Trump’s NFL Flag Bullshit Not Going Away

[WhatTheBuck 28821]

10 minutes ago, Mole said:

There's a distinction between voting patterns of racists and opposition to Obama being largely driven by race, which is what you suggested. Republicans said the same things about Obama's patriotism that they said about every previous D candidate. It's certainly disingenuous, but how did it suddenly become racist to do so? If I'm a jerk to everyone, being a jerk to a black man doesn't mean I'm a racist; it just means that I'm a jerk. It's a political game rather than an honest statement to reflexively declare racism.  

That doesn't mean that there aren't racists voting R just like there are America haters voting D, but it isn't honest to play these political games.

I think the opposition to kneeling is ridiculous, but it largely isn't an issue of racism. It's largely a battle over the Amerian civic religion.

Huh? You said the R's call the D's unpatriotic and the D's call the R's racist. I pointed out that everyone is patriotic but the R's really are the home for racists.

You want to suggest that the R's would've made the same stupid argument about the lapel pin against any white candidate? Fine. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. I have strong doubts. 

They certainly wouldn't have peddled the argument that a white candidate was a secret Muslim intent on destroying the U.S. I guess it gets kind of murky where Republican racism is involved because it touches everything. Especially where Obama is concerned. 

[bad_teammate 13226]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

Why did you think I was triggered by offering a differing POV?

Your incessant whining about something that doesn't matter to you. That's what let us all know how triggered you are.

[WhatTheBuck 28821]

If you care whether NFL players kneel or stand during the national anthem then you're a gigantic pussy. Get a life. It doesn't affect you so why do you care? Oh right, because you're a gigantic pussy. 

[Mole 4333]

They absolutely would have made the same stupid argument about a white candidate because that's what they do. See Swift Boat Vets for Truth. A significant portion of the right worships at the altar of America. It's an easy political move and it works. That's why Obama caught so much heat about the Jeremiah Wright stuff (even though Wright was doing his job as a Christian pastor preaching on confronting evil). He blasphemed the church of America. It's the same thing going on with the kneeling issue and it's working for Trump. The problem with the reflexive racism claims is that there are actual racist tactics, such as the secret Muslim garbage. Even in that case, when was the last D president who wasn't declared the anti-Christ? How different is the secret Muslim thing?

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The data and patterns indicate racism. He's a racist. 

...

And the patterns indicate he supports Federalist Society type judges and "Two" Corinthians.  But I believe his support for Federalist Society type judges is not because he believes in that.  It's because he believes that if he presses that purple button good things happen for Donald Trump.  And the day he believes that pressing that purple button is not good for Donald Trump he will not favor Federalist Society judges.  I believe we have no fucking clue what he thinks about Federalist Society judges other than that it is good for Trump.  I don't think he knows or cares about any criterion other than what's good for Donald.  If he gets pissed or if his ego gets bruised by Republicans, evangelicals, Billy Bob or whomever he will not favor Federalist Society judges.  I don't think he cares whether something is true or ethical - only if it is good for Donald.  That's my assessment of the data.  Everything is about Donald.  I take absolutely nothing he says at face value.  If you believe as I do you are being intellectually dishonest to pick and choose what you think he believes.  Ascribing all his negative views (e.g. racism) as beliefs and ascribing all his positive views (e.g. "Two" Corinthians) as lies is just simple-minded rhetorical garbage.

[David Dennison 18993]

21 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

And the patterns indicate he supports Federalist Society type judges and "Two" Corinthians.  But I believe his support for Federalist Society type judges is not because he believes in that.  It's because he believes that if he presses that purple button good things happen for Donald Trump.  And the day he believes that pressing that purple button is not good for Donald Trump he will not favor Federalist Society judges.  I believe we have no fucking clue what he thinks about Federalist Society judges other than that it is good for Trump.  I don't think he knows or cares about any criterion other than what's good for Donald.  If he gets pissed or if his ego gets bruised by Republicans, evangelicals, Billy Bob or whomever he will not favor Federalist Society judges.  I don't think he cares whether something is true or ethical - only if it is good for Donald.  That's my assessment of the data.  Everything is about Donald.  I take absolutely nothing he says at face value.  If you believe as I do you are being intellectually dishonest to pick and choose what you think he believes.  Ascribing all his negative views (e.g. racism) as beliefs and ascribing all his positive views (e.g. "Two" Corinthians) as lies is just simple-minded rhetorical garbage.

