View Full Version : "White Athletes Still Standing For The Anthem Are Standing For White Supremacy"
Ultralight
9-28-17, 7:56am
Sometimes my fellow lefties say some dumb stuff.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-athletes-still-standing-for-the-anthem-are-standing_us_59c8acbbe4b0f2df5e83afcd?section=us_co ntributor
Sometimes my fellow lefties say some dumb stuff.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-athletes-still-standing-for-the-anthem-are-standing_us_59c8acbbe4b0f2df5e83afcd?section=us_co ntributor
Just sometimes? >8)
Williamsmith
9-28-17, 8:25am
I'd like to ask Jesse, "So what were the black players who did not kneel Sunday, standing for?"
Sometimes my fellow lefties say some dumb stuff.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-athletes-still-standing-for-the-anthem-are-standing_us_59c8acbbe4b0f2df5e83afcd?section=us_co ntributor
Dumb stuff? I don't think so. An arguable fact, more likely.
I wish you'd quit with this "fellow lefty" stuff, or is that just a conceit for the sake of argument? Tiresome, anyway.
To the true zealot, "you're either with us or against us" and it's easy to believe someone displaying respect for the flag is obviously a racist. What other possible explanation could there be?
iris lilies
9-28-17, 9:28am
To the true zealot, "you're either with us or against us" and it's easy to believe someone displaying respect for the flag is obviously a racist. What other possible explanation could there be?
Is the deal with the "racist" name calling that if someone slings "racist" at you first, they are not racist themselves? It honestly seems like a game of one upmanship..
I am trying to figure it out, the constant racist name calling.
I prefer the theory that we live in a racist society and have varying internalized thoughts that are racist, but it is our duty as citizens to examine those thoughts and accompanying actions, and change our thoughts and actions if they are truly harmful.
see, that is the problem: no one owns the definition of "racist" no one person gets to determine who are "racists." Certainly I would agree that some words and actions are "racist" but the person performing them a "racist?."
Does one racist thought make someone a racist? It seems so, based on what I see on my internet travels.
Good thoughts Iris. I struggle with having a line. Cross it and you are OFF MY LIST of acquaintances because I get so angry I don't want to be around that kind of thinking and yet the person has other quite kind and caring traits...just this spouting of blame and hate. So, I have cut out some people from my life and am not sorry, but others I can overlook or understand. I guess it has to do with how close the person was to me to start with.
The part of the article that was most worthwhile was the listing of areas that still need work. The author took a provocative stance, but made several good points once he got the reader's attention.
Iris Lily's theory is solid, as far as I'm concerned.
I prefer the theory that we live in a racist society and have varying internalized thoughts that are racist, but it is our duty as citizens to examine those thoughts and accompanying actions, and change our thoughts and actions if they are truly harmful.
Well, if one can decide people kneeling are doing it just to disrespect flag and the anthem, I would think others can decide other people are standing just to support white supremacy.
Is the deal with the "racist" name calling that if someone slings "racist" at you first, they are not racist themselves? It honestly seems like a game of one upmanship..
I am trying to figure it out, the constant racist name calling.
I think there are any number of explanations:
I think you're right that we all harbor some degree of prejudiced thoughts and impulses. In some cases, crying "racist" may be a way of dealing with one's own secret guilt.
Some people have the honest, genuinely held belief that true justice can operate at the wholesale as well as the retail level.
It may be as simple and frivolous as virtue-signalling.
It may be a way to exercise a certain kind of power. A sort of shaming technique to avoid engaging opposing ideas, vis. the "wear the ribbon" episode of Seinfeld.
Like many forms of insult and accusation, it is weakened by overuse.
Williamsmith
9-28-17, 12:33pm
I am finding it harder and harder to be white anymore. As a retired white police officer, I must be a racist. I stand for the national anthem, I must be a racist. I live in a condo, I must be a racist. I don't have any African American heritage that I know of although my wife has course black hair and I am curious about that.....but still I must be a racist. I just need a guy like Jesse to tell me....how do I make it right? Maybe he could write a book of rules for whitey. You know, tell me how he managed to be saved from racism.
