1 The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream news media, it is a relief to know, unethically and deceptively slants its news reporting in favor of Republicans when even worse Republicans are involved. Since the Ethics Alarms post about the horrible Strange-Moore run-off, I’ve been reading several articles about the issues involved. So far, I have yet to read any that mention the corrupt manner in which Sen. Strange got his seat. They all mention Moore’s problems, like the fact that he’s a theocrat who doesn’t believe in the Rule of Law.
And now your NFL Anthem Protest Ethics Train Wreck update, because it can’t be avoided, unfortunately…
2. The sports weenies of the year have to be the Dallas Cowboys, who didn’t have either the courage to play it straight and let the silly NFL Anthem Protest Train Wreck miss a stop, or the fortitude to climb right on. On Monday Night Football’s game this week, the Cowboys, owner Jerry Jones, Coach Jason Garrett and other coaches and front office executives kneeled in unison before the anthem, then rose and locked arms as it was being performed. What did it all mean? “Our players wanted to make a statement about unity and we wanted to make a statement about equality,” Jones said at a post game news conference. “They were very much aware that statement, when made or when attempted to be made in and a part of the recognition of our flag, cannot only lead to criticism but also controversy. It was real easy for everybody in our organization to see that the message of unity, the message of equality was getting, if you will, pushed aside or diminished by the controversy. We even had the circumstances that it was being made into a controversy.”
That’s clear as mud, as my dad liked to say.
Here was another theory: Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant told the news media that the decision “was a team thing” that was a direct response to comments and tweets by President Trump over the weekend.
“I feel like that’s the true definition of unity.Trump can’t divide this. I think sports show the perfect example of unity. It’s not just black NFL players, it’s different races. I feel like that was a clear shot at Trump, sitting on that knee like that because you just can’t do that [What Trump said was] super disrespectful. We showed great unity tonight. That’s what that was for. I feel like that was needed. … We’re not going to let a guy like that tear us apart. Not just us but this whole entire league. We’re a prime example of positive people. … He should have never said that. It was a clear punch in the face. I feel like we made up for that.”
Wait, so now this is an anti-Trump protest? What happened to protesting officers getting paid while cop-involved shootings were being investigated—you know, what Colin Kaepernick said?
The Cowboys’ whatever it was was naked, cynical virtue-signalling that ended up being stupidity-signalling.
3. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh Steeler Alejandro Villanueva has been bullied into decrying his own decision to come onto the field and stand for the anthem as his team protested by hiding in the locker room. “Unfortunately I threw my teammates under the bus, unintentionally,” Villanueva said. “Every single time I see that picture of me standing by myself I feel embarrassed.”
Wait: Kaepernick kneeling all by himself during the anthem while his teammates stood is a proud moment of free expression, but Villanueva doing what his conscience dictates while his team mates embarrassed themselves is now wrong? Someone needs to explain that to me, or better yet, ask Jerry Jones, Kaepernick, Rep. Lee or any of the other “protesting” geniuses to explain it. Oh: here is Villanueva’s theory about what the protest is about:
“People that are taking a knee are not saying anything negative about the military, they’re not saying anything negative about the flag, they’re just trying to protest that there are some injustices in America.”
Now this is a mass protest because there are some injustices in America! Funny, I thought it was about the nation’s cruel oppression of blacks. Now, if the NFL is protesting because qualified Asian students get rejected from elite colleges so affirmative action quotas of black students can be met by admitting less accomplished African American applicants, or that candidates can narrowly win elections because jurisdictions refuse to ensure that voter fraud isn’t taking place, or that illegal immigrants are allowed to break our laws with impunity, or that we no longer have an objective, trustworthy journalism profession that justly reports facts rather than partisan narratives and distortions…what’s that? The protest isn’t about those injustices?
Then I’m confused again…
4. Ugh. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) took a knee on the floor of the House tonight during a special order by the Congressional Black Caucus focused on rooting out racism and defending the First Amendment. Isn’t it nice of the NFL to give “the resistance” another way to protest the fact that Trump beat Hillary? Lee said. as part of her typical blather, “There is no basis in the First Amendment that says you cannot kneel on the National Anthem or in front of the flag.”
