Those interviews with Howard Cosell were also priceless A young Ali could beat Tyson...but they both failed with the $...sad
Stokes, Brad's referring to sticking up for your beliefs in the face of criticism. I don't think the comments were all that outrageous. He's referring to the Iraqi Invasion in 2003 when most people didn't like that idea but far less had the guts to come out and say it was bullshit. Especially our politicians on both sides of the aisle who didn't want to risk losing their jobs by questioning the expansion of the War on Terror at a time when it was very unpopular to do so. Its gotten worse. These days people's careers are destroyed over a fucking twitter post so all we get is goody, goody bullshit. Discourse is severely lacking in this country. Ali lost 4 years of his career at his peak, just to stick up for his beliefs- can you imagine that? We're lucky if we can go a couple hours today before a public figure backtracks on a social media post or says he's "hacked". fuckin jerk offs This man walked the walk on his beliefs and yeah, I believe if more public figures did so maybe we'd have less bullshit wars like the War in Iraq
The Ali-Cosell interviews were almost as legendary as the Ali-Frazier fights. I still can't think of one without the other popping to mind.
its scary to think but with the way that boxing has trended over the past 20 years and how it appears to never ever be able to get anywhere near its hey day the greatest boxer EVER just passed away. i dont think there is any possibility that anyone will ever come close to taking that title from him. and browning, i couldnt agree more. i am glad you expanded on what br4d was saying.
Of course that's what Brad was referring to because his bullshit is usually over the top gratuitous right bashing. He should have said "if we had more people like Ali we wouldn't have Republicans". His schtick is obvious. Maybe Ali could have prevented Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. _
bias or not, and I'm not here to speak for Bradway sucks, but IMO the story doesn't even have to do with republicans. Its more about a lack of opposing opinion. The current leading democratic candidate for President was one of those people who didn't speak out and voted for the war. so actually you could say he was criticizing Hillary, democrats, just the same.. right?
Yes but did Hillary and the others go along with the Iraq invasion because they weighed the option and determined the political benefit was greater than political backlash? If so, it had nothing to do with a lack of courage and everything to do with a lack of integrity, which sounds much more like standard political behavior.
what is the difference? thats the point I'm trying to make. You can call it courage or integrity but the fact of the matter is, when it comes to standing up for what you believe in vs. the popular opinion, most if not all public figures choose the 2nd option. Ali didn't. That was bradways point.
The difference is when you prefer the benefit you aren't fueled by fear of the negative repercussion but desire for the positive repercussion which you have deemed is greater. When you do something because you lack the courage to make the other decision even though you know it to be right is based on fear not preferring the benefit. The difference is huge between the two. One is fear based and the other preference based. Hence why the very concept of courage exists and doesn't apply to every decision made.
You mean there were no "weapons of mass destruction?" lol Saw a young guy in the Post Office this AM with a Vet Cap reading Iraqi War Veteran,,, Felt sorry for him If only Peace was more profitable....less would die smh
It was both. It was a lack of courage and a lack of integrity for the people who knew better to vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq. For the people who actually believed we should go in there, well that was just stupidity and lack of foresight in action.
Wait. Which Gulf War are you taking gratuitous pot shot at to make your obviously trolling point? The first Gulf War or the second Gulf War? Which one would the likes of Ali have prevented? Probably both, amiright? _
why are you being such a douche about this stokes? in all honesty you seem like you are calling folks out for pretty much no reason other than they have said some stuff you dont like elsewhere.
Whoa whoa whoa. Brad made an idiotic gratuitous point whilst feigning honoring a national icon. Sorry if my pointing out his duplicity insults you. Brad didn't intend to lionize Ali more than he wanted to bash the Republican war machine. He could have made his point without his obvious and ad nauseam attack on the right. Trying to remember which president first involved us in Vietnam and which president pushed us in full force. Maybe if there were more people like Ali we wouldn't have had Vietnam. Better? _
Eisenhower propped Diem and essentially took over the French colonial role in Vietnam when the French backed out. Kennedy inherited Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs directly from the previous administration. Don't expect anybody who gets their history from the GOP side of the house to understand any of this. They've all got their heads buried in an alternate set of "facts" handed down from talk radio. You can't listen to loudmouthed idiots for a generation without becoming one yourself and that's where most of the GOP is these days. Now they've got the perfect candidate running for President to accurately and fully represent them.
im not offended. i dont really get offended. and i like you, youre a great poster. i just think you are focusing on one line of what he said entirely too much. yes it was a bit of an underhanded attack, but so be it. weve wasted an entire page of a great thread on this bs simply because you couldnt let it go. and i honestly wouldnt have even thought a second about it if it werent for your post pointing it out.