Based on everything I know about the man, I believe that Donald Trump is a racist. Full stop. 

[bad_teammate 13226]

27 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

And the patterns indicate he supports Federalist Society type judges and "Two" Corinthians.  But I believe his support for Federalist Society type judges is not because he believes in that.  It's because he believes that if he presses that purple button good things happen for Donald Trump.  And the day he believes that pressing that purple button is not good for Donald Trump he will not favor Federalist Society judges.  I believe we have no fucking clue what he thinks about Federalist Society judges other than that it is good for Trump.  I don't think he knows or cares about any criterion other than what's good for Donald.  If he gets pissed or if his ego gets bruised by Republicans, evangelicals, Billy Bob or whomever he will not favor Federalist Society judges.  I don't think he cares whether something is true or ethical - only if it is good for Donald.  That's my assessment of the data.  Everything is about Donald.  I take absolutely nothing he says at face value.  If you believe as I do you are being intellectually dishonest to pick and choose what you think he believes.  Ascribing all his negative views (e.g. racism) as beliefs and ascribing all his positive views (e.g. "Two" Corinthians) as lies is just simple-minded rhetorical garbage.

So are you arguing that Donald Trump is not a racist or are you just feeling the knee-jerk need to be defensive of Donald Trump without denying that he is racist?

What a bizarre post and even more bizarre set of internal motivations behind it.

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So are you arguing that Donald Trump is not a racist or are you just feeling the knee-jerk need to be defensive of Donald Trump without denying that he is racist?

What a bizarre post and even more bizarre set of internal motivations behind it.

Quote

So are you arguing that Donald Trump is not a racist?

No.  I'm arguing that I have no clue as to his belief system on any topic including race.  There are many definitions of racist.  Some are very strict, would characterize only a small part of the population to be so, and describe truly despicable people.  Some consider almost any discriminatory act based on race and include essentially everybody. Some have the foolish contention that it matters who does it (e.g.  Blacks can't be racist). Some look at belief systems; some look at acts.  Many seem to have a bizarre definition  that changes with the wind.  I don't opine on whether somebody is racist.  I think the discussion has lost its practical meaning and is just a rhetorical vehicle.  Trump has clearly made unfair statements about some Black people.

Quote

Are you just feeling the knee-jerk need to be defensive of Donald Trump?

What I wrote about Trump can't be considered a defense.  It is a criticism that I consider to be equal to or far worse than being a racist, depending on which of the many definitions of racism you use.

[Smax 3800]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

There's a distinction between voting patterns of racists and opposition to Obama being largely driven by race, which is what you suggested. Republicans said the same things about Obama's patriotism that they said about every previous D candidate. It's certainly disingenuous, but how did it suddenly become racist to do so? If I'm a jerk to everyone, being a jerk to a black man doesn't mean I'm a racist; it just means that I'm a jerk. It's a political game rather than an honest statement to reflexively declare racism.  

That doesn't mean that there aren't racists voting R just like there are America haters voting D, but it isn't honest to play these political games.

I think the opposition to kneeling is ridiculous, but it largely isn't an issue of racism. It's largely a battle over the Amerian civic religion.

 

 

 

Calling someone a jerk isn't going to bring the rabble rousing mob to his aide like calling "you" a racist would

 

And while the opposition to kneeling is ridiculous, the act in itself is just dumb and you think it about, its about as lazy and disengaged an act someone can do. If Kap and whoever else really wanted to make a statement, or help make a change, instead of kneeling how about they turn to their social media which has tens of thousands if not millions of followers and start organizing something. Those guys have plenty of disposable income and influence to get the ball rolling for whatever movement or organization to help further this cause.

[Dahobbs 17717]

7 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

 

 

Calling someone a jerk isn't going to bring the rabble rousing mob to his aide like calling "you" a racist would

 

And while the opposition to kneeling is ridiculous, the act in itself is just dumb and you think it about, its about as lazy and disengaged an act someone can do. If Kap and whoever else really wanted to make a statement, or help make a change, instead of kneeling how about they turn to their social media which has tens of thousands if not millions of followers and start organizing something. Those guys have plenty of disposable income and influence to get the ball rolling for whatever movement or organization to help further this cause.

And you know they aren't doing that how? Because a lot of those guys do, you just aren't paying attention to it. 

