Your 9.16.20 Playpen

Thoughts from a DGD…

And with that in mind, the comments are yours.

349 Comments

Filed under GTP Stuff

349 responses to “Your 9.16.20 Playpen

  1. I have nothing to add here. Other than to say that if we had more citizens willing to discuss issues, understand the perspective of others, and work toward solutions to real problems (like Ben Watson) and fewer cranky people who were quick to demonize people they disagree with (at least 70% of Americans) we’d be a lot better off.

    Liked by 13 people

    • I try (and mostly fail) to go into conversations with the idea that I may be wrong, and try to listen. Telling people to “love it or leave it” is just a way not to listen. I love a lot of flawed things and people, try to love myself, and am always hoping and working towards improvement.

      Those who say criticizing America is unpatriotic.

      I love UGA football to death, but since 1980 every team has had flaws that I enjoy pointing out, and hope the coaches are improving. I’ve called for coaches to be let go. None of that means I don’t love UGA football. Why anyone would treat America differently, IDK. But they do.

      Liked by 3 people

      • tenesseewasnevergreat

        You can’t just sugarcoat what’s happening by calling it “criticism.” Sure, some “critics” truly love the country and want to make it better, but there is a much more vocal group, including the kneeling woke, who believe that America is fundamentally racist and that every one of our institutions have to be torn down and rebuilt in a marxist image. If you won’t acknowledge that group, we can’t even get an honest conversation off the ground. I’ll acknowledge that there are racists in this country (of every race), but I do not believe that racism is the driving force behind much of anything that happens in corporate america or within government. I also do not think that all of our problems can be fixed with critical race theory.

        There are legitimate criticisms to make, but that is not what’s happening in the woke left. If you claimed to be a UGA fan or supporter, yet you constantly argued that UGA was so flawed that the only way to improve it was to burn it down and start over (including the removal of statutes — be it UGA statutes or statues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and the Washington Monument), I’d be well within my rights to question whether you were a fan of UGA at all or whether you just wanted to tear it down because you are really a fan of what you imagine that you could put in its place.

        It makes me sick when I see anarchist protesters or twitter marxists pretend that they are the ones who truly love america because they hate everything about it. That’s why people are willing to walk away from the NFL when players kneel during the anthem. Those protests are rooted in woke leftism that claims that America and Americans are fundamentally racist. Just as people are free to say whatever they want in criticism of America, the rest of us are free to broadcast to the NFL that they will lose us as an audience if they continue to allow themselves to be a platform for this destructive and false message.

        Most people can tell the difference between constructively criticizing something you care about and making vicious attacks against something you despise. It’s not fair to argue that everyone who opposes the woke left is unAmerican because they don’t care about free speech. If you want to say that Kirby needs to open up the offense and use the tight ends more – great. That’s what fans do. If you want to argue that Kirby hates black kids and would rather tank the season than let them succeed, we have an irresolvable difference of opinion and, yes, I don’t think you’re much of a fan.

        Liked by 7 people

        • Derek

          If you only got that outraged by police kneeling on someones neck until they’re dead we’d have a lot less things to argue about.

          Liked by 5 people

          • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

            There he goes again.

            Like

          • tenesseewasnevergreat

            If the police murdered Floyd, they should be given life in prison. One murderous police officer does not require revolution and it is not evidence that America is fundamentally racist.

            Liked by 3 people

            • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

              Logic does not exist in the dojo.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Derek

              Is it just one?

              Liked by 4 people

              • tenesseewasnevergreat

                How many murderous police officers do you think there are?

                Like

                • tenesseewasnevergreat

                  1 is too many. Do we eliminate all police over 1 criminal though? Don’t be cute now. Are the police in this country hunting down brown skinned people for sport or not? The solutions are very different depending on what the problem is.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  I’m not for eliminating police.

                  I will say that if George Floyd is the necessary cost of having police, I’d rather not have police.

                  But I don’t think its necessary. We have to eliminate the idea that police are patrolling Fallujah and back to serving and protecting.

                  We just can’t give police a free unaccountable hand to do whatever to people.

                  Like

                • tenesseewasnevergreat

                  Society cannot function without police, which was demonstrated very recently in the sovereign state of CHAZ, so we will just have to try to make sure that we minimize the number of illegal police killings.

                  Like

            • mddawg

              If it was just one murderous police officer, I think the national conversation would be a lot different. But even in the case of George Floyd, there were several police officers there, the one who kneeled on his neck and the others who helped keep him pinned down or just watched.

              And I’m also curious what you mean by “fundamentally racist”. I don’t think that everyone or everything is inherently racist, but I honestly have a hard time understanding how anyone could deny the systemic racism that has existed and continues to exist in this country.

              Like

              • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                You’d have an easy time. Where is your proof of systematic racism? Show us the laws that are currently on the books, right now, that can prove this ludicrous claim. Because that is what systematic racism means. In fact, there are laws on the books that are there to prevent what you claim is.

                You and those like you keep conflating the actions of an increasingly small amount of individuals with systems.

                Here’s another question for you: How was the murder of George Floyd in any way the function of racism?

                Answer these two questions with verifiable data (and not some ridiculously biased CRT academic paper), and I’ll be impressed.

                Liked by 3 people

                • mddawg

                  I think the Senator has linked to this article before, but I may be wrong. It probably won’t satisfy you, but I’d encourage you to read it with an open mind:

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/

                  I’ll also add that I included in my previous comment the systemic racism that existed in years past, the effects of which are likely still being felt today. That includes slavery, jim crow laws, and redlining.

                  In regards to George Floyd in particular, do you think he’d be alive today if he was white? If you think the answer is no, then at the very least we could still have a conversation about police brutality. If you think the answer is yes (that he would be alive today if he had been white), then it’s the same as saying he’s dead because he was black.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Radley Balko is a righteous dude.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  That doesn’t prove racism is “systematic” because there are no specific laws targeting people for the color of their skin. You can make the argument that those types of laws, while not targeting per se, impact poor people for the amount of wealth they do or do not have. Anything else are the actions of individuals.

                  I of course am against police brutality and the militarization of police, but there are a lot of discussions no one is having, like if unarmed black men were being targeted by police for death, then why aren’t more of them being killed by police in these circumstances? Think about this for just one moment: Black men, 6% of our population, is responsible for 73% of violent crime in the entire country. It’s just a statistic. I’m not making a value judgment. But given that, given that 6% of our population is responsible for 73% of violent crime in the entire country, why has more unarmed white men been killed by police every year going back years, if the police are specifically targeting black men?

                  The entire BLM narrative completely undone when you actually think and use your brain and look at abject truth over narrative.

                  Liked by 3 people

                • mddawg

                  I’d first have to know where you got the statistics you’re referencing. I wasn’t able to find them with a quick google search.

                  And maybe we’re not agreeing on the definition of “systemic racism”. There doesn’t necessarily have to be a law on the books for it to be systemic. For example if banks are offering lower interest rates to whites than to minorities, regardless of income or credit history, and that situation is found to be pervasive throughout a company or industry, then it’s a systemic problem.