This is a straw man, just as almost all the claims and complaints about the NFL’s mass nonsense is a straw man. Nobody has suggested that the First Amendment allows the government to outlaw kneeling during the National Anthem, or spitting, cursing, doing handsprings or singing the “Catalina Magdalena Hoopensteiner Wallendiner Hogan Logan Bogan Song. ” The question is whether fans and ticket buyers should be forced to endure half-wit political grandstanding with their football, and whether it is fair, responsible and right to subject them to such on-field propagands. That’s the only issue.
The same would be true if my supermarket made me listen to a partisan rant while I was checking out my groceries. A responsible business doesn’t allow its employees to impose on its customers that way. That’s the issue. It isn’t even a partisan issue: it doesn’t matter whether the political message being broadcast is valid or not. Shut up and play, shut up and sing, shut up and take your bows after “Hamilton,” shut up and check groceries.
Try a political protest in court if you are a lawyer, and prepare to be held in contempt. You have all the opportunity in the world in this country to make your political views known (unless the antifa objects, and then you risk getting beat up while the press argues that you had it coming). Your employers just shouldn’t allow you to do it on my dime, during my down-time, when I am paying to have you do something else.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
5. In case you were wondering, one baseball player, a white rookie reserve catcher for the Oakland A’s, has emulated the NFL’s dolts. Oakland Athletics rookie catcher Bruce Maxwell became the first Major League Baseball player to kneel during the national anthem over the weekend. He dropped to a knee and pressed his cap against his chest just outside Oakland’s dugout during the anthem. This figures, in a way: It’s Oakland, right next door to Nancy Pelosi’s empire by the Bay, where values are muddled beyond recognition, and where Kaepernick first began Kaepernicking. The A’s are so far out of contention that they can’t see the play-offs with a telescope, and their California fan base all probably think that Hillary was elected President and the Electoral College is a Russian plot. Maxwell’s prolix explanation:
“The point of my kneeling is not to disrespect our military, it’s not to disrespect our Constitution, it’s not to disrespect this country. … My hand over my heart symbolizes the fact that I am and I’ll forever be an American citizen, and I’m more than grateful to be here. But my kneeling is what is getting the attention because I’m kneeling for the people that don’t have a voice. And this goes beyond the black community, and this goes beyond the Hispanic community, because right now we’re having an indifference and a racial divide in all types of people. It’s being practiced from the highest power that we have in this country, and it’s basically saying that it’s OK to treat people differently. My kneeling, the way I did it, was to symbolize that I’m kneeling for a cause, but I’m in no way or form disrespecting my country or my flag.”
The President has never said or suggested that “it’s OK to treat people differently,” and whatever divisions there are are exacerbated, not assuaged, by stunts like Maxwell’s, as well as ignorant and factually false justifications for it.
6. Then there is the President, over-playing an inherently winning hand. He’s still tweeting about this foolishness, as if the fact that the crazy North Korea dictator is claiming that the US has declared war and that a U.S. territory is devastated are secondary to what the NFL is doing. Irresponsible, incompetent, and, again, stupid, even though it may end up being politically beneficial. A President should not get involved in such matters, shouldn’t interfere in private businesses, shouldn’t comment on the speech and conduct of citizens, even prominent ones, and should be a role model in the culture wars, not a combatant. It is an abuse of power and position.
60 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/26/17: The News Media Hides Sen. Strange’s Corruption, And An NFL Anthem Protest Ethics Train Wreck Update”
#1 thru #6
The general public of the United States of America is now “totally” driven by emotion and irretrievably broken with logic, critical thinking, and basic common sense. We’re doomed.
I’m beginning to think that the social justice war has already been won by the illogical emotion driven social justice warriors. Why do I say that, because the most of the population has been dumbed down to the point that they can’t critically think themselves out of a wet paper bag and they’re oblivious and/or apathetic to what’s happening. These ignorant people are blindly jumping on the social justice warrior bandwagon, waving their “resistance” flags and wearing a t-shirt that says “I’m With Stupid”.
As a friend of mine says, Social Justice Warriors “are starting to make ‘unhinged’ look like safe haven”.
The big change that happened during the Obama administration is that Obama’s eight years turned the population into a bunch of whiny, irrational, bias makes you stupid, political imbeciles. Emotion Trumps Critical Thinking (ETCT) will be the long lasting legacy of President Barack Obama.
”As a friend of mine says, Social Justice Warriors ‘are starting to make *unhinged* look like safe haven’.”
Your friend say that because he believes Lefties (most, not all) make ONLY pre-determined selections, dutifully limited and obscured by industrial-strength-hardened weapons-grade-thickened ideological blinders, from the critically finite Lefty World View Cafeteria?
