Drive around with a Confederate Flag - that's 20 years in jail

[AAAintheBeltway]

So you saw what happened before the video? Who is comparing him to the Duke Lacrosse prosecutor? So answer the question... you would welcome some rednecks with M4s to park outside your home and screaming epithets at you? Did the black family drive to the redneck's trailer?

To point some fingers at you fucking clowns defending this shit... yeah, you're the fucking problem. Ask yourself how abjectly fucking, strabismus-having, touch-touching fucking stupid you have to be to defend their actions by authoring this thread.

Are you able to appreciate that there is some middle ground between supporting this conduct and prosecuting them for serious felonies including terrorism?

Ironically, gwb has about the same view of the South as you do, judging from some of his past comments. He's the last person to defend this. However, he can see that criminalizing a core First Amendment right, symbolic political speech, is troubling.

 

[gwb-trading]

So you saw what happened before the video? Who is comparing him to the Duke Lacrosse prosecutor? So answer the question... you would welcome some rednecks with M4s to park outside your home and screaming epithets at you? Did the black family drive to the redneck's trailer?

To point some fingers at you fucking clowns defending this shit... yeah, you're the fucking problem. Ask yourself how abjectly fucking, strabismus-having, touch-touching fucking stupid you have to be to defend their actions by authoring this thread.

Anyone who has followed by previous posts in P&R knows that I oppose the display of the Confederate Flag on public property. The sole exception being historical battlefield sites where the flag can be explained & displayed in context. For example at Fort Sumter - unfortunately the government has removed all the confederate flags (including those in paintings / diagrams describing the event) at Fort Sumter which makes it difficult to explain the historical events.

However I support the right to freedom of expression on private property. If someone wants to display the flag on their home or truck then they should be free to do so.

I personally view the Confederate flag is primarily about a legacy of racism and oppression rather than being about "Southern Heritage". Several posters such as AAA respectfully disagree with me regarding this.

The Duke Lacrosse case happened in the Raleigh-Durham area I live in. All the people locally are saying that the drivers displaying the flag are being Nifonged. Mike Nifong was the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case. He aggressively prosecuted the case using minimal & unreliable evidence - all in an attempt to pander to Durham's large minority community so he would be reelected. This prosecutor in Douglas County according to all the local media and people here is doing the same thing.

The video of this event shows the following: Blacks throwing bottles at the trucks, both groups screaming and yelling at each other (including the N word), no firearms displayed, and one of the blacks threatening to shoot the drivers. The prosecutor has provided no additional evidence supporting the harsh charges despite many demands to do so.

I don't believe that it was in any wise for this group of Confederate flag promoters to drive through town with their flags flying (but they are legally allowed to do so). Nor do I support their point of view. However I will state unequivocally that felony terrorism charges are drastic prosecutorial overkill and uncalled for. I could see misdemeanor disturbing the peace or something equivalent. The harsh charges are simply a sign that the prosecutor is pandering for his political career. I can only hope he lands up like Nifong - disbarred, locked up in jail, and bankrupt.

I authored this thread to get feedback from various perspectives on this subject. I was hoping that posters could be civil to one another. Apparently I hoped for to much.

 

[gwb-trading]

What you say is correct in that the full load of the tuition can only be afforded by the wealthy. And it is also true that statistically students that graduate from these very good high schools have an advantage when it come to being admitted to the most selective colleges. Nevertheless students who are admitted to the elite private 'high schools' are admitted because they are extremely bright and accomplished for their age; not because their parents are multimillionaires . A dull student will not be admitted regardless of their parents income, unless of course the parents give an extraordinary gift. In that case a way may be found to guide the dull student through to graduation.

All of these private schools have substantial endowments, and qualified students are admitted regardless of the parents' ability to pay the very steep tuition. Tuition aid is substantial. The students at these elite schools are international in scope. I say this as a non-multimillionaire parent with first hand experience.

Mu personal experience allows me to compare a son who went to all public schools and then to an elite Ivy; a daughter who went to an elite private high school and then to a first rate college and an Ivy graduate school. Of these two paths, the latter is better. Put your money into high school; then college will take care of itself.

First let me say congratulations on your children attending Ivy league schools.

