Sunday, the University of Texas did what came naturally

[Raysor]

Meaning, the did the PC thing, and removed the Jefferson Davis statue that had been there for a looong time. Now I never quite understood why it was there in the first place.
But it seems like a curious time.

http://news.yahoo.com/university-texas-removes-jefferson-davis-statue-162652629.html

 

[bdshull2001]

Geez, Plaino, they just deleted a thread that started out on race and evolved to religion. Are you sure you want to post this? I see the same future for this thread. JMO.

 

[Rob Lewis_rivals]

Geez, Plaino, they just deleted a thread that started out on race and evolved to religion. Are you sure you want to post this? I see the same future for this thread. JMO.

We are seeing the deaths of 300,000 Confederate soldiers, 90% of whom were not slave owners and who were fighting for states' rights, trivialized and demonized by political correctness. This anti-Confederate movement which equates the South to Nazi Germany gets stronger and is facilitated by the fact that no one really studies history anymore and has no interest in doing so.
To equate the Confederate battle flag to the Nazi swastika reflects a very shallow interpretation of history in my opinion. While I endorse the South Carolina capital building removing the flag in the wake of a racially motivated mass murder, I believe there's too much hysteria in general over statues, flags, street names, etc. that reflect the Confederate cause. The KKK used the United States flag in its rallies years ago (and use Christianity and the Bible to justify its lunacy)....should we ban our flag for that ? And how do Native American Indians, whose history is one of virtual genocide, view the American flag ?
In other words, where do we draw the line on removing symbols ? Or do we ?

 

[shanehog]

The PC boys decide what is removed and what stays, and what offends us. I'm offended by the dreaded and regularly misused term "Native American", but I haven't taken my marbles and gone home. At least not yet. That time may come.

An OU official wants introduced me to a coed majoring in "Native American" studies. I cringed. Indigenous American studies was correct. Native American is one born in the Americas. Anyone.

I love reading Plaino, CT, K2, fitty, Syb, 83, BillyRay, ia, and other non PC Native Americans. If any of you weren't born in the Americas, I stand ignorant. Reminds me of my annual fall visits to the Kiowa Medicine Lodge.

 

[phillinois]

Yep, born in Ft. Worth.

Nah, there's a lot of minor, trivial crap being attended to...like renaming a mountain in Alaska? Come on.

All the while there are far more pressing issues to be addressed.

Nero fiddling? Maybe.

 

[Raysor]

The PC boys decide what is removed and what stays, and what offends us. I'm offended by the dreaded and regularly misused term "Native American", but I haven't taken my marbles and gone home. At least not yet. That time may come.

An OU official wants introduced me to a coed majoring in "Native American" studies. I cringed. Indigenous American studies was correct. Native American is one born in the Americas. Anyone.

I love reading Plaino, CT, K2, fitty, Syb, 83, BillyRay, ia, and other non PC Native Americans. If any of you weren't born in the Americas, I stand ignorant. Reminds me of my annual fall visits to the Kiowa Medicine Lodge.

I don't drink. But if we ever bump into each other at a game or otherwise, remind me that I promised to buy you a drink. We'd get along awfully well, I suspect.

 

[Dawgs11]

I don't give a crap about PC, but the role of Texas in the Civil War was about as significant as the Dominican Republic's was in WWII.

All Texas ever did in the Civil War was provide cannon fodder (untrained soldiers) for the South. Once the Union army cut off the Mississippi River and divided the South, Texas had little else to offer--that and a bit of cotton. The Texas secessionists ran off Governor Sam Houston because he refused to be a party to secession. Texas' main reasons for leaving the Union was "solidarity with its sister slave-holding States." So, yeah, having old Jeff Davis' statue there has more to do with slavery and honoring a determined slave-holder than the "states' rights" BS being offered above.

I might suggest a compromise: Leave the statue of Jeff Davis where it is and place one nearby of William Tecumseh Sherman, who was probably more responsible for the South's defeat than anybody else late in the war. Sherman never invaded Texas (there was no reason to go there, nothing was happening), but his invasion and burning of Atlanta, the rest of Georgia, and the Carolinas did more to deplete Lee's Army of Virginia than Grant's army managed to do with bullets.