"...the asymmetrical hoarding of resources by whites..."
I have a new job title! Hoarder Of Resources!
ApatheticNoMore
9-28-17, 1:00pm
I wish you'd quit with this "fellow lefty" stuff, or is that just a conceit for the sake of argument? Tiresome, anyway.
kinda. the truth is probably more something like: lots of people out there are not too bright, and some of them are on the left, and some of them are not. But can't start an argument about whole groups of people so easily that way.
The issue I have with the article: yes there is systematic racism, but not all whites exactly have it great either (what so wonderful about being dirt poor and white anyway? nor do I wish I had a profession that caused me concussions and brain damage, honestly it's hard to think of people like that as particularly priviledged ... but to each there own on that one).
But also it's stupid because you simply can't read non-ambiguity into ambiguous symbols. Wearing white klan sheets isn't exactly ambiguous and I wouldn't bother with anyone saying it is as one is never going to convince someone that far gone from the realm of *shared* meaning, but the U.S. flag IS ambiguous, and has no such shared meaning, as it means different things to different people.
...
But also it's stupid because you simply can't read non-ambiguity into ambiguous symbols. Wearing white klan sheets isn't exactly ambiguous frankly and I wouldn't bother with anyone arguing it is as really one is never going to convince someone that far gone from the realm of shared meaning, but the U.S. flag IS ambigous as it means different things to different people.
Don't get me started on the flag--It just means "unattractive design" to me. I like Canada's. Or Norway's. Or Japan's.
I am trying to figure it out, the constant racist name calling.
I think it's simply a lazy, disingenuous means of shutting down discourse and has been going on for years. And it's not just the racist tag, it's also all the others such as sexist, ageist, homophobe, misogynist, etc., that are thrown around so glibly these days.
If you didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012, you were a racist.
If you think a baker or photographer should be able to turn down business that clashes with their religious beliefs, you're a homophobe, and probably a racist too.
If you believe the government should not be able to force you to purchase a product you do not want, or pay a premium for services you do not need, you're a racist who hates women and wants poor people to die.
If your religious belief's ground you in the idea that birth control is a sin and you resist government's efforts to force you to pay for them anyway, you hate women, and are probably a racist.
If you believe that we all should judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, oddly enough you're still a racist.
If you believe that a fetus is a human life, worthy of all the protections of their born counterparts, you're not only a racist but you also hate women.
Now, if your sense of duty and honor forbid you from performing cheap kneeling theatrics in the public sphere, you're obviously a racist.
The problem is, if you're not a racist or whatever get's the most bang for the progressive buck, these name callers might have to apply reason to their argument, and that's hard.
iris lilies
9-28-17, 2:28pm
I think there are any number of explanations:
I think you're right that we all harbor some degree of prejudiced thoughts and impulses. In some cases, crying "racist" may be a way of dealing with one's own secret guilt.
Some people have the honest, genuinely held belief that true justice can operate at the wholesale as well as the retail level.
It may be as simple and frivolous as virtue-signalling.
It may be a way to exercise a certain kind of power. A sort of shaming technique to avoid engaging opposing ideas, vis. the "wear the ribbon" episode of Seinfeld.
Like many forms of insult and accusation, it is weakened by overuse.
yes, overuse is a big problem.
Calling out " racist" is a shaming action, and I got nothin' against "shame" as a tool for social coercion.But overuse--that is gonna backfire.
Ultralight
9-28-17, 5:15pm
I wish you'd quit with this "fellow lefty" stuff, or is that just a conceit for the sake of argument? Tiresome, anyway.
Wish in one and ____ in the other. See which gives you results first.
ToomuchStuff
9-28-17, 6:18pm
Just sometimes? >8)
So while their lumping everybody together in one category (racist, trump lover, etc. etc. etc), your doing the same act by lumping all liberal talk the same? I would think this means there can't be a discussion, if your looking at everything as dumb stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbccGbPKwok
So while their lumping everybody together in one category (racist, trump lover, etc. etc. etc), your doing the same act by lumping all liberal talk the same? I would think this means there can't be a discussion, if your looking at everything as dumb stuff.