[scottsins 1981]

And you know they aren't doing that how? Because a lot of those guys do, you just aren't paying attention to it. 

He is just making baseless assumptions. Kap, in fact, does a lot for his chosen cause.

[DDD Dad 14365]

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Modern day Trumpism is the equivalent of siding with Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. 

 

 

I resent that remark (I have Tory ancestors).

[bad_teammate 13226]

15 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

No.  I'm arguing that I have no clue as to his belief system on any topic including race.

Is this a common angle of entry for your viewpoints on everyone, or just Trump.

You know the answer to that as well as I do. You are not nearly as circumspect when issuing judgments about political opponents either here or in DC. However, when it comes to Trump, you're a Buddhist.

That is why your post is clearly defensive. It's very Ted Cruz in its construction and motivation.

[Smax 3800]

4 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

He is just making baseless assumptions. Kap, in fact, does a lot for his chosen cause.

 

 

Maybe but its more with what dahobs said, I'm not paying attention, mainly because its a subject I don't really care too much about. What did you say African Americans are treated unfairly, beaten and murdered by police, news at 11. 

I'm in the camp of I'm tired of politics being injected into my escapism entertainment

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

a business should not be forced to suffer so an employee can give his political statement. A business should not be forced to employee people who cost them money. 

Take a knee, donate your game check to charity. 

[DDD Dad 14365]

7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

a business should not be forced to suffer so an employee can give his political statement. A business should not be forced to employee people who cost them money. 

Take a knee, donate your game check to charity. 

You keep saying the same thing over and over.  This isn't about the NFL owners imposing their will on their players.  It's about our head of state seeking to impose his views and direct these companies to squelch the speech of citizens.

[David Dennison 18993]

9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

a business should not be forced to suffer so an employee can give his political statement. A business should not be forced to employee people who cost them money. 

Take a knee, donate your game check to charity. 

Then don't employ them.

[Dahobbs 17717]

7 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

Maybe but its more with what dahobs said, I'm not paying attention, mainly because its a subject I don't really care too much about. What did you say African Americans are treated unfairly, beaten and murdered by police, news at 11. 

I'm in the camp of I'm tired of politics being injected into my escapism entertainment

To be clear, I was criticizing you, not justifying your disgusting feelings. And I think I speak for everyone when I say that we are really sorry that learning about the mistreatment of other people tires you. Hopefully one day you'll be the one being mistreated so that we can tell you to stop bitching about it. 

[RPM 26374]

Did you know famed Dallas weatherman Harold Taft played the National Anthem at many Cowboys games in Texas Stadium? No, no you didn't because it wasn't televised. Why wasn't it televised? Because the government wasn't giving a shitload of money to the NFL.

[TahoeHorn 107]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is this a common angle of entry for your viewpoints on everyone, or just Trump.

...

I can't readily think of anyone but Trump. 

I think almost everybody has a complex set of values so that the longer you know them the more you learn about how they balance various priorities.  When, for example, does a coworker chase the deal and when does he go to his kid's big soccer game?  It's an n-dimensional problem and the weighting of various variables is not readily understood.  I see Trump as being about Trump.  You can only understand a variable when there is no Trump component in the situation and you have no such data.  So if I want to know how he thinks about Federalist Society judges or the Bible I have to see info where it has no impact on him.

I would bet the house that if he thought his reelection depended on being pro civil rights, and he thought he could sell it, he'd have pro-civil rights rhetoric more flamboyant than anybody in Washington.  He has no core beliefs.  None.  It's why this stuff about Russia is spooky.  He'd sell out the USA if he thought he could pull it off.  It's why he lies.  His brain doesn't care whether something is true or whether he believes it.  If, in the moment, he can get you to buy the building by saying it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright he says it, and has no memory that he said it.  The only variable he considers is Donald.

If you think that's a defense you're a scary dude.

Edited June 6, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Mole 4333]

Yeah, that description of Trump is far worse than calling him racist.

I ran across this poll from the late 90s:

Quote

Nearly nine out of 10 black teenagers say racism has little impact on their day-to-day lives, according to a Time-CNN poll released Sunday.

But the survey also found more than half of all teenagers - 62 percent of blacks and 58 whites - believe racism is “a big problem.”

Specifically asked about racism in their own lives, 89 percent of black teenagers said racism was “a small problem” or “not a problem at all.”