Paul W. Schlecht wrote, “Your friend say that because he believes Lefties (most, not all) make ONLY pre-determined selections, dutifully limited and obscured by industrial-strength-hardened weapons-grade-thickened ideological blinders, from the critically finite Lefty World View Cafeteria?”
Wow, that sounds just like him!
Gang, you’re good!
Do you know him too? 😉
“Do you know him too?”
I feel like I do…
Dez Bryant’s statement seems to pretty well confirm (at least as far as him, and possibly the rest of the Cowboys) that his protest was a thumb in the eye in response to Trump’s specific bluster calling kneeling players “sons of bitches” and saying they should be fired. His statement doesn’t go off on the standard boilerplate about Trump being racist/sexist/Nazi/stealing the election, it’s a clear reference and response to Trump’s own statement.
While the original kneeling may have been using a football forum for a non-football issue, Trump made it specifically about the players. Even if you think the original protests were unethical (for reasons you’ve enumerated before), when the president attempts to chill constitutionally protected speech I think engaging in that speech loudly and publically is a very on-point protest.
Please stop calling this Consyitutionally protected speech. The Constitution only bars the government from banning speech. At issue is political speech in the workplace.
If someone decided to proselitize his or her religious convictions to customers and co-workers to the point it interferred with the mission of the business that person enjoys no protection from Constitution in the event the boss chooses to terminate that persons employment.
Everyone from you and me to highly paid ball players are protected – for now- by the Constitution from government legislating what we can or cannot say. I say for now because many who keep talking about the player’s rights to speak out in gesture during work are the same ones advocating for legislation banning what they deem as hate speech.
If these players were for equality why dont they all make the same money?
If the NFL fired them for it, that would be the League’s right. The President taking to Twitter to refer to players as “sons of bitches” and *suggest* that they *should* be fired is absolutely the government attempting to chill speech. The President attempting to chill speech by “suggesting” that the speaker be fired, or by turning the might of the bully pulpit upon a citizen (yes, even a handsomely paid one) is anti-American and I support rubbing that speech right in his face.
For an example from the other side, look to the Mayor(?) who said that Chick-Fil-A wasn’t welcome in his city. Even without any specific illegal action on the Mayor’s part, that was a clear sign of disapproval of a citizen’s speech. An elected official has no business doing so.
//The President taking to Twitter to refer to players as “sons of bitches” and *suggest* that they *should* be fired is absolutely the government attempting to chill speech.// No it isn’t till the time the SCOTUS decides that Trump’s Twitter handle is an official government channel of communication. Till it does, your interpretation, though emotive and appealing, is invalid.
You’re right, of course, and my mistake was in not properly separating legal definition from clear appearances- I was using the second definition of “chilling,” not the first.
. I do NOT think Trump’s tweet served as unconstitutional chilling of speech in a sense that could be acted on by a court of law, barring SCOTUS precedent. I DO believe that it gives a clear *appearance* of an elected official punching down at a citizen for something legal, and thus richly deserves mockery and protest.
Luke, While I agree with the basic premise you made I can’t agree that the comments made by the President have tbe effect of chilling free speech.
Only Congress or other legislative body can create law binding us to obey or else. They can only chill the speech of those ignorant of the separation of powers in our government. My point was to educate not castigate.
Imagine the poor kid who emulates the protest at his/her work but because the kid is easy to replace the kid loses the job because of his protesting at work. This reinforces a false belief that society discriminates against him. He does not understand the distinction between protected speech and speech that may create undesireable consequences. These are the lessons that need to be learned by all.
Trumps comments are unnecessary but so were the comments made by other presidents who weigh in on issues without a complete understanding of the facts in those situations. Much of the problem lies with all of us who choose sides on any given issue without any consideration to the facts of the matter. Politicians and ball players use their platforms to grandstand to advance their interests not ours. Those who say little but roll up their sleeves and perform actual work to change things are the heros not the blowhards.
I’m terribly disappointed in Alejandro Villanueva, he showed character and courage standing in the face of adversity and now he caved. He did absolutely nothing wrong, nothing! His team chose not to be there, well other than a couple that had some excuse that there were fans blocking their path to stand next to Alejandro – I’m not buying it. This really is a sad example of how society has turned upside down, terribly sad.
