https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYEKIHsKLFc
Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a bar.
Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a bar.
Hallelujah! Praise Jesus.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
Jones and the guys from CPAC were having a very civil discussion about his involvement in Trump's plans for prison reform. At one point he mentions, dismissively, that he got some negative reactions on Twitter about working with this White House. Then the clown narrating tried to make it sound like the criticisms were coming from Democrats in Congress who want it to fail.
There are probably a few things appealing to Trump that could get done with the votes of Democrats and a few moderate Republicans. Can he find the courage to do so, is the question.
There are probably a few things appealing to Trump that could get done with the votes of Democrats and a few moderate Republicans. Can he find the courage to do so, is the question.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
Of course this is the Trump Jones called the "Uniter in chief"? And he didn't even crack a smile. So, of course he can. 
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
He said that specifically in reference to the First Step Act, for which it is arguably true. Would congressional Republicans have been as willing to take it up and pass it had Trump not thrown his support behind it from the outset? Or would they have found some reason to denounce it as "soft on crime"?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
So it might be correct to call him something like a supporter of the bill, but I think there is no way one could correctly call Trump a "Uniter"; indeed, he is quite the opposite and I would bet many supported it in spite of his connection with it, not because of it. I'll give him credit for being on the right side in this instance, but it no more makes him a "uniter" than foregoing one drink makes a drunk a teetotaler.
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
I haven't watched the video, but if Jones said something like that in connection with Trump's support of the First Step Act, it was likely done to give him the over-the-top effusive praise he so obviously craves in the hopes of getting him to behave similarly again...
Sort of like telling a three year old that he's "the best little boy in the world" because he was able to sit through a church service without throwing a tantrum...
It's not exactly a state secret that Trump's severely arrested emotional development makes this one of the most effective ways to deal with him...
Everyone from Rand Paul to Kim Jung Un knows it...
It just makes me so proud to have a President whose "mind" functions on that level...
Sort of like telling a three year old that he's "the best little boy in the world" because he was able to sit through a church service without throwing a tantrum...
It's not exactly a state secret that Trump's severely arrested emotional development makes this one of the most effective ways to deal with him...
Everyone from Rand Paul to Kim Jung Un knows it...
It just makes me so proud to have a President whose "mind" functions on that level...
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
Jim--you may well be right, and I can't watch this video at my work so I am not sure if the comment is on it; but my recollection made me think it wasn't quite as clear. Characterizing him in an over the top manner as a courageous president who took a stand to make a better criminal justice system would be the praise to a 2 year old--uniter in chief seems to be something different (like maybe Jones was bucking for a job or some other favor). However, I do think that Trump wouldn't notice the difference and would consider the praise genuine and well deserved--narcissists are so predictable.
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
Criminal Justice reform has had broad support from both sides for years. Mitch McConnell has blocked it from coming to a vote.
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
I haven t watched the video, but I am a consultant so I guess I should comment on it anyway...., even tho I haven t seen and don t really know what the fuck that I m talking about.
that is what we do.
sometimes we get focus groups together to tell us what to think...., but we choose them very carefully so as not to get opinions that deviate from the data that gathered in such a way that is consistent with good results, which corroborate existing studies which were conducted in a consistent manner with our previous high standards.
if we cannot find a focus group that agrees with our suppositions, we may, in fact, observe the actual data in order to determine the failings of said focus group, and how we might, in future, find better methods for choosing focus groups.
that is what we do.
sometimes we get focus groups together to tell us what to think...., but we choose them very carefully so as not to get opinions that deviate from the data that gathered in such a way that is consistent with good results, which corroborate existing studies which were conducted in a consistent manner with our previous high standards.
if we cannot find a focus group that agrees with our suppositions, we may, in fact, observe the actual data in order to determine the failings of said focus group, and how we might, in future, find better methods for choosing focus groups.
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
the video was more about Mr NYGHTSTORM, jim.
all these anecdotes will eventually register as data to you, maybe....., well......, probably not, but to an open minded person they may.
there is a trend toward trump in the black community, and there is a disgust for the dems.....
black folks are patriots too....
black folks like the constitution too....
it set us all free...., eventually.....
wake up man.
all these anecdotes will eventually register as data to you, maybe....., well......, probably not, but to an open minded person they may.
there is a trend toward trump in the black community, and there is a disgust for the dems.....
black folks are patriots too....
black folks like the constitution too....
it set us all free...., eventually.....
wake up man.
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
jim, #walkaway from the democrats.
be brave.
be brave.
