Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Sit, stand, kneel, or do whatever you like for the National Anthem

I took his comment about "never attending" another NFL game to mean he was at that one, but reading it again, that was probably a bad assumption on my part. guess he just watched it on TV. or more likely saw it on Fox News or got forwarded one of those email chain rants about it from an uncle that Right Wing Blowhards love to send to their loving families.

so where did you hear about it? you started the whole thread - were you completely unaware of this issue before your Right Wing Blowhard uncle forwarded something to you on an email chain?
 
Isn't this true because we have the most powerful military on earth?


No. It's for the reasons Champ mentioned, how would another country invade? Amphibian landings would be easy to defend against, and if they invaded from Canada or Mexico they would have to fight to gain footholds there first.

As far as us having the most powerful military on earth...conventional weapons only, I don't think we do. Again, our big advantage is we have easily defensible territory.
 
As far as us having the most powerful military on earth...conventional weapons only, I don't think we do. Again, our big advantage is we have easily defensible territory.

this is a dated article (2014), but I doubt much has changed since then.

The U.S. defense budget is $612 billion. Despite sequestration and other spending cuts, the United States spends more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries combined.

America's biggest conventional military advantage is its fleet of 19 aircraft carriers, compared to 12 carriers operated by the rest of the world combined. These massive carriers allow the U.S. to set up forward operating bases anywhere and project power throughout the world.

The super power also has by far the most aircraft of any country, cutting-edge technology like the Navy's new rail gun, a large and well-trained human force ? and that's not even counting the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
 
what false rage do you see white people showing for minorities? are you talking about the .008% of the population in white supremacist groups?

I'd call lynchings and cross burnings actual rage.

I should have said 'on behalf', I worded that incorrectly. It was meant as a shot at some of the SJW out there that see one black person a week in their suburban heaven but want me to listen to how racist the entire country is, when they haven't experienced anything outside of a Starbucks or their parent's living room in the 21 years they've been alive.
 
Last edited:
No. It's for the reasons Champ mentioned, how would another country invade? Amphibian landings would be easy to defend against, and if they invaded from Canada or Mexico they would have to fight to gain footholds there first.

As far as us having the most powerful military on earth...conventional weapons only, I don't think we do. Again, our big advantage is we have easily defensible territory.

this isn't 1776. geography isn't nearly as important to our defense as our military. look at Australia, nearly impossible to get a foothold from which to launch an offensive from yet it's completely vulnerable to multiple potential threats. why? because their military is inferior to those potential threats.
 
Our National Anthem asks the fundamental question that Lincoln re-asked in The Gettysburg Address and that we need to ask on a daily basis. Many have stopped asking. Others never did. Most don't even know what the question is.

For that reason alone, The Star Spangled Banner should be given every opportunity to be heard in public.
 
this is a dated article (2014), but I doubt much has changed since then.

The U.S. defense budget is $612 billion. Despite sequestration and other spending cuts, the United States spends more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries combined.

America's biggest conventional military advantage is its fleet of 19 aircraft carriers, compared to 12 carriers operated by the rest of the world combined. These massive carriers allow the U.S. to set up forward operating bases anywhere and project power throughout the world.

The super power also has by far the most aircraft of any country, cutting-edge technology like the Navy's new rail gun, a large and well-trained human force — and that's not even counting the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

Over the course of the last century, for reasons some of which were arguably more right than others, The Geo political strategy of the United States became substantially more global and interventionist than theretofore, when the prevailing philosophy had primarily been isolationist.

The size of the US military really has nothing to do with preventing an imminent conventional foreign invasion.

EDIT: I'm going to change that to fairly little to do with preventing an imminent conventional foreign invasion.
 
Last edited:
Over the course of the last century, for reasons some of which were arguably more right than others, The Geo political strategy of the United States became substantially more global and interventionist than theretofore, when the prevailing philosophy had primarily been isolationist.

The size of the US military really has nothing to do with preventing an imminent conventional foreign invasion.

