Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
What's your point? there's a difference between being against something and laying out specific punishments including jail time for said thing. But by all means keep shilling
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Good Christ. One was and actually senate bill from the candidate you loved. The other was a tweet at 3am from someone who can't even bring a bill to the floor. But you hate that person so a tweet is obviously worse.
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?
I didn't say he should be jailed for a year or lose his citizenship.
You'd have to be swallowing all 2" of Trump thunder to defend that tweet.
I said he shouldn't be allowed to say that.
No one should advocate for positions that go against what you think
Why don't you just come out and say you want the 1st amendment murdered?
The court ruled in a close decision to call flag burning protected speech. That means there is another side to that issue that one can reasonably advocate for.
I had to fight to wear a flag patch on my jeans in high school. Why don't you just get off your high horse and accept that not everyone thinks like you do
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
I didn't say he should be jailed for a year or lose his citizenship.
You'd have to be swallowing all 2" of Trump thunder to defend that tweet.
I said he shouldn't be allowed to say that.
No one should advocate for positions that go against what you think
Why don't you just come out and say you want the 1st amendment murdered?
The court ruled in a close decision to call flag burning protected speech. That means there is another side to that issue that one can reasonably advocate for.
I had to fight to wear a flag patch on my jeans in high school. Why don't you just get off your high horse and accept that not everyone thinks like you do
They had jeans in 1879?
Levi Strauss, the inventor of the quintessential American garment, was born in Buttenheim, Bavaria on February 26, 1829 to Hirsch Strauss and his second wife, Rebecca Haas Strauss; Levi had three older brothers and three older sisters. Two years after his father succumbed to tuberculosis in 1846, Levi and his sisters emigrated to New York, where they were met by his two older brothers who owned a NYC-based wholesale dry goods business called “J. Strauss Brother & Co.” Levi soon began to learn the trade himself.
When news of the California Gold Rush made its way east, Levi journeyed to San Francisco in 1853 to make his fortune, though he wouldn’t make it panning gold. He established a wholesale dry goods business under his own name and served as the West Coast representative of the family’s New York firm. Levi eventually renamed his company “Levi Strauss & Co.”
Around 1872, Levi received a letter from one of his customers, Jacob Davis, a Reno, Nevada tailor. In his letter, Davis disclosed the unique way he made pants for his customers, through the use of rivets at points of strain to make them last longer. Davis wanted to patent this new idea, but needed a business partner to get the idea off the ground. Levi was enthusiastic about the idea. The patent was granted to Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss & Company on May 20, 1873; and blue jeans were born.
lsco Levi carried on other business pursuits during his career, as well. He became a charter member and treasurer of the San Francisco Board of Trade in 1877. He was a director of the Nevada Bank, the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company and the San Francisco Gas and Electric Company. In 1875, Levi and two associates purchased the Mission and Pacific Woolen Mills.
He was also one of the city’s greatest philanthropists. Levi was a contributor to the Pacific Hebrew Orphan Asylum and Home, the Eureka Benevolent Society and the Hebrew Board of Relief. In 1897 Levi provided the funds for twenty-eight scholarships at the University of California, Berkeley, all of which are still in place today.
At the end of the 19th century, Levi was still involved in the day-to-day workings of the company. In 1890 — the year that the XX waist overall was given the lot number “501®” — Levi and his nephews officially incorporated the company.
Levi Strauss passed away on Friday, September 26th 1902. His estate amounted to nearly $6 million, the bulk of which was left to his four nephews and other family members, while donations were made to local funds and associations.
We’re proud to honor Levi Strauss’s legacy by celebrating his commitment to community, philanthropy and an unswerving devotion to quality. To this day, Levi Strauss & Co. strives to align itself with the same principles that guided Levi’s life.
THE INVENTION OF THE BLUE JEAN May 20, 1873 marked an historic day: the birth of the blue jean. It was on that day that Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis obtained a U.S. patent on the process of putting rivets in men’s work pants for the very first time.
Levi Strauss, a Bavarian-born dry goods merchant, came to San Francisco in 1853 at the age of 24 to open a West Coast branch of his brothers’ New York wholesale dry goods business. Over the next 20 years, he built his business into a very successful operation, making a name for himself not only as a well-respected businessman, but also as a local philanthropist. One of Levi’s customers was a tailor named Jacob Davis.
