[ldrews]

It just occurred to me that Colin Kaepernick and his fellow professional football players who are protesting against the treatment of blacks by the police by "taking a knee" during the national anthem are engaging in a form of political terrorism. Just like the jihadists who bomb public places or engage is mass killings, they are inflicting damage on the general public in an attempt to bring pressure on the government. Granted the football players are not engaging in physical violence, but the formula is the same. Inflict pain or discomfort on the public, who generally are not involved in the dispute, in an attempt to bring pressure on government, big corporations, or other public institutions.

[Winstonm]

It will be so incredibly gratifying when this administration crashes and takes the alt-right back with them to whatever slime-covered rock under which they all used to live.

http://www.msnbc.com...s-1099355203883

Tick-tock, tick-tock....time's running out...tick-tock, tick-tock...

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-November-20, 20:44, said:

It just occurred to me that Colin Kaepernick and his fellow professional football players who are protesting against the treatment of blacks by the police by "taking a knee" during the national anthem are engaging in a form of political terrorism. Just like the jihadists who bomb public places or engage is mass killings, they are inflicting damage on the general public in an attempt to bring pressure on the government. Granted the football players are not engaging in physical violence, but the formula is the same. Inflict pain or discomfort on the public, who generally are not involved in the dispute, in an attempt to bring pressure on government, big corporations, or other public institutions.

Absolutely! Killing thousands of people and legal, non-violent protest are exactly the same thing. This should be obvious to everyone!

Against that, when white supremacists engage in mass killings that is completely different and perfectly jusitifiable in order to "take back America". I think we are on the same page here Larry.

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2017-November-20, 20:44, said:

It just occurred to me that Colin Kaepernick and his fellow professional football players who are protesting against the treatment of blacks by the police by "taking a knee" during the national anthem are engaging in a form of political terrorism. Just like the jihadists who bomb public places or engage is mass killings, they are inflicting damage on the general public in an attempt to bring pressure on the government. Granted the football players are not engaging in physical violence, but the formula is the same. Inflict pain or discomfort on the public, who generally are not involved in the dispute, in an attempt to bring pressure on government, big corporations, or other public institutions.

TROLL WARNING DO NOT ENGAGE

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-21, 01:00, said:

Against that, when white supremacists engage in mass killings that is completely different and perfectly jusitifiable in order to "take back America". I think we are on the same page here Larry.

I didn't realize you held this viewpoint. I certainly don't share it.

[ldrews]

cherdano, on 2017-November-21, 03:42, said:

TROLL WARNING DO NOT ENGAGE

Doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

[jjbrr]

jesus christ, i leave for like an hour and this whole place turns to *****? what happened?

[Winstonm]

Slate magazine explains Trump and his followers: (emphasis added)

Quote

If Trump is preoccupied with black athletes and their perceived disrespect, if he’s quick to call them “ungrateful,” it has as much to do with his own prejudice as it does with any political strategy. Donald Trump has few fixed beliefs. If, as president, he acts as a conservative Republican, it’s out of political expediency. He doesn’t share Paul Ryan’s deep-seated opposition to the welfare state, or Mike Pence’s commitment to conservative evangelical Christianity. But there is one place where Trump has been consistent: As a landlord, as a real estate mogul, and as a politician, Trump has indulged or exploited anti-black racism.

The racism card: don't leave home without it.

Tick-tock, tick-tock....

[Winstonm]

jjbrr, on 2017-November-21, 08:57, said:

jesus christ, i leave for like an hour and this whole place turns to *****? what happened?

The mask came off and reality was revealed....tick-tock, tick-tock....

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2017-November-20, 11:50, said:

So my question to these guys: Is Kelley an idiot because he said "But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War" or is he an idiot because he does not know as the historians assure that anyone not a total ignoramus does know, that compromise was impossible.

