Yes I do. BLACKS and the ultra liberals who want to pretend they "understand the black experience". If I see a white hockey player (that's the only kind of hockey player there is) kneeling down at the anthem I'll puke.
COOL
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Yes I do. BLACKS and the ultra liberals who want to pretend they "understand the black experience". If I see a white hockey player (that's the only kind of hockey player there is) kneeling down at the anthem I'll puke.
Soccer player Megan Rapinoe kneels as 'nod to Kaepernick'
http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/ar...-francisco-49ers-quarterback-colin-kaepernick
kneeling is actually a greater form of respect than just putting your hand on your chest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuflection
"Genuflection (or genuflexion), bending at least one knee to the ground, was from early times a gesture of deep respect for a superior. In 328 BC, Alexander the Great introduced into his court-etiquette some form of genuflection already in use in Persia.[1] In the Byzantine Empire even senators were required to genuflect to the emperor.[2] In medieval Europe, one demonstrated respect for a king or noble by going down on one knee,[3] often remaining there until told to rise. It is traditionally often performed in western cultures by a male making aproposal of marriage. Today, the gesture is common in the Christian religious practices of the Anglican Church,[4] Lutheran Church,[5] Roman Catholic Church,[6] and Western Rite Orthodox Church.[7]
The Latin word genuflectio, from which the English word is derived, originally meant kneeling rather than the rapid dropping to one knee and immediately rising that became customary in Western Europe in the Middle Ages.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuflection
"Genuflection (or genuflexion), bending at least one knee to the ground, was from early times a gesture of deep respect for a superior. In 328 BC, Alexander the Great introduced into his court-etiquette some form of genuflection already in use in Persia.[1] In the Byzantine Empire even senators were required to genuflect to the emperor.[2] In medieval Europe, one demonstrated respect for a king or noble by going down on one knee,[3] often remaining there until told to rise. It is traditionally often performed in western cultures by a male making aproposal of marriage. Today, the gesture is common in the Christian religious practices of the Anglican Church,[4] Lutheran Church,[5] Roman Catholic Church,[6] and Western Rite Orthodox Church.[7]
The Latin word genuflectio, from which the English word is derived, originally meant kneeling rather than the rapid dropping to one knee and immediately rising that became customary in Western Europe in the Middle Ages.[8]"
Sniper Takes Out ISIS Executioner From a Mile Away
Your feel-good story of the day.
9.13.2016
An SAS sharpshooter dropped a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists witha single bullet from nearly a mile away mere seconds before the savage was set to roast 12 hostages with a flamethrower.
The shot was even more spectacular than it sounds: the 50-caliber round from a British Special Air Service marksman struck the fuel tank worn by the Syrian jihadist, causing it to explode and turning him and three of his cronies into jihadist flambé, according to theNew York Post.
The ISIS executioner, whose signature style included the North Korean-inspired burning of hostages alive with a flamethrower, had been on a US “kill list” for several months as he and his band of merry barbarians traveled around ISIS-held compounds in Syria slaughtering civilians accused of spying.
According to a source, an “SAS team moved into an overwatch position above a village where they were told the execution was going to take place" outside of Raqqa, Syria. “Up to 12 civilians were going to be murdered — eight men and four women. The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech... then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire." The captives were then rescued by British and US special forces.
This good news comes just months after another SAS sniper killed two ISIS car bombers as they drove toward Libya. The sniper’s bullet went through the driver’s skull and into the passenger’s neck, taking out both.
Damn fine shooting.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/sniper-takes-out-isis-executioner-mile-away
Your feel-good story of the day.
9.13.2016
An SAS sharpshooter dropped a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists witha single bullet from nearly a mile away mere seconds before the savage was set to roast 12 hostages with a flamethrower.
The shot was even more spectacular than it sounds: the 50-caliber round from a British Special Air Service marksman struck the fuel tank worn by the Syrian jihadist, causing it to explode and turning him and three of his cronies into jihadist flambé, according to theNew York Post.
The ISIS executioner, whose signature style included the North Korean-inspired burning of hostages alive with a flamethrower, had been on a US “kill list” for several months as he and his band of merry barbarians traveled around ISIS-held compounds in Syria slaughtering civilians accused of spying.
According to a source, an “SAS team moved into an overwatch position above a village where they were told the execution was going to take place" outside of Raqqa, Syria. “Up to 12 civilians were going to be murdered — eight men and four women. The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech... then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire." The captives were then rescued by British and US special forces.