WE MADE OUR FIRST JEANS OUT OF DENIM - THE TRADITIONAL FABRIC FOR MEN'S WORKWEAR. WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME, THE JEAN WAS A BONA FIDE SUCCESS. One day the wife of a local laborer asked Jacob to make a pair of pants for her husband that wouldn’t fall apart. Jacob tried to think of a way to strengthen his trousers and came up with the idea to put metal rivets at points of strain, like pocket corners and the base of the button fly. These riveted pants were an instant hit. Jacob quickly decided to take out a patent on the process, but needed a business partner to help get the project rolling. He immediately thought of Levi Strauss, from whom he had purchased the cloth to make his riveted pants. Davis wrote to Levi to suggest that the two men hold the patent together. Levi, being an astute businessman, saw the potential for this new product, and agreed to Jacob’s proposal. The two men received patent #139,121 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 20, 1873.
history-of-denim2Soon, the first riveted clothing was made and sold. We made our first jeans out of denim — the traditional fabric for men’s workwear. Within a very short time, the jean was a bona fide success. (Although, we should note that they were called “waist overalls” or “overalls” until 1960, when baby boomers adopted the name “jeans.”)
We consider May 20, 1873 the “birthday” of blue jeans, because although denim pants had been around as workwear for many years, it was the act of placing rivets in these traditional pants for the first time that created what we now call jeans.
The next time you see someone wearing a pair of Levi’s® jeans, remember that these pants are a direct descendant of that first pair made back in 1873. That year, two visionary immigrants — Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis — turned denim, thread and a little metal into what has become the most popular apparel on earth.
Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
"low information voter" LOL.
Euphemism for stupid, fearful, fragile white guy who needs a daddy to help him.
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
Would you be happier with an executive order?
Trump can't legally overturn something decided at the supreme Court level with an executive order.
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
Would you be happier with an executive order?
Trump can't legally overturn something decided at the supreme Court level with an executive order.
So, no.
Trump just needs more time to get his guys in there
Scalia cast the deciding vote about 20 years ago and said the same thing Trump just said but then ruled it protected speech
That isn't the argument here. The argument is can a President elect express his opinion that the perp should be jailed? Of course he can.
If you think that means he can do anything about it you might want to find another hobby.
The Constitution is a living document, so I have heard, what is unconstitutional now can be constitutional tomorrow.
Trump isn't a politician like Josh Ernst who claims he hates flag burning but the constitution and shit. Take a stand loser.
If Hillary or Obama said what Trump just said, you'd call them a communist.
HTH
You mean like Flag Protection Act of 2005
Bringing a law through Congress as a member of the Senate that didn't even make it to the floor for vote. While FS, is not quite doing what Trump did.
Hey dipshit. My point is that for some reason you're not outraged that the authoritarian you like wanted to pass a law, but are outraged that the authoritarian you don't like is proposing a similar law. Then justifying that fucktardedness by splitting hairs. Both are authoritarian and they fact that you cup hillary's balls just shows you're a partisan hack and idealouge. Which explains why you love Obama.
One tried to use the due process of the law. The other, as the future leader of the free world, does not understand the law.
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
So let me get this straight. You'd be fine with Trump making a formal proposal to congress to ban flag burning, but you are pissed that he made a twitter post suggesting it? You realize the corner you painted yourself into, right?
I already said the bill Hillary put forth was FS. But yes, even if FS, it used the due process of the law. And no I would not be OK if Trump put a proposal to Congress for that, cause the president is not a lawmaker.
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
Would you be happier with an executive order?
Trump can't legally overturn something decided at the supreme Court level with an executive order.
So, no.
Trump just needs more time to get his guys in there
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism.
Burning a flag is political speech, the SC made that determination decades ago. I don't trust the government to decide what kind of flag burning is intimidation and what isn't
Flag burning is free speech but cross burning is a hate crime.
Almost everyone who has the vapors over what Trump tweeted had started out by saying they hate flag burning but....
If you only have 140 characters then you have to expect your readers to not be fucking retards
We are dealing with people here that think if you tell an actor to shut the fuck up you've trashed the constitution
Low information types
Curious, have you always been this disingenuous?
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
You're the idiot that brought Hamilton up. A completely moronic point that you want to double down on.
Delegitimizing dissenting voices? Fuck off snowflake.
Comments
If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
But by all means keep shilling
Fuck you're a fucktard
Hillary was not my candidate. She was awful. I'm calling y'all out cause you won't hold Trump to the same standard you held Obama.
When news of the California Gold Rush made its way east, Levi journeyed to San Francisco in 1853 to make his fortune, though he wouldn’t make it panning gold. He established a wholesale dry goods business under his own name and served as the West Coast representative of the family’s New York firm. Levi eventually renamed his company “Levi Strauss & Co.”