                  As several of the studies linked in that article indicate, black people often get harsher prison sentences than white people even when committing the same crimes. If that happens over and over again across multiple cities, counties, and states, it gets harder and harder to say “it’s just individuals”. If there are really that many racist individuals serving as judges, then clearly there’s a systemic problem in how judges are screened/selected.

                  Like

                • jdawg108

                  No. Laws on the books doesn’t equate to systemic racism. Shows your ignorance of the topic at hand. Yet you continue to go off on it, without comprehension of the basic principles.

                  Like

                • stumpypepys2

                  If people comply with law enforcement commands, their odds of surviving such encounters increase dramatically. That is true regardless of race, Behavior is almost always a factor in bad outcomes. The street is not the place to argue with law enforcement officers; the courts are.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • debbybalcer

                  It did not help Brionna Taylor.

                  Like

          • Greg

            For the most part, it should be easy……just comply and live another day to fight it.

            Like

            • stoopnagle

              Yeah, if compliance got one anywhere, that’d be the way to go.

              Like

              • Greg

                or NOT…and take your chances.

                Like

              • Tony BarnFart

                By saying compliance doesn’t get you anywhere, you’re saying that all of the constitutional protections a suspect / defendant face are worthless and we should tear it all down. That the warrant calling for your arrest had to be issued by a judge (not the beat cop) on probable cause ? Worthless. Quickly out on bail after the arrest ? Worthless. Public defender fighting the legitimacy of the arrest warrant ? Worthless. Bringing a civil rights action against police who are too rough [but notably don’t kill you because you didn’t threaten their life] ? Worthless.

                Like

        • classiccitycanine

          You know, you don’t have to be a cultural Marxist to see that America has a massive and horrible legacy of racism to deal with. If you think that everyone who kneels and protests automatically qualifies as a useless America-hater, then you’re part of the problem.

          Liked by 11 people

        • jdawg108

          That’s a small amount of people. Most just want incremental changes.

          However. The history of this country has not been great for people of color. They’ve been left out of the American promise.

          Especially in the south, where the “benevolent master” ethos was still prevalent 30-40 years ago.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Literally Ditka is talking about NFL players. You can strawman “anarchists” and “marxists” but I’m pretty sure that the guys making millions playing sports aren’t Marxists.

          Like

  2. gastr1

    It’s worth a mention that DGD Ben Watson is no leftist atheist communist/anarchist type. So, demonize him all you want if you’re on the “other” side, but take into account that the views I’ve heard him express, outside of when he supports those who want to take a stand against injustice (if that’s “liberal”), are generally pretty conservative.

    Liked by 4 people

    • tenesseewasnevergreat

      That’s great. Our country is full of conservatives who stand up and try to build bridges across the aisle. Let me know when a vocal liberal is willing to defend the views of conservatives instead of projecting racism into every policy debate.

      Liked by 3 people

    • debbybalcer

      Agreed. He wrote a book about racism called Under our Skin. In it he talks about his personal experiences. Racism is real and institutional but tying the whole movement to the group that named themselves Black Lives Matter is a part of denying the issue. Our country is great but it is not perfect and we need to make opportunity equal for all. I grew up as an Army brat and my husband served for eight years so I love my country but I don’t like how we are functioning now. This idea that fellow Americans are the enemy and should leave is wrong.

      Liked by 6 people

  3. Illini84

    Shit, when they start with the “communists and marxist” bullshit they aren’t just telling you “love it or leave it” they are setting up a rationale to kill you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So who are the victims here? Antifa? Are they on the side of civility and reason? Or are they the ones pushing toward violent conflict and confrontation at every opportunity?

      Surely those who are fighting for justice peacefully would welcome press coverage. Maybe not.

      The IPC (“Independent Press Corps”) is an organized group in league with the activists, and it is usually their footage you see streamed online and recycled on the news: mostly innocent protestors being harassed and beaten by police. …

      Reporters seen as not sufficiently sympathetic to the cause—which is defined by the Ten Demands for Justice, and includes most notably the abolition of the police—will be followed, be harassed, have their notes photographed and their phones blocked or stolen. (All these things have happened to me in the last month. A photographer friend has been repeatedly doxxed and placed on a list of “enemies.”)

      The police indeed have tear-gassed and beaten people; there has been brutality. It is equally true, but featured less prominently in the news coverage, that activists spend hours every night menacing and setting fires to police stations and other institutions: City Hall, Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters, and last week Mayor Ted Wheeler’s apartment building (until he agreed to move out).

      According to Nancy (the author), the police brutality spoken of usually comes after hours of the rioters trying to set fires to the police stations. So they antagonize for hours, get a response and stream the response creating more sympathy for their cause. It is information warfare. They set fire to their mayor’s apartment building. He’s a liberal Democrat that they voted into office, and who is generally on their side. To me, that plus doxxing those not sufficiently in line with your beliefs sounds like domestic terrorism.

      You should read more from Nancy Rommelmann – a native Portlandian – who is objectively covering the protests/riots, decide for yourself. Also, Nancy is also not a right-wing conservative, if that’s what you were thinking.

      Liked by 2 people

    • RangerRuss

      It’s peculiar that you don’t see the TTP of Marxists and communists in the riots, propaganda of the media and infiltration of academia. These events are straight out of their playbook. They aren’t trying to hide it either. What do they have to do, man? Start waving the hammer and sickle flag at every event?
      I agree with you that there are people willing to start killing. On both sides. This reactionary shit needs to be stopped cold. NOW!

      Liked by 1 person

      • gurkhadawg

        Of course he sees it. And he agrees with it. It was Mao who said: “power comes from the end of a gun”.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Derek

          George Washington used telepathy.

          Like

        • RangerRuss

          Correct Gurkha Dawg. To some of these clowns on here it’s all fun and games with their memes, tweets, twisting of the truth and repetition of debunked lies. But for those people up north who had their business burned out and the folks out west who have lost their homes to arson the shit has got real. It’s no coincidence that the burning and looting of businesses in yankee cities ceased only when their puppet masters saw their polls descend as folks rightly put the blame on them.
          That arson, looting and assault doesn’t go unpunished down here. As the white trash girl that set the Wendys on fire, you will be arrested. Try burning a business? You can legally be shot. Attack someone in their car? Legally shot in the face as your vehicle is an extension of your home under the castle doctrine. When the blmantifadomterrs march here they mostly obey the laws and are correctly protected. That crowd ain’t stupid. It’s all organized. They’ve always accused us of being a bunch of trigger-happy rednecks. They don’t want to find out if it’s true.
          As for me? I don’t want to shoot anybody. But I won’t tote a gun and an ass whooping.

          Liked by 6 people

    • Don in Mar-a-Lago

      Like

  4. Derek

    Why can’t people express their patriotism by faking bone spurs to avoid service because after all who wants to be a loser or a sucker?

