CORRECTION: somehow, and I have no idea why, this somehow was posted with “Comment of the Day” in the headline. And because today has been marred by illness and unexpected events, I didn’t see the mistake until 7:43 PM. I’m sorry for the confusion. I need a vacation.
1. Continuing my informal survey of the Trump Hate obsession at the New York Times, the trend I noticed last week in the flagship for “the resistance” on the Times staff, the Sunday Times Review section, continued dramatically. Is this evidence that Times readers are finally getting sick of the paper’s unethical obsession? Time will tell. There was just one Trump Hate piece in the ten page section, out of 16 separate essays and op-eds. (A professor of anti-American studies has an essay that attacks all Trump voters and supporters as racists. Should this count? Nah. If you’re not a Democrat, you’re a racist, that’s all. It isn’t about Trump.) Oh, one of the editorials was questioning the Trump policy approach, but that’s within the normal range of newspaper editorials. The one hate essay was borderline, Maureen Dowd being snarky about the Russia investigation. She’s more of a humor writer than a true pundit, inclined to go where the most laughs lie, and her last paragraph was so, so dumb that it effectively discredited anything else she wrote, or will write, really. Dowd wrote,
“On Thursday, the president pout-tweeted that it was Congress’s fault that “our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low.” So he was blaming lawmakers who punished Russia for a cyberattack on our election rather than blaming Russia for sticking a saber in the heart of our democracy.”
Right, Maureen: Russia letting the American public know that the Democratic Party rigged its nomination, that Barack Obama knew about Hillary Clinton’s breaching her own department’s cyber-security requirements, that the Democratic Party’s candidate was running illegal pay-to-play shakedowns of foreign governments to fill the Clinton Foundation coffers (and her husband pockets), that reporters were colluding with her campaign to make certain she was elected, and that the DNC chair used her CNN position to help Hillary cheat in a debate stuck a saber in our democracy. In other words, Russia stuck a saber in our democracy by uncovering genuine evidence that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton had stuck multiple sabers in our democracy. I have actually described the “Russian interference” almost exactly this way to die-hard Hillary-ites, and they see nothing amiss with that analysis.
Or was Maureen just making another joke?
2. Some NFL players are now speaking up, protesting that free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick is being “blackballed” by NFL owners because of his ridiculous anti-National Anthem stunt last season while playing for San Francisco. “Blackballed” implies something unethical and subterranean. We all know why Kaepernick hasn’t been hired: a) he’s not very good and b) he can’t be trusted not to embarrass his team and annoy fans by creating racially divisive (and incoherent) political theater on the field.
Does this “chill” his political speech? All of our political speech is “chilled” to the extent that when we speak out about controversial matters while representing our employers, we risk losing out jobs. If the NFL put pressure on the teams not to hire this jerk, that would raise ethical and legal issues, but why would they have to? He was a disruptive employee who wasn’t good enough to get the unethical benefits of the King’s Pass. No team in its right mind would pay millions to Kaepernick. Indeed, teams have an obligation not to. Their job is to win games, make money, and entertain fans. Keapernick undermines all three objectives.
3. I was going to write a whole post about this New Republic screed endorsing the dangerous and destructive leaking coming out of the Trump Administration by partisan moles determined to bring the President down. If you just read it, though, further vivisection should not be necessary. It begins with an outright lie that the author, Brian Beutler, apparently feels confident in offering because he doesn’t think anyone will check the facts, as he says the leaked transcripts of Trump’s discussion with the leaders of Australia and Mexico “depict a president whose very presence in high office is destabilizing, and whose continued service constitutes a dangerous crisis.” Of course, if there was anything in either conversation that showed this, the Times, the Post and the rest of the resistance would be hiring skywriters to proclaim it.
Then Beutler warns that the military is taking over because the President has delegated to some competent, able, disciplined managers with distinguished military experience. We have had twelve generals serve as President, including the first one, with three other generals, Grant, Taylor and Ike, career military officers before entering politics. Having a general as President gives a lot more power to the military culture than a President having some ex-generals as staff and appointees, but as with all the concocted anti-Trump hysteria, Beutler’s ignores history when it doesn’t advance the narrative.
Finally, Beutler comes back to the real objective of this piece, a plea to misuse the impeachment and section four of the 25th Amendment to undo the election, because he and his fellow progressives don’t like the policies Trump has pursued or will pursue in the future. The desperate cycle we keep seeing from “the resistance” is I-He’s a dictator! II. He’s insane! III. He’s incompetent! That I and III don’t jibe, that III is not grounds for removal, even if true (or Obama should have been removed, among other POTUSes) and that II is just an ad hominem insult that the resistance is committed to don’t seem to discourage these kinds of undemocratic essays at all. I wonder if they’ll ever stop?
4. I thought Michelle Obama’s infamous frowny face tweet holding the sign asking Boko Haram to return the Nigerian school girls it had kidnapped and was probably in the process or raping was the most pathetic example of high-profile incompetence and impotence I had ever seen, but the city government-backed Baltimore activists topped it with this weekend’s “Nobody kill anybody for 72 hours”—I’m not kidding, that’s really its name— movement.
Naturally the John Lennonesque stunt failed: two Baltimoreans were shot last night. The organizers are not discouraged, however. Baltimore police spokesman T.J. Smith said that the killings should not take away from the project’s worthy goals. “Organizers called and are in the area to continue to spread love,”he tweeted.
THAT should work. This is a full embrace of futility and desperation. Next, good witches will be recruited to spread peace and harmony. Maybe the mayor will have a séance and call on John to sing “Imagine” and “Give Peace a Chance.” I’m sure Michelle could be persuaded to make her magic frowny face again and hold up a sign that says, #STOPKILLINGPEOPLE.
Do you think that fact that Baltimore’ mayor directed police to let rioters burn down businesses in the Freddy Gray riots and Baltimore’s prosecutor made it clear that she would indict police without sufficient evidence to pander to mobs had anything to do with the current breakdown of civilization in the city?
When “Nobody kill anybody for 72 hours” is your city’s response to crime and violence, there is only one rational, responsible response.
GET OUT.
Ethics Alarms 
#2- Not a Kaepernick fan, but this Peter King MMQB article offers some perspective I didn’t have before.
https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/30/nfl-colin-kaepernick-free-agent-quarterback-looking-job
Read it, and thanks. It’s a bunch of excuses, rationalizations and misrepresentations. He is not intelligent—maybe for a football player, but not for a pundit or social commentator. He made his protest, and never could explain what he was trying to say. What he said was per se mistaken idiotic:
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
This COUNTRY does not “oppress black people and people of color.” This COUNTRY tore itself apart fighting to free black people, and has continued to try to assist them with laws and more. This COUNTRY does not approve of discrimination either in theory or practice. Nobody is requiring him to “look the other way.” They are asking that he does not use his celebrity and his sport to make lazy, divisive comments that he cannot defend intelligently.
“There are bodies in the street’ is a dumb Mike Brown slur. It was crime scene, and it often takes hours to process crime scenes. There was nothing racial about his body remaining in the street. Could and should the job have been done faster? Yes. Does CK have any idea what is involved? No.
Following that statement referenceing Brown, it was clear that “getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” was also about Brown’s shooting. Well, in this country we don’t presume guilt, and it is wrong to fire an officer until and unless it can be shown that he did anything wrong. In this case, the officer was exonerated by both the grand jury and the justice department. He was not guilty of murder.
So all we can do is assume that CK’s protest was based on his words. Based on his words, his protest was incoherent and ignorant, virtue-signalling, grandstanding, divisive and costly. Verdict: he can’t be trusted.
I was referencing the comments of his ex-coaches regarding his ability to play and preparation rather than his bullshit, which it would appear continues apace.
Interesting back-story about why Miami passed him over (and this is where it gets good!) in favor of the inimitable Jay Cutler.
http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article117033883.html
C’mon; the Fish prefer to haul Cryin’ Jay, noted PRICK extraordinaire and future inductee to the Green Bay Packer HOF, (based on a nearly perfect record against them as a Bi-Polar bear) off the scrap heap? That’s gotta sting!