This good news comes just months after another SAS sniper killed two ISIS car bombers as they drove toward Libya. The sniper’s bullet went through the driver’s skull and into the passenger’s neck, taking out both.
Damn fine shooting.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/sniper-takes-out-isis-executioner-mile-away
The New York Times Had A Total Meltdown Over Missouri Constitutional Carry Law
It’s now law. In Missouri, you no longer need a license to carry a firearm in public. They’re the 12th state to adopt such a law known as constitutional carry; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) represents a state with such a law. To those who love freedom and the Second Amendment, it’s a great day for the expansion of constitutional rights. For anti-gun liberals, it’s a day for hysterics, which was perfectly captured by the editorial board of The New York Times:
The measure has drawn no great national attention, but it certainly provides further evidence that gun safety cannot be left to state lawmakers beholden to the gun lobby. Democrats opposed to the Missouri bill called it a “perfect storm” of lowered standards for the use of deadly force and an invitation for people to be armed without responsible controls. The measure was enacted by the Republicans, despite strong public opposition and warnings about the threat to public safety from the state Police Chiefs Association. Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the groups fighting the gun lobby, noted that stand your ground laws result in disproportionate harm to communities of color.
In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has called for extensive gun safety measures, including a ban on the assault weapons favored by mass shooters, closing background-check loopholes, ending the gun industry’s outrageous protection from civil damage suits and denying guns to risky suspects on the government’s no-fly lists. Donald Trump, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, favors more armed civilians ready to engage in what he calls a defensive “shootout.” This is one of the most pathetic measures yet of his pandering, when he should be leading, on an issue of vital importance to the public.
First, if there’s any measure endorsed by Everytown, it’s bad—and pro-gun rights advocates should pour everything they got into defeating whatever policy proposal that Everytown leeches itself onto in the future. Second, it’s the same old story with these people. An expansion of gun rights would lead to more gun deaths. Nope. That’s just not the case. Gun homicides have gone down precipitously since 1993. In fact, they’ve been cut in half. Violent crime is still down, safe for a few pockets in urban areas that are run by Democrats.
Support for gun rights has reached a 25-year high, more than 100 million have been sold since Obama took the oath of office, there are a record number of Americans carrying concealed carry permits. Yet, America is not a shooting gallery. Anti-gun liberals certainly want that since dead people increase media attention, email lists, and fill their war chests, but somehow we on the Right always beat them—and beat them badly. Moreover, the Times’ notion that gun owners are somehow more inclined to shoot people is baseless, irresponsible, and totally in keeping with smug left wing attitudes of urban-based elites. That’s fine. Again, just take comfort that our side is winning, whereas their side can’t get anything passed because all of their ideas are terrible. At the same time, at the local level, we need to make sure their anti-gun proposals don’t spread to other parts of the country. Looking at you, Hawaii.
Oh, and Vermont is a deep-blue state, with constitutional carry and a population where 70-75 percent of its residents own guns. I don't hear any tales of mass bloodshed from there.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...er-missouri-constitutional-carry-law-n2219766
It’s now law. In Missouri, you no longer need a license to carry a firearm in public. They’re the 12th state to adopt such a law known as constitutional carry; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) represents a state with such a law. To those who love freedom and the Second Amendment, it’s a great day for the expansion of constitutional rights. For anti-gun liberals, it’s a day for hysterics, which was perfectly captured by the editorial board of The New York Times:
The measure has drawn no great national attention, but it certainly provides further evidence that gun safety cannot be left to state lawmakers beholden to the gun lobby. Democrats opposed to the Missouri bill called it a “perfect storm” of lowered standards for the use of deadly force and an invitation for people to be armed without responsible controls. The measure was enacted by the Republicans, despite strong public opposition and warnings about the threat to public safety from the state Police Chiefs Association. Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the groups fighting the gun lobby, noted that stand your ground laws result in disproportionate harm to communities of color.
In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has called for extensive gun safety measures, including a ban on the assault weapons favored by mass shooters, closing background-check loopholes, ending the gun industry’s outrageous protection from civil damage suits and denying guns to risky suspects on the government’s no-fly lists. Donald Trump, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, favors more armed civilians ready to engage in what he calls a defensive “shootout.” This is one of the most pathetic measures yet of his pandering, when he should be leading, on an issue of vital importance to the public.