    The point is that the right has its standards so up yours.

    Liked by 6 people

  5. It’s a fair question Ben raises, and a statement that is pulled out pretty quickly when arguing politics by many. I can’t claim to have said that to someone myself, but I have often thought.. why do people who are so miserable in their life want to continue to live here when they are so vehemently opposed and upset with so much? It’s not necessarily easy to move to another country that would better suit some of their views, I get that.. and we all want the best version of America we can have. I don’t think I’m talking about very many.. I’m talking about that few percentage of people here who legitimately hate it here and could be happier someplace else. For me, I wish I could get both sides to understand what it means to have freedom of choice and thought, because I don’t think either really does. I’m glad we have Ben. Guy us a bridge builder without compromising his beliefs. I love that.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. NotMyCrossToBear

    I enjoy Ben’s opinion on a wide array of subjects. He has a lot of good things to say.

    Like

  7. dawgtired7

    We live in a time when those who preach the importance of the freedom of speech, want to silence those who have different opinions. Those who preach the value of life are willing to take life. Those who fight against intolerance are intolerant themselves. Those who fight against hate, hate the ones they fight. Those who spout pride of patriotism when their man is in office, burn the flag when the opponent is in office. Hypocrisy abounds. In short, it’s today’s humanity or the lack their of…

    Liked by 4 people

    • Previously Paul

      My father, a WWII veteran who spent 16 months in a Nazi prison camp, always told me the speech we must defend most vigorously is the speech we disagree with most strenuously. If we only protect speech we agree with we do not have freedom of speech. Putin protects speech he agrees with. So did the Stasi. My Dad came home to an America with a communist party as well as Nazi sympathizers. He thought those those people were idiots. He also said he was willing to die to protect their right to be stupid. That’s an attitude almost wholly absent today. Too bad.

      Liked by 15 people

      • Derek

        The thing I see more than anything is equating consequences for speech with censorship. If the public is appalled by something you say and that has economic consequences for you, thats not censorship.

        The entire idea of free speech is the “market of ideas.” The popular ones prosper and the unpopular ones perish.

        So what? If a shop owner in downtown Charleston, SC put up a “free the slaves” sign up in 1842 and no one shops there anymore can he really complain about cancel culture?

        His being right is pretty meaningless isn’t it?

        Id call it a mix of bravery and economic suicide.

        Like

        • tenesseewasnevergreat

          That’s a red herring. Sure, people do not think that restaurants should embarrass patrons and kick them out because they work for the Trump administration, but the censorship claims are directed at social media giants who regularly deplatform conservatives and google that suppresses information to promote democrats.

          I bet you also think that Twitter and Facebook should be able to ban everyone who disagrees with you politically. How is that any different than the phone company blocking you calls because they don’t like your political beliefs? In short, you absolutely do love censorship — you just argue that it’s ok because private companies are powerful enough to silence your political opponents for you.

          Like

          • Derek

            I bet you’re wrong!

            Opinions are one thing.

            Nonsense is another.

            If they want to ban counter-factual material thats something they can do. Especially russian propaganda material.

            If you think Soros can buy an ad across every network that says that Trump was convicted of pedophilia in a sealed court proceeding, say so.

            Id say that those media outlets would be responsible and decline to air it. I assume you’d approve of the editorial judgment.

            Like

            • tenesseewasnevergreat

              “If they want to ban counter-factual material thats something they can do. Especially russian propaganda material”

              Oh, I see. It’s not banning political discourse — it’s banning factually incorrect speech. There is absolutely no overlap there and we can surely trust silicon valley to fairly arbitrate the facts for us. For a moment I thought you were pro-censorship! Thanks for clearing that up for us.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Derek

                You can trust them or not. They get to do it.

                The WSJ editorial page rejects my every submission.

                You wanna bitch for me?

                Like

                • tenesseewasnevergreat

                  So you think facebook and twitter are publishers now! Finally something we agree on. Now time to take away the special legal protections they enjoy because they were not supposed to be publishers — only platforms.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Gotta say it’s great watching the same folks who screamed about the Fairness Doctrine now insist that Facebook, Google, et al. must be forced to allow all viewpoints.

                  Like

                • tenesseewasnevergreat

                  I suppose it could look like hypocrisy, but I don’t think that’s a fair or reasonable comparison. The fairness doctrine was an attempt to force conservative radio to give up airtime to liberals. In other words, it was forcing a publisher to publish a certain viewpoint they disagreed with. That’s a straightforward violation of the 1st amendment, although I do wish that Trump could commandeer CNN airtime to get his narrative out to their viewers.

                  The social media issue is different because they were given exemptions from the laws that would apply to publishers because they argued that they were simply a forum for public dialogue. Now they want to be publishers and remove influential people they disagree with and scientific work that challenges WHO orthodoxy.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Derek

                  Either way they can host whatever they choose to.

                  Like

          • Previously Paul

            I believe what many get wrong about Facebook, Twitter and social media in general is that these platforms are owned by companies not the public. They do not exist to serve the public good. Those companies write the code and provide the servers for “free” only in the sense that pretty much any person or computer can signup and receive an account. In exchange users give them the right to edit, delete or “censor” anything they dang well please. In addition, anything and everything that gets posted becomes their property to do with as they please. No platform is under any obligation to “allow” anyone to publish anything. They can prevent anyone from publishing anything on their platform for any reason or no reason at all. It’s their property and they can manage it any way they see fit. There is no requirement for them to be “fair” or even consistent. So all the handwringing over what is and isn’t allowed, what gets “suppressed” and what gets promoted is meaningless. Their stuff. Their rules. If we don’t like it we don’t have to participate.

            Like

        • If your small business is burned down by a violent mob, you have failed in the marketplace of ideas.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

        Bingo. Your dd was a hero in more ways than one.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Bulldawg Bill

      DT7, I think you stumbled into the heart of the issue with Ben. Last time I checked anyone has the right to tell someone to “leave the country”. The person being told also has the right not to like it. Now if you want to discuss having or not having a dialog, then that’s a different issue.

      Like

  8. Granthams Replacement

    If a situation was bad enough individuals will “get out”. The great thing about this county is everyone has a choice to play, watch, leave or stay. Mike can not watch and Ben can support protesting if both wish. The exception in the current situation is how some leaders have taken away choices to enjoy life.

    Like

  9. What gives him the right to tell me I don’t have the right? Free country and all; it cuts both ways dude. I don’t have the right to make anyone do shit, but I still have the right to tell someone I don’t like their ass and even to tell them that our country would be better off without them.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Derek

    For better or worse, even if they wanted to, they couldn’t afford it:

    https://apple.news/AIrQT_u3lT-G9NYArUSTKMw

    But at least we have the bill to pay!

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/cbo-us-debt-projected-to-overtake-gdp/index.html

    I have a solution! Tax cuts. For the rich!

    That’ll do it.