With personal experience to back it up, Salguero really nailed his keester to the floorboards, and Kaepernick wasn’t/isn’t verbally or intellectually dexterous enough to duck-n-parry.
Social Justice Warriors; where would the known Universe be without them?
http://iotwreport.com/meanwhile-in-the-world-of-reality/
With regards to #3:
At times, I feel like Tony Stark when he had that chat with Loki, only my version is different:
“You’re missing the point! There’s no progressive utopia, there is no version of this where you come out on top. Maybe your special prosecutor comes and maybe he can cook up some indictments or trigger impeachment but it’s all on you. Because if you topple Trump, you can be damned well sure we’ll unleash our own resistance!”
I will add that Kurt Schlichter made a very excellent point in his recent column:
Granted, Schlichter’s columns are pretty inflammatory… but is he wrong?
He is not wrong.
Unfortunately.
Not wrong. At all.
Conservatives are pissed and it is at the entire Establishment class, who lies to get elected and does nothing while in office.
The anger at Trump’s treatment is another poll the MSM is missing, since they doubled down on the bubble they live in. People are waking up, and that is never a pretty picture. Ask the Taliban, or the WW2 Japanese.
1. Is “sticking a saber in the heart of our democracy” the only part of the you object to? Dowd’s larger point seems worth commenting on: Trump is, once again, siding with a hostile nation that attacked our country over his own government.
This seems like an appeal to loyalty in a way which undermines the function of our government. Does a president have to always agree that Congress’ approach with “hostile nations” is the right one? It seems like there are probably some circumstances where the two branches should show some degree of unity, such as in times of outright war. In the vast majority of circumstances, though, it is highly appropriate for the two branches to have conflicting views on how to deal with a foreign power, and having one criticize the other shouldn’t be deemed some sort of breach of loyalty to the United States any more than other normal policy disagreements are breaches of loyalty.
“Does a president have to always agree that Congress’ approach with “hostile nations” is the right one?”
Certainly not, but throwing Congress under the bus by placing all the blame for our relationship with Russia on Congress for responding to Russia’s hostile actions seems a terrible way for the president to express that disagreeement. It undermines our nation, just as consistently undermining the intelligence community’s assessment that the Russians were indeed behind the hacks undermines our nation. The message in both cases is that the president will not respond to Russian acts of hostility, and in fact, doesn’t even wish to acknowledge they exist. A president sending this message at a time when he and his campaign are under investigation for potentially aiding Russian acts of hostility creates a ridiculously strong appearance of impropriety, and is signature significance.
The intelligent and measured response to everything Russia-related right now is, and should be, that it’s frankly not a big deal and all of the hawks should simmer down. Russia did no more or less than what we do to them on a regular basis (and to all of our enemies and many of our allies.) It was only a few years ago that we were caught red-handed spying on Germany, of all places. Oh what short memories these Leftists have.
Your sudden concern about Russia (its a virtual certainty that you would have been among those joining with Obama in mocking Mitt Romney for naming Russian as our enemy a few years ago) is all the more hilarious, considering that Barack Obama did exactly jack squat about a major confirmed Chinese cyber-attack on American veterans, compromising the identity of millions of US citizens who served their country. But those were just a bunch of nobodies. Expose corruption in the Democratic Party, and suddenly you have Obama almost in tears in front of the cameras demanding Russian blood.
To say nothing of the fact that Obama knew about Russian hackers BEFORE they pulled back the curtain on Hillary, and he did nothing about it then. But sure, tell me about how appalled you are that that treasonous Trump “will not acknowledge Russian acts of hostility.” It’s all so obvious and pathetic.
But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but…what about the hilariously misspelled “Reset Button?”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/russian-fm-sergey-lavrov-failed-reset-was-inventio/
And the “After my election I have more flexibility”???
Taken out of context, fake news, or both?
This is just whataboutism. My argument is that presidents should not side with hostile nations over Congress or their own intelligence community, especially when said president is under investigation for potentially aiding said hostile nation. What do you have that actually responds to that argument?
Exactly, presidents should not do that, which is what Issac just said.