It's an interesting picture from 20 years ago where the perception of the problem doesn't line up with personal experiences. I'm not sure what similar polls would say today.

[Smax 3800]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

To be clear, I was criticizing you, not justifying your disgusting feelings. And I think I speak for everyone when I say that we are really sorry that learning about the mistreatment of other people tires you. Hopefully one day you'll be the one being mistreated so that we can tell you to stop bitching about it. 

Criticize away you're not important enough in my life for me to care what you think or say about me and to correct you, "I'm not learning about the mistreatment of others". If you read my post you quoted, its states that in a sarcastic way.

The constant in your face 24/7 is going to start turning people away from the message and whatever event they originally wanted to watch.

[Fozzz 152]

I think they were given more "walking around money" (as KlanHorn would put it) back in the 90s, which probably explains those polls. 

[scottsins 1981]

56 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

I'm in the camp of I'm tired of politics being injected into my escapism entertainment

Yep.  It was totally fucked up of Trump to do that.

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

54 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You keep saying the same thing over and over.  This isn't about the NFL owners imposing their will on their players.  It's about our head of state seeking to impose his views and direct these companies to squelch the speech of citizens.

I thought it was about police brutality?  

The police mistreated the minority community long before Trump and sadly will do so after Trump. He simply gave his dumbass unwanted opinion on taking a knee during the anthem (playing to his base), but simply an opinion which fanned the flames and pushed everything further away from the message. It’s now NFL vs Trump just as you point out. It’s lost. 

[Smax 3800]

27 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Yep.  It was totally fucked up of Trump to do that.

 

 

no disagreement from me

[DanRydell 799]

Republicans buy sneakers too.
 
When the TV contract comes up for renewal, how much less per year do you think this shit will reduce it?  I'll guess $200MM.

$0.00

[DanRydell 799]

Where did this come from?
Here's the way you should be looking at this issue:
- When people buy gas at Exxon they don't want the clerk to start preaching about abortion
- When people buy milk at Safeway they don't want the cashier preaching about gun ontrol
- When people get their IBM server fixed they don't want the techie to yammer about gay marriage
- When people have the Price Waterhouse auditor looks at their books they don't want him talking about the Fair Tax.
- When people go buy a new trash can at KMart they don't want their stock boy complaining about health care policy.
- When people to Bugtussle Bowling Alley they don't want the manager bitching about the war in Afghanistan
- When people go to Home Depot for a ladder they don't want they sales guy whining about steel imports
- When people go to an NFL game they don't want they employees protesting the police
Whether it's Exxon, Safeway, IBM, Price Waterhouse, KMart, Bugtussle Bowling, Home Depot or the NFL management needs to understand that customers don't like their employees bitching to customers about politics.  Or religion.  Or whatever.  They don't want to hear their shit.  Any kind.  And every place I know fires employees that don't understand that.  And people I know do business elsewhere if they get hassled by employees.
And it doesn't have squat to do with the validity of the issue.  It's like getting a robo call about some issue you like.  You still don't like the robo call.
 

The national anthem itself is the robocall in this analogy, not the kneeling.

[bad_teammate 13226]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

If you think that's a defense you're a scary dude.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of Trump's various pathologies, I am simply commenting on your knee-jerk desire to argue against people calling him racist. You're not a fan of Donald, obviously, but you're a big fan of attacking anyone who calls anything racist.

You can call Donald everything under the sun, but every fiber in your being screams against admitting that "racist" is one of them. It's not hard to understand why that is, given your own ... let's say ... problems with race.

[Equinox 95]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

You keep saying the same thing over and over.  

Welcome to Surly Horns.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Horseshit.  I've made the exact argument before on topics other than race.  I think it's important to understand what drives a populist, particularly Trump.

 

If you want to accuse him of doing racist things you'll have no argument from me.  I didn't and won't defend his discriminatory actions.  I'm opining on a message board in an academic type discussion (this thread has no bearing on real life)  what I think drives him.  I think the desire to discriminate against Blacks, or even a subconscious bias, does not explain his behavior.  I explained why.  I certainly didn't, as you allege, attack anyone other than Trump.

You consistently totally misunderstand and misrepresent my views.  I'm not sure why you care so much.

[David Dennison 18993]

5 minutes ago, Tony Soprano said:

Maybe because 99 times out of 100 it's total bs when someone pulls the race card. 