As noted in this article, the large majority of children who attend Ivy league universities come from 100 high schools in the U.S. 94 out of these 100 high schools are private. The private ones have very large tuition bills. In some years up to 82% of the students admitted as freshmen came from these 100 schools. However recently the numbers have drifted towards being nearly half the Ivy undergrad students coming from public schools (some of these are transfers from other colleges).

In my opinion (aligned with yours somewhat), the best way to attend an Ivy is as a graduate student. Do very well in undergrad studies at any mainstream university coupled with good GRE test scores, and many students from all backgrounds get in to Ivy universities as graduate students. The influence of family wealth and connections appears to be less meaningful for being admitted to Ivy league graduate schools.

I recognize that the large majority of students attending Ivy universities are very bright. However I would caution you that stating "Nevertheless students who are admitted to the elite private 'high schools' are admitted because they are extremely bright and accomplished for their age; not because their parents are multimillionaires." - is effectively claiming that all our dimwitted politicians such as Kerry and Bush who attended elite feeder boarding schools such as Phillips & St. Pauls prior Yale because they are 'extremely bright and accomplished' rather than being due to family wealth & connections. There was nothing in the early years of their lives to demonstrate that either was 'extremely bright and accomplished'. Many of these elite private feeder schools are focused on family wealth over accomplishment.

 

[destriero]

However, he can see that criminalizing a core First Amendment right, symbolic political speech, is troubling.

That's an absurd comment. As I've stated; let's see how you respond with someone parking just outside your home shouting epithets and waving M4s and AKs. I'd wager that they wouldn't likely be saved from LE quick enough it it were in front of my home. The flag is meaningless other than allowing the DA the opportunity to amp the charge. So in that respect, I agree.

To state that all they were doing is exercising protected free-speech is frankly, brain-dead. There is no argument there.

 

[destriero]

htf was this zombie not shot on sight?

 

[piezoe]

First let me say congratulations on your children attending Ivy league schools.

As noted in this article, the large majority of children who attend Ivy league universities come from 100 high schools in the U.S. 94 out of these 100 high schools are private. The private ones have very large tuition bills. In some years up to 82% of the students admitted as freshmen came from these 100 schools. However recently the numbers have drifted towards being nearly half the Ivy undergrad students coming from public schools (some of these are transfers from other colleges).

In my opinion (aligned with yours somewhat), the best way to attend an Ivy is as a graduate student. Do very well in undergrad studies at any mainstream university coupled with good GRE test scores, and many students from all backgrounds get in to Ivy universities as graduate students. The influence of family wealth and connections appears to be less meaningful for being admitted to Ivy league graduate schools.

I recognize that the large majority of students attending Ivy universities are very bright. However I would caution you that stating "Nevertheless students who are admitted to the elite private 'high schools' are admitted because they are extremely bright and accomplished for their age; not because their parents are multimillionaires." - is effectively claiming that all our dimwitted politicians such as Kerry and Bush who attended elite feeder boarding schools such as Phillips & St. Pauls prior Yale because they are 'extremely bright and accomplished' rather than being due to family wealth & connections. There was nothing in the early years of their lives to demonstrate that either was 'extremely bright and accomplished'. Many of these elite private feeder schools are focused on family wealth over accomplishment.

In the main, I agree with you. It is important to recognize, I think, that although it is traditional at these schools to honor legacy offspring by doing everything that can reasonably be done to admit them, the majority of these legacy students, having had every advantage in growing up, are well prepared and bright. The dullards, such as that particular Bush child, would certainly be an exception. (When I watched "Being There" , the movie with Peter Sellers playing Chauncey Gardiner, it struck me that young George could have played that role even more authentically. The thought makes me chuckle even now.)

I don't agree with you, however, regarding John Kerry. I certainly wouldn't lump him in with that certain Bush child when it comes to intellectual acumen. He was a serious and accomplished student, and a highly capable and successful lawyer, but from his school days onward, most interested in politics. His undoing, in my personal estimation, was his patrician background. Like many patricians, whose parents were Edwardian in their demeanor, he shows reticence and discomfort at revealing himself to the public. I can tell you from personal experience that this is a difficult thing to overcome. That reticence to let the public into his private life was a serious handicap in his race for President. It was beneath him to get in an argument with the swift boaters; an argument he could have easily won. His record as a naval officer is outstanding. It shows incredible bravery and clear thinking under fire.