EDIT: I'm going to change that to fairly little to do with preventing an imminent conventional foreign invasion.

Looks like your edit didn't work, it still says nothing to do with preventing an imminent conventional foreign invasion.
 
It's funny, because I honestly haven't heard a single military person who has been asked about that say, "Yes, I'm offended that they aren't standing." The overwhelming consensus in interviews and people I've asked in person have given some form of, "That's why we fight, so people can do that."

How are they being blatantly disrespectful?? It's a silent freaking protest at a sporting contest. Give me a break.

I'm pretty sure even though they all say "that's why we fight, so people can do that" a great many of them still think it's disrespectful and it possibly even offends them. They just don't get their panties in a wad about being offended.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure even though they all say "that's why we fight, so people can do that" a great many of them still think it's disrespectful and it possibly even offends them. They just don't get their panties in a wad about being offended.

So basically even though you have no evidence, you assume you do, and therefore you're probably right about this.

you can chop up a word salad with the best of them!
 
They have the right to protest whatever they have a fancy for. And owners have a right to say "You ain't hired." And honestly most people only agree with the right to protest if it's something they agree with.
 
so where did you hear about it? you started the whole thread - were you completely unaware of this issue before your Right Wing Blowhard uncle forwarded something to you on an email chain?

Fox New on twitter, and a couple sports sites ran articles on the Browns taking a knee.

and Kaepernick being more or less black-balled by the league has been in the news all summer.

And I was aware of it going back to when he started doing it. Sorry for just making the thread now... didn't realize you had standards for that kind of thing, Sally.
 
Fox New on twitter, and a couple sports sites ran articles on the Browns taking a knee.

and Kaepernick being more or less black-balled by the league has been in the news all summer.

And I was aware of it going back to when he started doing it. Sorry for just making the thread now... didn't realize you had standards for that kind of thing, Sally.

you completely missed the point. not a big surprise, chuck.
 
So basically even though you have no evidence, you assume you do, and therefore you're probably right about this.

you can chop up a word salad with the best of them!

I didn't assume anything about evidence. But while you're at it, do you think it's wrong? Is it not logical? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?

You can make a fool of yourself on a regular basis with the best of them.
 
Last edited:
No one seems to take in account his talent, or lack of.. Not like he's a stud. I suppose you can spin his stats anyway we like it.. But he's no guarantee roster spot. Maybe he doesn't want to be ST fodder or wants more than minimum wage.
 
No one seems to take in account his talent, or lack of.. Not like he's a stud. I suppose you can spin his stats anyway we like it.. But he's no guarantee roster spot. Maybe he doesn't want to be ST fodder or wants more than minimum wage.

Lots of people have said he doesn't have a job because of his talent (or lack of). LeSean McCoy, Michael Vick, Joe Montana, here's an article from Fox Sports http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/heres-the-real-reason-colin-kaepernick-hasnt-been-signed-032017
 
Last edited:
And 20 times more say it's about the protests.. It seems just about every article I read it's protests, black balled, racist etc..

i forgot to add the 30 NFL owners and probably their GMs as well as a lot of coaches. They may be outnumbered or at least appear outnumbered because 1 side has the bigger platform but plenty of people are making the case for him not being good enough. That's the whole argument, people who think he doesn't have a job because he's being blackballed vs. people who think he doesn't have a job because he's not good enough.
 
Last edited:
Looks like your edit didn't work, it still says nothing to do with preventing an imminent conventional foreign invasion.

Well the edit is supposed to supersede and override the previous statement.

But I also think you're mostly busting my chops.
 
this isn't 1776. geography isn't nearly as important to our defense as our military. look at Australia, nearly impossible to get a foothold from which to launch an offensive from yet it's completely vulnerable to multiple potential threats. why? because their military is inferior to those potential threats.


Australia would be far easier to invade, thousands of miles of coastline with hardly any population. Notice how the US coastline is much different?

Military plays a key role, but geography plays a much bigger one.


Australia_Pop_Map.jpg


2000_Population_Distribution.jpg
 
Back
Top