HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » FourScore » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 65 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Mar 16, 2006, 02:07 PM
Number of posts: 9,704

Journal Archives

College Prof ADVOCATES for men to sexually assault women - KEEPS HIS JOB

On his blog site, Brooklyn College Associate Professor Mitchell Langbert composed a truly jaw-dropping offensive post titled “Kavanaugh”. He begins the post by stating, “If someone did not commit sexual assault in high school, he is not a member of the male sex.” In an attempt to smear the Democrats, he equates sexual assault to nothing more than spin-the-bottle, while accusing democrats of “characterizing” the adolescent game, played by 15- year olds, as “rape”. He proceeds to call the Democrats “a party of pink tutu-wearing pansies...totalitarian sissies who lack virility...or the masculine judgement that has characterized the greatest civilizations.” Most ironically, he also claims that the Democrats “lack...a sense of decency.” He concludes, “In the future, having committed sexual assault ought to be a prerequisite for all appointments, judicial and political.”


Mark Harris, the wanna-be “tutu-wearing pansy”, might have to hold off on his “big pink cupcake” celebration, as it appears that Brooklyn College is supporting their associate professor. Rather than...protecting the security and well-being of her students, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Anne Lopes, has decided to use this moment as a platform to educate the world on the importance of the First Amendment. She also draws attention to the upcoming student protest on the East Quad as well as a website forum which has been created for people “to share and discuss their...reflections”.



Let's face facts - They want everything to be done for them


Dan Rather's Response to Trump's Tweet Attacking Mayor of San Juan

Dan Rather
2 hrs ·

Excuse me, Mr. President but your tantrum tweet storm this morning attacking the mayor of San Juan, a fellow American citizen dealing with a real-time life and death struggle for hundreds of thousands of her constituents on an island of millions in crisis, is not only far below the dignity of the office you hold. It fails even the most basic test of humanity.

Did she have harsh words for your Administration's response to the aftermath of Hurricane Maria? Yes. It's called a reality check, and one that conforms to every firsthand account coming out of Puerto Rico no matter how much you try to deflect with your "Fake News" epithets. To take this personally is to put ego before country. And you also blame the Puerto Ricans themselves? That they want "everything done for them"? No. They just expect to be treated as any other American would.

I have seen more than my share of wretched desperation over the course of my career. I have reported from crisis zones where matters of life and death hang moment to moment in the balance between action and inaction, where communication is limited, and the sense of panic is building. I have seen the most steadfast of leaders feel the crushing weight of responsibility as they survey a landscape of almost incomprehensible need.

It does not take a saintly amount of compassion or empathy to feel for those who are struggling to stay alive, who are worried for the fate of family and friends, and who have seen so much that they have known and loved blown and washed away. You swore to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and that means a responsibility to look out for all Americans, even if they live on an island in the ocean, or look different or even speak a different language than what you think is America.

I worry that whoever has your ear has not adequately impressed upon you the gravity of this situation, or even the political price you are likely to pay (although that can be no where near the top concern at the moment). Or perhaps you have been told and haven't listened.

Regardless, what Puerto Rico needs now is not rhetoric but help, not a bumbling response, but the precision and competence we expect of our government. I do not believe "blame the victim" is what Americans expect of their president.

LINK: https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/?hc_ref=ARS5_fPTvYfAMR9H6b4uWf2LeTg0bfa9Murtji0b7NpGNFThaU_k_5FZ4Z7hwkofzMI&fref=nf

19 seconds of drama: A video breakdown of John McCain's vote

TOM TOMORROW: Farewell Address


Abdul-Jabbar: Insulting Colin Kaepernick Says More About Our Patriotism Than His

Abdul-Jabbar: Insulting Colin Kaepernick Says More About Our Patriotism Than His

During the Olympics in Rio a couple of weeks ago, Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Sam Kendricks was sprinting intently in the middle of his pole vaulting attempt when he heard the national anthem playing. He immediately dropped his pole and stood at attention, a spontaneous expression of heartfelt patriotism that elicited more praise than his eventual bronze medal. Last Thursday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick chose not to stand with his teammates during the national anthem. To some, Kendricks embodies traditional all-American Forrest Gump values of patriotism, while Kaepernick represents the entitled brattish behavior of a wealthy athlete ungrateful to a country that has given him so much.

In truth, both men, in their own ways, behaved in a highly patriotic manner that should make all Americans proud.