Could be....Just pointing out how discussions on those subjects always end.
I feel your pain, Alan, having to support us and all. :thankyou:
Back when I was paying outsized federal taxes, I never minded contributing my share for anything that made people's lives a little better, but I resented the hell out of helping to finance endless wars, killing actual full-fledged human non-combatants around the world. So I can see how you would be peeved to be forced--as we all are as taxpayers--to foot the bill for programs you don't approve of.
(I've read repeatedly that 99% of females will/do use birth control in their lifetimes. That seems a little high to me, but I'm surprised that anyone would seriously contest a development so overwhelmingly embraced by so many.)
I feel your pain, Alan, having to support us and all. :thankyou:
Back when I was paying outsized federal taxes, I never minded contributing my share for anything that made people's lives a little better, but I resented the hell out of helping to finance endless wars, killing actual full-fledged human non-combatants around the world. So I can see how you would be peeved to be forced--as we all are as taxpayers--to foot the bill for programs you don't approve of.
(I've read repeatedly that 99% of females will/do use birth control in their lifetimes. That seems a little high to me, but I'm surprised that anyone would seriously contest a development so overwhelmingly embraced by so many.)
Except that other than being forced to purchase a product you do not want or a level of service you do not need, money doesn't come into play. It's the encroachment of government into every life without the ability for an individual to opt out. At that point you're not a citizen, you're a slave, and some people are good with that. It's odd, not only because so many approve of their new role, but use those emotional triggers to chastise those who'd rather live their own life by their own standards. There's no opportunity for honest and open debate under those conditions, and that's the point.
I can understand your point to some extent but not in the funding of birth control access for women who otherwise cannot obtain.
When it is realized that women carry the cost of bearing a child to term and not men, impacting their education, health, life, care of their families, etc, how many men around the world especially in the undeveloped world have been willing to totally give up sex or had a vasectomy? Until men do give up sex or supplying the sperm at all times, why shouldn't they contribute to the cost of birth control?
Of course, a judge in Alberta trying a charge of rape, accused the young woman that was raped that she should have kept her knees together to prevent the rape. The Judicial Council did not agree and Robin Camp was removed from the bench.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justice-robin-camp-judicial-council-1.4017233
Except that other than being forced to purchase a product you do not want or a level of service you do not need, money doesn't come into play. It's the encroachment of government into every life without the ability for an individual to opt out. At that point you're not a citizen, you're a slave, and some people are good with that. It's odd, not only because so many approve of their new role, but use those emotional triggers to chastise those who'd rather live their own life by their own standards. There's no opportunity for honest and open debate under those conditions, and that's the point.
I can understand why many people would consider birth control important. I might even be inclined to agree. But should everything that's important be a responsibility of government?
ToomuchStuff
9-29-17, 9:51am
I can understand why many people would consider birth control important. I might even be inclined to agree. But should everything that's important be a responsibility of government?
Really it comes down to an argument about do you want the government to tell you what you can believe or not (government verses religion). They have done so in the past with religion and polygamy, they are doing so now with Catholic's and birth control. (or the ones who believe the pope is the supreme leader)
Except that other than being forced to purchase a product you do not want or a level of service you do not need, money doesn't come into play. It's the encroachment of government into every life without the ability for an individual to opt out. At that point you're not a citizen, you're a slave, and some people are good with that. It's odd, not only because so many approve of their new role, but use those emotional triggers to chastise those who'd rather live their own life by their own standards. There's no opportunity for honest and open debate under those conditions, and that's the point.
That's the way I feel about a lot of "services" we take for granted--mandatory insurances for everything from cars to houses to health care (mortgage insurance has to be the worst--don't the banksters absorb the risk for anything?) Pet immunizations are mandatory, paired with licenses...Want a kid? Pony up for a hundred-dollar steel-cage car seat you are mandated to have. The list goes on and on. I guess it's the price we pay for living in a quasi-civilized society.