Thousands upon thousands of rebel troops abandoned their armies to run home to to protect their womenfolk, families, and property from the marauding Sherman (too late, of course, as he marched unimpeded through the South with 60,000 experienced, give-no-quarter troops. One famous Confederate general described Sherman's army as the greatest collection of soldiers since the armies of Julius Caesar). Lee and Grant went at it for several years up north, gaining and losing ground like the armies of WWI. It was not until Sherman was coming up from North Carolina and threatening to surround him from the rear that Lee finally surrendered.

Yes, this stuff will be on your finals.

 

[phillinois]

Meaning, the did the PC thing, and removed the Jefferson Davis statue that had been there for a looong time. Now I never quite understood why it was there in the first place.
But it seems like a curious time.

http://news.yahoo.com/university-texas-removes-jefferson-davis-statue-162652629.html

Well, they still may be feeling some guilt about the 1966 tower massacre, and beings that statue was adjacent to the tower, well, it didn't have a prayer.

 

[Rob Lewis_rivals]

I don't give a crap about PC, but the role of Texas in the Civil War was about as significant as the Dominican Republic's was in WWII.

All Texas ever did in the Civil War was provide cannon fodder (untrained soldiers) for the South. Once the Union army cut off the Mississippi River and divided the South, Texas had little else to offer--that and a bit of cotton. The Texas secessionists ran off Governor Sam Houston because he refused to be a party to secession. Texas' main reasons for leaving the Union was "solidarity with its sister slave-holding States." So, yeah, having old Jeff Davis' statue there has more to do with slavery and honoring a determined slave-holder than the "states' rights" BS being offered above.

I might suggest a compromise: Leave the statue of Jeff Davis where it is and place one nearby of William Tecumseh Sherman, who was probably more responsible for the South's defeat than anybody else late in the war. Sherman never invaded Texas (there was no reason to go there, nothing was happening), but his invasion and burning of Atlanta, the rest of Georgia, and the Carolinas did more to deplete Lee's Army of Virginia than Grant's army managed to do with bullets.

Thousands upon thousands of rebel troops abandoned their armies to run home to to protect their womenfolk, families, and property from the marauding Sherman (too late, of course, as he marched unimpeded through the South with 60,000 experienced, give-no-quarter troops. One famous Confederate general described Sherman's army as the greatest collection of soldiers since the armies of Julius Caesar). Lee and Grant went at it for several years up north, gaining and losing ground like the armies of WWI. It was not until Sherman was coming up from North Carolina and threatening to surround him from the rear that Lee finally surrendered.

Yes, this stuff will be on your finals.

Texas was mostly unsettled until after the Civil War so obviously its participation was not as much as those states in the deep South. However, 70,000 men served in the Confederate armies
Texas was still mostly unsettled during the Civil War and was geographically on the outside of the fighting east of the Mississippi River, so to disparage Texas for its lesser involvement is silly. Texas supplied the Confederacy with 70,000 men, some of whom fought in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the east....where 60% of the combat took place in Virginia alone. While Texas lost only 1,300 men, its casualties almost exceeded Alabama's and Florida's, combined.
The issue of slavery was enveloped in the larger issue of states rights and the evil institution of slavery, by most historians' view, was dying out. Lincoln, who stated several times his belief in white supremacy and who wanted to deport the freed slaves back to Africa and the West Indies after the war, did nothing to prevent a costly war that saw over 620,000 lives lost and a war whose fallout still lingers 150 years later.
We are the only nation to have eliminated slavery by war.....and for the next 100 years following, blacks were still treated with discrimination and segregation....and not necessarily within the South.

 

[Raysor]

CT, your reply was a thoughtful one, but it had little to do with my post that you quoted.

 

[John Otterstedt]

An OU official wants introduced me to a coed majoring in "Native American" studies. I cringed. Indigenous American studies was correct. Native American is one born in the Americas. Anyone.

Worrying or arguing about semantics is rarely productive. In fact, it just makes you look sensitive.

Possible definitions of "native" straight from Dictionary.com:
3.
belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, especially a preliterate people:
Native guides accompanied the expedition through the rain forest.
4.
of indigenous origin, growth, or production:
native pottery.
5.
of, relating to, or characteristic of the indigenous inhabitants of a place or country:
native customs; native dress.

 

[Rob Lewis_rivals]

Texas was mostly unsettled until after the Civil War so obviously its participation was not as much as those states in the deep South. However, 70,000 men served in the Confederate armies
Texas was still mostly unsettled during the Civil War and was geographically on the outside of the fighting east of the Mississippi River, so to disparage Texas for its lesser involvement is silly. Texas supplied the Confederacy with 70,000 men, some of whom fought in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the east....where 60% of the combat took place in Virginia alone. While Texas lost only 1,300 men, its casualties almost exceeded Alabama's and Florida's, combined.
The issue of slavery was enveloped in the larger issue of states rights and the evil institution of slavery, by most historians' view, was dying out. Lincoln, who stated several times his belief in white supremacy and who wanted to deport the freed slaves back to Africa and the West Indies after the war, did nothing to prevent a costly war that saw over 620,000 lives lost and a war whose fallout still lingers 150 years later.
We are the only nation to have eliminated slavery by war.....and for the next 100 years following, blacks were still treated with discrimination and segregation....and not necessarily within the South.

CT, your reply was a thoughtful one, but it had little to do with my post that you quoted.

Plaino, somehow I mistakenly sandwiched your quote into my response to DastardlyDeed.....I deleted your quote.

 

[Bigred91]

Leave the statue of Jeff Davis where it is and place one nearby of William Tecumseh Sherman, who was probably more responsible for the South's defeat than anybody else late in the war. Sherman never invaded Texas (there was no reason to go there, nothing was happening), but his invasion and burning of Atlanta, the rest of Georgia, and the Carolinas did more to deplete Lee's Army of Virginia than Grant's army managed to do with bullets.

Thousands upon thousands of rebel troops abandoned their armies to run home to to protect their womenfolk, families, and property from the marauding Sherman (too late, of course, as he marched unimpeded through the South with 60,000 experienced, give-no-quarter troops. One famous Confederate general described Sherman's army as the greatest collection of soldiers since the armies of Julius Caesar). Lee and Grant went at it for several years up north, gaining and losing ground like the armies of WWI. It was not until Sherman was coming up from North Carolina and threatening to surround him from the rear that Lee finally surrendered.

This is just all sorts of wrong. No one was more instrumental to the union victory than Ulysses Grant. Read my lips... NO ONE. By the time Sherman went on his little excursion, Grant had already had Bobby Lee bottled up in Petersburg for several months. Game, Set, Match. Lee was trapped, and when Grant finally extended his trenches far enough to cut Lee's only supply line, Lee had to make a break for it. It had zero to do with Sherman. Sherman's march was devastating and effective in demoralizing Georgia, but it wasn't some brilliant military campaign. He was largely unopposed, and it only lasted 6 weeks or so. U.S. Grant is widely regarded among American and world military historians was one of the most effective commanders ever.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rob Lewis_rivals]

The PC boys decide what is removed and what stays, and what offends us. I'm offended by the dreaded and regularly misused term "Native American", but I haven't taken my marbles and gone home. At least not yet. That time may come.

An OU official wants introduced me to a coed majoring in "Native American" studies. I cringed. Indigenous American studies was correct. Native American is one born in the Americas. Anyone.

I love reading Plaino, CT, K2, fitty, Syb, 83, BillyRay, ia, and other non PC Native Americans. If any of you weren't born in the Americas, I stand ignorant. Reminds me of my annual fall visits to the Kiowa Medicine Lodge.

Sunburnt....I am of Indian extraction as well, but the term "Native American" does not offend me as it isn't intended in a derogatory way....and it, for me, pertains to American Indians as opposed to people from India.
My questions is how can Columbus be credited in "discovering America".....a land ALREADY inhabited by other people ?

 

[RRH1]

We are seeing the deaths of 300,000 Confederate soldiers, 90% of whom were not slave owners and who were fighting for states' rights, trivialized and demonized by political correctness. This anti-Confederate movement which equates the South to Nazi Germany gets stronger and is facilitated by the fact that no one really studies history anymore and has no interest in doing so.