I agree that a President shouldn’t air such disputes in public (arguments over how foreign countries should be handles isn’t “siding with them”, however—that’s playground talk) but your “especially” is nonsense. The investigation is of Russian interference in the election and possible asssitance, not of the President. God, how can you be broken of your love for talking points and partisan narratives? Nothing substantive has changed sine Comey stated that Trump wasn’t being investigated.
Well, we’re both wrong. Trump is being investigated for obstruction of justice. That strikes me as a substantive change. That is not the same as being investigated for assisting Russian interference in the election–his *campaign* is being investigated for that. Whether it’s fair to conflate Trump with his campaign is debatable, but I find it highly unlikely that the man at the center of the campaign isn’t being investigated for that along with the rest of his campaign. The point still stands–it looks really bad for Trump to talk about Russia the way he talks about Russia when there is a cloud of suspicion surrounding his and his campaign’s actions regarding Russia. And yes, “siding with” is a fair interpretation of that tweet–he said the blame for our rocky relationship with Russia lies entirely on Congress, not on Russia. That is siding with Russia over Congress. Period.
“Period” is not an argument, just another way of saying “I got nothin’. The President has to negotiate with Russia, and may feel that taking this stance will be helpful. Presidents playing good cop/bad cop using Congress is not at all unusual, hence Obama’s infamous flexibility line. As usual, Trump’s method was clumsy, but it is not “siding with Russia.” The President does what he believes is in the best interest of the US. He and Congress disagree about the best way to handle Russia in that context. By signing the bill, by definition he is siding with Congress.
The obstruction of justice claim is lame, fair observers agree it is lame, and Mueller is not making that a centerpiece of his investigation at all, because he’s a better lawyer than that. Rather Comey’s illegally leaked memos raised the issue, thus requiring an independent counsel just in case.
“Period” is not an argument, just another way of saying “I got nothin’.
No, it’s a way to emphasize the argument I already made. If I had nothing, I wouldn’t have made that argument.
The President has to negotiate with Russia, and may feel that taking this stance will be helpful.
Uh-huh. So Trump’s way of “negotiating” with Russia is to lavish praise on Putin at every turn, and to pretend that they did nothing wrong to us at all. Tell me another one. This is laughably naive, Jack.
I won’t defend the action of leaking transcripts of Trump’s telephone calls to foreign leaders, but two things we learned from them is that 1) he praises Putin as his favorite person to talk to even in private conversations, and 2) that his idea of “negotiation” is telling the President of Mexico to help him pay for the wall because he really wants it and not doing it will make him look bad, and giving zero other reasons why the President of Mexico should help him do that.
Believing that Trump publicly blaming Congress for our current relationship with Russia, while not holding Russia accountable at all, is part of some type of “negotation” is, quite frankly, ludicrous. There is no basis to that belief; your (commendable) respect for the office of the president is causing you to attribute motives to this president that he has simply never demonstrated.
As usual, Trump’s method was clumsy, but it is not “siding with Russia.”
Yes, it is. Blaming Congress, and not Russia, for our bad relationship with Russia is by definition siding with Russia over Congress in this instance. Just as agreeing with Russia that they didn’t hack us over our intelligence community is siding with Russia over our intelligence community. This is inarguable.
By signing the bill, by definition he is siding with Congress.
Signing the bill and then bitching about it–essentially saying he only signed it because he had to–is not siding with Congress. It is CYA, and a bare minimum at that.
I do not understand how his rhetoric on Russia does not raise any suspicion from you. Imagine, for one moment, that the accusations were true, and Trump was beholden to Russia because of some kind of kompromat. How would his actions be any different than they have been for the past year?
I’m not saying he’s guilty. I’m saying he behaves like a guilty man.
1. You are spinning. He certainly did not have to sign it. He has the power not to. By signing a bill that delivers sanctions, he made sanrtions possible. Ergo, he cannot possibly be “siding with Russia.”
2. The last sentence is hilarious, and becoming a resistance trope, aka “Joke.” When someone who is being harassed and impeded by a fake and unjust investigation complains about it and rails against it, that isn’t “acting guilty” except to people who think he’s guilty. This is confirmation bias at its most obvious. He is acting exactly as I would expect him to act in response to a coordinated partisan conspiracy assisted by the news media. Exactly.
