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

[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/

Holmes was correct.
So is Roberts.

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

It’s not.

Then why quote an Eric Foner that explicitly states Holmes fucked up the decision?

The vote was 6-3.

You’re full of shit, Red. Cherry picking an opinion to use it in opposition to said opinion is just ham fisted Orwellian bullshit.

I didn’t pick the case.

You picked the article and selectively quoted from an article that completely contradicts your position.

Fuck off.

[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.

Larry only wants HIS views tolerated, not yours.
"Achtung Larry" doesn't practice what he preaches. It would impact his victim status.

Fuck you and your bullshit.

https://medium.com/@timjwise/silence-is-not-a-virtue-racism-victimhood-and-right-wing-concern-trolling-74094666756

[kiidcarter8]

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

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

Baby balloon 2 feet off the ground

Heh

- What could possibly happen to it?

Nothing can FLY over the mall. Airspace restrictions.

Yes.  I know.  That is why - among other reasons - having it there is funny.

[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.

I’m not one of those folks. It’s my personal perspective that some can wait and see because they ain’t the ones being affected by the situations we yell about.

That’s why I ask if the rest of my post had no bearing on my assertion?

Remember when you were a kid snd the Gadsden Flag was damn cool? A symbol of Revolutionary America? After the mainstreaming of above ground racism through the TEA Party that flag tells the world who you are. I see that on a bumper of a pristine F150 parked on Pennsylvania Ave SE there maybe someone in We The Pizza might... that flag is gone.

But we had this same debate...

Before that no one gave a shit about the flag on General Lee because the show was stupid and funny but long before that folks in the South knew exactly what the flag represented at Ole Miss and everywhere else.

We debated loud and long about that flag, right? Is there any debate now?

The Right is conflating patriotism with racism.

[LarryBnDC]

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

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

Baby balloon 2 feet off the ground

Heh

- What could possibly happen to it?

Nothing can FLY over the mall. Airspace restrictions.

Yes.  I know.  That is why - among other reasons - having it there is funny.

Of course it’s funny, that’s the whole point. Kind of like Moe, Larry and Curly mocking Nazis.

[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.

Then why quote an Eric Foner that explicitly states Holmes fucked up the decision?

The vote was 6-3.

You’re full of shit, Red. Cherry picking an opinion to use it in opposition to said opinion is just ham fisted Orwellian bullshit.

I didn’t pick the case.

You picked the article and selectively quoted from an article that completely contradicts your position.

Fuck off.

Incorrect. Josh picked the article. I repeated the the authors interpretation of Holmes decision as it appeared in Josh’s post. And it certainly did not contradict my previous statements.

[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/

Holmes was correct.
So is Roberts.

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

It’s not.

Then why quote an Eric Foner that explicitly states Holmes fucked up the decision?

The vote was 6-3.

You’re full of shit, Red. Cherry picking an opinion to use it in opposition to said opinion is just ham fisted Orwellian bullshit.

I didn’t pick the case.

You picked the article and selectively quoted from an article that completely contradicts your position.

Fuck off.

Incorrect. Josh picked the article. I repeated the the authors interpretation of Holmes decision as it appeared in Josh’s post. And it certainly did not contradict my previous statements.

The author decided Holmes made a rookie mistake and you are defending the mistake.

Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

[barton]

The New Yawker article made some good points about the Don't Tread flag, and its shifting meanings.   Thanks, Larry.   I was largely unfamiliar with it except for its colonial history and the later adoption as a libertarian thing.   Does it annoy me when relatively benign libertarian concepts, e.g. smaller government that doesn't mess with my life, get grafted onto white nationalist bilge?  It does.  Has the DTOM flag been corrupted beyond repair?  Maybe.   I liked the concluding paragraph...

We have no real context for what that aggrieved postal worker experienced, or for the motives of his Gadsden-fan colleague. But however that incident is ultimately resolved as a matter of workplace regulation, it’s not going to settle some definitive meaning of the “Don’t Tread On Me” rattler. “Symbols are emotion-charged,” Hartvigsen, the flag expert, said. We care about and interpret them on a personal level. And that’s why the facts of a symbol’s history and associations can be compiled, documented, and studied, but they still won’t be the whole story. “Flags very much have the meaning of the individual who is displaying it, or seeing it,” Hartvigsen continued. More significant, those may be two wildly divergent, but equally fervent, perspectives. The Gadsden flag is just the latest example that disagreements and ambiguity do not undermine the emotional power of a symbol. Sometimes, in fact, they are its source.   