Those traitors were fighting for the right to keep slavery lawful. The US grew in size and wealth because of all that free labor, and they wanted to preserve their way of life. State rights...yeah right. Denial.

I suggest looking at the declaration of many of those states, especially if you're talking about people don't study history anymore. They said in their declaration, that it was all about slavery. Who's history did you study? I guarantee history isn't what you think it is. You don't have to own a slave, to believe it should be lawful.

 

[[email protected]]

The PC boys decide what is removed and what stays, and what offends us. I'm offended by the dreaded and regularly misused term "Native American", but I haven't taken my marbles and gone home. At least not yet. That time may come.

An OU official wants introduced me to a coed majoring in "Native American" studies. I cringed. Indigenous American studies was correct. Native American is one born in the Americas. Anyone.

I love reading Plaino, CT, K2, fitty, Syb, 83, BillyRay, ia, and other non PC Native Americans. If any of you weren't born in the Americas, I stand ignorant. Reminds me of my annual fall visits to the Kiowa Medicine Lodge.

Rocky???

 

[Bigred91]

My questions is how can Columbus be credited in "discovering America".....a land ALREADY inhabited by other people ?
If a Native American had managed to sail from the east coast of America to Europe, he would have returned tohis tribe claiming to have discovered a new world. It was new to Europeans, and Europeans wrote the history.

 

[RRH1]

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

 

[Bigred91]

Ed Zachary, BLH. Those that don't believe the Civil War was fought about slavery need only ask themselves one question. "Do you believe 650,000 men would have fought and died over "states rights?"

 

[bdshull2001]

Just as I predicted...........crash and burn.

 

[Andrew Owens]

Slavery in the USA ended long ago. Nobody alive today was a slave in those times. The butt hurt about statues, monuments, and flags is really petty and nothing more than out of control political correctness. History happened, good and bad.

 

[Raysor]

This is just all sorts of wrong. No one was more instrumental to the union victory than Ulysses Grant. Read my lips... NO ONE. By the time Sherman went on his little excursion, Grant had already had Bobby Lee bottled up in Petersburg for several months. Game, Set, Match. Lee was trapped, and when Grant finally extended his trenches far enough to cut Lee's only supply line, Lee had to make a break for it. It had zero to do with Sherman. Sherman's march was devastating and effective in demoralizing Georgia, but it wasn't some brilliant military campaign. He was largely unopposed, and it only lasted 6 weeks or so. U.S. Grant is widely regarded among American and world military historians was one of the most effective commanders ever

Not sure of that. Both Rommel and Patton studied his tactics in their tank strategy. Some pretty worthy historians consider Sherman's march to be the beginning of modern warfare. Grant deserves great credit, despite what my first history teacher at OU said about him. But Sherman's move and Uturn up toward where Lee and Grant were facing each other, was what ended the war. It was Grant's idea.

 

[Rob Lewis_rivals]

Those traitors were fighting for the right to keep slavery lawful. The US grew in size and wealth because of all that free labor, and they wanted to preserve their way of life. State rights...yeah right. Denial.

I suggest looking at the declaration of many of those states, especially if you're talking about people don't study history anymore. They said in their declaration, that it was all about slavery. Who's history did you study? I guarantee history isn't what you think it is. You don't have to own a slave, to believe it should be lawful.

Not defending slavery. I'm saying that while states' rights was in The Constitution, the South adhered to that principle....slavery, however, was entangled within the South's states' rights argument because its economy was built around slave labor, therefore making the core cause of the war an economic one. Slavery ended in 1965, but it took more than 100 years before blacks were given equality....and that came very grudgingly. And since the war, the US government has now evolved into an over-sized, mismanaged and intrusive bureaucracy.
To demonize the Southern cause is to ignore the entire history of slavery in this country, when it existed throughout the northern and southern colonies, as well as the ownership of slaves by many of the Founding Fathers....and to ignore Lincoln's desire not to end slavery, but to maintain central control of every state which does not adhere to The Constitution.
History is always written (and interpreted) by the winning side in wars.

