Yeah that’s all good but the black vets where not only spat on, they didn’t get the full benefits of the G.I. Bill that white vets got. They also had to endure Jim Crow. So don’t pretend that it was equal treatment. Originally Posted by Austin Dude
- Austin Ellen
- 10-18-2017, 08:49 PM
I didn't pretend anything. Stop hating on me.
- lustylad
- 10-18-2017, 08:53 PM
Like lustyturd, a racist clown who always manages to prove himself a clueless dipshit. Originally Posted by Cap'n CrunchAlways a pleasure to hear from you, charming crunchyass. Very timely and germane to the current discussion, too. After all, you are the poster child for why the word "racist" keeps losing its stigma. You choke and splutter and hurl it at anyone who dares to challenge your cheap libtard talking points. Shit, if I had a dollar for every time you called me racist, I'd be retired by now.
Btw, dipshit lustyturd, there are far more white people who support Austin Dude's perspective than African-Americans supporting the contrary. Originally Posted by Cap'n CrunchReally? You're saying most Americans agree with millsy's principle of "guilty until proven innocent"? Is that a widely accepted tenet of our culture? I always thought it was the other way around, but thanks for the clarification!
Now tell me, you sick bastard... why do you torture kittens and puppy dogs?
- Observing
- 10-18-2017, 09:36 PM
President Trump: Don’t Make $25K Promises You Don’t Keep.
Trump offered a grieving military father $25,000 in a call, but didn’t follow through.
"Baldridge said that after the president made his $25,000 offer, he joked with Trump that he would bail him out if he got arrested for helping. The White House has done nothing else other than send a condolence letter from Trump, the father said.
“I opened it up and read it, and I was hoping to see a check in there, to be honest,” the father said. “I know it was kind of far-fetched thinking. But I was like, ‘Damn, no check.’ Just a letter saying ‘I’m sorry.’"
And this in same article:
"Euvince Brooks’s son, Sgt. Roshain E. Brooks, 30, was killed Aug. 13 in Iraq. He has not heard from the White House. The president’s claim this week that he had called every military family to lose a son or daughter only upset the Brooks family more.
Brooks said that after watching the news on Tuesday night he wanted to set up a Twitter account to try and get the President’s attention.
“I said to my daughter, ‘Can you teach me to tweet, so I can tweet at the president and tell him he’s a liar?’” he said. “You know when you hear people lying, and you want to fight? That’s the way I feel last night. He’s a damn liar.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.9ec2e63cda0d
And concerning Trump saying the disrespectful phone call to widow of fallen soldier was "fabricated".
Sarah Huckabee Sanders just admitted Trump’s ‘proof’ doesn’t exist.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0c0b5c6758bd
Oh You mean like Obama's birth certificate Trump sent "investigators to Hawaii" to look for?
Or any proof he had a bigger inauguration crowd size?
Or any proof that James Comey lied about their meeting?
Or any proof that he saw Muslims cheering after 9/11?
Yeah we figured that was bullshit, Sarah. Thanks for clearing that up.
When are you Trump Davidians gonna wake the fuck up and realize you back a sociopath lying sack of shit?
Trump offered a grieving military father $25,000 in a call, but didn’t follow through.
"Baldridge said that after the president made his $25,000 offer, he joked with Trump that he would bail him out if he got arrested for helping. The White House has done nothing else other than send a condolence letter from Trump, the father said.
“I opened it up and read it, and I was hoping to see a check in there, to be honest,” the father said. “I know it was kind of far-fetched thinking. But I was like, ‘Damn, no check.’ Just a letter saying ‘I’m sorry.’"
And this in same article:
"Euvince Brooks’s son, Sgt. Roshain E. Brooks, 30, was killed Aug. 13 in Iraq. He has not heard from the White House. The president’s claim this week that he had called every military family to lose a son or daughter only upset the Brooks family more.
Brooks said that after watching the news on Tuesday night he wanted to set up a Twitter account to try and get the President’s attention.
“I said to my daughter, ‘Can you teach me to tweet, so I can tweet at the president and tell him he’s a liar?’” he said. “You know when you hear people lying, and you want to fight? That’s the way I feel last night. He’s a damn liar.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.9ec2e63cda0d
And concerning Trump saying the disrespectful phone call to widow of fallen soldier was "fabricated".
Sarah Huckabee Sanders just admitted Trump’s ‘proof’ doesn’t exist.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0c0b5c6758bd
Oh You mean like Obama's birth certificate Trump sent "investigators to Hawaii" to look for?
Or any proof he had a bigger inauguration crowd size?