First, if there’s any measure endorsed by Everytown, it’s bad—and pro-gun rights advocates should pour everything they got into defeating whatever policy proposal that Everytown leeches itself onto in the future. Second, it’s the same old story with these people. An expansion of gun rights would lead to more gun deaths. Nope. That’s just not the case. Gun homicides have gone down precipitously since 1993. In fact, they’ve been cut in half. Violent crime is still down, safe for a few pockets in urban areas that are run by Democrats.
Support for gun rights has reached a 25-year high, more than 100 million have been sold since Obama took the oath of office, there are a record number of Americans carrying concealed carry permits. Yet, America is not a shooting gallery. Anti-gun liberals certainly want that since dead people increase media attention, email lists, and fill their war chests, but somehow we on the Right always beat them—and beat them badly. Moreover, the Times’ notion that gun owners are somehow more inclined to shoot people is baseless, irresponsible, and totally in keeping with smug left wing attitudes of urban-based elites. That’s fine. Again, just take comfort that our side is winning, whereas their side can’t get anything passed because all of their ideas are terrible. At the same time, at the local level, we need to make sure their anti-gun proposals don’t spread to other parts of the country. Looking at you, Hawaii.
Oh, and Vermont is a deep-blue state, with constitutional carry and a population where 70-75 percent of its residents own guns. I don't hear any tales of mass bloodshed from there.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...er-missouri-constitutional-carry-law-n2219766
Following Trans Bathroom Policy, Target’s Sales Tank
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 By Glenn T. Stanton
Several months ago, Target stores made an odd gamble. They risked alienating their primary customer base—moms with young kids—to win the praise of the transgender lobby. They announced their ill-conceived new bathroom policy on April 19, then recently announced their sales numbers for the first quarter since that policy.
How did it pay off? It’s bad news for Target and the trans activists trying to get other major retailers to degender their restrooms. Even though Targetreported “better-than-ever profitability” for their second-quarter 2016 earnings, they are the only ones seeing it that way.
USA Today reported that Big Red’s second-quarter earnings fell 9.7 percent and it “lowered its sales estimate for the rest of the year.” Reuters explained that net salesplummeted 7.2 percent compared to last year. New stores open for less than a year saw their sales decline by 1.1 percent, not a good trajectory for building an essential early customer base off the local buzz of a shiny new store in the neighborhood.
The Wall Street Journal reported this is the first time Target sales have fallen at their more established stores in two years, and to expect further declines. CEO Brian Cornell told the Journal, “Our number one challenge was traffic, which affected sales in all of our merchandise categories.” Traffic—as in regular customers choosing to stay away from the store for some reason.
Target officials blamed their earnings drop on “a difficult retail environment,” but it was not so difficult for others. As Target was reporting flagging sales, CNBC reported that “the world’s largest retailer got even bigger during the second quarter.” Big Blue enjoyed its largest sales gains across same-store comparisons in four years, an increase of 1.6 percent for Walmart’s American stores.
Fortune reported a few factors that could have harmed Target’s sales numbers, such as selling off its pharmacy business to CVS and getting stung by a 20 percent decline in the sale of Apple products, but didn’t let the retailer off the hook for their very bad business decision: “So the last thing Target needed was to alienate any of its customer base, given that it is a $75 billion-a-year retailer that caters to a wide swathe of America, including socially conservative shoppers.”
A financial analyst for the UBS Group told CNBC, “It’s going to take a while for Target to turn this around. [Traffic’s] not an easy problem to fix.”
Target’s leadership refuses to concede their controversial bathroom policy has anything to do with their poor fortunes. However, the very day Target announced its sad sales figures, it also announced it would spend $20 million to install single-use bathrooms in the rest of their 1,800 stores. This is a ton of money to fix a serious problem they created by trying to fix a problem that didn’t exist in the first place. They won’t soon recover.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/26/following-trans-bathroom-policy-targets-sales-tank/
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 By Glenn T. Stanton
Several months ago, Target stores made an odd gamble. They risked alienating their primary customer base—moms with young kids—to win the praise of the transgender lobby. They announced their ill-conceived new bathroom policy on April 19, then recently announced their sales numbers for the first quarter since that policy.
How did it pay off? It’s bad news for Target and the trans activists trying to get other major retailers to degender their restrooms. Even though Targetreported “better-than-ever profitability” for their second-quarter 2016 earnings, they are the only ones seeing it that way.