To the public, during his Campaign for President, he appeared aloof. That is how he struck me when he was in the Senate, and I didn't care for him -- not until I learned more about him once he decided to run for President. But I have now learned much more. The saying 'one can not judge a book by its cover', is nowhere more applicable than to John Kerry. I now believe there is a good possibility that the judgement of time will reveal him as one of our truly great Secretaries of State.

He is not one to blow his own horn, and that, in politics, is not an asset. In that one regard at least, we might agree that it would be fair to think of him as the antithesis of Donald trump.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

pie, that was meant as parody, right? Voters knew exactly who Kerry was and they wanted no part of a pompous phony.

And "he is not one to blow his own horn?" That's a good one, too. OK, literally he probably has a driver or manservant to do any actual horn blowing, but I believe you meant he was modest and humble.

 

[gwb-trading]

In the main, I agree with you. It is important to recognize, I think, that although it is traditional at these schools to honor legacy offspring by doing everything that can reasonably be done to admit them, the majority of these legacy students, having had every advantage in growing up, are well prepared and bright. The dullards, such as that particular Bush child, would certainly be an exception. (When I watched "Being There" , the movie with Peter Sellers playing Chauncey Gardiner, it struck me that young George could have played that role even more authentically. The thought makes me chuckle even now.)

I don't agree with you, however, regarding John Kerry. I certainly wouldn't lump him in with that certain Bush child when it comes to intellectual acumen. He was a serious and accomplished student, and a highly capable and successful lawyer, but from his school days onward, most interested in politics. His undoing, in my personal estimation, was his patrician background. Like many patricians, whose parents were Edwardian in their demeanor, he shows reticence and discomfort at revealing himself to the public. I can tell you from personal experience that this is a difficult thing to overcome. That reticence to let the public into his private life was a serious handicap in his race for President. It was beneath him to get in an argument with the swift boaters; an argument he could have easily won. His record as a naval officer is outstanding. It shows incredible bravery and clear thinking under fire.

To the public, during his Campaign for President, he appeared aloof. That is how he struck me when he was in the Senate, and I didn't care for him -- not until I learned more about him once he decided to run for President. But I have now learned much more. The saying 'one can not judge a book by its cover', is nowhere more applicable than to John Kerry. I now believe there is a good possibility that the judgement of time will reveal him as one of our truly great Secretaries of State.

He is not one to blow his own horn, and that, in politics, is not an asset. In that one regard at least, we might agree that it would be fair to think of him as the antithesis of Donald trump.

I will agree that Kerry is more an intellectual heavyweight than Bush (but not by much). However you need to remember that Kerry only had a C average at Yale. Similar to Bush he was at the bottom of his class.

Which reminds me of the old expression - "A" students go into science & engineering, "B" students go into business, and "C" students go into politics.

Bush and Kerry are not the only examples. U.S. History is littered with "C" student politicians that came out of Ivy league schools - only supported by family wealth and connections rather than brain power.

Kerry, Bush GPAs At Yale Similar
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kerry-bush-gpas-at-yale-similar/

Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year - in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

(More at above url)

 

[fhl]

FLOTUS wants the country's young women to celebrate the "International Day of the Girl", so she came out with her spotify playlist to celebrate the occasion.

I'll show some of the relevant verses from the lyrics and delete the rest.
-------------------


Support #62MillionGirls & #DayoftheGirl with us and @FLOTUS!
http://t.co/KMnnnK4Ym6pic.twitter.com/avcU6fKA9q

— Her Campus (@HerCampus) October 11, 2015

As listed on the White House website, coming in at the number one spot to promote education for girls is Beyoncé’s “Girls Who Run the World,” the lyrics of which are as follows:

Girls! We run this mother (yeah)

Girls! We run this mother (yeah)

Girls! We run this mother (yeah)

Girls! We run this mother (yeah)

deleted

Who run this mother? Girls

Who run this mother? Girls

Who run this mother! Girls

Who run this mother! Girls

deleted


None of these ni**as can fade me

deleted




Not to be outdone on the First Lady’s playlist to help raise up impoverished girls is Doo Wop (That Thing)

by Lauryn Hill. The lyrics include:

It’s been three weeks since you were looking for your friend

The one you let hit it and never called you again

‘Member when he told you he was ’bout the Benjamins?