The discussion of the nuances of patriotism is especially important right now, with Trump and Clinton supporters each righteously claiming ownership of the “most patriotic” label. Patriotism isn’t just getting teary-eyed on the Fourth of July or choked up at war memorials. It’s supporting what the Fourth of July celebrates and what those war memorials commemorate: the U.S. Constitution’s insistence that all people should have the same rights and opportunities and that it is the obligation of the government to make that happen. When the government fails in those obligations, it is the responsibility of patriots to speak up and remind them of their duty...


...We should admire those who risk personal gain in the service of promoting the values of their country. Both athletes are in fine company of others who have shown their patriotism in unconventional ways. In 1989, when a federal law prohibiting flag desecration went into effect, Vietnam Veterans burned the American flag as a protest to a law curbing the First Amendment. Their argument was that they fought for the freedoms in the Constitution, not a piece of cloth, and to curtail those freedoms was an insult to their sacrifice. Ironically, the original purpose of flag desecration laws between 1897 and 1932 wasn’t to prevent political dissent, but to prevent the use of flag imagery for political campaigns and in advertising.

One sign of the maturation of American society is the willingness of those in the public eye, especially athletes, to openly take a political stand, even if it could harm their careers. The modern era of athletes speaking out began in 1966 with Muhammad Ali refusing to be drafted to fight other people of color. In 1967, I joined with football great Jim Brown, basketball legend Bill Russell, Muhammad Ali and other prominent athletes for what was dubbed “The Cleveland Summit.” Together we tried to find ways to help Ali fight for his right of political expression. I don’t know how much we were able to accomplish on a practical level, but seeing black athletes in support of Ali inspired others to speak out. The following year at the 1968 Olympics, African Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists during the medal ceremony as a protest to the treatment of people of color in the United States. In 2014, NBA players LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Jarrett Jack, Alan Anderson, Deron Williams and Kevin Garnett and NFL players from the Rams and Browns wore “I Can’t Breathe” shirts during warm-ups for a game to protest police killings of unarmed blacks...


Why do we no longer receive the results of our jury service? ***UPDATE****

I would like to know what the other jurors think. I feel less inclined to serve if I do not see the results.

ON EDIT: I see that there has been a question regarding jury service notification already, and, if I understand it correctly, the admins feel it is a good idea to NOT notify the jury of the results due to possible drama. Less drama = good thing.

As one who is asked to serve on a jury multiple times a day, I would like to take issue with this admin decision. To serve on the jury is an honor, and one I take very seriously. Sometimes, rarely, the verdict is crystal clear. In those instances, the ruling from all the jurors is unanimous or near unanimous. Often, however, a decision can be quite difficult. In those cases, I read the post, the OP, the context, the surrounding statements from other posters. I get a general feel of the dynamics of what is happening within a thread. Ultimately, I am ruling on one post and deciding whether or not there was a violation of the rules. But context matters. Personalities matter. Tone matters. I try to be fair and overcome my own personal feelings. If the subject is on guns, and someone takes a stance I disagree with, I must avoid allowing our different views from getting in the way. I am a juror. I must decide purely if a violation has occurred. Sometimes, especially during the primary, that is not easy.

If I take 5-10 minutes of my life each day (sometimes more) to decide whether or not to hide a post - to censor on DU - then I sure as hell want to know the final outcome and how the other jurors decided.

I do not have time to chase down the post later and see if it's still there.

If the admins do not want drama, then perhaps they should make a rule that bans discussing jury decisions. But to not allow the juror the respect of the final outcome is bogus. I, personally, do not wish to serve on a jury under such rules.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Holy cow!! This is impossible!!

I've been watching the election returns on the guardian website. All of the mail-in votes are already recorded and they are all that are showing in the counties. In EVERY county (except for about 5 up in the north where apparently no one mailed in or it's not registered yet) the mail-in vote has gone to Hillary 63% to 37%. EVERY F***ing COUNTY!!! How is that possible???? A large percentage of the vote in each county appears to be by mail-in ballot. Didn't that same thing happen in AZ?


I hope everyone understands that these results tonight cannot possibly be real. **UPDATE**

After this election, I will no longer vote. I will no longer participate. I realize now that it doesn't matter. Democracy is dead.

There is no way that Hillary could have won Montana and South Dakota. Even her own team is shocked by those results.

Now she is winning CA with 62%. That is impossible. And we all know it.

***UPDATE*** CNN has announced she just won the pledged delegate vote. That's what this was all about. Now it CANNOT be contested. I'm done.


Please, kick and rec all the Bernie posts and post your own!!!

Love this idea!!
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 65 Next »