-
Bicycle Bill
- Posts: 9797
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
- Location: Living in a suburb of Berkeley on the Prairie along with my Yellow Rose of Texas
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
wes is posting early this morning. Must be waiting for his Fearless Leader's 3 AM Tweetstorm so he knows who or what to hate on later today.
-"BB"-
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
Well, the ones who oppose Trump, certainly...black folks like the constitution too....
Another excellent example of your hopelessly confused bass-ackwards thinking wes, is your claiming to be a supporter of both Il Boobce and the Constitution...
There aren't a whole lot of genuinely pure binary choices in life, but that is certainly one of them...
By claiming to support both Trump and the Constitution, you are only demonstrating that you have a complete misunderstanding of one or both of them...
It's like saying you support both the local fire department and the town arsonist...
Logically self-falsifying...
I would work with the Romulans if they were helping to rein-in the greatest threat to our Constitutional Republic since the Civil War...wesw wrote:jim, #walkaway from the democrats.
And in case you haven't noticed wes, I'm perfectly capable of criticizing and opposing the Democrats where I have strong policy disagreements with them, while simultaneously praising and supporting their efforts to provide a check on our wannabe George III...
Laying aside the piss-your-pants hilarity of a supporter of President Punch-'Em-In-The-Face claiming to have Mahatma Gandhi as a "hero" (Or maybe you're referring to Indira Gandhi, who declared martial law, suspended civil rights and legal rights, threw her political opponents in prison, and shut-down the independent press...now that would make sense...)wesw wrote: dr king, Frederick douglass, and ghandi are among my heroes
I'll just leave you with a quote from someone else you claim to be a hero:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155761 ... t-and-with
“I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.”
― Frederick Douglass
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21470
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
a good eastern shoreman , he was....
a bit more than a soundbite, but maybe you can grok what he is layin' down.
free speech. no safe zones. no arbitrary standard of hate speech.
free expression of honest sentiment.
you , jim, do embrace this idea, I think, but your allies will destroy free thought and expression.
...and peaceful assembly.
they will don black masks and beat us at our rallies.
they will block our streets.
they will hurl piss, and bottles at our cops
they will assault any honest reporter of their actions.
they will sing their commie hymn, in French....
they would lynch the man who said this...
Boston is a great city - and Music Hall has a fame almost as extensive as that of Boston. Nowhere more than here have the principles of human freedom been expounded. But for the circumstances already mentioned, it would seem almost presumption for me to say anything here about those principles. And yet, even here, in Boston, the moral atmosphere is dark and heavy. The principles of human liberty, even I correctly apprehended, find but limited support in this hour a trial. The world moves slowly, and Boston is much like the world. We thought the principle of free speech was an accomplished fact. Here, if nowhere else, we thought the right of the people to assemble and to express their opinion was secure. Dr. Channing had defended the right, Mr. Garrison had practically asserted the right, and Theodore Parker had maintained it with steadiness and fidelity to the last.
But here we are to-day contending for what we thought we gained years ago. The mortifying and disgraceful fact stares us in the face, that though Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill Monument stand, freedom of speech is struck down. No lengthy detail of facts is needed. They are already notorious; far more so than will be wished ten years hence.
The world knows that last Monday a meeting assembled to discuss the question: "How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?" The world also knows that that meeting was invaded, insulted, captured by a mob of gentlemen, and thereafter broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so. If this had been a mere outbreak of passion and prejudice among the baser sort, maddened by rum and hounded on by some wily politician to serve some immediate purpose, - a mere exceptional affair, - it might be allowed to rest with what has already been said. But the leaders of the mob were gentlemen. They were men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.
These gentlemen brought their respect for the law with them and proclaimed it loudly while in the very act of breaking the law. Theirs was the law of slavery. The law of free speech and the law for the protection of public meetings they trampled under foot, while they greatly magnified the law of slavery.
The scene was an instructive one. Men seldom see such a blending of the gentleman with the rowdy, as was shown on that occasion. It proved that human nature is very much the same, whether in tarpaulin or broadcloth. Nevertheless, when gentlemen approach us in the character of lawless and abandoned loafers, - assuming for the moment their manners and tempers, - they have themselves to blame if they are estimated below their quality.
No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?
Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base and cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating and regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time. We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, and the parties to it unwise.
Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate and excuse a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech, by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?
It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express their opinions on all subjects - including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now. There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.
The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man's right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right - and there let it rest forever.
Freddie the doug
a bit more than a soundbite, but maybe you can grok what he is layin' down.
free speech. no safe zones. no arbitrary standard of hate speech.
free expression of honest sentiment.
you , jim, do embrace this idea, I think, but your allies will destroy free thought and expression.