1. What would have been the point of not signing it? Congress overwhelmingly approved it–there was no chance of a successful veto. Like I said, it was CYA. Trump made sure to make it very clear what his real thoughts on the bill were: Russia is blameless for our current rocky relationship with them, and Congress is completely to blame. That you see nothing unethical about this position is baffling to me, Jack.
2. I can see the argument that much of Trump’s defensiveness is motivated by his nature, not necessarily out of guilt. But that does not explain his embrace of Russia at every conceivable opportunity. A more sensible defensive position would be to distance himself from Russia given the investigation (which is not “fake,” but a necessity at this point). But he goes completely the opposite way. Mere stupidity is not enough to explain this for me. The most plausible explanation is that Trump feels beholden to Russia in some way. Whether that is simply because he appreciates their help in taking down Hillary, or there were actual promises made or blackmail presented, I do not know. Hopefully Mueller will find out.
I thought you were mistaken on this, and here it is:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rod-rosenstein-mueller-needs-to-come-to-me-if-he-wants-to-chase-any-crime-outside-scope-of-russia-probe/article/2630745
Mueller is not investigating Trump for obstruction, as I thought.
That…doesn’t strike me as a full-throated denial by Rosenstein. He doesn’t actually say that Trump is not being investigated, he says that if Mueller wanted to do so, he’d have to come to Rosenstein for permission. He doesn’t even say that Mueller hasn’t done that.
Regardless: his campaign is being investigated. Do you really believe that any investigation of a presidential campaign would not also investigate the person at the top of that campaign? “Trump is being investigated” is at least as valid a statement as “Hillary started the birther thing,” which you yourself have stated; politicians are responsible for what their campaigns do.
And, of course, Trump said he was being investigated:
But I understand the notion here is “Nothing Trump says means anything, and even the things he says about himself that are self-incriminating should be discounted,” so I’m not expecting this will be viewed as confirmation of anything.
“That…doesn’t strike me as a full-throated denial by Rosenstein. He doesn’t actually say that Trump is not being investigated, he says that if Mueller wanted to do so, he’d have to come to Rosenstein for permission. He doesn’t even say that Mueller hasn’t done that.”
Yes, HT, Rosenstein’s comments did strike me as lawyerly spin as well. Glad you also noticed!
Congress’s response to Russia’s actions was idiotic and self-destructive. The so-called “intelligence community assessment” was a pile of horse manure. Saying so is not the same as “siding with Russia.”
Perhaps you can reveal the intel you have that is superior to the intel the CIA, FBI and NSA have, Greg? What leads you to believe, despite all available evidence, that Russia was not behind the hack of the DNC and the widespread fake news campaign designed to hurt HRC and help Trump?
“…but throwing Congress under the bus by placing all the blame for our relationship with Russia on Congress for responding to Russia’s hostile actions seems a terrible way for the president to express that disagreeement.”
Of course it is. POTUS should not stoop to such tactics. However, Trump is guilty of doing it while being a Republican. Obama threw Congress under the bus ALL THE TIME, but glorious leader is a democrat, and this makes it okay.
Verdict: True, and undeniable.
Jack, are you getting my emails? I asked an ethics question related to posting here.
Funny thing re Kaepernick (who’s evidently half white and half Hispanic): The players and sportsweriters are complaining because they think he’s being punished for speaking out (which they evidently consider unconstitutional- I remember as a nine year old assuming the NFL was part of the government, given its shield and use of the term “National”- maybe the players think the NFL is run by the government?) and, as an afterthought, he’s certainly good enough to get the King’s Pass. You actually agree on their number one (but not for their reasons) and simply point out he’s probably not good enough to qualify on number two. Ironic.
Krappernick is a sex night child of a destitute white woman and a deadbeat African-American man who fucked and trucked. Paul LePage said it bluntly: “These are guys with the names D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty—these types of guys—that come from Connecticut and New York; they come up here, they sell their heroin, then they go back home. Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue that we’ve got to deal with down the road.”