Or any proof that James Comey lied about their meeting?
Or any proof that he saw Muslims cheering after 9/11?
Yeah we figured that was bullshit, Sarah. Thanks for clearing that up.
When are you Trump Davidians gonna wake the fuck up and realize you back a sociopath lying sack of shit?
- Austin Dude
- 10-18-2017, 09:49 PM
I didn't pretend anything. Stop hating on me. Originally Posted by Austin EllenRight but when the guy pointed out that black vets weren't treated the same you wanted to point out that white vets were treated bad too. That they were spit on. So why make a statement that both races were treated bad? That's the issue. There really isn't a comparison and you just tried to make one.
- Austin Ellen
- 10-18-2017, 10:01 PM
No, all vet's were treated badly when they came back from the war. GI's were not liked back then by the civilian population.
Right but when the guy pointed out that black vets weren't treated the same you wanted to point out that white vets were treated bad too. That they were spit on. So why make a statement that both races were treated bad? That's the issue. There really isn't a comparison and you just tried to make one. Originally Posted by Austin Dude
- Austin Ellen
- 10-18-2017, 10:16 PM
You know what - black vets were treated very badly after the war. I was not trying to make a comparison - you took it that way.
Right but when the guy pointed out that black vets weren't treated the same you wanted to point out that white vets were treated bad too. That they were spit on. So why make a statement that both races were treated bad? That's the issue. There really isn't a comparison and you just tried to make one. Originally Posted by Austin Dude
- Austin Dude
- 10-18-2017, 10:46 PM
You know what - black vets were treated very badly after the war. I was not trying to make a comparison - you took it that way. Originally Posted by Austin EllenI took it that way because when the guy brought up black vets treatment you pivoted to all vets were treated bad. When it's a fact that as bad as white vets were treated, blacks were treated worse. And you doubled down in the post when you responded to me saying no all vets.
- lustylad
- 10-18-2017, 11:38 PM
The New York Times’s Double Standard on the NFL
The paper says pro football players have speech rights it denies to its own reporters.
By William McGurn
Oct. 16, 2017 6:57 p.m. ET
Good thing for Colin Kaepernick he isn’t a New York Times reporter.
As quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, Mr. Kaepernick was backed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in 2016 when he chose not to stand during the national anthem. Mr. Goodell said that while he didn’t necessarily agree with Mr. Kaepernick, “players have a platform, and it’s his right to do that.” One year and many NFL game day protests later, Times executive editor Dean Baquet has just made clear to his own employees: There will be no taking of knees if it embarrasses the Times.
Which puts the Gray Lady in a pickle. When Mr. Kaepernick began protesting the national anthem, the Times ran a few opinion pieces but refrained from staking out an official position. That changed after Donald Trump weighed in. At a Friday night rally in Alabama last month, the president asked: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now?’ ”
In response, the Times blitzed. A Sept. 24 editorial called “The Day the Real Patriots Took a Knee” asserted the president’s remarks about the flag and players were yet more evidence of his disregard for “the legitimate and deeply felt fears and grievances of minority Americans.”
It piled on, accusing Mr. Trump of “implying that players give up their right to free speech when they put on a uniform.” For good measure, it went on to impugn Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin for suggesting “players should keep their mouths shut in the workplace.”
We get it: Employers have no right to restrict their employees’ speech.
But one tiny question: Why do Times reporters not enjoy this same right?
Because within three weeks of blasting those who believe NFL players have no First Amendment right to use the football field to make political statements, Mr. Baquet issued a memo about social media warning Times reporters not to use their “vibrant presence” on these platforms to express their own, uh, deeply felt fears and grievances.
Mr. Baquet says “the key points” are as follows:
• “In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation."
• “Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively."
• “These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics.”
In its NFL editorial, the Times approvingly quoted New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who defended his players’ right to “peacefully affect social change and raise awareness in a manner they feel is most impactful.”
For its own employees, the Times has now chosen a different approach.
“We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy,” the memo warned. “While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.”
Remember, when NFL players take a knee, they do so in the uniforms of their employers, in a workplace paid for by their employers, and before a TV audience provided by their employers. By contrast, while someone might be identified on, say, Twitter as a Times reporter, it’s not a Times platform. In this sense, a reporter posting on Facebook is more akin to Mr. Kaepernick’s appearing at, say, a Black Lives Matter rally, off hours and out of uniform.
