ESPN Drops Asian Announcer Named Robert Lee From UVa. Game

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

I think it's because slavery and the American ideals could not be more diametrically opposite, that many around the world had trouble reconciling the fact that way into the 60s, the most powerful nation on Earth, still treated a great part of its citizens as second class individuals. That for over 100 years after the defeat of the south, there were still laws in place that segregated blacks from whites.

 

Back to topic, it's also hard to reconcile that some individuals, call that shameful and heinous past their heritage, and proudly so.

 

No one here does, yet it's all you seem to be able to talk about.

 

And blacks are still seen as second class citizens in many countries today.  Not so much in the USA.

[CaliCat 3,957]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

No one here does, yet it's all you seem to be able to talk about.

 

And blacks are still seen as second class citizens in many countries today.  Not so much in the USA.

 

So, when you hear people marching on an American city chanting "Jews will not replace us," do you suppose that is something that we should quietly acquiesce to?  And you believe these good people would stop once they come after the Jews? Not in my country. Not now. Not ever. 

 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

4 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

So, when you hear people marching on an American city chanting "Jews will not replace us," do you suppose that is something that we should quietly acquiesce to?  And you believe these good people would stop once they come after the Jews? Not in my country. Not now. Not ever. 

 

There are so few of these nut jobs, if we ignore them they will just go back under the rocks where they came from. Giving them so much air time and making them seem more important than they really are only helps their cause. 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

 

Quote

 

ESPN Prez Tries to Say Network Didn’t Pull Robert Lee Over Concerns His Name Would Offend, Then Admits They Did

 

ESPN’s President Jon Skipper sought to straighten some things out on Wednesday, regarding the network’s decision to pull Asian-American broadcaster Robert Lee from a game he was scheduled to broadcast in Charlottesville. That move, made due to concerns that Lee’s name, similar to that of non-Asian confederate General Robert E. Lee, would offend some viewers.

In an internal memo obtained by CNN, Skipper attempted to explain his network’s thought process:

New: internal memo from ESPN prez John Skipper about the Robert Lee decision pic.twitter.com/3yFk4hbDRb

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) August 24, 2017

As Fox News’ Brit Hume noted on Twitter, the second paragraph of Skipper’s statement completely contradicts the first. If no one had a concern that Lee’s name would give offense, then why would there have been a distraction? If no one could possibly be so ridiculous as to equate a non-Confederate, Asian-American broadcaster, with the chieftain of the rebel army. Then why would anyone have cause to take note of broadcaster Robert Lee?

What’s also clear from this, is that ESPN has thrown Robert Lee (not the Confederate) under the bus. In saying that it was Lee, who showed “personal trepidation” about the assignment. Skipper places the blame on the broadcaster and not on ESPN. Though, even in this Skipper is a liar, since he admits that it was ESPN’s Charlotte production staff who came to Lee, and not the other way around.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/08/23/espn-prez-tries-say-network-didnt-pull-robert-lee-concerns-name-offend-admits/

 

Just love ESPN digging its own grave. 

[IAMX 3,055]

CNN: Not so fast, we want to dig with you!

 

 

Quote

 

CNN Op-Ed Defends ESPN’s Decision to Remove Asian Broadcaster Robert Lee over His Name

An editorial piece by a former ESPN executive defends the sports network’s decision to remove Asian broadcaster Robert Lee from covering the University of Virginia season opener because of his name. The op-ed says the decision is “not unreasonable in today’s America.”

“We want to pretend that sports are a safe sanctuary from the world’s ugly problems, but that has always been a farce,” former ESPN Vice President Roxanne Jones wrote on CNN. Truth is, not even the glorious game of football can keep America’s toxic culture of bigotry, hate and violence at bay. It’s just too heavy a burden.”

 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/08/23/cnn-op-ed-defends-espns-decision-remove-asian-broadcaster-robert-lee-name/

[Eric-Pris 1,604]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 11:25 AM, CaliCat said:

 

 

I am surprised the MDR/MORs are not questioning his immigration status! LOL.

And there we go.. it's Trump's fault right?  Accept reality and move on. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, Eric-Pris said:

And there we go.. it's Trump's fault right?  Accept reality and move on. 

tbh the right should take a Trump approach and use the lefts tantrums to their advantage. Trying to reason with them gets nowhere.

[Teddy B 17,251]

On 8/23/2017 at 11:25 AM, CaliCat said:

 

 

I am surprised the MDR/MORs are not questioning his immigration status! LOL.

 

3 minutes ago, Eric-Pris said:

And there we go.. it's Trump's fault right?  Accept reality and move on. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

 

 

Reduced visibility due to weather conditions, most likely. 

