[The Urban Sombrero]

Sombrero, you appear to be the typical liberal who doggedly persists to argue with people, three in this case, who were alive and kicking adults when the Ali controversy was front page news. We in this land afford people who refuse to fulfill their duty, a certain latitude in the social sense, as long as that refusal is not too open and objectionable an insult. Clay in his day of rebellion and shame was as vocal and defiant as he could have been in the view of the people who watched it all go down.

The term conscientious objector is an undeserved concession, a nicety if you will, which has at times been extended to people who like illegitimate parasites, expect to live free on the blood and service of others. That ingratiating term, was put out on the national level where civility was then the norm. And was BTW, much better treatment than today's Dems routinely dish out to Republicans. But, I digress. Though the dealings with Mr Clay were somewhat gracious in speech, the private opinions and conversation of those of this land were quite different. He was called a draft dodger, and a coward, and much more at the breakfast tables and in the breakrooms of this land.

Malcolm X was a very controversial figure not only in the NOI, but in his life of crime leading up to his religious calling. If you took the time to at all digest the contents of the article cited, that becomes glaringly apparent. IMO, Ali's defiance of his duty was very highly influenced by his ill-advised association with the NOI. An association that he later recanted according to his daughter.

So, there are a few inconsistencies here of which you are guilty. - One party did not in fact, ever refer to Ali as a loud mouthed coward. - And he did later recant events in his earlier and more controversial times. - Thirdly, as I have mentioned in times past, the left is forever storming up some mole hill to plant their flag in the very shadow of Mount Rushmore. You are a viable political entity, nobody denies that. But you're certainly not in the majority yet, and you're certainly not ever going to be in position morally or ethically to apply your revisionist rationale in order to redefine the right. Therefore, all the rules and regulations and activist edicts in the world will not change a single conservative heart.

At the time, Mohammed Ali was a conscientious objector. At the time, he was called many names. The term "draft dodging coward" has been applied in this thread, circa 2016.

The premise that Mohammed Ali was and is viewed as taking a heroic stand, as being a hero, within the African American community, then and now, is not revisionist.

The premise that calling Ali a "draft dodging coward" will not create trust for one in the African American community is not revisionist. Nor is the idea that "get my goodies" is the reason African Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

The reach back into the actual time of Ali's decision, and the mooning over actually being there? The reference to the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X? Mohammed Ali always contended the decision to conscientiously object was his, and his alone.

The latest polls show the race tightening. With Johnson and Stein together, let's say, grabbing collectively 13% of the vote, aggregate polls give Clinton around a 46% to 41% edge. It is likely that whomever wins will not push over 50%. The "Big Tent" is a shrinking one, a white one.