Jump to content

What a good representation......Olympics


5GallonBucket

Recommended Posts

Low life piece of…. 

She has a right to protest anything she wishes but I believe the Olympic committee  should have the right to kick her off the team and should.

If she does not like what America stands for along with the flag that represents it, why is she going to the Olympics to represent the USA? Hey, if you don’t want to represent, fine with me. Go somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, why should America send an athlete to represent her when she dislikes America.  I really wish she’d move to Uganda and represent them.  I’d be willing to bet she’d come flying back to America first chance she got.  

Only thing I can say to explain her actions, she’s a Democrat, ergo she’s been filled with the Hate America rhetoric.  Never seen ether of our Political Parties polarized by hate before, but I see it now in the Dems.  How rare to see a Democratic politician smile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To think of all the Americans who have shed their blood willingly to provide a blanket of freedom for people to sleep under.  Then have seemingly an entire generation and movement be embarrassed to have that flag wave over them as they spew hatred, bigotry and misplaced anger toward it. It is beyond mortifying to think of where we are as a country.  This movement of socialism, entitlement and anti-American sentiment has been allowed and encouraged to fester and we are reaping the apathy in all phases of our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my personal opinion that she is simply selfish. Not because she is turning her back on the flag, which is political. The question I asked and I think I have the answer was, why does she want to represent a country and a flag what she appears to hate so much? She wants to take the bow. She wants everyone to look at her and her accomplishment. That is fine on an individual stage however in the Olympics, you were representing your country, period. 

Look at George Foreman, raised about 90 miles from us in Houston. He was raised in the fifth Ward which didn’t have the best reputation. Before he was born, the ward was called the bloody fifth. Wikipedia says that George foreman claimed he had a “troubled youth”. He dropped out of school at 15 years old and became a mugger. So he was probably committing felonies and robbing people for his money.

When he was 16 Foreman saw an add for the Job Corps and signed up. He made the decision to change his life. He gained a couple of working skills and got his GED. He later took up boxing. Most people at least roughly probably know his story.

 But….. this troubled youth from a bad neighborhood went on to represent his country in the Olympics.  When he won his final match in the Olympics that allowed him to win the gold medal, he walked around the ring waving the same American flag that this girl is turning her back on. In a later interview he said I wish I would’ve had two flags.

Look at Chloe Kim. Her parents came from South Korea and the winter Olympics were in South Korea. When she blew away the competition to win the gold medal, is she protest? Did she hold up the flag of South Korea where she was at and that was her heritage and where her parents were from? No. She immediately held up the American flag which was probably bigger than she was. 

So yes, Berry wants the stage of the Olympics and wants everyone to look at her. That is understandable but she is still there to represent her country and she does not wish to do so. She needs to drop out of the Olympics and stick with professional athletics what she can take that individual bow if that is what she so desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Why’s it always old white people telling black people when, where, and how to protest? 

1. Nobody has said that she (or anyone) could not protest any way she wishes.

2. This might sound like a strange concept but don’t old white people have the same right to protest or express their opinion?

Just like I have seen it said from the opposite side of the aisle many times, words and actions have consequences. Recently a police officer made a video mocking LeBron James. He was terminated. I suspect some of the same people supporting this woman were the ones calling for his termination. He was on a team and this woman is on the team. They both represent someone. It would be mighty hypocritical to believe that officer should be terminated for a joke against a public figure but the woman representing the country turn her back on the flag of that country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Why’s it always old white people telling black people when, where, and how to protest? 

I think it’s great that she protested. It’s her right. Besides that, I would not let her represent the US team by turning her back on the US flag. Perhaps she should go to the team where she respects their country and flag instead. Although, I’m sure that doesn’t exist. While her freedom of speech is a precious right, representing her country in the Olympics is not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Chester86 said:

Why is it your place to tell someone when they can protest the protest?  I seriously see your posts, rolls my eyes and inwardly chuckle.  Hey, everyone is invited to express their views and opinions though so type on.

If you or I are in a company uniform and protest "XXXXX(fill in the blank), it is very likely we will be terminated because we do not represent the company views, and that makes PERFECT sense. If you can protest white supremacy at work, why can't I protest that all violent criminals get the death penalty by public hanging at work? 

When you represent someone other than yourself, you should represent them like they want.......and even Obama, Hillary or Clinton did not disrespect the flag or the anthem in public......  

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

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...