Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[Peter Brown]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

[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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

I can ask someone who may know

[HooDat]

Could have ended this thread a lot sooner......BTW

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... kaepernick

No pressure on dissenters:

I have no understanding of his position on the flag. But there are a lot of people that agree with him. I have known a lot of people who thought/think burning the flag already is against the law....

On the Hill drama, obviously she was not harmed in any way by Trump's temper tantrum. She said "mean things about him"; he said "mean things about her" and her career took off. Sounds familiar... It is almost like Trump is getting together with all these people and saying - "let's get into a public fight and tie a rocket to your career"....

Well, it was, except SCOTUS already ruled it to be political speech and thus protected. Of course, that was that SCOTUS, and with another 4 years of appointments?

I understand your view that Trump's attempt did not actually silence Kaep, but it sure as heck was intimidating to many others, right?

Yes, Trump has a 'right' to his own speech, but if we don't recognize the enormous power vested in the Executive and pretend that it's not on the path of 'wrongthink' when POTUS takes a position and riles up 80 million, including the wing nuts, the 'brown shirts'...

Come on MD, you are better than that - I suspect the reason you are making this specific argument is because you don't agree with what Trump was saying. Neither do I. But I will defend to the end his right to say them. It isn't free speech if it isn't free for everyone. As the SCOTUS has ruled - the line is drawn at endangerment. But let's not paint that caveat with too broad a brush or the 1st Amendment becomes pointless.

And specifically to the point of the power of the office - that is the entire point is it not? Elections have consequences and all that.... (and ftr - I agreed with Obama when he said it)

[MDlaxfan76]

Could have ended this thread a lot sooner......BTW

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... kaepernick

No pressure on dissenters:

I have no understanding of his position on the flag. But there are a lot of people that agree with him. I have known a lot of people who thought/think burning the flag already is against the law....

On the Hill drama, obviously she was not harmed in any way by Trump's temper tantrum. She said "mean things about him"; he said "mean things about her" and her career took off. Sounds familiar... It is almost like Trump is getting together with all these people and saying - "let's get into a public fight and tie a rocket to your career"....

Well, it was, except SCOTUS already ruled it to be political speech and thus protected. Of course, that was that SCOTUS, and with another 4 years of appointments?

I understand your view that Trump's attempt did not actually silence Kaep, but it sure as heck was intimidating to many others, right?

Yes, Trump has a 'right' to his own speech, but if we don't recognize the enormous power vested in the Executive and pretend that it's not on the path of 'wrongthink' when POTUS takes a position and riles up 80 million, including the wing nuts, the 'brown shirts'...

Come on MD, you are better than that - I suspect the reason you are making this specific argument is because you don't agree with what Trump was saying. Neither do I. But I will defend to the end his right to say them. It isn't free speech if it isn't free for everyone. As the SCOTUS has ruled - the line is drawn at endangerment. But let's not paint that caveat with too broad a brush or the 1st Amendment becomes pointless.

And specifically to the point of the power of the office - that is the entire point is it not? Elections have consequences and all that.... (and ftr - I agreed with Obama when he said it)

You are correct that I didn't agree with Trump , but I don't agree that his speech does not have differential power to intimidate relative to a non-POTUS's speech.

I am not suggesting that Trump has less legal right to to speak. That's a legal matter.

But the discussion was about 'wrongthink' and specifically the attempts to muzzle speech, dissent in specific...with the power of governmental authority behind that effort.

The danger is not the speech, but the authority behind it. I believe that was the discussion at hand when invoking 1984.

Again, Trump just proposed that flag burning have a 10 year sentence (SCOTUS be damned). Taking a knee?

And in the meantime, his 80 million followers are an enormous hammer...successfully kept Kaep off the field and intimidated scores of others.

Now, that's boomeranging around, but there remains the threat of the nut jobs.
Yes, Trump has a right to speak, but let's not kid ourselves about the differential in power.
And thus responsibility.

And, yes, elections do have consequences.
Elect someone who understands the responsibility that goes with the power.

[jhu72]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

[Peter Brown]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

'certain'....

Why are Democrats always so 'certain' of themselves when they're by far the least knowledgeable people in every room? What a disconnect of authenticity and humility.

