Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[barton]

It does seem a legitimate debate question: to what degree can white supremacists usurp the original meaning of the Ross flag, and should we credit that usurping in any way?   I can see both sides of the debate here.   With some symbols, the situation is more clear-cut:  no one frets about what the swastika meant to early Aryan peoples, as a symbol of health, luck, and prosperity.   It was permanently and irrevocably stained when the Nazis co-opted the ancient symbol.   With the Ross flag, it's less clear to me that the stain Kaepernick has perceived is irrevocable.   I don't think ignoring this newer attempt to co-opt a classic  symbol of independence and unity makes someone a racist.
I am really not sure, myself, that I want to let the extremist groups rule our perceptions.

You ever think just once to pay attention when black people say, “Whoa?”

We keep seeing this same movie and we know how it ends....

I've been paying attention to black people saying "whoa" for roughly a half century.   You understand I am asking questions here, and haven't made up my mind where the Ross stands in relation to the other flags you mentioned. 

Still trying to plumb the gray areas.   It's like finding a reasonable point between taking down RE Lee statues (yes) and Jeff Memorial (please, no).  If, when, it's clear that a Ross flag is more about slavery and supremacy than about freedom and unity, then I will be at your door with a can of lighter fluid and whatever libation you favor. 

My slowness to decide things is a feature, not a bug.  At least that's what some folks tell me.   

[LarryBnDC]

It does seem a legitimate debate question: to what degree can white supremacists usurp the original meaning of the Ross flag, and should we credit that usurping in any way?   I can see both sides of the debate here.   With some symbols, the situation is more clear-cut:  no one frets about what the swastika meant to early Aryan peoples, as a symbol of health, luck, and prosperity.   It was permanently and irrevocably stained when the Nazis co-opted the ancient symbol.   With the Ross flag, it's less clear to me that the stain Kaepernick has perceived is irrevocable.   I don't think ignoring this newer attempt to co-opt a classic  symbol of independence and unity makes someone a racist.
I am really not sure, myself, that I want to let the extremist groups rule our perceptions.

You ever think just once to pay attention when black people say, “Whoa?”

We keep seeing this same movie and we know how it ends....

I've been paying attention to black people saying "whoa" for roughly a half century.   You understand I am asking questions here, and haven't made up my mind where the Ross stands in relation to the other flags you mentioned. 

Still trying to plumb the gray areas.   It's like finding a reasonable point between taking down RE Lee statues (yes) and Jeff Memorial (please, no).  If, when, it's clear that a Ross flag is more about slavery and supremacy than about freedom and unity, then I will be at your door with a can of lighter fluid and whatever libation you favor. 

My slowness to decide things is a feature, not a bug.  At least that's what some folks tell me.

Paying attention isn’t the same as”hearing.” You’ve heard it all before, in fact for fifty years but you have to wait and see if what YOU see counts more than what we’ve been dealing with forever.

Just a different perspective on how our nationals symbols get co opted and by the time the debate is over so is any defense of the symbol.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-shifting-symbolism-of-the-gadsden-flag

[LarryBnDC]

Regarding:

Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics[/b]
Jackson versus Giles was dealt with by the USCongress and the Voting Rights Act.
Partisan Gerrymandering, if a problem, can be changed by Congress, State Legislatures, or the residents of the states through such vehicles as initiative petition.

Mighty selective editing, eh Red?

To paraphrase Paul Harvey, “And now, the rest of the story!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, recently appointed to the Court by Theodore Roosevelt, wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics. “Relief from a great political wrong” could only come from the “people of a state” through their elected officials, or from Congress. Holmes ignored the fact that the definition of the “people” of Alabama was precisely the point at issue.[/b] Holmes would go on to a distinguished judicial career. Giles v. Harris, one scholar has written, “is—or should be—the most prominent stain” on his reputation. Chief Justice Roberts, take note.

https://www.thenation.com/article/eric-foner-supreme-court-john-roberts/

[LarryBnDC]

It's the Fourth of July in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where Betsy Ross lived. She helped design and make the first real American flag.

A political statement of unity against a tyrannical King.

Today, we celebrate breaking away from that King in a war the Bostonians started, but could not finish, the New Yorkers tried to avoid, and the New Jerseyans and Carolinians, with the help of the French, won.

Vive la France! Vive la USA!

You are now free to argue among yourselves, thanks to people like Betsy Ross, who took action, as opposed to just sitting on her ass pointing fingers at "the other side".

