Take A Knee ... My Ass"

[user 6493]

I just finished watching this,,,,

 

[Dani]

I love it! Neil McCoy is a great patriot with good story for our country and I'm glad this song brought him back into the spotlight. But I too wish it could have come along a little sooner. . . For his mom. It would make her so proud.

 

[Maverick]

Good video Ghost! I like McCoy though didn't know he was half Filipino. Never heard of the song, just downloaded it

 

[user 5745]

Interesting video. For another veteran's perspective (from Sep-2016, when this was fairly new): http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/09/respect-colin-kaepernick-extended-cut.html?m=1

 

[DrHenley]

Interesting video. For another veteran's perspective (from Sep-2016, when this was fairly new): http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/09/respect-colin-kaepernick-extended-cut.html?m=1

Lost me at

How many veterans were waiting for care in the lobby of some VA hospital while that anthem was playing?

How many veterans committed suicide in that same period, finally overcome by depression and despair and the weight of their service?

How many veterans were outside that stadium, sleeping in boxes on the street, digging in the trash for food, lost in the nightmares of PTSD and mental illness?

How many veterans were gunned down on the street while that anthem played?

No need to read further...

But he obviously missed the big point that Kapernick is protesting a media created narrative that doesn't accurately reflect reality.

 

[user 5745]

Lost me at


No need to read further...

But he obviously missed the big point that Kapernick is protesting a media created narrative that doesn't accurately reflect reality.

Why no need to read further? Regardless of your reason, though, you missed an extremely thoughtful piece about the issue of veterans and the Take A Knee movement.

Thinking more about the video, he voiced an opinion (based on, apparently, absolutely nothing) about more police officers being killed by black men than vice versa and the video maker showed this to be incorrect but, instead of leaving it at that, started making excuses for him, saying that he meant 'black-on-black' crime. First, that seems unlikely as the conversation was clearly about black men and police officers. Secondly, 'black on black crime' is dog-whistle nonsense, as most violent/physical crime is committed between groups of people who know each other and 'When white men shoot up movie theaters or college campuses, it is never categorized as “White-on-white crime”' (Michael Harriot, http://afropunk.com/2016/11/op-ed-e...matter-broken-down-to-its-molecular-********/).

 

[DrHenley]

It's like Reagan said. "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

A prime example of that is the "Hands up don't shoot" narrative, (Michael Brown was said to have raised his hands and said 'Don't shoot' just before he was shot in Ferguson) which has been proven to be completely false - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Yet it is still believed by most in the Black Live Matter movement, and is their rallying cry. This is one of the main things Kapernick is protesting by kneeling. A TOTAL FABRICATION.

 

[user 5745]

It's like Reagan said. "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Given that Jim Wright is a former US Navy Chief Warrant Officer with a keen professional and personal interest in the US armed forces and veterans' affairs, an abiding love for what the US claims to be and an ethical code that could crack concrete, he probably knows a great deal more than most about the topic.

 

[user 5745]

A prime example of that is the "Hands up don't shoot" narrative, (Michael Brown was said to have raised his hands and said 'Don't shoot' just before he was shot in Ferguson) which has been proven to be completely false - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Yet it is still believed by most in the Black Live Matter movement, and is their rallying cry. This is one of the main things Kapernick is protesting by kneeling. A TOTAL FABRICATION.

I was writing my reply when you edited your post with this, so I've only just seen it.

The Jim Wright piece isn't about the ins and outs of Black Lives Matter but, rather, about his thoughts on how being a veteran does and does not require him to respond to Kaepernick's action. Wright has a very clear statement about his position in general: http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/12/everybodys-so-different-i-havent.html?m=1

 

[DrHenley]

It is a straw man, Bluejoy. How a veteran should respond to the issue is irrelevant to me. I'm not a veteran. And I am NOT going to tell veterans how they are supposed to respond. That is totally up to them.

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

Jim Wright has his opinions, I have mine.
Both Navy veterans of a foreign war. He served longer than me.

His opinions on this subject, will always be MORE VALID than mine, in the eyes of a liberal, because his ideas agree with liberal thinking, in this. If his ideas were different, and more in line with every single active duty/veteran that I personally know, then his opinion (and mine) would be LESS valid because they would then disagree with liberal thinking.

