Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Colin Kaepernick is slammed for 'selectively' quoting Frederick Douglass' historic [tr]
UK Daily Mail ^ | July 5, 2019 | Jennifer Smith

Posted on 07/05/2019 6:58:08 AM PDT by C19fan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: headstamp 2

Of course the ignored irony here is that Nike is engaging in acts at its Chinese sweatshops that come close to falling within the meaning of the out-of-context quote.


21 posted on 07/05/2019 10:02:18 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The only thing surprising is that Kaepernick can read.


22 posted on 07/05/2019 10:04:07 AM PDT by myerson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Why must we keep reading and hearing about what this pile of smegma thinks about anything?


23 posted on 07/05/2019 10:11:51 AM PDT by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skooz

Because he is the de facto CEO of Nike?


24 posted on 07/05/2019 10:13:36 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
[[’There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.’]]

>>I give you the arrogant ignorance of the snowflake generation.

That would be the "snowflake generation"of 1852 ...

And it was as ignorant a statement in 1852 as it is today. Frederick Douglass should, perhaps, have familiarized himself with the conduct of African tribes, of Mohammedans, of Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun, of the French Revolution, before so roundly condemning these United States. Today, to this list we can add the atrocities of international communists and National Socialist.

But forget all that.

America is Baaaaaaad ...

25 posted on 07/05/2019 10:21:07 AM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the peopIe to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Bill didn’t have time to iron her Housecoat?


26 posted on 07/05/2019 10:22:29 AM PDT by a little elbow grease (... to err is human, to admit it divine ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

thanks for fixing. LOL>


27 posted on 07/05/2019 10:35:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
The only reason anyone pays him any attention is because Nike pays him millions

The only reason anyone pays him any attention is because people "are still patronizing" Nike who pays him millions

28 posted on 07/05/2019 10:46:07 AM PDT by Maudeen (AMERICAN by Birth . . . CHRISTIAN by the Grace of GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maudeen

Correct

Boycott the swoosh


29 posted on 07/05/2019 10:49:26 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here Of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

He is a willing mouthpiece for extreme marxism. He knows the truth but chooses to spew the lies.


30 posted on 07/05/2019 11:35:16 AM PDT by Midwesterner53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

bkmk


31 posted on 07/05/2019 11:47:50 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
My take is that that is an important distinction. The (in)famous 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision intimidates Republican politicians from enforcing their (non-enumerated, but nevertheless clearly real) right to vindicate their reputations against libelous journalists. In that decision the Warren Court went into full self-congratulatory mode, declaring unanimously that they were enforcing the First Amendment, neither more nor less.

IMHO SCOTUS grossly overextended the reach of the facts before them. Those facts were that Mr. Sullivan objected in court to an advertisement published in the NYT. Mr. Sullivan was a Democrat - of the southern, racist variety then ubiquitous. The ad Mr. Sullivan objected to did not even explicitly name him. Nothing about the case brought into focus the then-even-more pervasive (basically unchallenged) "bias in the media.”

So SCOTUS blithely announced that judges can’t sue for libel, and politicians have a high hurdle to get any satisfaction from a libel suit. Since then it has become apparent that any racist politician would be named a (dis)honorary Republican (see Duke, David). And that Democrat politicians go along and get along - get along quite well, thank you - with journalists. And that that is easy for socialists to do, since journalism is homogeneously socialist-oriented. There is absolutely no reason to believe propaganda to the effect that journalism is, or ever was, objective. And every reason to believe that the wires services - constituting as they do continual virtual meetings of the major journalism outlets - behave precisely as Adam Smith " People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” projected in 1776.

A generation ago Clarence Thomas referred to his treatment at the hands of Senator Joe Biden et. al. as “a high-tech lynching.” And that was nothing compared with what Justice Kavanaugh went through, starting with a “witness” testifying to a “recovered” memory—and going downhill from there. And I thought “recovered” memory was as low as it got.

With that history behind us, anyone who thinks that Sullivan is a valid precedent to adhere to slavishly is beyond hope. Journalism is naturally negative about society, thus naturally disposed to support having government “do something” - and thus an engine of support for big government and even for outright socialism. To give a “right” to journalism to which it was never entitled is to subvert the Republic.


32 posted on 07/05/2019 2:35:27 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Socialism is cynicism directed towards society and - correspondingly - naivete towards government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson