idhawkman wrote:There were others recieving the award today also but I remember Alan because of 2 things.
1. I loved the purple people eaters of the Vikings back in the mid 70's and was really disappointed in their 4 SB losses.
2. Years later, at the Marine Corps Barracks party in Kiev, Ukraine I met Alan. We had a very good talk there and he really struck me as a great man.
Congratulations to all the award winners and thank you for all your gifts to the American People.
RiverDog wrote:
Nice topic, although I think the mods would have let you post it in the main forum.
I remember Alan Page playing with Carl Eller and Jim Marshall on those Viking teams of the late 60's/early 70's. They met their match in Super Bowl IV, though, as they couldn't handle the sophistication of Hank Stram's offense.
Page was a smart cookie, became a judge as I recall. Ain't no flies on that man!
idhawkman wrote:Not only was he a judge, he was a supreme court judge for the state of Minnesota for about 2 decades. He looked feeble as he accepted his award which was hard for me to see.
I was so impressed with the purple people eaters (predecessors to the Steel curtain). Really liked Chuck Foreman's running and Fran's scrambling. I was so sure they would win all four of those games but was disappointed each time. When I mentioned it to Alan at the Marine Corps Barracks, he said to, " you think you were disappointed, how do you think we felt - always the bridesmaid and never the bride?"
**I didn't post in main forum because it isn't Seahawks related since none of them were Seahawks **
idhawkman wrote:I can't believe the Washington Post just called Trump a racist for giving Elvis the medal of Freedom posthumously. This is way out of bounds - the media is simply obsessed with trying to find anything to criticise him over.
RiverDog wrote:You're going to have to be a little more specific. I googled "Trump Elvis Washington Post" and came up with this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 0e0aeb35e5
Is it that op ed that you are talking about? If so, then what part of it are you saying that the author is accusing Trump of racism?
RiverDog wrote:No, I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you. You're suggesting a motive that doesn't exist. I meant exactly what I wrote and nothing more.
You have this habit of making a statement without providing links or direct quotes and leave it to the reader to assume what it is you're talking about. I was simply trying to get you to clarify your remarks so we could have a decent discussion.
Assuming that the article I linked for you is the one you referenced, I would tend to agree, it does seem pretty slanted and at the very least, highly opinionated (however it does indicate that it's the author's opinion). He does make some pretty thinly veiled suggestions of racism.
idhawkman wrote:And the piece was approved by the editors at the WoPo.
RiverDog wrote:Assuming that the article I linked for you is the one you referenced, I would tend to agree, it does seem pretty slanted and at the very least, highly opinionated (however it does indicate that it's the author's opinion). He does make some pretty thinly veiled suggestions of racism.
is there a specific phrase within it that you can refer to that accuses Trump of racism?
idhawkman wrote:And the piece was approved by the editors at the WoPo.
burrrton wrote:[i"]Assuming that the article I linked for you is the one you referenced, I would tend to agree, it does seem pretty slanted and at the very least, highly opinionated (however it does indicate that it's the author's opinion). He does make some pretty thinly veiled suggestions of racism.[/i]
Pretty slanted? Thinly veiled? I honestly can't tell if you're serious.
is there a specific phrase within it that you can refer to that accuses Trump of racism?
It's cliche'd clap-trap so I didn't read it closely, but I don't think there's a paragraph in there that *doesn't*, even if just indirectly.
RiverDog wrote:I was trying to engage Idahawk. I wanted him to give me at least one example. It's a fair request.
burrrton wrote:I don't mean to buttinsky, but what he replied was accurate- there is literally no rational way to read the headline and first three paragraphs and miss the accusation. It's not veiled in any way, shape, or form.
If you don't see it, fine, but I don't think anyone else missed it.
I had to find the article myself.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests