Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[Typical Lax Dad]

I think TJ's tastes far exceeded his income....

But to ggait's post - I never understood the faction of devotee's that insisted in denying Jefferson's connection to Hemmings. It was the worst kept secret in the state of Virginia, and pretty much treated as a fact by most people I knew. But once it was incontrovertible - it was like a fog was lifted and it was that much easier to move on to real discussions about the man, rather than the idol. And his accomplishments are far more impressive for the fact that a flawed man accomplished them.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. His travails should be explored, perpetuated and discussed but despite those significant shortcomings he remains an integral part of the most significant series of events in human history. His personal behavior was not unlike many of his contemporaries -

Without him, Washington and many of the others who all had imperfections of character and means, there would be no United States of America...nobody can erase that

+1

[njbill]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

Ampersand U

OK wiseguy. Now tell me what their mascot is.

[Typical Lax Dad]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

Ampersand U

OK wiseguy. Now tell me what their mascot is.

The fighting : They are a sh*tty team!

[Nigel]

Maybe they could rename it Washington & King? Because, womanizing (and possible abuse) aside, the historical past only matters when it's a white guy.

https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-s ... ght-118015

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe they could rename it Washington & King? Because, womanizing (and possible abuse) aside, the historical past only matters when it's a white guy.

https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-s ... ght-118015

They can start by removing his name from all those bad neighborhood streets.

[ggait]

W&L must change its name because Lee was a Confederate 160 years ago, Washington was a slave owner 240 years ago; but the same state where W&L resides has a governor who wore blackface and a KKK hood only 30 years ago. The most recent racist is safe though....almost like this isn't about racism.

As is always the case, Peter Brown doesn't know shirt about fork. He's certainly ignorant of history.

Lee took over the presidency of W&L later on in 1865. He served that institution very well and honorably. He also worked to stitch his country back together. Upon accepting the W&L job, he told the Trustees:

"it is the duty of every citizen, in the present condition of the Country, to do all in his power to aid in the restoration of peace and harmony."

He wasn't a Lost Cause-er. He didn't waste his time flying the Confederate Battle Flag like an ignorant redneck. He spent his time on more important things.

Far be it for me (as a Wahoo) to tell W&L what to do. But there's a fine argument to leave the W&L name as it is.

But not for any of the reasons that a gross brainless loser like Peter Brown thinks.

https://www.virginiahistory.org/collect ... -after-war

[tech37]

W&L Faculty voted to express support to remove Lee from school name.
Faculty later voted to remove Washington, but the measure failed.

Wise choice. Who'd attend a school named &.

Ampersand U

OK wiseguy. Now tell me what their mascot is.

The Ligatures of course

[6ftstick]

I'd like to attend a school named *&^%$#@!

The Fighting Expletives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gODZzSOelss

[youthathletics]

I'd like to attend a school named *&^%$#@!

The Fighting Expletives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gODZzSOelss

[HooDat]

I guess someone else is crazy for equating Trump with 1984. Didn’t know that issue just came up with this “reckoning”...

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... 984/tnamp/

the writer lost me here:

As global warming intensifies, our world is becoming bleaker than one of the darkest dystopias ever imagined.

what a bunch of drivel

[Peter Brown]

W&L must change its name because Lee was a Confederate 160 years ago, Washington was a slave owner 240 years ago; but the same state where W&L resides has a governor who wore blackface and a KKK hood only 30 years ago. The most recent racist is safe though....almost like this isn't about racism.

As is always the case, Peter Brown doesn't know shirt about fork. He's certainly ignorant of history.

Lee took over the presidency of W&L later on in 1865. He served that institution very well and honorably. He also worked to stitch his country back together. Upon accepting the W&L job, he told the Trustees:

"it is the duty of every citizen, in the present condition of the Country, to do all in his power to aid in the restoration of peace and harmony."

He wasn't a Lost Cause-er. He didn't waste his time flying the Confederate Battle Flag like an ignorant redneck. He spent his time on more important things.

Far be it for me (as a Wahoo) to tell W&L what to do. But there's a fine argument to leave the W&L name as it is.

But not for any of the reasons that a gross brainless loser like Peter Brown thinks.

https://www.virginiahistory.org/collect ... -after-war

Not saying Virginia began its rapid descent into mindless Democratic mob idiocy when you chose to attend UVA, but the timing is interesting nonetheless.

That state held such promise before the Democratic bureaucrats invaded NoVa. A shame. Now no better than a two-bit failed Yankee commonwealth run by an actual racist (not the theoretical ones the Left likes to cackle about). Virginia should be forced to swallow DC; just desserts.

[HooDat]

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

You put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump. Before I do, I need to say that I think Trump's spat with Kaep was stupid showmanship, that in the end only benefited the two of them by giving each a podium. I believe in Kaep's right to kneel, just like I believe in people's rights to burn the flag and conduct any kind of peaceful protest.

With that out of the way, Trump did not silence Kaep, Trump vehemently (and boorishly) disagreed with his actions and spouted off a lot of very insensitive (at best) and more likely bigoted nonsense in a way that (as usual) was beneath the office of POTUS. While I wish that IF Trump had to say anything it should have been nothing more than "I disagree with his position, but will defend his right to say it", -- disagreeing with someone is very different than stifling them.

So are you saying Trump did not use his platform to stifle dissent? That’s what you are signing up for?

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-own ... 2018-5?amp

This is a much better argument from your side.

But you have to ask yourself - what exactly did the NFL owner fear with regard to Trump? Did he think brownshirts would come for him in the night? - no. Did he think his franchise was going to be taken away from him? - no.

My guess is he feared bad publicity and pissing off his fan base.

But to the extent that tweets from the idiot-in-chief caused Kaep his job, perhaps he was stifled. In counter to that, I would say his spat with Trump is the best thing that happened to Kaep since he was adopted by his parents. He landed that Nike sponsorship and now is a rep for the NFL or something? Making huge money to put his face on things and more importantly not having his brain scrambled or his knees destroyed.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I guess someone else is crazy for equating Trump with 1984. Didn’t know that issue just came up with this “reckoning”...

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... 984/tnamp/

the writer lost me here:

As global warming intensifies, our world is becoming bleaker than one of the darkest dystopias ever imagined.

what a bunch of drivel

My only point is they people have been talking about these 1984 parallels with Trump since he has been in office. I wasn’t saying I disagree that thought policing can be dangerous.....

[MDlaxfan76]

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

You put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump. Before I do, I need to say that I think Trump's spat with Kaep was stupid showmanship, that in the end only benefited the two of them by giving each a podium. I believe in Kaep's right to kneel, just like I believe in people's rights to burn the flag and conduct any kind of peaceful protest.

With that out of the way, Trump did not silence Kaep, Trump vehemently (and boorishly) disagreed with his actions and spouted off a lot of very insensitive (at best) and more likely bigoted nonsense in a way that (as usual) was beneath the office of POTUS. While I wish that IF Trump had to say anything it should have been nothing more than "I disagree with his position, but will defend his right to say it", -- disagreeing with someone is very different than stifling them.

The letter is compelling and IMO quite important.
Glad to see it, albeit Petey's purpose in touting it is hugely hypocritical.

I think you're correct about what Trump could/should have done differently, but he didn't.

But it's not merely disagreeing, rather he used his 80 million follower megaphone to rile up those who could actually physically and well as economically "stifle dissent", which I believe was TLD's point.

Trump certainly attempted to 'silence' Kaep, though as you point out, he was only somewhat effective, thanks to others who rose in defense of him ala Nike. But no football contract. No further 'stage' at football games, and by doing so, the NFL effectively intimidated others, stifling dissent.

Of course, that was temporary, so we ask ourselves the question, how might one be further 'silenced'? How about making it punishable to burn the American flag for 10 years (as Trump just advocated)? Short hop from there to jailing those who don't stand to allegiance, right?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

You put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump. Before I do, I need to say that I think Trump's spat with Kaep was stupid showmanship, that in the end only benefited the two of them by giving each a podium. I believe in Kaep's right to kneel, just like I believe in people's rights to burn the flag and conduct any kind of peaceful protest.

With that out of the way, Trump did not silence Kaep, Trump vehemently (and boorishly) disagreed with his actions and spouted off a lot of very insensitive (at best) and more likely bigoted nonsense in a way that (as usual) was beneath the office of POTUS. While I wish that IF Trump had to say anything it should have been nothing more than "I disagree with his position, but will defend his right to say it", -- disagreeing with someone is very different than stifling them.

So are you saying Trump did not use his platform to stifle dissent? That’s what you are signing up for?

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-own ... 2018-5?amp

This is a much better argument from your side.

But you have to ask yourself - what exactly did the NFL owner fear with regard to Trump? Did he think brownshirts would come for him in the night? - no. Did he think his franchise was going to be taken away from him? - no.

My guess is he feared bad publicity and pissing off his fan base.

But to the extent that tweets from the idiot-in-chief caused Kaep his job, perhaps he was stifled. In counter to that, I would say his spat with Trump is the best thing that happened to Kaep since he was adopted by his parents. He landed that Nike sponsorship and now is a rep for the NFL or something? Making huge money to put his face on things and more importantly not having his brain scrambled or his knees destroyed.

It’s all a matter of degree. I have no pity for Kaepernick. He made a decision and was willing to suffer the consequences. Kaepernick is going to be fine. I don’t know a lot of people that will give up a multi-million dollar a year payday for something they believe in.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

You put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump. Before I do, I need to say that I think Trump's spat with Kaep was stupid showmanship, that in the end only benefited the two of them by giving each a podium. I believe in Kaep's right to kneel, just like I believe in people's rights to burn the flag and conduct any kind of peaceful protest.

With that out of the way, Trump did not silence Kaep, Trump vehemently (and boorishly) disagreed with his actions and spouted off a lot of very insensitive (at best) and more likely bigoted nonsense in a way that (as usual) was beneath the office of POTUS. While I wish that IF Trump had to say anything it should have been nothing more than "I disagree with his position, but will defend his right to say it", -- disagreeing with someone is very different than stifling them.

The letter is compelling and IMO quite important.
Glad to see it, albeit Petey's purpose in touting it is hugely hypocritical.

I think you're correct about what Trump could/should have done differently, but he didn't.

But it's not merely disagreeing, rather he used his 80 million follower megaphone to rile up those who could actually physically and well as economically "stifle dissent", which I believe was TLD's point.

Trump certainly attempted to 'silence' Kaep, though as you point out, he was only somewhat effective, thanks to others who rose in defense of him ala Nike. But no football contract. No further 'stage' at football games, and by doing so, the NFL effectively intimidated others, stifling dissent.

Of course, that was temporary, so we ask ourselves the question, how might one be further 'silenced'? How about making it punishable to burn the American flag for 10 years (as Trump just advocated)? Short hop from there to jailing those who don't stand to allegiance, right?

Exactly. Hoodat seems to suggest it was a private argument with Kaepernick and Trump.

[kramerica.inc]

I think TJ's tastes far exceeded his income....

But to ggait's post - I never understood the faction of devotee's that insisted in denying Jefferson's connection to Hemmings. It was the worst kept secret in the state of Virginia, and pretty much treated as a fact by most people I knew. But once it was incontrovertible - it was like a fog was lifted and it was that much easier to move on to real discussions about the man, rather than the idol. And his accomplishments are far more impressive for the fact that a flawed man accomplished them.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. His travails should be explored, perpetuated and discussed but despite those significant shortcomings he remains an integral part of the most significant series of events in human history. His personal behavior was not unlike many of his contemporaries -

Without him, Washington and many of the others who all had imperfections of character and means, there would be no United States of America...nobody can erase that

The problem is revering people in the past by today's standards. It will never work.
But by saying Jefferson was one of the most influential and progressive thinkers OF HIS TIME is in fact accurate AND doesnt set unachievable current-day expectations.

[HooDat]

I read it. Are you suggestion Trump wasn’t stiffly dissent or it was a different type of stifling?

You put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump. Before I do, I need to say that I think Trump's spat with Kaep was stupid showmanship, that in the end only benefited the two of them by giving each a podium. I believe in Kaep's right to kneel, just like I believe in people's rights to burn the flag and conduct any kind of peaceful protest.

With that out of the way, Trump did not silence Kaep, Trump vehemently (and boorishly) disagreed with his actions and spouted off a lot of very insensitive (at best) and more likely bigoted nonsense in a way that (as usual) was beneath the office of POTUS. While I wish that IF Trump had to say anything it should have been nothing more than "I disagree with his position, but will defend his right to say it", -- disagreeing with someone is very different than stifling them.

The letter is compelling and IMO quite important.
Glad to see it, albeit Petey's purpose in touting it is hugely hypocritical.

I think you're correct about what Trump could/should have done differently, but he didn't.

But it's not merely disagreeing, rather he used his 80 million follower megaphone to rile up those who could actually physically and well as economically "stifle dissent", which I believe was TLD's point.

Trump certainly attempted to 'silence' Kaep, though as you point out, he was only somewhat effective, thanks to others who rose in defense of him ala Nike. But no football contract. No further 'stage' at football games, and by doing so, the NFL effectively intimidated others, stifling dissent.

Of course, that was temporary, so we ask ourselves the question, how might one be further 'silenced'? How about making it punishable to burn the American flag for 10 years (as Trump just advocated)? Short hop from there to jailing those who don't stand to allegiance, right?

Exactly. Hoodat seems to suggest it was a private argument with Kaepernick and Trump.

No, not a private argument - a very, very public one. But the whole point of the 1st Amendment is public speech - right?

I would argue that Trump did not attempt to silence Kaep, he didn't do anything to stop Kaep from taking a knee. He just pissed and moaned about it. Trump never does anything. He just tweets... and brags about himself....

I don't think the 1st amendment has a limit on someone's influence and their right to speak. So Yes Trump is a douche. And yes he has 80 million followers (or whatever) does that mean he doesn't get to disagree?
Isn't the bully pulpit what POTUS is supposed to use? ~ albeit you would rather he chose more thoughtful positions for which to fight...

[jhu72]

W&L must change its name because Lee was a Confederate 160 years ago, Washington was a slave owner 240 years ago; but the same state where W&L resides has a governor who wore blackface and a KKK hood only 30 years ago. The most recent racist is safe though....almost like this isn't about racism.

As is always the case, Peter Brown doesn't know shirt about fork. He's certainly ignorant of history.

Lee took over the presidency of W&L later on in 1865. He served that institution very well and honorably. He also worked to stitch his country back together. Upon accepting the W&L job, he told the Trustees:

"it is the duty of every citizen, in the present condition of the Country, to do all in his power to aid in the restoration of peace and harmony."

He wasn't a Lost Cause-er. He didn't waste his time flying the Confederate Battle Flag like an ignorant redneck. He spent his time on more important things.

Far be it for me (as a Wahoo) to tell W&L what to do. But there's a fine argument to leave the W&L name as it is.

But not for any of the reasons that a gross brainless loser like Peter Brown thinks.

https://www.virginiahistory.org/collect ... -after-war

Correct. Lee is not the only, but is certainly a rare and special case. He was a sane leader after his surrender and helped to guide citizens in the south in an honorable fashion. He remained very far above the basest southern passions of the post war era. He was a flawed individual, he did what he did, but very far from how he is sometimes portrayed. A very sad character in the American story. I won't be disposing of my Mort Kunstler Collection.

[HooDat]

I guess someone else is crazy for equating Trump with 1984. Didn’t know that issue just came up with this “reckoning”...

https://www.thenation.com/article/archi ... 984/tnamp/

the writer lost me here:

As global warming intensifies, our world is becoming bleaker than one of the darkest dystopias ever imagined.

what a bunch of drivel

My only point is they people have been talking about these 1984 parallels with Trump since he has been in office. I wasn’t saying I disagree that thought policing can be dangerous.....

I know they have, and the problem is we should have been talking about 1984 long before Trump.

Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, W, Obama - all gaslighters ala "Wag the Dog". All feeding us a load of dung in order to get what they want and expect us to fall in line.

On this point, I actually think Trump is less guilty than his predecessors - his just such a bumbling idiot he is easier to catch.