Colin Kaepernick, The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery

Do you even know the lyrics?

http://www.usa-flag-site.org/song-lyrics/star-spangled-banner/

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:

 

The Federal government had zero interest in freeing the slaves. They didn't want slavery to move into the Western territories. Slavery was legal in the North until the end of the war.

 

South Carolina. Which doesn't matter, because the Fort was the property of the citizens of the United States of America.

 

Engaging in a bit of revisionist history, eh? Not going to get into your garbage attempts to trying to tie southern conservative Democrats of the past to today's liberal Democrats, but I do find it amusing that you had to bring up Byrd, a man who renounced his racist past many times, and who ended up having his voting record as rated 100% in line with the N.A.A.C.P.'s position on the thirty-three Senate bills they evaluated. But I suspect you already knew that, and are pretending otherwise hoping others wouldn't notice.

On the other hand, someone like David Duke has NEVER renounced his racist past, and he's currently one of the number 1 cheerleaders for the orange idiot that's the nominee of the Republican party. Looks like Trump's rhetoric has the white nationalists all excited.

 

It mattered to Jefferson Davis. I believe he understood who owned it.

 

I get a kick when Democrats try to split their party into two factions. As if that excuses their shameful past.

Those Democrats living in the North, could easily have joined the republicans since republicans fought slavery.

But they remained aloof from the republican goals to end discrimination.

But they knew precisely what they were getting by joining the Democratic party.

Don't join a pro slavery party then pretend you are not one.

We can prove republicans are the party that fought hard to end slavery.

 

Those are not facts.

 

You think the progressive Republican party of Lincoln is anything like the conservative Republican party today? lol

 

Abe was no progressive. We argue in our party over conservative issues.

Do you support the conservative Democrats?

Why wasn't Abe a progressive?

He fought for the conservative ideology called keeping this all one country.

 

How silly can you get as there surely should be a limit even on the internet on silliness.

 

Troops might do a lot of things but defending freedom isn't one of them.

 

No, he falsely believed the state owned it, but they didn't. It was sovereign US territory.

You realize that by the logic you are using, you can't fault Iran for invading the US embassy in 1979. It was "their land" after all.

 

You're probably right! I can just hear a new Kaepernick rant now -- "Hey all you White Racist Honky Pigs! Your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing national anthem and your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing flag and your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nation that made ME a multi-, multi-, multi-millionaire doing little more than running around and throwing a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing BALL to other grown men is a horrible disgrace!"

So what should we do to appease Kaepernick and others like him who haven't been able to kick White society in the teeth yet...?

I have it! I have it! I know how we horrible, rotten Whites can find forgiveness from the sort-of, kind-of, somewhat 'blackish' population in this country. Change the National Anthem to something THEY WILL APPROVE OF! And I've got a sure-fire suggestion about exactly the tune that can replace that old one about crap like, you know, "proudly we hail", "perilous fight", and "in God is our trust", and garbage like that....

SO, now, here's the new politically-correct National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAJojeKTTBc ...

 

That;s too funny. Key was a rabid racist slaver. He was ticked off because slaves dared fight for their freedom in his "land of the free and the home of the brave." The guy was scum and if there's a lake of fire he should be in it.

 

That may be true, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. To my knowledge, most black slaveowners fell into one of two categories: freedmen who bought relatives out of slavery or mulattos who were adopted (for lack of a better term) by their owners/fathers.

Most of the "white slaves" were not slaves at all; they were indentured servants and penal laborers.

They invaded the New Mexico Territory before it voted to secede.

The problem with that statistic is that it classifies the families of slaveowners as not being slaveowners. If you look at the number of families that owned slaves, the percentages are much higher.

Alabama - 35%
Arkansas - 20%
Delaware - 3%
Florida - 34%
Georgia - 37%
Kentucky - 23%
Louisiana - 29%
Maryland - 12%
Mississippi - 49%
Missouri - 13%
North Carolina - 28%
South Carolina - 46%
Tennessee - 25%
Texas - 28%
Virginia - 26%

Source

I don't feel like responding to the rest of that wall of text, so I'll leave it at that.

By that point, the conservative Democrats were losing their grip on the national Democratic Party. The progressive wing finally took control under Roosevelt, and their support for civil rights is what caused the conservative wing to rebel in 1956, 1960, 1964 and 1968.

He was by the standards of the day.