 

[Bigred91]

Not sure of that. Both Rommel and Patton studied his tactics in their tank strategy. Some pretty worthy historians consider Sherman's march to be the beginning of modern warfare. Grant deserves great credit, despite what my first history teacher at OU said about him. But Sherman's move and Uturn up toward where Lee and Grant were facing each other, was what ended the war. It was Grant's idea.

I am not debating that Sherman's march was notable in that he was basically the first to make war on the enemy's ability to make war. It was and he deserves recognition for that paradigm shift in tactics. But, his march had little to do with Grant's victory. Grant's victory was a result of his dogged tenacity and constant pressure on Lee's lines in Petersburg. Lee knew he couldn't survive another pitched battle on open ground. He knew his only hope, once backed into Petersburg, was to force Grant to undertake a long and arduous siege, hoping that Lincoln would be defeated in the '64 election. Once Grant came in position to cut the supply lines to Petersburg and Richmond, it was over for Lee. He had to make a run for it, and had no chance. Sherman was not a part of the end game at Petersburg, and the subsequent capitulation at Appomattox.

 

[shanehog]

CT. The ignorance factor, brought on by a costly, miserable and failing public education system. Native American is never intended to be a derogatory term to my knowledge.

Many Indians I know object to the misuse of Native American. It is not exclusive to American Indians. I believe this is where the rub comes in.

The state of Utah once called Mormons non-Native Americans. Virtually every last Mormon that showed up in Utah was indeed Native American. Most were born in New York or enroute.

USA Today once wrote about a "Native American" in Oklahoma seeking public office. The other public office seekers were called non-Native Americans.

I know a UCLA American Indian prof and two at Colorado State. I have never heard "Native American" from their lips.

I know the "civilized" Choctaw. They publish the "Native American Times" The old seem to think this title is okay. Many youngsters aren't so forgiving.

I grew up with the "uncivilized" Comanches. And no, we don't talk about "Native Americans". We discuss the Comanches, the Kiowa or Indians. In chats, I regularly use the term Indigenous American. Sometimes Asian Indian when needed.

 

[Blair Sanderson_rivals]

I will offer this thread these few opines...the Jeferson Davis statue was erected in 1935 on the UT campus. I have no idea as to why, as to my knowledge h had no direct connection to Texas other than being the President of the confederate States. If any particular President'e statue should be erected, I would think it would be Sam Houston. At least he was the President of the Republic of Texas.

1. Texas joined the United States because it was broke as hell. Period. Nothing more and nothing less. The Republic lasted 10 years and went bankrupt. It was a barron land. They were still giving away land to anyone that settled it. Mostly German immigrants. But make no mistake, they were broke and could not defend their own borders. Now one could if they chose to, could cherry pick further as to why they were broke and why joining the States would help them, but bottom line, Texas was flat *** broke.

2. Hood's Texas Brigade fought in every major battle in the Civil War under the Army of N. Virginia but one. So yes, they were heavily involved in the Civil War. I believe the misconception is/was that battles did not occur in Texas. But Texas did indeed battle. Hood's Brigade most notable battle was at Gettysburg. It was on the 2nd day of the Battle of Gettysburg. The 1st & most of the 2nd day went to the Confederacy. If you study the Battle of Gettysburg, you'll see that Hood's Div did a lot of damage and eventually took over and controlled Devil's Den albeit they were weakened. They never could muster the strength and cannon power to take Little Hill Top. Although they tried charging the hill over & over, & over. By day 3, Lee's Army, including Hood's Brigade was spent. It was the turning point of not just the war, but the will of the people in the South. They went in retreat and never really battled again in northern territory. The march to Wahignton soon became Sherman's march on the South. The rest as they say is history.

To the victors of war goes the spoils. As such, the victor writes the narrative of it's history. While many wish to think is was all about slavery and some think it was about States rights, I'm one to believe that is is/was all about their perception of Liberty. My Great Granfather fought at Gettysburg. He didn't own a slave. Hell he was so poor he didn't own a pot to piss in. Most of the Confederate army was in the same situation. What they had though was a liberty they believed was crashing and falling apart. Great Grand Daddy was shot and became a POW at Gettysburg. He was moved to a prison outside of Baltimore until the war was over. He died in the Confederate Veterans Hosptial and buried in the Texas State Cemetery.