If anyone wants to know why have President Trump, just take a look at what happened to Villanueva. There is no doubt in my mind he was told that if he did not backtrack, he would be cut, he would be blacklisted by other owners, and they’d do it in an instant to placate the coastal cosmopolitan elites.
It’s the latest manifestation of the double standards and hypocrisy that the Left has shown a pattern of applying.
When the Dallas Cowboys wanted to honor the cops that were gunned down last year, the NFL said no. The NFL did allow members of the St. Louis Rams to do the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” thing without repercussions.
Players were threatened with fines for wanting to honor victims of 9/11, but nobody blinks when players make black power salutes.
Tim Tebow was mocked and is out of the league for his kneeling in prayer AFTER games, but Kaepernick is celebrated for kneeling during the anthem.
Curt Schilling is fired because ESPN says it wants its hosts and anchors to avoid politics, but anchors who call Trump a white supremacist get passes.
The double standard cannot be maintained, especially because those on the short end of the stick will notice.
Does the Left think we normal folks really didn’t notice their hypocrisy when they oppose Turmp calling for people to be fired over kneeling when they seemed to be okay with inflicting either a loss of employment or a demotion on people like Brendan Eich, Angela McCaskill, Scott Eckern, Richard Raddon, Carrie Prejean, and others in past years?
The same folks who demanded that the power of the state be used to steal the creative voices of people and businesses like Baronelle Stutzman and Jack Phillips will celebrate a designer who refuses to design a dress for Melania Trump.
They decided as early as the aftermath of Prop 8 that the rules would allow people to try to get folks who disagree with them fired. Well, two can play. Donald Trump simply recognized those were the rules, and that’s how this is played now.
We either have one set of rules for everyone to play by, or we end up with a form of apartheid/Jim Crow. And yes, I use those inflammatory words because the Left, it seems, never had a problem with the concept of having one set of rules for a favored group of people, and another set for a group that was disfavored. Their problem was with how that concept was implemented.
…and so it begins…
(+5 if you guess the cultural reference)
I’ve concluded that Trump has painted himself into a corner re: North Korea and their awful commie dictator. By his bellicose language he has made it impossible for the nutcase running North Korea to backdown. Would have been much better to let General Mattis to quietly figure out how to deal with him militarily.
I agree, Wayne, and it will be interesting to see whether others here hold their position from last week, which was that Trump saying he may have to totally destroy North Korea was a brilliant move that would force NK to back down.
1. You need to show me where anyone said it was “totally brilliant.”
2. Second, you are preaching consequentialism. The tactic was either wise or unwise at the time it was undertaken. What happens afterward is moral luck.
1. You’re right, no one said it was brilliant. Just that it was a better strategy than Obama’s, and no different from other aggressive presidents, even though none of them had ever said they may “totally destroy” another country before.
2. This is a laugh. It is not “moral luck” that those of us who said the speech was likely to heighten tensions and make the situation worse were right; that was a rational prediction based on an obvious assessment of the available facts. It is not “moral luck” that Trump ignoring the advice of his far more experienced advisers has backfired. We knew this would happen because it was obvious it would happen. You don’t get to declare it “moral luck” every time your opponents are right about their predictions and you aren’t, when those predictions are rational and fair.
It was a good tactic, and whether or not it in fact was a deterrent is unknown. Expeerts disagreed as to whether the statement was wise or not, and whether it would work. You dishonestly—and it is dishonest, Chris—write as if no experts or authorities agreed with the tactic. Many did, and many still do. Dealing with a lunatic is always a matter of moral luck.
Which experts believed it was a good tactic? I don’t remember you citing any in the previous discussion.
Because that’s not the focus of the blog, and won’t be. That’s a policy and strategy issue. There was nothing unethical about Trump’s address at the UN, although the “Rocket Man” line was inappropriately undignified. You can find them if you bother to look.
Chris wrote, “their position from last week, which was that Trump saying he may have to totally destroy North Korea was a brilliant move that would force NK to back down.”
Typical Chris; make an unsupportable claim to drag the discussion down a different rat hole.
Chris not one person in that thread used the phrase “brilliant”; I’m calling this misrepresentation of yours an outright lie meant to misrepresent every single person’s argument in that thread that you opposed. Furthermore; absolutely no one in that thread said that Trump’s “move that would force NK to back down”. You’re a liar.
You’re making up shit again like an asshole troll.