At a panel discussion at George Washington University last Thursday, Mr. Baquet was blunt about why he’s going all Mike Ditka on the social media accounts of his employees. It’s vital, he says, to institutional credibility. He wants to be able to say of Times coverage that “we’re doing this because it’s journalistically sound, we’re not doing this because we have a vendetta or [because] we’re trying to take him out, and I can’t do that if I have 100 people working for the New York Times sending inappropriate tweets.”
It’s an eminently sane argument—even if rooted in the premise that the Times will be discredited by more honesty about what its reporters really think. If the NFL owners decide at their fall meeting this Tuesday to require players to stand for the national anthem, expect Mr. Goodell to emerge offering a version of the Baquet argument.
To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, while everyone has the constitutional right to free speech, no one has a constitutional right to work for the New York Times. Surely that goes for the NFL too. So why does the Times believe professional football players have more speech rights than its own reporters?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new...nfl-1508194661
The paper says pro football players have speech rights it denies to its own reporters.
By William McGurn
Oct. 16, 2017 6:57 p.m. ET
Good thing for Colin Kaepernick he isn’t a New York Times reporter.
As quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, Mr. Kaepernick was backed by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in 2016 when he chose not to stand during the national anthem. Mr. Goodell said that while he didn’t necessarily agree with Mr. Kaepernick, “players have a platform, and it’s his right to do that.” One year and many NFL game day protests later, Times executive editor Dean Baquet has just made clear to his own employees: There will be no taking of knees if it embarrasses the Times.
Which puts the Gray Lady in a pickle. When Mr. Kaepernick began protesting the national anthem, the Times ran a few opinion pieces but refrained from staking out an official position. That changed after Donald Trump weighed in. At a Friday night rally in Alabama last month, the president asked: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now?’ ”
In response, the Times blitzed. A Sept. 24 editorial called “The Day the Real Patriots Took a Knee” asserted the president’s remarks about the flag and players were yet more evidence of his disregard for “the legitimate and deeply felt fears and grievances of minority Americans.”
It piled on, accusing Mr. Trump of “implying that players give up their right to free speech when they put on a uniform.” For good measure, it went on to impugn Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin for suggesting “players should keep their mouths shut in the workplace.”
We get it: Employers have no right to restrict their employees’ speech.
But one tiny question: Why do Times reporters not enjoy this same right?
Because within three weeks of blasting those who believe NFL players have no First Amendment right to use the football field to make political statements, Mr. Baquet issued a memo about social media warning Times reporters not to use their “vibrant presence” on these platforms to express their own, uh, deeply felt fears and grievances.
Mr. Baquet says “the key points” are as follows:
• “In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation."
• “Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively."
• “These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics.”
In its NFL editorial, the Times approvingly quoted New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who defended his players’ right to “peacefully affect social change and raise awareness in a manner they feel is most impactful.”
For its own employees, the Times has now chosen a different approach.
“We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy,” the memo warned. “While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones, separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.”
Remember, when NFL players take a knee, they do so in the uniforms of their employers, in a workplace paid for by their employers, and before a TV audience provided by their employers. By contrast, while someone might be identified on, say, Twitter as a Times reporter, it’s not a Times platform. In this sense, a reporter posting on Facebook is more akin to Mr. Kaepernick’s appearing at, say, a Black Lives Matter rally, off hours and out of uniform.
At a panel discussion at George Washington University last Thursday, Mr. Baquet was blunt about why he’s going all Mike Ditka on the social media accounts of his employees. It’s vital, he says, to institutional credibility. He wants to be able to say of Times coverage that “we’re doing this because it’s journalistically sound, we’re not doing this because we have a vendetta or [because] we’re trying to take him out, and I can’t do that if I have 100 people working for the New York Times sending inappropriate tweets.”
It’s an eminently sane argument—even if rooted in the premise that the Times will be discredited by more honesty about what its reporters really think. If the NFL owners decide at their fall meeting this Tuesday to require players to stand for the national anthem, expect Mr. Goodell to emerge offering a version of the Baquet argument.
To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, while everyone has the constitutional right to free speech, no one has a constitutional right to work for the New York Times. Surely that goes for the NFL too. So why does the Times believe professional football players have more speech rights than its own reporters?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new...nfl-1508194661
- SpeedRacerXXX
- 10-19-2017, 07:49 AM
No, all vet's were treated badly when they came back from the war. GI's were not liked back then by the civilian population. Originally Posted by Austin EllenAlthough I did not serve in Vietnam I was in the army from late 1968 to late 1970. I do not remember any service men being treated badly by the civilian population. We may have not been given the appreciation that WW II veterans were given, but I also saw no disrespect. Yes, there were protests against the war but those protests were NOT against individual soldiers.