There's more to what Kelley said than just that one line. He also said that Lee was an honorable man, who when forced to choose between nation and state he chose state, rather than defending slavery. And his point about lack of compromise was stated as an alternative to it being about slavery, but slavery was the whole issue that they couldn't compromise on.

About the best you can say about this is that it seemed more intelligent and nuanced than anything Trump ever says about history.

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-November-20, 20:44, said:

It just occurred to me that Colin Kaepernick and his fellow professional football players who are protesting against the treatment of blacks by the police by "taking a knee" during the national anthem are engaging in a form of political terrorism. Just like the jihadists who bomb public places or engage is mass killings, they are inflicting damage on the general public in an attempt to bring pressure on the government. Granted the football players are not engaging in physical violence, but the formula is the same. Inflict pain or discomfort on the public, who generally are not involved in the dispute, in an attempt to bring pressure on government, big corporations, or other public institutions.

What an incredibly idiotic statement.

The whole point of the First Amendment's right to free speech is that we're allowed to engage in peaceful political protest, even if it makes people uncomfortable. There is a line that you're not supposed to cross, where the speech actually causes injury (e.g. inciting violence, or the proverbial "shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre"), but taking a knee is not even close to this. People tried arguments like this to stop people from burning flags during protests in the 60's; it didn't work then, it won't work now.

If the NFL said that players are entitled to voice their opinions, but not on company time, they would be within their rights. But that would probably be a PR nightmare for them.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2017-November-21, 10:48, said:

There's more to what Kelley said than just that one line. He also said that Lee was an honorable man, who when forced to choose between nation and state he chose state, rather than defending slavery. And his point about lack of compromise was stated as an alternative to it being about slavery, but slavery was the whole issue that they couldn't compromise on.

About the best you can say about this is that it seemed more intelligent and nuanced than anything Trump ever says about history.

Yes, basically I agree with this. It was pretty clear he was being a bit "clever", where that's not a compliment. I said that describing the issue as a lack of ability to compromise was disingenuous when he did not say what the compromise would entail.

Still, I think there are things to think about, a la my thought experiment. The idea was that here you are, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention. The South is adamant that they will not be joining the United States unless slavery is permitted to continue. You are totally opposed to this. You are also a person of prominence and what you say matters to many Northern delegates. The choices, we assume for discussion and perhaps reflecting reality, are two. Have the USA include all 13 former colonies, slavery allowed, or have a Northern USA and a Southern USA, whatever the countries would be called. The other delegates are awaiting your comment and your vote. You would do/say what?

Lincoln is said to have freed the slaves. But he is also said to have saved the Union. Which was his priority? Of course the objectives were somewhat in alignment, but if he had to choose?

History teaches that we humans have done damnably awful things to each other. We still do.

Perhaps a short personal story will serve as a metaphor for my thinking. When I was a young man I was complaining to my father about something in my childhood "We did what we thought was right" he said. I thought that over, decided that it was true, and decided that it was time, well past time, to stop griping about the actions of others in the past and start thinking productively about my own choices.

We could rename Constitution Hall because the Constitution did not ban slavery. I believe that this has in fact been suggested. Perhaps we should. But it might be far more profitable to think about how we treat each other today.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-November-20, 21:11, said:

It will be so incredibly gratifying when this administration crashes and takes the alt-right back with them to whatever slime-covered rock under which they all used to live.

http://www.msnbc.com...s-1099355203883

Tick-tock, tick-tock....time's running out...tick-tock, tick-tock...

It's a typical MSNBC nothing burger. Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intel Committee, was saying similar ominous things 6 months ago and here we are 6 months later and nothing. It's the usual might be, could be, wish it were effort to create smoke by taking huge leaps to connect dots.

I can see where if you're convinced collusion occurred you'd be thinking how "damning" these contentions are. But see them for what they are, nothing more than allegations/innuendos by not unbiased individual. When I'd really worry would be if House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Nunez had given credence to such allegations.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2017-November-21, 10:58, said:

What an incredibly idiotic statement.