For what it's worth I wouldn't display a Ross flag.   Would I assume someone else is doing so to express WN sentiment, and object to the display?   Probably not.   I need to hear more context.  Just the fact that patriot twits are wrapping themselves in flags of various provenances isn't enough; twits have been doing that for millennia.   To me patriotism is loving and caring for your land, and seeing that it nurtures life, liberty, and the PoH for everyone you share it with.   Flag waving is for the simple-minded. 

[kiidcarter8]

Anything other than the current flag is disrespecting someone.

Should there be a ban on all non-current US flags?

[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.

Then why quote an Eric Foner that explicitly states Holmes fucked up the decision?

The vote was 6-3.

You’re full of shit, Red. Cherry picking an opinion to use it in opposition to said opinion is just ham fisted Orwellian bullshit.

I didn’t pick the case.

You picked the article and selectively quoted from an article that completely contradicts your position.

Fuck off.

Incorrect. Josh picked the article. I repeated the the authors interpretation of Holmes decision as it appeared in Josh’s post. And it certainly did not contradict my previous statements.

The author decided Holmes made a rookie mistake and you are defending the mistake.

It wasn’t a mistake.

[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/

Holmes was correct.
So is Roberts.

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

It’s not.

Then why quote an Eric Foner that explicitly states Holmes fucked up the decision?

The vote was 6-3.

You’re full of shit, Red. Cherry picking an opinion to use it in opposition to said opinion is just ham fisted Orwellian bullshit.

I didn’t pick the case.

You picked the article and selectively quoted from an article that completely contradicts your position.

Fuck off.

Incorrect. Josh picked the article. I repeated the the authors interpretation of Holmes decision as it appeared in Josh’s post. And it certainly did not contradict my previous statements.

The author decided Holmes made a rookie mistake and you are defending the mistake.

It wasn’t a mistake.

Slap yourself as hard as you can and go sit in a corner.

[LarryBnDC]

The New Yawker article made some good points about the Don't Tread flag, and its shifting meanings.   Thanks, Larry.   I was largely unfamiliar with it except for its colonial history and the later adoption as a libertarian thing.   Does it annoy me when relatively benign libertarian concepts, e.g. smaller government that doesn't mess with my life, get grafted onto white nationalist bilge?  It does.  Has the DTOM flag been corrupted beyond repair?  Maybe.   I liked the concluding paragraph...

We have no real context for what that aggrieved postal worker experienced, or for the motives of his Gadsden-fan colleague. But however that incident is ultimately resolved as a matter of workplace regulation, it’s not going to settle some definitive meaning of the “Don’t Tread On Me” rattler. “Symbols are emotion-charged,” Hartvigsen, the flag expert, said. We care about and interpret them on a personal level. And that’s why the facts of a symbol’s history and associations can be compiled, documented, and studied, but they still won’t be the whole story. “Flags very much have the meaning of the individual who is displaying it, or seeing it,” Hartvigsen continued. More significant, those may be two wildly divergent, but equally fervent, perspectives. The Gadsden flag is just the latest example that disagreements and ambiguity do not undermine the emotional power of a symbol. Sometimes, in fact, they are its source.   

For what it's worth I wouldn't display a Ross flag.   Would I assume someone else is doing so to express WN sentiment, and object to the display?   Probably not.   I need to hear more context.  Just the fact that patriot twits are wrapping themselves in flags of various provenances isn't enough; twits have been doing that for millennia.   To me patriotism is loving and caring for your land, and seeing that it nurtures life, liberty, and the PoH for everyone you share it with.   Flag waving is for the simple-minded.

I understand, I just don’t whole heartedly agree only because when folks tell you who they are and then use symbols to show you who they are you should believe them.

I remember the debates over the TEA party when I was told I couldn’t prove they were a racist movement...

Donald Trump has tanks on the grounds of the Lincoln...

[LarryBnDC]

Insane Man Clowns Self on 4th of July


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/04/independence-day-fox-host-lou-dobbs-calls-generals-snowflakes/1649882001/

[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.

Then why quote an Eric Foner that explicitly states Holmes fucked up the decision?

The vote was 6-3.

You’re full of shit, Red. Cherry picking an opinion to use it in opposition to said opinion is just ham fisted Orwellian bullshit.

I didn’t pick the case.

You picked the article and selectively quoted from an article that completely contradicts your position.

Fuck off.

Incorrect. Josh picked the article. I repeated the the authors interpretation of Holmes decision as it appeared in Josh’s post. And it certainly did not contradict my previous statements.

The author decided Holmes made a rookie mistake and you are defending the mistake.

It wasn’t a mistake.

right.

That was why it got overturned.

Still no claims about Plessy or Dred Scott, huh?

[kiidcarter8]

Throngs of protesters expected today in Washington

So, whose fault will it be if someone were to die?