Not in America it isn't. Read some history.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not in America it isn't. Read some history.

Or some present. 

[Bill Brasky 1468]

Where do I need to send my reperations check? 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Bill Brasky

[cmontexas 3282]

LMAO at people who think the NFL TV contract will go down. Live entertainment is pretty much all the networks have left. WWE has plummeted in terms of its own popularity and just got 10 times more money than their last contract signed 4 years ago

Edited June 7, 2018 by cmontexas

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

Maybe they should focus on the message. 

The real inequality is socioeconomic status. Crimes are related to poverty and environment. Unless we’d like to make the argument that crime is caused By skin color and skin color determines crimes to be committed at an exponential rate compared with other colors. Bullshit. It’s poverty plain and simple, and a narrow focus hinders the cause.  It’s a disservice to the cause.  But that would ultimately be a difficult conversation coming from the 1% NFL player  (see many NFL player examples)  

What is the biggest discrepancy when is comes to crimes?  Representation. The higher socioeconomic classes have acces to better representation and “justice”. The unequal justice is bought and sold but the peasants focus on what the politicians can eat off of. Race. 

Sheep. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[Guest]

12 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

You keep saying the same thing over and over.  This isn't about the NFL owners imposing their will on their players.  It's about our head of state seeking to impose his views and direct these companies to squelch the speech of citizens.

The speech hasn't been squelched.

The price just went up.

 

FTR, i disagree with the NFL and their bandaid 'solution.'

Edited June 7, 2018 by slorch

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Guest]

Michael Bennett true patriot...and lying motherfucker.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[TornACL 7733]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

Michael Bennett true patriot...and lying motherfucker.

Great contribution. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Great contribution. 

Sorry, I assumed folks were aware of his embellished attack by police.

His name was on Jenkins’ sign.

[phdhorn 6224]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Find us a protest anywhere in American history that didn't start out with majority opposition against it. The public always hates a protest. Public opposition is inherent to the act itself.

Since you asked, I can think of three right off the top of my head:  Shay's Rebellion and the Bonus Army Protests, and the Million Man March.  All had higher favorables at the outset of the protests than unfavorables.

However, although you state the fairly obvious, it's correct... a lot of stuff that people protest is often looked at negatively by the majority, at least at first.  In time, the public's opinion tends to soften on some protested issue - but often that's way, way after the fact or relevance (e.g. VIetnam protests were seen as negative during the war by some 75% of the country, but by 1995 there was about a 30 point swing.  But of course it was totally irrelevant by that time, since the war had been over for 20 years.||

But I think the other telling thing is that, in general, protests are usually a lousy way to change things; they rarely do.  The Civil Rights movement is often seen as an example of protests inducing change, but that's debatable.  Kennedy had crafted a basic Civil Rights bill as early as 1961, but the protests (Freedom Ride, March on Washington, etc.) actually left him less inclined to produce a more sweeping bill, and in private the Kennedy administration was pretty unhappy with the protests.  And they effected little legislative change; even after King met with Kennedy in the WH after the March, Kennedy told King they don't have the votes in Congress.  King and Malcolm X exhibited a personal deep dislike for each other, and the movement was somewhat fractured going into 1964, with little sign anything would change legislatively.  The protests were only fueling anger and backlash; there was little headway being made to actually change anything.  Kennedy's bill was stuck in the House, and Chairman Smith (Dem-Va) of the Rules Committee wasn't going to let it go anywhere.  Civil Rights was far from a reality, despite all of the protests.

So what was the thing that caused the real change?  Kennedy's assassination and Johnson's decision to take up a more aggressive stand on Civil Rights, as Kennedy made it known that this was one of his priorities, although again he was looking at a much less impactful law; but the growth of Kennedy as a mythic figure gave the movement the momentum it needed.  Even with that, the act passed almost entirely on Mansfield's ability to bypass the Judiciary Committee (led by Mississippi Dem Eastland) and introduce a weaker bill, ending the 54-day Senate filibuster on it, and it was actually Northern popular sentiment (constituents) that pressured Notherrn congressmen to swing around (again, with Kennedy's death providing a huge uptick in momentum during the December 1963 recess) to enable the legislation to trickle toward passage (by getting it out of Rules, by bypassing Senate Judiciary, etc.).  Thus, most of the impetus came from the North, just barely enough to tip the scales and get the now-much weaker bills moving.