One might argue that ALL vets did not receive benefits that you and others believe they should have received. I got out, used the GI bill to get my MBA, and moved on, neither receiving other benefits based on my military service nor asking for any.
I'd be interested in either you or others telling me what poor treatment veterans from the Vietnam war era received.
- gfejunkie
- 10-19-2017, 08:43 AM
When are you Trump Davidians gonna wake the fuck up and realize you back a sociopath lying sack of shit? Originally Posted by ObservingWhen are you idiots going to wake up and stop being on the losing side of every issue?
It's funny how all of a sudden the dimretards and the left wing media love the military, hate the Russians, and just because Trump won the election everybody who supported him is a racist.
Maybe you should go back to worshipping at the feet of Mueller. I just wonder how much investigating he'll be able to do from a jail cell...
http://thehill.com/opinion/internati...urity-concerns
This story, despite being out there for years, is just beginning. Thank you, Senator Grassley!
- Cap'n Crunch
- 10-19-2017, 09:11 AM
Trump won the election everybody who supported him is a racist. Originally Posted by gfejunkieNo gfejunkie, not everybody who supported Trump is a racist. There are plenty of people, for their own reasons, voted for him unrelated to racism. However, there are certain individuals who have shown themselves to be either racist or have racist tendencies. This certainly does not apply to all his supporters.
There is a whole other issue about supporting someone (Trump) who clearly wants to sidestep standing up for racial equality. Trump placates racists and I find that unacceptable.
- Cap'n Crunch
- 10-19-2017, 09:15 AM
I try not to lump all people into one group. Only a select portion of Republicans are racist. And there certainly are Democrats who are racist. It is a sad fact in our society. Austin Ellen is not a true racist, IMO. She supports Trump and I actually understand why she does. I don’t agree with her at all, but I understand her mindset.
However, it has been proven time and time again that lustyturd, besides being an imbecile, is indeed a racist. He can try to hide behind "you think we are all racists!" Nope. Not all. But certainly lustyturd. He sticks out like a sore thumb. Sticks out like a pile of bird crap.
However, it has been proven time and time again that lustyturd, besides being an imbecile, is indeed a racist. He can try to hide behind "you think we are all racists!" Nope. Not all. But certainly lustyturd. He sticks out like a sore thumb. Sticks out like a pile of bird crap.
- Cap'n Crunch
- 10-19-2017, 09:47 AM
Oh You mean like Obama's birth certificate Trump sent "investigators to Hawaii" to look for?It bogles the mind. I mean brazen, bald-faced lies. It would be refreshing for a Trump supporter to admit that he lies. Too often we hear deflection: "look over here!" "I hate libtards!" (the brainless, laughable response), or other moronic ways to avoid the actual issue. It would be quite refreshing for Trump supporters to admit the truth. You can still support his agenda while recognizing Trump is a pathological liar.
Or any proof he had a bigger inauguration crowd size?
Or any proof that James Comey lied about their meeting?
Or any proof that he saw Muslims cheering after 9/11?
Yeah we figured that was bullshit, Sarah. Thanks for clearing that up.
When are you Trump Davidians gonna wake the fuck up and realize you back a sociopath lying sack of shit? Originally Posted by Observing
Lack of leadership and lack of responsibility was on display when Trump deflected the question about why he hadn't yet contacted the families of fallen soldiers. His response was despicable. He always searches to blame someone else for anything that happens. Think about it; ALWAYS blames someone else. He is supposed to be the master negotiator. Then why couldn't he get major legislation passed? He blamed Republican Congress and took ZERO responsibility. Can you really call that leadership? I want a true leader as President. I'd accept John McCain or Mitt Romney. Not Dotard Trump.
- Austin Ellen
- 10-19-2017, 10:41 AM
I'll agree with you. In the civilian world they were. In our military community, we had each others back because we had to rely on each other. So it was different between the two communities. i think I was trying to compare the two communities and what the difference was.
I took it that way because when the guy brought up black vets treatment you pivoted to all vets were treated bad. When it's a fact that as bad as white vets were treated, blacks were treated worse. And you doubled down in the post when you responded to me saying no all vets. Originally Posted by Austin Dude
- zerodark13
- 10-19-2017, 11:21 AM
I'll agree with you. In the civilian world they were. In our military community, we had each others back because we had to rely on each other. So it was different between the two communities. i think I was trying to compare the two communities and what the difference was. Originally Posted by Austin EllenPlease stop saying “our” and “we”, you aren’t part of that world, and saying you are makes you seem like even more of a scumbag moron.