USA Today reported that Big Red’s second-quarter earnings fell 9.7 percent and it “lowered its sales estimate for the rest of the year.” Reuters explained that net salesplummeted 7.2 percent compared to last year. New stores open for less than a year saw their sales decline by 1.1 percent, not a good trajectory for building an essential early customer base off the local buzz of a shiny new store in the neighborhood.
The Wall Street Journal reported this is the first time Target sales have fallen at their more established stores in two years, and to expect further declines. CEO Brian Cornell told the Journal, “Our number one challenge was traffic, which affected sales in all of our merchandise categories.” Traffic—as in regular customers choosing to stay away from the store for some reason.
Target officials blamed their earnings drop on “a difficult retail environment,” but it was not so difficult for others. As Target was reporting flagging sales, CNBC reported that “the world’s largest retailer got even bigger during the second quarter.” Big Blue enjoyed its largest sales gains across same-store comparisons in four years, an increase of 1.6 percent for Walmart’s American stores.
Fortune reported a few factors that could have harmed Target’s sales numbers, such as selling off its pharmacy business to CVS and getting stung by a 20 percent decline in the sale of Apple products, but didn’t let the retailer off the hook for their very bad business decision: “So the last thing Target needed was to alienate any of its customer base, given that it is a $75 billion-a-year retailer that caters to a wide swathe of America, including socially conservative shoppers.”
A financial analyst for the UBS Group told CNBC, “It’s going to take a while for Target to turn this around. [Traffic’s] not an easy problem to fix.”
Target’s leadership refuses to concede their controversial bathroom policy has anything to do with their poor fortunes. However, the very day Target announced its sad sales figures, it also announced it would spend $20 million to install single-use bathrooms in the rest of their 1,800 stores. This is a ton of money to fix a serious problem they created by trying to fix a problem that didn’t exist in the first place. They won’t soon recover.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/26/following-trans-bathroom-policy-targets-sales-tank/
Target used to be cool, inspired in part by its flaming gay-themed TV ads. Like all fads, see Whole Foods, once the novelty factor wears off, you notice that the stores are not all that different from a Sears or Penney's.
Don't forget, before the bathroom fiasco, they banned the Salvation Army. They have a culture that is profoundly hostile and offensive to a big slice of their customer base. If it affects their sales, I can't say but I know one person who avoids it.
Don't forget, before the bathroom fiasco, they banned the Salvation Army. They have a culture that is profoundly hostile and offensive to a big slice of their customer base. If it affects their sales, I can't say but I know one person who avoids it.
Target bathroom boycott is costing the company $20million and shopper traffic is down for the first time in years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shopper-traffic-time-yeras.html#ixzz4LPbsHqsn
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shopper-traffic-time-yeras.html#ixzz4LPbsHqsn
Chicago Man With Concealed-Carry Permit Shoots, Kills Armed Robber
Posted By Eric Lieberman On 11:11 AM 09/30/2016 In | No Comments
A licensed concealed-carrier killed an armed robber Wednesday night in Chicago.
The individual in question was sitting in a car with another person when two armed men approached the car. The legal carrier inside of the car fired his gun, striking one of the robbers, Officer Ana Pacheco, a Chicago Police spokeswoman, told dnainfo.com.
The injured robber was later pronounced dead by authorities. The other thief fled the scene.
Pacheco confirmed that the man who used his firearm had a legitimate concealed-carry license.
The incident occurred on the 4300 block of South State Street. This incident was one of many shootings across the Chicago area Wednesday.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/30/chicago-man-with-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-kills-armed-robber/
Posted By Eric Lieberman On 11:11 AM 09/30/2016 In | No Comments
A licensed concealed-carrier killed an armed robber Wednesday night in Chicago.
The individual in question was sitting in a car with another person when two armed men approached the car. The legal carrier inside of the car fired his gun, striking one of the robbers, Officer Ana Pacheco, a Chicago Police spokeswoman, told dnainfo.com.
The injured robber was later pronounced dead by authorities. The other thief fled the scene.
Pacheco confirmed that the man who used his firearm had a legitimate concealed-carry license.
The incident occurred on the 4300 block of South State Street. This incident was one of many shootings across the Chicago area Wednesday.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/30/chicago-man-with-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-kills-armed-robber/