One can argue that the protests immediately surrounding the legislation not only didn't help the law pass, but it actually hindered it, until Kennedy's assassination.

[David Dennison 18993]

28 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Since you asked, I can think of three right off the top of my head:  Shay's Rebellion and the Bonus Army Protests, and the Million Man March.  All had higher favorables at the outset of the protests than unfavorables.

However, although you state the fairly obvious, it's correct... a lot of stuff that people protest is often looked at negatively by the majority, at least at first.  In time, the public's opinion tends to soften on some protested issue - but often that's way, way after the fact or relevance (e.g. VIetnam protests were seen as negative during the war by some 75% of the country, but by 1995 there was about a 30 point swing.  But of course it was totally irrelevant by that time, since the war had been over for 20 years.||

But I think the other telling thing is that, in general, protests are usually a lousy way to change things; they rarely do.  The Civil Rights movement is often seen as an example of protests inducing change, but that's debatable.  Kennedy had crafted a basic Civil Rights bill as early as 1961, but the protests (Freedom Ride, March on Washington, etc.) actually left him less inclined to produce a more sweeping bill, and in private the Kennedy administration was pretty unhappy with the protests.  And they effected little legislative change; even after King met with Kennedy in the WH after the March, Kennedy told King they don't have the votes in Congress.  King and Malcolm X exhibited a personal deep dislike for each other, and the movement was somewhat fractured going into 1964, with little sign anything would change legislatively.  The protests were only fueling anger and backlash; there was little headway being made to actually change anything.  Kennedy's bill was stuck in the House, and Chairman Smith (Dem-Va) of the Rules Committee wasn't going to let it go anywhere.  Civil Rights was far from a reality, despite all of the protests.

So what was the thing that caused the real change?  Kennedy's assassination and Johnson's decision to take up a more aggressive stand on Civil Rights, as Kennedy made it known that this was one of his priorities, although again he was looking at a much less impactful law; but the growth of Kennedy as a mythic figure gave the movement the momentum it needed.  Even with that, the act passed almost entirely on Mansfield's ability to bypass the Judiciary Committee (led by Mississippi Dem Eastland) and introduce a weaker bill, ending the 54-day Senate filibuster on it, and it was actually Northern popular sentiment (constituents) that pressured Notherrn congressmen to swing around (again, with Kennedy's death providing a huge uptick in momentum during the December 1963 recess) to enable the legislation to trickle toward passage (by getting it out of Rules, by bypassing Senate Judiciary, etc.).  Thus, most of the impetus came from the North, just barely enough to tip the scales and get the now-much weaker bills moving.

One can argue that the protests immediately surrounding the legislation not only didn't help the law pass, but it actually hindered it, until Kennedy's assassination.

This is a good post. Just about everything in it demonstrates just how fucked up white people are. We'll pass civil rights legislation not because it's the right thing to do but because Kennedy got assassinated.

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by David Dennison

[phdhorn 6224]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Everything in this post demonstrates just how fucked up white people are.

I'll bide my time until I figure out what you're saying.

Edited June 7, 2018 by phdhorn

[David Dennison 18993]

1 minute ago, phdhorn said:

Predictably, coming from you, this means.... uh.... shit.  LOL.   

Hey captain sensitive, I wasn't criticizing you, I was criticizing the mindset of 20th century white America. It's not really a secret that white Americans are fucked up when it comes to race and civil rights.

[Guest]

Carry that guilt, mofo...

 

LOLZ.

 

Not racist though, right?

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

But the crusades!!

[jimmyjazz 46351]

17 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

a business should not be forced to suffer so an employee can give his political statement. A business should not be forced to employee people who cost them money. 

Take a knee, donate your game check to charity. 

What a preposterous "solution" to the perceived problem.  The employee's paycheck is chicken scratch compared to the revenue generated by an NFL football game.

Moreover, the NFL has absolutely no problem with players kneeling in what appears to be (Christian) prayer following a touchdown or a victory, so let's not ignore the hypocrisy.

[EMAWesome 101]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Hey captain sensitive, I wasn't criticizing you, I was criticizing the mindset of 20th century white America. It's not really a secret that white Americans are fucked up when it comes to race and civil rights.

It's also not a secret that we are currently in the 21st century.