South, and therefore had larger representation in the government.) The more strident and popular abolitionists became, the more defensive Southerners became about slavery. Some of them even started calling it "good." Why? Because they felt threatened. Because they did not want to accept Northern control over the South, or a vast expansion of federal power. Before the Civil War our nation was called the united States (lowercase u). The South seceded because they didn't want a bunch of Yankees telling them what to do. (Which they equated with a loss of freedom.)

Finally, there is the fact that General Robert E. Lee favored emancipation of slaves, and their relocation to Africa. Had the South won the Civil War, and established its independence, there is a very strong chance Lee would have been elected as the Confederacy's second president. (Much like General Grant was elected Union president, after the Union's victory in the war.) As Confederate president, he would have been in a good position to lead--but not coerce--the Confederate states into adopting his proposed resolution to the problem of slavery.



This is not about whether the Christian bakers are right or wrong to feel as they do. It's about whether the government has the right to dictate to the conscience of small business owners. To impose on them its ideology, its values, rather than allowing them to adhere to their own.

There is no way to defend any group or society that is hiding behind a veil of law, past practice or religion when it comes to denying basic human rights. History will rightfully judge anyone guilty of such atrocities very harshly.

[Arm of Harm]

There is no way to defend any group or society that is hiding behind a veil of law, past practice or religion when it comes to denying basic human rights. History will rightfully judge anyone guilty of such atrocities very harshly.

Unlike Antiracist religious fanatics such as OpIv37, I'm able to see the flaws in both sides of the Civil War.

The South's sin, obviously, was slavery. Slavery was a sin for two reasons. It was a human rights violation, as you pointed out. Also, it was a violation of the principle that, where possible, a nation should consist of only one race of people. To have multiple races is to have racial tension and miscegenation.

The North's sins consisted of its complete disregard for the South's (perfectly legitimate) concerns, its war crimes, and its heavy handedness and tyranny. (Chief Union war crimes consist of Sherman's and Sheridan's marches, which involved the destruction of homes, food, and clothing, leaving the Southerners with "nothing but their eyes to cry with." Marches like that are a war crime, because they result in the deaths of large numbers of civilians due to hunger, exposure, and disease.)

The South's most basic and most legitimate concern was for the continued existence of the white race in the South. Simply freeing the slaves--as Lincoln began doing with the Emancipation Proclamation--posed a very serious threat to that racial existence. For the next century, the South countered that threat with segregation--with "separate but equal." That segregation was ended in the 1960s--with, again, no concern at all given to the South's perfectly legitimate desire to see the white race in the South continue to exist. On the other hand, the solution to slavery proposed by General Robert E. Lee--shipping the slaves to Africa and freeing them--would have ended the sin of slavery, without undertaking a new sin of threatening white racial existence. All the good of the North's cause could have been achieved, without adding in any of the bad. (The bad being the expansion of the federal government and its powers, the war itself, and the postwar threat to the white race.)

[Goobylal]

What EXACTLY is the reason?

Because white cops are killing tons of black people for no apparent reason.

[EDS]

Unlike Antiracist religious fanatics such as OpIv37, I'm able to see the flaws in both sides of the Civil War.

The South's sin, obviously, was slavery. Slavery was a sin for two reasons. It was a human rights violation, as you pointed out. Also, it was a violation of the principle that, where possible, a nation should consist of only one race of people. To have multiple races is to have racial tension and miscegenation.

The North's sins consisted of its complete disregard for the South's (perfectly legitimate) concerns, its war crimes, and its heavy handedness and tyranny. (Chief Union war crimes consist of Sherman's and Sheridan's marches, which involved the destruction of homes, food, and clothing, leaving the Southerners with "nothing but their eyes to cry with." Marches like that are a war crime, because they result in the deaths of large numbers of civilians due to hunger, exposure, and disease.)

The South's most basic and most legitimate concern was for the continued existence of the white race in the South. Simply freeing the slaves--as Lincoln began doing with the Emancipation Proclamation--posed a very serious threat to that racial existence. For the next century, the South countered that threat with segregation--with "separate but equal." That segregation was ended in the 1960s--with, again, no concern at all given to the South's perfectly legitimate desire to see the white race in the South continue to exist. On the other hand, the solution to slavery proposed by General Robert E. Lee--shipping the slaves to Africa and freeing them--would have ended the sin of slavery, without undertaking a new sin of threatening white racial existence. All the good of the North's cause could have been achieved, without adding in any of the bad. (The bad being the expansion of the federal government and its powers, the war itself, and the postwar threat to the white race.)