Want a kid? Pony up for a hundred-dollar steel-cage car seat you are mandated to have. The list goes on and on. I guess it's the price we pay for living in a quasi-civilized society. Not quite the same, in my example it would be requiring people without children to purchase the car seats.
ToomuchStuff
9-29-17, 10:05am
Not quite the same, in my example it would be requiring people without children to purchase the car seats.
Which we do with things like school taxes already.
Really it comes down to an argument about do you want the government to tell you what you can believe or not (government verses religion). They have done so in the past with religion and polygamy, they are doing so now with Catholic's and birth control. (or the ones who believe the pope is the supreme leader)
I don't see cases like that being so much a case of telling people what to believe as much as telling them what to do: kick in for abortion funding, bake the wedding cake, and so forth.
I think we may drift a bit in the direction of thought policing when people like Dianne Feinstein question whether orthodox Catholics should serve on the Federal bench, but she's a fairly silly outlier. I think it's more about power than belief.
ApatheticNoMore
9-29-17, 10:33am
people that oppose birth control are willing viscous to women period (whether or not they mean to be, that is the REAL WORLD effect), so I don't have to have much tolerance for their f'ed up thoughts (which I am suppose to reason with apparently, when their only recourse is the catholic church told them so, and most Catholic women don't even listen to it. Time for women priests already and that would change maybe). I don't think it's possible to reason with a person about a situation they will never face if they really don't care to listen to those who are actually faced with that issue, which is the case with males who would oppose birth control. It's not about reason, it's about males having power over women which they do in some societies at some points.
Which is different than standing or not standing for the anthem, which may very well be for reasons I don't approve of, but standing for the anthem itself does not mean something like: "I support xyz bad things", it could but it doesn't etc, that's why I think that one is complex, because it is NOT itself taking a clear position, it's too ambiguous. No wonder women want women in power, when some men would so willingly deny them something so basic as control over whether they have kids or not, they don't care a @#$# about them apparently. Lucky not all men are such jerks.
I don't see cases like that being so much a case of telling people what to believe as much as telling them what to do: kick in for abortion funding, bake the wedding cake, and so forth.
I think we may drift a bit in the direction of thought policing when people like Dianne Feinstein question whether orthodox Catholics should serve on the Federal bench, but she's a fairly silly outlier. I think it's more about power than belief.
Congress has prohibited public funding of abortions (Hyde act) for some time. Planned Parenthood provides birth control services on a sliding scale--where they are allowed to exist.
I'm troubled by the number of Catholic ideologues on the bench, too--I'm with Ron Reagan on the separation of church and state. And I'm nominally Catholic...
ToomuchStuff
9-29-17, 10:56am
I don't see cases like that being so much a case of telling people what to believe as much as telling them what to do: kick in for abortion funding, bake the wedding cake, and so forth.
I think we may drift a bit in the direction of thought policing when people like Dianne Feinstein question whether orthodox Catholics should serve on the Federal bench, but she's a fairly silly outlier. I think it's more about power than belief.
Doing what is against your values, is very much what slavery is. It isn't just catholic's either (we allow tax exemptions for all religions, so they don't pay what their followers are forced to).
Then again, belief itself is about power. You believe that someone is in charge, because they are closer to some magical turtle who created the universe, or you believe that x, would make a better person to control you then y and then offer them that power.
Not quite the same, in my example it would be requiring people without children to purchase the car seats.
Want a car. Spend an extra $132 or $142 to buy one with a backup camera to protect the kids you may or may not have.
Which we do with things like school taxes already.
Except everyone forgets, Who paid for public school when you were growing up? Yes, everyone in the community who agreed it would be a good idea to educate the younger generation. And I'm thankful that was a mandated part of our government so myself and those my age would get a free public education. I don't recall any adults back then complaining that they did not have children, or that they only had 1 and your family has 6, etc.
Now it's our turn.
And I'm nominally Catholic...
What is a nominal Catholic?
Except everyone forgets, Who paid for public school when you were growing up? Yes, everyone in the community who agreed it would be a good idea to educate the younger generation. And I'm thankful that was a mandated part of our government so myself and those my age would get a free public education. I don't recall any adults back then complaining that they did not have children, or that they only had 1 and your family has 6, etc.
