Anachronisms in history are tough because they put up a barrier when trying to study it when an academic eye. But we're not talking about the academic study of history here: we're talking about huge, world shaking events that are still felt and remembered today. The memory of these events, and who that public memory especially, belongs to, is the issue. And just because his slaves liked him doesn't excuse the fact that Jackson has slaves to begin with. Let's not equivocate for a second that the Confederates didn't want to keep legal slavery in this country, and that the Nazi's didn't want to exterminate the Jews and others. The memory of those periods of history belongs to everybody, but we need to honor those most affected, not put up ugly, cheap statues 100 years later to scare black folk.

Exactly. The camps are there to preserve the memory of what happened to the victims, not to celebrate the monsters who perpetrated it.

That sounds great, but better ideas aren't going to stop a white nationalist uprising. And they aren't just spewing out bad ideas, they are actively trying to bring about a white ethnostate, which would be extremely violent.

It's probably drugged.

Hockey doesn't have tackles, so the players don't go hurtling toward the ground and their heads bounce off the turf on a regular basis. And I'm not arguing which sport is tougher or more violent; I played football as a kid but I have a hard time watching it anymore.

The SS originally (and at the end of the war, too) had roving bands of death squads that would go town to town and do just that, famousone. Many collaborating nations did that too, to prove their bona fides to their new Nazi masters.

It's the normalization of the process that made the holocaust so insidious. It was a paper pushing beauracracy, the victims were numbers, and everything was professional. The guards and commandants were pushed to up their numbers and be more efficient. Higher ups in the party masterminded the holocaust, but it was the middle management that made it happen.

I'm pretty sure he understands the joke, but it's not that funny and the premise is pretty tired. I would tell the author to try again and this time not to lean on such well worn tropes.

Do you know how our laws are made? The president doesn't actually pass legislation, that is the job of Congress. The president signs and approves pieces of legislation, thus making them laws. A president can voice their approval for a specific bill, but ultimately congress has to pass it before he/she sees it.

Well, no, thats just the one everybody remembers. In his first 100 days Obama signed on 14 pieces of legislation. While I can't find an exact number, the White House Archives website has 134 pages, with 10 laws per page, of legislation that Obama signed into law.

He's trying to run a country like he ran his business, and it's turning out predictably poorly. I have never seen somebody who needs such constant reinforcement that he is doing a good job.

That sentiment only goes so far. I respect the office of the President only so far as the person occupying it isn't a complete and utter dumpster fire.

More specifically, the episode Bad Blood.

Don't forget Kyrie Irving.

All he needed was for himself to be a good guy with a gun.

How can Snopes be "fake news" when it's not news to begin with?

The points in the post are about how ostentatious, showy events of "patriotism" are ultimately hollow. It's easy to go to a baseball game and take off your hat for the National Anthem, but in a practical sense it means nothing. And I love going to sporting events! And I would say service to your nation and your democracy, not necessarily your military/government, means more.

That's a pretty narrow definition of what defines a patriotic American.