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

16 minutes ago, IAMX said:

tbh the right should take a Trump approach and use the lefts tantrums to their advantage. Trying to reason with them gets nowhere.

  This might seem obvious, but it's possible the reason you have difficulty reasoning, is that your reasoning lacks reason.

[Teddy B 17,251]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  This might seem obvious, but it's possible the reason you have difficulty reasoning, is that your reasoning lacks reason.

That kind of accusatory attitude will get you put on ignore.

 

 

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

That kind of accusatory attitude will get you put on ignore.

 

   

  TBH, I'm already on ignore. Well, there is an upside to that too.

 

  Not meaning to be accusatory though. I just don't think an effective way to reason with someone is to start every discussion with the premise like "more tantrums by the left". At best it leads to two sides talking past each other. The claim that someone wont listen to reason, cannot hold true unless someone first speaks with reason.

[Teddy B 17,251]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   

  TBH, I'm already on ignore. Well, there is an upside to that too.

 

  Not meaning to be accusatory though. I just don't think an effective way to reason with someone is to start every discussion with the premise like "more tantrums by the left". At best it leads to two sides talking past each other. The claim that someone wont listen to reason, cannot hold true unless someone first speaks with reason.

Agreed. Those posts read like this to me:

 

 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

   

  TBH, I'm already on ignore. Well, there is an upside to that too.

 

  Not meaning to be accusatory though. I just don't think an effective way to reason with someone is to start every discussion with the premise like "more tantrums by the left". At best it leads to two sides talking past each other. The claim that someone wont listen to reason, cannot hold true unless someone first speaks with reason.

The entire point of some is to be accusatory without an inkling of motivation to talk with reason, can't get your kicks and speak with reason at the same time
if you don't have the skills ya kno ?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

19 hours ago, IDWAF said:

We may not know this busty guy or his status in life.  But you keep saying slavery wasn't legal in England.  If that is the case, then how come William I passed a law that slaves could no longer be exported from England?  Pretty sure he came before William III.  So at that point, slavery WAS legal in England.  Ergo, slavery couldn't have been illegal prior to that 1807 doohickey.  Or am am I missing something here?  Admittedly, I am not very "up" on the goings on of England, neither today nor 300 years ago.

 

(Other than the fact that they traded slaves, were doing so before America even existed, and yet America is where all the hubbub about slavery centers, to this day. Amazing...)

 

I have read and re-read this comment, and I say this not to be flippant or rude, but I cannot fully follow your line of reasoning. I will try to address some of your points, however.

 

William I, often known as William the Conqueror, indeed predated William III. He was crowned King of England in 1066 after successfully leading the Norman Conquest of England, and established the House of Normandy. Before the Norman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxons had permitted slavery, but the Normans had abandoned the practice prior to their invasion of England. With Norman rule, slavery was abolished, along with the slave trade out of England. Wales' legal system did not become subsumed into that of England's in the mid-16th century, but prior to then William I had also abolished the practice of slavery in Wales. 

 

The issue is not whether a slave could be possessed as a chattel within England and Wales in the reign of William and Mary, some 625 years (give or take) later. That is legally impossible. Nor is the issue whether a slave could be exported from England, which was not the case with the transatlantic slave trade. Slaves were not being shipped out of England; England's role in the triangular trade was to ship out and receive goods to be used as payment for slaves. None of this is meant as an apology for slavery -- it's just that the movement of people was not happening from, to or through the country. 

 

While William I was not the first ruler of an independent England (Alfred the Great was the first, about 100-something years before), the Conqueror's succession to the throne marked a massive change in England, socially, legally, linguistically and economically (and many other -lys I'm not thinking of at the moment). So when we say "slavery was never legal in England," it is because the Norman Invasion marked this new beginning, and the abolition of slavery within England (and eventually Wales) in the late 1000's certainly predates the Slave Trade Act of 1807, and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, by which all slavery in the Empire was abolished (with the exception of India, which was abolished a decade later).

 

Were there exceptions in practice? I'm going to say probably, because I went to law school and I find it difficult to deal in absolutes when it comes to practical application and interpretation of the law. The exception does not invalidate the rule; the specific does not invalidate the principle. Were there people being shipped through England? Probably. Were there people living in conditions that were identical to slavery in every regard except what they were called under law? Probably. None of those poor souls detract from the legal reality that by the time the man depicted in the bust was resident at Hampton Court and in the service of William III, slavery had been illegal in England and Wales for well over 600 years. If I seem overly clinical in this analysis, it is because the question, so many comments ago, was whether William III and Mary II could have owned a slave. And the answer is that no, under the laws of England and Wales, they could not.

 

Edit: I added an adverb to more fully express my thoughts.

Edited August 24, 2017 by elmcitymaven