If he hadn’t been lucky enough to get adopted by a white couple who had been unfortunate enough to lose several sons to heart defects, he’d have long since been shot dead in some Milwaukee ghetto back alley behind an abandoned building in a dispute over drug money or looking at someone’s ho the wrong way. He got lucky enough to get picked for a football scholarship by Nevada, and then he got drafted for the 49ers. He did ok in 2011 and 2013, but beyond that, not so much. By 2015 he was already talking about being traded. last year he was a backup, I repeat a backup, quarterback at the start of the season. Preseason he apparently got “woke” and discovered this was going to get him a lot of attention. Unfortunately, his skills on the field didn’t match his talent for self-publicizing, and the 49ers finished with an embarrassing 2-14 record, after which he became a free agent. Given that the team’s performance in the 2015 season had also been abysmal, I wouldn’t blame the 49ers for not trying to keep him and looking to go a different route. Given that their especially bad performance in 2016 left them with absolutely no barrier against criticism by veterans, first responders, and patriots, who viewed his grandstanding as disrespectful, and that he was helping direct criticism onto the NFL itself, which fined players for wearing 9/11 memorial shoes but wouldn’t touch him for fear of a BLM backlash, which probably hurt their ratings and sales, it should come as no surprise that no one in the league wants anything to do with him now.
Supposedly he has a degree in business management. If he does, he should have some clue that getting a business bad publicity while bringing very little to the table to offset it makes someone a bad potential hire. The fact is that veterans, first responders, Republicans, and patriots all buy tickets and merchandise and all watch the games. The teams’ job is to win and entertain all the fans, not send a politically correct message and look “woke” while inducing the patriots to change the channel or not buy the game ticket after all.
Frankly, he’s a post-affirmative action story. He not only didn’t do his job well, he did his job poorly, created a public display that reflected poorly on his employer, tried to hide behind his race and views, and lost. Only an idiot would say that after all this the NFL owes him anything, and only a complete idiot would make posts like “I’m boycotting everything NFL until brother Kaepernick reappears on a roster.” His time is up. Let him go play a poor, pale imitation of Muhammad Ali, colleges will still pay a wad of cash to hear him spew his rage against the machine.
Krappernick is a sex night child of a destitute white woman and a deadbeat African-American man who fucked and trucked. Paul LePage said it bluntly: “These are guys with the names D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty—these types of guys—that come from Connecticut and New York; they come up here, they sell their heroin, then they go back home. Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue that we’ve got to deal with down the road.”
If he hadn’t been lucky enough to get adopted by a white couple who had been unfortunate enough to lose several sons to heart defects, he’d have long since been shot dead in some Milwaukee ghetto back alley behind an abandoned building in a dispute over drug money or looking at someone’s ho the wrong way.
This is disgustingly racist.
Go read the Wikipedia article on his background and tell me the underlying facts aren’t true.
While you’re at it, tell Krappernick the 70s called, they want their hair back.
I want MY hair back,,,,
Just generally, or because I shocked you that much? (bzzzzzzzzzzzt!)
Oh, just generally. His hair is the best thing about him.
Had you stuck to facts, there’d be no problem. Instead you chose to relish in ugly racial stereotypes, and to take glee in imagining a racially stereotypical death for a man you hate. You might want to think about what motivated you to do that.
Simple. The man got lucky and avoided what likely would have been a rough life that ended early, and instead of being grateful, he’s spitting in the nation’s eye.
[Kaepernick] is a sex night child of a destitute white woman and a deadbeat African-American man who fucked and trucked. Paul LePage said it bluntly: “These are guys with the names D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty—these types of guys—that come from Connecticut and New York; they come up here, they sell their heroin, then they go back home. Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is a real sad thing because then we have another issue that we’ve got to deal with down the road.”
This is breathtakingly racist, just as racist as when the governor originally said it. Per usual around these parts, it will go unnoticed and unremarked.
If he hadn’t been lucky enough to get adopted by a white couple who had been unfortunate enough to lose several sons to heart defects, he’d have long since been shot dead in some Milwaukee ghetto back alley behind an abandoned building in a dispute over drug money or looking at someone’s ho the wrong way.