Chris wrote, “Trump saying he may have to totally destroy North Korea…”
No Mr. Chris, you’ve conveniently forgotten again that Trump said, “if [the United States] is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”
Stop intentionally misrepresenting the totality of what Trump said by cherry picking like a troll.
You’re right that no one said it was brilliant. That was unfair on my part, and I apologize.
I do not believe my statement about what Trump said is a misrepresentation; the word “may” implies that it is a conditional.
Chris wrote, “You’re right that no one said it was brilliant. That was unfair on my part, and I apologize.”
Chris wrote, “I do not believe my statement about what Trump said is a misrepresentation; the word “may” implies that it is a conditional.”
That’s a cop out and you know it. The conditional statement Trump was very specific the condition you used only “implied” a condition and it was very open ended; it was a misrepresentation.
I could have been more specific on what the conditional was; I assumed since we all know what the conditional was, it wasn’t necessary to explain it once again. My comment was in the interest of brevity, not deception, but next time we discuss this issue I’ll make sure to provide the full quote.
I admire you all and the way you discuss and Chris, the way you apologize and consider. It gives me hope as in most “blogs” I rarely see if EVER the discussion which takes place on this blog!
You all teach me so much. Thank you.
I’m not into the name calling but I’m not a guy and I do know you all do that a lot more.
I feel like there is a sort of macho posturing vibe that has taken hold of this blog recently. Some of our arguments have devolved into what can only be described as pissing matches. I have borne as much responsibility for this as anyone and I’m trying to learn when to back down and admit my own culpability in the frequent misunderstandings that occur here.
Well said, Chris
” TOKYO, July 12-(1993) The North Korean Government accused President Clinton today of provoking it with threats of war after he warned that the United States would retaliate if North Korea developed nuclear arms.
The statement by the Communist Government of Kim Il Sung came just hours after it handed over what it said were remains of 17 American soldiers killed in the Korean War.
On his weekend visit to South Korea, President Clinton warned that if North Korea developed and used an atomic weapon, “we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate.”
“It would mean the end of their country as they know it,” he said.”
Less direct than ‘totally destroy’ but basically threatening the same thing, no?
“But it’s TRUUUUUUUMP!”
Chris has been shown, by a handful of contributors, several instances and policies which amounted to threats of “total destruction” of one of our enemies. He refused to accept the solid conclusions that were demonstrated and merely parroted his original assertion.
He knows our leadership has threatened total destruction before. He just pretends like it hasn’t.
#4 Heh, would they change the form of their protest, if someone points out that, from another point of view, they’re genuflecting to the national anthem in a more fervent respect than standing while holding their helmets quietly like the regs list?
Kneeling is certainly a sign of submission and fealty across many cultures and contexts.
During the National Anthem, where convention dictates otherwise regarding an ethical symbol of national unity, kneeling is just a tantrum to get attention. Hence a disrespectful gesture.
It’s painfully simple, which is why it’s baffling that another thread broke a hundred comments fleshing this out.
Wow, I missed the count getting that high, especially with the number of root posts in the last days. I just thought the genuflection was a little amusing and different perspective. My eyes usually glaze at events as either the sound system or singer are determined to make my ears hurt. I find the song and its history fascinating.
I have repeatedly said that this social justice warrior nonsense is going to get much, much worse. Now the social justice warrior taking a knee virus is going viral…
This will now be the new insult medium to anything related to Trump, Republicans, or Conservatives. At least most of these idiots are keeping their idiotic mouths shut in the process of taking a knee, that’s a plus.
I fail to see what taking a knee before Sessions is supposed to say, other than a desire to blow his skin flute.
Well now, that just took an unexpected turn.
Well, the only way to slap grown-ups who know better is at the ballot box.
And if they can’t be slapped at the ballot box, then the Republic is too far gone.
We did. They got worse
To the liberal media, Strange is Trump and Moore is Cruz. We all know who they prefer.
My black Southern dad has a lung disease called sarcoidosis. It’s prevalent in black men in particular. He sits in his apartment barely able to breathe. This is a man who knows a thing or two about being called ‘boy’ and facing racism.
Where is the advocacy for men like him? Instead of taking a knee to make a spectacle, why not show real concern & make a difference with a disease like that? Or sickle cell anemia or donor matches for mixed raced folks or other things that disproportionately affect people of color?