There is no sin in having a nation comprised of all different types of people living side-by-side, particularly one founded on the principal of equality and justice for all.

If the white southerners were concerned about their continued existence - and that freed slaves would compromise that existence - they should have thought about that before they purchased and enslaved those people. Who would have thought those slaves and their ancestors would be upset for being captured, tortured and enslaved by white men, and being forcefully removed from their homes and native lands and treated like livestock.

[jlgarsh]

Actually yes, they do. There are a number who are anti-Christian. Who feel (at best) very suspicious of anyone who is devoutly Christian. There are those who enjoy jokes at Southerners' expense: portraying them as lazy, ignorant, inbred. Finally, there are those who are anti-white. Hatred of the white race is the core value of the Left's secular religion. How does the typical Antiracist reconcile this core religious value of anti-white racial hate with the life experience that there are plenty of decent white people out there? Often the thought is that if you're white you already have a strike against you. But one can (partially) atone for one's whiteness by devotion to the Left's secular religion.


The Left's willingness and ability to simply rewrite history is astounding.

First off, it's very, very difficult to make the argument that, on the one hand, the Thirteen Colonies did have the right to secede from the British Empire, while the Southern States did not have the right to secede from the Union.

Initially, many leading Southerners had admitted that slavery was wrong. But they also felt it should be abolished at the state level, not at the federal level. Constitutionally, it was 100% clear that the Southern view was correct: that this was a state issue. Abolitionists felt the matter should be decided on the federal level, which (at the time) would have represented a vast expansion in federal power. In practice, this expansion would have given the Northern states significant ability to tell the South what to do. (The North was more populated and more industrialized than the South, and therefore had larger representation in the government.) The more strident and popular abolitionists became, the more defensive Southerners became about slavery. Some of them even started calling it "good." Why? Because they felt threatened. Because they did not want to accept Northern control over the South, or a vast expansion of federal power. Before the Civil War our nation was called the united States (lowercase u). The South seceded because they didn't want a bunch of Yankees telling them what to do. (Which they equated with a loss of freedom.)

Finally, there is the fact that General Robert E. Lee favored emancipation of slaves, and their relocation to Africa. Had the South won the Civil War, and established its independence, there is a very strong chance Lee would have been elected as the Confederacy's second president. (Much like General Grant was elected Union president, after the Union's victory in the war.) As Confederate president, he would have been in a good position to lead--but not coerce--the Confederate states into adopting his proposed resolution to the problem of slavery.



This is not about whether the Christian bakers are right or wrong to feel as they do. It's about whether the government has the right to dictate to the conscience of small business owners. To impose on them its ideology, its values, rather than allowing them to adhere to their own.

The 13 colonies were being taxed without representation in government. The south seceded even though they had seats in the US house and senate. There's much more to it, but totally different.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

What EXACTLY is the reason?

An evolution of a protest. First lets start with Colin Kaepernick who started this thing. He is on record as protesting police brutality against black people and racial inequality. He wanted to raise awareness of these issues and has in fact put his money where his mouth is.

https://www.theshadowleague.com/stor...e-his-heart-is

So, good on him and its completely respectable and laudable and praiseworthy and I fully support him.

Then media got involved which was good, and then they skewed and distorted what he was trying to do, which was bad. So, the protest began to evolve.

People, including several of his fellow players saw that Kap was benched. Many of them rightly or wrongly assumed it was because of his protest and not because he had been figured out by the league's DCs and had even lost his starting job to a scrub QB on a ****ty 9ers team that after nearly winning it all in 13 has parted ways with its coaches from that team and most of that team's starters. So they protested in solidarity and for his right to free speech, and many players also agreed with his efforts to raise awareness and so they started sitting, kneeling, locking arms, or raising the black power fist salute.
Then the media distorted and skewed what they were protesting, and so the twit in chief had to weigh in and make it all about himself and so the media helped him out on this and made it exactly that. So now its for some a protest against Trump, for others its about supporting freedom of speech, and for others its about protesting racial oppression