The whole point of the First Amendment's right to free speech is that we're allowed to engage in peaceful political protest, even if it makes people uncomfortable. There is a line that you're not supposed to cross, where the speech actually causes injury (e.g. inciting violence, or the proverbial "shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre"), but taking a knee is not even close to this. People tried arguments like this to stop people from burning flags during protests in the 60's; it didn't work then, it won't work now.

If the NFL said that players are entitled to voice their opinions, but not on company time, they would be within their rights. But that would probably be a PR nightmare for them.

In fact the PR problem is unavoidable. I never did care for sports bars with five tvs all on at the same time, but there was a story a while back about a Baltimore bar that threw out all of its Ravens memorabilia in an effort to hold on to their customers. As I get it, nobody gives a damn if the players turn their brains into mush running into each other at full tilt as long as they don't kneel before the start of the game. This is beyond my understanding.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-November-21, 13:20, said:

It's a typical MSNBC nothing burger. Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intel Committee, was saying similar ominous things 6 months ago and here we are 6 months later and nothing. It's the usual might be, could be, wish it were effort to create smoke by taking huge leaps to connect dots.

I can see where if you're convinced collusion occurred you'd be thinking how "damning" these contentions are. But see them for what they are, nothing more than allegations/innuendos by not unbiased individual. When I'd really worry would be if House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Nunez had given credence to such allegations.

I really don't care about collusion - his problems are considerably more than that. Tick-tock, tick-tock...

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-November-21, 13:06, said:

Still, I think there are things to think about, a la my thought experiment. The idea was that here you are, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention. The South is adamant that they will not be joining the United States unless slavery is permitted to continue.

I am not American but my understanding of the matter is that the North had no real problem with this, albeit that many foresaw that in the longer term the situation would become untenable. The real issue at that time was whether new territories should allow slavery or not. At least 4 different methodologies were proposed for how this should work.

The secession occured when Lincoln and the Republican party rejected the Crittenden Compromise, which would have permanently enshrined slavery in all states south of the Missouri-Arkansas border line (including most of New Mexico and Indian Territories) and when the South rejected the Corwin Amendment that existing states should continue with slavery but without the safeguards built into the CC.

But I guess every American school child has to learn all of that and knows it pretty much by rote.

[y66]

How do troll warnings work? Is it like soccer where you need 2 of them before you're sent off?

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-21, 15:49, said:

I am not American but my understanding of the matter is that the North had no real problem with this, albeit that many foresaw that in the longer term the situation would become untenable. The real issue at that time was whether new territories should allow slavery or not. At least 4 different methodologies were proposed for how this should work.

The secession occured when Lincoln and the Republican party rejected the Crittenden Compromise, which would have permanently enshrined slavery in all states south of the Missouri-Arkansas border line (including most of New Mexico and Indian Territories) and when the South rejected the Corwin Amendment that existing states should continue with slavery but without the safeguards built into the CC.

But I guess every American school child has to learn all of that and knows it pretty much by rote.

Actually not all of it.but I often wasn't listening.

[Winstonm]

Trump's FCC is poised to eliminate net neutrality. Now, if you are an American oligarch who owns a controlling interest in
AT&T or Comcast you are pleased; however, if you are one of 62 million regular citizens - you, know, the ones who bought into Trump's populist propaganda scam and voted for him - well, you are screwed.

Welcome to reality, suckers.

[Winstonm]

The Atlantic does it again:

Quote

One hundred thirty-nine years since Reconstruction, and half a century since the tail end of the civil-rights movement, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities, and stood by him as that pledge has been among the few to survive the first year of his presidency. Their support was enough to win the White House, and has solidified a return to a politics of white identity that has been one of the most destructive forces in American history. This all occurred before the eyes of a disbelieving press and political class, who plunged into fierce denial about how and why this had happened. That is the story of the 2016 election.