...and peaceful assembly.
they will don black masks and beat us at our rallies.
they will block our streets.
they will hurl piss, and bottles at our cops
they will assault any honest reporter of their actions.
they will sing their commie hymn, in French....
they would lynch the man who said this...
Boston is a great city - and Music Hall has a fame almost as extensive as that of Boston. Nowhere more than here have the principles of human freedom been expounded. But for the circumstances already mentioned, it would seem almost presumption for me to say anything here about those principles. And yet, even here, in Boston, the moral atmosphere is dark and heavy. The principles of human liberty, even I correctly apprehended, find but limited support in this hour a trial. The world moves slowly, and Boston is much like the world. We thought the principle of free speech was an accomplished fact. Here, if nowhere else, we thought the right of the people to assemble and to express their opinion was secure. Dr. Channing had defended the right, Mr. Garrison had practically asserted the right, and Theodore Parker had maintained it with steadiness and fidelity to the last.
But here we are to-day contending for what we thought we gained years ago. The mortifying and disgraceful fact stares us in the face, that though Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill Monument stand, freedom of speech is struck down. No lengthy detail of facts is needed. They are already notorious; far more so than will be wished ten years hence.
The world knows that last Monday a meeting assembled to discuss the question: "How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?" The world also knows that that meeting was invaded, insulted, captured by a mob of gentlemen, and thereafter broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so. If this had been a mere outbreak of passion and prejudice among the baser sort, maddened by rum and hounded on by some wily politician to serve some immediate purpose, - a mere exceptional affair, - it might be allowed to rest with what has already been said. But the leaders of the mob were gentlemen. They were men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.
These gentlemen brought their respect for the law with them and proclaimed it loudly while in the very act of breaking the law. Theirs was the law of slavery. The law of free speech and the law for the protection of public meetings they trampled under foot, while they greatly magnified the law of slavery.
The scene was an instructive one. Men seldom see such a blending of the gentleman with the rowdy, as was shown on that occasion. It proved that human nature is very much the same, whether in tarpaulin or broadcloth. Nevertheless, when gentlemen approach us in the character of lawless and abandoned loafers, - assuming for the moment their manners and tempers, - they have themselves to blame if they are estimated below their quality.
No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government. Daniel Webster called it a homebred right, a fireside privilege. Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?
Even here in Boston, and among the friends of freedom, we hear two voices: one denouncing the mob that broke up our meeting on Monday as a base and cowardly outrage; and another, deprecating and regretting the holding of such a meeting, by such men, at such a time. We are told that the meeting was ill-timed, and the parties to it unwise.
Why, what is the matter with us? Are we going to palliate and excuse a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech, by implying that only a particular description of persons should exercise that right? Are we, at such a time, when a great principle has been struck down, to quench the moral indignation which the deed excites, by casting reflections upon those on whose persons the outrage has been committed? After all the arguments for liberty to which Boston has listened for more than a quarter of a century, has she yet to learn that the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied?
It would be no vindication of the right of speech to prove that certain gentlemen of great distinction, eminent for their learning and ability, are allowed to freely express their opinions on all subjects - including the subject of slavery. Such a vindication would need, itself, to be vindicated. It would add insult to injury. Not even an old-fashioned abolition meeting could vindicate that right in Boston just now. There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money. I have no doubt that Boston will vindicate this right. But in order to do so, there must be no concessions to the enemy. When a man is allowed to speak because he is rich and powerful, it aggravates the crime of denying the right to the poor and humble.
The principle must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man's right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right - and there let it rest forever.
Freddie the doug
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
my fishing buddy looks exactly like Frederick douglass.....
good guy, and he has shown me a few good spots, but he throws his trash on the ground , kinda pisses me off.
but I usually take a bucket of trash home with me every time I go down to the water anyway, so I guess that it isn t a big deal....
hey oldr!!!!
the big rockfish are starting to run!!!!
if I only had the balls and the youth, I would go out in the rain and cold tonight and catch me a thirty pounder for the freezer.
only 500 dollar fine ......
the king s rockfish.....
good guy, and he has shown me a few good spots, but he throws his trash on the ground , kinda pisses me off.
but I usually take a bucket of trash home with me every time I go down to the water anyway, so I guess that it isn t a big deal....
hey oldr!!!!
the big rockfish are starting to run!!!!
if I only had the balls and the youth, I would go out in the rain and cold tonight and catch me a thirty pounder for the freezer.
only 500 dollar fine ......
the king s rockfish.....
Re: Y.G. NYGHTSTORM, Van Jones and Matt Schlapp walk into a
don t make me go all Patrick henry on your ass....
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... rick_Henry
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... rick_Henry