Jump to content

Vidor is backing the blue!


Guest ECBucFan

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Man I really hate to do this but what if one of our inner city schools decided to go with a black stripe on their helmet to support another movement ??? If adults like pro teams I'm all for it but to have kids involved in this though issue is just wrong in my opinion. The coaches could have just worn a stripe. 

VERY good points.  VERY good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

So why are we bringing up lil Mayfield and Nederland football?  This is about Vidor football, blue strip, and Coach Matthews...

Look at your post.... You called some of the Vidor football team racists. It's common knowledge how Mayfield views things, he has brought up race more then once in these forums. It is what it is....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I apologize to many who feel offended by my words. I felt that moving the topic would not bring about today's actions. We find it easier to carry the torch of negative, instead of bringing each other up in unity. This world is like this because in our differences, we never look to common and calmer ground. I apologize to the forum and it's viewers for allowing myself back into this and will move on. I wish love to all and let's play ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, outanup said:

Look at your post.... You called some of the Vidor football team racists. It's common knowledge how Mayfield views things, he has brought up race more then once in these forums. It is what it is....

I didn't mean it to come off like that.  But it was generalized with Vidor as a whole...  I know for a fact that there are some racist, you and I both know that, but that would be true for any town or city...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MAYFIELD said:

Look I apologize to many who feel offended by my words. I felt that moving the topic would not bring about today's actions. We find it easier to carry the torch of negative, instead of bringing each other up in unity. This world is like this because in our differences, we never look to common and calmer ground. I apologize to the forum and it's viewers for allowing myself back into this and will move on. I wish love to all and let's play ball.

Best of luck to you and your son, whatever position he ends up playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to go Vidor. I see absolutely nothing wrong with showing support for our men in blue. I am putting a blue stripe on the cross in my yard. I hope it offends someone.

I also like that you still have a prayer at your home games.....much better than a moment of silence.

Way to stand up. I applaud you. Others need to follow suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MAYFIELD said:

So since you so glorifying about the blue tag on helmet, which to many is a good thing. Would you be offended if I asked you does the rest of the helmet stand for BLACK LIVES MATTER! doubt it. Now you probably would say that racist too, but in our world it's everyday REALITY with all races of the BLUE. I spoke becaused I have lived it and still live it.

As I mentioned above, BLM is a political movement or organization. Students on the school's time should not be involved. 

The police are not a political group or movement. If a school wanted to wear a green stripe to honor the the US military, I think it would be great. The Tea Party, BLM, John Birch Society, etc. are completely political and have no business in this manner. 

You are compared oranges and rocks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Way to go Vidor. I see absolutely nothing wrong with showing support for our men in blue. I am putting a blue stripe on the cross in my yard. I hope it offends someone.

I also like that you still have a prayer at your home games.....much better than a moment of silence.

Way to stand up. I applaud you. Others need to follow suit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted on the Vidor preview, this exhibits Coach Matthews class, and the fact that he teaches more than just football.

And please don't any of us try to make this racial.  This whole area has made great strides in reducing racism.  We need to continue doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2016 at 10:52 PM, tvc184 said:

It shouldn't take a doctorate degree to know that saying I back up the police doesn't mean, "I back up all cops and even the racists ones". 

If we are doing that then we should remove any support for teachers and educators? We have recently seen in Beaumont some of those people sentenced for felonies. I have also seen some fairly crude racist remarks by educators. Should we not support them?

I have also seen plenty of support for the military yet we have had some terror and racists acts by certain of them. I guess any mention of supporting the military should be called into question. 

Anyone that says "I support teachers/police/military/etc." isn't saying "I support all _______" no matter what. Last season the Lamar Port Arthur Seahawks basketball team did their annual poster with members of the Port Arthur Police Department. I guess that means the LSC-PA administration is all racists since they allowed the team to be photographed with those evil cops. 

I believe that sometimes people have to go out of their way to find controversy. 

Ahhh good points. 

And Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with killing cops or being racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2016 at 1:59 AM, PAMFAM10 said:

Man I really hate to do this but what if one of our inner city schools decided to go with a black stripe on their helmet to support another movement ??? If adults like pro teams I'm all for it but to have kids involved in this though issue is just wrong in my opinion. The coaches could have just worn a stripe. 

Why would you hate to go this route? If the truth fits, then so be it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Yes they do...you are 100% wrong on that one...this is simply one example.

This is the hidden content, please

First of all, I don't  really expect to change your thinking towards Black Lives Matter because we all have experienced our lives in different shapes, colors, attitudes and upbringing. You and others have the freedom to think what you want.But most of us know the movement is to speak out against injustice and police violence. It REAFFIRMS  the value of Black lives just like all lives matter. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

First of all, I don't  really expect to change your thinking towards Black Lives Matter because we all have experienced our lives in different shapes, colors, attitudes and upbringing. You and others have the freedom to think what you want.But most of us know the movement is to speak out against injustice and police violence. It REAFFIRMS  the value of Black lives just like all lives matter. 

 

I wasn't aware that the fact that any life matters needed reaffirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

First of all, I don't  really expect to change your thinking towards Black Lives Matter because we all have experienced our lives in different shapes, colors, attitudes and upbringing. You and others have the freedom to think what you want.But most of us know the movement is to speak out against injustice and police violence. It REAFFIRMS  the value of Black lives just like all lives matter. 

 

Oh yeah???

This is the hidden content, please

What I "think" is dictated by what this group does...and by the way, I don't expect to change your thinking on this either.

Why did this happen if they are simply saying all lives matter?

This is the hidden content, please

Of course, ALL lives matter, this group seems to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Oh yeah???

This is the hidden content, please

What I "think" is dictated by what this group does...and by the way, I don't expect to change your thinking on this either.

Why did this happen if they are simply saying all lives matter?

This is the hidden content, please

Of course, ALL lives matter, this group seems to disagree.

I am sure there is a reason that this situation is "different"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody ever said that all lives don't matter, but in this country, black lives have not mattered as much as some other lives for a very long time. BLM's message from the start is that black lives matter "as well", not more than any other group. You deciding to lump all BLM activists into one group that advocates cop-killing (which is untrue as there are BLM leaders who have come out and condemned the killing of police officers as retaliation) is just like someone who decides to lump all police officers into one group, whether they are crooked cops or otherwise. When they are all lumped together, people beg and plead for that not to be the case. But BLM has some extremists that most people disagree with and that falls by deaf ears.

You wouldn't dare group all Christians together based off of what the Westboro Baptist Church does and you wouldn't (well people do, but they shouldn't) group all Muslims together because of ISIS. You pick and choose when to group everyone together and when to separate them.

It is certainly possible to condemn unjustified cop killings and still acknowledge that there is police brutality and unjustified killing by cops of black people. If you don't see that then there's nothing I can do to convince you.

And if you're going to simply post videos and stories that back up your argument, I figure I will post stories that show the other side: 

This is the hidden content, please

And another one: 

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2016 at 8:48 AM, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Ahhh good points. 

And Black Lives Matter has nothing to do with killing cops or being racist.

Pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon.  How do we want cops?  Dead.  When do we want them, now.  And you're gonna make a statement that BLM has nothing to do with killing cops.  Those two chants say it all.  Must be some good kool-aid you are drinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as TVC pointed out, the blue stripe supports a Govt organization Police Officers.  Those officers come from All ethnic backgrounds, like all other Govt organizations (Military, DHS, FBI, etc etc).   They are not a political movement.   I'm sorry, but if anyone is trying to compare support for Police with racism, I'd have to question their acceptance of all races.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...