We now add JHU72 to the list of those with certain intimate knowledge of dead people's relationships, all the nuances, complexities, impenatrables, intricacies, and tortuous history. I marvel at their wisdom to know precisely the nature of two person's life history from the early 1800's!!

[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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

Didn’t Trump rape his wife?

[6ftstick]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

Didn’t Trump rape his wife?

When are you goin to stop kicking your daughter in the stomach?

[jhu72]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

'certain'....

Why are Democrats always so 'certain' of themselves when they're by far the least knowledgeable people in every room? What a disconnect of authenticity and humility.

We now add JHU72 to the list of those with certain intimate knowledge of dead people's relationships, all the nuances, complexities, impenatrables, intricacies, and tortuous history. I marvel at their wisdom to know precisely the nature of two person's life history from the early 1800's!!

… nope - just read books. You should try it.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

Didn’t Trump rape his wife?

When are you goin to stop kicking your daughter in the stomach?

hmmm, Trump's wife accused him, under oath, of rape, right?
Not your analogy.

[SCLaxAttack]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

'certain'....

Why are Democrats always so 'certain' of themselves when they're by far the least knowledgeable people in every room? What a disconnect of authenticity and humility.

We now add JHU72 to the list of those with certain intimate knowledge of dead people's relationships, all the nuances, complexities, impenatrables, intricacies, and tortuous history. I marvel at their wisdom to know precisely the nature of two person's life history from the early 1800's!!

Said by the resident troll who is “certain” that anyone disagreeing with him is a democrat and judges people’s personal qualities by their weight and facial hair.

Go away.

[Peter Brown]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

'certain'....

Why are Democrats always so 'certain' of themselves when they're by far the least knowledgeable people in every room? What a disconnect of authenticity and humility.

We now add JHU72 to the list of those with certain intimate knowledge of dead people's relationships, all the nuances, complexities, impenatrables, intricacies, and tortuous history. I marvel at their wisdom to know precisely the nature of two person's life history from the early 1800's!!

… nope - just read books. You should try it.

I'd like to read any book I choose, but for some reason, Democrats keep banning books:

https://www.shondaland.com/inspire/book ... rd-banned/

To Kill a Mockingbird is such horror.

[Peter Brown]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

'certain'....

Why are Democrats always so 'certain' of themselves when they're by far the least knowledgeable people in every room? What a disconnect of authenticity and humility.

We now add JHU72 to the list of those with certain intimate knowledge of dead people's relationships, all the nuances, complexities, impenatrables, intricacies, and tortuous history. I marvel at their wisdom to know precisely the nature of two person's life history from the early 1800's!!

Said by the resident troll who is “certain” that anyone disagreeing with him is a democrat and judges people’s personal qualities by their weight and facial hair.

Go away.

Were you trying to add anything substantive to the discussion of who-knows-what with respect to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings? Are you also one of those who states without hesitation what occurred between two people in the early 1800's?

[HooDat]

You are correct that I didn't agree with Trump , but I don't agree that his speech does not have differential power to intimidate relative to a non-POTUS's speech.

I am not suggesting that Trump has less legal right to to speak. That's a legal matter.

But the discussion was about 'wrongthink' and specifically the attempts to muzzle speech, dissent in specific...with the power of governmental authority behind that effort.

The danger is not the speech, but the authority behind it. I believe that was the discussion at hand when invoking 1984.

Again, Trump just proposed that flag burning have a 10 year sentence (SCOTUS be damned). Taking a knee?

And in the meantime, his 80 million followers are an enormous hammer...successfully kept Kaep off the field and intimidated scores of others.

Now, that's boomeranging around, but there remains the threat of the nut jobs.
Yes, Trump has a right to speak, but let's not kid ourselves about the differential in power.
And thus responsibility.

And, yes, elections do have consequences.
Elect someone who understands the responsibility that goes with the power.

The suggested law against flag burning - that is indeed bringing the power of governmental authority behind prohibiting speech and a fundamental assault on our Constitutional rights.

Tweets because they come from the President are not the same as bringing to bear the power of gov't authority - at least not in our country. And thank the founding fathers for that!

Kim Kardashian probably has just as many followers as Trump (I'm guessing here) do her tweets intimidate any more than Trumps? I think they carry the same degree of influence. Especially when you consider that (statistically) approximately half of Trump's followers are probably following him to keep an eye on him from an adversarial position.

And of course it is boomeranging around. The TRUTH will do that. That is precisely why we need free speech!

