goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Why would that bother me?
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Why would that bother me?
sturg33
I
Are you saying that freedom is not real?
Are you saying that freedom isn't real in this country?
Are you saying the freedom has a fake name?
Help me out here before you go out an enjoy the day.
Also try to throw in the clever orange and small hands insults that are always winners.
And remind me about that regular stock market growth
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
How many statues of the Duke are there in New York (I assume that's who the half-assed tweet from earlier in the thread is talking about) on government grounds?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Will be interesting to see who Bannon blames. I've got a pretty good idea.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I can too. Funny how statues seem to shift in importance and non-importance depending on the argument. I still think context of how statues are put up, timeframe, location and language on them matter.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I'm ready for Trump to say Bannon was fired because of his take on North Korea. Kudos to him if he can somehow manage to say something that isn't completely tone-deaf.
Why wouldn't it?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Well effin' A.....
"He was furious with his chief strategist after he was quoted in an interview with the American Prospect contradicting him on North Korea and asserting that he was able to make personnel changes at the State Department."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/steve-bannon-white-house/index.html
"He was furious with his chief strategist after he was quoted in an interview with the American Prospect contradicting him on North Korea and asserting that he was able to make personnel changes at the State Department."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/steve-bannon-white-house/index.html
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Glad I checked in to catch up and learn that John Henry is part of the globalist conspiracy. I think I saw him pepperspray a Nazi in Charlottesville, but it was hard to tell because he had a hammer-and-sickle bandana over his face.
It's interesting to see how things that have been commonly discussed for ages are treated when they finally bubble up into mainstream consciousness. There's a knee-jerk, small-c conservative response which is predictable, and to my mind understandable--stand athwart history crying "Stop!," to paraphrase Buckley. Stop, no, this is going too fast.
I see it, I sympathize with it to a degree, and I experience it myself sometimes. But why does everything simply have to be evidence of a civilizational decline? Why is the elected leadership of a majority-black city in a slave state which did not secede from the union deciding that they'd rather not have statues of men who fought for white supremacy in places of civic honor somehow symbolic of ruin and decline?
Why is an American businessman speaking frankly about the racist legacy of the business he owns somehow symbolic of ruin and decline?
I mean, what's more harmful to the founding principles of the nation? Tacit approval of the idea that not all men are created equal, or speaking words and taking actions that necessarily begin a conversation about that. John Henry isn't the first person to speak about this precise issue in Boston. But I'd guess he's the most powerful and prominent, and all of the free speech advocates and free market idealists are wringing their hands about it for some reason.
I don't know what concrete effect, if any, this kind of revisionism will have. Let's not pretend that it's not simply further revision, though, and let's not pretend that there aren't reams of testimony about what those previous revisions have meant in our society. But just saying "this is empty virtue signaling" or " the reasoning behind this is dumb" is often just an evasion of the bigger picture.
There was another thread where Hawk was saying that Obama made race relations in America worse. Now, I don't doubt that there's public polling data that supports that, but it's also a case where a certain subset of people are clinging to a narrative of decline. One of the flashpoints of that debate was BLM and the demonstrations and fits of violence that occurred the issue of police violence in communities of color. Now, people may have been disturbed, for various reasons, by some of the words and images that emerged, but to me it is not an indicator of decline that large multiracial gatherings of people protested unfair policing practices, even if the results weren't as neat and ideologically tidy as everyone demands. In 1980, in 1960, in 1920, in 1873 (at the Colfax Coutrhouse, for example) the results would have been quite different. I don't think that's decline, I think that's progress.
It's interesting to see how things that have been commonly discussed for ages are treated when they finally bubble up into mainstream consciousness. There's a knee-jerk, small-c conservative response which is predictable, and to my mind understandable--stand athwart history crying "Stop!," to paraphrase Buckley. Stop, no, this is going too fast.
I see it, I sympathize with it to a degree, and I experience it myself sometimes. But why does everything simply have to be evidence of a civilizational decline? Why is the elected leadership of a majority-black city in a slave state which did not secede from the union deciding that they'd rather not have statues of men who fought for white supremacy in places of civic honor somehow symbolic of ruin and decline?
Why is an American businessman speaking frankly about the racist legacy of the business he owns somehow symbolic of ruin and decline?
I mean, what's more harmful to the founding principles of the nation? Tacit approval of the idea that not all men are created equal, or speaking words and taking actions that necessarily begin a conversation about that. John Henry isn't the first person to speak about this precise issue in Boston. But I'd guess he's the most powerful and prominent, and all of the free speech advocates and free market idealists are wringing their hands about it for some reason.
I don't know what concrete effect, if any, this kind of revisionism will have. Let's not pretend that it's not simply further revision, though, and let's not pretend that there aren't reams of testimony about what those previous revisions have meant in our society. But just saying "this is empty virtue signaling" or " the reasoning behind this is dumb" is often just an evasion of the bigger picture.
There was another thread where Hawk was saying that Obama made race relations in America worse. Now, I don't doubt that there's public polling data that supports that, but it's also a case where a certain subset of people are clinging to a narrative of decline. One of the flashpoints of that debate was BLM and the demonstrations and fits of violence that occurred the issue of police violence in communities of color. Now, people may have been disturbed, for various reasons, by some of the words and images that emerged, but to me it is not an indicator of decline that large multiracial gatherings of people protested unfair policing practices, even if the results weren't as neat and ideologically tidy as everyone demands. In 1980, in 1960, in 1920, in 1873 (at the Colfax Coutrhouse, for example) the results would have been quite different. I don't think that's decline, I think that's progress.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Cause I don't really care what the name of a street next to Fenway is called or if the owner would like it changed or not?
Is it being changed to "mother****ing ****** way" or something? No? Then I have real things to worry about and don't care about the reason why you want to change it
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Sadly, one will no longer be able to read about the positive or negative legacy of the Yawkey family if that street is renamed.
It must be noted, though, that John Henry thinks he ****s platinum chips, so it's ultimately just a ploy to get it renamed for him in a few years.
It must be noted, though, that John Henry thinks he ****s platinum chips, so it's ultimately just a ploy to get it renamed for him in a few years.
What real things do you have to worry about? Fascists invading America?
'It's about making sure that everyone in Boston and New England feels welcome at Fenway Park.'
That's the position of the Red Sox. That's the reasoning I'm talking about. I want you to tell me how Yawkey Way (no, not the place, the name) makes Fenway Park racially dangerous.
You are stuck on another level, but I'd actually like to talk about the realities here.