What did you say there that has value? You just don’t like a stranger on the internet and had to impotently attack him? Cool, dude.
Right of Lenin
rightoflenin88
No on the first question.
Oh won’t someone please think of poor Kelvin Sampson!
His parents should be put against a wall.
He died doing what he loved. Filling his lungs with water instead of air.
You are a smart person. I’m sure you realize that me putting the #88 in my user name and it being part of some obscure racist meme is coincidence. I told that dummy that I used the number because it was my HS football number - I also bragged about being all-state, though I didn’t mention it was third-team, over 1000…
I mean, I’ll acknowledge there is an intellectual argument that comes to that conclusion. But stating it as blasé fact is reductive.
Can you acknowledge that despite the fact that his economic policies are “unacceptable” - maybe, just maybe, he isn’t a white supremacist?
He is speaking up you invalid turd. You just don’t care because ofyourf terrible politics.
Probably not, but Obama wouldn’t do that for myriad reasons.
Other known white supremacists include Michael Irvin, Marvin Harrison and Lynn Swann.
88 was my HS football number you hysterical asshole - all-state, no big deal. I have no idea how it can be a white supremacist dog whistle.
Eh, I consider myself a serious college football fan (for my team, UGA), but come on, if you just care about the game, watch at home or even a local alumni bar.
1. He says we need to be outraged and not become numb. He says we can’t let it be part of civil discourse. What should he say? What has another member said that is better? (Note: politically self-serving is not better).
He added: “I worry that we’re going to just get this normalized in our society. And we’re going to say, ‘Ah, it’s just those neo-Nazis. Big deal.’ No no no. We’ve got to be outraged every single time. And so what I worry about, and this is the point I was trying to make there is, we can’t get numbed to this. We can’t…
That’s not true. I read Moby Dick.
I have an idea, let’s take a word with a commonly accepted meaning, and use it to describe something else, because we want to make a lazy point.
It is intellectually lazy to take the complex question of “when is it ok to kill another” and reduce it to certainty. Do you think by just repeating your conclusion ad nauseam you make a better argument?
Did you read the article? Because if you did you might have some idea.