    Like

    • How about abolish tbe irs, then this wouldn’t be a thing in tbe first place.

      Like

    • All wealth is inherited … or something. We certainly need to balance things out by stealing some property from people with too much.

      https://mises.org/wire/debunking-income-inequality-research
      *Income inequality is a pretext for massive expansion of state power and social control. Trillions of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of federal means-tested programs are directed to stem the supposed crisis of income inequality. But the research purportedly bolstering the narrative that income inequality is a threat to civil society is woefully misleading.

      Income inequality stirs up emotions in many people, but sadly the first casualty to the passions is the truth. It is vital to factually evaluate inequality data, failure to do so will continue to enable the growth of the federal leviathan.*

      And yes, federal debt is a huge problem. The solution to that is obviously to increase spending. Free shit … duh!

      Liked by 3 people

  11. tenesseewasnevergreat

    Are we going to deny that there is a group of people who believe that the country is systemically racist and that the only way to fix it is to tear it down and rebuild something different? Those are the people looting and burning cities. Rather than tearing down our country to appease the woke mobs, maybe the woke mobs should leave. I don’t see a way to build bridges with people who believe I am a deplorable racist.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I don’t deny that such people exist. I don’t think Ben Watson would deny it either. But the matter at hand is Ditka’s comment about NFL players who protest. And I don’t think the majority of NFL players who protest fit your description.

      Liked by 2 people

      • tenesseewasnevergreat

        I don’t think that most NFL athletes believe it either, but the kneeling protest has its roots in Kapernick’s misguided belief that America is fundamentally racist. Every athlete who thinks they are kneeling because they care about black lives is amplifying Kapernick’s message — not their own. I care about black lives too, but I don’t think the police are gunning them down because they want to murder black people. Like it or not, the kneeling protest is a statement that says most of Americans are racists. Whether the average NFL player believes that is besides the point. Kapernick and LeBron think so and they are in charge of this.

        Like

    • Derek

      Revolutionary tendencies in America!

      Oh noes!!

      “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”

      Thomas Jefferson

      What an asshole, amirite?

      Like

      • tenesseewasnevergreat

        Well, Jefferson was writing about actual tyranny, not imagined microaggressions and unconscious racism. Revolution against tyranny is American. Wanting to murder your political opponents because you think they are deplorable is another story.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Derek

          So you get to decide who is and who isn’t a tyrant for the rest of us?

          Not sure thats in any of Jefferson‘s writings.

          A tyrant is who the victors say is a tyrant. Julius Caesar was a tyrant to the residents of Gaul and a hero in Rome.

          Likewise the Roman Catholic Church in latin america.

          I could go on. The people get to decide this issue for themselves. Not you.

          Fwiw, had someone killed Bull Connor in 1963, I wouldn’t have objected. Would have been much more controversial to have said back then.

          Like

          • tenesseewasnevergreat

            Your response boils down to a claim that the American Revolution was not fought against objective tyranny, but that the tyranny was written into the history books because America won. From there, it seems that you are justifying the murder of anyone as part of a just revolution — so long as the revolutionaries win — because it is the victors who decide how to interpret history.

            If that is your point (and I’m not calling names here because I want to assume the best in people), then I would say that is the perspective of a psychopath. In that view, we must celebrate any violent transition of power because they all have the same moral equivalence.

            My point was just the opposite. That there is an objective right or wrong and that governments can be objectively tyrannical. It is morally good to overthrow tyrants. It is morally bad to use violence to resolve non-violent political disagreements and then rewrite history after the fact to pretend you are fighting tyrants. Your comment leads me to believe you support the latter, so why don’t you clarify yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Derek

              Its the perspective of truth. Had the colonists lost they’d be characterized as traitors. And people wouldn’t know any better.

              Thats just the way it is.

              Ive read the complaints in the Declaration of Independence many times. I’d say that many groups of people living in these borders since could have crafted far worse complaints than can be found therein.

              King George V is NOT the only tyrant ever to reveal himself as such to an american, period.

              Like

              • tenesseewasnevergreat

                Those are not unreasonable points to make, but you started this conversation with the claim that revolutionary tendencies in America are nothing to worry about – as though all revolutions are morally good. It seems like that was not your point after all, so I’m glad we clarified that.

                Like

                • Derek

                  I’d say revolutions by their very nature are a mixed bag.

                  The ones we most frown upon: Bolshevik, Cuban weren’t exactly overthrowing angels.

                  The French Revolution was particularly bloody.

                  The many Irish rebellions were and remain quite controversial in many respects. Irish rebels were the founders of the use of terrorism vs. civilian targets for political aims. Fortunately for them they happened to be white and spoke fluent English so the response wasn’t what it otherwise would have been.

                  The uniqueness of America is that the the revolution is on going. Its never stopped. I just wish that we all recognized that we’re on a continuum toward egalitarianism OR we’re going back to the dark ages.

                  I also wish that the benefactors of prior rebellions would be less judgmental towards the revolutionaries that have followed. They are on the same bloody, uneven, morally troubling path as the rest. The question isn’t whether they have the right to fight, the question is only whether and what they should win, if anything.

                  If the current uproar leads to less militarized policing, more accountability and a more color blind criminal justice system I’m fine with that. To the extent any want full blown marxism, well, that just ain’t happening.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • tenesseewasnevergreat

                  “The uniqueness of America is that the the revolution is on going. Its never stopped. I just wish that we all recognized that we’re on a continuum toward egalitarianism OR we’re going back to the dark ages.”

                  Right there. You just justified violence to get “egalitarianism.” Please tell me what you think that word means, because the rioters in Portland and the poorly educated woke left think it means that they are guaranteed a comfortable and care-free life through the hard work of others.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Derek

                  The founders did the same. Sorry you object.

                  Like

                • “We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of other people’s stuff.” – Thomas Jefferson (probably)

                  Liked by 1 person

              • Tony BarnFart

                George III. George V was the one who refused asylum to his Russian cousin Tsar (tyrant ?) who was then shot and stabbed ex-parte in a siberian basement by the (patriot ?) Bolsheviks.

                Remember, if you win the revolution, you’re now the government. And your constituents will shortly demand something better. The problem for today’s patriot-bolsheviks compared to the patriots that many Americans recognize as patriots is their inability to articulate why our imperfect, but demonstrably very good compared to world history, system of government deserves such a vast remake and what their alternative would be.

                Liked by 3 people

    • DawgFlan

      OK cool, now do far-right and anarchist militias. They’ve killed people and destroyed a lot of property too.

      Democracy is messy, people are messy, and while you don’t sound like a deplorable racist, you’re messy too.

      Humility is hard. Thankfully, I’m the best at it. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

      • tenesseewasnevergreat

        I do not think right wing militias should show up to counter-protest marxists in Portland and I am not going to try to defend them. There are good people on both sides of the current political questions and there are bad people on both sides. Agree?