Now it's our turn.
Perhaps another way of thinking about this is that we all benefited from, or at least had the opportunity to do so, from public education when we were kids. Now that we're adults our taxes go to educating the next generation, and when they become adults they'll pay for the next generation and so on. We could apply that same mindset to healthcare. At some point in everyone's lives most everyone will need healthcare. If the government, through some sort of taxes, paid for it through a medicare for all system, we would all pay into the system when we were healthy and benefit from it when we are sick.
What is a nominal Catholic?
In name only, as in baptized and on the rolls somewhere as a Catholic. My prospective godmother insisted.
In name only, as in baptized and on the rolls somewhere as a Catholic. My prospective godmother insisted.
The more proper term might be "lapsed" or "apostate". There used to be a formal process for renouncing Church membership (they even had a form) for certain Canon Law purposes, but they discontinued it some years ago. I'm not sure when the last time was that they excommunicated someone. I hear it's an impressive ceremony.
I'm not sure what insight either lapsed or active status in the Church provides on the topic of the dangers of Catholics in positions of power. It may already be too late. Despite Senator Feinstein's vigilance, there are already five on the Supreme Court. Six, if you count Justice Gorsuch, who like you left the Church to consort with the upstart Episcopalians.
The more proper term might be "lapsed" or "apostate". There used to be a formal process for renouncing Church membership (they even had a form) for certain Canon Law purposes, but they discontinued it some years ago. I'm not sure when the last time was that they excommunicated someone. I hear it's an impressive ceremony.
I'm not sure what insight either lapsed or active status in the Church provides on the topic of the dangers of Catholics in positions of power. It may already be too late. Despite Senator Feinstein's vigilance, there are already five on the Supreme Court. Six, if you count Justice Gorsuch, who like you left the Church to consort with the upstart Episcopalians.
Not really--you have to have had some affiliation to have lapsed, I think.
I look forward to the time when non-believers can aspire to the highest offices in the land without apology--putting an end to the embarrassing spectacle of holy hypocrites pretending to be church-goers.
Williamsmith
9-29-17, 3:45pm
Not really--you have to have had some affiliation to have lapsed, I think.
I look forward to the time when non-believers can aspire to the highest offices in the land without apology--putting an end to the embarrassing spectacle of holy hypocrites pretending to be church-goers.
To that end, you ought to thank the Rust Belt for making sure this zealot didn't rise to the highest office in the land.
https://youtu.be/5f_kZ9Ims-A
Not really--you have to have had some affiliation to have lapsed, I think.
I look forward to the time when non-believers can aspire to the highest offices in the land without apology--putting an end to the embarrassing spectacle of holy hypocrites pretending to be church-goers.
The Church regards baptized but non-practicing Catholics as lapsed. It's like the Mafia in that there is no mechanism for cancelling your subscription. The bitter centuries have taught the Church both hope and patience; and the entry fee was non-refundable.
Of all the many shades of hypocrisy on display, the religious variety seems to me increasingly unimportant. Outside shrinking parts of bitter clinger territory, I doubt public religiousity is much of a benefit. Better to claim the mantle of a bold free-thinker as you adhere minutely to the orthodoxies of the moment. At most, you sometimes see examples of what are colloquially called "Cafeteria Catholics", who attempt to pick and choose articles of faith for political convenience. Other faiths have the similar types.
I'm not sure what insight either lapsed or active status in the Church provides on the topic of the dangers of Catholics in positions of power. It may already be too late. Despite Senator Feinstein's vigilance, there are already five on the Supreme Court. Six, if you count Justice Gorsuch, who like you left the Church to consort with the upstart Episcopalians.
At this rate, we'll have a Catholic president some day!!!
At this rate, we'll have a Catholic president some day!!!
Heaven forfend!
ApatheticNoMore
9-29-17, 6:29pm
but in no sense a practicing one, thank heavens.
ToomuchStuff
9-30-17, 12:49am
At this rate, we'll have a Catholic president some day!!!