 

1. He says there are a lot of things going in this country that are unjust. Yes, there are. The dialog is all about cops, killing blacks, when the the dialog should be about the tragedy of how blacks are killing blacks in disproptionate numbers across America.

The cops are trying to somehow police that reality.

This (the lack of a genuine dialog about the real issues) truly is unjust.

It was going long before the Clintons got involved, but William Jefferson Clintons policies certainly didn't help the black communities, and Democrat/Liberal/Progressive policies have destroyed black communities, as an after effect of their vote harvesting on their latest version of black plantations.

Cops make mistakes, that is for certain. However, their errors or their successes for that matter are not the issue.

The issue is the root and cause of the black communities problems, and who is primarily responsible for those problems.

2. Cops are being held accountable for their actions. The problem regarding this whole area of SJW thought, is that when you have the enormous amounts of arrests/shootings/woundings and deaths that are justified...and all that the SJW warriors want to do, is focus on their agenda (prior to justice being sought and applied) means, that when the real story of what happens on incidents is revealed, the truth becomes bitter to them, and, they then clutch as an all encompassing truth of every single incident, a few tragedies that bad/corrupt cops have engaged in.

Hands up didn't happen, the way the SJW painted it to have happened. False narrative. Indisputable. However, they, (the SJW mob) simply do not care about that. So, their message flies in the face of actual reality of situations.

They actually produce dunderheads like this football player to make uninformed statements as he has done. He is a fool, but not to the intellectually stunted sheep who only want to hear the false bleating of his message, rather than the actual truth.

This creates only a fool blathering to a like minded group of fools for their acknowledgement.

That isn't truth however. Just group think stupidity.

3. He says it needs to change. Well, it is a false narrative to begin with, however change is needed. He should get involved in the real dialog about the real issues of the black communities, as noted above.

That is just the first 13 seconds of this mans statements, about his actions and his beliefs about his country. Barely worth hearing the rest of his nonsense.

I saw something about a journalist who "shredded" him. Good, although not so tough really.

He is misguided, naive and wrong.

 

Indeed, it's all of them.

 

Here is a real and proper comparison.

Suppose the UN came to the USA and assumed command of Ft. Sumter and our military bases.

Your logic says yes, the UN can take over.

Why?

We are part of the UN. Per you that makes the UN our leader.

 

Well that's one serious failure of an OP.
In the Revolutionary War,The English had hired slaves to fight against the Americans.We killed them along with the other Loyalists in the area and won the battle.

This is why you live in the US of A.

When was the last time you ever heard that verse of the National Anthem sung,huh?
I could guarandamtee you nevereverevereverever in all your liveshort life.
I say "liveshort" because I know you haven't been on this earth long.

 

The constitution says that it is not the source of our rights nor the sum of them. See the 9th amendment.

 

`
Yeah...right. Whatever you say.

 

SF has their out.

Maybe Minnesota gets him now that Bridgewater is out for the season?

Then, he is Minnesota's problem.

 

Abe Lincoln only wanted to free slaves in the south to win the war.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

That didn't really work,so he sent General Sherman down to Georgia.Where Sherman proceeded to rape,pillage,burn and kill everything in his path like a complete animal.Unarmed men and women slaves,livestock,homes,women,children,everything.
There's a special place in hell for Sherman and his soldiers.

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march

Meanwhile Lee was fighting his way up North (against armed forces only,leaving houses and women and children alone.) His best general got shot 3 times in an ambush.His forces dwindled,they ran out of supplies and he made the decision to surrender.

 

It is natural to (*)(*)(*)(*) outside. Should we all be afforded the right to (*)(*)(*)(*) outside whenever we need to (*)(*)(*)(*)? If one goes by that logic, we'd be doing what every animal in the wilderness does. There are no natural rights. Except the might makes right rules. If you don't agree with might makes right, then you need some governing body to set the rule/right.

Perhaps the gov't came from the constitution, but something has to enforce the constitution. States are granted rights, only per the constitution. Without that, there are no rights.
So men created the constitution, which became the gov't, which grants those rights today.

There is not one single inalienable right, except what the law/gov't says. Or, might says. I'll take the collective agreement over each personal might of rights.

 

Who owns Pearl Harbor today? The US gov't or the state of Hawaii? If Hawaii says we are going to take this Harbor over and started bombing it, don't you think the USA gov't would step in and say, NO?