        Liked by 1 person

        • DawgFlan

          I agree that the center-left and center-right are mostly trying to muddle through while the extremes on both sides are lobbing bombs overhead. The distinction I would draw is that the current President panders to and embraces many of the extremists on one side of the political spectrum as “patriots” while using his powers to amplify fear-mongering the other extreme.

          I hold a center-right perspective with strong preference for bottom-up government based on the principle of subsidiarity. I have voted R more than I have D, but I can not and will not let party tribalism obscure the importance of a moral compass and love for humanity. And I will always be a stronger critic of the extremists on “my” side since they are twisting and co-opting the beliefs I hold most dear.

          Liked by 3 people

          • tenesseewasnevergreat

            We would probably agree on 99% of the issues then. Where we appear to disagree is how the conservative side should engage in politics in the current political atmosphere. You see tribalism and I see the conservative wing doing the only thing it can to slow the march of marxism across the country.

            The media has a strong leftward lean and has subtly shaped the political narrative for decades. I wasn’t old enough to understand how the media treated Regan, but I did see how they treated Bush and I watched them smear Romney for actively seeking out and promoting qualified female executives (binder full of women) and saw how they portrayed Trump as a racist warmonger when it was Her Turn to be president. That is a powerful undercurrent that is drawing the country to the left.

            There is also an increasingly vocal and numerous radical leftist/marxist political group in this country and around the world. I studied with these people in college. They have been constantly validated by our society and proped up on social media to the point that they have effectively taken over the democrat party. The current democratic tendency to amplify the most extreme elements of their base is frightening. Biden cannot say no to the party of the green new deal.

            In this climate, regardless of whether you think one of the other republican candidates would have been a better president (and I absolutely think Ted Cruz would have made a better president), I don’t think there can be much debate that Cruz or anyone else would have been smeared and ridiculed and that he would not have been able to effectively fight back and win a presidential election. Trump ran a guerrilla campaign on social media and called out the fake press for what they are. He brought Bill Clinton’s rape victims to one of the debates because we all know what he is, but no one is willing to offend Democrats by speaking the truth. Without those antics, I think Hillary would have won in a landslide, so I am willing to forgive him for being abrasive because I don’t see any other way to counter the influence that media companies exerted to sway the election.

            With respect to the “tribalism” you see in Trump, I only see him calling out the radical leftist element that is currently running the democrat party. He is once again just drawing attention to what is actually happening to counter the democrat narrative that a violent marxist insurrection is a mostly peaceful protest.

            Liked by 3 people

    • debbybalcer

      Are you going to deny there are white supremacist groups touting that we need to get rid of everyone who is not white and Jewish? Do they speak for you? The racism is real and trying to say it is ok because you decide the ones who are complaining about it are represented by Marxist anarchist is allowing the status quo to exist. It has been shown that some of the violence is created by outside groups who are opportunist.

      Liked by 2 people

      • debbybalcer

        Editing getting rid of everyone who is not white but also Jews.

        Like

      • The ADL estimates there are about 3k KKK members nationwide. That’s probably a liberal estimate. And there are roughly zero politicians, educators, prominent media outlets, or companies who support them or their ideology.

        Now, contrast that to the ubiquitous BLM style cultural Marxists who enjoy support from all factions of society. This isn’t a two sides kind of story.

        Liked by 5 people

        • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

          The biggest media lie of the last 10 years, even more than “Russian Collusion” is that White Supremacists are a “clear and present danger” to our society.

          No, they’re not. They’ve been marginalized to the point of statistical irrelevance and with good cause.

          Now let’s do the same to the violent assholes in BLM and Antifa.

          Liked by 4 people

  12. ASEF

    Snowflakes who can’t handle the idea that our country is in many ways wonderful (it really is) and in many ways horrific (it really is) need to get a grip.

    I have zero patience with the “get out of my country” extreme or the “this place sucks” extreme. I’m tired of their whining and sucking all the oxygen out of debates. If there is a silver lining to the civic shit show we have right now with people running around waving their guns and yearning for Local Warlord-ism, it’s people in the center coming together under a common value: Country over Party.

    Go USA. Go Joe.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Serious question here….

      What are folks like me supposed to do? Folks who believe Trump is a travesty and nightmare, but also believe Joe Biden is clearly declining in overall health and mental accuity, we have problems with many of his policy positions, AND we CAN’T STAND Kamala Harris?

      I’m lost, man.

      Like

      • Grafton

        Easy for me. I can vote for Joe, whom I have many disagreements with or I can vote for Putin’s useful idiot. Not a hard decision to make.

        Liked by 5 people

        • Granthams Replacement

          Joe – China’s useful idiot.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Tony BarnFart

          “Putin’s useful idiot.”
          How TF do you still believe this lie ? Here we go, somebody starts a meaningful bipartisan dialogue but then the incendiary grenades get lobbed. “hey let’s move to the middle, how do we do it ?” “Easy, just believe my insane talking point and come all the way over to my extreme, because I ain’t moving a god damn inch.”

          Liked by 3 people

      • Dawg93

        You and me both, brother.

        Like

      • mddawg

        Find a 3rd party candidate to vote for, or write in a candidate of your choice. Vote for the Representatives and Senators who you think best align with your views so they can keep the President (whoever it is) in check. And don’t forget to vote in your local and state elections as well.

        None of these are perfect answers are perfect but that’s all I’ve got off the top of my head.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Derek

          Throwing your vote away is not the answer. How many thousands of lives would have been saved if a bunch of hippies in Florida hadn’t voted Nader?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Well, in my situation it’s a moot point because it won’t be close at all. I live in Maryland. Biden will get 60+% of the vote without even spending any time or money here.

            Like

          • mddawg

            I know many see it as “throwing your vote away” as you do, and I understand that mentality. I know people who voted for Trump because they felt that not voting or voting 3rd party was basically the same as voting for Hillary. But it’s everyone’s right to make up their own mind on the matter. Some people are going to choose the person who they think best represents their beliefs, priorities, and values, regardless of whether it fits into the two-party system or not.

            Like

            • Sam Johnson

              Certainly you have the right, but if the person you choose does not fit into the two party system, then you are allowing others to choose for you. That is the reality. You can take the high road of beliefs, priorities and values, but that road is a dead end.

              Like

              • Tony BarnFart

                But what if that road eventually leads to the bust-up of the polarizing 2 party system ? Is that not a useful endeavor, even if the dividend is not paid in the immediate election cycle in question ?

                What’s interesting about this discussion is that, from basically the time of Trump’s late 80’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, he’s been on the fringe of 3rd party candidacy the entire time. Espousing the same principles he ran on in 2016. Now, my guess is as good as your as to how that wound up under the republican tent within the 2 party system, or what that means about the 2 party system vs. 3rd parties…….but it is interesting. And all the time he was espousing this stuff, people weren’t freaking the F out over what he was saying.

                Liked by 1 person

                • tenesseewasnevergreat

                  Watching Trump in those old interviews is actually what convinced me to vote for him.