Nah.
That would freak people out, especially if there was some missile crisis.
Moving from the Catholic Threat back to the original post, I see that fans are starting to boo the knee-takers in various venues.
Williamsmith
10-2-17, 3:35pm
Moving from the Catholic Threat back to the original post, I see that fans are starting to boo the knee-takers in various venues.
The NFL is dead to me. Only the NBA could be farther from my world.
WS, this total withdrawal makes no sense to me. Sorry, but there are some really serious issues like starvation, lack of drinking water and death in Puerto Rico that no one even is aware of as yet versus the NFL protest.
You are being manipulated by hyperbole. Those NFL players have worked really hard to get to their level of expertise, as hard as anyone else, in any other sport, giving enjoyment for years to fans. These players took a courageous stand that is not illegal. There have been protests by individuals for decades with no change that is visible as yet according to reports. What protests have you taken to prevent inappropriate police practices? What is an acceptable form of protest for thes players as far as you ae concerned?
I am not a great sports fan usually but judging the players' actions so harshly is totally out of proportion to my thinking. Get upset about the real abuse in former Burma or Syria, Turkey in which people are being tortured and slaughtered, or South Sudan or the acute anguish in so many other parts of the world like Puerto Rico, Venezuela or the Ukraine...
Williamsmith
10-2-17, 8:35pm
WS, this total withdrawal makes no sense to me. Sorry, but there are some really serious issues like starvation, lack of drinking water and death in Puerto Rico that no one even is aware of as yet versus the NFL protest.
You are being manipulated by hyperbole. Those NFL players have worked really hard to get to their level of expertise, as hard as anyone else, in any other sport, giving enjoyment for years to fans. These players took a courageous stand that is not illegal. There have been protests by individuals for decades with no change that is visible as yet according to reports. What protests have you taken to prevent inappropriate police practices? What is an acceptable form of protest for thes players as far as you ae concerned?
I am not a great sports fan usually but judging the players' actions so harshly is totally out of proportion to my thinking. Get upset about the real abuse in former Burma or Syria, Turkey in which people are being tortured and slaughtered, or South Sudan or the acute anguish in so many other parts of the world like Puerto Rico, Venezuela or the Ukraine...
oh razz.....where do I start? What has to change? For 25 years I practiced proper police procedure and not one time did I oppress a black person. I arrested countless people but I never considered their skin color as a part of probable cause. My heart is guiltless on this issue. In fact, I was passed over in favor of less qualified minorities, people who tested worse than me simply on account of my white skin color.
I have the capacity to be concerned about abuses worldwide as well as the foolishness of NFL “protests”. Players are fined by the NFL for late hits, celebrating in the end zone, unapproved socks....but nothing is done about their refusal to abide by league rules to appear and stand for the anthem. Their disrespect is double to me. They do it during the anthem in order to maximize the hurtfulness of it. And they do it to declare that police officers are oppressive and kill black people for the joy of it. If you can’t make sense of my boycott, that’s fine. As a consumer, I will choose to protest by impacting their pocket book.
Williamsmith, did you know any bad apple cops during your years on the force? And if so, what did you do?
Williamsmith
10-2-17, 9:01pm
We had an internal affairs department staffed with criminal investigators. It was known as the Bureau of Professional Responsibility. They were kept quite busy. Every officer involved shooting was investigated by this bureau. Every single citizen complaint was investigated including anonymous complaints. We even went to the trouble of placing complaint forms written in Spanish and English in the rest areas of every interstate highway in the Commonwealth. All officers were considered as culpable as an offending officer if they witnessed oppression and didn’t report it.
Yes, I knew “bad apple cops” and I was personally responsible for sending more than one to prison or ending their career prematurely.
We need more like you.
Edited to add - and honorable people in general. Take the case of Laquan McDonald. All sorts of people in government not just police engaged in a coverup.
We need more like you.
Given the attitudes of today, I suspect recruiting quality people to take the job will be difficult.
My heart aches for each person trying to do what they believe is the highest sense of right. I do respect your right to do what is right for you and each member of the police to act according to their highest sense of right.