It's not about who thinks, or says what. It's about who thinks, or says, things that liberals agree with. Then, they are of unimpeachable character and salt of the earth.

I'm not a liberal veteran, so I'm a less of a veteran, the veteran underclass in this case.

Kapearnick? Sp? Can do whatever he wants. He can have any views he wants. But if he's going to do it, and I agree with DrHenley on this as to why he is wrong to, then I can spend my money time elsewhere.

The anthem, and flag, doesn't belong to veterans, no. But veterans are the ones dying to defend it. Or if you don't view recent wars as wars of defense, then vets are just dying for it.

Maybe kaeperndick should go serve, see if that changes his opinion about the country. He could easily enlist, no? He could become a police officer, and really make a "boots on the ground" difference in a community of color.

He could experience it from the side of a soldier or police officer. There are plenty of black police and military personnel. He could go check that out.

He won't.

 

[user 5745]

It is a straw man, Bluejoy. How a veteran should respond to the issue is irrelevant to me. I'm not a veteran. And I am NOT going to tell veterans how they are supposed to respond. That is totally up to them.

It's not asking you to tell veterans anything. I posted it because it gives another veteran viewpoint in contrast to that given in the video, in which you seem to have some interest otherwise you wouldn't be on the thread.

 

[Mountain trapper]

Just because someone is a veteran doesn't make his opinion any more valid than anyone elses. Nor does it automatically make him an expert on anything.

 

[user 5745]

Jim Wright has his opinions, I have mine.
Both Navy veterans of a foreign war. He served longer than me.

His opinions on this subject, will always be MORE VALID than mine, in the eyes of a liberal, because his ideas agree with liberal thinking, in this. If his ideas were different, and more in line with every single active duty/veteran that I personally know, then his opinion (and mine) would be LESS valid because they would then disagree with liberal thinking.

It's not about who thinks, or says what. It's about who thinks, or says, things that liberals agree with. Then, they are of unimpeachable character and salt of the earth.

I'm not a liberal veteran, so I'm a less of a veteran, the veteran underclass in this case.

Kapearnick? Sp? Can do whatever he wants. He can have any views he wants. But if he's going to do it, and I agree with DrHenley on this as to why he is wrong to, then I can spend my money time elsewhere.

The anthem, and flag, doesn't belong to veterans, no. But veterans are the ones dying to defend it. Or if you don't view recent wars as wars of defense, then vets are just dying for it.

Maybe kaeperndick should go serve, see if that changes his opinion about the country. He could easily enlist, no? He could become a police officer, and really make a "boots on the ground" difference in a community of color.

He could experience it from the side of a soldier or police officer. There are plenty of black police and military personnel. He could go check that out.

He won't.

Mr Wright considers himself a traditional conservative. The US oath of enlistment looks very clear in pledging its takers to defend the US Constitution, not a flag or a song.

Mr Kaepernick has taken a different route in serving his community, including funding grassroots organisations. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

True.

But it might make them feel a certain way about something, where someone else might not.

I know my Dad had certain feelings about Vietnam, and what he came home to, that someone who hadn't been there just wouldn't get.

 

[user 5745]

Just because someone is a veteran doesn't make his opinion any more valid than anyone elses. Nor does it automatically make him an expert on anything.

Very true, as 'valid' and 'worth anything' are very different things when it comes to opinions. Experience may give more facts with which to back up opinions, however.

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

Enemies both foreign and domestic.

You know, you don't take out your brain when you take the oath, then slip it back in when you eaos.

So. Who decides who my enemies are? Congress? And by extension, the citizens of the United States? The President with current executive branch powers, in his or her capacity as Commander in Chief?

Me?

 

[user 5745]

Enemies both foreign and domestic.

You know, you don't take out your brain when you take the oath, then slip it back in when you eaos.

So. Who decides who my enemies are? Congress? And by extension, the citizens of the United States? The President with current executive branch powers, in his or her capacity as Commander in Chief?

Me?

I really hope that people make sure that their brains are very firmly in before taking such a serious oath, and that they continue to give it serious consideration throughout their service.