-- to quote (a now controversial(?) figure): "For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

[Peter Brown]

You are correct that I didn't agree with Trump , but I don't agree that his speech does not have differential power to intimidate relative to a non-POTUS's speech.

I am not suggesting that Trump has less legal right to to speak. That's a legal matter.

But the discussion was about 'wrongthink' and specifically the attempts to muzzle speech, dissent in specific...with the power of governmental authority behind that effort.

The danger is not the speech, but the authority behind it. I believe that was the discussion at hand when invoking 1984.

Again, Trump just proposed that flag burning have a 10 year sentence (SCOTUS be damned). Taking a knee?

And in the meantime, his 80 million followers are an enormous hammer...successfully kept Kaep off the field and intimidated scores of others.

Now, that's boomeranging around, but there remains the threat of the nut jobs.
Yes, Trump has a right to speak, but let's not kid ourselves about the differential in power.
And thus responsibility.

And, yes, elections do have consequences.
Elect someone who understands the responsibility that goes with the power.

The suggested law against flag burning - that is indeed bringing the power of governmental authority behind prohibiting speech and a fundamental assault on our Constitutional rights.

Tweets because they come from the President are not the same as bringing to bear the power of gov't authority - at least not in our country. And thank the founding fathers for that!

Kim Kardashian probably has just as many followers as Trump (I'm guessing here) do her tweets intimidate any more than Trumps? I think they carry the same degree of influence. Especially when you consider that (statistically) approximately half of Trump's followers are probably following him to keep an eye on him from an adversarial position.

And of course it is boomeranging around. The TRUTH will do that. That is precisely why we need free speech!

-- to quote (a now controversial(?) figure): "For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

Trump is on an island with respect to wanting a law against flag burning. I do not care if Democrats want to burn the flag, as obnoxious as it is.

What's far more revealing is HOW MANY Democrats actually enjoy burning the flag. Truly they are a party for another country.

[HooDat]

One could make the argument that burning the flag is the most Patriotic thing a US citizen can do.

What other single action better demonstrates everything that makes this country great?

just saying.....

[jhu72]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

'certain'....

Why are Democrats always so 'certain' of themselves when they're by far the least knowledgeable people in every room? What a disconnect of authenticity and humility.

We now add JHU72 to the list of those with certain intimate knowledge of dead people's relationships, all the nuances, complexities, impenatrables, intricacies, and tortuous history. I marvel at their wisdom to know precisely the nature of two person's life history from the early 1800's!!

… nope - just read books. You should try it.

I'd like to read any book I choose, but for some reason, Democrats keep banning books:

https://www.shondaland.com/inspire/book ... rd-banned/

To Kill a Mockingbird is such horror.

So lets analyze this article you reference. Two dates and places are referenced, Virginia in 1966 and Mississippi in 2017. You claim this is a democratic party problem. I am pretty sure in 2017 Mississippi is governed by republicans. In 1966, a democrat was in fact governor in Virginia, Mills Godwin, a southern man of his times (ie., racist). He was defeated in January of 1970 by a republican (you remember the party's southern strategy). He (Godwin) returned to office as Governor in 1974 as a republican.

Right, book banning is a democratic problem.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

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

You mean like Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly raped his teenaged slave?

DocBarrister

The nature of Sally Hemings’s sexual encounters with Thomas Jefferson will never be known except to a Fanlax poster called DocBarrister. Thankfully we have it on good authority what actually occurred from Doc.

… certainly if the interaction / the beginning of the relation took place today, Doc's description would be 100% dead on from a legal perspective. In the late 1700s early 1800s, I don't know but kind of doubt it was considered rape. Can you rape your own property?? Could you rape a negress??

now that's an interesting concept...

but i'd think, to today's pundits it doesnt matter. rapist back then is a rapist now, legalisms aside.

[a fan]

One could make the argument that burning the flag is the most Patriotic thing a US citizen can do.

What other single action better demonstrates everything that makes this country great?

just saying.....

Bingo. I can tell you that I'd never do it. But FFS, this is America, my man!

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

One could make the argument that burning the flag is the most Patriotic thing a US citizen can do.

What other single action better demonstrates everything that makes this country great?

just saying.....

another interesting concept... in fact i do recall this topic, and this exact argument too, making the news in 1989 or so...