Sports figures as well as entertainment figures are heroes to their peers and to their fans. Each of those players have been asked over and over again by their community to use their position for making a difference.
After really giving this some thought overnight and while walking the dog this morning, I realized that what was lacking was a leader to help resolve the differing points of view. None stepped up! Not a newspaper columnist, not a Republican, not a Democrat, no professor, no one! Please, please, please correct me if I am wrong on this as I would so love to hear about it.
A leader, IMHO, would have said (along these lines): "This is a democratic nation that is leading the world: in innovation, freedoms, (add many others that apply) and in its openness to peaceful protest. We have challenges to work out that will take the whole country to resolve as is true of every nation. There are, however, some points on which we need to agree; respect for law and order, respect for our flag and respect for our national anthem in support of all that we as a nation hold dear. MLK, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, (others) found the way without diminishing those three points, we need to and will do so, too."
My US history is deficient in that I cannot recall any US president who has addressed the process of peaceful protest. Since I have always admired the protesting that takes place in the US, I am sure that several good examples are there.
I guess that I am struggling as an outsider with a sense of loss. I had such confidence that the checks and balances within the framework that created the US would prevail. I am beginning to doubt this. I am not alone in this view. When I see what limited priority is given to US citizens in Puerto Rico who are devastated by circumstances beyond their control, I question who is leading the country. It is not just a President.
Over and out of this thread.
Williamsmith
10-3-17, 11:11am
razz , as a citizen of Canada ....outside looking in, your input is valued here. I’ll leave it at that.
On my way to the gym this morning I passed three flags at half staff symbolizing an entire nation mourning the deaths of innocents in Las Vegas. As I travel around on errands, there will be more such flags and one giant flag 60 ft by 30 ft on a pole about 200 ft flying at a local manufacturer of hand tools that sells worldwide. That flag is symbolic also of a commitment to their community. A sign reads next to it..”Our blood, Our sweat, Our Steel.” They could have moved their production to China or Mexico and made tons more money but they chose to be true to their roots...since 1886.
There is a little bit of sense of dishonor when protestors target the flag intentionlly. They have the right to do it but I don’t have to like it. Protest if you must but don’t forget the good things that flag also represents.
The NFL is dead to me. Only the NBA could be farther from my world.
Bump. Yes, it was Williamsmith who so disliked Kaeperneck's peaceful protests.
Bump. Yes, it was Williamsmith who so disliked Kaeperneck's peaceful protests.
Yppej, yes, I remember. And actually wish Williamsmith was still around to offer up his opinion on the current state of affairs.
I hope your mother is still well. This is such a crazy time for all of us.
TY jp1. She is still fine. I broached the subject of her recreational shopping again with my dad. I said she will say she went to this, that or the other store to see if they have an item and she could call them up and ask him. His response was, "You're assuming there's only one thing on her list." I am afraid not only for her but that if she gets she will take him down with her, but nothing. I can do. I also tried discussing it with my brother who lives with them but he was not interested.
dado potato
6-4-20, 8:11pm
Insult, accusation, disrespect...we can hear and transcend these messages when they are directed at us.
I see that in Grand Junction CO, Coach Tremaine Jackson of Colorado Mesa University marched along with perhaps 30 of his football players to the Grand Junction Police Station. The coach and players were protesting police brutality, specifically the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. They were joined by and supported by a number of permanent residents of Grand Junction. Waiting in the lobby to meet them was Chief Doug Shoemaker, speaking for the police department. Coach Jackson said he would encourage his team (130 football players, of which 70 are black) to co-ordinate with the Chief's team (the police department) to find ways to interact better in Grand Junction. Chief Shoemaker said he wants to listen respectfully, understand people's experiences with the police department, recognize biases, and de-escalate conflict. Chief Shoemaker asked to held accountable, and he made commitments to meet again in the near future to explore options. Chief Shoemaker, wearing a mask, shook hands with the protestors as they left the police station. The entire meeting was recorded on the video camera in the police station lobby.
Good dado potato except for shaking hands in the covid era.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.