I'll be sitting here in NJ, just steps away from where Washington and his armies fought and beat the Brits.

And when I go back to France, later this summer, I'll be sure to thank them, again, as I'll be near where Lafayette hailed from.

Joyeux Jour de l'Indépendance!!!

NIKE has made this flag more significant, opposite of what their failed QB wished.  We will see it more often now.

https://t.co/IWLujGCJHn

[REDSTATEWARD]

Regarding:

Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics[/b]
Jackson versus Giles was dealt with by the USCongress and the Voting Rights Act.
Partisan Gerrymandering, if a problem, can be changed by Congress, State Legislatures, or the residents of the states through such vehicles as initiative petition.

Mighty selective editing, eh Red?

To paraphrase Paul Harvey, “And now, the rest of the story!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, recently appointed to the Court by Theodore Roosevelt, wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics. “Relief from a great political wrong” could only come from the “people of a state” through their elected officials, or from Congress. Holmes ignored the fact that the definition of the “people” of Alabama was precisely the point at issue.[/b] Holmes would go on to a distinguished judicial career. Giles v. Harris, one scholar has written, “is—or should be—the most prominent stain” on his reputation. Chief Justice Roberts, take note.

https://www.thenation.com/article/eric-foner-supreme-court-john-roberts/

Holmes was correct.
So is Roberts.

[Hairy Lime]

Many Dems and their families will be out enjoying the tank show and the patriotic message from our president today.  A non partisan celebration, despite the cries otherwise from the extremists.

That explains why the RNC was in charge of VIP tickets.

[josh]

Regarding:

Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics[/b]
Jackson versus Giles was dealt with by the USCongress and the Voting Rights Act.
Partisan Gerrymandering, if a problem, can be changed by Congress, State Legislatures, or the residents of the states through such vehicles as initiative petition.

SIXTY TWO YEARS of injustice between the Giles v. Harris decision and the Voting Rights Act of 1965!

That's what you consider acceptable for the disenfranchised?

You are one smug, privileged asshole, Ward.

You deserve to be treated like the conservatives have been treating minorities for centuries.

[LarryBnDC]

My Shinbone Star buddy Don Lessem’s Trump puppet is on the Mall today!

https://wjla.com/news/local/trump-golden-toilet

[josh]

Many Dems and their families will be out enjoying the tank show and the patriotic message from our president today. A non partisan celebration, despite the cries otherwise from the extremists.

A deluded poster, despite his own cries of denial.

"This is a public event, it's open to the public, the public is welcome to come celebrate our great country, the greatest Democracy, the Constitution, all the amendments," said Kellyanne Conway, the President's counselor.

But... there is a special viewing section, closer to the events than the public can be, for officials and military personnel, and...

Trump political appointees have been offering tickets to major GOP donors.

"An informal survey of more than a half-dozen Trump donors and allies showed that none plan to attend," Politico reported. And White House staffers were being granted up to 10 tickets each, instead of 2-4 as would be common.

"Nonpartisan," says Kiiid.

Bullshit.

[josh]

Regarding:

Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics[/b]
Jackson versus Giles was dealt with by the USCongress and the Voting Rights Act.
Partisan Gerrymandering, if a problem, can be changed by Congress, State Legislatures, or the residents of the states through such vehicles as initiative petition.

Mighty selective editing, eh Red?

To paraphrase Paul Harvey, “And now, the rest of the story!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, recently appointed to the Court by Theodore Roosevelt, wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics. “Relief from a great political wrong” could only come from the “people of a state” through their elected officials, or from Congress. Holmes ignored the fact that the definition of the “people” of Alabama was precisely the point at issue.[/b] Holmes would go on to a distinguished judicial career. Giles v. Harris, one scholar has written, “is—or should be—the most prominent stain” on his reputation. Chief Justice Roberts, take note.

https://www.thenation.com/article/eric-foner-supreme-court-john-roberts/

Holmes was correct.
So is Roberts.

Must be why it's a stain on Holmes' career, huh?

You're deluded, too. Deeply.

[josh]

"When George Washington traveled from Mt. Vernon to New York City, then the nation's capital, to be inaugurated as our first President, he made a showy procession of it. People lined the roads to see the first elected sovereign in history, waiting hours, even days.

"As his carriage came into view, they began to bow, then stopped, mouths hanging open, trying to understand. Washington was bowing to them. Again and again, to his left and his right, bowing to the people he passed. This was the 18th-century; people bowed to their rulers, not the other way around.