Or what about the men of color I see on the news daily who rob marijuana dispensaries or beat up their girlfriends, or in the case of a black man a few days ago, kill their 13 month old kid? Instead of protest these men need allies, mentors, and advocates prior to acting out criminally. They need more than signs in yards, anthem avoidance, and socialist flavored lip service. Wearing socks with cops as pigs does nothing for my dad & the many black men who are treading water emotionally, physically, and spiritually.
But I get it. These players are young and influenced by powers that purposely get these guys to focus on getting attention, rather than paying attention to the concerns of their people in a meaningful way. These guys strike me as parrots and puppets and it’s clear they know not what they do. If they really did, they would think about making real effort & change for those who need justice.
My dad was not impressed with these players and if you listen to his breathing, you’ll understand why.
You’re right; the attention they’re vying for isn’t drawing resources towards any meaningful problems. Helping people live good lives is a difficult and undervalued task, but it’s one of the most important investments any society can make. That’s why setting the foundation for people to become empowered and responsible instead of desperate and self-destructive is my main project.
“…I’m kneeling for the people that don’t have a voice.”
Hang on, then who’s been doing the non-stop shouting?
This might end up being a nitpick, but what decade is this man from, that he thinks there is any group in the U.S. that doesn’t have its own organization to represent it?
After reading Mrs. Q’s comment, that answers my question as to who probably doesn’t have representation. Perhaps Maxwell would do better to list them among the voiceless.
“There is no basis in the First Amendment that says you cannot kneel on the National Anthem or in front of the flag.”
Uh, were those her exact words?
Some idiot wrote this:
White Athletes Still Standing For The Anthem Are Standing For White Supremacy
Notice the black athlete that’s obviously “standing for white supremacy”.
I guess you can make up this kind of shit.
Things I’ve seen parroted on Facebook recently…
“If you stand for the national anthem, or supporting those that stand for the anthem, then you’re a fascist.”
“If you stand for the national anthem then you are supporting police murdering black people; you’re a traitor to the human race.”
On the other side of the argument…
“I am a sports fan, but I have more respect more for my country, the flag and the national anthem than any game or sporting event. I think we should make each athlete from all sports serve in the Military. No waivers for any of them, and if they refuse, label them a traitor, and treat them as such.”
“If you don’t stand for the national anthem you’re a piece of shit and should be thrown in jail.”
There you have it folks, from one ignorant extreme to another. Pick your tribe or you’ll be branded.
I wish I was kidding.
“That’s all I can stands, cuz I can’t stands no more!”
“Pick your tribe or you’ll be branded.”
I’ll throw in with the inimitable H.L. Mencken:
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
“A pacifist male is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described pacifists are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes, they hoist the Jolly Roger.”
―Robert A. Heinlein
“I’ll THROW in…”
What did the pirate say when he became an octogenarian?
I am convinced that this is substantially what went on with enough fed up Americans to give Trump the election. H.L made no pretense of virtue, so he was capable of such frank and perceptive observations. I felt it; I wrote about it. I told my wife that as much as I felt that Trump was a disaster to be avoided at all costs, I couldn’t fight the growing feeling that I would take some pleasure in his defeating Hillary, the establishment, adn the despicable news media just to make the statement, “It’s still “We the People”: and fuck you all.”
Of course, the throats H.L. was referring to were not supposed to include one’s OWN throat.
That is what I hear away from the coasts and blue cities. Normal Americans were being impacted unfairly (at least in their minds) and screw you was the response.
If the GOPe doesn’t get their act together, the revolution is brewing for next years primaries as well. I am hearing rumbles of dissatisfaction with the Establishment, and the candidates that primary the GOP may be just like Trump.
Running wackos like Roy Moore is no solution, though, and neither is letting Democrats win by default.
Agreed… I just think anyone who would be trustworthy is not going to place themselves in that wringer, given how both sides have treated decency in the past.
I fear this gave us Trump, and soon a host of others like him.
texagg04 wrote, “Some idiot wrote this:”
You’re correct Tex.
The author of that article is a special kind of stupid.
The NFL’s response is basically “It’s your fault if you got offended.” Okay then. I think that’s a valid response; it’s incredibly stupid, but valid.
But I can’t help but notice when the left-wing mob goes into a frenzy because a company hired someone named Lynch, or demand that milk be banned because it’s white, or some other nonsense, no one tells them to chill out and get over it. With few exceptions, the companies targeted by the liberal Thought Police cower before them, and toss them as many virgins as necessary to appease them.