                  Like

                • Sam Johnson

                  It’s called Duverger’s Law. A system with single member districts elected by plurality vote will have a 2 party equilibrium. A 3d party might occasionally arise, but 2 parties will prevail over time. In a large, diverse country such as ours, a multi party system would likely be an improvement, but it won’t happen without a new constitution. Until then, we have to live with 2 parties.

                  Like

          • You believe Gore was against the wars and neocon foreign policy of the Clinton/Gore administration? That’s precious.
            #LieToMeDaddy

            Like

      • Derek

        The senate at best (worst) depending upon your perspective will be 50/50.

        No big things are going to happen domestically. If there is a chance to put our fiscal house in order, modest tax increases mixed with entitlement reform (cuts) is most likely to be achieved with Biden.

        More important is re-establishment of the post-ww2 unified bulwark against tyranny. Continued fraying of the alliances between free democratic nations can not go on unless you really, really liked the wars of the first half of last century because thats where we’re headed if trump is re-elected.

        If you like near civil war at home and russian and chinese aggression vote trump.

        Like

      • ASEF

        Check out the Lincoln Project and Republicans Voting Against Trump. They’ve helped me sift through some of the same concerns.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Those guys are Democrats who are not only against Trump, but against other such extremist Nazis as … Susan Collins.

          My main beef with the Lincoln Project is that I didn’t think of it first. Claim to be righteous conservatives. Raise millions of dollars from Democrat mega-donors. Pay a few ducats to interns to copy memes and tweets. And pocket the bulk as profit.

          Saving democracy is a lucrative business.

          Like

      • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

        Don’t vote.

        Not voting is a powerful act of protest, because you are saying, in effect, that while you understand the blood that was spilt to give you this freedom (it’s not a right, it’s freedom, common mistake) to vote, you refuse to vote for “the lesser of two evils.”

        It shocks me when people say this, “the lesser of two evils.” If you’re voting for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil.

        Or you could vote for a 3rd party candidate if you want.

        Either way, neither of these men have earned my vote in my eyes, though I will say, Trump bringing peace to the Middle East is seriously impressive. I just can’t live with everything else he is.

        Like

    • Derek

      The disconnect is this:

      You have too many people who don’t understand that American democracy is a on going process. It started out being for land owning free men. And we fought and died just to get that much and also rid of a King.

      Over time, via various means, both peaceful and violent, american democracy has broadened more and more. With that comes resistance. Ebbs and flows.

      Its natural and necessary but progress gets made in the end.

      So one side fights the progress towards universal democracy while the other decides that the enemy is free market capitalism and believes that so long as it exists it will forever stand in the way of progress towards egalitarianism.

      We’ve been able to thread that needle for nearly 2 and a half centuries. Whether we can maintain that tack, social progress AND economic prosperity, is to be seen.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Previously Paul

        Unfortunately we’ve been bastardizing American capitalism at the same time we’ve been bastardizing American democracy. I believe strongly in both but both need significant recalibration. One or the other would be difficult enough. Both will be harder still. Neither are impossible. But it will require a sustained focus over a long period of time. As a country, we haven’t shown much inclination for that sort of thing in quite some time. I don’t believe either candidate for President has what it takes to start us down either of those roads. Congressional leadership is equally anemic. I really don’t see anyone on the horizon at the moment who gives me hope. But, tomorrow’s another day. I still believe in this country. My guess is the person who finally steps up isn’t likely to be Caucasian or male.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tony BarnFart

        How can we be certain what “progress” is ? Who gets to define progress ? If by broader inclusion of individuals that were once excluded means expansion of democracy and progress, I’m all for it and totally agree.

        If you mean that ANY altering of the american system of government towards more (little ‘d’) pure’ish democracy is “progress,” I fundamentally disagree. One can simultaneously believe that the 13th and 19th amendments were definitively “progress”, while believing the 17th amendment was REGRESS.

        Like

        • Derek

          Progress in a democracy has to be measured by participation. It took a very long time to get to universal ability to participate. Hopefully the next step will be people actually participating and finally people participating based upon actual facts.

          The more people have, share and feel that they have power, and in equal amounts, the more perfect our union will be.

          Like

          • Tony BarnFart

            I largely agree. And I would argue that things like the electoral college and equal senate apportionment assure that people have, share and feel those things.

            Like

            • Derek

              I see very low participation. I see a lot of “whats the point?”

              “They’re no difference between the two.” And on and on.

              I’d be for compulsory voting until we can get people to make a habit of it. We need to act like we all have skin in the game.

              Like

              • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                Refusing to vote is having skin in the game.

                It’s saying if neither candidate comes up to even the lowest bar possible for principles, you won’t debase your own principles to vote for one.

                It’s never a binary choice. The choice of “neither” is always a viable option.

                Like

                • Nothing says freedom like compulsory voting.

                  Like

                • Previously Paul

                  It would be nice is ‘neither’ was a choice on the ballot and if ‘neither’ gets more than 50% of the vote the parties have to put forth two new candidates and we get to vote again. That would be fun.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  This is a fantastic idea.

                  I’d be all for a Constitutional Amendment to make this a reality.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  I dont recall getting to opt out of selective service due muh freedoms.

                  Voting seems a bit less intrusive that the prospect of being drafted.

                  Like

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  Some people have scruples or principles and are not willing to vote for people who would cause them to go against those scruples or principles. When the vote is between two of those people, the only possible option is “neither.”

                  If you don’t understand that concept, then I have nothing for you. 🤷🏻‍♂️

                  Like

          • rigger92

            This is where my old guy status says “damn internet”. None of us (generally speaking) had a voice in the ‘80’s and before. I really like my iPhone but damn, the thing is killing our civic sensibilities.

            Like

  13. Illini84

    Where’s dickhead with his “memes”, mommy didn’t wake him up yet?

    Like

  14. Im tired of hurricanes. Lol.

    Like

  15. I don’t really think there’s that many people that say leave. This is much to do about nothing. But there are a lot of entertainers that say they are going to leave and then never do.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Russ

    So, I’m conflicted. Kim Kardashian says she’s staying off FB and Instagram until Facebook makes changes to remove hate speech. And I don’t like hate speech. But I also don’t like Kim Kardashian. So I’m really conflicted.

    Like

  17. Tommy Perkins

    The idea that trying to fix what’s obviously broken in this country is unpatriotic is absurd. Stop living in the ’50s.

    In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.
    https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

    Liked by 1 person

    • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

      Yep. The guy who shot two LA Sheriff’s Deputies the other day was “mostly peaceful.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hey man, would you be wiling to hold a rally at your house? There is a 7% chance that your shit might get burned to the ground. Not bad odds though. You in?

      Like

      • Tommy Perkins

        How about we fix the problem of shooting unarmed black men instead?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

          Hi Tommy, we would treat your performative virtue signaling with more respect if you were as aggrieved with the unarmed white men that are killed by police, of which there have been more, every year, going back years.