Around 1872, Levi received a letter from one of his customers, Jacob Davis, a Reno, Nevada tailor. In his letter, Davis disclosed the unique way he made pants for his customers, through the use of rivets at points of strain to make them last longer. Davis wanted to patent this new idea, but needed a business partner to get the idea off the ground. Levi was enthusiastic about the idea. The patent was granted to Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss & Company on May 20, 1873; and blue jeans were born.
lsco
Levi carried on other business pursuits during his career, as well. He became a charter member and treasurer of the San Francisco Board of Trade in 1877. He was a director of the Nevada Bank, the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company and the San Francisco Gas and Electric Company. In 1875, Levi and two associates purchased the Mission and Pacific Woolen Mills.
He was also one of the city’s greatest philanthropists. Levi was a contributor to the Pacific Hebrew Orphan Asylum and Home, the Eureka Benevolent Society and the Hebrew Board of Relief. In 1897 Levi provided the funds for twenty-eight scholarships at the University of California, Berkeley, all of which are still in place today.
At the end of the 19th century, Levi was still involved in the day-to-day workings of the company. In 1890 — the year that the XX waist overall was given the lot number “501®” — Levi and his nephews officially incorporated the company.
Levi Strauss passed away on Friday, September 26th 1902. His estate amounted to nearly $6 million, the bulk of which was left to his four nephews and other family members, while donations were made to local funds and associations.
We’re proud to honor Levi Strauss’s legacy by celebrating his commitment to community, philanthropy and an unswerving devotion to quality. To this day, Levi Strauss & Co. strives to align itself with the same principles that guided Levi’s life.
THE INVENTION OF THE BLUE JEAN
May 20, 1873 marked an historic day: the birth of the blue jean. It was on that day that Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis obtained a U.S. patent on the process of putting rivets in men’s work pants for the very first time.
Levi Strauss, a Bavarian-born dry goods merchant, came to San Francisco in 1853 at the age of 24 to open a West Coast branch of his brothers’ New York wholesale dry goods business. Over the next 20 years, he built his business into a very successful operation, making a name for himself not only as a well-respected businessman, but also as a local philanthropist. One of Levi’s customers was a tailor named Jacob Davis.
WE MADE OUR FIRST JEANS OUT OF DENIM - THE TRADITIONAL FABRIC FOR MEN'S WORKWEAR. WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME, THE JEAN WAS A BONA FIDE SUCCESS.
One day the wife of a local laborer asked Jacob to make a pair of pants for her husband that wouldn’t fall apart. Jacob tried to think of a way to strengthen his trousers and came up with the idea to put metal rivets at points of strain, like pocket corners and the base of the button fly. These riveted pants were an instant hit. Jacob quickly decided to take out a patent on the process, but needed a business partner to help get the project rolling. He immediately thought of Levi Strauss, from whom he had purchased the cloth to make his riveted pants.
Davis wrote to Levi to suggest that the two men hold the patent together. Levi, being an astute businessman, saw the potential for this new product, and agreed to Jacob’s proposal. The two men received patent #139,121 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 20, 1873.
history-of-denim2Soon, the first riveted clothing was made and sold. We made our first jeans out of denim — the traditional fabric for men’s workwear. Within a very short time, the jean was a bona fide success. (Although, we should note that they were called “waist overalls” or “overalls” until 1960, when baby boomers adopted the name “jeans.”)
We consider May 20, 1873 the “birthday” of blue jeans, because although denim pants had been around as workwear for many years, it was the act of placing rivets in these traditional pants for the first time that created what we now call jeans.
The next time you see someone wearing a pair of Levi’s® jeans, remember that these pants are a direct descendant of that first pair made back in 1873. That year, two visionary immigrants — Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis — turned denim, thread and a little metal into what has become the most popular apparel on earth.
"Telling an actor to shut the fuck up" is not trashing the constitution, and no one has argued that specific point.
The problem with that attack and its relation to the first amendment, (it's not spelled "ammendment" btw) is the broader, unprecedented, principle of delegitimizing dissenting voices. How will these attitudes toward dissent manifest when he is in office? If they continue in this manner, then that is concerning.
The Hamilton apology demand does not exist in a vacuum, and such an interpretation is more indicative of a "low information voter", who can't see the big picture, such as yourself.
Euphemism for stupid, fearful, fragile white guy who needs a daddy to help him.
So, no.
So much for consistency.
Delegitimizing dissenting voices? Fuck off snowflake.