You act like you ain’t hear him, then give him a little trim

To begin, how you think you’re really gon’ pretend

Like you wasn’t down and you called him again?

Plus, when you give it up so easy you ain’t even foolin’ him

If you did it then, then you’d probably f**k again

deleted

Showing off your ass cause you’re thinkin’ it’s a trend

deleted


Ni**as f**ked up and you still defending ‘em





The First Lady’s full playlist is on the White House website.

The International Day of the Girl was celebrated on October 11 and, according to the UN website

, is “an opportune time to consider the importance of social, economic, and political investment in the power of adolescent girls as fundamental to breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty, violence, exclusion and discrimination and to achieving equitable and sustainable development outcomes.”

“Adolescent girls have the right to a safe, educated, and healthy life, not only during these critical formative years, but also as they mature into women,” the website explains. “If effectively supported during the adolescent years, girls have the potential to change the world – both as the empowered girls of today and as tomorrow’s workers, mothers, entrepreneurs, mentors, household heads, and political leaders.”


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was from the first lady of the US. Her playlist for young girls of America.

How long do we have to pretend that negro culture is anything but putrid, stinking filth.

 

[piezoe]

I will agree that Kerry is more an intellectual heavyweight than Bush (but not by much). However you need to remember that Kerry only had a C average at Yale. Similar to Bush he was at the bottom of his class.

Which reminds me of the old expression - "A" students go into science & engineering, "B" students go into business, and "C" students go into politics.

Bush and Kerry are not the only examples. U.S. History is littered with "C" student politicians that came out of Ivy league schools - only supported by family wealth and connections rather than brain power.

Kerry, Bush GPAs At Yale Similar
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kerry-bush-gpas-at-yale-similar/

Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year - in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

(More at above url)

I think we can be confident that what the Boston Globe reports on Kerry is accurate and has been properly checked out. It is probably the most reliable source on Kerry. The reporters of the Globe have a very detailed biography out on his life. Kerry was the class orator during commencement exercises, and a star debater. According to the Globe Biography, and by Kerry's own admission, he cut classes his senior year to go flying, and he was also on the Yale Hockey and Soccer teams, so he definitely did not have his nose buried in books the entire time. He had already begun to question U.S. policy in Vietnam and his oration, in 1966, included this remark "...And this Vietnam War has found our policy makers forcing Americans into a strange corner...that if victory escapes us, it would not be the fault of those who lead, but of the doubters who stabbed them in the back."

Beyond Kerry and Bush's mediocre undergraduate grades at Yale, the academic achievements of the young Kerry and Bush seem to me not very comparable.

I found the following in a 2003 article in the Boston Globe regarding Kerry's St. Paul Years:
(http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061503.shtml)

Kerry entered St. Paul's as a short, pudgy boy focused on intellectual pursuits. Within a couple years, however, he rocketed up in height. He was one of the tallest boys on campus and soon became a sports standout, using his newfound height to advantage in hockey and soccer. ...

Kerry's Latin teacher, George Tracy, has no memory of Kerry's performance in class. But he does recall, vividly, Kerry's star-turn on the school hockey team, which didn't lose a game during a memorable season. Another Kerry talent, the teacher said, was debate, in which he impressed Tracy as ``one of the most brilliant people I've ever known.''

At St. Paul's, Kerry founded the John Winant Society, an organization that still exists to debate major issues of the day. Kerry recalled delivering an award-winning speech titled ``The Plight of the Negro.'' St. Paul's officials could not find a copy of the speech but did unearth a speech Kerry gave for the Concordian Literary Society that won the top prize. It was titled: ``Resolved: that the growth of spectator sports in the western world in the last half century is an indication of the decline of western civilization.''

Kerry was one of a handful of boys with Democratic leanings and a Catholic on a campus dominated by Republican Episcopalians. That became most painfully clear when Kerry delivered a speech in favor of the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which Kerry says was the first political speech of his life. St. Paul's was firmly in Nixon's corner.

It seems the Globe did a multi-part series on Kerry when he was running for president. Although I only read that brief portion above, it seems to be more or less along the lines of the full Biography the Globe published, which I did read sometime back.