          But you’re not so we won’t.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Tommy Perkins

            Is that “we” the royal we? Or just you? Either way, I’m not losing sleep over it, especially given your grasp of the data on this.

            Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

            Liked by 1 person

            • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

              You rattle off stats without providing the context behind those stats, which is to be expected by someone like you.

              Do you know why black men were “more disproportionate?”

              Because black men, 6% of our total population, are responsible for 73% of violent crime in the country (this is the context you lack).

              This means that police have had far more opportunity to shoot black men, armed or unarmed, given the circumstances, and yet, more unarmed white men were killed by police and have been killed by police going back years.

              So given that, given how much more disproportionate it is that black men take part in violent crime the real question is, why haven’t more black men, armed or unarmed, been killed in the course of these crimes, especially in comparison to white men?

              That help you out a bit, Tommy?

              Like

              • Tommy Perkins

                “someone like you.” You don’t know me. You’re generalizing me at the same time you lecture me on context.

                Just because a lot of criminals happen to be black doesn’t make it ok to shoot unarmed non-criminal blacks. Is that something you really needed to have explained to you?

                It’s possible to believe black lives matter and support better law enforcement. It’s not either/or. Show some independent thinking and stop buying into wedge politics.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  No, I have you pegged. Your virtue signaling made it easy. As was refuting your virtue signaling.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  Also, it is the people like you who have completely ruined the Democratic Party and left me and the vast majority of sane liberals left in the country with no political home to call our own.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Grafton

                  Its hard to fix the problem when so many won’t admit there is a problem.

                  Like

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  No, it’s far easier to create a problem that doesn’t actually exist, then cause a billion dollars in property damage, kill over 40 people, blind and seriously wound scores of police officers, and oh yeah, set fire to national forests, all while your mayors and governors do nothing to stop you until poor poll numbers come in.

                  Much easier to do all that.

                  Liked by 2 people

                • Tommy Perkins

                  With obvious Fox talking points like “performative” and “virtue signaling,” color me skeptical that you were ever among the “sane liberals” or Democrats. Regardless, we’ll miss ya!

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  Funny enough, don’t watch Fox News. Don’t watch CNN, either.

                  I just call’em as I see’em, Tommy.

                  But that’s a normal trick for people like you: attack a person for the news you (wrongly) believe they watch or the points they use.

                  Don’t address those points, oh no, attack the person.

                  Yeah Tommy Boy, I had you pegged the moment you opened your mouth.

                  Like

                • You got completely wrecked. Just own up to it…….

                  Like

                • Tommy Perkins

                  I brought facts, he brought namecalling. I’m sure that’s devastating to a 10-year-old, but I’m a bit older than that.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

                  I wrecked your “facts” for lacking an semblance of context and nuance, and contrary to what you continue to assert, I haven’t insulted you or attacked you once.

                  But nice try, Tommy Boy.

                  Like

      • Tommy Perkins

        Or what if we rid law enforcement of white supremacists like this one? https://twitter.com/ToshiiLynn/status/1279603044938731522

        Liked by 1 person

    • Violence in 218 cities sounds like a lot to unpatriotic dummies stuck in the ’50s.

      Like

  18. Godawg

    19 years ago we came together as a country and showed love and compassion to each other regardless of political affiliation, race or socio-economic status. Today, we pick and squabble like children. So sad… 😦

    Like

  19. Ben Watson is a DGD. Read Under Our Skin if you want to understand his perspective. If you do, it will probably make you very uncomfortable regardless of your political affiliation.

    Liked by 4 people

  20. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    If any Grady Grads took Dr. Lee’s Constitutional Law class (First Amendment for Journalism students) you’ll recall that if you could write out the exact text of the First Amendment – including punctuation – he’d give you an “A”. There’s something to be said for that letter-of-the-law approach.

    But Lee also taught about spirit-of-the-law and frequently challenged us about the thorny issues of libel, slander, and the differences & similarities of both. He was fond of the construction “If I call so-and-so an asshole, have I slandered them? Have I libeled them?”

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that no other professor at UGA had as much of an impact on me, to this day, as Dr. Lee. He somehow managed to portray the inherent messiness of speech/people while simultaneously holding the First Amendment and its provisions in highest regard.

    People are messy. Their speech is often rude, crude, and not the way we would have said it.

    Human communication is a tangled knot involving not just literal text but context & subtext as well. You can’t truly understand one part without acknowledging the others.

    The solution to speech we don’t like or disagree with is MORE SPEECH.

    I could wade into the thornier thicket that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences but I think the MORE SPEECH solution makes that case for me. Sure, it’s cacophonous & chaotic at times, but when aren’t human beings both of those things?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

      I took a class from Dr. Lee, but I definitely wasn’t a Grady Grad. I liked it. Made me think of things from different perspectives and helped shape the way I feel about truth over narrative (so hey, for those of y’all who really hate me here, blame Dr. William Lee at the University of Georgia!). Almost had to drop it because my scooter broke down on the way to class the day a paper was due and he had a zero tolerance policy on turning in work late. I was able to, over the course of a couple of days, talk him into starting me off at a C.

      I got a C on the paper and a B in the class.

      Liked by 1 person

    • DawgFlan

      Speech is the great gift and trauma of the human condition.

      We use the words we’ve learned the way we’ve understand them to mean, yet the moment the words are spoken we know them to be vague and imprecise things, not really capturing that “thing” we are trying to express. And certainly they are never received the way we intend them, giving rise to all sorts of difficulties.

      So with thousands of words in hundreds of languages, we grasp at metaphor and parable and poetry, and still find them lacking. So we turn to music, art, and wonder. This “thing” must be expressed, and yet for all the words and tools at our disposal it remains beyond our grasp.

      Every effort a struggle, like seeing through a glass, darkly. But it is the work of humanity to struggle.

      Liked by 1 person

      • This is exactly why I love language and I love listening to a good debate (participating less so, but it depends on my mood).

        It’s also why I don’t often comment here. I want to make sure I truly care enough about a topic before I wade into a discussion and waste my ineffectual words.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Tommy Perkins

      I’m a Grady grad and had Bill Lee in the ’90s. Other than Conrad Fink, Lee was the prof I took the most from.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Don in Mar-a-Lago

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Don in Mar-a-Lago

    Like

  23. Don in Mar-a-Lago

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Don in Mar-a-Lago

    Liked by 3 people

  25. TripleB

    Obviously, no-one really thinks people should have to leave just because we don’t like them kneeling during the National Anthem. Ditka was raised in an era when something like this is just not acceptable. I get his outrage and I don’t hate him for expressing his disgust.

    I don’t like it either, though I realize everyone has the right to express themselves. What gets me upset about it is that I think many of the athletes who are doing this, white and black, are just copying others. I question their sincerity. I prefer someone respecting the country, even with its warts.