I've no idea who defines 'enemies' for the US armed forces. I guess that that would be communicated to recruits as part of their training.

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

Nope.

It's pretty much understood that someone, somewhere is going to decide that, and the information will be relayed to you.

But I'm competent to take the oath.

I'm competent to vote for someone I believe will choose "the enemies" of the Constitution, and do so wisely.

I'm considered competent to know an illegal order when I'm given one "take this child out and shoot it" , "assassinate this member of a foreign government". Even though I'm never told exactly what orders will be illegal.

But I can't decide who is an enemy of the Constitution on my own?

Why? Why is that power reserved for anyone but me? Is everyone else smarter? More experienced? Better educated geo politically?

Doesn't anyone else ever wonder about this stuff?

Why shouldn't I decide who is an enemy of the Constitution?

I'm curious. Do you believe such a thing can even exist? An "enemy, both foreign and domestic" of the Constitution.

If so, what would that look like?

 

[Maverick]

I served 12yrs Army 4yrs as a combat vet, I have dealt with the VA on and off over the years, and I take issues with Wright disagreeing with him philosophically and politically, being a vet doesn't give one's opinion(s) any special validity to an argument or discussion, in the end, it's just an opinion wrong or right. We have democrats and republicans that are vets, we have conservatives and liberals that are vets, we have the rich and poor, black white brown folks women and men young and old that are vets all taken the same oath, there opinion isn't anymore valid than mine or yours, if we all thought the same way it would be a pretty damn boring society!

 

[DrHenley]

An "enemy, both foreign and domestic" of the Constitution.

If so, what would that look like?

That's "all enemies, foreign and domestic." As in both foreign enemies and domestic enemies. Yep it would be difficult to have an enemy that was both foreign and domestic.

 

[Squirtgunsquirter]

I get that. Im tired. But still.

 

[user 5745]

Nope.

It's pretty much understood that someone, somewhere is going to decide that, and the information will be relayed to you.

But I'm competent to take the oath.

I'm competent to vote for someone I believe will choose "the enemies" of the Constitution, and do so wisely.

I'm considered competent to know an illegal order when I'm given one "take this child out and shoot it" , "assassinate this member of a foreign government". Even though I'm never told exactly what orders will be illegal.

But I can't decide who is an enemy of the Constitution on my own?

Why? Why is that power reserved for anyone but me? Is everyone else smarter? More experienced? Better educated geo politically?

Doesn't anyone else ever wonder about this stuff?

Why shouldn't I decide who is an enemy of the Constitution?

I'm curious. Do you believe such a thing can even exist? An "enemy, both foreign and domestic" of the Constitution.

If so, what would that look like?

It seems odd that something so important would be left to 'being understood' rather than being laid out clearly but I'm neither US nor armed forces so fair enough.

 

[user 5745]

I served 12yrs Army 4yrs as a combat vet, I have dealt with the VA on and off over the years, and I take issues with Wright disagreeing with him philosophically and politically, being a vet doesn't give one's opinion(s) any special validity to an argument or discussion, in the end, it's just an opinion wrong or right. We have democrats and republicans that are vets, we have conservatives and liberals that are vets, we have the rich and poor, black white brown folks women and men young and old that are vets all taken the same oath, there opinion isn't anymore valid than mine or yours, if we all thought the same way it would be a pretty damn boring society!

Absolutely it would be dull! And, yes, people from all backgrounds serve in the US armed forces, just as in the UK.

There's a difference between having an opinion - everyone's entitled to one and, by god, don't we all exercise that right -and having an opinion that can be backed up with facts. Flat Earthers can opine all the livelong day but they're still flat wrong. To repeat, I posted Mr Wright's piece simply as another veteran's perspective on the Take A Knee movement.

 

[Gazrok]

I still think somewhere, Kap's publicist is laughing his fool head off, when he came up with this BS reason Kap was kneeling.

 

[TexasFreedom]

That's "all enemies, foreign and domestic." As in both foreign enemies and domestic enemies. Yep it would be difficult to have an enemy that was both foreign and domestic.

Difficult? Yes and no. Obama qualified for both.

 

[Gazrok]

Difficult? Yes and no. Obama qualified for both.

LOL.

 

[DrHenley]

Touché, Texas