"Then they understood. This was a different kind of sovereign, an elected ruler. By bowing, Washington was saying, "I am your servant; you are the rulers here." And they cheered and cheered."

~Scott Alarik

[REDSTATEWARD]

Regarding:

Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics[/b]
Jackson versus Giles was dealt with by the USCongress and the Voting Rights Act.
Partisan Gerrymandering, if a problem, can be changed by Congress, State Legislatures, or the residents of the states through such vehicles as initiative petition.

Mighty selective editing, eh Red?

To paraphrase Paul Harvey, “And now, the rest of the story!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, recently appointed to the Court by Theodore Roosevelt, wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics. “Relief from a great political wrong” could only come from the “people of a state” through their elected officials, or from Congress. Holmes ignored the fact that the definition of the “people” of Alabama was precisely the point at issue.[/b] Holmes would go on to a distinguished judicial career. Giles v. Harris, one scholar has written, “is—or should be—the most prominent stain” on his reputation. Chief Justice Roberts, take note.

https://www.thenation.com/article/eric-foner-supreme-court-john-roberts/

Holmes was correct.
So is Roberts.

Must be why it's a stain on Holmes' career, huh?

It’s not.

[josh]

Regarding:

Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics[/b]
Jackson versus Giles was dealt with by the USCongress and the Voting Rights Act.
Partisan Gerrymandering, if a problem, can be changed by Congress, State Legislatures, or the residents of the states through such vehicles as initiative petition.

Mighty selective editing, eh Red?

To paraphrase Paul Harvey, “And now, the rest of the story!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, recently appointed to the Court by Theodore Roosevelt, wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority. Like Chief Justice Roberts today, Holmes threw up his hands and described the Supreme Court as impotent. If “the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting,” he wrote, there was nothing the justices could do. The courts could not get involved in politics. “Relief from a great political wrong” could only come from the “people of a state” through their elected officials, or from Congress. Holmes ignored the fact that the definition of the “people” of Alabama was precisely the point at issue.[/b] Holmes would go on to a distinguished judicial career. Giles v. Harris, one scholar has written, “is—or should be—the most prominent stain” on his reputation. Chief Justice Roberts, take note.

https://www.thenation.com/article/eric-foner-supreme-court-john-roberts/

Holmes was correct.
So is Roberts.

Must be why it's a stain on Holmes' career, huh?

It’s not.

Not to you, Ward.

But that's why the decision was overturned in later cases. Holmes was wrong and his vision to limited.

Next, you'll be defending Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott.

[josh]

Happy 4th of July, folks.

[kiidcarter8]

It does seem a legitimate debate question: to what degree can white supremacists usurp the original meaning of the Ross flag, and should we credit that usurping in any way?   I can see both sides of the debate here.   With some symbols, the situation is more clear-cut:  no one frets about what the swastika meant to early Aryan peoples, as a symbol of health, luck, and prosperity.   It was permanently and irrevocably stained when the Nazis co-opted the ancient symbol.   With the Ross flag, it's less clear to me that the stain Kaepernick has perceived is irrevocable.   I don't think ignoring this newer attempt to co-opt a classic  symbol of independence and unity makes someone a racist.
I am really not sure, myself, that I want to let the extremist groups rule our perceptions.

You ever think just once to pay attention when black people say, “Whoa?”

We keep seeing this same movie and we know how it ends....

I've been paying attention to black people saying "whoa" for roughly a half century.   You understand I am asking questions here, and haven't made up my mind where the Ross stands in relation to the other flags you mentioned. 

Still trying to plumb the gray areas.   It's like finding a reasonable point between taking down RE Lee statues (yes) and Jeff Memorial (please, no).  If, when, it's clear that a Ross flag is more about slavery and supremacy than about freedom and unity, then I will be at your door with a can of lighter fluid and whatever libation you favor. 

My slowness to decide things is a feature, not a bug.  At least that's what some folks tell me.

Paying attention isn’t the same as”hearing.” You’ve heard it all before, in fact for fifty years but you have to wait and see if what YOU see counts more than what we’ve been dealing with forever.

Just a different perspective on how our nationals symbols get co opted and by the time the debate is over so is any defense of the symbol.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-shifting-symbolism-of-the-gadsden-flag

Your long strife leads to your bias - which is what Barton - in a well thought out post, is getting at.

You might do better explaining how you feel the "Ross flag" signifies anti-black sentiment.  We are all listening.