    What really concerns me about this point in time is the heightened partisanship and escalating divide in America. Again, I think the people and institutions promoting it (media, social media, BLM, KKK, Fox News, MSNBC, etc.) are full of people who lack sincerity in their beliefs. A lot of people seem to just enjoy the conflict. They like seeing a shitstorm and it makes me real nervous.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

      Well reasoned.

      Like

    • Derek

      Why do you have to process it as “disrespect?”

      Is that what they claim they are doing?

      Why can’t you accept their rationale?

      Isn’t it disrespectful to question both their sincerity and the their motives?

      Why is it more important that they heed to your version of respect but you have no obligation to respect them?

      Like

      • Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

        If it’s not disrespect, why did the Ravens players stand for the “black national anthem” (whatever the heck that is) but then make the point to kneel for the National Anthem?

        Please explain.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Derek

          If they sign me to the NFL minimum I’d be happy to.

          As it is, I’m not on the team.

          I’d be willing to bet there is public info out there on it.

          Good luck finding the part where they say: because we disrespect our country and want everyone to know about it.

          Liked by 1 person

      • TripleB

        I process it as disrespect because many consider it disrespectful, and those do it know it is taken as disrespect by others, especially those with military connections. It’s the same with certain words or phrases that you don’t use, regardless of your actual intention, because others are offended.

        No one can be expected to accept someone’s sincerity without question. When I see so many people kneeling, and doing other things on the street which seem outrageous, I can’t help but question sincerity. As to public figures, we all get a feeling as to whether they are sincere. My impression of Ben Watson, for example, is that he is sincere. Same with Ditka.

        I don’t respect their actions (not the same as disrespecting them) because i don’t agree with the act. I also don’t respect the act of a cop speeding by me when I’m driving the speed limit, but I respect the cop unless given reason otherwise.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Grafton

          I’m a veteran and I don’t find their kneeling disrespectful at all. Neither did Nate Boyer who spoke with Colin Kaepernick and agreed that kneeling was a much more respectful way to express his protest than to sit during the anthem.

          Personally I don’t see the point in playing the anthem before sporting event in the first place. It’s patriotic to work to protects all our fellow citizens rights. Not to belt out “land of the freeeee…” and then shit on those who attempt to freely express themselves.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Derek

          I have an idea.

          Stop viewing it as disrespect to the country and consider whether what they are responding to is worthy of your concern.

          That’s all they want right?

          They have your attention. Will you make any effort to see things through there eyes?

          Can you walk in their shoes?

          Can you embrace some hidden, inner humanity?

          Like

        • CB

          A. In what other scenario is kneeling a sign of disrespect as opposed to reverence?

          B. BLM probably thinks your comment is disrespectful. Given your logic that the consideration of others matters when evaluating actions wouldn’t that, by your own definition, make your comment just as disrespectful as kneeling for the anthem? BLM are Americans after all.

          Like

  26. Don in Mar-a-Lago

    Like

  27. Panama city is completely flooded now.

    Like

  28. akascuba

    Human beings have always had a history of racism and its always been wrong. Its not just an American problem its world wide. I`m not to blame for those that came before me. I am to blame if i condone or sit back and do nothing while others suffer. Our country needs to change and become equal for all. It needs to start with self accountability not playing the victim card first. Clean your own yard before you tell me how to clean mine.

    Like

  29. Someone above stated that 93% of the protests are peaceful. Well, it sure sucks when you get caught up in the other 7%. I wonder if he thinks scenes like this are justified to meet his ends. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1306072075564531713?s=19

    Like

  30. gurkhadawg

    I haven’t read all the comments above so this may have already been covered. But how about President Trump bringing peace to the Middle East? Now anyone who criticizes Trump are proving that they are anti Semitic. Also anti Muslim.

    Like

  31. Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

    Okay, so as my wont to try to distract from all the Trumps and Bidens and whackadoo nonsense we usually all partake in this here forum, here’s a trailer from a movie I’m sure most of y’all have forgotten if you ever saw it at all.

    However, Defending Your Life is to me one of the best, most beautifully human films ever made, and Albert Brooks is a mensch.

    Like

  32. Corch Irvin Meyers, New USC Corch (2021)

    Great movie, with a great message. What he’s trying to say here, though… man, it just hits you with a ton of bricks. Beautiful.

    Like

  33. Two related thoughts that have occurred to me as I’ve been thinking about this issue:

    1) Some people just aren’t interested in a “debate”. They’d like to have their bully pulpit to cajole, castigate, or condescend as a means of rallying support for their “argument” but it’s a one-sided affair. If they are interested in a back-and-forth it’s at the level of John Cleese’s character in Monty Python’s argument sketch.

    2) The growth of the internet/social media platforms, and the decline of print journalism means that most folks are exposed to more random opinions (of varying quality) – at least in my own experience – by virtue of the systems which decide what gets promoted to you. And while free speech is great it doesn’t mean anyone is entitled to an audience or distribution, though some folks argue for this stipulation specifically in regards to YouTube/Facebook/Twitter.

    Not sure what my overarching point is except, maybe, most of what gets said doesn’t rise to the level of piquing my interest despite the fact that a) the person who said it wants me/us to react & b) the systems that show us things are biased towards generating likes/faves/retweets/shares/etc.

    Like

    • Previously Paul

      When we all signed up for accounts on social media we all agreed to terms of service that stipulate the platform can do anything they dang well please with our posts. They are under no obligation to provide us with anything. They can cancel our account at any time for any reason or even for no reason. It’s their platform, not ours. They get to make the rules and it is entirely legal for them to be capricious or even unfair. There is no obligation to allow competing or opposing views. If they don’t want to allow something for any reason they don’t have to. If they do want to allow something for any reason they can. If we don’t like it we can go elsewhere.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, I tend to be along this vector of thinking in regards to what I post on social media. I agreed to the TOS so they can (and will) do as they please. I guess what’s more insidious is that none of us knows what kinds of algorithms or machine learning or artificial intelligence are determining which things to show us and which things to hide. Each of our Facebook feeds or YouTube homepages is just a bubble of one – an infinite-scrolling list of things designed to make us stay longer and click more often. The content isn’t even important to those systems – all that matters is the net result of our collective behavior which is more time spent looking at that screen.

        Like

  34. Don in Mar-a-Lago

    Like

  35. RangerRuss

    I’m watching Herschel on SEC Storied again. As much as I enjoy this episode it’s a poignant reminder of what could have, should have been. My old friend, the kind and wise Mr Tommy McGoo who helped guide me through my first couple of years at UGA, recently said something that is so frustrating but true.
    ”Russ, on January 1,1981 if someone had bet me $10,000 that Georgia wouldn’t win another National Championship for forty years I would’ve borrowed the money to take that bet.”
    Shaking my head.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. RangerRuss

    I certainly thought The Junkyard Dogs would win four straight. Clemson ruined that dream almost immediately in ’81 and again in ’83. That’s one of the many reasons I despise those taters.

    Like

  37. gurkhadawg

    Hey Senator, do know the record for the total number of comments on a single post? We have to be getting close with this one.

    Like