Today's understanding of the civil war, the right and the wrong of it, the statues of it's war heroes etc, are much different today than it was in 1935. For example, the Confederate Veteran's Hospital was actually on the grounds of the UT. Yes Sir, the hospital, building & land was purchased, then flattened by UT and now has dorms etc on the same ground. The Texas State Cemetery is a block or two East of I-35, opposite the UT campus. Great Grandpa is buried on Confederate Hill. It's a beautiful cemetery that is maintained by the state and has many, many politicians and dignitaries buried there.

What CT posted is correct. After the war, slavery was outlawed, that's about all that happened. Segregation etc was permitted by the North as they had enough of the fighting as well. So for 100 years after the freeing of slaves, it took a Civil Rights movement to get things better for the Black man. Fast forward 50 years to today and we are seeing another movement to rid the history of the leaders of the Confederacy.

Whether right or wrong, there is no doubt that... to the victors goes the spoils. Peace out.

 

[Dawgs11]

I am not debating that Sherman's march was notable in that he was basically the first to make war on the enemy's ability to make war. It was and he deserves recognition for that paradigm shift in tactics. But, his march had little to do with Grant's victory. Grant's victory was a result of his dogged tenacity and constant pressure on Lee's lines in Petersburg. Lee knew he couldn't survive another pitched battle on open ground. He knew his only hope, once backed into Petersburg, was to force Grant to undertake a long and arduous siege, hoping that Lincoln would be defeated in the '64 election. Once Grant came in position to cut the supply lines to Petersburg and Richmond, it was over for Lee. He had to make a run for it, and had no chance. Sherman was not a part of the end game at Petersburg, and the subsequent capitulation at Appomattox.

Nobody said Sherman was at Petersburg or Appomattox. While Grant was dug in against lee in Virginia, Sherman was waltzing through Georgia then South Carolina, destroying not only cities and towns and the homes of plantation owners but the will of the deep South to continue a losing struggle. Thousands of Lee's troops were deserting the Army of Virginia to head south to defend their homes, which were being decimated by Sherman's troops. What was Sherman and his 60,000 men supposed to do after that ... camp out in the swamps of North Carolina and swat mosquitoes? He requested permission from Grant (the supreme commander of Union armies) to head north to surround Lee, who was fighting trench warfare with Grant. Both armies were basically fighting WWI-type trench-to-trench, with a big day being a gain of 50 yards. This had been going on for many, many months.

One of the reasons Lee tried to escape the Petersburg area was to head south to defend against Sherman, who was approaching unopposed from the Carolinas. Read your military history of the war ... it's all right there. Nobody is disparaging Grant's contributions. He and Sherman were the best of friends. After Grant became President, he made Sherman commander of all U.S. military forces.

 

[woolytide]

Hell, we might as well fly a Japanese flag over Pearl Harbor. Maybe make built a kamikaze statue right in the middle of the base?

 

[Bigred91]

One of the reasons Lee tried to escape the Petersburg area was to head south to defend against Sherman, who was approaching unopposed from the Carolinas. Read your military history of the war ... it's all right there. Nobody is disparaging Grant's contributions. He and Sherman were the best of friends. After Grant became President, he made Sherman commander of all U.S. military forces.

Yes, Lee was going to try to link up with Joe Johnston in North Carolina if he could escape Grant. That is known. But, that is not why he tried to break out of Petersburg. He did so because Grant was threatening his only source of supply (and Richmond's also), and to stay in place was suicidal. Sherman had nothing to do with that, nor did he have anything to do with Grant's end game. US Grant is the reason Lee fled, and Lee's doing so doomed the Army of Northern Virginia, and so the Confederacy. Sherman gets no credit for any of that.

 

[jsmitty2.0]

Slavery in the USA ended long ago. Nobody alive today was a slave in those times. The butt hurt about statues, monuments, and flags is really petty and nothing more than out of control political correctness. History happened, good and bad.

Some thrive on keeping the butt hurt alive. Al Sharpton has made a darn good living from it.

 

[Volstreet]

Just as I predicted...........crash and burn.

Yep.... FIRE MIKE STOOPS!!! haha!