And the racism continues, unabated. Colin’s birth mother is a nurse. He wasn’t “lucky ” in his choice of adoptive parents, his birth mother sorted through several offers and made what she thought was the best decision for the child, a fellow nurse. There is nothing to indicate that Kaepernick’s father was a drug dealer, or involved in any illegal activity. Most black people, even the destitute ones, don’t end up dead in back alleys. But it is a clear window into your racial thinking. I normally take such things somewhat for granted around here, but this is too egregious to ignore. I am disappointed, but not surprised that only Chris pointed out your racist statements.
(shrug) The truth isn’t always attractive. Your criticism means little to me, since I also have seen into the bottom of your mind.
P.S. Heidi Russo, Krappernick’s birth mom, was 19, single, and destitute when she gave birth to him. She’s a nurse NOW, she wasn’t then. She cared for him for precisely five weeks before she gave him up to his adoptive parents, and yes, his adoptive mother was a nurse at the time. The article makes it seem like his birth mom was also a nurse, but at 19 and nearly broke?
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/8897116/colin-kaepernick-birth-mom
I never said that Krappernick’s dad was involved in illegal activity, but I did quote Paul LePage describing the conduct of young black men who screw whoever and quickly disappear, and the whole quote included drug-selling, yes, but I didn’t say his dad was a drug dealer. Get your fucking facts straight before you criticize me.
Let’s think about this, a half-black kid born to a broke mom with no prospects in a decaying city. What are the odds he would grow up to be a pro football player? Not very good, I submit. What are the odds he’d find his way into a gang and the thug lifestyle, which often ends up with you dead before the age of 30? I submit they would be a lot better than making a name on the gridiron. This guy dodged a bullet, maybe literally, maybe not, and now gets to make a fortune because he can throw a ball, but instead of thanking someone or something, he chooses to publicly disrespect the nation that made it possible? You go to hell, deery, and take this idiot with you.
Is this a comment of the day or a warm up? The headline is both?
I guess this shows why he does a warm up in the morning…
ARRRGH!!!! @#!!^%$&#
Just saw this, and fixed it. I have no idea how it happened.
I thought you merely considered the post so superlative that it warranted the label “Comment of the Day”…?
My two cents, without reading the other comments (yet)
1. “I have actually described the “Russian interference” almost exactly this way to die-hard Hillary-ites, and they see nothing amiss with that analysis.”
Socialists, progressives, and communists (IE the MSM, DNC et al) always think the the peasants are too stupid to rule themselves, and thus the elite should ‘arrange’ things (rig them) since it is their right as the Aristocracy they believe they are. The ‘crime’ was letting the peons know how the sausage was made, before the election, in their not-so-humble opinion.
2. Colin has expectations the NFL is not looking to fulfill. He should consider backup QB offers, not just starting positions. In other words, he wants a salary range of 9 to 10 million and the glory of the starting QB position. And his numbers just aren’t good enough, given the competition. Add his baggage, and he REALLY should dial back his expectations.
Colin is a good QB: not the best, by any means, and he may never make a hall of fame, but he can lead a team on the field and (when uninjured) be a constant double threat. The other problem lies on what the NFL expects from a starter versus a backup: the ability to grow, the ability to mentor, or cheap salary. Colin just doesn’t have that capacity.
3. The first leaker who gets a LONG jail sentence will stop that noise. Why this has not happened is beyond me. Obama did not put up with this nonsense: why is Trump?
4. The rats in Baltimore deserve each other. Democrats have OWNED Baltimore for decades: why haven’t progressive ideals fixed all the problems?
Corruption is one reason. Another is that progressive ideals do not work.
The Democrats created the situation, and now the dependent rioters feel that destruction is their right. The mayor’s problem is that welfare sucking gangs do not pay city taxes, and the businesses Baltimore declined to protect do. At least while they still reside there… the number of which is declining day by day.
Socialism has failed every time it has been tried.
Favorite recent joke on the topic: What’s the difference between Socialism and the Chicago Cubs? The Cubs at least succeed every 108 years.
Another: What’s the difference between Nazis and Communists? Nazis have the integrity not to say, “But real Nazism has never been tried…”
I like 🙂