Trump to NFL owners: Fire players who kneel during anthem

Way to "cover your eyes and ears, and keep making "Nanananananaa!" noises" faced with backed up, pertinent, and constructive critique. Ignore worthy indeed, and not very funny for a "Jester" I might add.

 

And you were wrong, but never let facts get in the way of your tiresome tirades, Grammar Nazi. Here, your buddy just did it again. I just copy & pasted his work. Now why don't you go nuts lecturing him I don't wonder?

 

According to the Cambridge Dictionary "race" is:

Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/race

 

You have yet to provide any support for your claim that the Democrats create poor people. Republicans make that claim frequently but always run or divert when challenged for proof.

 

And that doesn't change the fact that the common repetitive (mis)use of word changes its meaning.

Happens all the time in every language.

this is interesting.

https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/

 

So because because black commit a disproportionate number of crimes it is OK for police to shoot unarmed black people without cause. Guess it is OK for them to shoot poor whites who commit no crime also since poor whites commit more crimes than rich whites.

 

Your link does not talk about the "changing of meaning of race". The meaning of "race" you can find on the dictionary, and it is as I showed you earlier in the Cambridge Dictionary. Therefore, "race" deos not exist, as I wrote to you earlier.

 

Good, 'cause I haven't weighed in on that yet. Unlike others here, I disagree that it is disrespectful. It could be, but one can't logically presume that it is in every case.

In fact, it could easily be the opposite:

"They sat" (or kneeled ) "in respectful silence" - knowing that to actually defend the Constitution one must stick with their constitutionally protected beliefs. Not be cowed into making patriotic gestures in public when you find it wrong. Not just going along to get along. We could have just kept saluting and screaming "How high!" whenever a Redcoat appeared. Then we'd all still be part of England. Looking, oh, so respectful. Saluting the Union Jack. Singing God Save the Queen...

 

Yeah, I know, I provided no support because you didn't like the support I provided and you are God, the Decider of all things in the universe... Give it a rest and get over yourself.

 

Please give us the post number where you provided any evidence whatsoever. You know you didn't and you know you can't. Just admit you are parroting a standard right wing position.

 

My link was to show you what semantic drift is, with examples.

Er, your logic is a bit skewed. I agree Race does exist in the dictionary and it even cites an outmoded nonscientific definition amongst its many. The dictionary does not support your contention in any way.

That being said, I violently agree that what race used to mean has little or no scientific merit.

 

You wanted me to check in the dictonary about the "changing of meaning of race". Yet, the dictionary showed the opposite.

 

Race as a scientific concept is no longer valid. WE are in violent agreement on this.

Race as a taxonomy still remains the useful social construct it has been since we were all wearing furs and cute little deerskin thongs.

Thus, the definition of "race" has changed.

There is also a change in the definition of racism.

It used to refer exclusively to prejudice against people of different color. Now thru general (mis)useage it now refers to a wide range of bigoties.

All racists are bigots but not all bigots are racist.

 

I was exactly right. You used the word cant when you meant to use can't. You ran your mouth, I caught you square and you damn well know it.
As far as other people saying cant instead of can't, they dont get called for it, just the grammar police such as you and court jester, currently the only two grammar police on the thread. Before you talk about others, I suggest ensuring your own posts are typed correctly? mmkay?

 

Interesting way to look at it. Maybe if you approach someone who feels disrespected and give them a print out of the definition as if they are ignorant of what that that 5th grade word means, they will see things your way!

Your example of fighting for independence from the British is quite a jewel. We should oppose government overreach and fight any and all attempts to increase government involvement in our lives. Many risked their lives so we can do exactly that. One thing no American risked their life for; Socialism!

 

Lol, "give us" like you speak for others now and as if anyone else has expressed such interest in exploring your self-delusion and denial about this. Here, lazybones. Read it for once, perhaps further research it. Then admit (to yourself) that you've simply been an idiot about this from the start or don't care any more about it than those you're arguing with do. The Dems are the left side of the right wing corporate duopoly. And that's all Puerto Rico has ever represented to both major Parties - an opportunity to grant giant U.S. corporations (stateless billionaires in other words) carte blanche to scrape money off the backs of an isolated, powerless, poor, ignored population - who happen to be full fledged Americans now, just like the rest of us.

 

Haha, you're funny. But looks aren't everything.

 

Not true, actually. But no one's doing it now, that's for sure. No one's risking their life for capitalism either. Not willfully anyway.

 

Glad to see Im under your skin. lol

 

Freedom means people can say what they want and their employers can fire them for it. If the employers chooses to own the message of its employees, customers can refuse to do business. Lives were risked and lost in the name of freedom. Who the hell would fight to be a slave?

 

And that has exactly what to do with Democrats creating poor people. Are you totally incapable of making sense or dealing with your actual statements. Or are you responding to an imaginary post created in what is left of your intellect?

 

Particularly now that we have a mercenary army. They risk their lives for pay. But that is good for the rich who no longer have to dodge the draft and yet can pretend to embrace patriotism at no personal cost whatsoever. In the new world Trump would no longer have to be a draft dodger. Of course it is to late for him but the rich will be able to avoid that stigma in the future.

 

In that case freedom means being self-employed. Doubtless, the vast majority you refer to as "employees" and "employers" are simply wage slaves and indistinguishable in that regard. Freedom means being free to do whatever you want whenever you want. Chaos. Anarchy. Perhaps every child's utopia, but not a very workable basis for civil society. So we've settled upon a mixture of capitalism and socialism being the best we're capable of managing at this point.

 

As previously noted, your insistence upon a strictly creationist interpretation of "creating" does not preclude others from validly using and interpreting the word differently.

As in: The Democratic Party's intransigence and overall neglect of Puerto Rico "led to" (or helped "lead to" or "created") more generations of poverty and suffering.

 

Dreams happen.